|
Post by Micah008 on Jun 1, 2011 9:32:52 GMT -5
I heard back from the league, and here are the details for the IFL playoffs. I have copied things directly from their site or the email, and then my comments are added based on responses to questions. Playoff Format: (from goifl.com/history/playoff/)Number of Teams: 12 Number of Rounds: 4 Qualifiers: 3 Division Winners and the 3 highest Wild Cards per conference (confirmed that division winners are 1-3 Seed, for example Reading is locked in at #3 even if Bloomington ends with a better record)Week 1: Quarterfinals -Top 2 seeds in each conference receive a BYE -Teams Ranked 6th will play 3rd seed (confirmed, matchups are not based on distance traveled)-Teams Ranked 5th will play 4th seed (confirmed, matchups are not based on distance traveled)Week 2: Conference Semi-Finals -1st Seed will host lowest remaining seed -2nd Seed will host highest remaining seed Week 3: Conference Finals -Remaining two teams play at the higher advancing seeds venue -Winners will be crowned Conference Champion Week 4: League Championship -Higher Conference Champion hosts Lower Seeded Conference Champion -Winner will be crowned United Bowl Champion Seeding and Tiebreakers: (from email with league office) - Win/Loss Percentage - Head to Head Record vs. Opponent involved in Tie - Opponents Win Percentage - Point Differential (points scored minus points allowed)
|
|
|
Post by Micah008 on Jun 1, 2011 9:38:15 GMT -5
Based on the above, here is my prediction:
United: 1 Sioux Falls (14-0) 2 Green Bay (11-3) 3 Reading (9-5) 4 Bloomington (10-4) 5 Omaha (9-5) 6 Chicago (8-6)
Intense: 1 Colorado (12-2) 2 Fairbanks (10-4) * ** 3 West Texas (10-4) 4 Tri-Cities (10-4) 5 Allen (9-5) 6 Wyoming (7-7)
* = Fairbanks wins Pacific Division (over Tri-Cities) based on head-to-head tiebreaker going 2-1 against them. ** = Fairbanks gets #2 seed (over West Texas) based on Opponents Win Percentage, having a tougher schedule.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Jun 1, 2011 13:40:07 GMT -5
using the above example:
IFL Playoffs Round I (17-19 June)
-United Conference --Chicago @ Reading --Omaha @ Bloomington --BYES Sioux Falls, Green Bay
-Intense Conference --Wyoming @ West Texas --Allen @ Tri-Cities --BYES Colorado, Fairbanks
Conference Semifinals (24-26 June)
-United --Lowest remaining seed @ Sioux Falls --other rd 1 winner @ Green Bay
-Intense --Lowest remaining seed @ Colorado --other rd 1 winner @ Fairbanks
4th of July bye week
Conference Championships (8-10 July) Lowest remaining seeds @ Highest remaining seeds
IFL Championship "United Bowl III"(*v2) July 16
-----*COMMENTARY*----- So, the first round bye teams get a bye week (or two for Fairbanks if they win this week) then play a game, then get another bye week before playing two weeks in a row.. if the teams aren't healthy going into the playoffs, they will be come July.
<rant> I'm not entirely convinced that the 4th of July weekend hurts attendance any more than Easter weekend, mothers day, fathers day, or Memorial Day weekend, so why skip it especially when the 4th is on a Monday.
I'm a big fan of (assuming the Texas teams defect back into a renamed/remade InFL) pushing the league start back to the first or second weekend of march and wrapping up around the end of July. This gives teams that share facilities with hockey and basketball teams a better chance at better home dates, and none of this two Monday's, two Sunday's and a Friday bullspit </rant>
|
|
|
Post by Micah008 on Jun 1, 2011 14:43:59 GMT -5
IFL Championship "United Bowl III"(*v2) July 16 To avoid this confusion the IFL hasn't called it "United Bowl III". They called it the "2010 United Bowl" last year, and I haven't seen the III used by them this year.
