Should the OHL move to an eight-team playoff?
- Thread starter ScoresFromCentre
- Start date
Interesting read. I wonder how this would affect revenue? If it increased revenue with more weekend home games and it increased the competitiveness while helping to correct the conference imbalance, I'm all for it.
One counterpoint though, we just had a fairly big upset last season: 7 seed SSM knocking off 2 seed Sarnia in 7 games.
One counterpoint though, we just had a fairly big upset last season: 7 seed SSM knocking off 2 seed Sarnia in 7 games.
No.
There are lots of good reasonings in your well-written article for the proposal, and the idea (from another thread) of moving to a totally balanced 76 game season is appealing.
..but you'd have like 5-8 fanbases within nothing to cheer for after Christmas. There's lots of people who feel "playoffs" are for the elite; I prefer to see it as a totally different ballgame. It's a better game, some players respond differently (which is probably something scouts scout for). I'm all for more downtime for "student athletes" , but I'd take 10 less regular season games, for more playoffs please (can you tell I'm not a team owner?). Remember for like 20 years when the Jays were out of it for the last 2 months...ugh, I never want to go back.
...And the 8-team Memorial Cup thing, while also "sexy" due to the NCAA-style one-and-one done, eliminates the possibility of seeing the 3 league winners play each other. We've chatted lately in its own thread about revamps, but honestly I'd rather have one fake team (the host), than five.
There are lots of good reasonings in your well-written article for the proposal, and the idea (from another thread) of moving to a totally balanced 76 game season is appealing.
..but you'd have like 5-8 fanbases within nothing to cheer for after Christmas. There's lots of people who feel "playoffs" are for the elite; I prefer to see it as a totally different ballgame. It's a better game, some players respond differently (which is probably something scouts scout for). I'm all for more downtime for "student athletes" , but I'd take 10 less regular season games, for more playoffs please (can you tell I'm not a team owner?). Remember for like 20 years when the Jays were out of it for the last 2 months...ugh, I never want to go back.
...And the 8-team Memorial Cup thing, while also "sexy" due to the NCAA-style one-and-one done, eliminates the possibility of seeing the 3 league winners play each other. We've chatted lately in its own thread about revamps, but honestly I'd rather have one fake team (the host), than five.
It's a development league so I have no problem with there being 16 of 20 teams making the playoffs.
Yes is the short and simple answer.
I proposed the balanced schedule in the other thread. It creates incentive for the league revenue wise by guaranteeing 4 extra home dates for all teams.
Travel would be expanded across the league as some pointed out but still would likely be lower than the other two leagues.
As a development league it increases schedule/practice time across the league.
The impact on education IMO is minimal. The regular season is extended by two week, playoffs shortened by two weeks. 4 teams that currently don't make the playoffs are the only ones who see an extended schedule.
Playoffs interest should increase as far as ticket sales go, again increasing revenue.
Competition should increase as more teams compete for fewer playoff spots making the regular season more important, again increasing ticket sales/revenues for the teams but also improving development opportunities in a more balanced league.
Tougher battle for playoffs means less sellers as teams build towards consistency which creates more parity across the league. This opens up the opportunity for anyone in the playoffs to have a legitimate shot at winning a championship.
For fans, the benefits outweigh the downsides, for players they get better development opportunities, for the teams/league a more balanced and competitive product should equal increased revenues across the board.
I proposed the balanced schedule in the other thread. It creates incentive for the league revenue wise by guaranteeing 4 extra home dates for all teams.
Travel would be expanded across the league as some pointed out but still would likely be lower than the other two leagues.
As a development league it increases schedule/practice time across the league.
The impact on education IMO is minimal. The regular season is extended by two week, playoffs shortened by two weeks. 4 teams that currently don't make the playoffs are the only ones who see an extended schedule.
Playoffs interest should increase as far as ticket sales go, again increasing revenue.
Competition should increase as more teams compete for fewer playoff spots making the regular season more important, again increasing ticket sales/revenues for the teams but also improving development opportunities in a more balanced league.
