Quote:
Originally posted by calf+Oct 26 2004, 05:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calf @ Oct 26 2004, 05:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by calculoso@Oct 26 2004, 04:47 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-calgaryred
|
Quote:
@Oct 26 2004, 04:24 PM
Teams should make the playoffs on the basis of ability not region.
|
Isn't that what the crossover is for??
|
Yes, but if the 4th place team in the west is eligible for the crossover, even if they have a better record than the 2nd place team in the east, they still have to play in the east. As well, it's possible that the 5th place team in the west can have a better record than the 3rd place team in the east, so should they not qualify for the playoffs? [/b][/quote]
Yikes. :unsure:
Are you positive they don't? I doubt it has ever happened.
Calgaryred,
I like the playoff format the way it is. The crossover allows for the best teams to be in the playoffs, and then it is a matter of getting it done. I don't like your idea of having the best talent in the Grey Cup game. That isn't what the playoffs are about. While the two best teams up against each other would probably provide an exciting game, I enjoy underdog stories just as much. But then again, I'm not sure how your format necessarily puts the best talent in the Grey Cup anyway. Looks like there could still be upsets. Plus its good to give the west and east the same number of playoff games. Your format could have every game played in one part of the country essentially. Plus by having divisional playoff games it is easier for fans to follow their teams to the road games.
While it is an interesting setup, I don't think it would fly.