Why did Montreal have home-ice vs. Isles in '84?

[se7en*]

They met in the conference finals that year. Isles were 50-26-4 and Canadiens were 35-40-5. Why did Montreal have home-ice advantage? Just something that's been nagging me for awhile that I want the answer to. Thanks!

Click to read more...

 

[It Kills Me]

The Refs are always on Les Canadiens side.

 

[TheViperOne]

The Refs are always on Les Canadiens side.

Yes, because NHL referees choose sides...


Morons...

 

[reckoning]

They met in the conference finals that year. Isles were 50-26-4 and Canadiens were 35-40-5. Why did Montreal have home-ice advantage? Just something that's been nagging me for awhile that I want the answer to. Thanks!

From `82-`85 they thought it would be unfair to give home ice based on points because the teams were in different divisions so home ice for the two division finals and the Stanley Cup Final was decided by a coin flip prior to the season. The same thing came up in `84-`85 when Quebec had home ice against Philadelphia despite finishing 22 points behind them. Starting in `85-`86 they went back to giving it to the team with the most points.

 

[MiamiScreamingEagles]

From `82-`85 they thought it would be unfair to give home ice based on points because the teams were in different divisions so home ice for the two division finals and the Stanley Cup Final was decided by a coin flip prior to the season. The same thing came up in `84-`85 when Quebec had home ice against Philadelphia despite finishing 22 points behind them. Starting in `85-`86 they went back to giving it to the team with the most points.

In Jay Greenberg's "Full Spectrum" he writes that Quebec had home ice advantage over the Flyers (despite the Flyers having a better record) because Adams Division (where the Nords played) teams had more victories against Patrick Division teams (where the Flyers played) in head-to-head competition.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

In Jay Greenberg's "Full Spectrum" he writes that Quebec had home ice advantage over the Flyers (despite the Flyers having a better record) because Adams Division (where the Nords played) teams had more victories against Patrick Division teams (where the Flyers played) in head-to-head competition.

I've seen the same thing mentioned, both in Greenberg's book and in (I believe) one of the coffee-table books produced by the league around the early 1990s.

And tcooke needs to get his sarcasm detector checked.

 

[Trottier]

They met in the conference finals that year. Isles were 50-26-4 and Canadiens were 35-40-5. Why did Montreal have home-ice advantage? Just something that's been nagging me for awhile that I want the answer to. Thanks!

...For like...22 years?!?!?!?!?

That was the series that really signaled the end of NYI's dynasty, IMO. Montreal, behind Steve friggin' Penney, was up 2-0 in that series and somehow NYI managed to come back. But they were spent, especially physically by the time the Finals came around, and looked exceedingly old as a result. That's no excuse; it was Edmonton's time, but Montreal really took it to them.

There were a few funky things done around the playoffs in that time period. This setup, as described by posters before me, and the 2-3-2 arrangement (just for the Finals ), as well.

 

[GuloGulo]

The 2-3-2 sched in particular makes no sense at all.

 

[arrbez]

Yes, because NHL referees choose sides...


Morons...

I believe that was Le Joke

 

[reckoning]

In Jay Greenberg's "Full Spectrum" he writes that Quebec had home ice advantage over the Flyers (despite the Flyers having a better record) because Adams Division (where the Nords played) teams had more victories against Patrick Division teams (where the Flyers played) in head-to-head competition.

That could be. I know in the 1982 THN Yearbook it says they were decided by coin flips (Harold Ballard made the winning call for the Norris Division) but maybe they switched after that year.

 

[NYIsles1*]

This club did not seem to have a limit as to how much it could come back when forced to win pressure games, in the Montreal series they allowed only five goals over the final four games and won a critical 2-1 game at Montreal before wrapping up the series at home.

Some Islanders felt the 2-3-2 was the biggest reason Edmonton won while others felt it was Edmonton's time. It was the first time the 2-3-2 was ever used in a final.

The fact Isles lost 1-0 and defeated Edmonton 6-1 in game two (with Gretzky scoreless in six finals games to that point over two years) makes me think if it was a 2-2-1-1-1 format Isles would have found a way to win the series or lost in a game six at Edmonton.

Too bad we never got a chance to find out.

No way do I see that Oiler team winning a Stanley Cup at Nassau Coliseum, home ice in that era of hockey seemed to be a much greater factor than it is today and the Oilers had a much tougher road to a final than Edmonton, if only they had to play Montreal in the semi-finals without home ice.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

...For like...22 years?!?!?!?!?

