THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Eschaton on January 29, 2015, 01:37:56 PM
-
:yeshrug
-
In one game anyone can win. In 7 the best team will always win. Now obviously you can't do this in football because of injuries but in basketball, baseball, and hockey it makes total sense.
I am not familiar enough with soccer to say anything other than they played quite a few games in a few weeks at the world cup :yeshrug
-
In a series the chance that the actually better team wins is obviously much higher. Single final is more thrilling though and I like the occasional underdog win.
I prefer a normal league system to a playoff system though. No wanking around for half the season when every game counts the same.
-
Series for every sport. Football with the exception.
-
Series, but knock out tournaments allow for a fuck ton more teams to participate. The helter skelter of March Madness is my favorite time of the year for sports.
-
The sooner it's over, the better. Fuck sports.
-
The sooner it's over, the better. Fuck sports.
Thanks for your keen input.
(http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130301145417/glee/images/6/6d/Kick_in_the_ass.gif)
-
Series except for football obviously.
That being said I hate how TV money/advertising influences series. I preferred the days when the first round of the NBA playoffs was a best of three. Now everything is a best of 7 iirc. Best of three allows more room for upsets, makes home court advantage more important, and ensures both teams are 100% focused.
Granted last year the NBA playoffs featured some very competitive first round series, including San Antonio beating Dallas 4-3. But I'd still want a best of 3 for round one, best of 5 for the next round, and best of 7 for finals.
-
depends on the game, in SF4 3 games makes sense, in UMVC 5 feels like a better fit. I prefer tekken and smash to be only one game so they end faster :holeup
-
depends on the game, in SF4 3 games makes sense, in UMVC 5 feels like a better fit. I prefer tekken and smash to be only one game so they end faster :holeup
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c2/Spalding-Platinum-ZKPro.jpg/150px-Spalding-Platinum-ZKPro.jpg) :rejoice
(http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/football.jpg) :rejoice
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Football_Pallo_valmiina-cropped.jpg) :rejoice
(http://jta-live.alley.ws/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Koufax_baseball-350x290.jpg) :rejoice
(http://www.ict4lt.org/images/mouse.jpg) :ufup :snoop
-
Finals
-
That 1 game knock out 'playoff' in MLB is bullshit. It's too long of a season for it to come down to 1 game.
-
In 7 the best team will always win.
i'd say this is only the case in basketball. hockey you can ride a goalie on a hot streak. baseball even in a 7-game series is practically a toss-up.
i'm okay with the 1-game playoff in MLB, because fuck the wild card (although it didn't seem like much of a detriment to the two wild card winners last season)
-
In 7 the best team will always win.
i'd say this is only the case in basketball. hockey you can ride a goalie on a hot streak. baseball even in a 7-game series is practically a toss-up.
i'm okay with the 1-game playoff in MLB, because fuck the wild card (although it didn't seem like much of a detriment to the two wild card winners last season)
Not unless you execute a system that causes the league enact rules to combat it's bullshit (see: Marty Brodeur and the New Jersey Devils).
Goaltending can steal a game, but it rarely, if ever, steals a series.
Stanley Cup Playoffs :rejoice
-
Finals.
Yeah, a series will help minimize variance, but if they two teams are close, even a 7 game series might not be enough. I also don't think every season there is a true "best" team, so the winner of the series doesn't necessarily tell you that anyway. A one game finals is more exciting, and the determinism of how many games are played is better. I find it distinguished mentally-challenged that the NBA finals could have anywhere from 4-7 games. If you truly care about minimizing variance, just have no post season and let the winner be decided by regular season record.
-
No real opinion either way. I only like how some use series(Baseball, Basketball) and how some are just one final game(Superbowl, World Cup). I just like it the way it is for some since I grew up with them that way.
Funny thing though: The World cup used to be decided in a table. Basically like an entire league but just with the final four teams who made it through the tournament.
I can agree with this. There is no competition that I care about where I really would like the modus to be changed. NBA without conferences and playoffs would be interesting, although I guess the traveling distances make the current system a necessity.
-
Why can't football just do a series of 3 with a 2 week break between each game? Think of the money.
-
Why can't football just do a series of 3 with a 2 week break between each game? Think of the money.
3 reasons;
1) Too much time.
2) More important after game one shit is going to be very boring due to scouting and adjustments.
3) Injuries can and will alter the outcome.
-
Why can't football just do a series of 3 with a 2 week break between each game? Think of the money.
3 reasons;
1) Too much time.
2) More important after game one shit is going to be very boring due to scouting and adjustments.
3) Injuries can and will alter the outcome.
I don't think time matters. Even if the hype dies down a little after the first game, it would still be far higher for the latter two games than it would for any other sporting event in the US. Plus it gives the media something entertaining to cover.
In regard to injuries, don't teams have to count on playing a game every 2 weeks during the regular season anyway? What's another 2-4 weeks of dealing with that? Plus, shouldn't the test of the best teams also be seeing how strong their bench is when the pressure is put on them?
I don't know anything about scouting or adjustments so I really have nothing to guess there.