CROSSOVER

I am confused. Why is there a crossover for a playoff position when there are eight teams in the league, four for each East and West?? :?

So that a team with 5 wins gets in the playoffs over a team with 4 wins.

I do not appreciate a stupid answer to a legit question. I enjoy football and have been a Ti Cat fan forever. However there are some rules I don't understand. I will be posting this question on other sites, hoping to get a straight answer.

you did get a straight answer, you just dont get it.

The answe that has come up on this site before was the loss of Ottawa.
It forced Winnipeg to shift divisions last-minute, and the leage felt it was fare to keep it in this year.

Thanks carpman. I understand the crossover when there were 9 teams but when there are 8 it didn't make sense. :oops:

think of the crossover as being a wild card. the first 2 teams in each conference make the playoffs the next 2 teams with the best record make the playoffs. if there in the same conference there will be a crossover. there was a crossover before when montreal left and when ottawa left the 1st time

Actually I think it does make sense.

The rule is in place so that the top six teams (more or less) make the playoffs. Not necessarily the top three in each division. It's not in place because there is an odd number of teams.

If four teams in one division all have 10 wins or more and only the top team in the other division has that many and the other three teams all have seven or less wins, it makes complete sense for the fourth place team in the strong division to make the playoffs. IMO.

for the reason, the CO must remain after 9 or 10 teams and beyond. :rockin:

You do realise that having 10 wins has nothing to do with it.

I still say get rid of the crossover.
Its for whinners

I think it makes perfect sense too. Top 6 teams in the league make the play-offs. If you're in the bottom two you get to watch it on TV no matter what division you're in. I also think it makes the play-off race more interesting. Just because the bottom team in your division flounders and gets (say only) 4 wins doesn't mean you can rest on your heels and make the play-offs. You still have to win ball games to get in.

Unfortunely having a better record does not mean having a better team.

Example
Lets say EE goes on a winning streak and ends up with 2 more points than Wpg. Can you truly say that EE is a better team than Wpg when Wpg has to play Mtl 4 times and Tor 3 times in the season while EE only plays them twice?
The schedule is far to unbalances to say that more points in the standings means a better team

With 8 teams there should not be 2 divisions. There should be 1 and the top 6 make it. It's very simple.
The only reasoning for 2 divisions would be travel cost I guess.

What does having only 8 teams as opposed to 9 teams have to do with anything?

The crossover puts a 4th place team in the playoffs if they're better than the other 3rd place team. That's all.

Last year when there was 5 teams in the west, the 4th place team in the east could have crossed over to the west, just as easily as the 4th place team in the west could cross over to the east.

Using the same reasoning, Edmonton Plays Calgary four times and BC three while Winnipeg only plays each of them twice. And since Calgary and BC currently have more wins than any other team in the league I would say in the scenario you brought up, yes Edmonton would be the better team.

The same thing happens in the NHL, NBA, MLB, and the NFL with divisional teams within the conference. They all don't have the same schedule but wild cards in each conference make it to the play-offs because they have the best record. Winning has to mean everything in a professional league and I believe the crossover emphasises that.