The Brewster

Not only do GBC playoffs get overshadowed, they last a blip and then they're done. I propose something radical:

- 5-game series between #2/#3 for the right to face #1 in 7-games
- 2 3-game series between #3/#6 and #4/#5 (but both played 100% at the higher-ranked team's field), then 2 5-game series #1 vs winner #4/#5 and #2 vs winner #3/#6, then 7-game series between 2 remaining teams
- 2 5-game series #1/#4 and #2/#3, then 7-game series between 2 remaining teams

So no one has to commit to this but, good idea? I actually prefer the 2nd option as it's so unique. May not be a way to implement it.

I think it’s interesting. It would give more teams something to play for later in the season and I kind of like the first option, maybe with a 3 game series between 2/3 all at the 2 seed stadium. I think having a 5 game series might create too much time off for the 1 seed.

That being said, I don’t know if I have strong feelings about it either way. I kind of also like the fact that with the limited playoff pool, the Pharaohs have never made it and Im trying to do something historic for the franchise.

Uh...why stop at #7? The management and fans in Sydney will riot if every other team gets in the playoffs but us! LOL

EDIT: Nevermind I'm a moron. LOL It was way too early when I read this the first time. I was thinking only one team was being left out. I now realise it's two. LOL

That is radical, considering each of those is completely incompatible with the other one.

But if we're considering these one at a time, I think the second one would be most entertaining. It also matches (as you are probably aware) the Celtics-era early NBA playoffs, where #2 played #3 in each of the two divisions, faced off with #1, and then had a Finals.

It might also do some good for GBC finances.

I would propose that GBC teams vote on these proposals before it's done by fiat.

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:23 am

That is radical, considering each of those is completely incompatible with the other one.

But if we're considering these one at a time, I think the second one would be most entertaining. It also matches (as you are probably aware) the Celtics-era early NBA playoffs, where #2 played #3 in each of the two divisions, faced off with #1, and then had a Finals.

It might also do some good for GBC finances.

I would propose that GBC teams vote on these proposals before it's done by fiat.

Don't worry. I definitely have no fiat. Just a Nissan.

cheekimonk wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 09, 2023 9:51 am

aaronweiner wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:23 am

That is radical, considering each of those is completely incompatible with the other one.

But if we're considering these one at a time, I think the second one would be most entertaining. It also matches (as you are probably aware) the Celtics-era early NBA playoffs, where #2 played #3 in each of the two divisions, faced off with #1, and then had a Finals.

It might also do some good for GBC finances.

I would propose that GBC teams vote on these proposals before it's done by fiat.

Don't worry. I definitely have no fiat. Just a Nissan.

Is that Neesan or NissAN?

If you want it passed you need to buy a Subaru.

I propose something radical:

- 5-game series between #2/#3 for the right to face #1 in 7-games
- 2 3-game series between #3/#6 and #4/#5 (but both played 100% at the higher-ranked team's field), then 2 5-game series #1 vs winner #4/#5 and #2 vs winner #3/#6, then 7-game series between 2 remaining teams
- 2 5-game series #1/#4 and #2/#3, then 7-game series between 2 remaining teams

I fully support any of these options. I'd rank my preference as 2 then 3 then 1.

Bob Breum wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 10:17 am

I propose something radical:

- 5-game series between #2/#3 for the right to face #1 in 7-games
- 2 3-game series between #3/#6 and #4/#5 (but both played 100% at the higher-ranked team's field), then 2 5-game series #1 vs winner #4/#5 and #2 vs winner #3/#6, then 7-game series between 2 remaining teams
- 2 5-game series #1/#4 and #2/#3, then 7-game series between 2 remaining teams

I fully support any of these options. I'd rank my preference as 2 then 3 then 1.

I kind of feel like we can treat the GBC as MLB does the Independent and MiLB with trying out radical rule changes like the pitch clock.

Could see a 4 team playoff, but under no circumstances should 75% of the league make the playoffs.

Dington wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:37 pm

Could see a 4 team playoff, but under no circumstances should 75% of the league make the playoffs.

Why not? I mean, we really shouldn't have any limits when it comes to the GBC as long as it doesn't violate BBA Constitution. I would argue, and I have on this point with many a sports fan, that it keeps fans more engaged and is more entertaining to be playing for a seed. No, not common in baseball but neither is a single table.

EDIT: I'm going to prove a GBC thorn in everyone's side...

cheekimonk wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2023 5:35 pm

Dington wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 11, 2023 12:37 pm

Could see a 4 team playoff, but under no circumstances should 75% of the league make the playoffs.

Why not? I mean, we really shouldn't have any limits when it comes to the GBC as long as it doesn't violate BBA Constitution. I would argue, and I have on this point with many a sports fan, that it keeps fans more engaged and is more entertaining to be playing for a seed. No, not common in baseball but neither is a single table.

EDIT: I'm going to prove a GBC thorn in everyone's side...

Good thing the fans don’t really have that effect in GBC. We don’t care about their feelings, just financials. No point rewarding sun .500 teams with a playoff berth.

For what it's worth, I think I'd rather see GBC, which I think is staying well staffed with Humans these days, move back to low tier ML level and add bonus funds in than mess with playoffs. I really think it loses something as an indy only league.