array(2) {
[0]=>
string(815) "
select r.*,
rc.info,
t.title as threadtitle,
u.username as username,
u.anonymous as useranonymous,
`f`.`value` AS `flairvalue`,
`ft`.`name` AS `flairname`,
`ft`.`colour` AS `flaircolour`,
`ft`.`icon` AS `flairicon`
from reply as r
join thread as t on t.id = r.threadid
join replycontent as rc on rc.replyid = r.id
join user as u on u.id = r.userid
left join `flair` `f` on `f`.`userid` = `u`.`id` and `f`.`categoryid` = `t`.`categoryid`
left join `flairoption` `ft` on `ft`.`id` = `f`.`flairoptionid`
where r.businessid = :businessId
and r.threadid = :threadId
group by r.id
order by r.utcdated desc
limit 0,50
"
[1]=>
array(2) {
["businessId"]=>
int(1)
["threadId"]=>
int(36371)
}
}
Yeah, you'd do it 2-2-1, not 1-1-1-1-1. Pretty sure that's how the NBA did it back when the first round was only five games. And obviously the best-of-seven series are 2-2-1-1-1, not 1-1-1-1-1-1-1.
You could do best-of-five with the exact same travel as best-of-three.
The only drawback of that is the dramatically increased chance of the series ending with the away team winning.
Q:The problem with a best of 5 GF is that it would become a scheduling and travel nightmare. Can you imagine say NZ and Perth criss-crossing the continent for 5 games???
A
2 at home, fri / sun
2 away fri/sun
1 at home / ?
That's also what the WNBL does, although in their case each stage is just a single game, just like the WAFL.
For single games I think that's the fairest format. As soon as you go to multi game series the standard semi finals - finals makes more sense.