Back in the 80’s, there was the 2-2-1-1-1 format in championship series. Then all of a sudden, 7 game series switched to the current 2-3-2. I believe that it was a result of the Celtics and Lakers playing each other so many times; one team traveling four times, the other five, and possibly six.
In the original format, the higher seeded team would host games one, two, and if necessary, games five and the pinnacle game seven; the lower seeded team would host games three, four, and six.
I’ve never been a fan of this format, as I feel that it makes it much more difficult for the lower seeded team to win in the series.
And please, no comments about the all-star game deciding home field, that can be discussed in another thread.
The last thing any of these playoffs need is more idle time.
Anyway, I thought the problem was that the 2-3-2 makes it possible for the lower seed to win one on the road, then sweep at home, giving the higher seed fewer home games overall.
I kind of like this year’s outcome 
Not sure I’m understanding. Your comment about the all-star game makes it sound like you’re including baseball in this, but in baseball it’s always been 2-3-2. Certainly back to the twenties.
Don’t know enough about hockey or basketball to know how they do it.
Hockey is 2-2-1-1-1, and I hope that they never change it. I can’t stand the 2-3-2 format.
Admittedly it works much better for hockey, where you need a day off between almost every playoff game anyway.
I think the OP needs to clarify if he means baseball, basketball, or any sport. For baseball, I think 2-3-2 works well.
MLB had a best of five starting in 1969 and moved to the current best of seven in 1985.
But that’s the playoffs. The WS has been 7 games (2-3-2) for a long time, hasn’t it?
The LCS was best of 5; the World Series has been a best-of-7 series since well before 1969.
It isn’t all that restful if you have to fly 3000 miles that day. There’s way too much travel with 22111.
But 232 doesn’t give enough of a home-field advantage, IMHO. There should be something more substantial for a full season’s worth of achievement than 1 extra home game. I’d be happier with 322 - the underdogs still get a home game, and a second if they earn it, but the favorites get more advantage. And there’s no more travel time than currently.
The World Series actually was best of nine waaay back in the day. The Series the Black Sox threw to the Reds in 1919 was a best of nine. However, a) I don’t think that lasted for very many years at all, and 2) I don’t know what the home/road format was for those Series. So I’m not being very helpful here at all.
In baseball, the 2-3-2 seems to work pretty well. In basketball, well … seems to me every NBA playoff season (what is that, April through July now?) has about six days off between games anyway. Why not do 1-1-1-1-1-1-1? Ought to work about as well as anything else. If they even have an NBA playoffs, that is.
Since forever, except for a few best-of-nines tossed in the mix.
I don’t understand the OP’s beef. He says he hates the 2-3-2, then gives a perfectly valid reason for the 2-3-2 (emphasis added):
He hints here:
Ok, but how does it make it much more difficult for the lower seeded team to win, relative to the 2-2-1-1-1, and even if so, isn’t that the idea, to give the better team (the higher seed) the advantage, regardless of format?
Reducing travel tax benefits both teams equally. The lesser ranked team is at a disadvantage, but that will always be true. as it should be. Format switching doesn’t make it more true.
That link in my last post has citations for each series, which give the field played at for each game. In 1934, for example, St. Louis beat Detroit in seven, in a 2-3-2 format. I’m not going through them all.
ETA: Checked a couple others. 1952 and 1964 were both 2-3-2.
The main reason why I dislike the 2-3-2 has to do with the natural edge that comes from playing at home, coupled with the difficulty to win 3 in a row, if that makes any sense.
Sure, it’s starting to make sense, but three in a row at home is a huge advantage, which the team with the “home field advantage” doesn’t have. Winning three in a row, at that level of competition, is difficult regardless of circumstances. A team with all seven games at home would have difficulty winning three in a row.
I believe that the difficulty of winning 3 in a row far outweighs any edge that comes from having 3 in a row at your home field, or arena.
In the 70’s a few NBA series had 1-2-2-1-1 series (home team had the opening game), tho IIRC it was mainly due to conflicts w/ other events in one of the arenas in question.
The 2-3-2 (or 2-3-2-2 for a nine game series) makes sense in the way of reducing the amount of travel days. Remember, baseball is dependent on the weather; stretching out the series increases the risk that it will be too cold for good baseball (it may be too cold for some games now). Adding an extra week to the season (once you consider the first two rounds of playoffs) puts you in riskier weather.
I seriously doubt a 2-2-1-1-1 would make any difference in the final result anyway. Baseball has a much smaller home field advantage than other sports.
2-3-2 makes sense for baseball, but makes less sense in hockey and basketball. Hockey’s 2-2-1-1-1 format is far more logical for hockey.
Baseball doesn’t require as many off days and, being a weather-sensitive sport, needs to play games on consecutive days to avoid going into November. 2-3-2 allows you to have just two travel days in nine days.
Hockey, comparatively, really requires a day off between games whenever possible, so you have the travel days to play with.