League Playoffs

[Jester]

I don't even understand your first sentence Casti.

1 has earned the right to play the lowest ranked team at all times. Its different in double elimination tournaments (and in my opinion is wrong in double elimination tournaments). How does it make sense that team 2 can play team 5 in the second round but team 1 has to play team 3.

Team 1 should only ever have to play team 4, 5, or 6, and team 2 should only ever have to play teams 3, 4, or 5.

Let teams 3-6 fight it out, but after the winners emerge just match them against the proper opponents, not pre-set opponents.

[deliverance]

What I'm saying is that you can't consider it punishment because this is drawn different than the NHL or NFL.

Team 1 gets the buy, they're guaranteed top 4.

Now of the winner of 3 vs 6, they play team 2
The winner of 4-5 has to play team 1

It's already pretty fair for the team who clinched position 1.

Only in the case of the 3-6 upset will team 2 play an easier opponent than team 1.

[Jester]

Yeah and in that case the model is unfair to team 1, and could be solved by doing what the NHL and NFL do. But w/e I really don't care.

[Stavros]

What I'm saying is that you can't consider it punishment because this is drawn different than the NHL or NFL.

Team 1 gets the buy, they're guaranteed top 4.

Now of the winner of 3 vs 6, they play team 2
The winner of 4-5 has to play team 1

It's already pretty fair for the team who clinched position 1.

Only in the case of the 3-6 upset will team 2 play an easier opponent than team 1.

A few other points...

The advantage for Team 1 is they; given the option; would take the bracket they are assigned rather than team 2's bracket (as odds are team 3 will beat team 6) AND, if team 6 wins in an upset, they were the better playoff team, so team 1 might be better off playing the winner of 4-5 than the proven 6th place team.

Not cut and dry, but I don't think either method discussed is unfair. Just different.