Playoffs: A Long-Winded Contemplation

Florida St. 27, Virginia Tech 22--and so FSU wins the ACC "Championship" and with it an automatic BCs berth.  The correct response to this is "Who cares?"  

Well, nobody I know, but it does remind me of some things that I care about.  Because I saw the result, and I saw Florida State's record (four losses), and I said to myself--is that really the ACC Championship game?  Isn't Miami in that conference?  How the hell does FSU get to be champ of a conference in which it lost three consecutive games?

The answer is--bad playoff system.  The current wave of stupidity in college postseason tinkering has conferences splitting themselves in half, in order to add a conference championship game.  And so we give you four-loss Florida State in the Orange Bowl, while better teams play in the MPC Computer Bowl, the Outback Bowl, the Capital One Bowl, et al.  

This type of thing is common.  In college football, everybody is up in arms about the lack of "a playoff."  But other sports' playoff systems have their own problems.  I, for one, still am opposed to the wild card, at least as it's currently employed.  The NBA playoffs are perhaps the least-exciting in professional sports.  And while everybody loves the NCAA tournament in basketball, one would have to agree that it's the playoff LEAST likely to ensure that the best team wins the championship.

So what is the ideal playoff?  

In particular, which do you prefer?  The zany, upset-riddled, fill-out-your-brackets college basketball tournament?  Or the simplistic, last-two-teams-standing approach used by baseball until 1969?  

The latter might not seem to stand a chance against the former (and indeed that seems to be the way all of sports is moving--toward expanded playoff tournaments), but I'd argue that it certainly has something to offer.  There are times when the regular season tells you exactly who the two best teams are, and when that's the case, a long tournament can only screw up the matchup everyone's dying to see.

For example, this year's college football championship.  After hundreds of football games, a field of 100+ Division I teams has been whittled down to two undefeated teams.  Both are from major conferences.  And so in this case, this year, a two-team playoff was the perfect choice--and we get a battle of undefeateds this January 4.  Hooray!  A four or eight-team playoff could only screw that up.

Plus, it can easily be argued that in the process of throwing out the regular season and starting the playoffs with a blank slate, the playoffs make it more-than-likely that the best team will NOT win the championship.  This is ESPECIALLY true in the modern baseball playoffs, in which wild card teams have been frequently knocking off the regular season's best team in a five-game playoff.  Do we really believe that the wild-card team is therefore a better team?  Sometimes they might be, but a best-of-five series hardly seems the perfect judge of that.  

Part of the problem in drawing up playoffs is that there are conflicting aims.  On the one hand, you want to crown the best team, but on the other hand, you want an exciting playoff.  The NCAA tournament is successful because it sacrifices the former goal for the sake of the latter.  And that's appropriate, because in a Division I sport played by 300+ teams, there is no practical way of truly determining the best team.  It's unrealistic.  Might as well focus on fun.  But in other sports, with fewer teams, there is the desire to pursue that goal of making the best really prove they're the best.

So question 1:  How many teams should be let in?  What I think sports leagues should consider doing is to try to determine what playoff is necessary on a given year, and adjust on the fly.  Most years, I think about a quarter to a third of the eligible teams should make the playoffs.  (I think college football should actually have a 32-team playoff in years where it's necessary.  That would require only 31 games, and there are already about that many bowl games.  They could be played at the bowl-game sites.)  BUT I think every league should have a built-in mechanism for recognizing when two teams are easily distinguishable as the best in the league, a la USC & Texas.  

When this happens, the regularly-scheduled playoff tournament should be replaced by a two-team playoff. The two teams would have to be "easily distinguishable" based on some objective criteria.  In baseball, maybe a five or ten-game lead on all competitors would do it.  This wouldn't happen often. It could never happen in college basketball, so March Madness is safe.  If the sport would stand to lose too much money by nixing its tournament, then it could blow the championship finals into something bigger than ever.  A best 16-of-31 World Series.  A best 4-of-7 Super Bowl.  

Question 2:  What kind of rounds should they have?  In all rounds of the playoffs up until the championship, give the team with the better record home-field advantage FOR EVERY GAME OF THE SERIES.  Remember 2001, when the 88-win Yankees beat not only our A's but also the 116-win Mariners to go to the Series?  I couldn't believe how unfair it was when, after losing a single game at Safeco Field, the Mariners' homefield advantage was gone.  One way to help guide the championship toward a more deserving team is by giving more weight to the regular-season, and that's exactly what such a strong home-field advantage would do.  And that's what is needed, especially in baseball.

With the above playoff system, you'd have the zaniness of a multitude of playoff teams offset somewhat by the strong homefield advantage to the teams with the better records, not only helping to ensure that a deserving champ is crowned, but also bringing more meaning to the regular season.  And you'd also have the opportunity to skip the whole show and go straight to the big finish--when circumstances called for that. Have your cake and eat it too, in other words.  

Of course, nobody asked me, but if anybody did, that's what I'd tell them.  Sigh ...