[RchW]

Originally Posted by Aaron's Aron

I think that there is a way for a sports league to combat the issue of playoffs not being an accurate representation of who the best team was. Of course a 269 game series would be too long, and having every series be 23 games is a too long as well because there would be no time for the season. However... how about a 162 game series? One big series involving thirty teams, lasting 162 games?

I follow soccer pretty closely, particularly the Barclays Premier League (CHELSEA!), and one thing I love is how they determine the ultimate winner. There is no playoffs, and it is just one big division. Whoever has the most amount of points at the end of season wins! I love this because it more accurately represents who the best team is. In the playoffs, as you guys said, a team can just get hot at the right time and win it all, while a completely dominate team can get cold or match up against the hot team and get knocked out. This system rewards good play throughout the entire season. Consistent play is better than two to three weeks of hot play. Streaks balance out over the season too, which doesn't happen in the playoffs. It also helps teams that get their star player that hit .310 during the season which became meaningless once the playoffs started injured, making it a whole new, worse team.

I know I could have explained and worded that better, but I have concussions so meh. That's just my opinion, and obviously it won't happen in real life MLB, but I just think it is a very interesting idea.

You missed one critical point. The balanced schedule ie one home and one away game against every other team. Without that a league champion from a divisional based league and an unbalanced schedule is a fraud.