Had a bit of a brainwave today regarding the HCA in the finals argument and it led to me thinking about how we could 'optimise' the competition formats in this game in general. I'm aware that not everyone will agree with all of these suggestions, but I'll never know which ones people are keen on until I pitch them;
Two leg aggregate series for the league finals and relegation play-off
One game at your home court, one game away. Highest combined score wins, with extra time if the combined score is a tie. It would take away some of the tactical rock-paper-scissors of a three game series, but it would ensure that the strongest team over the two leg series wins, no 'HCA' excuses.
Ideally, the team with the better regular season record would get the choice of which of the two legs is played at their home court.
A fairer B3 format?
The current B3 round robin format has a big element of luck in it, as some teams who have a shot of winning the competition might end up having to play other title contenders away from home, and end up 6-2 and just outside the final 32 through little fault of their own.
My solution is to make the round robin format a 'group stage' similar to the one used in European Football. The full format in my head is;
Qualifying round: Teams are seeded based on world ranking, and how they qualified for the tournament, with league winners seeded above cup winners, and cup winners seeded above former champions who didn't win a league or cup to qualify. The highest seeds go directly through to the group stage, and the rest play a one-game neutral venue qualifying game to get into the group stage. 128 teams will qualify for the group stage all up.
Group stage: 32 groups of four teams each will be drawn. Ideally, the seeding system used to determine which teams went directly through to the group stage will also be used to seed the group draw and ensure that there's no 'easy' or 'hard' groups. Each group will play a double round-robin; teams will play the other three teams in their group once at home and once away for a total of six games. Top two teams in each group at the end of the sixth round advance.
Round of 64: Group stage winners will be given home court advantage, and will be randomly drawn to play against group stage runners up. One game, winners go through to the round of 32 and from there, the B3 format will be the same as the current one, with the round of 32 onwards being a single elimination tournament played at neutral venues.
Are 13 week seasons an option?
If we were to scrap the all-star break that few people care about in it's current incarnation anyway, it may be possible to squeeze the season into a 13 week cycle without sacrificing anything. If we use the aforementioned two-leg aggregate system for the finals, playing the two legs on consecutive days, much like how games two and three are played on consecutive days presently, allows us to squeeze the season into a 13 week cycle. Another option is to have only two teams in each conference make the play-off rounds, which might put more empathises on getting good regular season results if you want a chance to win the championship. As for the cup, there's no country in BB right now that needs anything longer than 12 rounds to be able to fit every active team into the tournament comfortably (in fact even Spain and Italy can squeeze all of their active users into an 11 round cup right now thanks to recent user losses :()
The B3 format I mentioned above can be tweaked to fit into a 13 week schedule by removing the round of 64 and having just the group stage winners progress straight into the round of 32. And I'm sure that National Tournaments could be streamlined to fit within a 13 week schedule too, but I'm running out of character space so I won't elaborate... thoughts?
Last edited by Jay (OTT) at 7/2/2015 7:28:04 AM