NESN Marchand on playoff format
- Thread starter Gee Wally
- Start date
smithformeragent
Moderator
Mr. Make-Believe
The happy genius of my household
Is round one the biggest money maker because of the format, or is it because it's the only playoff series where you can see the Maple Leafs?
Stamkos is right IMO, the whole idea of playing a 82 game season is part of winning the Stanley Cup. It should give you advantages you have earned all season long by playing a lesser opponent in the PO's. In fact the 1-16 system would be the most appropriate IMO. The way it's set up now one of the 4th and 5th seed is going home in the 1st round. What is worse is that it is likely to happen year after year.
Personally this rivalry crap has gotten old for me. I'd rather see a different team every year. I'm all Habs and Leafed out. The casual fan would get to see players they almost never see. The hard core fan would get to know them better.
All that said, I fully get how this works on a business perspective but at some point it should be overruled by the fans. Sadly nothing rules like the almighty dollar.
Personally this rivalry crap has gotten old for me. I'd rather see a different team every year. I'm all Habs and Leafed out. The casual fan would get to see players they almost never see. The hard core fan would get to know them better.
All that said, I fully get how this works on a business perspective but at some point it should be overruled by the fans. Sadly nothing rules like the almighty dollar.
I’m on the fence. I suppose they could combine the two and still determine the 8 teams that get in using the current format, THEN break them down 1-8.
What i want to hear Marchand say is something to the effect of, “i don’t care. Put anyone in front of us and we still expect to win.”
Oh well. No matter how they format it people will be annoyed.
What i want to hear Marchand say is something to the effect of, “i don’t care. Put anyone in front of us and we still expect to win.”
Oh well. No matter how they format it people will be annoyed.
crimsonace
Registered User
The TV partners, possibly? NBC wasn't getting the matchups it wanted (nor did CBC) in the early rounds.
Bettman also envisioned a four-conference setup with no East/West, heavy divisional play, the first two rounds of playoffs being in-division, but then reseeding before the semifinals. That got spiked with the decision to add the Wild Cards (since one legitimate question was that a good fifth or sixth-place team from a strong division might be left out in favor of a bad fourth-place team from a weak division).
I thought the 1994-2013 NHL format was the best in sports. Reseeding after the first round also allowed for the top teams to be rewarded a bit more and not necessarily be able to feast on a weak bracket and then take advantage of a gassed team that had to play two tougher foes (which has happened a few times ... 2014 being a prime example. The Bruins ran into their Kryptonite in Montreal, while the Rangers slid through two weak foes and then beat the Habs. Rangers-Habs would've been a first-round matchup, not a conference final, under the old system).
At least since the 1980s - when USA Network (which was essentially an extension of the original MSG Network) held the national TV rights - U.S. television has largely centered its coverage on the old Patrick Division - the three NYC-area teams + PIT/PHI/WAS (I missed the SportsChannel era, but I used to call ESPN "Exclusively Shows Pittsburgh and New York" in the 1990s. NBC has continued with a significant focus on the old Patrick Division + the other three U.S. Original Six teams).
The current format almost guarantees at least two rounds with those teams involved. Canadian TV obviously focuses on the seven Canadian teams (plus Detroit and Boston). You have the Habs, Leafs, Sens, Wings & Bruins in one division, giving SN/CBC a ton of high-ratings matchups for the first two rounds, and the Canucks/Oilers/Flames in a division, increasing the likelihood two will play each other. Also, by grouping them all together into a couple of divisions (Metro for NBC, Northeast/Pacific for CBC/SN), it's likely each network will each have a team from its core coverage properties in the Conference Final.
It seems the NHL has sacrificed a balanced tournament for early-round ratings and to provide good early-round content to its TV partners (which are forking over tons of $$). IMO, it has influenced the champion and lessened the impact of the regular season.
Last edited:
I agree on the rivalry comment. Seeing the same old teams is boring to me and seems too forced. Bruins-Canucks weren't rivals until they played in 2011 and it still resonates today. This is the stupidest playoff format in professional sports...Change it!
GloryDaze4877
Barely Irrelevant
Yes...and no.
Yes, you do have to go through the best teams to win the Cup.
But also yes, you should be rewarded for a strong regular season. Making Toronto and Boston “go through each other” in the first round is not fair and not a reward for a great regular season.
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but IIRC there were more than enough entertaining 1 v 8 series in recent years to justify that format.
McGarnagle
Yes.
- Aug 5, 2017
- 28,837
- 38,389
A major reason that hasn't been addressed in the debate as much as it could be is the western teams insisting on it for travel reasons and ratings.
1v8 is objectively better in terms of competition and entertainment, and I personally want to go back to that. But back in the day, you had Detroit drawing Vancouver or LA in the first round all the time before realignment. It means at least two games for a West coast team starting at 5 PM local time, at least two games for a Midwestern team starting at 9 or 9:30 local time, and lots of air miles in between, especially if it goes seven. I'm pretty sure the western owners insist on the format to prevent having to do that kind of travel for the first two rounds. But ironically it's been the two eastern divisions that have wound up in a logjam where every year at least two of the top 4 in the league match up in the first round.
1v8 is objectively better in terms of competition and entertainment, and I personally want to go back to that. But back in the day, you had Detroit drawing Vancouver or LA in the first round all the time before realignment. It means at least two games for a West coast team starting at 5 PM local time, at least two games for a Midwestern team starting at 9 or 9:30 local time, and lots of air miles in between, especially if it goes seven. I'm pretty sure the western owners insist on the format to prevent having to do that kind of travel for the first two rounds. But ironically it's been the two eastern divisions that have wound up in a logjam where every year at least two of the top 4 in the league match up in the first round.
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Rocket Surgery
I mean 1-16 has to be off the table for TV reasons alone. Also, from a hockey POV, you think people bitch about having to play a team like Toronto a round early... just imagine if you go stuck playing LA in the first round for a chance to play the winner of the NY/NJ series.
The Patriots benefit, so no one around here bitches about it, but the fact that the Patriots get a cake walk to the bye every year because they play half their games against a crappy division is BS. If you go 1-8 you have to go to a more balanced in conference schedule. That means 3 games a year against the Habs. Only 1 home game against the Habs every other year. 1-8 would be no more fair that the current setup if you had to play more games in division against better/worse teams year to year.
I wish they went 1 vs 4 and gave us most of the divisional games in the 2nd half. How much fun would it be if the Bruins still had a few games to play against the teams they are fighting in the standings with. Instead if feels like we are playing Columbus every other game.
KrejciMVP
Registered User
Ad
Latest posts
-
Other Sports: Philadelphia Eagles (NFL): Super Bowl LVIII (Barf!) and Beyond!- Latest: Captain Dave Poulin
-
-
-
