Stanley Cup integrity

[GKJ]

As said, winning the Cup this season will be tainted.

Anyone think the Devils winning in '95 was tainted? They didn't do too bad over the past 10 years.



You still have to win 4 playoff rounds.

 

[Jamie]

As said, winning the Cup this season will be tainted.

Getting Crosby could help a team to win multiple legitimate Cups.

I think the first and foremost goal of every team is to win the Cup. If you're a bottom dweller, it puts a positive spin on it for you, but when it comes down to it, there's 30 teams that would rather win the cup if there's a season than finish dead last and have a chance at drafting some kid.

 

[WrightOn]

That seems a little backwards to me. Wouldn't the ultimate goal of getting a guy like Crosby be to build a team to win the cup?

It's the chicken or the egg conundrum.

No, not really......any team will choose to win the cup now rather than later.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

Why must the Cup only be given out after a sixteen-team playoff? When did that seemingly arbitrary rule go into effect?

I'd be fine with a playoff consisting only of division winners. The top record in each conference earns a bye while the other two division winners play for the other berth in the conference finals. Or, you could make it an eight team playoff by giving one wild card berth and having them play the top team in the conference so there's no bye.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I don't really see how that matters.

As I said, only those of us who have been robbed of the fun/excitement/pride that goes with a year-long celebration of being champions will think it matters.

That cup banner will be raised permanently, and no shortened season can take that away from the Lightning. If anything, history will toss an asterisk next to this year's winner, but last year's TB run is unblemished.

Absolutely. But we're not talking about last year, we're talking about what goes with being reigning champions throughout *this* year. I don't expect anyone to understand who hasn't been in the same situation.

That said, four grueling rounds is four rounds any way you slice it. Coming out of the playoff bracket on top is going to be impressive no matter how long was the season.

Reportedly five rounds, with all 30 teams going to the playoffs. That's just not right. Be that as it may, how grueling it will be might depend on how hard the players fight for it. I have a feeling a lot of players will be as unenthusiastic as many fans now are -- unhappy with any new CBA they sign, and probably quite a few of them agreeing that awarding the Cup in this manner would be less than right.

I would imagine the Caps and other lower place finishers from years past will have a lot of extra incentive to play for the Cup because they're going to actually have a shot at it (since all 30 teams will make the playoffs) where, if there was a legitimate season, they may not have even made the playoffs at all. A goalie gets hot, a team has injuries or is missing players (i.e., Brad Richards is injured & will miss 6-7 weeks of this "season," Kovalchuk won't be here at all), and suddenly a team that could have worked through those problems in a normal season is out and a team that otherwise wouldn't have deserved it is in. But, that's the way it's going to be (if they play) so, like I said, this small market, southern, non-traditional team is just going to have to repeat if we want to have a full year of fun being champs!

 

[wazee]

What would be the point of the season if the Cup was not rewarded? Teams are not going to go all out to win the President's trophy. If that was the only reward, how many teams would just tank the season, and go for a good draft position.

Do you really think fans would be as excited to come back for a 42 game season as they would for a 28 game season and the playoffs? The NHL is going to need all the excitement it can muster to bring fans back to the game. Playing a meaningless shortened regular season schedule is not going to do that.

Bottom line, the Cup represents a rich and varied history. The shortened seasons are merely part of that history. So this year, conditions differ from most. So what. The team that wins the Cup will be the best team under the conditions that existed. You have to go with what is, not with what is ideal.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Why must the Cup only be given out after a sixteen-team playoff? When did that seemingly arbitrary rule go into effect?

I'd be fine with a playoff consisting only of division winners. The top record in each conference earns a bye while the other two division winners play for the other berth in the conference finals. Or, you could make it an eight team playoff by giving one wild card berth and having them play the top team in the conference so there's no bye.

Teams make money in the playoffs. As if they are going to reduce their bottom line. Get with the game sir. It's not about the hockey, but it's about everyones thick wallets

 

[TruGr1t]

This is a bad idea for numerous reasons. Firstly as many people have said, the length of the playoffs will stay the same, any team that wins 4 rounds has won the Cup, nuff said. So a few teams might go in fresher then usual, favours old men like the Leafs, but it's still a 4 round playoff. I don't see the effect outside of that and maybe the standings being a bit skewed. Secondly, after loosing as much revenue as the NHL has lost after this lockout there is NO WAY they pass up on playoff revenues. Are you insane? This is when the League MAKES HUGES AMOUNTS OF MONEY. If anything they will focus harder on playing up the playoffs and make it a huge event in hopes of making back a fraction of what they have lost already.

