| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Novie |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 05:28:44
I got to thinking after reading about Nashville and SJ finishing 3 and 5 in the league....how about this:
Team still make playoffs based on Conference standings. They then go into a 16-team bracket, NCAA style....or you could stick with the lowest vs. highest seed all the way through.
This year, under this format, 1st round matchups would have been:
Buffalo - NYI (no change)
Detroit - TBay
Nash - NYR
Anaheim - Calgary (Rematch '06)
SJ - Atl (lowest ranking Division Winner)
Dallas - Minny
NJ - Pitt (Race for the division, then play each other anyway!)
Van - Ott
The longest travel concern would have been Van-Ott, but teams are given travel days anyway...something I'm really sure that Buff/NYI and Ott/Pitt need *sarcasm*
Right now Nash-SJ couldn't be any further apart...
Go Sens
Crosby is God
Tucker is a douche |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 10:08:39
They do need to change the setup in my opinion. Teams are seeded higher than other teams with less points during the regular season because they finish higher in their division? It's nonsense. Teams should be rewarded for their regular season efforts by being ranked overall, not by division as there are weak divisions.
How much difference would it really make now with the parity in the league as Babs said? Who knows but it's the only proper way. There would always have to be two conferences though. East vs West. The league wouldn't allow it otherwise as it's a method of keeping viewers across the two countries interested. Or that's the theory.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 09:45:35
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Novie, I like the idea in principle. I like that 2 teams from the same conference could play each other. But unfortunately most of the people out east would not like it if there were two west teams so therefore the NHL wouldn't like it. It's about money.
Also Saku, downsizing is cool too but again it's about money. At today's player wages, most the teams make their profits from the Playoffs. Cut those teams in half and suddenly you have 26% more of the league only breaking even at best (probably losing money) Especially the American market.
Would the West like it if there were two teams in the east in the finals?
"Go chase headlights!" |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 08:53:02
This will never happen. The only way that this (using entire league standings) scheme would be fair and work is if all the teams had comparably fair schedules during the regular season. That means that all teams would have to have some sort of comparably fair schedules which would have them play a lot more inter-conference games and we all know that this will never happen due to travel costs.
It's not even fair the way it is now. Playoffs are determined by Conference standings although team schedules within the Conference are certainly not comparably fair. Teams in easier divisions have a much easier time in making the playoffs and ranking higher in the Conference. This schedule issue is the first thing that the league should address (way before even discussing more inter-conference games).
|
| Novie |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 07:50:22
As for downsizing...no way! Look at baseball where you can be pretty much done half-way through the season. More teams...same thing. Everybody gets in, so why do the regular season. I think 50% of your league's teams in the playoffs is a good fit. Maybe not for NFL where it's one-and-done, but basketball and hockey seem to work well with it.
Go Sens
Crosby is God
Tucker is a douche |
| manninm |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 13:45:28
quote:
Originally posted by Patchy
Except how would that work with 3 divisions in each conference?
~~Go Leafs Go~~
2 divisions, 28 teams total (get rid of Florida and Carolina!!!)
I know it's not realistic, but it's a nice thought
Because the demands on a goalie are mostly mental, it means that for a goalie, the biggest enemy is himself." ~Ken Dryden |
| leigh |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 13:07:18
Novie, I like the idea in principle. I like that 2 teams from the same conference could play each other. But unfortunately most of the people out east would not like it if there were two west teams so therefore the NHL wouldn't like it. It's about money.
Also Saku, downsizing is cool too but again it's about money. At today's player wages, most the teams make their profits from the Playoffs. Cut those teams in half and suddenly you have 26% more of the league only breaking even at best (probably losing money) Especially the American market. |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 13:03:18
But see to me that makes no sense. Downsizing the playoffs makes the ranking system useless. The top four teams in the West were (by points) Detroit, Anaheim, Nashville and San Jose, seeded in that order. So Detroit plays SJ and Anaheim plays Nashville. What's the difference? If I'm SJ, I'd much rather end up in fourth and play Detroit than end up playing Anaheim or Nashville so where's the motivation to finish any better? The smaller the playoffs become, the less gap there is between top and bottom and while less teams make the playoffs, it eliminates the whole point of ranking them. Now where we're in an age where anyone can win at any time, the ranking-by-Conference system already is useless. I'm not saying that because there are ranks there should never be upsets, but when you consider the fact that in each of the last 7 years, a seventh seed has eliminated a second seed in the first round and that last year, the eighth seed made it out of the West, there is no REAL benefit to finishing third or fourth or fifth etc (other than the odd Calgary-esque team who plays worse than my Atom team on the road). This equilibrium is a direct result of the salary cap and while it's great that there is more league-wide competitiveness (at the All-Star break, 27 teams were either in or within 10 points of a playoff spot), this same competitiveness makes playoff seeding useless. I think that a serious look needs to be taken at re-evaluating the effectiveness of the current seeding system and I would love to see change. |
| Patchy |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 12:52:11
Except how would that work with 3 divisions in each conference?
~~Go Leafs Go~~ |
| manninm |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 12:33:26
quote:
Originally posted by Saku Steen
I think that it shoukd mostly stay the same. Just that there only needs to be 8 teams in the playoffs. 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3.
I've figured it out, the guys gotta play like girls!
I agree. I'm all for downsizing the playoffs, putting more importance on your regular season performance. I think it'd be kinda cool to do it like the old days too. Have 12 teams make it, the top 3 in each division. 2 plays 3 in a 3 game series, winner plays the 1 in a 5 game, then the conference and stanley cup finals are 7 games.
Because the demands on a goalie are mostly mental, it means that for a goalie, the biggest enemy is himself." ~Ken Dryden |
| Saku Steen |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 11:19:06
I think that it shoukd mostly stay the same. Just that there only needs to be 8 teams in the playoffs. 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3.
I've figured it out, the guys gotta play like girls! |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 07:41:32
I think that the best team issue goes back and forth, at one time the East was very strong and the West was weak.
With the new salary cap I think the league needs to take some time to balance out, there will be no exceptionally good or bad teams in the future.
I like the Idea for the playoffs Novie, this way you could see some old match ups in the finals such as Toronto vs Montreal, or some new ones like San Jose vs Nashville. With the current set up this will never happen...
There are: People that make things happen, people that watch things happen, and people that wonder what happened, who are you... |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 07:05:20
I like the idea but I think it's too much of a radical change in the way the playoffs run for it to ever be implemented. Being a fan of the Sharks who got the major shaft in this, I think that teams who do better in the regular season should be rewarded. Somehow playing Nashville in the first round after finishing 5th in the league doesn't seem like a great deal. It's obvious that the West is stronger and I think that they should be rewarded for it. I looked this up a while ago, so it may not be 100% accurate, but if I remember correctly, only 3 Western teams are under .500 against Eastern teams since the lockout. SJ for one is 17-3. |
| sjtrufan |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 05:38:43
It sounds good but I think in the end it would defeat the purpose of having the best from each conference play for the Cup. Under your proposed format I'm almost certain we would end up with two western confernce teams in the finals. I like the idea though |