Tougher battle for playoffs means less sellers as teams build towards consistency which creates more parity across the league. This opens up the opportunity for anyone in the playoffs to have a legitimate shot at winning a championship.
For fans, the benefits outweigh the downsides, for players they get better development opportunities, for the teams/league a more balanced and competitive product should equal increased revenues across the board.
A 76 game schedule would be absolutely terrible for a few teams and may lead to eventual contraction. This league already panders to Southern Ontario superteams in almost every respect. I don't support changes that further that agenda.
As said in this and other threads, the OHL is a development league. The current system is unquestionably better for players from an academic and development standpoint because they spend less time traveling and get playoff experience that they will need as their hockey career progresses.
A balanced schedule detracts from the goal of this league, which is to develop young men into professional players and/or to provide them with a good experience and education.
As said in this and other threads, the OHL is a development league. The current system is unquestionably better for players from an academic and development standpoint because they spend less time traveling and get playoff experience that they will need as their hockey career progresses.
A balanced schedule detracts from the goal of this league, which is to develop young men into professional players and/or to provide them with a good experience and education.
EvenSteven
Registered User
- Sep 3, 2009
- 7,565
- 6,621
Good point bringing up the Jays. Every year, by the end of July, there are an amount of teams in MLB playing in front of empty ball parks. No reason to go to the games because the games are meaningless.
This could translate to the CHL for the same reason. Also, why bother buying season tickets in markets where making the top 8 is a stretch more often than not? Every year you could be buying an amount of games that would be "nothing" games the last few weeks of the season.
Also, this would be just one more reason for prospects to include these teams on their "won't report to" list. Why would they want to report to a team would are a stretch to make it to the playoffs every year vs a team that usually does get into the top eight.
WaW
Armchair Assistant Coffee Gofer for the GM
- Mar 18, 2017
- 2,589
- 3,108
No. All that would do is lower attendance and revenues further, to the point where teams would start to fold. It's a bad idea plain and simple.
And anyone who thinks that's a good thing because "less teams = better hockey" is insulting the hockey fans that exist all over the province who just like to have a local team to root for.
It's a developmental league, and having 16 teams in the playoffs doesn't hurt anyone.
And anyone who thinks that's a good thing because "less teams = better hockey" is insulting the hockey fans that exist all over the province who just like to have a local team to root for.
It's a developmental league, and having 16 teams in the playoffs doesn't hurt anyone.
EvenSteven
Registered User
- Sep 3, 2009
- 7,565
- 6,621
One of the reasons there is a push for MLB to expand the number of teams in the post season is to try and increase the attendance in perennial non playoff teams.
sbpointer
Registered User
I agree with this. Not only does it allow more players playoff experience. It is also compelling hockey. While there were no upsets this year I can say as an outside I was watching the SSM vs Flint series with interest. We saw the Rangers win one game again OS and hang with them in another game they had no business being in and you can't get that experience for players in the regular season.
Thanks for all of the feedback, guys. (And of course the compliments on my writing, as well.) I think you've raised a lot of good points about the benefits of the 16-team playoff, some of which I'd thought of but didn't have room for in my article. (I hope it's clear that I don't hate the sixteen-team format, just that I think it could be improved.)
In particular, the fact that this is a development league is a hugely important point and something it's easy for us to lose sight of as fans. I think cfaub did a nice job arguing why the impact of switching to an eight-team playoff might have a minimal or even a positive effect on player development, though.
I think one of the key differences in opinion here is that I don't think a team getting blown out in the first round of the playoffs after trading away its stars is a particularly valuable outcome. Personally, I lost interest in the Rangers' season when they sold off at the deadline. I agreed with their decision to do so, and I still kept an eye on the team topic here and on the boxscores (I'm not in Kitchener these days, so no games for me, sadly), but I had zero expectation they'd do anything in the playoffs. Maybe that reflects poorly on me as a fan?
