deluca67 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 A new playoff system. Looking at the Eastern Conference standings it turns out the "loser point" is meaningless. If you go by wins only, there wouldn't be much of a change if any. I propose a system where : The only thing that matters is wins. Keep the 5 min OT and the shootout. No more loser points. First tie breaker is strength of schedule - 2nd is conference record. That way, the issue of being in a weak division is answered. No top three spot guarantee for division winners. The division winners make the playoffs but if their win total is less than the top 7 teams they get the eighth spot. Once a match-up for the following round is set they start playing. OT is true sudden death with no breaks. The clock runs until a goal is scored. No more OT periods. Also, It's 2008, there is no excuse for bad ice. The NHL is a multi-billion dollar business. Any team with less than a high quality of ice gets fined $100,000 per game. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 A new playoff system. Looking at the Eastern Conference standings it turns out the "loser point" is meaningless. If you go by wins only, there wouldn't be much of a change if any. I propose a system where : The only thing that matters is wins. Keep the 5 min OT and the shootout. No more loser points. First tie breaker is strength of schedule - 2nd is conference record. That way, the issue of being in a weak division is answered. No top three spot guarantee for division winners. The division winners make the playoffs but if their win total is less than the top 7 teams they get the eighth spot. Once a match-up for the following round is set they start playing. OT is true sudden death with no breaks. The clock runs until a goal is scored. No more OT periods. Also, It's 2008, there is no excuse for bad ice. The NHL is a multi-billion dollar business. Any team with less than a high quality of ice gets fined $100,000 per game. What do you think? I'm partial to seeding all playoff teams in both conferences 1-16.. I think that would be more interesting to watch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted March 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm partial to seeding all playoff teams in both conferences 1-16.. I think that would be more interesting to watch... It would be. The Western teams would have a huge advantage because they are used to the heavy travel schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Yeah travel would be a problem. But I felt last year and maybe this year that it is unfair to one conference to have to eat your own when you are a superior conference. If the west is up, they should be rewarded with more chances to win the cup. It also needs to be pointed out that a more balanced schedule would be required for this to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 While I agree that there is a problem with the point/OT system, I don't think there is a problem with the playoff system. Many professional sports (e.g., NFL) give automatic spots for division winners. Most major sports also have two major conferences (AFC/NFC, AL/NL, ...) whose winners meet in the finals. It works, why fix it? Otherwise, what's the point of having divisions/conference at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted March 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 While I agree that there is a problem with the point/OT system, I don't think there is a problem with the playoff system. Many professional sports (e.g., NFL) give automatic spots for division winners. Most major sports also have two major conferences (AFC/NFC, AL/NL, ...) whose winners meet in the finals. It works, why fix it? Otherwise, what's the point of having divisions/conference at all? To save cost on travel and build rivals. A division winner of a weak division shouldn't be rewarded. Maybe have the top 8 teams make the playoffs. Then seed them by strength of schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm partial to seeding all playoff teams in both conferences 1-16.. I think that would be more interesting to watch... They experimented with that in the early 80's. One of the best Sabres teams beat the Canucks and than lost to the Northstars among some other truly passionless playoff series. Most fans hated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 To save cost on travel and build rivals. A division winner of a weak division shouldn't be rewarded. Maybe have the top 8 teams make the playoffs. Then seed them by strength of schedule. What gets a higher seed 100 points playing a mid level schedule, 80 pounts playing a top schedule? I could see strength of schedule breaking a tie, but not sole way of seeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm not hung up on the extra point for the OT loss, but I don't like the way the standings are reported. OT/shootout losses are not recorded as losses in the standings. The result is that the records are artificially inflated, and way too many teams are above .500. For example the sabres are 34-28-11. They've left the building as losers 39 times and as winners 34 times. That is not an above .500 record. The other change I would make is have OT in the playoffs be 4-on-4, either after the 1st OT or right away. I find those double & triple OT games to be interminable, while 4-on-4 hockey is wide open and exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 To save cost on travel and build rivals. A division winner of a weak division