A quick google search reveals the latter part of this statement to be 100% true while there's a good chance the former is aswell.
I like the idea of a top 4 a little more, means it's more likely that matches at the backend of the season will mean something, and it makes those middle teams just that little more competitive as they jostle for the spot. Which exact method though for top 4, I'm not too sure.
That's one way of looking at it, but what if you're only just 4th because of a really small difference in quotient? Obviously then 3rd and 4th are practically the same in skill level, just one minor moment in the season went against 4th where they got unlucky. I believe someone proposed a method meaning 4th would have to win 3 games to get it? I think that's a fair enough trade off.
If you can't beat the team that finishes fourth, you don't deserve to win either. It makes the competition more interesting.
Make it a top 27. If you can't beat the team that came last in Burkey Cup then you don't deserve to win.
Should scissor-paper-rock for ladder order, then skip straight to a top 9 finals system to decide each system.