It sounds like many people don't mind it if the odds of their teams doing something in the playoffs are slim, as long as there's a chance that they could make some noise. (EON's point about last year's Soo team is a good one. I would have rather seen Sarnia/London and Erie/Kitchener in the second round than Erie/SSM and London/Kitchener, but it was obviously a fun moment for Soo fans, even if it didn't ease the sting of being upset the previous year.)
If you don't believe that a smaller bracket would help better redistribute talent, then I can definitely see why you'd be skeptical of this format, because that's a really important point. (Again, I think cfaub makes this point nicely.) I agree that seeing the same eight teams in the playoffs each year would be pretty disappointing, but I really do think that a smaller bracket could be a big driver of talent redistribution.
In particular, the fact that this is a development league is a hugely important point and something it's easy for us to lose sight of as fans. I think cfaub did a nice job arguing why the impact of switching to an eight-team playoff might have a minimal or even a positive effect on player development, though.
I think one of the key differences in opinion here is that I don't think a team getting blown out in the first round of the playoffs after trading away its stars is a particularly valuable outcome. Personally, I lost interest in the Rangers' season when they sold off at the deadline. I agreed with their decision to do so, and I still kept an eye on the team topic here and on the boxscores (I'm not in Kitchener these days, so no games for me, sadly), but I had zero expectation they'd do anything in the playoffs. Maybe that reflects poorly on me as a fan?
It sounds like many people don't mind it if the odds of their teams doing something in the playoffs are slim, as long as there's a chance that they could make some noise. (EON's point about last year's Soo team is a good one. I would have rather seen Sarnia/London and Erie/Kitchener in the second round than Erie/SSM and London/Kitchener, but it was obviously a fun moment for Soo fans, even if it didn't ease the sting of being upset the previous year.)
If you don't believe that a smaller bracket would help better redistribute talent, then I can definitely see why you'd be skeptical of this format, because that's a really important point. (Again, I think cfaub makes this point nicely.) I agree that seeing the same eight teams in the playoffs each year would be pretty disappointing, but I really do think that a smaller bracket could be a big driver of talent redistribution.
In a league where 80% of the teams will make the playoffs, we know at the start of the season who will be the likely favourites and who is doubtful to make the playoffs, most games are meaningless.
Regardless of the length of the regular season when you have teams who will always make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round, maybe get to the second round but very rarely get beyond you have a league that lacks competitiveness and has allowed itself to become predictable and boring.
An 8 team playoff format changes all that.
Fewer teams making the playoffs brings more meaning and, by default increased competition to the regular season. Fewer teams are likely to selloff at the deadline when they are battling to make the playoffs.
This means teams are less likely to be able to load up so you don't end up with clear favourites.
Drafting becomes more important, players only willing to report to certain teams has less of an impact because if the teams become more reliant on having to build through the draft then moving a lot of picks for a single player becomes harmful to a team's ability to compete. The model of stockpiling assets to load up for a run then sell off to recoup those picks to rebuild will give way to a model that sees teams focusing on developing a championship team instead of buying one.
OS is the perfect example of how most teams would have start to become to be successful.
Build through the draft, make trades that are more about improving the on ice product than stockpiling picks for the future and have an organization that appears to value a constantly competitive team.
There will always be trades, some will be lopsided but most will become more balanced. It will no longer be about how many draft picks can you get for a player but more about what needs can be filled, trading players from a position of strength to fill a weakness with a player that improves the team.
There are a lot of things that can be done and need to be done to improve the league, this is one area, improving competitive balance is another and improving the draft(s) as well. No one idea will level the playing field but this one idea could bring about some of the others that are needed.
No one wants to see contraction but I think most want to see an improved product across the league and the status quo is not providing that.
Regardless of the length of the regular season when you have teams who will always make the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round, maybe get to the second round but very rarely get beyond you have a league that lacks competitiveness and has allowed itself to become predictable and boring.
An 8 team playoff format changes all that.
Fewer teams making the playoffs brings more meaning and, by default increased competition to the regular season. Fewer teams are likely to selloff at the deadline when they are battling to make the playoffs.
