1865
Alpha Couturier
Yeh, i've been on the 1-8 train but i'm now firmly looking at 1-16. Travel isn't a problem and it'll lead to far more interesting match-ups with a far bigger advantage for higher seeds.
NHL claims this is the best playoff format they have ever had. no changes on horizon
- Thread starter hockeykicker
- Start date
Dr Pepper
Registered User
Of course they're going to say everything's hunky-dory, it's not like the NHL or Bettman to admit when something they implemented hasn't worked out well.
Having the 2nd and 3rd seed in the conference meet in the first round is just foolish. But that's the way they want this league to work, apparently.
Having the 2nd and 3rd seed in the conference meet in the first round is just foolish. But that's the way they want this league to work, apparently.
This is just bitching for the sake of bitching because I hate to break it to you,but you'll never see Winnipeg/Nashville or Washington/Pittsburgh finals. For blatantly obvious reasons.
Dr Pepper
Registered User
You didn't give any reasoning for why it's foolish, so I came to my own conclusion, yes....If that's your only takeaway from what I said, I don't know what to tell you.
I found this years playoffs to be far more exciting than years past because of what the matchups were. God forbid you have to go through the best teams to win the whole thing though eh?
Boring matchups, lopsided matchups, strongest matchups way before the latter rounds? Yeah, sounds like a perfect format... Wait.
You know, there's this thing about wanting the format to be fair.
Probably because these teams are so good that one of them shouldn't be out of the playoffs on round one?
You know, there's this thing about wanting the format to be fair.
Dr Pepper
Registered User
Alright, look at it this way.
Bettman: Alright, gentlemen, we're going to shake up the playoff brackets
NHL Execs: ....Why?
Bettman: Division rivalries.
NHL Execs: Ok? Well, we were thinking the way it's been has worked out fine, You know, top seed versus 8, 2nd seed versus 7, etc....
Bettman: Yeah, scrap all that. Let's try this. Let's make it all about divisions, first and foremost. That's what fans want. Division rivalries.
NHL Execs: Wait, but what if there's a division imbalance? LIke, if the top three teams are all in the same division...
Bettman: Uh huh?
NHL Execs: ....Don't you think it would seem unfair, if one of those teams is out early? They should get an easier matchup, after the 82-game regular season.
Bettman: Nope. Too bad for them
NHL Execs: This seems like a really bad idea
Bettman: Division. Rivalries.
....I realize I'm probably giving Bettman way too much credit for spearheading this idiotic shift in playoff seeding, but I can't think of any other reason why they changed from the 1v8, 2v7 system that was 100% fair and logical.
If the vast majority of fans are on the other side of the fence when it comes to whether or not this is a good system, what does that tell you?
The hell does it matter what round you get knocked out in? You either win the cup or you lose and go home. Do you think the players give a rats ass about what round that happens in?
Also, what's with this fascination about what is "fair"? Why is it "fair" to have a team that limps into the playoffs face the reigning back to back champions, but not fair to have those same champions play a better team?
You just sound like a whiner to me,honestly.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Alright, look at it this way.
Bettman: Alright, gentlemen, we're going to shake up the playoff brackets
NHL Execs: ....Why?
Bettman: Division rivalries.
NHL Execs: Ok? Well, we were thinking the way it's been has worked out fine, You know, top seed versus 8, 2nd seed versus 7, etc....
Bettman: Yeah, scrap all that. Let's try this. Let's make it all about divisions, first and foremost. That's what fans want. Division rivalries.
NHL Execs: Wait, but what if there's a division imbalance? LIke, if the top three teams are all in the same division...
Bettman: Uh huh?
NHL Execs: ....Don't you think it would seem unfair, if one of those teams is out early? They should get an easier matchup, after the 82-game regular season.
Bettman: Nope. Too bad for them
NHL Execs: This seems like a really bad idea
Bettman: Division. Rivalries.
....I realize I'm probably giving Bettman way too much credit for spearheading this idiotic shift in playoff seeding, but I can't think of any other reason why they changed from the 1v8, 2v7 system that was 100% fair and logical.
If the vast majority of fans are on the other side of the fence when it comes to whether or not this is a good system, what does that tell you?
And yet this system was in place longgggg before bettman was even a thought to be the commish.
