Recently, I've had conversations with several people regarding H2H playoffs. In general, the issue is anything can happen in a given week; thus, the season's best teams can often be eliminated due to any number of circumstances. For instance, the "silly season" usually spawns at least several well producing bench players as coaches rest star players, injuries run rampant and bad teams play anybody & everybody.
Is it a true test of a managers skill to have everything come down to a small sample size? Shouldn't the roughly 20 odd weeks prior to the playoffs not offer any other advantages besides often meaningless seedings?
I do participate in one league where the participants follow the no-playoff H2H format - the Octagon. In year's past, the league has even given the choice on which format to play, yet we often have gone the non-playoff route. The final standings have usually benefited the overall better quality teams instead of a team that barely squeaks in and then has their best run of the season in a 3 week span (which I've done - 2009 Bonanza).
Before I delve into all my counterarguments to such notions as no playoff H2H is too akin to roto or some good teams hit their stride when healthy down the stretch, I'm curious to hear other opinions first. Does the current system bother you? Have you fielded a largely strong team for much of the season and then had that one down week whereby you were eliminated? What say you?