This means teams are less likely to be able to load up so you don't end up with clear favourites.
Drafting becomes more important, players only willing to report to certain teams has less of an impact because if the teams become more reliant on having to build through the draft then moving a lot of picks for a single player becomes harmful to a team's ability to compete. The model of stockpiling assets to load up for a run then sell off to recoup those picks to rebuild will give way to a model that sees teams focusing on developing a championship team instead of buying one.
OS is the perfect example of how most teams would have start to become to be successful.
Build through the draft, make trades that are more about improving the on ice product than stockpiling picks for the future and have an organization that appears to value a constantly competitive team.
There will always be trades, some will be lopsided but most will become more balanced. It will no longer be about how many draft picks can you get for a player but more about what needs can be filled, trading players from a position of strength to fill a weakness with a player that improves the team.
There are a lot of things that can be done and need to be done to improve the league, this is one area, improving competitive balance is another and improving the draft(s) as well. No one idea will level the playing field but this one idea could bring about some of the others that are needed.
No one wants to see contraction but I think most want to see an improved product across the league and the status quo is not providing that.
If you lived in one of the cities where the threat of contraction would be very real under your plan (North Bay, Flint, Sault Ste. Marie, Saginaw, Sudbury, all to varying extents), or if you realized the magnitude of what it would mean for the league, then you certainly wouldn't be an advocate of it.
By and large, a couple of boring first round series and an unbalanced schedule are not even on the radar with OHL fans when it comes to issues. Literally, if you brought it up at an average rink to average fans, you would get a lot of strange looks. Fans like seeing their rivals more often. The Soo and Sudbury have perhaps the richest historical rivalry in the league and we even have a separate trophy for the season series. It's good for everyone involved.
If you want to address real issues with fans, try ticket prices, inconsistent officiating, and financial manipulation by certain teams (perceived or real). Those are big issues in every arena that everyone has an opinion about and everyone cares about, especially ticket prices. Having prices more than double in a 5-10 year period is a serious problem.
The health of 20 franchises, a good experience for players, and a good experience for fans is the goal here. Your plan unquestionably hurts the first 2 goals and all I can say for the third is that it would detract from my fan experience. I enjoyed watching my team upset Sarnia last year, I enjoyed playing Flint, and I enjoy playing our rivals more often.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,806
- 6,958
Agreed 100%
This league is here for the development of Junior Aged hockey players, not to pander to the whims of its core super-fans.
If you were to have this conversation with 90% of the fans of the OHL they'd be lost on the subject because they go to games but don't follow it as closely as we do here.
While it may be fun to come up with different concepts and discuss them (I support this), the reality is the league and its board of Governors have deep discussions amongst each other in an effort to do what is best for the franchises as a whole because it is in everyone's best interest to ensure each team is as strong as possible. If something as simple as a balanced 76 game schedule was a serious option for the league, it would be implemented. That proposal is nothing but as simple as it gets so it is not lie it hasn't been considered and discarded as not viable.
You have to walk a fine line if you upset the eastern and northern teams they may say we leaving for the Q so your down to what 14 teams then the American teams say were out so you end up with the Ohl being a 12 or 13 team league.
Hammer9001
Registered User
The main reason people want playoffs smaller, is because they want the elite teams getting in and the season to be more meaningful. I'm more inclined towards more teams with slightly less restrictions on imports to make up a potential talent gap then smaller playoffs.
ohloutsider
Registered User
Its a developmental league - nothing to be gained on closing the door on experience including playoffs
Small market teams also need revenue boosts from playoff games to survive
Small market teams also need revenue boosts from playoff games to survive
It seems some want the best of everything 8 teams and less regular season games if the Ohl played a 45 game schedule as some want and 8 teams in the play offs now sure how 15 out of 20 teams would like that.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Gold Medal PICK ONLY ONE TEAM - 2024 IIHF World Championship - ChampionWagers: 2Staked: $150.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-