It bugged me for a while actually, but now I realize it bugs more people (https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/leagues-playoffs/tel-season-19-playoffs-25423/msg208121/#new)

So my simple request for MI is to change the playoffs system to the only way it would make sense: Strongest vs Weakest
That is:

Quote(1) vs  (8 )
(4) vs  (5)                           
                       
(3) vs  (6)
(2) vs  (7)

This way in the semi-finals (1) can face (4) [or (5)] instead (3), which raises the chances for (1) to make it to the finals.

For others who wonder, the current system is like that:

Quote(1) vs  (8 )
(3) vs  (6)

(4) vs  (5)
(2) vs  (7)

I already contacted MI about this. But he's not sure he can handle it manually. Maybe it needs more effort and work to change it. We will see for next playoffs, I believe MI will find a way.

We are all on the same result. It needs a change because previous system was just wrong.

I would do it for the next season. (probably will need a reminder before reaching PO)

But on the subject, aren't you favoring the #1 a lot? I think if like other real-life leagues, we had every player play with every other player with limited number of games, then your proposal would work.
But we're in a system which a player can play more games with some and less with others. So activity plays a role here. In other words reaching #1 spot is easier in our system (because you can play more games)

Now if you become 1, you play with #8 and then with #4. Don't you find it a bit more rewarding?

Bigger reward encourages to fight for #1 spot. Now you have to choose between easier semi-final (#2) and scheme picking advantage in possible final (#1). Someone may be happier with #2 spot and not aim for #1.

Activity plays a role in deciding which players get in playoffs in the first place
Activity plays a role in deciding who gets to pick 3 of 5 schemes in playoffs
Now activity shouldn't play a role in deciding who gets easier way to the final? The system as a whole rewards for activity so why make it "fair" in this little aspect?

Activity only plays a soft role on who jumps the ladder.

As you can see below (image taken now), with 26 games I'm ahead of guys who played 75, 45, 60, and 42 games. I'm not far from 2nd either. Moreover, after playing many games (>50) we start earning much less points and then it becomes really irrelevant whether someone plays 100 or 200 games.
Last season Lukz ended 1st with 142 games which was the least of everyone who made playoffs.

Reminder

Thanks for the reminder. Made it like the suggested way. (only leagues PO, doesn't affect cups)

Quote from: MonkeyIsland on October 18, 2014, 06:07 PM
I would do it for the next season. (probably will need a reminder before reaching PO)

Quote from: Almog on December 05, 2014, 10:56 AM
Reminder

Quote from: MonkeyIsland on December 05, 2014, 02:59 PM
Thanks for the reminder. Made it like the suggested way. (only leagues PO, doesn't affect cups)

xD