New Playoff Format

CFL Talk
1

I just putting this out for discussion, Im not advocating this kind of a change:

Lets say that the top two teams in each division get still get byes- but the next 4 teams regardless of division get in, so as of right now the system would look like this:

Byes:
BC
Winnipeg

Next 4 teams(in order of points)
Saskatchewan
Montreal
Edmonton
Calgary

So that means Saskatchewan would host Calgary
Montreal would host Edmonton

Winners of those games would then move to semi-finals against BC and Winnipeg.

Let the debate begin

2

Its already like that. Ever heard of the crossover rule?

3

Not quite, if we went by the old format, Edmonton would play Sask and Calgary would travel to Montreal.

4

I don't think it really makes that much difference.

5

Not much really changes in that formula.
As it is today, the same six teams make the play-offs and that will never change in your new formula.
All that is different is who plays who.
Currently, it would be Sask. vs. Edm., and Montreal vs. Calgary.
So I guess to me, there seems to be little benefit to the change, so why bother?
And if there is ever a 9th or maybe 10th team, I would completely oppose a format that could allow the top 5 teams in one division in, with only one from the other, so I actually think setting that "precedent" is a negative.

So I say no!

6

Actually, I have another scenario under your formula I don't like.
You could get teams ranked Sask., Calgary, TO, Montreal.
That would reduce the east west rivalry too much in my opinion.
Increased chance of an all east or all West Grey Cup, and less natural rivalries in the semis and even finals.

I like it even less now.

No!!

7

I guess you didnt read my first post, I didnt say I wanted that change, I just put it out there for discussion. The East vs. West thing is/was a red herring to allow inferior teams into the playoffs before they put in the crossover.

8

I read your first post.
And now I’m discussing it, just as you asked.
Pros for the change: zero.
Cons for the change: 2.
Outcome, status quo is best.

I do not believe the East/West rivalry is a red herring.
I actually only reluctantly accept the cross over as it now stands. Anything that reduces the east/west rivalry even more, I will oppose.
And in your new format (for discussion purposes only) that rivalry can be dramatically impacted.
Right now a cross-over team can never get home-field.
In your format, one division can host both play-off semis GREATLY increasing the chance of an all west or all east Grey Cup.

So no!!

9

If it aint broke dont fix it!

10

As long as you have two divisions, saying East vs West is/was a red herring is just crazy.

The concept of the top six making the play-offs is not that new. The challenge is making it work. As the teams don't play a balanced schedule it is difficult say it would be as fair to some teams. For example: lets say Hamilton has another poor year and goes 4 and 14. The teams in west could expect 5 to 6 victories and the teams in the east get 8 to 9 victories just because of scheduling.

Additionally, if you look at how the 2005 season ended, the play-off would have been something like

BC
Calgary

Toronto
Edmonton
Montreal
Saskatchewan

While setting up for some exciting football. I suspect that most people would be disappointed that there was only one home game in the east and very good possibility of all west grey cup.

No cross over team has made the grey cup yet. I suspect that when one does, people will start complaining about it.