Ditch the Single-Eliminaton Playoff Games

The WNBA Playoffs got started yesterday with a pair of thrilling games.  Games that resulted in the elimination of the New York Liberty and Dallas Wings.  There are two more single-elimination games coming up before the best-of-five semifinals and WNBA Finals.

This has been the WNBA's playoff format since 2016, when they ditched conference designations and simply had the top eight teams qualify for the playoffs.  That was done, in part, because the Western Conference was far better at the time, so the good Western Conference teams knocked each other out before the survivor took on a weaker Eastern Conference opponent in the WNBA Finals.  And the change did exactly what it was intended to do.  The Minnesota Lynx and Los Angeles Sparks played each other in the first two WNBA Finals under the new format, with both going five games.

Under the current format, the top two seeds receive a double-bye into the semifinals, while the 3 and 4 seeds host the second set of single-elimination games against the winners of the 5-8 and 6-7 matchups.  So it's a huge advantage for the 1 and 2 seeds.  But is it fair to everybody else?  Imagine finishing tied for the second-best record in the league, but ending up as the 3-seed because of a tiebreaker...and ending up in the single-elimination round as a result!

While they're what make the NCAA Tournament so great, the multiple single-elimination games seem especially cruel in a professional league.  Especially when six of the eight playoff teams would need to win at least one (and four of them would need to win two) just to make it to the point where the "playoffs" actually start.  Some reward for making the playoffs, only to have them end in 40 minutes!

WNBA coaches and players seem to be in agreement that the one-and-done playoff games have run their course and it's time for them to go.  They'd prefer to have every round be a series.  While anybody can beat anybody in a single game, the better team is much more likely to prevail in a series.  And isn't that the entire point?

And, with the WNBA's CBA set to expire after this season, it seems like the two single-elimination playoff rounds will be eliminated moving forward.  The question is what they'll replace them with, although you'd figure a best-of-three series would make the most sense.

Is 3-5-5 the best format?  I don't know!  But it's certainly preferable to the current format, where the top two seeds only have to win six games to win the championship.  Ideally, the WNBA Finals would be best-of-seven, but one thing at a time.  And having three best-of-five rounds is too much of a jump from single elimination.  Which is why a best-of-three quarterfinal round is the perfect compromise.

There's some concern in WNBA circles about how a best-of-three series would be structured, mainly regarding the travel.  In the past, when they had a best-of-three, it was 1-1-1, which means you're traveling after every game.  But a 1-2 format means that the higher-seeded team is starting the series on the road.  There are pros and cons to both.  But, frankly, either is preferable to a single game.

I'm not suggesting they go back to the old format, though.  There are only 12 teams in the WNBA, so there's really no need to seed the playoffs by conference...especially since the "West" is still significantly stronger (five of the eight playoff teams were from the West, and the eighth-seeded Liberty got in with a 12-20 record).  So, I propose you continue seeding the teams 1-8, with four best-of-three quarterfinal series.

Going to a three-game series wouldn't add that much time to the playoff schedule, either, since the single-elimination games are played as doubleheaders and those two rounds are both done in one day.  More importantly, however, it would add at least four and as many as eight more playoff games....and eight teams would have the opportunity to host playoff games.  That's more revenue from both ticket sales and TV.

If the travel thing is such a concern, they could have the higher-seeded team host all three games, but I'd propose using the 1-2 model.  That way everybody gets a home game but the travel is still reduced.  (They could even schedule Games 2 & 3 back-to-back if that works better for TV.)  Then, just in case there's an upset, I'd reseed the teams for the best-of-five semifinals.

Or, if having the top two-seeds keep their first-round byes is important, they could still do that and have two best-of-three first round series instead of four.  Of course, that would mean reducing the number of playoff teams from eight to six, which makes it highly unlikely.

Then there's a third alternative.  The WNBA has the Commissioner's Cup now, which is a standalone regular season tournament.  The winner of that is likely going to be a playoff team anyway, but maybe winning the Commissioner's Cup gets you an automatic berth just in case.  Consider it like the Champions League.  The defending champion gets an automatic spot, but, if they qualify through their domestic league, that defending champion spot doesn't get used.  Same thing here.  If the Commissioner's Cup winner is among the top eight, there's no difference.  If they're not, it's the top seven and the Commissioner's Cup winner.

What's ironic here is that the WNBA's single-elimination games were part of the inspiration for the NBA play-in tournament.  I didn't think I'd like the play-in tournament, but it actually wasn't nearly as bad as I thought.  That could be an option for the WNBA, too.  If there's a tie for the last playoff spot (as happened this season), instead of using tiebreakers, they play a win-and-in elimination game.  So it wouldn't completely be the end of the single-elimination games.

Of course, the WNBA isn't the only league that currently has single-elimination playoff games.  It's all single-elimination in the NFL, while the NBA has the play-in tournament and MLB has had the single-elimination Wild Card Games for a decade now.  But even MLB may be shifting away from it.  Last year's eight-team playoff format was because of the shortened season, but I also think it was a test-run for going to a best-of-three Wild Card Series.

It's funny how I like the single-elimination Wild Card Game in MLB, but I think it's time for the WNBA to ditch the single-elimination playoff rounds, even though the MLB season is nearly four times as long as the WNBA season.  That's entirely the point, though.  In baseball, you have 162 games to prove yourself.  In the WNBA, you only have 36.  When you're only playing 36 regular season games, you don't have much margin for error.  Especially when your first playoff game might be do-or-die and could end up being your only one!