TSN : Unbalanced Schedule

Status
Not open for further replies.

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
HockeyCritter said:
Aren't you arguing both points now?

well, let me state it this way in one easy sentence :):

rivalries shouldn't be the focus of the NHL, because thats not what makes the game better, but it IS special when a rivalry is born at a different level-- and you can't just decide which teams will have rivalries, they come and they go naturally
 

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
HockeyCritter said:
I'm all for nostalgia --- but sometimes when looking back one really doesn’t see it for what it truly was. The game needs to evolve to survive, if evolution means realignment and a completely unbalanced schedule so be it. I am not going to condemn it as a colossal failure until it actually fails.

I don't see how playing the same teams over and over makes for a better game. Fine, try it out, but at the end of the day theres 1 million things on-ice that need to be fixed before this needs to be tried out
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
blitzkriegs said:
I can hear it now... :biglaugh:

Do the fans in AZ 'cry' that they don't get to see ARod, Tejada, Ramirez, Jeter, Guerreo, (ahem...players 100 times more well known than Crosby will ever be)? Nope. When interleague play happens, that's it...

But there is a huge difference there. Before inter-league play (which I dislike BTW), the American League and National League were seperate and the teams never played each other. Inter league play is a boon to the fans, because it is better than the previous system in terms of seeing the stars. The NHL is going the opposite direction. This season will be the first time ('95 shortened season excluded) in NHL history that that an NHL team will play zero games against some other NHL team.
 

blitzkriegs

Registered User
May 26, 2003
13,150
1
Beach & Mtn & Island
Visit site
kdb209 said:
But there is a huge difference there. Before inter-league play (which I dislike BTW), the American League and National League were seperate and the teams never played each other. Inter league play is a boon to the fans, because it is better than the previous system in terms of seeing the stars. The NHL is going the opposite direction. This season will be the first time ('95 shortened season excluded) in NHL history that that an NHL team will play zero games against some other NHL team.

Interleague play has been a success because it has focused on local, historical, and market rivalries to the most part. Does anyone want to see COL vs. DET in interleague? Nope.

Missing some games vs. several teams is not that big of a deal. Most of those coastal trips are usually lower attendance games in arenas that do not regularly sell out.

People in FL are not coming out in droves to see Iginila play, no or maybe ever. That's just the way it is right now. This is all gate driven. If you can find my post earlier, I explain why.

Until the NHL markets it's stars, playing one meaningless game vs. another conference, is just that meaningless. During those games, teams look at a win as a bonus, but no games are 4 point swings - like a conference game is. Moreover, playing 2 games vs. each team in a division will create more familiarity with the players, then just ONE game. Also, higher chance that a 2nd game carries memories (plays, fights, etc.) from the 1st.

This is the way to go, for now...
 

Spungo*

Guest
kdb209 said:
They are not a new breed of "play in" games.

Umm... actually, that is exactly what they are.

If the play-ins are just a normal round of the playoffs, then why are 12 teams sitting around scratching their nuts waiting for them to finish before the real playoffs start? If they are the "playoffs", then all 20 teams should have first round match-ups.

The cold fact is that these *are* play-ins for teams 7-10 in each conference to determine which 2 of those teams makes the playoffs.
 

helicecopter

Registered User
Mar 8, 2003
8,242
0
give me higher shots
Visit site
Spungo said:
If the result (the actual playoffs) didn't suck, then what you are saying makes no God damned sense, boy.
I give up Spungo, it looks like lost time.

As for the good news about your IQ, you should start using it then!
(you know, the other time i noticed you was some days ago when you were celebrating before being proven right..now, it's still July if i am not wrong. That was another not encouraging evidence..maybe it misleaded me)
 

Spungo*

Guest
helicecopter said:
I give up Spungo, it looks like lost time.

As for the good news about your IQ, you should start using it then!
(you know, the other time i noticed you was some days ago when you were celebrating before being proven right..now, it's still July if i am not wrong. That was another not encouraging evidence..maybe it misleaded me)

If you admit the playoffs were good and the regular season was also good, then if all you hate is the "cocept" of more than 53% of teams making the playoffs, you need to get over it.

1980's = 76% of teams making the playoffs.

2005 = 66% of teams making playoffs *and* play-ins.

I argue that the regular season means more in 2005-2006 than it did in 2003-2004. There is a serious advantage to making the top 6 in your conference (or top 2 in your division?) rather than the top 8. Teams will not want to make the play-ins. They are too short and too risky and even the teams that win will be at a serious disadvatage when they enter the real playoffs. The competition is even tighter now to make the real playoffs. It's a wi-win format IMO.
 