I'm sorry, but this is a horrible, horrible idea any way you look at it. Unless you are a Tampa Bay fan, but their angle isn't the League angle and it was done in '94 and it will be done this year if the lockout ends. No if's, and's or but's in my opinion.

 

[HF2002]

Funny, if there is a season it seems to me the real prize won't be the Cup, it will be Crosby.

If this is the prize from 2004/05 then 82 games or 22 games doesn't make any difference anyway.

 

[Mess]

I think the NHL can satisfy a whole raft of issues by playing a 43 game schedule (2 in-conference, one inter-conference) this year with NO PLAYOFFS. Instead of awarding the Stanley Cup, just award the Presidents Trophy. (Perhaps a $10 M prize could go along with the trophy.)

1) Satisfies fans desire for hockey.

2) Don't tarnish the CUP by awarding it after a less than meaningful season.

3) Allow teams until next summer to adjust rosters under cap.

4) Set draft order.


Thoughts?

I think a real short meaningless season less then 40 games and playoffs tarnishes the Stanley Cup tradition .. SO I like your idea 1 -3 as this then would mean starting September that we would be ready to go ..

but #4 has flaws ... because of Sidney Crosby ... If no Stanley Cup is awarded then teams are just as likely to throw games going for the Turtle Derby verses the Presidents trophy ... if the prize was not Crosby the situation might be different ..

So I say we take your ideas and in #4 the draft order is not reverse order like usual but success order instead meaning that the winner of the shortened season is really playing for the Sidney Trophy and the runner up picks second and so on etc .

The would make for the incentive for everyone to try and win every game possible as slackers will be rewarded with lower picks ... but I suggest they do that for just he 1st round of selections ...and then return to the previous reverse order system rounds 2-9 .. Since all 30 teams still have their 1st rounds its fair ..

This way you reward success and not failure ...

 

[ChiHawks468]

So, I guess when Wayne Gretzky and the Edmonton Oilers won the cup in 84, that was a "tarnished cup" as well. After all, in that era the regular season wasn't very meaningful when you had 16 of the 21 teams in the league make the playoffs.

I don't get it. It seems like no one has made a strong argument for why a 28 game season and normal playoffs would result in a tarnished cup or an asterisk. That being said, the real issue here is that hockey is played this year. If not, the league could very well be putting itself on life support. Does anyone know if Bettman has a signed DNR on file anywhere?

 

[Mess]

I don't get it. It seems like no one has made a strong argument for why a 28 game season and normal playoffs would result in a tarnished cup or an asterisk. That being said, the real issue here is that hockey is played this year. If not, the league could very well be putting itself on life support.

Wouldn't your point be the same as saying lets run the 2005 Boston Marathon race, but instead of running 26 miles lets have a 1 mile run...

The fact that the Boston Marathon is the world's oldest annual marathon and ranks as one of the world's most prestigious road racing events as this years event will be the 109th running ..

would mean little .. when you compared it to this years winner's accomplishment to the former Marathon winners that ran for hours and say there is no difference ... because it was fair to all runners and they would not be so tired and beaten up at the end.

What is the Difference really in comparison ???

Just like a marathon ....endurance is a major factor that adds credibility to a Stanley Cup win . In the past over a long period of time of a gruelling NHL season just like a marathon event does makes it harder to win. The shorter the season the less this becomes a factor which you empahsize as an advantage.

The analagy is exactly the same a short NHL season removes the endurance factor just like a shorter marathon does ..

To further take credibility from a Stanley Cup winner in the past is that 1/2 the players in the NHL are not is game shape ..1/2 in Euro are mid season form .. Boston only has 8 players under contract and needs to sign or 1/2 a team in a week .. to begin play ..Ilya Kovachuk and others are committed to there Euro Team for the year combined with Heatley legal problems and Atlanta might as well be given Crosby now ..

The hockey games would be no more then what we would see from replacement players or beer league players that would take 20 games of a 30 game regular season to be in game shape and play as a team .. It would be the worst hockey we have ever seen with no flow or nothing and a complete joke..

and a joke should not be rewarded with a Stanley Cup ..

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

Your analogy doesn't work because a marathon is defined as a 26-point-whatever mile run. A one-mile run is not a marathon. A Stanley Cup winner is not defined in such a manner. It is not defined as the team that wins a four-round tournament of best of seven series following an 82 game season. If it were, we'd have to toss every Stanley Cup winner out of the record book that did not accomplish the above feat. There'd be a whole bunch of teams that were effected by that, no? Obviously every team that won from the Original Six and initial expansion era, right?

 

[HF2002]

If every team starts off under the same conditions, which they will, then I don't see how it can be considered anything less than a legitimate season. The asterisk, if there is one, should only be there to note that the season was played under different conditions than usual.

