NCAA 2009-10 Hoops: Yo, mah Jordans, nigga

[Berkut]

The CFL has 6 of it's 8 teams make the playoffs

How do you structure a playoff for 6 times, and why not just have the other 2 involved?

League is divided into 2 divisions of 4.

1st place gets a bye into the division final.  #2 and #3 play in the semi-final.

And the regular season is very meaningful.  There are 2 games left, and for one example Winnipeg and Hamilton are tied for 2nd place with 7-9 records.  In the West it's almost all up for grabs, with Saskatchewan and Calgary tied for 1st place with 9-6-1 records, while BE (8-8) and Edmonton (7-9) nipping at their heels.

So the bar for making the playoffs is "Don't be utterly terrible".

[Barrister]

So the bar for making the playoffs is "Don't be utterly terrible".

Yeah, but coming in as a #3 seed and having to win 2 road games to make it to the Grey Cup is a pretty crappy position to be in, especially when compared to the #1 seed only having to win one home game.

You are picking on 16 of 30 as being a terrible ratio, but how is that significantly different from 12 of 32 in the NFL?  MLB has only 8 of 30 teams make the playoffs, but it still feels like the regular season is a ridiculously long borefest.

What makes the regular season exciting and interesting is the relative number of games it contains, not how you structure your playoffs.

[Berkut]

It is significantly different because when 12/32 make it, you have to be one of the best in the league, whereas by definition, if 16/30 make it, you have teams that are not even in the top half of the league make it.

If you are going to let 6/8 in, why not just let in all 8? Why should the 6th best team get in, but not the 8th best team?

[MadBurgerMaker]

Oh please, like this is ever so complicated, and the mechanics need "explaining". You are certainly trying to convince me when you say "Oh, the regular season is REALLY important!". That has nothing to do with mechanics.

Don't be an ass, of course I have seen the NBA playoffs.

I don't know...you were saying the NBA and NHL share the "everyone makes it" system, and you clearly don't have any sort of clue about what has actually happened under the current system, both in the playoffs and in the regular season, so......

Not that that will keep you from arguing anything and everything to death.

I don't imagine it is. What is your point?

You brought up records, not me.

So? How does that show that a system where more than ahlf the teams make the playoffs does not diminaish the importance of the regualr season comapred to sports where you have to actually be better than average to make the playoffs?

That was referring to your comment on records and how they worked out last year. 

It's not like the NBA is the only one out there that has this incredible concept of "seeding".

Need me to go over those with you as well?

Ahhh, I see my point is without rebuttal. Thanks for the concession.

If 16/30 is great, why not make it 24/30? Or 28/30? Or all 30?

Again: Stop being a fucking idiot.  I refuse to believe that you're this stupid and don't understand that the current 16 team system works nicely for the NBA.  There are no bye weeks for the first round, there aren't potentially excellent first round matchups cut out because they moved "the line" up, but 17 win expansion-ish teams and teams that drop 50 games aren't making it either.

[Barrister]

It is significantly different because when 12/32 make it, you have to be one of the best in the league, whereas by definition, if 16/30 make it, you have teams that are not even in the top half of the league make it.

That's not actually true.  In the NFL it is quite conceivable for an 8-8 or even 7-9 team to make the playoffs.

Why not have all the teams make the playoffs?  Well I don't think it would work so well for the CFL since that would mean taking away the first place teams first-place bye.  I suppose it could conceivably work in some systems.

[Berkut]

It is significantly different because when 12/32 make it, you have to be one of the best in the league, whereas by definition, if 16/30 make it, you have teams that are not even in the top half of the league make it.

That's not actually true.  In the NFL it is quite conceivable for an 8-8 or even 7-9 team to make the playoffs.

And if they do, then they are one of the 12 best teams, as determined by the seeding rules.

So it is in fact "quite true".

Why not have all the teams make the playoffs?  Well I don't think it would work so well for the CFL since that would mean taking away the first place teams first-place bye.  I suppose it could conceivably work in some systems.

It could work in any system, they are all trade offs depending on what you want to do. MbM is telling me the 16/32 is necessary so as to avoid byes, you are telling me 8/8 cannot work because then you would not have byes, which are apparently critical.

[MadBurgerMaker]

It could work in any system, they are all trade offs depending on what you want to do. MbM is telling me the 16/32 is necessary so as to avoid byes, you are telling me 8/8 cannot work because then you would not have byes, which are apparently critical.

Of course I'm talking about basketball, and Beeb is talking about football.

[Barrister]

It could work in any system, they are all trade offs depending on what you want to do. MbM is telling me the 16/32 is necessary so as to avoid byes, you are telling me 8/8 cannot work because then you would not have byes, which are apparently critical.

Of course I'm talking about basketball, and Beeb is talking about football.

Well what I'm argueing is that it isn't the # of teams in the playoffs that makes the regular season exciting - it is how long the regular season is that makes it exciting.  Which is why I think both baseball (with very few teams making the playoffs) and hockey (with many teams making the playoffs) have very boring regular seasons.

If the NHL cut the regular season down to, say, 30 games, then allowed every team into the playoffs that would make for a much more interesting regular season than lengthening the regular season to 100 games, then simply having the top 2 teams fight for the Stanley Cup, would be.

[Berkut]

Oh please, like this is ever so complicated, and the mechanics need "explaining". You are certainly trying to convince me when you say "Oh, the regular season is REALLY important!". That has nothing to do with mechanics.

Don't be an ass, of course I have seen the NBA playoffs.

I don't know...you were saying the NBA and NHL share the "everyone makes it" system, and you clearly don't have any sort of clue about what has actually happened under the current system, both in the playoffs and in the regular season, so......

Not that that will keep you from arguing anything and everything to death.

uhh, you are the one arguing and getting pissed off and making shit up, not me. Why, I have no idea, since this is all basically about my personal preference.

