| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| PENSFAN8771 |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 05:57:31
I think there is an inherent lack of fairness in the playoff format where each division winner gets an automatic spot, not just in the playoffs, but in the top 3. If the playoffs were to begin today, The Hurricanes would make the playoffs and be the 3rd seed in the Eastern conference while the Rangers would be sitting at home, despite having an equal number of points and 2 games in hand. Yes, I think there ought to be an incentive to win your division, but when a team is winning wheir a division that plays a tier below the rest of the league, I can hardly think that they deserve that privelege. They play more games against non-contenders than anyone else and still get fewer points. I think we all know that this isn't because the division is so good that they all just beat up on each other. In an ideal world, the top 3 seeding would give incentive to fight for home ice among playoff-bound teams. I do think this has merit.
So, my argument is that you should have to qualify for the playoffs on your own terms in order to be able to take one of the top 3 seeds. If no team from a division is in the top eight, then they don't get to take a spot from an otherwise playoff bound team. Give divisional winners high seeds, because the seeding doesn't matter so much in the Stanley Cup playoffs, but don't take away an earned playoff berth from a deserving team.
What do you think? |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 15:36:15
Beans my man you have a point with the streaky / top 4 reward. I like. We are turning the NFL in to NHL. And NFL has most viewers in America. Cool, I like where this could go.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 15:12:49
With my idea, the season is not longer than it is today. If you read what I posted, I clearly said a shorter regular season by 8 games.
And, if 20 teams are in, it give a shot to the team getting hot near the end. Look at Pucks example and notice that Colorado missed the Playoffs last year by one point. They were the hotest team in hockey after the all star break last year. The went like 23-3-2 or something stupid.
Plus, it give a benefit to actually finnishing in a top 4 spot.
20 teams might be a bit much, but I totally loved the 5 games series. It was such good hockey to watch.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 14:36:21
When it comes to travel I am sure that the west teams pay more money than the east.
The Divisions, and Conferences are set up North/ South so that when you do travel you are not always changing time zones.
I sometimes wonder, what is wrong with what the NHL has now?
1.) not every team plays each other. More noteable this year when the Eastern Canadian teams do not play the Western Canadian teams.
2.) A team in the opposite conference could miss the playoffs, even though they have more points.
3.) A seeding advantage is given to the teams that win their division.
Making an 82 game schedule for 30 teams must be a massive undertaking, and it is possible that not everyone will be happy...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
| Alex |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 13:26:43
Tbar makes a strong point. The owners would have nothing doing with some of these proposals we are throwing out.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| tbar |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 13:21:03
Yes I clearly understand that they have enough money to cover travel expense.
If you owned the Sens would you rather have your team play 4 games in TO or would you rather them play 4 games in Vancouver?
It’s all about profit when you run business no matter what line of work.
|
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 12:02:48
As, both of us have clearly noticed, I am in the real world. If you don't have enough money to cover travel costs, don't own an NHL team, it's just common sense.
Ellis or Mason?
Go Preds Go! |
| tbar |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 11:54:44
They do have enough money but just like any other buisness you try to turn a profit not a loss....welcome to the real world. |
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 11:30:39
That match-up wouldn't be half bad. With the Beans' idea though. that wouldn't happen.
Ellis or Mason?
Go Preds Go! |
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 11:21:53
I liked the idea Beans brought up. i think the regular season is too long, it should be aroung 60-70 games. 20 teams would be a good mix in the playoffs but there would'nt be much of a battle to get into the post season.
Tbar, the way I see it is, if you don't have enough money, don't own an NHL team. end of story
Ellis or Mason?
Go Preds Go! |
| tbar |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 07:30:01
Still every team would have to play every team an equal amount of times to have a fair playing field for all the teams. The owners would never go for that. They’re still trying to make money. Traveling costs money.
Beans as far as 20 teams make playoffs that would take far too long to get a winner. Players would be too banged up. The Stanley cup finals would have half of the teams AHL club in their line up. If anything cut it down into a MLB style format. Okay maybe not that would be too short.
However if 20 teams make the playoffs Regular season play would mean even less then it does already. Plus it waters down the playoffs first couple rounds.
|
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 01/24/2008 : 06:18:03
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
Not only do I agree with Tbar, but imagine being Ottawa in the example you mentioned. All of a sudden, just because the Islanders failed to get 3 more pts, you have to travel back and forth to Denver to start off your playoffs. Is that fair?
There are more than 1 way to look at it. Ottawa should have won more games so they did not have to play Colorado.
If the idea is to have the best, even if you select the top 16 in the league there is not much difference if you used the cross over...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 21:51:04
quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaSeal
No divisions or conferences. Top 16 teams make the playoffs. Period.
No cup for Dino, what a shame
Damn straight!!!
And Alex, your arguement on Travel is pretty weak. Consider that New York to Denver is about 1780 miles in distance. Edmonton to Anaheim is about 1750 miles in distance. What is it unfair for a team in the east but not for a team in the west??