That was the series that really signaled the end of NYI's dynasty, IMO. Montreal, behind Steve friggin' Penney, was up 2-0 in that series and somehow NYI managed to come back. But they were spent, especially physically by the time the Finals came around, and looked exceedingly old as a result. That's no excuse; it was Edmonton's time, but Montreal really took it to them.

There were a few funky things done around the playoffs in that time period. This setup, as described by posters before me, and the 2-3-2 arrangement (just for the Finals ), as well.

Damn you! Thanks for reminding me.



IMO the turning point in that series was when Smith Stopped Naslund on a penalty shot. The Isles really took control at that point.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

This club did not seem to have a limit as to how much it could come back when forced to win pressure games, in the Montreal series they allowed only five goals over the final four games and won a critical 2-1 game at Montreal before wrapping up the series at home.

Some Islanders felt the 2-3-2 was the biggest reason Edmonton won while others felt it was Edmonton's time. It was the first time the 2-3-2 was ever used in a final.

The fact Isles lost 1-0 and defeated Edmonton 6-1 in game two (with Gretzky scoreless in six finals games to that point over two years) makes me think if it was a 2-2-1-1-1 format Isles would have found a way to win the series or lost in a game six at Edmonton.

Too bad we never got a chance to find out.

No way do I see that Oiler team winning a Stanley Cup at Nassau Coliseum, home ice in that era of hockey seemed to be a much greater factor than it is today and the Oilers had a much tougher road to a final than Edmonton, if only they had to play Montreal in the semi-finals without home ice.

If having to start on the road versus the five games under .500 Habs was a key factor to their finals loss it would suggest that the Isles dynasty was cooked. The Isles were a fantastic club, but were outscored 19-6 in the last three games of the finals. Trying to put an asterisk on their loss diminishes how good they were. Their time was up; they'd become overmatched.

It's funny how the Oilers are always belittled for their 'easy' road to the finals, whereas the Isles, who won their first two cups as members of the Campbell Conference, benefitted in that time from the playoff format most beneficial to top seeded teams. In the second two years they had the pleasure of having some of hockey's worst teams in their division. They also had great fortune in drawing two very average teams in Montreal and Quebec as semi-final opponents for the last two years as the cream of their opposing divisions fell out of contention.

 

[mcphee]

Damn you! Thanks for reminding me.



IMO the turning point in that series was when Smith Stopped Naslund on a penalty shot. The Isles really took control at that point.

I remember that idiot Richard Sevigny getting pounded by Billy Smith in a post game brawl seeming to give the Isles a lift.

 

[NYIsles1*]

If having to start on the road versus the five games under .500 Habs was a key factor to their finals loss it would suggest that the Isles dynasty was cooked. The Isles were a fantastic club, but were outscored 19-6 in the last three games of the finals. Trying to put an asterisk on their loss diminishes how good they were. Their time was up; they'd become overmatched.

I'm not suggesting the Montreal series had anything to do with the Isles losing to Edmonton. I am suggesting forcing them to play three straight road games (which no team ever faced before) did and thart that the Isles outscored Edmonton 6-2 in the opening two games of that series and I do not think Edmonton wins the series unless it's in game six on their home ice.

It's funny how the Oilers are always belittled for their 'easy' road to the finals, whereas the Isles, who won their first two cups as members of the Campbell Conference, benefitted in that time from the playoff format most beneficial to top seeded teams.

Isles had a war with Boston in 1980, had to go thru a very good Sabre team in the semi-finals and played a team with the NHL's longest unbeaten streak in the finals. in year two Isles had to play Edmonton, Rangers before meeting Minnesota in the finals.

In the second two years they had the pleasure of having some of hockey's worst teams in their division. They also had great fortune in drawing two very average teams in Montreal and Quebec as semi-final opponents for the last two years as the cream of their opposing divisions fell out of contention.

Montreal and Quebec as Eastern Conference playoff teams would have been among the top teams in the West, that's how big the disparity was between conferences in that era.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I'm not suggesting the Montreal series had anything to do with the Isles losing to Edmonton. I am suggesting forcing them to play three straight road games (which no team ever faced before) did and thart that the Isles outscored Edmonton 6-2 in the opening two games of that series and I do not think Edmonton wins the series unless it's in game six on their home ice.



