Playoff format

Hey, do you guys remember when the playoff format went like this:

Semi-final game: 2nd place played off against the 3rd place team
Winner of the semi-final game in the west played a best 2 out of 3 "Finals" against the 1st place team. Winner in the east played a 2 game total points Final series against the 1st place team. Winner of the Finals in the east and west go to the Grey Cup.

I never liked the 2 game total point series very much cause if a team got blown out 45- 5 in the first game they started the next game down 40 points. But I would really like to see them bring back the best of 3 Finals before the Grey Cup game is played. Here's why:

Montreal is a dynamite team this year and is leading in almost every category like fewest points scored against, most points scored etc. etc. Unfortunately, it would take only one single game, the Final where 1st place meets either 2nd or 3rd place team for the bubble to burst. In other words an inferior team could get into the Grey Cup by a fluke.

Why did they abandon the old format anyway? Does anyone know? Was it because it made the season too long? If that's the reason then start the season 2 weeks earlier or a week earlier and end it a week later. Not enough fans? When a game between Edmonton and Saskatchewan can garner a crowd of 62,000 fans it tells me the CFL is alive and well.

I say, play in the snow and sleet. I used to love watching those games. I remember in the '94 Final against Calgary when Danny McManus found Darren Flutie open in the end zone with just 4 seconds left on 3rd down. It was snowing so hard you could hardly see the players let alone the ball. What a fantastic finish! Calgary at the time was up 36-31. It was the first playoff victory against Calgary in 30 years!

Are they worried about injuries? Football is football.

I really want to see the old playoff format brought back to the CFL.

I've always been OK with the one game play-offs. First, because the best team should win and there are a number of things that could happen for them to lose, but it would have to be like the perfect wave, if I could use a analogy. I mean if the weaker team won... then all kudos to them. Second a 3 game set would increase the chances of injury throughout the play-offs. I want to see the best against the best, especially in the Grey Cup finale.

That is true Doyo. The risk of injury is increased when more games are played. But taking that a little further, if in the one game Finals format the starting QB gets injured and taken out for that game that could mean the ball game. Like you I want to see the best go into the Grey Cup. But that is what I mean about winning by a fluke. That happened to B.C. a couple of times. They came in 1st place at the end of the season having dominated the season, only to lose in the Finals preceding the Grey Cup. It shouldn't happen but it does. Playing the best of 3 would reduce that from happening since in the long run the better should prevail. And also the "underdog" team would have to "prove" itself. It could do this by beating the better team not once but 2x.

Imagine Hamilton beating out Montreal in the Final or worse, some team beating Hamilton and then by a complete fluke beating Montreal and going on to the Grey Cup. The best team did not make it. Some would say in that case then that the best team didn't deserve to go to the Grey Cup. I don't agree. Teams have an off day. The 2 week bye for example does not work in favor of the 1st place finisher. They often go into the final "rusty" and their timing seems off. Just some things to consider.

Actually, I think it would be great for fans to see more playoff games but thanks for your input. Much appreciated. :o

I like the sound of a best of 3 games playoffs. It prevents the "better" team from losing out because they're having a bad day..

I keep hearing about the better team getting because of one game. I don't buy it. I mean there are 7 game series in hockey and practically every year there is some kind of upset. That upset might happen in the first round and that team may never see the finals, but it does happen. I don't really see any difference between a one game upset or a seven game upset... it still happens. Adding more games just ups the possibilities of getting injuries to main players, I really don't think it ups the chances of weaker teams winning the Grey Cup. Even in a 8 team league, just look at the winners of the Grey Cup. Even in recent years a better team has won.

When was the last time Hamilton or Winnipeg has won the Grey Cup? You have to go back to 1999 for Hamilton and 1990 for Winnipeg.

Just look at the last 10 Grey Cup winners and they all where good teams for their time and deserved to win the Grey Cup.

Now if you argued that you just want more play-off goodness, I can see that.

Multiple playoff games against the same team is/was a poor idea. 3 games against one team would have to be played over 3 weeks and that is tough on everyone; fans, players, etc. Historically, when the league had multiple playoff games, the games were usually not very well attended. Instead of one larger crowd, you would get 2 smaller ones with the first game having a pre-season intensity to them.

"Now if you argued that you just want more play-off goodness, I can see that."- Doyo

OKee dokee...Um...... Okay, I want to see more playoff games! lol