RebKell's Junkie Boards

[NYL_WNBA_FAN]

Have your feelings changed?

_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.

[Luuuc]

I didn't have strong feelings in either direction, and I still don't. I thought it was an interesting thing to try and was curious to see how it worked out.

One thing I have always disliked is the conference system that often prevented the 2 best teams from meeting in the finals. I'm very happy that's fixed now.

The elimination thing ... as I mentioned in another thread I feel like the timing of games could have been better. But I'm also mindful of the scheduling restrictions this season caused my the Olympics. They should have better flexibility in 2017 with that side of things.
What are the alternatives if 8 teams are going to make the playoffs? You surely have a longer "Round 2", because then Minny & LA are waiting way too long. Bad for the players, and also their fans. So probably the only other thing to do is have series of 1-vs-8, 2-vs-7, etc., which is going to produce a lot of poor series IMO.

Should 8 out of 12 teams make the playoffs? I think that's probably what we should be debating first. Once that question is answered, then come up with the best system.
I don't think Phoenix making the final 4 necessarily vindicates the decision to allow 8 into the playoffs. I feel like the team probably still would have made 6th place if that's what they needed to do this season.

I don't hate the current system, but it's not ideal. But I don't know of a system that is ideal for this league while it's at 12 teams.

_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.

[NYL_WNBA_FAN]

A number of people on here seem to be on board with a 3-6, 4-5 first round in a six team format, with that round being best of 3. That's what I would prefer.

_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.

[UofDel_Alum]

When the playoff was proposed I was in favor. I did not look at the details hard enough. There has to be changes made. One and done has to go. I like best of 3 games in the first two rounds. And best of 5 the next two rounds. If there is a time constraint than I would propose to shorten the season. Also, one day rest between the playoff games MUST go.

[Shades]

People are going grumble no matter what.

If you go 6 team playoff, then the fans of #7 and #8 teams won't be happy (but they might be okay with it in 2018 ).

If there was a 6-team playoff this year, then PHX wouldn't have made it as far as they have, so I guess that's a big argument against it.

_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

[justintyme]

The best argument for moving to a 6 team field is that it increases the importance of the regular season. If my team is under .500 I would have a hard time being upset by system that kept them out of the playoffs.

_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA

[Richyyy]

I've mentioned a few times on twitter now that if they're determined to have 8 teams in the playoffs, I'd prefer a variant of the Aussie Rules AFL system, detailed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_finals_system

So everyone plays in the first round (eliminating worries about too much rest, and adding a couple of extra games for TV/gate receipts), which would still be one-off games. #1 hosts #4, and #2 hosts #3. The winners of those games goes straight through to the semi-finals. Meanwhile #5 hosts #8 and #6 hosts #7. The losers of those games are done. The winners go through to the next round, where they visit the losers of the #1-#4 and #2-#3 games. The winners of those playoffs then advance to the semis as well, where everything becomes a best-of-five, just like in the current system.

It's actually pretty similar to what we've got this year, except without automatic double-byes for the top two seeds, and without the possibility of the #3 or #4 seed playing one game and having their season end. The top two seeds might not make the semis, but they'd have two opportunities (if needed), both on their home floor, to get there.

The only real negative I see for this system compared to the current WNBA one is that it's more complicated, and you'd be trusting the fans to 'get it'. I figure the vast majority are either smart enough to understand, or disinterested enough to not be that bothered.

_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/

[Happycappie25]

Here's one thing you can bring up...the whole add more excitement for interest thing...While there are other factors at play:

Round 1 Attendance in both games stunk esp in Indiana who has a decent fan base I kinda wished the games were on NBATV so that wouldn't be seen by the trolls LOL Early start time yes but that was still below reg season average. GTECH or no GTECH Atlanta's attendance was embarrassing and a main reason I was pulling for Chicago.

Round 2 the Libs had a sellout and people in the upper deck...good. BUT There were a lot of given away seats (Very easy to spot garden of dreams kids they're the ones screaming for EVERYTHING or rooting for the opposistion with know knowledge of even what sport they're watching ) that's to be expected...im not screaming at Bernert for papering...it was a good crowd. But more disturbing was there were quite a bit of season ticket noshows. for what reasons no clue but My row is mostly STH...it was empty but for us.

Chicago same thing they claimed a sellout but the endcourts were BARE and there were stripes of empty seats and quite a few all game.

Really only the Libs drew what you'd expect and they certainly gave away a fair share of seats (Again in this case this is not a criticism)

We will see the attendance for the rest of the playoffs...but if the idea of a 1 and done was to increase fan interest: FAIL

Also I'm sorry the W blew an opportunity for an epic crowd by making it one and done not best of 3...if Seattle had a home game first time back in the playoffs in a while...yeah no worries about bad attendance there.

I have more but ill let the rest play out

_________________
"Leave it to the NCAA women's basketball committee to turn a glass slipper into glass ceiling" Graham Hays

[toad455]

Chicago was no where close to a sellout. They had less than 4,000. The fact is these one & done games are terrible for the league and draw very little interest from fans. Most of us are just excied for the best-of-5 semis to begin.

_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY

[ClayK]

So I've been thinking about this more, and the comment that New York had the third-best record in the league and faced a single-elimination playoff game seemed to make sense.

But then, I looked at it a different way. There are only 12 teams in the WNBA, so if the top four teams are "protected", then that means 33% of the teams in the league earn some kind of special postseason advantage. But again, as I think about it, 33% is too much. If you did that in Major League Baseball, which also has single-elimination playoffs, you would have longer series for 10 postseason qualifiers. Now obviously that wouldn't happen for a variety of reasons but still I think it's important to acknowledge that the size of the WNBA should have an impact on its playoff structure.

If the Liberty had the third-best record in a 16-team league, then rewarding their regular-season performance with at least a two-out-of-three series would make more sense. But finishing third out of 12 isn't really a dominant performance, and in some years could be a pretty ordinary one.

As it turned out, New York was clearly better than the nine teams below it in the standings, but sometimes that happens. All in all, I think this system rewards the teams that really deserve to be rewarded – those that finish in the top 16.7% – and makes those who can't get to that level survive a single-elimination game.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā