Wyldnwoody44 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Just was thinking and wondering if anyone here thought that the playoff format would benefit from being changed. We all know that the Stanley Cup is the hardest to win in all the major US sports. Is playing 7 games against each opponet a true measure of which team is clearly better. Unlike in football where 1 bad day can bounce you, teams can adjust to each other over a long series, attack and counterattack, some other sports have a wildcard playoff and then a mix of 5 and 7 games. I realize most fans love the battle and the 7 game series to get to the top of the mountain, I certainly do, I am just entertaining ideas if there were to be a tweak anywhere,would it be accepted/welcomed?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Just was thinking and wondering if anyone here thought that the playoff format would benefit from being changed. We all know that the Stanley Cup is the hardest to win in all the major US sports. Is playing 7 games against each opponet a true measure of which team is clearly better. Unlike in football where 1 bad day can bounce you, teams can adjust to each other over a long series, attack and counterattack, some other sports have a wildcard playoff and then a mix of 5 and 7 games. I realize most fans love the battle and the 7 game series to get to the top of the mountain, I certainly do, I am just entertaining ideas if there were to be a tweak anywhere,would it be accepted/welcomed?? I think the most recent change (Divisional>>Divisional>>Conference>>Cup) perfected the model. Now we just need to expand or contract by 2 teams to get the numbers right. a 2 week long, 7-game series is just perfect, and I love that there are still months of hockey left once the regular season is finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 The only change I'd like to see, and I know I'm in the extremely small minority on this is I'd like to see them play 1st round in division, 2nd round in conference, 3rd cross conference, and the 2 survivors meet in the finals. The 1st round would have 1v4, 2v3 (I'm agnostic towards the wildcard; I'd probably get rid of it to heighten intradivision rivalries and the playoff format itself covers issues of differing strengths of teams across divisions. But if people want to keep it, so be it.) 2nd round would have the higher seeded team playing the other division's lower seeded team. The home team in that round would be determined by higher seeding, followed by points, and then normal NHL tiebreakers. 3rd round same thing, except you're going cross conference now. Why? The main criticism I come across is that it diminishes divisions and conferences. On the surface it looks like it's taking emphasis off divisional matchups and making conferences obsolete, but it doesn't. It actually makes regular season intradivision matchups more important as finishing 1st lets you avoid the 2 other best teams in your division until the finals. The answer is: the current format ONLY allows the 2 best teams to make the finals if they happen to be from opposite conferences. How often is that truly the case? Definitely not 100% of the time. IF the 2 best are from opposite conferences, this format still allows them to meet in the finals. In this proposed format, if Buffalo and Moe-ray-all are the best, they can meet at the end by finishing 1-2 (or even 1-3) in division. They aren't forced to beat each other up in the 2nd round, giving the Patrick winner better odds of beating them by having played a lesser opponent. This format also has the benefit of making teams take the regular season seriously as the only way to guarantee you don't play the Presidents' Trophy winner until the finals is to either win it or have the next best record. You also only guarantee not playing the toughest remaining teams by finishing w/ a strong regular season record. This format also has the benefit of making it possible for 2 teams from a stacked division to get past the 2nd round and completely knock out an '80's Smythe by the end of the 2nd. This format also has history on its side. The NHL used it in the early '70's to keep from having the East final the true SC final and to keep the Blues from going 0-40 in SC Final games. Baseball & football have a historical reason to keep the finals across leagues/conferences - their finals were battles between league champs. The NHL has only had conferences not play each other due to labor issues - it's never happened in a full regular season. The NHL also has completely ignored conferences (and divisions) come pkayoff time. This format doesn't and guarantees 8 intradivision matchups along the way. It makes the regular season mean something as division winners won't have to play dividion winners until the semis. It also guarantees that the 2 best teams at the end will meet up; a lesser team won't have lucked into a cakewalk draw unless something extremely screwy has happened repeatedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Yeah, I could get behind that as well, although having the 3rd round be across 4 potential time-zones (as opposed to just the SCF in the current setup) isn't ideal, as long as they did the scheduling right, it could work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Yeah, I could get behind that as well, although having the 3rd round be across 4 potential time-zones (as opposed to just the SCF in the current setup) isn't ideal, as long as they did the scheduling right, it could work. There's only 4 teams (currently) in the Pacific time zone, so that shouldn't be too big of an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 There's only 4 teams (currently) in the Pacific time zone, so that shouldn't be too big of an issue. Truth, it's deceiving because they happen to have played in 9 of the last 11 WCF, including the last 5, but if you go back to the decade before that, it never happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Taro: I like this. Is this an idea you have, one you've seen shared among fans and writers, or one you've seen the league consider? I've not heard it discussed before. I am wondering if the league has a view you're aware of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 I may be the only one, but I loved the 3 game series back when. Loved the potential for upsets. I'm really happy to have divisional playoffs though. Bring back dem rivalries! