First off, I agree with the East Vs West and I agree with the crossover rule. It has stopped the 4-14 type teams from making the playoffs.
but… what if they changed the rule that if the 4th place West team ( or visa-versa) has a better record then the 2nd place East team then the Semi-final is played in the stadium of the team with the better record?
If that were the case then the Ti-cats would have still had something to play for last night and we would have fielded our starters .
Also, if last nights game would have had home field implications we would have most likely won the game and more people would have shown up to the stadium I would think. ( it looked 1/2 full on TV even though the paid “attendance” was once again announced at 23,300 people) I am sure the team lost some revenue from concessions and beer because the game was meaningless.
It seems like this team was pretty content over the last couple of weeks since they knew they had a home playoff game locked up no matter what. After every loss Jones would say “were right were we want to be”. It was frustrating to hear.
To be fair, I am aware that if we made that kick at the end , then the top 6 teams would have actually made the playoffs and our home field would have been earned even in my altered rule scenario.
What do people think of my rule change suggestion?
Introducing the crossover for playoff seeding a few years ago was simply a bandage hiding the wound. The real problem is that there has long been management weaknesses in Eastern division teams stiffling the quality of teams they put on the field. There is nothing in the air to suggest the west is stacked with quality players because players prefer to play in more beautiful parts of the country. The league itself doesn’t place players on teams. There are no trade rules that restrict to which city players may be traded. People build their team and the East has done a very poor job.
Competitiveness of each team and parity in the league is soley characterized by each teams management, from owner down to coaching. All the Eastern teams, for various reasons over the past 40+ years have struggled, no fault of the employed players.
There, you have the reason the West is best and the East is least.
Geez, we have a hard enough time winning or hosting a Grey Cup, now we want to not even host the occasional playoff game?
You have to balance all factors. Competivness is one thing, but under this plan, wouldn’t be many playoff games played east of Winnipeg over the last number of years. Could drive down interest and attendance for the eastern teams which the leauge definitely doesn’t want to do.
Probably about the same number of leagues as those that have had citizenship-based player quotas, an owner with two teams, two teams with the same name, the occasional lottery to save a team, starting players who retire because they can make more as a firefighter, stadium security guards getting promoted to the team, and the oldest trophy in professional sports.
It's a quirky league. Many of us like it that way.
Maybe the ability to host a play-off game is important for some of the teams to show a profit? Gate receipts but no player salaries. Don’t know how the break-down is made, but I’m sure the extra revenue, whatever the amount, from a home play-off game aids the bottom line for most teams. Doubt that any sane owners would want to give that up?