Always confused about this.
A wild card team makes it to the DS. And has to play the number one seed. Why is that? Why wouldn’t they play a lesser team. Is it to give the number one seed an advantage?
I believe this is done in other sports, also.
Of course. The number one seed earned the right to play the weakest opponent. That’s how seeding works. I’m confused about what is confusing you.
That’s exactly what seeding is for – to eliminate the possibility that the two best teams face each other in an early round.
In March Madness, the #1 seed plays the #16 seed, because you don’t want #1 playing #2 in the opening weekend, while #15 slides through.
Same logic in tennis. And baseball.
Cuz, it just ain’t fair to the weakest opponent.
Now, that makes sense.
I got it now. Thanks
Then they should have won more games.
Playoffs are seeded to end with the two best teams playing each other, thus why first and second seeds are on opposite sides of the bracket. Winning more games in the regular season gives you an “easier” path to the finals. The playoffs aren’t about “fair”, they’re about finding out who is the “best”.
ETA: Ninja’d by jsc. Curse you!
Like the others have said, seeding is fair because the stronger team earned it. It also makes the regular-season more relevant. Teams play the regular season not just to determine who makes the playoffs, but also who gets the higher seed.
It just occurred to be me that under baseball’s playoff system, it is theoretically possible for the wildcard team to have a better record than one of the division champions. Does the playoff format account for this? Or does the highest seed always play the wildcard team regardless? (Sorry for the hijack.)
All wild card teams are lower seeds than all division winners.
Note that records are not strictly comparable between teams in different divisions, because they have played a substantially different slate of opponents.
Forget the wild card team having a better record than a division champ, that happens most years. Even worse is when there are teams out of the playoffs entirely with better records than a division winner as happened in 2012 when 88-win Tigers made the playoffs, while the 90-win Rays and 89-win Angels stayed home.
(Of course, Detroit ended up making the World Series like a bunch of jerks.)
Same with football.
But the best example of the point you raised is last year’s National League standings. The top 3 teams were in the NL Central. The Cardinals won the division with a 100-62 record, and the Pirates (98-64) and Cubs (97-65) had to play each other in the Wild Card game. The next best team in the league was the Dodgers, at 92-70. Some will argue it was the best MLB postseason of the previous 30 years.
What doesn’t make sense to me is having the wild card teams play a one-and-done for the right to advance. You get that far, it should at least be a two out of three elimination.
If the concern is over too long a season, just cut back to a 154 game schedule. Baseball will survive.
The whole point is to disadvantage the teams which failed to win their divisions (while maintaining a large playoff field).
In some leagues this is true but it’s not the case in baseball.
Part of it, as I recall, is that the long layoff for the division winners might give an advantage to the wild card teams who had played more recently.
What? It certainly is true in current MLB.
There’s no way baseball will cut the schedule. Those tv deals are too lucrative. The season is stretched to the last possible day and there’s no way to get a wild card 2/3 series without eliminating all off days.
Pushing the season into November is going to backfire one year, a Colorado/Minnesota World Series could be a race against the weather.
He’s saying that MLB teams all play very comparable schedules, which is true - especially within the same leagues. It’s not true in the NFL - there’s often very large differences in teams’ strength of schedule.
It’s also desirable to avoid motivating a top team to “throw” late games in order to set up a playoff match with a weaker opponent.
The reward for being best should be the most favorable playoff prospects.
In baseball you play 19 games against each team in your division but only 6 or 7 games against each team outside your division. In addition teams within each AL division play the same NL teams for inter-league play, but each AL division plays a different NL division.
I think it’s reasonable to say that teams from different divisions do not have comparable schedules to teams from other divisions.