“You’re the best around”: an argument for playoffs and tournaments

Abstract

Recent articles, including those by Dixon and Torres and Hager, criticize tournament playoffs, primarily for reasons of fairness and integrity. Many suggest that playoff and tournament prominence reflect monetary and entertainment interests rather than the pursuit of athletic excellence. Nevertheless, tournament playoffs are increasingly popular. While the concerns are serious, in this paper I defend the overlooked value of playoffs and tournaments. Playoff critics employ too narrow a conception of the best team and too limited a view of excellence. Rather, playoffs and seasons highlight distinct and valuable conceptions of athletic excellence. To better capture this, I consider two alternative championship formats: the hybrid system and championship pluralism. The hybrid system includes a playoff informed by the regular season. Despite its apparent advantages, I reject the hybrid approach. Instead, I propose championship pluralism as a preferred championship model.

Keywords:

• Playoffs
• tournaments
• athletic excellence
• interpretivism
• championship pluralism

Notes

1. For instance, Fraleigh (1984) proposes ends of the contest that pertain to the participants, the sport contest, and the institutionalized purpose.

2. A season that greatly deviates from the norm may prove an exception to this claim, as with Phil Jackson’s criticism of the 1999 San Antonio Spurs’ NBA championship. That season was shortened from 82 to 50 games due to a lockout.

3. Furthermore, pressure builds as a team or player advances in a tournament playoff, allowing them to be accustomed to it. Rarely is the highest degree of pressure encountered immediately in the playoff. I owe clarification on the matter of performance under pressure in playoffs to conversations with both Shawn Klein and Uwe Plebuch.

4. I owe this point, and development of the related ideas, to John Russell.

5. I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this application of Kretchmar’s work.

6. For example, see Torres and Hager (2011, 50).

7. At the time home field advantage alternated between leagues. It did not depend on regular season results.

8. For instance, see Sam Mellinger’s 30 August 2014 column in the Kansas City Star: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/sam-mellinger/article1333393.html

9. An anonymous reviewer notes that some pluralist ideals are currently recognized, such as the celebration of NCAA conference season and tournament championships. However, for most players and fans, especially in professional sports, conference and division titles are of comparatively little value. The National Hockey League is likely the North American sport that comes closest to pluralism with its Presidents Trophy, awarded to the team with the best regular season record. However, few hockey partisans believe this trophy compares favorably to the Stanley Cup.

10. This paper has greatly benefitted from comments at various points, including those from Krista Thomason, Eric Schaaf, Max Robitzsch, Ken Pendleton, Craig Carley, John Russell, Paul Gaffney, and two anonymous reviewers. I thank Shawn Klein for a fruitful discussion of the topic on his Sports Ethics podcast in October 2014, and also for his role in organizing an IAPS session on the paper at the 2015 Central Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association.