shouldn't be rewarded. Maybe have the top 8 teams make the playoffs. Then seed them by strength of schedule. Doesn't competing against the other teams in your division for home ice also serve to strengthen these rivalries. Like the strength of schedule system, the current system also prevents a team that is in a very strong division from being punished. If many of the teams in one division are very strong, then the winner of that division will likely have a worse record than a similarly skilled team in a weaker division. By guaranteeing them a top three spot, they won't get stuck in one of the final spot. Really, if you look at previous seasons, you have to go back to 2002-03 to find a division winner that wouldn't have been in the top four (3rd place team would have been 5th that year) and 2001-02 before a team make a significant jump (3rd place team would have been 7th). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Things I'd like to see.. 1) Winner take all in OT 2 or nil.. 2) 10 minute OT's with 4 vs 4 3) Penalties in OT would be 1 minute not 2 4) Matching fighting penalties would cause 4 on 4 in regulation for 10 minutes 5) Touchless icing 6) More WC teams in the regular season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_Dudley Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm partial to seeding all playoff teams in both conferences 1-16.. I think that would be more interesting to watch... Believe it or not a long, long time ago in a different galaxy(er league) they did do it that way along with a best of three in early rounds , I remember bflo losing to St Louis in a 2 out of three mini series.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 I hate the current system, southeast gets a 3 seed and once again is lucky for the team to make the playoffs. Go to everyone plays each other in the conference x times and home/home with the west. Top 8 teams total points make ith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Believe it or not a long, long time ago in a different galaxy(er league) they did do it that way along with a best of three in early rounds , I remember bflo losing to St Louis in a 2 out of three mini series.... I remember a 3 game playoff series in maybe '76 with St Louis which we won on an overtime goal by Don Luce. I was in the cheap seats looking down between my knees at him as he scored from the faceoff circle. The crowd was electric and it rivaled the feeling of the 2 OT win in the first playoff game against the Flyers 2 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted March 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 What gets a higher seed 100 points playing a mid level schedule, 80 pounts playing a top schedule?I could see strength of schedule breaking a tie, but not sole way of seeding. No points. Just wins. If 3 teams have 39 wins each? It goes by strength of schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repster Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 In terms of changes, I would like to see 3 points be available for each team every game. If a team wins in regulation, they get 3 the loser gets 0. In overtime or a shoot out, the winner gets 2 and the loser gets one. The only downside to this (the way the league would look at it) is that the teams might not be as close to each other as they are near the end of the season as they are this year under the salary cap era. That begs the argument of parity vs. mediocrity which is a whole other topic. I also think the game would be made more interesting if the second period was 4 on 4. You would get more open ice and with the long change, more scoring chances and you wouldn't be able to trap all game. Coaches would have to change their philosophy and have a more open system during the middle stanza. The purists would hate it, but the players are bigger and faster every year, so even with the more stringent calling of penalties, the games are still less free flowing compared to the high scoring 80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Balls Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 I think the 1 pt for making it to OT is a waste. You have the trap teams that will be doing alot of "playing not to lose" that point towards the ends of games making it harder for the opposing team that might really need that point. It's apples and oranges, but I don't think you deserve a point just for getting a game into OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Also, It's 2008, there is no excuse for bad ice. The NHL is a multi-billion dollar business. Any team with less than a high quality of ice gets fined $100,000 per game. What do you think? The only excuse I can think of is the recent Ice Bowl. The rest of the teams like the Rangers, Tampa, Florida, et. al. need to get their ice up the snuff. Whoever runs the show over at MSG either doesn't know how to protect the ice from non-hockey events or doesn't care. Even Teemu Selanne has complained about ice conditions at ever hockey rink in North America. On the other hand, in their defense, the NHL has clearly stated that they need to be multi-purpose rinks. Either way, it's a horrible set up. They could have at least held the Westminster dog show at the Jacob Javits Convention Center in NYC. Uno could have cared less about the hosting format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Article in Sabre blog, need to sign up as insider to view it What would happen if you changed the point system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.