Poll: Finals - What's The Best Schedule Sequence?

[winsomme]

Would you rather Game 5 at home or away?

Game 5 used to be/is normally the pivotal game for two evenly matched sides.

I vastly prefer the old format. I thought the change of venue was good, it freshened up the series and gave some degree of seperation between the past game and the next game.

i agree with the "freshening up" reasoning for using the 2-2-1-1-1 format.

i just think that overall it makes for a more interesting series. and the reasons to not do it (like the the possible longer travel to WC) are just not that compelling to me.

it's hard to say who it really benefits (the team with or without home court advantage) because it totally depends on how the series plays out, but i just think the more frequent change in venue adds another dimension to the mix and gives the team that falls behind something to shoot for....it's really all psychological....

[DimpusBurger]

It's generally accepted that playing on your home court is an advantage.  Based on that assumption there's no question that 2-3-2 is more favorable to the underdog that 2-2-1-1-1.

In a 2-3-2 series the underdog has enjoyed home court advantage after playing 5 games.  They've played 3 games on their home court and 2 games on the favored team's home court.

In a 2-2-1-1-1 series the advantage is even or in favor of the favored team throughout the series.

That said, I think the format was chosen for financial reasonse, but the financial concern isn't for the teams, it's for the league and the broadcast network who have to move all of their personnel and equipment from location to location throughout the playoffs.  In a 7 game series it's 3 moves vs 5 moves.  Over 15 series that's 45 moves vs 75 moves.

[Steve Weinman]

It's generally accepted that playing on your home court is an advantage.  Based on that assumption there's no question that 2-3-2 is more favorable to the underdog that 2-2-1-1-1.

In a 2-3-2 series the underdog has enjoyed home court advantage after playing 5 games.  They've played 3 games on their home court and 2 games on the favored team's home court.

In a 2-2-1-1-1 series the advantage is even or in favor of the favored team throughout the series.

That said, I think the format was chosen for financial reasonse, but the financial concern isn't for the teams, it's for the league and the broadcast network who have to move all of their personnel and equipment from location to location throughout the playoffs.  In a 7 game series it's 3 moves vs 5 moves.  Over 15 series that's 45 moves vs 75 moves.

Good points overall, Dimpus, but again I would hasten to point out that they aren't saving all those 'moves' throughout the rest of the playoff series -- the 2-3-2 only goes into effect for the Finals.  If they're willing to do all the moving throughout the playoffs, I have a hard time buying the need to make a change for the most important series of all.

-sw

[winsomme]

It's generally accepted that playing on your home court is an advantage.  Based on that assumption there's no question that 2-3-2 is more favorable to the underdog that 2-2-1-1-1.

In a 2-3-2 series the underdog has enjoyed home court advantage after playing 5 games.  They've played 3 games on their home court and 2 games on the favored team's home court.

In a 2-2-1-1-1 series the advantage is even or in favor of the favored team throughout the series.

That said, I think the format was chosen for financial reasonse, but the financial concern isn't for the teams, it's for the league and the broadcast network who have to move all of their personnel and equipment from location to location throughout the playoffs.  In a 7 game series it's 3 moves vs 5 moves.  Over 15 series that's 45 moves vs 75 moves.

Good points overall, Dimpus, but again I would hasten to point out that they aren't saving all those 'moves' throughout the rest of the playoff series -- the 2-3-2 only goes into effect for the Finals.  If they're willing to do all the moving throughout the playoffs, I have a hard time buying the need to make a change for the most important series of all.

-sw

exactly. if there was a big savings in doing the 2-3-2, they would be doing it for every series...

why change just for the Finals..

the only real potential difference is a possible longer distance, but that certainly could be made up for with a travel day.

and i'm not sure how much equipment they actually move. i would think they leave a lot if stuff in each city....

[Bahku]

It's generally accepted that playing on your home court is an advantage.  Based on that assumption there's no question that 2-3-2 is more favorable to the underdog that 2-2-1-1-1.

In a 2-3-2 series the underdog has enjoyed home court advantage after playing 5 games.  They've played 3 games on their home court and 2 games on the favored team's home court.

In a 2-2-1-1-1 series the advantage is even or in favor of the favored team throughout the series.

That said, I think the format was chosen for financial reasonse, but the financial concern isn't for the teams, it's for the league and the broadcast network who have to move all of their personnel and equipment from location to location throughout the playoffs.  In a 7 game series it's 3 moves vs 5 moves.  Over 15 series that's 45 moves vs 75 moves.

Good points overall, Dimpus, but again I would hasten to point out that they aren't saving all those 'moves' throughout the rest of the playoff series -- the 2-3-2 only goes into effect for the Finals.  If they're willing to do all the moving throughout the playoffs, I have a hard time buying the need to make a change for the most important series of all.

-sw

Yup ... I agree. I think if that was the reasoning behind it, it would have been done "across the board." I think it goes far beyond travel costs and schedule disruption.