u/slacker5000

TLDR version:

Do you think best-of-three playoffs give advantage to certain type of teams?

The long version:

We have 10 teams (redrafted) competing in 1xRound Robin for playoff spots.

Top 4 is admitted to playoffs, where the Top 1 player freely chooses their opponent from Top 2-4, forming one side of the playoff bracket. Other side of the bracket is formed by the two remaining two teams, and winners of each bracket meet in the final.

All playoff matchups are resolved in best-of-three fashion. Previously we have always had best-of-one playoffs.

Now there is discussion about whether best of 3 "makes sense" and if it gives unfair advantage to bashy teams who can spend the first game of three fouling the opposing agile team, and then play for victory in the second and third game.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

EDIT:

thanks for all the answers already. we play digital, so the added weight of Bo3 does not feel huge.

in fact, in my other digital league the standard is to play 3x round robin (27 matches) with virgin teams + top4 bo3 playoffs (max 6 matches) = total 33 matches during the team lifespan.

i feel that 27-33 matches gives team an opportunity to bloom nicely in terms of SPP without the TV going too much out of hand.

i guess the attraction of best-of-3 comes from NHL/NBA style sports where the playoffs are played in best-of-7 format. the European best-of-1 format feels a bit random in terms of really figuring out which team is better.

that said, American football doesn't really conform to this because due to the hazardous nature of the game the players are only able to withstand a way smaller amount of games compared to ice hockey or basketball players... so in the NFL everything is Bo1.

in our last (top 8) playoffs there was much frustration because so many games were decided by random dice roll as the game time expired. this is one of the reason we are trying Bo3.

i think a post-season game should never end in a coin toss, it's just horrible game design. one way to do it would be to give the victory to the defender if the receiver of the ball fails to score during OT, or to whoever scores first TD of the OT. this way overtime would guarantee producing a winner.

What is your favourite amount of matches in a Blood Bowl campaign? With a "campaign" I mean a series of competitions involving returning teams and coaches.

In my BB2 group we play 3x round robin with 10 teams, and a TOP 4 playoff bracket with best-of-three rounds. In this format teams get 3x9=27 round robin matches, that allows the teams to develop quite nicely. Once this campaign / season ends, all teams are discarded.

In my BB3 group we play 1x round robin with 10 teams, and a top 8 bracket with single game rounds, but we allow redrafting to the next season. In this format the team development is more limited, but through redrafting many teams are going through many seasons so you could call it a forever campaign at this point.

What are your thoughts on this general topic? I'm interested in all kind of viewpoints. For example, are some teams at advantage/disadvantage in a longer running campaign. How does redrafting (or lack of it) affect things?