As a fan of the CFL, it has always bothered me that the two best teams in the league might not end up playing one another in the Grey Cup because they are both from the same division.
I think that instead of the current crossover rule, which states that if the fourth place team in one division has a better record than the third place team in the other, that team crosses over... that the format should be as follows...
If the second place team in one division has a better record than the first place team in another division, then that second place team should crossover to the other division to become the first place team on that side. That way, there is a chance that the two best teams meet in the Grey Cup.
I heard this idea before and I liked it: The division leaders are seeded 1st and 2nd regardless of point total and have a bye in the first round (although whoever has the most points of those 2 will be 1st). The remaining 4 teams are seeded by their points and play 3 vs 6 / 4 vs 5. The highest ranked of those 4 to advance will play 2 and the lowest will play 1. The two who advance from those two games play for the Grey Cup. This way, it is entirely possible for the best 2 teams to play for the Grey Cup.
If you are in a division....live it with....It happens in every sport where a team with a wost record make the playoff while better record doesn’t. It’s only in the CFL where people whine about it.
Also with the ridiculously unbalanced schedule and only 18 games.....Points will never dictate which team is better,
I agree with ro. If we're going to let the second place team of one division crossover, then why not just get rid of the divisions completely? Having the second place team crossover like that makes the divisions completely irrelevant.
I guess then, to play Devil's Advocate, what is the difference between the proposal (2nd place team crossing over) and the current (4th place team crossing over)
Why have the divisions at all now? There is still a crossover option. It is just for a last place team instead of a 2nd place team.
I do think that the division thing needs to be looked at again in light of Winnipeg being in "the east". If it's going to stay this way for a while, and all indications are that this will be the case, you have to question the whole division thing really.
I've always enjoyed the East vs West mentality of the Grey Cup Game and would hate to see that lost, although the Winnipeg situation screws it up periodically now and we have the crossover situation.
We need another Eastern team!
I agree.
Let’s scrap the crossover altogether and move on…
Best 3 teams in each division it is!!
Anyway, didn’t we just finish a debate about this?
I was against anything that effects the East/West rivalry then, and I am against it still.
The impact of these changes affects more than just the East/West nature of the Grey Cup (which I happen to like and think is needed), but it also affects the rivalries during the play-offs.
Who thinks that a BC vs. TO and Hamilton vs. Calgary semi or final will be as interesting as Calgary Vs. Edmonton or TO vs. Hamilton?
Plus the “best two teams” rationale is somewhat overplayed.
Some might argue that if you can win 2 play-off games and get to the big game, maybe even win it, it is because you deserve to be there.
Others might point out that with an unbalanced schedule, the final standings do not always reflect who the “best” two are anyway.
And you can’t completely do away with the unbalanced schedule.
Plus, how important is the “two best” teams theory anyway?
Some of the best games ever have featured those supposedly “not the best two” match-ups.
Upsets are what make sports interesting, not having everything run according to form.
Well, I still think that it would be nice to see the two best teams in the Grey Cup regardless of their location. And this coming from an Als' fan who's team would have stood the most to loose imho over the past few years would this have been the case.
See, perhaps I am being foolish, or naive, but I was under the impression the reason you have play-off games is to determine who is the best.
Apparently, it is just the regular season…
I kind of like the crossover rule because I've never really been a fan of teams under .500 making the playoffs. With the crossover rule, you're less likely to see that.
But I do agree with what Arius said in regard to rivalries. I'd much rather see Edmonton and Calgary duke it out than Edmonton and Toronto. I'm sure they'd put on a good game, but it wouldn't be nearly as intense.
Right now I think the playoff system we have is the best. And until we can really come up with something better, I say leave it alone.
Are people not saying that the “Best” teams should make the playoffs? My point is that more points in one division does not always mean a better team. There are not enough games and the schedule is far too unbalanced.
A team has to have some reward for finishing first in their division. We see the same thing in other sports (hockey and baseball) where some years one division is dominant. But it evens out over time IMO.
The wild card for the last playoff spot is enough IMO. Its difficult to miss the playoffs in the CFL as it is.
Actually the idea isnt bad, I would like to see a Edmonton-Calgary GC game, would be fun to watch! A Toronto-Hamilton or Toronto-Montreal game would be fun as well. How about and Edmonton-Sask GC game? A Sask-Wpg game would great as well... oh wait , could happen!