What kind of playoff dynamic would you prefer for the future of the league?

[FoxyClean]

Do you prefer a league where top teams or "contenders" usually show up and perform well in the playoffs making deep runs, or a league where upsets are rampant and the "best teams" often get knocked out early due to hot underdogs?

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

Impossible to say. It's really on a case by case basis - in terms of how likeable the underdog team is, or how likeable the top team is.

 

[Machinehead]

I'll never understand the obsession with upsets in this sport.

I wanna see great teams do great team things.

Everyone hates Chicago and LA but them playing each other is the last time the playoffs were entertaining.

 

[cgf]

Are we talkin real cup contenders...or the top seeds from the regular season? Cause those are two disparate groups of teams, that don't always overlap...

 

[Gardner McKay]

I'll never understand the obsession with upsets in this sport.

I wanna see great teams do great team things.

Everyone hates Chicago and LA but them playing each other is the last time the playoffs were entertaining.

I don't know that I would go that far... Boston v Toronto and STL v Winnipeg have been pretty damn entertaining. However, I do know where you're going with this and overall, I do agree.

A Cinderella story like Vegas last year or potentially Columbus this year, while entertaining, shouldn't be happening as often as it does. However, 15 years ago people wanted a salary cap because the big bad Rangers overspent and poorer teams couldn't compete. The result is a watered down product where even one of the greatest regular season teams in NHL history is on the verge of being swept.

*Edit

Although, after reading @cgf post above, I think hockey will always be a bit different and now more than ever. With as fast as the game has become and size being more important than ever, you do have some teams that are just built well for the grind of post season play.

 

[Machinehead]

Are we talkin real cup contenders...or the top seeds from the regular season? Cause those are two disparate groups of teams, that don't always overlap...

They should overlap.

There's a flaw in the sport when winning games doesn't correlate with...winning games.

 

[cgf]

They should overlap.

There's a flaw in the sport when winning games doesn't correlate with...winning games.

Why would you think that? Regular seasons & tournaments are two entirely different competitions that favor different qualities...even if NHL refs didn't forget to do their jobs in the postseason.

Playing game after game against all comers is simply not the same challenge as playing a limited # of games against a specific opponent

 

[Machinehead]

Why would you think that? Regular seasons & tournaments are two entirely different competitions that favor different qualities...even if NHL refs didn't forget to do their jobs in the postseason.

Playing game after game against all comers is simply not the same challenge as playing a limited # of games against a specific opponent

I get that tournaments are different. After all, the FA Cup is known as the Land of the Giant Killers. The Champions League has also had its weird winners here and there.

But it's not to the extent it is in the NHL where a team that tied an all-time record can't get out of the first round.

You bring up a point about officiating. Hockey is the only sport where the rules change in the playoffs. That probably has something to do with it. And that really shouldn't happen when you think about it.

 

[cgf]

I get that tournaments are different. After all, the FA Cup is known as the Land of the Giant Killers. The Champions League has also had its weird winners here and there.

But it's not to the extent it is in the NHL where a team that tied an all-time record can't get out of the first round.

You bring up a point about officiating. Hockey is the only sport where the rules change in the playoffs. That probably has something to do with it. And that really shouldn't happen when you think about it.

That's cause the NHL doesn't have great teams, the league has built itself around forced parity so there aren't the kind of super-teams that there are in football who triumph in the Champions League despite the advantages that a tournament format gives underdogs. That's why it looks more extreme in hockey; the top teams are just good, not dominant & low seed are pretty-good, not middling/mediocre.

As for playoff refereeing, that's not really true. NBA refs swallow their whistles in the playoffs as well and there's constant talk of the differences between regular-season & "playoff basketball". And refs in football keep their cards in their pockets during finals & semifinals much more than they do during the round robin stages. It's human nature for refs in every sport to not make as many big calls in big matches, because they "don't want to effect the match"...not realizing that their non-calls typically end up affecting matches just as much as if they had made the right calls.

Plus some of that comes from older eras when people were tuning in more for the bloodsport aspects of the game and less so for contests of talent & skill.

 

[Machinehead]

That's cause the NHL doesn't have great teams, the league has built itself around forced parity so there aren't the kind of super-teams that there are in football who triumph in the Champions League despite the advantages that a tournament format gives underdogs. That's why it looks more extreme in hockey; the top teams are just good, not dominant.

As for playoff refereeing, that's not really true. NBA refs swallow their whistles in the playoffs as well and there's constant talk of the differences between regular-season & "playoff basketball". And refs in football keep their cards in their pockets during finals & semifinals much more than they do during the round robin stages. It's human nature for refs in every sport to be likely not to make big calls in big matches because they "don't want to effect the match"...despite their non-calls affecting matches just as much.

Plus some of that comes from older eras when people were tuning in more for the bloodsport aspects of the game and less so for contests of talent & skill.

I suppose it's true that it happens in other sports too, but in basketball, I'm still seeing the best teams win championships.

I want to see the best teams win. I want to feel like talent level and team building means something. I really don't feel that way about the NHL anymore. I feel like every team is a milquetoast clone of each other and winning comes down to bounces and momentum. I like underdogs winning, but in the NHL, it's not a story anymore. When upsets are commonplace, they cease to be upsets.

The forced parity, to me, is an issue. I'm not saying teams should just be allowed to spend freely, but I feel the cap system in the NHL is a little too strict and hasn't allowed great teams to be sustained.

Ric Flair said "to be the man, you gotta beat the man." That's true in real sports. When a team makes strides, I wanna see them get past the old guard. I wanna see if Milwaukee can beat Golden State. I wanna see if the Chiefs can beat the Patriots. I wanna see if Liverpool can beat Barcelona.