The conditions (if they actually sign a deal and play) will be different than previous years, but so what? The NHL changes its regular season rules in overtime as soon as the playoffs start. Does that make the playoffs less legitimate? No.

How legitimate is it when the refs call the game differently, period to period? How many times have you watched a game and said to yourself "well, it's their turn to get a penalty", or "you can't call a penalty now"?

The NHL is wrought with so many inconsistencies that you can argue every game should have an asterisk. Hull's skate in the crease to win the Cup? They changed their interpretation of the foot in the crease rule just for that goal.

If conditions are stacked in favour of one or two teams then I might believe the win is less legitimate. If anything, some of the older teams gain from this - the Leafs in particular. Do you think many Leaf fans will say "no, no, we can't accept this win"?

 

[PecaFan]

The analogy is perfect, and I've used it before. Shortening the requirements changes the ultimate outcome. The Stanley Cup has always been a marathon, a 28 game schedule makes it a sprint. A totally different game.

As for 1995, there are *many* of us that consider it tainted. It's the only Cup win in history by a team without one of the seven best regular season records in the NHL. The supposed Stanley Cup Champs *missed the playoffs* the next year, something that never happened in the modern system, except in the expansion era, where they gave half the spots to teams that didn't deserve it.

It hasn't been a factor, because Jersey won two Cups after it. But if that had been their only Cup? You can be damn sure more and more folks would call it tainted.

I like the original idea, myself. I think the key component is that teams would be earning *better* draft picks. There is no incentive to throw games, because you'd get a worse draft position.

 

[ChiHawks468]

The analogy is perfect, and I've used it before. Shortening the requirements changes the ultimate outcome. The Stanley Cup has always been a marathon, a 28 game schedule makes it a sprint. A totally different game.

As for 1995, there are *many* of us that consider it tainted. It's the only Cup win in history by a team without one of the seven best regular season records in the NHL. The supposed Stanley Cup Champs *missed the playoffs* the next year, something that never happened in the modern system, except in the expansion era, where they gave half the spots to teams that didn't deserve it.

It hasn't been a factor, because Jersey won two Cups after it. But if that had been their only Cup? You can be damn sure more and more folks would call it tainted.

I like the original idea, myself. I think the key component is that teams would be earning *better* draft picks. There is no incentive to throw games, because you'd get a worse draft position.

Your analagy would only be applicable if that 26 mile run led to the first 100 runners to cross the line going on to run a 15 mile race to determine the winner.

The regular season simply determines who makes the playoffs and the seeding there in. As long as the playoff structure remains the same, the winner is deserving of the cup.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

As long as the playoff structure remains the same, the winner is deserving of the cup.

Rumor has it all 30 teams make the playoffs this year and an extra round will be added...

I guess I'm just too much of a purist (odd for a fan in a relatively new market, I suppose), but to me the whole glory of winning the Cup is earning it by going through those 82 games, surviving the adversity that comes with a full season, and outlasting your opponent to win 16 games in the playoffs. It was the agony we went through as fans -- our great start, our slump in December that made us think we wouldn't even make the playoffs, much less win it all, the stress and excitement of the playoffs -- that made the night of 6/7/2004 one we'll never forget.

I think I can categorically state that if we play this year and repeat, it cannot possibly be as satisfying or as thrilling under these circumstances.

As I said, I can understand why fans of teams that would otherwise have little or no shot would be thrilled to get a free pass into the playoffs and chance to have their names engraved on the Cup, but it would ring just a bit hollow for me, even if my own team wins it again. Let's put it this way -- it sure won't mean as much to me because any team that wins it this year (including mine) simply will not have to work as hard to get there as the teams that have won it in full seasons.

Just personal preference, we're all entitled to that, no?

 

[Mess]

Your analagy would only be applicable if that 26 mile run led to the first 100 runners to cross the line going on to run a 15 mile race to determine the winner.

The regular season simply determines who makes the playoffs and the seeding there in. As long as the playoff structure remains the same, the winner is deserving of the cup.

Well if you feel that way, then what is your opinion on the first 2 rounds being the best of 3 and then the Conference finals and Stanley Cup being best of 7 ..

The regular season will consist of 15 home games 15 road games but all within your own conference .. The East and West Conference teams would not play a single game until the Stanley Cup Finals round

...because that according to TSN is the proposed 30 game lockout schedule by the NHL and what will happen if we have a season ..

and

Stanley cup champs in the past have had to play those long gruelling seasons and overcome adversity to win a Cup ... Similar to my marathon example I gave earlier about endurance it a key component of winning a long running race .. If you shorten a marathon you take the factor out just like you do if you shorten a season to a very small amount like 30 games .. That is not even a 1/2 and NHL season .. SO if you took a 26 mile marathon and cut it in half ... You would likely have a very different outcome and then put your self in the shoes of the the previous winners .. They ran 26 miles to win and outlasted everyone else ..

