If you have been keeping up with this blog, you would have quickly found that I'm quite the sports fan. You'll also find that I'm a English Premier League (soccer) follower, and that my main team is Man City. But being in North America, I've adjusted to some great sports, from hockey, to football, to baseball. There's just one thing that has always bothered me a little bit about North American sports though, and that is playoffs [Playoffs? You wanna talk about playoffs?...Playoffs?]. I don't think they should be a thing. In today's post, I plan on explaining why I think playoffs should not exist. This is not an argument against round-robin competition style play, or tournament bracketing playoff systems (like the World Cup or track events), but rather the playoffs after a season has ended.
First and foremost, I believe that playoffs don't properly reward regular-season performance. Sure, the team gets a theoretically easier opponent, but that's besides the point. A season is long enough to determine whether or not a team has truly bested the remainder of the league. For example, baseball teams play in the regular season 162 games. I find it hard to fathom that you cannot determine if a team is the best in the league after that many games has been played. Similarly with hockey and basketball where teams play 82 games per season. I think that if you don't know by then, well the season was pointless.
Secondly, the playoff brackets themselves can be far bigger than necessary. I don't fully understand why half of the division teams need to be invited to playoffs, as done in the MLS (top 6 teams from eastern and western divisions, with 11 and 12 teams in them respectively). Ironically, some of these teams at the lower end of the cutoffs even have a losing record! How it makes sense to invite a team that hasn't even proved winning capabilities throughout such long seasons to play for the championship trophy is unreasonable, both for the team, and the fans' expectations.
In relation to the second point, because the quality of bracket for playoff spots are so broad, playoffs realistically only reward end of season form. Getting in a groove is critical to any team's success, however finding that groove later in the season seems to tip them to be favorites come playoff time. As an example, in English soccer League 1 (3rd tier down, or 2 leagues below the EPL), Shrewsbury Town missed out on automatic qualification (the top 2 spots) and had to go into a 4 team playoff (spots 3-6). Now this may not seem that bad, Shrewsbury Town (in 3rd) had 9 points more than fourth position. That's a 3-win difference through the regular season. But since the other teams below found form later on in the season, they were able to beat out Shrewsbury to the final spot.
As a final bit to increase confusion, the major sports leagues in North America have added the elusive Wild Card spots. So even if you don't finish top of the divisions, by being the best-of-the-rest, your team can still make it in. It is an odd loophole designed to include the next-best team, and give options for good teams to enter the playoffs. However I argue that if you aren't the best team in the division, why are you even invited. I'm going to look at football here, because the counter argument is that some divisions are more difficult. I rebut that by stating that the worst teams get the best opportunity to bolster their team for the following year through favorable draft picks, so really there's no excuse for not having an 'even' playing field (no pun intended).
Now to add some counter arguing, I do understand that playoffs give mid-table teams incentive to perform at least adequately. The same argument can be made for the EPL, where although there is no playoff system, getting into European tournaments require finishing at least in the top-6 of 20. Similarly, most of us have a bizarre enjoyment of watching the underdog take down the projected favorite team. Whether it's because we like seeing the strong collapse, or the weak prevail, there's significant drama to be had when the giant is slain. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, playoffs generate serious additional income for teams. In the NBA, a team can theoretically play an additional 28 games (or ~35% of regular season games). That is some intense additional revenue, and team owners will never release the opportunity of losing that, regardless of how small the chance is of making it all the way
My solution to the playoff conundrum is a relatively simple one, and that is to have mid-late season trophies that are worth winning. We only need to look to college football for this. Even though a team may not be the best in it's division, there is still incentive to perform well in order to be entered into Bowl games.
To conclude, I believe that in order to be the best team in a league, you must be able to consistently beat all others during the season. Being the best should not be determined by additional games, where form can be considered more important, or where significantly worse teams can upset the team that has proven itself for an entire season. Being first in a league is already difficult enough. Punishing them by forcing additional games is, I believe, an unnecessary money-grab by the owners.
Write a comment