And it was an amazing format. And that is from a bruins fan from the late 80's to mid 2000's. Where i knew if they were to win the cup they would have to go through montreal.
Dr Pepper
Registered User
I get that you gotta win 16 games regardless, but pitting the conference's 2nd and 3rd seed against each other in the first round just doesn't make sense in any format. Unless you do away with conferences altogether and just make it streamlined, top-4 in each division. But they won't do that, so we get this mess.
Still can't figure out what was wrong with 1v8. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why that system was scrapped.
I get that you gotta win 16 games regardless, but pitting the conference's 2nd and 3rd seed against each other in the first round just doesn't make sense in any format. Unless you do away with conferences altogether and just make it streamlined, top-4 in each division. But they won't do that, so we get this mess.
Still can't figure out what was wrong with 1v8. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why that system was scrapped.
Travel and money is the big one. And also doesn't help with ratings especially in the west where you could be having 1 team starting 4 straight rounds where your away games start when they are still at work. Or week day games ending at 2am for a 3 period game for the other team.
East fans would be livid if they were forced to start every game at 5pm or earlier.
Dr Pepper
Registered User
Then there should be a straight system of top-4 in each division, with no wild card, if travel is such a concern. Why run the risk of a Dallas/Vancouver series when they're in separate divisions? Or San Jose/Nashville.
Keep all the west coast teams battling eachother til the 3rd round, and then they'll meet the Central champ.
If travel and time zones are of more importance than actual regular season performance, that seems to be the fairest solution.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I find it peculiar that some people’s idea of a “perfect” 1v16 first-round matchup would have been:
Nashville vs Florida
Nashville vs Florida
Then we get the whiners that say its unfair for florida to make it in and new jersey misses.
Dr Pepper
Registered User
Can't have it both ways, though.
Either you take the logical route as far as regular season performance goes and seed 1 to 8, regardless of division (save the division winners, naturally),
OR
We throw all that out the window in favour of a more localized, eco-friendly system that favours divisional matchups.
Seems like the league has chosen the latter.
PBandJ
If it didn't happen in the 80's, it didn't happen
Good. I love it. Win the division, win the conference, win the league.
Gotta win 16 anyway, if you can't, you don't deserve Stanley.
Gotta win 16 anyway, if you can't, you don't deserve Stanley.
No they chose the best option for the alignment of the league where some divisions have 8. While others have 7.
In 2 or so years that alignment will be gone and i will bet the playoffs go to straight 4 and 4.
I've yet to hear any reasonable explanations as to why the best teams playing in the first couple rounds doesn't make any sense, other than the fact that some people here just don't like it. You keep saying how it makes no sense at all, but provide no insight into that opinion.I get that you gotta win 16 games regardless, but pitting the conference's 2nd and 3rd seed against each other in the first round just doesn't make sense in any format. Unless you do away with conferences altogether and just make it streamlined, top-4 in each division. But they won't do that, so we get this mess.
Still can't figure out what was wrong with 1v8. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why that system was scrapped.
Dr Pepper
Registered User
In the NBA playoffs, do the 2nd and 3rd seeds play eachother in the first round? Or do they get lesser seeds? Pretty sure it's the latter.
There's something to be said for finishing the regular season high enough to earn home ice advantage (i.e. top 4 in the conference, or at least it used to be), and then start on the road while a team that finished worse than you gets to enjoy that same advantage.
In the NBA playoffs, do the 2nd and 3rd seeds play eachother in the first round? Or do they get lesser seeds? Pretty sure it's the latter.
There's something to be said for finishing the regular season high enough to earn home ice advantage (i.e. top 4 in the conference, or at least it used to be), and then start on the road while a team that finished worse than you gets to enjoy that same advantage.
That happened in the 1vs8 format also. But blah blah home ice blah blah.
The NBA is also hot f***ing garbage. I don't watch it so I don't know what they do, other than stack a couple of teams and have them play each other in the finals every year.In the NBA playoffs, do the 2nd and 3rd seeds play eachother in the first round? Or do they get lesser seeds? Pretty sure it's the latter.
There's something to be said for finishing the regular season high enough to earn home ice advantage (i.e. top 4 in the conference, or at least it used to be), and then start on the road while a team that finished worse than you gets to enjoy that same advantage.
Why, in your opinion, does the NHL need to mimic the NBA, as that seems to be your reasonable explanation.
