1968 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Greg Ralls

Registered User
May 26, 2020
2
1
Why did the 1968 Stanley Cup playoffs start in St. Louis for games 1 & 2 with 3 & 4 held in Montreal? Were the Blues considered the home team despite having the inferior record? Where would games 5-7 have been played if needed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor No

Doctor No

Registered User
Oct 26, 2005
9,248
3,966
hockeygoalies.org
Appears to have been set before the season began - although I can't find who would have had Game 7. I found this line (in the Post-Dispatch Game One preview) entertaining:
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-5-26_12-35-41.png
    upload_2020-5-26_12-35-41.png
    586.7 KB · Views: 17

MiamiScreamingEagles

Global Moderator
Jan 17, 2004
70,919
47,820
The 1968 and 1970 Finals were similar. It could have been preset with an alternating method assigned. West gets 1-2 at home, then East (1969) and then West (1970).

It wasn't an uncommon philosophy used in sports. The NFL held conference title games that way. The 1972 Dolphins, despite being perfect, played the title game at Pittsburgh.
 

Greg Ralls

Registered User
May 26, 2020
2
1
Interesting - thanks all! So I guess it's still a mystery as to where games 5-7 might have been.
 

Crosstraffic

Registered User
Mar 15, 2015
1,707
727
Yorba Linda, CA
I have looked on newspapers.com and can't find a full schedule for the 68 final other than games 1-4, I would assume games 5 and 7 were to be in St Louis.
 

Summer Rose

Red Like Roses
Sponsor
May 3, 2012
90,685
20,343
Gainesville, Florida
I have looked on newspapers.com and can't find a full schedule for the 68 final other than games 1-4, I would assume games 5 and 7 were to be in St Louis.

Pure conjecture, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 2-3-2 format, with "home advantage" alternating. MLB did that for a long time until the 2002 ASG was a tie. If that assumption is true, then it might have been known that whoever won the west was going to host games 1, 2, 6, and 7, and the east would get games 3, 4, and 5.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,125
Hockeytown, MI
The 1968 and 1970 Finals were similar. It could have been preset with an alternating method assigned. West gets 1-2 at home, then East (1969) and then West (1970).

It wasn't an uncommon philosophy used in sports. The NFL held conference title games that way. The 1972 Dolphins, despite being perfect, played the title game at Pittsburgh.

Blues had home ice in 1970 because they were a division winner. 1968 is unique in that home ice was given to whoever represented the West regardless of such considerations:

Sports Illustrated in April 1968 said:
The NHL's controversial playoff schedule enhances the possibility of an upset by an expansion club. Instead of setting up interdivisional playoffs, the league decided that East and West would have separate playoffs, with the two survivors meeting in the final. The playoffs in the East promise to be highly competitive and extremely rough. Even if they lose, big, strong teams like the New York Rangers and Boston Bruins will surely leave many bruises on anyone who beats them. The East winners may be battered and exhausted going into the finals, and they will have difficulty avoiding at least a vague feeling that a series with Philadelphia or Los Angeles is an anticlimax. The West challengers may be in somewhat better shape, and they will have no trouble at all getting up for the final. They will also have the advantage of opening the series on home ice. Even with these factors going for them, the expansion winners will need a lot of luck to achieve an upset; but then, luck has been known to play a part in hockey games.

NHL.com said:
The Blues had home-ice advantage in 1970, having won their division 22 points clear of the Pittsburgh Penguins (86-64), with Boston finishing second in the East, tied with the Chicago Black Hawks with 99 points but ranked second based on wins (45-40).

Bruins-Blues Stanley Cup Final in 1970 was more than iconic Orr goal
https://vault.si.com/vault/1968/04/08/the-coasts-crazy-dreamers
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DJ Man

Registered User
Mar 23, 2009
769
218
Central Florida
In 1968 there's the unprecedented possibility that a team based on the East Coast might be playing a team based on the West Coast (e.g., Boston vs Los Angeles) in the final. The usual 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement would (if the series went the limit) involve more long trips than would a 2-3-2 series.

However, because the new Western Division wasn't entirely "Western" the final could have been New York vs Philadelphia or Chicago vs St. Louis, which counters that argument somewhat.

If you have largely or entirely separate divisions (or leagues) , it isn't fair to compare won-lost records across the gap, and the 2-3-2 is expected to be fairer, hence the baseball logic. (In the 2-2-1-1-1 the first host gets any "odd" game.) However, the NHL increased the number of inrerdivisional matchups again and again, so this really didn't apply.

So, I'd say that 2-3-2 made sense early on, less so later. The league probably intended to alternate the series start annually, but that was swiftly overcome by events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear of Bad News

Nerowoy nora tolad

Registered User
May 9, 2018
1,401
651
Gladstone, Australia
Blues had home ice in 1970 because they were a division winner. 1968 is unique in that home ice was given to whoever represented the West regardless of such considerations:





Bruins-Blues Stanley Cup Final in 1970 was more than iconic Orr goal
https://vault.si.com/vault/1968/04/08/the-coasts-crazy-dreamers
Its funny, for a coach that otherwise seemed to like keeping things simple and low key, Bowman loved getting into those stupid he-said, she-said media rap battles with opposing teams.

Can you seriously imagine an NHL coach in 2020 preparing a little presentation on "How Im gonna do this part of my job" for the media involving video of his best checker shutting down the opposing teams star? Theyd probably go out of their way to hide it if it was working nowadays.
 

svetovy poharu

Registered User
Dec 7, 2004
290
20
The NHL Board of Governors at their meeting in Toronto on
Sept. 27, 1967 decided that the first two games of the
Stanley Cup final will be played in the home rink of the
Western Division champion, the next three at the home of
the Eastern winner and the remainder, as necessary, to
be played back in the West.

Should teams far apart geographically such as Philadelphia
and Los Angeles meet in the quarter-finals or semi-finals,
they will play a seven-game series on a 2-3-2 basis. The team
finishing higher in the divisional standings will have the
option of playing the first or second group of games at home
or away.

If teams located close together -- Pittsburgh and Philadelphia
for example -- meet in the playoffs they will play a 2-2-1-1-1
series.

Governors also determined the breakdown of playoff money for
1967-68. Winners in the quarter-finals and semi-finals will
get $2,250 per man and the losers $1,500. The winner in the
Stanley Cup final will get $3,000 per man and the losers $1,500.

And with teams now expanding their use of air transportation
for game travel, President Clarence Campbell announced that
the governors had agreed on a catastrophe plan to be used if
five or more players on any one team are killed or seriously
injured in a plane crash or similar disaster.

The league will receive $100,000 indemnity for each player
killed or disabled and the money will be used to provide new
players to the teams suffering the loss. Any club losing
players through a tragedy is assured of receiving up to the
full quota of 20 players from the other clubs.
 

Nerowoy nora tolad

Registered User
May 9, 2018
1,401
651
Gladstone, Australia
And with teams now expanding their use of air transportation
for game travel, President Clarence Campbell announced that
the governors had agreed on a catastrophe plan to be used if
five or more players on any one team are killed or seriously
injured in a plane crash or similar disaster.

The league will receive $100,000 indemnity for each player
killed or disabled and the money will be used to provide new
players to the teams suffering the loss. Any club losing
players through a tragedy is assured of receiving up to the
full quota of 20 players from the other clubs.

I hate to go all George Costanza here, but is this policy still in effect?

You know what he says, its only a matter of time...
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->