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBHockey13 Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 I may be the only one, but I loved the 3 game series back when. Loved the potential for upsets. I'm really happy to have divisional playoffs though. Bring back dem rivalries! I'd like a 3 game series for the "play in" games. I've seen something like this before. Instead of 8 teams a conference, you have 10 teams make the playoffs, and then the bottom four play a quick three game series to advance. If they add two more teams in the next couple of years (Las Vegas? Seattle? Toronto II? Quebec City?) I could see them doing this to give more teams a chance for a taste of playoff hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 I'd like a 3 game series for the "play in" games. I've seen something like this before. Instead of 8 teams a conference, you have 10 teams make the playoffs, and then the bottom four play a quick three game series to advance. If they add two more teams in the next couple of years (Las Vegas? Seattle? Toronto II? Quebec City?) I could see them doing this to give more teams a chance for a taste of playoff hockey. That's how the 3 game series started to begin with. Then they were 5 games, and now 7. There will be similar "creep" if they add teams to the playoffs (which they shouldn't). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 No thanks to more playoff teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Taro: I like this. Is this an idea you have, one you've seen shared among fans and writers, or one you've seen the league consider? I've not heard it discussed before. I am wondering if the league has a view you're aware of. It's mine afaik. (Like it or loathe it.) I've brought it up here before. It usually meets much resistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 It's mine afaik. (Like it or loathe it.) I've brought it up here before. It usually meets much resistance. They can go back to 1-16 seeding for all I care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyldnwoody44 Posted April 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 They can go back to 1-16 seeding for all I care.I would not be opposed to 1-16 seeding, although the 1 gets the 16 would prolly not result in many upsets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) I am in favor of any change that lets the season be done with before Memorial Day. June hockey just doesn't do it for me. Not only that but the turn around time for the two teams in the Cup is not long enough. Edited April 25, 2015 by sicknfla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 I am in favor of any change that lets the season be one with before Memorial Day. June hockey just doesn't do it for me. Not only that but the turn around time for the two teams in the Cup is not long enough. That is a big part of why I prefer 3 game series, for the 1st two rounds anyway. Get the excitement up, get it done while it is still exciting, move on to the next round, done for the year before the pool gets opened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 That is a big part of why I prefer 3 game series, for the 1st two rounds anyway. Get the excitement up, get it done while it is still exciting, move on to the next round, done for the year before the pool gets opened. Whoa, first TWO rounds? No way. No freaking way do I want "that's the way it bounced" deciding a second round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Whoa, first TWO rounds? No way. No freaking way do I want "that's the way it bounced" deciding a second round. Hell, we should play 9 games then, to you know, be REALLY sure the better team moves on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Hell, we should play 9 games then, to you know, be REALLY sure the better team moves on. 11 games. Duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 11 games. Duh. 3, 3. 5, 7 is my ideal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 Mine is playoffs start April 1. No reason to start mid-month. Then go 5,7,7,7. You will save 3 weeks which has you done before Memorial Day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBHockey13 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 Anyone wanting LESS NHL Stanley Cup playoff hockey is nuts. This is the best sports time of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 Anyone wanting LESS NHL Stanley Cup playoff hockey is nuts. This is the best sports time of the year. Certified. I happen to think the excitement of a quick series and the occassional upsets they produce is better than the two month grind of all 7 game series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 Is playing 7 games against each opponet a true measure of which team is clearly better. Unlike in football where 1 bad day can bounce you, teams can adjust to each other over a long series, attack and counterattack, I think you answer your own question: Where 1 bad day can bounce a clearly superior team, a 7-game series makes it harder for a fluky team that doesn't deserve to advance, to do so. So yes, a 7 games series is a better measure of which team is clearly better. I think I like the new format better, but I'm still getting a feel for it, so I'm not going to pass final judgment. Since the divisional playoff is the system is in place though, they really need the same number of teams in each division. That aspect I really hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 26, 2015 Report Share Posted April 26, 2015 I think if shorter series were instituted, it may affect the makeup of teams. There would be different strategies in the shorter series and the teams might be constituted differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.