The Cup That Nobody Wanted

[Crazy Lunatic]

Who would want to win the cup this way? Especially if the season is 26 or 28 games. I'm not sure what the general consensus is on this board, but most people I've asked agree with me that it would be a cheap victory and couldn't compare to real Stanley Cup winners who had to get through an 82 game schedule. The more I think about it, the more I just want them to cancel the season. Forget saving this year Garry, concentrate on crushing this union like a grape!

Click to read more...

 

[Epsilon]

Guess those Ottawa Silver Seven teams are just "cheap Cup winners". I must have missed the day God wrote in stone that "the Stanley Cup champion must play an 80+ game season and 4 rounds of playoffs".

 

[mr gib]

Who would want to win the cup this way? Especially if the season is 26 or 28 games. I'm not sure what the general consensus is on this board, but most people I've asked agree with me that it would be a cheap victory and couldn't compare to real Stanley Cup winners who had to get through an 82 game schedule. The more I think about it, the more I just want them to cancel the season. Forget saving this year Garry, concentrate on crushing this union like a grape!

cue the violins -

 

[Shadow Journal]

I must have missed the day God wrote in stone that "the Stanley Cup champion must play an 80+ game season and 4 rounds of playoffs".

Yeah, that was the same day God was handing out brains. See what happens when you call in sick?

Kidding

 

[MeatTornado]

cue the violins -

 

[Epsilon]

Yeah, that was the same day God was handing out brains. See what happens when you call in sick?

Kidding

Yeah I was sick that day. Thankfully, God saved all the brains with good mathematical ability to be handed out later.

 

[grego]

Leaf fans would take that win in a moment and not care if anyone thought it was a lesser win.

If the Leafs won the cup in a short season, the party in Toronto would be so huge that even those that tried to say it was a meaningless cup could never be heard over the noise of the crowd.

The only people that would say it was an easy or a meaningless cup are those that lost. That one team that won could care less what anyone said they would after all be the Stanley Cup Champions.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Leaf fans would take that win in a moment and not care if anyone thought it was a lesser win.

If the Leafs won the cup in a short season, the party in Toronto would be so huge that even those that tried to say it was a meaningless cup could never be heard over the noise of the crowd.

The only people that would say it was an easy or a meaningless cup are those that lost. That one team that won could care less what anyone said they would after all be the Stanley Cup Champions.

There would be a celebration, but not hearly what it would have been if they won last year or next year with a full season. And trust me, the Toronto media would never let it go that the Leafs could only win when there was a bastardized season. Traditionalists don't want a garbage 26 game season and there are more hockey traditionalists in Toronto than in just about any other city.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Leaf fans would take that win in a moment and not care if anyone thought it was a lesser win.

If the Leafs won the cup in a short season, the party in Toronto would be so huge that even those that tried to say it was a meaningless cup could never be heard over the noise of the crowd.

The only people that would say it was an easy or a meaningless cup are those that lost. That one team that won could care less what anyone said they would after all be the Stanley Cup Champions.

True enough, but I don't think one could possibly conceive of a season short enough for the current Leafs to win the cup...

 

[RSBPC]

I'd take a cup that way. Playing a 28 game season does not make winning 4 consecutive best of seven series any easier. If they decide to do some wacky round robin, or if they come up with some scenario where every team makes they playoffs, then maybe winning a cup would be 'tainted', but as long as they play a 4 round best of seven playoffs, whichever team that wins the cup will deserve it.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

I'd take a cup that way. Playing a 28 game season does not make winning 4 consecutive best of seven series any easier. If they decide to do some wacky round robin, or if they come up with some scenario where every team makes they playoffs, then maybe winning a cup would be 'tainted', but as long as they play a 4 round best of seven playoffs, whichever team that wins the cup will deserve it.

Are you serious? What about a 3 game season? The regular season is meant to seperate the good teams from the bad teams and 26 games isn't near enough to do that.

 

[mr gib]

I'd take a cup that way. Playing a 28 game season does not make winning 4 consecutive best of seven series any easier. If they decide to do some wacky round robin, or if they come up with some scenario where every team makes they playoffs, then maybe winning a cup would be 'tainted', but as long as they play a 4 round best of seven playoffs, whichever team that wins the cup will deserve it.

as i canuck fan i'd take it - the consensus is they play too many games any way - maybe there wouldn't be as many banged up guys heading into the playoffs - less time for bert to clang some guy -

 

[Epsilon]

There would be a celebration, but not hearly what it would have been if they won last year or next year with a full season. And trust me, the Toronto media would never let it go that the Leafs could only win when there was a bastardized season. Traditionalists don't want a garbage 26 game season and there are more hockey traditionalists in Toronto than in just about any other city.

I love when people use the word "traditionalist" to describe a status quo that's only been around for 20 or so years. I guess if you favour a 50 game season and 2 rounds of playoff hockey you wouldnt be a "traditionalist"?

