Playoff Format: Do you like it?

[Sabel79]

17 minutes ago, SDS said:

What is the modern day justification for divisions and conferences?

Travel was a big issue back in the day. The world is smaller now. 

The English Premier league works well without them.

England, in terms of square miles, is roughly the size of Alabama.

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

England, in terms of square miles, is roughly the size of Alabama.

That's fine. I still can't think of an argument for divisions or conferences anymore. There is a mild time-zone one where you can say west coast teams are less known to east coast fans because of late games, but I would say today's modern media makes every fan familiar with every team. Divisions should be scrapped ASAP. Conferences may be useful just to divide 32 teams into more manageable entities, but I'm not even really sure what that means myself. 

[WildCard]

4 minutes ago, SDS said:

That's fine. I still can't think of an argument for divisions or conferences anymore. There is a mild time-zone one where you can say west coast teams are less known to east coast fans because of late games, but I would say today's modern media makes every fan familiar with every team. Divisions should be scrapped ASAP. Conferences may be useful just to divide 32 teams into more manageable entities, but I'm not even really sure what that means myself. 

More familiar than in the 70s, sure. But the East Coast still dominates; the modern fan on the east coast doesn't pay nearly as much attention to the west coast teams as vice-versa. Conferences have to be a thing IMO

[pi2000]

41 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Totally on topic. I think round 1 should be 5 games. That is if they get the seeding fixed. Then go from there. 

If you want a 5 game first round, then you need to seed 1-16, or 1-8.  A 5 game BUF/TOR series matching two of the top 3 teams in the conference just isn't enough games.

[Stoner]

Sorry if this repeats what someone else came up with. I didn't read all the other posts.

Divisions are pretty pointless. You need conferences because of time zones and physical distance. We still don't have a way to get to LA in 12 seconds.

Two conferences of 16 teams. No divisions. (Or two divisions of 16 teams if you are so inclined, since the word conference might not work anymore.) The standings instantly explain the playoff situation, which is 1-8, 2-7 like before. That's almost enough to provide the rivalry angle the league wants. But for added rivalry effect, for scheduling purposes only, divide the teams into two eight-team sections. You play the other seven teams in your section four times, and the other eight teams three times. (But again the old divisions no longer exist.) That's 52 games, with an additional 32 games against the rest of the league for 84 total games.

I don't like adding two games to the schedule, but that's how it worked out, dammit. You could play every other team three times and have a 77-game season, which would be nice, as the regular season is bit too long. I doubt the owners would want any part of that.

For the final four, lose the conferences for a better shot at getting the two best teams in the final.

 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

That's not a terrible idea, PA.

[Stoner]

25 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

That's not a terrible idea, PA.

Sure it is.

Or... if you want rivalries, go all out. Four true divisions in each conference. Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal and Boston play each other eight times a year. Top two make the playoffs and play each other.

Also not gonna happen.

[Ross Rhea]

23 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

The current playoff format in the NHL, do you like it?

nope, not one bit.

 

The old way was way better. 

[pi2000]

Eliminate conferences and go with 5 divisions.

Re-name the divisions to honor the greats.... Orr, Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux, Pi2000.

4 teams per division make the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

[inkman]

29 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Eliminate conferences and go with 5 divisions.

Re-name the divisions to honor the greats.... Orr, Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux, Matthews.

4 teams per division make the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

Fixed

[pi2000]

33 minutes ago, inkman said:

Fixed

[PromoTheRobot]

I'd be in favor of a full 1 thru 16 bracket but teams might not like the travel involved. So I'd settle for conference seeding 1-8.

[Eleven]

23 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Totally on topic. I think round 1 should be 5 games. That is if they get the seeding fixed. Then go from there. 

They did that once (they also did 3). 7 is better.

23 hours ago, SDS said:

That's fine. I still can't think of an argument for divisions or conferences anymore. There is a mild time-zone one where you can say west coast teams are less known to east coast fans because of late games, but I would say today's modern media makes every fan familiar with every team. Divisions should be scrapped ASAP. Conferences may be useful just to divide 32 teams into more manageable entities, but I'm not even really sure what that means myself. 

The only purpose is to create rivalries, I suppose.  I'd be fine with them disappearing, except the numbers don't make for a nicely balanced schedule without going to either 62 or 93 games (once Seattle is in the mix).  I suppose we don't really need a balanced schedule, though, do we?  The NFL certainly doesn't have anything close to one.