Who's left in the NHL for the emerging contenders to beat? Two of them are down 3-0 and two of them are drafting top 5 in June. The Washington Capitals, who have one Stanley Cup and just shed the choker label last year, are far and away the grizzled, war-torn veteran of the Stanley Cup playoffs. There's no story there.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

well, you wanted parity...you got it.

forcing everyone down to the average eliminates the truly all time great teams and means far more upsets will happen as everyone is bunched together.

 

[Foppberg]

Nope, upset away. Watching Tampa vs Calgary would've been the most boring thing possible.

 

[cgf]

I suppose it's true that it happens in other sports too, but in basketball, I'm still seeing the best teams win championships.

I want to see the best teams win. I want to feel like talent level and team building means something. I really don't feel that way about the NHL anymore. I feel like every team is a milquetoast clone of each other and winning comes down to bounces and momentum. I like underdogs winning, but in the NHL, it's not a story anymore. When upsets are commonplace, they cease to be upsets.

The forced parity, to me, is an issue. I'm not saying teams should just be allowed to spend freely, but I feel the cap system in the NHL is a little too strict and hasn't allowed great teams to be sustained.

Ric Flair said "to be the man, you gotta beat the man." That's true in real sports. When a team makes strides, I wanna see them get past the old guard. I wanna see if Milwaukee can beat Golden State. I wanna see if the Chiefs can beat the Patriots. I wanna see if Liverpool can beat Barcelona.

Who's left in the NHL for the emerging contenders to beat? Two of them are down 3-0 and two of them are drafting top 5 in June. The Washington Capitals, who have one Stanley Cup and just shed the choker label last year, are far and away the grizzled, war-torn veteran of the Stanley Cup playoffs. There's no story there.

In part that's because basketball isn't obsessed with parity, so there are great teams. There are no great teams in the NHL, the best teams are just really good...and a good team will beat a really-good team in a tourney way more often than they'll beat a great team. But it's also a question of perception. If you look at the pre-GSW NBA champions lists it wasn't really any different than the NHL with the way the past decade was dominated by Chicago, Pittsburgh & LA.

I'm with you about enjoying seeing great teams elevating their sports to new levels, more than I am with the NHL's monopoly of the good. But that's a different issue than the best teams in the NHL, as it's structured now, not winning even more than they do.

 

[SotasicA]

It's important for fans that everyone feels their team has a legit chance if everything goes well. At the start of the season, and then again when the playoffs start. That's what generates excitement and enthusiasm.

If your team has zero chance, then what's the point? Especially if it's like that year in, year out.

 

[cgf]

It's important for fans that everyone feels their team has a legit chance if everything goes well. At the start of the season, and then again when the playoffs start. That's what generates excitement and enthusiasm.

If your team has zero chance, then what's the point? Especially if it's like that year in, year out.

Because it's your team & you enjoy watching them play? Winning is awesome, but we don't just watch to see them win

 

[tony d]

Option 1, all these upsets are making the regular season look meaningless.

 

[SotasicA]

Because it's your team & you enjoy watching them play? Winning is awesome, but we don't just watch to see them win

Hope is what sells tickets.

 

[SotasicA]

Option 1, all these upsets are making the regular season look meaningless.

I wish the regular season WAS meaningless.

- fan of a non-playoff team

 

[cgf]

Hope is what sells tickets.

In lieu of a deeper connection. But my favorite team crams 22K people in every week despite having never played in the top division & none of us expect to ever win any silverware. Fandom is about the journey, not the trophy-count.

 

[Spirit of 67]

i wanna see upsets and I wanna see favourites win and create dynasties.

I like that anything can happen. It's why the games are played.

 

[NyQuil]

I'm voting the opposite of the agenda-filled OP.

The contenders have all of the advantages given their talent level so it's theirs to lose.

I'd rather see underdogs do well because it means the contenders haven't earned a deep run.

It proves that the Stanley Cup is the most difficult championship to win in sports.

 

[vancityluongo]

The 82 game regular season should not be superseded by a 1 month hot streak, much less 4 or 5 games.

I want NHL teams to strive for organizational excellence (ie. creating the best possible franchise from top to bottom). I have little to no interest in teams that simply achieve the mediocre, less than passing (48.4%) standard that is making the playoffs and then go on a run of some sort. Especially because those runs often dictate the future direction of other teams that look to emulate the model of the Cup winner.

 

[Hynh]

Contenders should win and "contenders" should lose.

 

[WingsFan95]

Hockey in general is more luck oriented than some other sports. Out of the big 4 in North America, Basketball is clearly the least luck oriented after which it becomes certainly more murky. Baseball can be considered but in a 7 game series a lot less so when you have pitching, outfield and consistent hitting. You can also just look at outcome to determine how often true upsets occur in baseball especially with a much smaller playoff format. So we're down to NFL vs. NHL. Again a lot less teams make the playoffs with top teams getting extra rest and although the games might seem to indicate the mantra of "Any Given Sunday" the fact is most playoff teams are deserving and are fairly equal which allows for "upsets" in terms of seeding but in reality a tale of match-ups.

So hockey, even in a 7 game series is very luck oriented and historically hard to argue. Whether it's the 99 Sabres, 03 Ducks, 04 Flames, 06 Oilers or 12 Kings. Except what's clearly connecting all those teams is solid if at times ridiculous goal-tending. But the league also has a different way of branding the playoffs. Not long ago, to keep up with the league's percentage of yesteryear, 20 team playoff formats were suggested. But now that the league is going to 32 teams we will finally have .500 making the playoffs if nothing is added. That alone should mean true upsets are less likely because the worst playoff team is still 16th in a league of 32.

 

[gifted88]

These are two extremes. I like the odd upset though.