To me, all I want to see is the best teams in the league playing for the Cup. Conference and divisions for reg season makes sense. Playoffs should be the best of the best.
What I would like to see is a shorter season by about 8 games then a playoff where 20 teams play. The top 4 seeds get a bye in the first round. Then, 5-20 match off and play a best of 5 series. Then the rest of the playoffs is 7 game series. But, no re-seeding after each round. The bracket is what it is.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| CaliforniaSeal |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 21:02:13
No divisions or conferences. Top 16 teams make the playoffs. Period.
No cup for Dino, what a shame |
| Alex |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 12:43:17
Not only do I agree with Tbar, but imagine being Ottawa in the example you mentioned. All of a sudden, just because the Islanders failed to get 3 more pts, you have to travel back and forth to Denver to start off your playoffs. Is that fair?
Habs get number 25 this year |
| tbar |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 12:14:25
If I was on a 8th place team in the east and the 9th place team in the west got my play-off spot I would be pissed. You can’t have a crossover unless every team plays every team an equal amount of times. And if you do this you may as well make it 1-16 and have the best records in the NHL line up that way. 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15 etc. This will never happen because of travel so it just doesn’t work.
As far as winning the Div. and getting top 3 it is a good idea. Look how tight Calgary, Minneapolis, Colorado, Edmonton, and Vancouver are right now. All those teams probably deserve to be in the playoffs but they wont be because they play each other so much. They also have to battle just as hard if not harder then all other teams in the West and if they win their Div. they deserve home ice in the playoffs.
.
|
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 11:29:43
The whole idea of conferences, and divisions is to cut down on travel time, and costs.
When it comes to the playoffs the idea is to have the best teams possible, with the crossover it is possible that a team will have a terrible travel schedule, but they are in the playoffs...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 11:03:44
We cannot just look at one season, you have to look at many, and compare the divisions.
For a couple of seasons one division is weak, then it becomes strong.
With the system I have suggested, and the crossover rule all the best teams are in the playoffs...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
| Alex |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 10:55:39
I do not think that the division really should mean anything other than to the fans. Division rivalries are good for fans, and are good for travel arrangements.
But when Carolina, and last year Atlanta, are third place teams...? 
Habs get number 25 this year |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 10:07:41
Here is an earlier topic, and comments on the subject.
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2754
My ideas...
As suggested earlier a balanced schedule where every team plays each other.
8 divisional games >>> 32 <<< 4 home and 4 away
2 conference games > 20 <<< home and home
2 opp. conf. games >> 30 <<< home and home
Total >>>>>>>>>>>>> 82 <<<<
Then two changes...
1.) The Division winners just make the playoffs no matter what their record is (not top three as it is now).
2.) Add the new "NHL crossover" rule. Any team in the opposite Conference that has more points takes the place of the worst team in the other Conference, and is reseeded point wise in that Conference.
Below you see the 2006-07 standings, and then the new standings with the new rules applied.
2006-07 Standings
PTS RK Eastern Conference
113 1 p - BUFFALO*
107 2 y - NEW JERSEY*
97 3 y - ATLANTA*
105 4 x - OTTAWA
105 5 x - PITTSBURGH
94 6 x - NY RANGERS
93 7 x - TAMPA BAY
92 8 x - NY ISLANDERS
91 9 TORONTO
90 10 MONTREAL
88 11 CAROLINA
86 12 FLORIDA
76 13 BOSTON
70 14 WASHINGTON
56 15 PHILADELPHIA
PTS RK Western Conference
113 1 z - DETROIT*
110 2 y - ANAHEIM*
105 3 y - VANCOUVER*
110 4 x - NASHVILLE
107 5 x - SAN JOSE
107 6 x - DALLAS
104 7 x - MINNESOTA
96 8 x - CALGARY
95 9 COLORADO
81 10 ST LOUIS
73 11 COLUMBUS
71 12 EDMONTON
71 13 CHICAGO
68 14 LOS ANGELES
67 15 PHOENIX
2006-07 Standings New Rules
PTS RK Eastern Conference
113 1 p - BUFFALO*
107 2 y - NEW JERSEY*
105 3 x - OTTAWA
105 4 x - PITTSBURGH
97 5 y - ATLANTA*
95 6 xxx - COLORADO
94 7 x - NY RANGERS
93 8 x - TAMPA BAY
92 9 NY ISLANDERS
91 10 TORONTO
90 11 MONTREAL
88 12 CAROLINA
86 13 FLORIDA
76 14 BOSTON
70 15 WASHINGTON
56 16 PHILADELPHIA
PTS RK Western Conference
113 1 z - DETROIT*
110 2 y - ANAHEIM*
110 4 x - NASHVILLE
107 5 x - SAN JOSE
107 6 x - DALLAS
105 3 y - VANCOUVER*
104 7 x - MINNESOTA
96 8 x - CALGARY
81 10 ST LOUIS
73 11 COLUMBUS
71 12 EDMONTON
71 13 CHICAGO
68 14 LOS ANGELES
67 15 PHOENIX
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