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

They did that once (they also did 3). 7 is better.

The only purpose is to create rivalries, I suppose.  I'd be fine with them disappearing, except the numbers don't make for a nicely balanced schedule without going to either 62 or 93 games (once Seattle is in the mix).  I suppose we don't really need a balanced schedule, though, do we?  The NFL certainly doesn't have anything close to one.

I suggest most of this is legacy thinking that has just been ingrained into older fans. I'd be interested in hearing what younger fans think of "rivalries". I doubt many care. 

A true league would aim for balancing schedules (NFL gets some leeway due to a 16 game schedule and a 32 team league).  I think 62 games sounds awesome. Home and away - against every team.

[LGR4GM]

23 hours ago, pi2000 said:

If you want a 5 game first round, then you need to seed 1-16, or 1-8.  A 5 game BUF/TOR series matching two of the top 3 teams in the conference just isn't enough games.

agree. i would do 1-8

[Kruppstahl]

On 12/20/2018 at 11:13 AM, josie said:

My personal gripe is that there are too many games. By the time we get to the Final, the teams are beat-up and tired and I've found the hockey to often be more lackluster than expected for the Best Of The Sport. Best of 7 is just too many for the first couple rounds. Best of 5, then maybe 7 for the final... I mean sure, you get that incentive to sweep so you get a break, it's all about endurance, travel will suck either way, blah blah but I like good, energetic hockey. And a half injured, exhausted team slogging it out in round 2 just makes it look hard and arduous rather than powerful and awesome. 

 

but everyone else is talking seeds, so ignore if I'm off topic 

I agree, the path to the Cup is by far the hardest to travel for any major league sport in N. America.  Even by the time we get to round 3, teams are usually so beaten up they are in "Survival mode" and the combat we enjoyed in Series 1 and 2 is gone.

Watching an endurance test to see who can gut it out the longest isn't really that enjoyable; I'd rather see all series played with greater intensity if possible.

Maybe go to 5 game series throughout?  Not sure how to fix it.

 

 

[Eleven]

38 minutes ago, SDS said:

I suggest most of this is legacy thinking that has just been ingrained into older fans. I'd be interested in hearing what younger fans think of "rivalries". I doubt many care. 

A true league would aim for balancing schedules (NFL gets some leeway due to a 16 game schedule and a 32 team league).  I think 62 games sounds awesome. Home and away - against every team.

I LOVE the idea but there's no way the owners do it.

Rivalries create themselves anyway.  The Leaves weren't in the Sabres' division for most of my hockey-watching life.  I'll always have a special hatred for the Flyers no matter what division they're in and no matter whether there are divisions at all.  I'll always kind of have a soft spot for the Habs regardless.  

Rivalries--STRONG rivalries--exist in soccer even though there are no divisions.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Eleven

[pi2000]

One other thing.... the playoffs need to wrap up before June.     Start the regular season 2 weeks earlier in mid-Sept.   

[PerreaultForever]

I'm with the 1-8 crowd. Rivalries are good, but really don't like seeing the same teams matched up year after year. 

[Stoner]

I think it's interesting to note that if you're under 50 and consider the Flyers a rival, it's because the teams played seven times under the conference playoff format.

[Eleven]

14 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think it's interesting to note that if you're under 50 and consider the Flyers a rival, it's because the teams played seven times under the conference playoff format.

Nah I hated 'em when I was a kid, too, before that playoff format.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

16 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think it's interesting to note that if you're under 50 and consider the Flyers a rival, it's because the teams played seven times under the conference playoff format.

This is probably pretty accurate.

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

Nah I hated 'em when I was a kid, too, before that playoff format.

If you are under 50 you really would not remember much of that first cup final and that punk Parent and the other punks on that dastardly Flyer team.

So, your hatred as a kid, could it have been 'learned' from an older brother, father, uncle or someone?

[Eleven]

2 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

This is probably pretty accurate.

If you are under 50 you really would not remember much of that first cup final and that punk Parent and the other punks on that dastardly Flyer team.

So, your hatred as a kid, could it have been 'learned' from an older brother, father, uncle or someone?

Father.  And my friend Sean liked them for some reason, and we tended to hate the teams the other one liked.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

6 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Father.  And my friend Sean liked them for some reason, and we tended to hate the teams the other one liked.

Any father who hates the Flyers is a father of mine.