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.
They went for the Division thing like at the times of the Adams Division, etc...I think to accentuate rivalries but hockey has changed a lot and it is not been heated as it once was. But 1-8 was much better and more fair and you actually had the best clubs at the end.
Dream scenario would be 1-16 but it would be unrealistic.
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.I cant support a system that have had the real Stanley Cup finals in the second round 3 years in a row.
Why is it foolish? Because you don't like it?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.
Why is it foolish? Because you don't like it?
Good talk
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.
Probably because these teams are so good that one of them shouldn't be out of the playoffs on round one?You didn't give any reasoning for why it's foolish, so I came to my own conclusion, yes.
Boring matchups, lopsided matchups, strongest matchups way before the latter rounds? Yeah, sounds like a perfect format... Wait.
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.
You didn't give any reasoning for why it's foolish, so I came to my own conclusion, yes.
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?
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?Boring matchups, lopsided matchups, strongest matchups way before the latter rounds? Yeah, sounds like a perfect format... Wait.
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.
Probably because these teams are so good that one of them shouldn't be out of the playoffs on round one?
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.
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.
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.
Then we get the whiners that say its unfair for florida to make it in and new jersey misses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.