New playoff seeding format

[ULF_55]

TIE bREAKERS

If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order:

1.The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).

2.The greater number of games won, excluding games won in the Shootout. This figure is reflected in the ROW column.

3.The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing.

4.The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season. NOTE: In standings a victory in a shootout counts as one goal for, while a shootout loss counts as one goal against.

 

[likeabosski]

Personally I never understood what was so wrong with having ties in hockey in the first place. You have ties in soccer league games and no one seems to complain about that. The obsession with needing to have a winner is an American thing I guess (NFL, MLB, NBA).

If we absolutely had to have the shootout though, I would like to see 3 for a regulation win, 2 for a OT/SO win, 1 for a OT/SO loss and 10 mins of 4v4 OT before the shootout (3v3 would be just too ridiculous). Being a .500 team would actually indicate that a team is actually average for a change.

 

[ULF_55]

Personally I never understood what was so wrong with having ties in hockey in the first place. You have ties in soccer league games and no one seems to complain about that. The obsession with needing to have a winner is an American thing I guess (NFL, MLB, NBA).

If we absolutely had to have the shootout though, I would like to see 3 for a regulation win, 2 for a OT/SO win, 1 for a OT/SO loss and 10 mins of 4v4 OT before the shootout (3v3 would be just too ridiculous).

We had ties for many seasons in the NHL.

I didn't have a problem with them.

Sometimes it is an evenly played game.

 

[rdawg1234]

Personally I never understood what was so wrong with having ties in hockey in the first place. You have ties in soccer league games and no one seems to complain about that. The obsession with needing to have a winner is an American thing I guess (NFL, MLB, NBA).

If we absolutely had to have the shootout though, I would like to see 3 for a regulation win, 2 for a OT/SO win, 1 for a OT/SO loss and 10 mins of 4v4 OT before the shootout (3v3 would be just too ridiculous). Being a .500 team would actually indicate that a team is actually average for a change.

Shootouts can mean the difference between playoffs and no playoffs(florida two years ago) which can mean alot of money for certain teams.

GMs clearly have no interest in ties, and 3 vs. 3 for a couple minutes sounds good to me.

Don't eliminate the shootout, but make it the last resort(3 min 4 vs. 4, 2 min 3 vs. 3 then shootout)

 

[Pyromaniac3]

Having no ties allows teams to get points, and look like they are close to making playoffs. GMs can say to their owners, we came close and just needed more luck. Allows them to look better than they are.

Looking at last week's GM meeting, it looks like they have no appetite for changing the scoring system or even introducing big changes.

 

[indigobuffalo]

Okay so let me get this straight, under the new format for playoff seeding, the top 3 teams from each division are guaranteed spots 1 to 6 in the conference, and then spots 7 and 8 are wildcard which means the next 2 best teams get them?

So Philly has 3 less points than us, but because they are 3rd in their division and we are 4th in ours they get 6th and we are placed into a wildcard slot. Am I understanding this correctly?

If this is the case I find it absolutely ridiculous. Assume we had the same amount of games played and the Flyers had 3 less points than us, they would automatically finish higher because they are 3rd in their division.

Why did the NHL choose this format, it does not make any sense to me is there a specific reason for it? I just find it completely unacceptable that a team with LESS points can finish higher than a team with more points than them in the standings. It is a flawed format, and of course since we are in the Atlantic division we are stuck with a harder vision to finish top 3 in.

Am I understanding this correctly or .. ?

It doesn't help the fact that Yahoo sports has us slotted in 7th and then the official site of the NHL has us slotted in 5th place


Anyone else not really content with this?

It's not any different in the sense you are concerned about than the previous format.

Last year the Capitals were 3rd in the East despite the fact that Boston had more points (62 compared to 57) and the Leafs also had 57 although the Leafs had more ROW than the Caps, so the Caps should have been 5th, and the Leafs should have played them but with home-ice advantage.

The current format keeps the same structure, in that divisions are granted freebies into the post season. Overall, a complete parity league should see roughly 50/50 splits between divisions, but apparently the Atlantic division is just awesome, and the Metropolitan division sucks terribad.

But this is just more of the same.

 

[HEAVY DUTY]

Personally I never understood what was so wrong with having ties in hockey in the first place. You have ties in soccer league games and no one seems to complain about that. The obsession with needing to have a winner is an American thing I guess (NFL, MLB, NBA).

If we absolutely had to have the shootout though, I would like to see 3 for a regulation win, 2 for a OT/SO win, 1 for a OT/SO loss and 10 mins of 4v4 OT before the shootout (3v3 would be just too ridiculous). Being a .500 team would actually indicate that a team is actually average for a change.

nfl game can end with a tie if no one scores in OT.

 

[indigobuffalo]

I flipping love shootouts and wish there were more of them.

Sorry for running against the grain. But it's a way to showcase the skill.

When I was a kid, my Dad brought me to a charity game as MSG, where some of the Leafs were playing (I believe Doug Gilmour and Wendel Clark), and some players from other clubs.

During the game, whenever a team drew a penalty, instead of having the other team go on the PP, they awarded a shootout attempt at the end of the game. It was flipping unreal.

It's exciting to watch. Puritans who are worried about keeping old rules purely for tradition purposes are just nuts for not liking the shootout.