Playoffs/Championships

On my way into work this morning, Mike & Mike from ESPN brought up a subject that is one that I have been doing a lot thinking on, so I thought I would get my ideas out there. The discussion has to do with whether or not champion equates to "best team". They were saying that this year Florida, clearly the best team, was the champ, and that especially in the NCAA tourney this is not always the case.

It is actually somewhat of a common occurence for the "best team" to not win their sports championship in a given year. Some will argue that winning a championship is what defines a team as "the best", and performance in the playoff system is a necessary component to being the best. I do agree that a certain ability to perform under pressure is a good quality to have for a team to be called "the best", but what we fail to realize is that none of the sports leagues currently have a playoff system that is setup to determine the "best team" of the year. They are actually set up to maximize revenue to the leagues, irregardless of any supposed quest to answer the question of who the best team was in any given year.

Let me list some of the problems in current systems, and propose what would have to happen to have a playoff system, more worthy of being considered to answer the question, what team was "the best."

1. One and done single elimination. This affects football first and foremost both in the NFL and even more so on the college level (where the whole season is a playoff, and after 1 loss, you are generally disqualified from being declared champ). It also comes into play in March Madness. The problem with one game deciding who moves on to the next round is the huge factor that luck plays in all sporting events. Luck could be anything from how the refs are performing that night, injuries, the way the ball bounces, weather (in the case of football) and many many other factors. On any given day in the NFL a horrible team can beat a really good team, and as Pittsburgh showed, a #6 seed could run the table beating all the better teams 4 games in a row to be the Super Bowl champ. Anyone outside of Pittsburgh, could look at that season and easily pick 2 or 3 other teams that would have been better picks for team of the year.

2. Similar to the single elimination problem is the problem of a short 5 game series. Basketball finally got rid of this, thankfully, but baseball still plays a short series in the divisional round, which not uncommonly leads to the #1 seed being upset.

3. Finally, too many teams in the postseason. There is only one league who has this right, and that is baseball. What is the point of playing the regular season if every average team (barely over .500 and in some cases under .500) gets into the playoffs. Some might say for home court advantage, but the only sport where this seems to be a huge factor is football. Average teams can get hot for stretches, and the system rewards medicore teams who get hot late. So....my solution....

First, in a 30-32 team league, 8 teams get into the playoffs. When you allow half the league in you completely devalue the regular season, and frankly take away some excitement that might be there with a smaller playoff system, when good (but not great) teams might miss out on the playoffs under a situation where 8 teams instead of 16 got in. All of the games down the stretch would be must see. Right now, no one really cares if the Pacers or the Knicks can eke past Orlando or New Jersey to make the playoffs, because everyone knows they are losing to Cleveland and Detroit in the first round anyway. If this is a foregone conclusion, why make everyone go through the exercise. Even worse, what if miraculously the Knicks caught fire and actually won their first round series. Are we really ready then to consider them a top 8 team in the league?

Second, all series must be at least best of 7. A 7 games series leaves enough time for the teams to gear up and play their best ball against each other. I would even advocate going up to 9 games (this could make up for some of the lost revenue by dropping a round of the playoffs).

Finally, to really have the regular season mean something, I would advocate that home court advantage means that the higher seed is home for the entire series, not just one more game than the lower seed. Now, you have an appropriately weighted system, giving advantages to teams that performed all year long, and they will be given enough chances to prove they are the best in a long series. If with all of that in place, the lower seed wins, that is where the performing under pressure component would come into player for the lower seed, and at the end of the playoffs, we all would feel a lot more comfortable with the so-called "champion". So am I way off here? Other issues with current systems? Other suggestions on fixing thing?