Isles had a war with Boston in 1980, had to go thru a very good Sabre team in the semi-finals and played a team with the NHL's longest unbeaten streak in the finals. in year two Isles had to play Edmonton, Rangers before meeting Minnesota in the finals.
What a war it must have been to face those 6 games under .500 Oilers in 81 after getting past the similarly six games under .500 Rangers. Correct me if I'm wrong but if I recall their first round opponent was nine games under .500 Leafs . Lucky that they had enough left in the tank to get pas Don Beaupre and the seven games over .500 North Stars, over whom they had a 23 point spread in the regular season. Must have been a bit nerve wracking to have to beat a plus .500 club!!

Montreal and Quebec as Eastern Conference playoff teams would have been among the top teams in the West, that's how big the disparity was between conferences in that era.

Oh, yes, no doubt those 2 games over .500 Nordiques in 82 and five games under .500 Habs in 84would have had 115 points in the Campbell I guess that being in the same conference as those 32 games under .500 Devils, 35 games under .500 Pens and 35 games under Whale REALLY roughed the Isles up in 1983. No wonder they had it so tough in '84; it's hard to imagine how they got through the regular season facing the 42 games under .500 Pens and 39 games under.500 Devils.

Sorry, but I think your 'conference disparity' is revisionist history. There are good arguments for that case in the mid to late eighties, but I think you're trying to move the Islanders dynasty into an era it didn't exist in to give it more credibility. They spent two years playing without an East/West diviide and enjoyed some pretty favorable matchups in missing many of the best teams in the playoffs in their last three trips to the finals ..

 

[NYIsles1*]

Sorry, but I think your 'conference disparity' is revisionist history. There are good arguments for that case in the mid to late eighties

Only one team from the Western Conference qualified to play in a final for over a decade. (Chicago) Prior to that they tried conference playoffs after expansion with St.Louis making three finals and if I recall they never won a game so they had to scrap conference playoffs. The disparity in conferences was never greater than it was in the 70's-early 80's but it was still very dramatic until 1995 when teams like Detroit made the finals with Colorado coming over from the East combined with Dallas and St.Louis.

When this happened the disparity between conferences ended.

As for the Islanders their dynasty does not need any crediblity, no team won more consecutitive playoff series in the history of the NHL and no pro sports team has won four championships in a row since. Nor do I think opening the series in Montreal had any impact at all on the finals.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Only one team from the Western Conference qualified to play in a final for over a decade. (Chicago) Prior to that they tried conference playoffs after expansion with St.Louis making three finals and if I recall they never won a game so they had to scrap conference playoffs. The disparity in conferences was never greater than it was in the 70's-early 80's but it was still very dramatic until 1995 when teams like Detroit made the finals with Colorado coming over from the East combined with Dallas and St.Louis.

When this happened the disparity between conferences ended.

As for the Islanders their dynasty does not need any crediblity, no team won more consecutitive playoff series in the history of the NHL and no pro sports team has won four championships in a row since. Nor do I think opening the series in Montreal had any impact at all on the finals.

Are you aware of the teams in the two conferences in the decade you are talking about? It would seem apparent that you have no concept of which teams were in which conference during the Isles reign..

Are you referring to the 'Eastern' Wales conference which included such Eastern Ports as Los Angeles and San Francisco??

Or the Western Campbell Conference featuring the Islanders and the Rangers??

The EAST/West format was junked PRIOR TO 1974/1975. Suprising that Eastern teams were dominating prior to that? Hardly, given that the West was aside from the hawks made up of expansion franchises. The Isles were two time champs from the Campbell conference before the East/ West meet in the final returned.

You continue to post that Chicago was the only 'western' team to make the finals. What does the year 1973 have to do with the Islanders reign?? They Western teams save Chicago were all expansion teams, it created an obvious opportunity for an inferior team to reach the finals. That's why they needed to do away with the format. In the seventies there was no East/West disparity, because from 1974 until 1982 there was no EAST and West

I didn't sugges that the Isles dynasty needs defence; I just think it is silly to try and insinuate that they had some harder road to their success which prevented them from going further

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

No way do I see that Oiler team winning a Stanley Cup at Nassau Coliseum, home ice in that era of hockey seemed to be a much greater factor than it is today and the Oilers had a much tougher road to a final than Edmonton, if only they had to play Montreal in the semi-finals without home ice.

and then later...