|
|
|
Post by Micah008 on Jun 1, 2011 15:15:38 GMT -5
<rant> I'm not entirely convinced that the 4th of July weekend hurts attendance any more than Easter weekend, mothers day, fathers day, or Memorial Day weekend, so why skip it especially when the 4th is on a Monday... I agree. They don't avoid the other Holidays in the regular season (which would matter to all of the teams, not just a few). I think they should have just pressed on through all of the playoffs, and not skipped a week. ...I'm a big fan of (assuming the Texas teams defect back into a renamed/remade InFL) pushing the league start back to the first or second weekend of march and wrapping up around the end of July. This gives teams that share facilities with hockey and basketball teams a better chance at better home dates, and none of this two Monday's, two Sunday's and a Friday bullspit </rant> At the risk of taking my own thread off course... I am not convinced that pushing the start back is good for all teams. For some, yes. But you can't please everyone. The attendance is actually hurt for some teams by the good weather later into the Spring, and would prefer to go earlier (right after the Superbowl). The Spartans, for example, have never gotten good dates in March (Thursday only this year), but were able to in February (like the Kickoff Classic on a Saturday night). Also, I have read that some Texas teams actually like later into the season, since they can get people inside into the Air Conditioning more easily in May/June. I don't know how true this is, but it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Jun 1, 2011 18:52:02 GMT -5
This is what I have:
United: 1 Sioux Falls (14-0) 2 Green Bay (11-3) 3 Reading (9-5) 4 Omaha (9-5) 5 Bloomington (9-5) 6 Chicago (8-6)
Intense: 1 Colorado (12-2) 2 Fairbanks (10-4) 3 West Texas (10-4) 4 Tri-Cities (10-4) 5 Allen (9-5) 6 Wyoming (8-6)
Fairbanks gets 2 seed over West Texas with better opponents win percentage. Omaha gets 4 seed over Bloomington with better opponents win percentage.
Round One: Chicago at Reading Bloomington at Omaha Wyoming at West Texas Allen at Tri-Cities
|
|
|
Post by Micah008 on Jun 1, 2011 19:05:58 GMT -5
The only difference (from what I can tell) is that you have Bloomington losing at Wichita in Week 17, and Wyoming beating Nebraska also in Week 17. It makes a difference in the Omaha/Bloomington matchup for the first round in who would get to play at home. (I agree both games could go either way... as could a few others, so these first round games can easily change)
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Jun 1, 2011 19:13:33 GMT -5
Yes, I had Wichita and Wyoming winning those games in the last week.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Jun 2, 2011 8:18:53 GMT -5
We'll have to have BC most these posts to another thread, as I'm enjoying the conversation...
I thought it was the former intense teams that lobbied to move the season start date up... people in warmer climes or "fun" places (Colorado, for example) want to be outside when the weather is nice... but the same arena that draws maybe 2000 these days for the Ice, you can't get a ticket to, every game for CHL hockey is sold out for the Eagles.
It's a delicate balance between arena availability at the beginning of the season, and alternate entertainment at the end. To my mind the beginning of the season matters a lot more than the end...but that's me..
|
|
|
Post by Micah008 on Jun 2, 2011 10:17:34 GMT -5
...It's a delicate balance between arena availability at the beginning of the season, and alternate entertainment at the end... Agreed completely. Ideally each team would be able to shift their home games up or back to whatever worked best for them, since it changes for each. Just a random thought... can it be both ways? Start the season a little earlier, and also go a little longer by having more Bye weeks, or something like that. Then the teams have more potential dates to work with for their arena availability and can schedule them as they want. Arena availability is awful here in the Spring (March) because of home and garden shows and things like that. No other sports to complete with, just conventions and shows. In all honesty I think the best dates for fans here in La Crosse would be January - March. But, I know then you start conflicting more with the NFL and local hockey. I have tried to talk a few people into season tickets, and some don't want to do it because they want to do things outside once the weather gets nicer. But, they would be willing in the winter since there is "nothing to do" here in the winter.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Jun 2, 2011 21:54:28 GMT -5
...It's a delicate balance between arena availability at the beginning of the season, and alternate entertainment at the end... Agreed completely. Ideally each team would be able to shift their home games up or back to whatever worked best for them, since it changes for each. Just a random thought... can it be both ways? Start the season a little earlier, and also go a little longer by having more Bye weeks, or something like that. Then the teams have more potential dates to work with for their arena availability and can schedule them as they want. Arena availability is awful here in the Spring (March) because of home and garden shows and things like that. No other sports to complete with, just conventions and shows. The IFL's first year had a ton of bye weeks because the Texas teams wanted a different start date than the rest of the league. Some didn't like the discrepancy, but it all evened out in the end. That could work just fine again.
|
|