For the guy to run 13 miles and say he is as good or deserves as much respect for his accomplishment IS WRONG TO ME .. To me that means by regular standards that he was nothing more then leader of the race 1/2 way through the event .. BIG DEAL I would say .. the lead changes many times in the second half and the first half is the easiest .. in the second half is where the race is won and lost as the hills and weather and course take it pounding on the body and endurance and stamina and pacing yourself and your body holding up are all key parts of the event as the champion is crowned .. The shorter the event the less these become factors ...

thats really my point a Cup win in 30 games verses 82 is like comparing ..
APPLES TO ORANGES .. its a win but is only ever really equal credibility wise to other 30 game seasons IMO

If the Boston Red Sox had won a championship in a strike shortened season would it have been as rewarding for them as winning it as they did last year ???

You will forever hear YAH BUT .......

 

[Wetcoaster]

To a point i agree with you. But do you really think the owners and players are gonna give up playoff revenue.

If each side cared about the integrity of the Cup and the NHL we wouldn't still be in this situation.

The players get virtually nothing in the way of playoff revenue. Their salaries cease at the end of the regular season.

That is the reason why the deeper in the season the lockoput lasts the less pressure there is on the players to settle and the more pressur is brought to be bear on the owners who may make the play=offs.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

You will forever hear YAH BUT .......

You feel this way... for YOU it will always be tainted...

For me personally, 16 wins and you win the cup, it is all good.

 

[Mess]

You feel this way... for YOU it will always be tainted...

For me personally, 16 wins and you win the cup, it is all good.

Firstly sure its all good . .a win is a win regarless but it should not be held in the same light as previous winners ..

Well TSN reports best of 3 first 2 rounds ..That makes it now 12 wins to win the cup ..

Shorter series favour upsets in best 2 of 3's so often best team does not win and move on ..

Why have a season at all .. They could just draw numbers out of a hat for positioning and then have a 30 team free for all after a 2 week conditioning and training camp .. Still would take 16 wins to hoist the cup ..and be fair for all ..

If my team won .. sure it would be great ..but it would be more like the reward of my country winning the World Cup or Olympic gold ..Still great to win ..

BUT ITS NOT the Stanley Cup ..

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

Well TSN reports best of 3 first 2 rounds ..That makes it now 12 wins to win the cup ..

If they did that, then I would have a problem with even my Canucks winning the cup. the Playofss have to be 16 wins.

Season could be round robin, but the playoffs must be 16 wins.

 

[Captain Lou]

Is it better to award the Cup after a shortened regular season, or to not have the opportunity to award it ever again? Because you can bet your *** that if there is a season, it will be awarded, and if there is no season, this league is probably going to be defunct. And all of the NHL traditions go right down the toilet at that point.

Would a Cup won by replacement players be "tainted"?

Oh by the way, I'll take my "tainted" Cup any day over the ZERO Cups that OTT, VAN, LA, BUF, etc. have won.

 

[Mess]

If they did that, then I would have a problem with even my Canucks winning the cup. the Playofss have to be 16 wins.

Season could be round robin, but the playoffs must be 16 wins.

They had a Video report on this a week or so ago on TSN .. that the schedule maker has devised a 30 game IN CASE they come to an agreement ..

Here is what they said

The first 2 rounds would be the best of 3 and then the Conference finals and Stanley Cup being best of 7 ..

The regular season will consist of 15 home games 15 road games but all within your own conference ..

The East and West Conference teams would not play a single game until the Stanley Cup Finals round

...because that according to TSN is the proposed 30 game lockout schedule by the NHL and what will happen if we have a season .. That is what the NHL has in place RIGHT NOW .. with arena's scheduled and booked and everything ready to go ..

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

For all you 82-games-plus-16-wins purists out there, how do you feel about teams that won the Cup in the 80 game season era? What about the 70 game season era? Or even the 48 games-or-less era that lasted up until 1942? Are those Cup winners less legitimate? What about the Canadiens and Rangers that won in '93 and '94? They played 84 game regular seasons. Does that make them the greatest champions of all time? What about the teams that won the cup prior to 1980, when the four-round, sixteen-team format started? Are they all illegitimate too? Is Henri Richard less a champion for having won all his Cups during the Original Six era? Is Bobby Orr less a champion for having not won sixteen postseason games during either of his Cup victories?

I'm just curious. I'd just like to pinpoint the exact number of regular season games and playoff victories that are necessary to officially win the Stanley Cup.