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
you know, i've been thinking about this a bit.. and i think where it can be seen as a positive is that winning your division is way more important now because you want to get into the 1-6 positions because you don't want to fall into 7-12.. so it makes it a bit more like football in a sense
 

Garbs

Registered User
Jul 2, 2005
15,212
272
London, Ontario
The only thing I don't like about this is Toronto & Montreal will either not play the Western Canadian teams, or they won't play Detroit/Chicago.

Both scenarios are ridiculous.
 

Face Wash

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
6,624
16
Visit site
Kings, Ducks and Sharks will now play 60% of their games in California.... Plus in essence they'll all have on east coast trip removed and replaced with games closer to home. This is a big deal for west coast teams who are always the most over-travelled teams in the league.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Beukeboom Fan said:
I really dislike any schedule where the Hawks (or Wings for that matter) might not play any of MON, BOS, NYR or TOR in a given year.

This is my only real beef with the unbalanced schedule. I love Wings-Leafs games, but then I can also remember the old Norris division days...
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Spungo said:
Originally Posted by kdb209
They are not a new breed of "play in" games.
Umm... actually, that is exactly what they are.

If the play-ins are just a normal round of the playoffs, then why are 12 teams sitting around scratching their nuts waiting for them to finish before the real playoffs start? If they are the "playoffs", then all 20 teams should have first round match-ups.

The cold fact is that these *are* play-ins for teams 7-10 in each conference to determine which 2 of those teams makes the playoffs.

Wrong.

From '75 to '79, 12 teams made the playoffs. The 4 division winners sat around scratching their nuts, I mean got byes, and the next 8 played a best 2 out of 3 series. Gee that sounds familiar. And guess what, those best of 3 series were playoff games - they counted for playoff stats, etc.

The new #7-#10 series is just another round of playoffs and the top 6 teams get byes.
 

Trizent

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
2,109
90
Oil Country
The only thing I don't like about this is Toronto & Montreal will either not play the Western Canadian teams, or they won't play Detroit/Chicago.


Teams will play out of conference teams 2 times every 3 years.

That is darn close to the same as the system that was used over the last few years for the non-Canadian match-ups.
 

Spungo*

Guest
kdb209 said:
Wrong.

From '75 to '79, 12 teams made the playoffs. The 4 division winners sat around scratching their nuts, I mean got byes, and the next 8 played a best 2 out of 3 series. Gee that sounds familiar. And guess what, those best of 3 series were playoff games - they counted for playoff stats, etc.

The new #7-#10 series is just another round of playoffs and the top 6 teams get byes.

So in baseball, when 2 teams are tied and the end of the season and they play against eachother to determine who gets into the playoffs, you consider that one game a playoff round? Give me a break.

Your argument is as.s backwards. If one or two teams got a bye, then I would agree with you, but the vast minority of teams play these 3 game mini series and they are clearly designed to determine who should make it into the playoffs and not act as a legitimate playoff round in and of themselves.

Oh, and you don't get to decide whether they are Stanley Cup playoff games or not, the NHL does. And let's just wait to see what they call these 3 game mini series.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Spungo said:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Wrong.

From '75 to '79, 12 teams made the playoffs. The 4 division winners sat around scratching their nuts, I mean got byes, and the next 8 played a best 2 out of 3 series. Gee that sounds familiar. And guess what, those best of 3 series were playoff games - they counted for playoff stats, etc.

The new #7-#10 series is just another round of playoffs and the top 6 teams get byes.
So in baseball, when 2 teams are tied and the end of the season and they play against eachother to determine who gets into the playoffs, you consider that one game a playoff round? Give me a break.

Your argument is as.s backwards. If one or two teams got a bye, then I would agree with you, but the vast minority of teams play these 3 game mini series and they are clearly designed to determine who should make it into the playoffs and not act as a legitimate playoff round in and of themselves.

Oh, and you don't get to decide whether they are Stanley Cup playoff games or not, the NHL does. And let's just wait to see what they call these 3 game mini series.

No. In fact in an earlier post I explicitly mentioned the possible 1 game playoffs in MLB and said they were not playoffs, but counted as regular season games.

Do you know why they are regular season games? Because MLB says so. The results go into the final regular season standings (yes a team will have 163 regular season games) and any stats from the game count as part of regular season stats.

The '75-'79 first round games were playoff games, because the NHL called them playoff games. Thay had no bearing on regulars season standings or stats, and the NHL counted all the stats as part of that years SC playoff statistics.

I guess we'll see what how the NHL treats them. Do they count them as regular season games for standings and stats - no chance in hell. Do they count the results towards playoff stats - very likely. If they do, then they are playoff games - period, end of story. If they create some nebulous new category of games and count the stats as neither part of the regular season stats nor playoff stats (very unlikely IMNSHO), then I will admit I'm wrong and eat Spungo size piece of humble pie.

