rmartin65
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2011
- 2,677
- 2,155
TDMM’s idea from last year was pretty decent, so we might be able to build on it.
In the regular season, voters don’t vote on every division. Let’s say they vote on other divisions, but not their own.
In the playoffs, voters can vote on every series.
That change in the voting pool could be enough to make it less predictable without introducing the element of randomness.
Don't release the regular season division rankings until after the playoffs and randomize the matchups (including the bye if there's one).
I think we did hidden seedings, but the matchups were not random. I had the same initial reaction, though.Pretty sure we've tried this and it didn't really make that much of a difference
Do we need divisions at all? Two conferences and the usual bracket will flow. If 14 teams, 1st place of each gets a by.
Do we need divisions at all? Two conferences and the usual bracket will flow. If 14 teams, 1st place of each gets a by.
It's only 7 teams per conference, not that hard to rank.
Cross conference playoffs? Would have different voting than the regular season, though it gets a little complicated in round 2
I would say do divisions if we make it to 16 teams, but if we don't it doesn't make sense, as you'd have 1-2 divisions with only 3 teams.
What do you mean by cross conference?
To be clear, what I meant was like a Tennis bracket. If we aren't in the same conference, then we can't meet until the ATD Finals.
1st seed from conference A would play 8th seed from conference B in the first round, etc.
I don't remember what happens in round 2...
We did this with divisions once; I don't think it was when I was admining things.
It's not worth delving into details if nobody thinks this would be an improvement.
Yeah, I have no problem with this, but I see no immediate upside over the normal bracket. Maybe there are some, haven't thought about it.
The upside is the playoffs give different matchups than you voted on in the regular season. Different comparisons to make, and less likely for "chalk" results.
OK
I still hate it aesthetically but it's completely irrational and I have no counterargument