Nor do I think opening the series in Montreal had any impact at all on the finals.

So the series with the mighty 75 point Habs on enemy ice did have an effect or didn't??

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Only one team from the Western Conference qualified to play in a final for over a decade. (Chicago) Prior to that they tried conference playoffs after expansion with St.Louis making three finals and if I recall they never won a game so they had to scrap conference playoffs. The disparity in conferences was never greater than it was in the 70's-early 80's but it was still very dramatic until 1995 when teams like Detroit made the finals with Colorado coming over from the East combined with Dallas and St.Louis.

When this happened the disparity between conferences ended.

As for the Islanders their dynasty does not need any crediblity, no team won more consecutitive playoff series in the history of the NHL and no pro sports team has won four championships in a row since. Nor do I think opening the series in Montreal had any impact at all on the finals.

Please advise which greater than ten year period you speak of.. I'm mystified

 

[NYIsles1*]

and then later...
Nor do I think opening the series in Montreal had any impact at all on the finals.
So the series with the mighty 75 point Habs on enemy ice did have an effect or didn't??

I do not think it had an effect for the Isles, but for Edmonton, a team with no such media/fan exposure (aside from it's finals experience with the Isles the previous year)
it that kind of hockey vacum it would have been much tougher for them, considering the Isles lost the first two games and they were a veteran team, it would have been interesting to see what toll it put on the young Oilers, a club that from the day it left Nassau Coliseum after being swept flat out felt it was preparring an entire season and playoffs for a rematch with New York.

Kevin Lowe said it before the 84 finals. Isles did not have that kind of luxury.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I do not think it had an effect for the Isles, but for Edmonton, a team with no such media/fan exposure (aside from it's finals experience with the Isles the previous year)
it that kind of hockey vacum it would have been much tougher for them, considering the Isles lost the first two games and they were a veteran team, it would have been interesting to see what toll it put on the young Oilers, a club that from the day it left Nassau Coliseum after being swept flat out felt it was preparring an entire season and playoffs for a rematch with New York.

Kevin Lowe said it before the 84 finals. Isles did not have that kind of luxury.

One never has the ability to read another's mind, but I think you are misunderstanding one of my favorite defencemen.

Of course they were focusing on the Islanders all year, their goal was to win the cup and the Islanders by virtue of their four year hold on the mug were the target. They spent the year focusing on taking advantage of the next chance to dethrone the champs. It didn't mean they were on vacation the rest of the year, it meant that the cup was the only thing that really mattered. THey focused on being stronger mentally and spanked their elder counterpart.

When was that longer than a decade period in which only Chicago represented the West in the finals again???

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I do not think it had an effect for the Isles, but for Edmonton, a team with no such media/fan exposure (aside from it's finals experience with the Isles the previous year)it that kind of hockey vacum it would have been much tougher for them, considering the Isles lost the first two games and they were a veteran team, it would have been interesting to see what toll it put on the young Oilers, a club that from the day it left Nassau Coliseum after being swept flat out felt it was preparring an entire season and playoffs for a rematch with New York.

Kevin Lowe said it before the 84 finals. Isles did not have that kind of luxury.

Wasn't there some guy on that team that used to draw attention every once in a rare while between 79 and 84????

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I remember that idiot Richard Sevigny getting pounded by Billy Smith in a post game brawl seeming to give the Isles a lift.

I recall that. I think it was at the end of game two. Lemaire did a great job that playoff, but one thing I never quite understood is why Sevigny was the backup and not Rick Walmsly, a far superior goalie.

 

[V-2 Schneider]

What gets lost about that playoff run,is the Habs were one of the hottest teams in the NHL the last month of the season.They really,really began to gel as a team very late, and it helped to give a respite for what was shaping up as a brutal overall season.It was a treat to see Chelios bag his first goal against Boston, and the run had an air of a Cinderella story about it all.

That team is a good case study for how a hot team,playing sound team D, a steady G, and scoring on turnovers, can go far in a playoff run.There always seem to be one or two teams each season that show the same qualities that the 1984 Habs did.

The Isles paid a dear price for that playoff win, as did any team that beat the '80's version of the Habs.The Habs were a physical team that worked hard for 60mins every night, and if their skilled stars were silent, then the grinders came to the fore.Any team they faced ended up black and blue.