final four

[ChampionOfSteel]

Reality:
#2 Mississippi at #1 Lakeland
#5 Canton at #4 Reading



Ideally:
#2 Mississippi at #4 Reading
#5 Canton at #1 Lakeland

[phydeaux72]

Nope. There are two conferences. So you play for a conference champion. And then the conference champs play for the league title. Plain and simple. That's how it works in the NFL, MLB, etc.

[ChampionOfSteel]

[quote=""phydeaux72""]Nope. There are two conferences. So you play for a conference champion. And then the conference champs play for the league title. Plain and simple. That's how it works in the NFL, MLB, etc.[/quote]

I see you have given way to the "that's the way we've always done" mindset.

That's not how things are done in the World Championship Ice Hockey tournament or the Winter Olympic Games of hockey when there's two pools (conferences) of teams.

How many times do I have to see Mississippi play Lakeland or Canton vs. Reading during the course of a season? It would be different if there were 2 or more divisions in the conferences but that isn't the case in the AIFA.

Not happy with the scenario at all "as is".

[THOR!CRAZIES]

i personally would like to see the "re-seeding" format. You would get different match-ups that you ordinarily would NOT see unless the 2 teams made it to the championship (canton DID play Lakeland this season though)----but you wuld see 2 match-ups like this instead potentially just one in the championship game..........that being said---i do think these match-ups(mississippi @ lakeland and Canton @ reading) are FAIR

[daytonadan]

CoS, you paying the transportation costs?

[phydeaux72]

[quote=""ChampionOfSteel""]Not happy with the scenario at all "as is".[/quote]

What difference does it make CoS? You're rarely happy with anything anyway. I'm sure if any of these leagues gave two licks what your thoughts were, they would be calling and asking you for your advice.

[ChampionOfSteel]

[quote=""THOR!CRAZIES""]i personally would like to see the "re-seeding" format. You would get different match-ups that you ordinarily would NOT see unless the 2 teams made it to the championship (canton DID play Lakeland this season though)----but you wuld see 2 match-ups like this instead potentially just one in the championship game..........that being said---i do think these match-ups(mississippi @ lakeland and Canton @ reading) are FAIR[/quote]

You appear to be an unbiased fan with no employment connections with any league owners.

This is what I meant earlier by the silent majority non-owners that may agree with me on many issues, preeths.

[ChampionOfSteel]

[quote=""phydeaux72""]What difference does it make CoS? You're rarely happy with anything anyway. I'm sure if any of these leagues gave two licks what your thoughts were, they would be calling and asking you for your advice.[/quote]

You don't have to be smart about it.

The current way is traditional and still cool. I'd like to see another league push the envelope instead of waiting for someone else to do it.

[phydeaux72]

[quote=""ChampionOfSteel""]The current way is traditional and still cool. I'd like to see another league push the envelope instead of waiting for someone else to do it.[/quote]

Sooooo .... why don't YOU do it?

'Nuff said.

[preeths]

[quote=""ChampionOfSteel""]You appear to be an unbiased fan with no employment connections with any league owners.

This is what I meant earlier by the silent majority non-owners that may agree with me on many issues, preeths.[/quote]

Your delusions continue unabated. I could just as easily say, actually with twice as much evidence (phydeaux and Dan's posts above), that a majority agree with me that you don't actually think through your so-called solutions. You never answered Dan's question. Are you going to pay for the increased travel costs?

Minor leagues don't seed this way because that's the way it's always done. They do so to make playoff travel more economical. Your think-outside-the-box approach is missing one crucial element: the thinking.