AFL Playoff Format Needs to Change
Andy Lopusnak
Wednesday July 11, 2012
The Arena Football League's playoff format is a joke this season. In the American Conference there will be anywhere from one to three teams with non-winning records making the four-team playoffs (and potentially the Southern Division champion). While in the National Conference, there will be potentially six teams with at least ten wins and two of those won't be in the postseason.
This past weekend, the 9-7 Chicago Rush and 8-8 Spokane Shock were eliminated from postseason consideration only because they play in the National Conference. If Chicago was in the American Conference, it would have the conference's second best record. This importance on conferences wasn't how the AFL started.
When the AFL began 25 seasons ago up until 2004, all playoff teams were seeded in order by their regular season record. The league decided that since it was going to neutral-site ArenaBowls starting in 2005 that the conferences would actually matter and that only the conference champions would play in the title game. In addition, the AFL decided that division champions would host a playoff game no matter their record. That year, Eastern Division champion New York (10-6) hosted Orlando (10-6) despite the Predators having the head-to-head tiebreaker over the Dragons. Orlando won.
Aside from New York hosting Orlando in 2005 (the first year of conferences mattering), it worked out perfectly for the league as the top-seeded teams in each conference (Colorado and Georgia) played in ArenaBowl XIX. Then the AFL got greedy and expanded the postseason from eight teams to 12. This allowed two 7-9 teams (Utah and Chicago) into the playoffs from the American Conference, but booted 8-8 Columbus Destroyers and 7-9 Tampa Bay Storm (had head-to-head tiebreaker over Utah) only because both were in the stronger conference. It marked the first time in league history that teams would've made the playoffs in the original model didn't get a chance to play in the postseason. That year, the 7-9 Rush won the ArenaBowl.
In 2007, the top 12 teams based on record made the postseason (though a 7-9 team appeared in the ArenaBowl). A year later, three 6-10 teams made the postseason from the American Conference, while two 8-8 teams from the National were left out. One of those 6-10 teams actually hosted a playoff game and another made it to the American Conference championship game.
After the AFL skipped the 2009 season and returned in 2010, it decreased from 12 playoff teams to eight (four from each conference). Even though the league had the team with the best-record remaining host the ArenaBowl in 2010 and 2011, it still maintained the importance on conferences and division winners. Thus in both 2010 and 2011, a team with a worse record hosted a team with a better record in the opening round. In 2010, a 10-6 Tulsa team hosted an 11-5 Tampa Bay squad. Last year, a 10-8 Cleveland team hosted the 11-7 Georgia Force. In both cases, the team with the better record (the road team) won each contest.
There's a chance that the South Division champion this season will have the same or worse record than its opponent. In addition, up to three National Conference playoff teams will have non-winning or losing records while potentially two American Conference teams will not just have winning records, but ten or more wins missing out on the postseason.
Imagine how the Chicago Rush fans feel when the team beats Milwaukee and Cleveland to end the season with an 11-7 record only to see up to three 8-10 teams make it from the other conference.
Through 18 weeks, this is what the 2012 playoffs would look like if the postseason started today.
|
AMERICAN CONFERNCE
|
|
#4 Jacksonville (8-8) at #1 Philadelphia (14-3) East Division champion
|
|
#3 Georgia (8-8) at #2 New Orleans (8-8) current South Division leader
|
|
NATIONAL CONFERENCE
|
|
#4 San Jose (11-6) at #1 San Antonio (13-3) - Central Division champion
|
|
#3 Utah (11-5) at #2 Arizona (12-4) - current West Division leader
|
If, however, the AFL based its playoffs on overall record like it did from 1987-2004, this is what the playoffs would look like. Spokane has the best win-loss percentage in common games among Georgia, New Orleans and Jacksonville (as well as beating Jacksonville and New Orleans head to head).
|
BASED ON RECORD
|
|
#8 New Orleans (8-8) at #1 Philadelphia (14-3)
|
|
#7 Spokane (8-8) at #2 San Antonio (13-3)
|
|
#6 Chicago (9-6) at #3 Arizona (12-4)
|
|
#5 San Jose (11-6) at #4 Utah (11-5)
|
If the league based it on record and gave each division champion a home game, it would look like this. New Orleans would get the four seed despite the four teams seeded below it having better records only because the VooDoo won its weak division.
|
BASED ON RECORD WITH EACH DIVISION CHAMPION HOSTING A PLAYOFF GAME
|
|
#8 Spokane (8-8) at #1 Philadelphia (14-3)
|
|
#7 Chicago (9-6) at #2 San Antonio (13-3)
|
|
#6 San Jose (11-6) at #3 Arizona (12-4)
|
|
#5 Utah (11-5) at #4 New Orleans (8-8)
|
This season proves that the league should reconsider going back to allowing just the teams with the top records into the postseason and dump the importance on the conferences. They won't, but they should because this is just embarrassing.
The current playoff format is like those parents that don't want to keep score for their kids and fight with the coaches to bench the good players for their kids that tie their own shoes. This is pro sports and the best should be rewarded with postseason berths. Sorry Chicago and Spokane, you had good seasons, but we're going to go in a different direction with teams that weren't as good as you were on the field. Thanks for playing.
Andy Lopusnak is an 11-year AFL front office veteran, spending time with the Tampa Bay Storm, San Diego Riptide and Grand Rapids Rampage. He works as a statistician for NFL and college sports for CBS Sports and is a freelance photographer. Lopusnak received two Bachelor of Arts degrees from the University of South Florida and has been a fan of ArenaBall since its inception.