I was just pointing out that in the last 38 years the NHL has expanded and modified it's playoff format so many times, going from 4 to 8 to 12 to 16 and now speculatively to 20 teams, changed the number of games in the opening rounds, and used a variety of seeding formats. In every case all the games played after the end of the regular season were considered playoff games. Give me one good reason why this (relatively minor) playoff format change would be treated any differently.
 

Spungo*

Guest
kdb209 said:
No. In fact in an earlier post I explicitly mentioned the possible 1 game playoffs in MLB and said they were not playoffs, but counted as regular season games.

Do you know why they are regular season games? Because MLB says so. The results go into the final regular season standings (yes a team will have 163 regular season games) and any stats from the game count as part of regular season stats.

The '75-'79 first round games were playoff games, because the NHL called them playoff games. Thay had no bearing on regulars season standings or stats, and the NHL counted all the stats as part of that years SC playoff statistics.

I guess we'll see what how the NHL treats them. Do they count them as regular season games for standings and stats - no chance in hell. Do they count the results towards playoff stats - very likely. If they do, then they are playoff games - period, end of story. If they create some nebulous new category of games and count the stats as neither part of the regular season stats nor playoff stats (very unlikely IMNSHO), then I will admit I'm wrong and eat Spungo size piece of humble pie.

I was just pointing out that in the last 38 years the NHL has expanded and modified it's playoff format so many times, going from 4 to 8 to 12 to 16 and now speculatively to 20 teams, changed the number of games in the opening rounds, and used a variety of seeding formats. In every case all the games played after the end of the regular season were considered playoff games. Give me one good reason why this (relatively minor) playoff format change would be treated any differently.

You could use your common sense and rely on the 5 or so good reasons I've already given you. But if you chose not to, here are several for ya, listed in point form, brah.

- The stone cold fact is that these 3 game mini series' are used only to determine what 2 teams (from 7-10) in each conference get the last 2 spots in the traditional Stanley Cup playoffs.

What's happening is that teams 7-10 are forced to play extra games to make their way into the playoffs, not 12 teams are being given byes.

An extra hurdle is being added for the runts of the litter, nothing is being added for teams 1-6. A "bye" would be if the NHL reduced the number of playoff rounds for a certain number of teams (those teams getting a actual first round bye), not added a round for the runts (which is what this play-in is all about).

- More teams sit around scratching their nuts than actually play in this so-called "first round of the playoffs"... yeah right. Claiming that one or two teams gets a "bye" in the first round may be defensible, but when the vast majority of teams get a "bye" and never have to play in this "first round", logic dictates that it's more a play-in than a play-off. You are fighting for the right to join the majority of teams who are sitting pretty, waiting for the real playoffs to start.

- Fan reaction. Only a fool will be proud that his team finished 10th and "made the playoffs" only to be trounced in 2 back to back games and be sent home. His team didn't make the playoffs, they made the play-ins, which are tiny, little 3 game mini series which determine who makes the playoffs. There isn't going to be any pride, from fans or from players to have made the play-ins.

- Finally, if you can't see the HUGE difference between 3 game mini series of the bottom dwellers fighting to get into the playoffs vs. 7 games actual Stanley Cup playoffs series', then that's your problemo, brah.
 

OilKiller

Registered User
Feb 1, 2005
546
0
canadatv.invisionzone.com
Spungo said:
- Finally, if you can't see the HUGE difference between 3 game mini series of the bottom dwellers fighting to get into the playoffs vs. 7 games actual Stanley Cup playoffs series', then that's your problemo, brah.

Sorry, I agree with kdb. If the games are not played in the regular season, then they are playoff games. Seems like a pretty stupid thing to be fighting over though doesn't it? :shakehead
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
OilKiller said:
Seems like a pretty stupid thing to be fighting over though doesn't it? :shakehead

You, umm, may have missed a couple of other debates surrounding the timing of an announced CBA.

This thread seems almost logical, in comparison. :)
 

Trizent

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
2,109
90
Oil Country
I don't mind the new scheduling. I think I would have preferred that instead of playing one division in other conference twice (one home and one away) that a team would play non-conf divisions once each. This way only 5 teams that a team wouldn't see each year, rather than 10. It still keeps up the ratio of playing non-conf teams twice out of three years. But the way it will be in 05-06 is fine. I do like 8 times vs own division. Although that does mean 8 times vs MN for Oilers. zzzzzzzz

I would prefer a 8 vs 9 Wild Card best of 3 only for the 8th seed spot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->