Playoff Matchup Structure

[Oregon Three Lions of Madison]

The thought of making our two week combined match ups two separate games has been brought up. Basically do we want to continue a combined to week match up or make it two separate match ups? For example, if we were to change each week would be separate. If team A won the first week 7-5, and team B won the second week 9-3 team B would win the match up by a combined score of 14-12.

[Manalapan Devil Dogs]

Keep it the same IMO

[Deleted]

I think we should separate it and here's why. Looking at the playoffs this year, after 1 week, I knew who was gonna win. That 2nd week was a moot point for the most part. Every game was like that. At least separating the 2 weeks gives the team down a better shot to come back and win. Even if I was the team that was winning, it'd still keep me more interested. I feel it keeps everyone more interested in the playoffs along with the team that's losing feeling he/she has a chance.

[San Fran Earthquakes]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I like keeping it the same. H2H playoffs can be so random as it is. I feel the purpose of having it 2 weeks is to decrease the variability and luck factor. By separating it out, you increase the likelihood that a weaker team can get a lucky week and say go 9-1 and therefore have a strong chance to win the matchup. I'd rather decrease the luck factor. That said, I wouldn't be upset if a majority wanted to change it.

[Deleted]

What if the "weaker team" wins week 1 9-1 and is so far ahead that the "stronger team" has no shot. It can go either way.

[Deleted]

In my opinion the entire point of an extended matchup is so that the weaker team does not win and the quality of a better team will prove out over that extended period, by separating them out you dilute this and defeat the point of an extended period. I vote No

[Ft. Myers Conquistadors]

I'm with Boston

[Deleted]

First of all, I don't believe in weak teams making the playoffs. Secondly, what if that "weaker team" was the team to have a great first week and got so far ahead of the stronger team that week 2 becomes a moot point? I'm obviously in the minority here but at least separating it makes it more fun and interesting for the entire league. So either way you do it, the "weaker" team can still win.

[Deleted]

Heck, Albany won 129 games and won the WC while Akron won 140 and was a division winner. By all means and purposes, Albany was considered the "weaker" team. In fact, may be the weakest in the playoffs based on record yet they won the whole thing because Akron had no shot after week 1 based on categories and how far Albany was up in each category. Adding that separated week, may have given that "stronger" team a better shot. Yes, Akron still may have lost but at least it keeps things more interesting and gives him a better shot to come back.

[madisonbillygoats]

Unless you are playing a best 2 out of 3 I don't see the difference really. If a team has a great week one and wins 10-1 it is just as difficult(you could argue more difficult) to come back if separated it into 2 weeks vs cumulative. I would now have to win week 2 10-1 just to get back to even vs scratching out a few categories to get to even. It could be very easily argued that the likely hood of winning week 2 10-1 is much smaller than winning back 5-6 categories in a cumulative match-up. I am stopping now as I just gave myself a head-ache and have no idea if what I'm saying even makes sense.

[Deleted]

Not sure I can vote from this stupid tapatalk app, but I say leave it the same

[Oregon Three Lions of Madison]

Including Cleveland's vote we have a 13-1 vote. Feel safe shutting this one down. We keep the 2 week combined match ups. Thanks to all who gave opinions and voted! Next issue coming.