Discussion: Playoff expansion

As there was no objection to re-alignment, the divisions will be altered in the next sim, with the following teams in each division (names TBA):

• Seattle, Antelope Valley, Appalachian, Highland
• Brick, Brooklyn, Mepkin Abbey, Houston
• Maui, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Norfolk

We will repeat this process in ten seasons, before the start of the 2040 season.

Now, let's talk about playoff expansion. Currently, we have four teams qualify, and with the old division structure, that almost always meant that two teams from the (old) Zotti division would qualify: Seattle and whichever team finished 2nd. I think that the new division structure will increase competition, and create new rivalries. 

As you know, we currently have two openings, the most we have ever had. Part of the reason we have openings is owner engagement. If your team isn't competitive, it's hard to remain interested. To help increase interest, I'm suggesting we expand the playoffs to a second wild card team, and have a short 1- or 3-game wild card game/series to have more teams active and in the hunt come September. Going back to last season, I posted this comment before the final sim of the regular season:

Let's visit another imaginary universe, where there are two Wild Card teams. While Maui and Antelope Valley are fighting for the division title, both are still in play for the final Wild Card spot. 

In that race, Appalachian has a four game lead with six to play, but Antelope Valley (or Maui), Shackamaxon, and even Houston are still alive as the final sim approaches. All want their chance to face Brick in the Wild Card round, but, instead, all are planning for 2030 and beyond.

If we had a second wild card team last season, half the league still had a shot at a playoff spot going into the final sim of the year.I refuse to think that's a bad thing. In the past, we've had 90+ win teams get left out of the postseason (before we had re-alignment and the Wild Card, there was a 100+ win team that was left home).

Adding a second wild card team will shake up the postseason. Here's my idea:

(In that screenshot, seeds 2 and 3 aren't shown, but they're below the Bye @ Seed #1. Both 2 and 3 would get byes and play each other in the League Championship.)

With this change, the three division winners would qualify, and the next two best teams would play a 1- or 3-game play-in game/series to qualify for the League Championship, and the right to get stomped by (most likely) Seattle in that round. This would reward the division winners by giving them a short break (to rest their players, and setup their playoff rotation), and add an exciting win-or-die game or series. For the purposes of this screenshot, I made it a 1-1-1 best of three series, but a one-game play-in is also an option. We can even have a three game series where seed 4 hosts all three games against seed 5, really stacking the odds against a possible 80-win team that squeaks in to seed #5.

There will be more competition, and more competitive teams later in the season each year.

I have tested this configuration in a test league, and it works well. Sometimes the Wild Card winner gets on a roll and wins it all, but usually they don't. The three division winners get an extra couple of days as a reward, and then the second round will have the #1 seed play the wild card team (regardless of what division they came from).

I can think of one downside to this: player development. Last season, had my team been eliminated in mid-to-late August, so I decided to play some prospects in September to give them a taste of the majors. Had my team been in the hunt for a playoff spot, I might not have let a prospect like Jesus Mejia start 14 games in September. Still, that's a good problem to have, I think.

What do you think? Should we add a second Wild Card team, and, if so, should the Wild Card round be a three-game series, or a single play-in game?