Frankly I think a short season and then a playoff, or even a tourney-style format, would be a nice throwback to the really old days. It isn't something I'd want to see all the time but it would serve its purpose and if the NHL were smart they could actually market it based on the appeal of it being "different".

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

as i canuck fan i'd take it - the consensus is they play too many games any way - maybe there wouldn't be as many banged up guys heading into the playoffs - less time for bert to clang some guy -

I got a feeling Bert will still have plenty of time to spend with his poodles when hockey resumes...

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

I'd take a cup that way. Playing a 28 game season does not make winning 4 consecutive best of seven series any easier. If they decide to do some wacky round robin, or if they come up with some scenario where every team makes they playoffs, then maybe winning a cup would be 'tainted', but as long as they play a 4 round best of seven playoffs, whichever team that wins the cup will deserve it.

Agree.

 

[mr gib]

yessum - they could play 35 games -

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

I love when people use the word "traditionalist" to describe a status quo that's only been around for 20 or so years. I guess if you favour a 50 game season and 2 rounds of playoff hockey you wouldnt be a "traditionalist"?

Frankly I think a short season and then a playoff, or even a tourney-style format, would be a nice throwback to the really old days. It isn't something I'd want to see all the time but it would serve its purpose and if the NHL were smart they could actually market it based on the appeal of it being "different".

What are you talking about? They were playing 70 games in the 1960's. When was the last time there was a 26 game season? 1902?

 

[FLYLine27*]

Id take a cup with 28 games...but I wouldnt want a cup won by a bunch of scabs in a 82 game schedule.

 

[Twine Seeking Missle]

Who cares how many games are in the regular season? In a 30 game season, most of the top "expected" teams would be in the playoffs anyway. If a bad team won the cup that shouldnt have been in the playoffs in the first place I could understand the uproar. But seriously, if teams such as the Senators, Flyers, Wings etc won the cup where is the argument? Those teams are a lock for the playoffs anyway and when the playoffs start, whatever happened in the regular season means nothing.

 

[Titanium]

Quite! As some have said, 30-odd games is ample to determine the best teams! Sure, the 16 that make the post-season would likely not be the 16 that would if it was an 82-game season, but the most-likely winners would be there whatever the length of the season (above a certain number obviously, so no "1-game regular season" comments!)!

 

[RSBPC]

Are you serious? What about a 3 game season? The regular season is meant to seperate the good teams from the bad teams and 26 games isn't near enough to do that.

I'll clarify a little bit. I would take a cup won in any realistic scenario, as long as the normal playoff system was used. It will never get to the point where there is only time for a 3 game regular season, they will obviously cancel long before then.

You don't think that 26 or 28 games is enough, but I disagree. I think it would make games much more meaningful, especially since they would all be in conference. A 28 game schedule followed by a full playoff is the best case scenario right now, much better than no hockey at all.

EDIT: FLYline brings up a very good point. While I would feel a cup won after a 28 game schedule and a full playoff would be legitimate, I would feel cheated if my team won with a bunch of scabs, no matter how long the season.

 

[mr gib]

I'll clarify a little bit. I would take a cup won in any realistic scenario, as long as the normal playoff system was used. It will never get to the point where there is only time for a 3 game regular season, they will obviously cancel long before then.

You don't think that 26 or 28 games is enough, but I disagree. I think it would make games much more meaningful, especially since they would all be in conference. A 28 game schedule followed by a full playoff is the best case scenario right now, much better than no hockey at all.

EDIT: FLYline brings up a very good point. While I would feel a cup won after a 28 game schedule and a full playoff would be legitimate, I would feel cheated if my team won with a bunch of scabs, no matter how long the season.

as westcoaster has backed up time and time again there's no way replacement player's will happen - if they did and we won the cup it would be weird - with 25 - 35 games i think the season could hit the ground running - much more meaningful -

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Id take a cup with 28 games...but I wouldnt want a cup won by a bunch of scabs in a 82 game schedule.

 

[grego]

I think the biggest problem is not the length of the season. It is the quality of players that would make it back for a short season which could be reduced. Under normal situations in the West Conference it can get very tight. A few years ago when from 2nd to 10th place there was a total log jam, and Edmonton and Dallas were out with the Oilers having about 92 pts on the season.

If we had a situation where enough teams in the division were that strong again this year I doubt there would be much of a problem in saying the stronger teams made it, when essentially that year the top 10 teams in the West were good enough to make it in the playoffs. So that only left 6 weaker teams in the conference. Of which in a short season likely only 1 or 2 would have made the playoffs.

If all teams had strong enough rosters that could be filled for a season. It is doubtful that more then a handful of the teams could even be debated that they were not a possible team that would have made it in a full season. The rest of the teams would have made it in no matter how long the season was. So it is not like we are saying ever team in the playoffs would be of low quality. It is just those last 2 or 3 spots from 6 to 8 where a weak team could slide in more easily.

 

[misfit]

Just off the top of my head, I can think of 30 teams that would want to win the cup in a shortened season.