The Perfect Post-Season

After consulting with "Sir Boogie," I've decided that it's time the world knows what the most ideal professional post-season would look like.
College sports are exempt from this speculation, since there are so many teams playing in so many conferences made up of various levels of talent. You can guess how I feel about the BCS, though.
Anyway, here are the rules for a post-season tournament and how it should be populated.:
1. Six teams are the ideal number, per conference, that should be admitted into the playoffs.
Over half of the NBA makes the playoffs after a lengthy regular season. After an even lengthier regular season, only eight major league teams play in October. I think this makes six, the number the NFL has chosen, the best route to go. If this were the case, fewer sub-.500 basketball squads would get thumped out of the first round and more late-season baseball games would actually matter. Six teams would also require that...
2. First round byes are a good idea.
In every league, and every season, at least one of the division champions stands above the rest. Again, the NFL got this one right. Aside from the fact that there's no real way to group a twelve-team bracket without a round of byes, this would make the later-season games matter for the top teams in each league or conference as well. This would add a round to the MLB playoffs, but that would just mean that the season should end about two weeks earlier. Let's just face it, though... 162 games is just ridiculous. Sure, that would change the frame of reference for statistics, but I think a few banned substances have already done that. Get rid of some interleague play and add two teams to each side of the bracket. Oh yeah, you have to win your division to get a bye, but other than that...
3. Division has no impact on seeding.
This would serve as a replacement for the NBA's already impressive "Top Four" rule, which wouldn't work with my rule #2. If the Phillies are the second-best team in the East, but they have the second- or third-best record in the National League, they'll be the third seed in the playoffs, hosting the number six team in the first round. I'll allow that division winners can be seeded no lower than fourth to keep the spirit of the "Top Four" rule alive. No more of baseball's "no interdivision play in the first round" junk either. Whoever your seed dictates is who you play.
3b. Brackets are solid, i.e. the first seed plays the winner of the 4-5 game, and the second seed plays the winner of the 3-6 game.
4. Seven-Game series are encouraged, and the 2-2-1-1-1 format should be required.
In case you haven't caught on, I hate the Major League playoff format. Too many teams play too many meaningless games, and then the eight teams that are left play in an odd setup in the post-season. The five-game series favors only specific teams, and not always the best teams. Two good pitchers can buy a wild-card team a 2-0 lead with two home games in which they can steal a short series from the best team that doesn't play in their division. Even in the seven-game MLB series, one win in the higher-seeded team's park is all that's needed to win with the 2-3-2 home field format. Again, the NBA has the right idea. The road team should have to win at least twice on the road, or it's not really a home-facility advantage, is it?
5. All seeding, qualification, home-facility, and tie-breaking procedures should involve on-field results.
NO, BUD SELIG, THE ALL-STAR GAME DOESN'T COUNT. Also, I don't ever want strength of schedule to come into play because it is a fake statistic made up by the BCS and Satan when college football sold its collective soul in the late 1990's. This is one area where major league baseball got tie-breakers right, although not completely. The following tie-breaker order should be used for any type of tie:
--->Head-to-head results
--->Record against all teams qualified, or tied, for playoff spots.
--->If within division, division record
--->If not or if still tied, conference record
--->Play a game.
If at any point a team is removed from the tie, start the process over until the tie is resolved. The NFL would protest to playing a whole game and risking injuries to break a tie, but I really don't care. Their tie-breaking procedures are as awful as the rest of their system is awesome. That said, it would be allowable for only half or a quarter to be played to break a football tie. It's important that the steps remain in the above order because I think the most effective way to break a tie is through head-to-head results.

Now that all my rules have been laid out, I will use the current NBA standings to show you what the 2010 NBA Playoffs SHOULD look like if the season were to end right now, current games obviously excluded from records.

East
3 Atlanta hosts 6 Miami (winner faces 2 Orlando), 4 Boston hosts 5 Milwaukee (winner faces 1 Cleveland)

West
3 Dallas hosts 6 Portland (winner faces 2 Denver), 4 Phoenix hosts 5 Utah (winner faces 1 LA Lakers)

Even better, we can go back to last season and find out what the REAL playoffs should've looked like for baseball.

NL
3 Colorado hosts 6 Florida (winner faces 2 Philadelphia), 4 Colorado hosts 5 St. Louis (winner faces 1 LA Dodgers)

AL
3 Boston hosts 6 Detroit (winner faces 2 LA Angels), 4 Minnesota hosts 5 Texas (winner faces 1 NY Yankees)

Now this might not make that big of a difference to you, but consider the number seven teams from each league last year.
Atlanta went into their season-ending four-game series with the Nationals out of contention, but, under this system, they would've only finished one game out of the post-season even after getting swept by those Nationals.
I think they might've played that series differently had my rules been in place.
Also, Seattle would've been only a half-game out of sixth place, instead of 12 games out of their division race and 11 out of the wild card.
Thus their season-ending series with Texas would have been big instead of a glorified AAA series.
More teams with more vested interest in late-season games, that's my mission... Vote Jeremy Timmerman, Commissioner of Sports 2010.