The NBA's "everyone makes it" system is lame. I understand the mechanics of it perfectly well, and so far you have not told me anything I did not know this morning. I can only presume the personal attacks are some kind of defensive thing on your part?

Having more than half the teams make the playoffs is lame, and diminishes the importance of the regular season, which is already diminished by have too many game. That is my opinion, and while it can be changed, it won't be by you pretending like you are coming down off the mountain with the brilliant revelations about how the system operates mechanically, which we all know perfectly well.

I don't imagine it is. What is your point?

You brought up records, not me.

Right - I brought upthe point that a playoff system where teams with losing records make the playoffs routinely is lame. If you cannot win more than half your games, you don't have any business playing for the title, evn if now and again it means some shitty team knocks off a better team.

So? How does that show that a system where more than ahlf the teams make the playoffs does not diminaish the importance of the regualr season comapred to sports where you have to actually be better than average to make the playoffs?

That was referring to your comment on records and how they worked out last year. 

I did not make a comment on records and how they worked out last year.

It's not like the NBA is the only one out there that has this incredible concept of "seeding".

Need me to go over those with you as well?

I am sure you will, and then feel very proud at stating the obvious. But you are the one who made the argument that seeding is what makes the regular season important compared to....other systems that use seeding as well?

Ahhh, I see my point is without rebuttal. Thanks for the concession.

If 16/30 is great, why not make it 24/30? Or 28/30? Or all 30?

Again: Stop being a fucking idiot.  I refuse to believe that you're this stupid and don't understand that the current 16 team system works nicely for the NBA.  There are no bye weeks for the first round, there aren't potentially excellent first round matchups cut out because they moved "the line" up, but 17 win expansion-ish teams and teams that drop 50 games aren't making it either.

What is wrong with 17 win expansion teams making the playoffs? Imagine how exciting it might be if they knock someone off! Why are you so against this kind of incredible excitement!

Your basic argument for the 16 team seed is that it makes for nice round numbers, and avoids the need for buys. I don't think buys are that bad, and don't see that it is worth letting teams that are not even in the top 50% of the league play for a title.

[Berkut]

It could work in any system, they are all trade offs depending on what you want to do. MbM is telling me the 16/32 is necessary so as to avoid byes, you are telling me 8/8 cannot work because then you would not have byes, which are apparently critical.

Of course I'm talking about basketball, and Beeb is talking about football.

And there is something so different about the two games that means that in one you cannot possibly have a system with a buy, and the other you MUST have a system with a buy?

Please.

[MadBurgerMaker]

uhh, you are the one arguing and getting pissed off and making shit up, not me. Why, I have no idea, since this is all basically about my personal preference.

The NBA's "everyone makes it" system is lame. I understand the mechanics of it perfectly well, and so far you have not told me anything I did not know this morning. I can only presume the personal attacks are some kind of defensive thing on your part?

Having more than half the teams make the playoffs is lame, and diminishes the importance of the regular season, which is already diminished by have too many game. That is my opinion, and while it can be changed, it won't be by you pretending like you are coming down off the mountain with the brilliant revelations about how the system operates mechanically, which we all know perfectly well.

So....does everyone make it or not?

Right - I brought upthe point that a playoff system where teams with losing records make the playoffs routinely is lame. If you cannot win more than half your games, you don't have any business playing for the title, evn if now and again it means some shitty team knocks off a better team.

But hey, those are the top eight teams in that conference, just like you were talking about the .500 or less NFL teams potentially making it.  What's the fucking problem? 

I did not make a comment on records and how they worked out last year.

You made comments on records, some stupidity about sub .500 teams being in the playoffs, I pointed out what happened last year.  You still aren't getting it.

I am sure you will, and then feel very proud at stating the obvious. But you are the one who made the argument that seeding is what makes the regular season important compared to....other systems that use seeding as well?

Well...do you need help with them?

What is wrong with 17 win expansion teams making the playoffs? Imagine how exciting it might be if they knock someone off! Why are you so against this kind of incredible excitement!

Your basic argument for the 16 team seed is that it makes for nice round numbers, and avoids the need for buys. I don't think buys are that bad, and don't see that it is worth letting teams that are not even in the top 50% of the league play for a title.

And there is something so different about the two games that means that in one you cannot possibly have a system with a buy, and the other you MUST have a system with a buy?

Please.

The NBA and NFL(and CFL, I presume) playoffs are pretty massively different, dude.

And I don't know that you MUST have a bye in the NFL/CFL playoffs, but they're currently there, and I don't really mind them. 

I certainly don't think you should have one in the NBA playoffs, where you have a series of games per round that potentially can go for ~2 weeks, but are only potentially separated by a couple of days (e: the series, that is) .  A first round NBA bye means the top two teams sitting around while 2-5, and 3-4 kick the shit out of each other, then have to start up a new series against some team that has been hanging out for a while.  That would be a pretty huge disadvantage for the teams that had to play the first round.  The NFL/CFL teams at least get a week off no matter what.

You don't see the difference? 

[ulmont]

That's not actually true.  In the NFL it is quite conceivable for an 8-8 or even 7-9 team to make the playoffs.

The Chargers made the playoffs last year as 8-8, yes.

[Valmy]

The Chargers made the playoffs last year as 8-8, yes.

True but there are lots of teams who did not at 10-6.  The Chargers got lucky and won their division.

Anyway at least the NFL season is only 16 games.  If the NBA had a 40 game regular season it would not matter there were so many playoff spots it would still be alot more compelling.

[Ed Anger]

Indiana better win more than 6 games, or I will have no peace in my household.

[Barrister]

If the NBA had a 40 game regular season it would not matter there were so many playoff spots it would still be alot more compelling.