Unfair advantage for 2nd and 3rd seeds

[yave1964]

  In the West, the Avalanche and Blackhawks know already that barring some really strange almost impossible situation they are meeting in the first round. Likewise, in the East the Rangers are close to a lock to face the Flyers and the Canadiens will be facing the Lightning.

 

  They have the advantage of scouting one team and preparing for only one team. Whereas division winners Pittsburgh, Boston and St. Louis need to prepare and scout several potential first round opponents.

 

  This seems wrong somehow, a distinct advantage for non division winners for finishing as also ran's within their own division. To me this situation As well as the very real possibility that the Lightningwill finish ahead of both the Rangers and the Flyers yet have to open on the road needs to be addressed.

 

  The easiest and smartest way to deal with it is to put the two division winners first and second and then lay everyone else out in order that they finish within the conference. Again using Tampa, they would finish as a four seed right now and open with home ice in the first round instead of opening in Montreal.

 

  So much seems poorly planned with the way this is set up. But our beloved sport changes the rules as often as Madonna used to change boyfriends so it wont be long before they address this ill thought out set up. Just hoping they get it right the next time.

[flyercanuck]

@yave1964

 

On the other hand your opponent gets to scout you as well. What's the advantage of scouting an opponent who knows they're playing you?

 

 And do Boston, St. Louis and Pittsburgh really care who they're playing? (other than the Pens probably don't want the Flyers)

[radoran]

Well, and there are actually three teams that could be in third place in the Metropolitan and five that could be facing either division winner.

 

Barring a collapse or a red hot run.

 

This is more a function of this year's situation. Two or three games break differently over the course of the season and you're looking at a much muddier picture.

 

I think the concerns about teams with higher points knocking each other out in the first round while teams with fewer points having a potentially "easier" route to the Conference Final is more of a concern.

[ruxpin]

I don't see anything unfair. First of all, so what if the 2nd and 3rd place teams can scout out their opponent. As FC said, they are also being scouted.

Plus, the concept is WAY over - exaggerated anyway. There really aren't that many variations and watching another team two times or ten times makes very little difference. Plus, assuming it's Rangers-Flyers might be a dangerous bet.

I don't buy the scouting thing as an issue.

And I'm really not worked up if a wild card team has a better record than a third place team. So what? It happens in baseball and the NFL. It's really not a big deal.

And it's perfectly fair. You know going in that top three in each division get in and then two at large wild cards. Finish in the top three in your division of quit your bitchin.

The ONLY scenario that would stink is if you have a situation where someone staying home altogether finishes with a better record than a third place team (for a time that looked like it may be the case for a western team vs. The Metro). Again, though, finish third and shut up

[jammer2]

  In the end, you gotta beat all comers, so that should be the mindset....set'em up we will knock them down, regardless of standings etc.

[Polaris922]

I think they should fix the positioning if for no

Other reason than home ice advantage also impacts revenue, and teams who've earned more points should be treated as such.

[radoran]

I think they should fix the positioning if for no

Other reason than home ice advantage also impacts revenue, and teams who've earned more points should be treated as such.

 

This is pretty much it. If the Flyers had 89 points and were ahead of the Habs and Bolts and they were still going to be on the road in the first round while the Habs had home ice, I think some people might have a slightly different opinion. As it is the Habs and Bolts have more points than the Rangers and one of them will be on the road while the Rags get a home ice series.

 

It's not that a third place team might have fewer points than a wild card. It's that a third place team might have more points (and does) than the 2/3 in the other division and still doesn't have home ice.

[ruxpin]

It's not that a third place team might have fewer points than a wild card. It's that a third place team might have more points (and does) than the 2/3 in the other division and still doesn't have home ice.

 

I still have no problem with this.   It happens in the NFL on occasion.  It's not that big a deal (probably worse in the NFL since it's one and done)

[radoran]

I still have no problem with this.   It happens in the NFL on occasion.  It's not that big a deal (probably worse in the NFL since it's one and done)

 

And it happened frequently with the old SouthEast division - with the "third seed" - and I always hated it then.

 

Division winners in the NFL have beaten Wild Cards with better records - and in two of the past three years (Giants, Ravens) have gone on to win the Super Bowl.

 

But I'm not talking about division winners, I'm talking about second and third place teams in divisions getting home ice when teams in other divisions have better records.

 

And it's a little different in a league where only 12 of 32 get to the playoffs as opposed to 16 of 30.

 

And the NFL Competition Committee has considered changing that on a couple of occasions and the proposal is still being considered.

[ruxpin]

But I'm not talking about division winners, I'm talking about second and third place teams in divisions getting home ice when teams in other divisions have better records

 

Yeah, but I don't see the difference in principle.  In fact, I think it's less of a concern.   The teams with better records are in other divisions.  I just don't have any problem with his at all.  It's even money that both Montreal and Tampa end up with better records than the Rangers and Philly.

 

I have no problem that Tampa is on the road while the Rangers get home ice.   I just don't.

 

Because while Tampa is bitching and moaning (pretend for a second that they even are), I could quickly point out that ALL of Colorado, Chicago, Anaheim and Los Angeles have better records than Tampa.  Presumably, Colorado and LA will be on the road while Montreal gets home ice.

 

It's just different divisions (and conferences in the case above) and it just works out that way.  Some years it will, some it won't.  I don't have any problems.

 

The only way to really eliminate this potential "travesty" altogether is to just rank the teams 1-16 like they did in the early 80s (I hated that then, by the way).  I don't understand the purpose of divisions at that point, other than for travel purposes, but if you did that you'd have (home team on the left):

 

1. St. Louis v. 16. Detroit

2. Boston v.  15. Columbus

3. San Jose v. 14. Philly

4. Anaheim v. 13. Phoenix

5. Chicago v. 12. Minnesota

6. Colorado v. 11. Rangers

7. Pittsburgh v. 10. Tampa Bay

8. Los Angeles v. 9. Montreal 

 

Everyone who "deserves" to be home is home; everyone who "deserves" to be on the road is on the road; and everyone who deserves to be golfing is yelling "Fore!"

 

For me, it defeats the purpose of divisions.  Honestly, the wild card is there to alleviate the threat of someone golfing while someone with a lesser record is playing. After that, I could care less about seeding or home/away (I know it makes a financial difference, though).   I'm okay with keeping the WC, but I would prefer just the top 4 in each division go in.  1 v. 4, 2 v. 3, and the winners play for the division in the 2nd round.   Division champ vs. division champ for the conference title in the third round, and then the finals as is.  it might just bring back some meaning to a division championship banner.

[radoran]

I have no problem that Tampa is on the road while the Rangers get home ice. I just don't.

 

Right, but again - and I'm not saying "you" - if the Flyers were in the "Tampa" role in that situation, I guarandamntee you that there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth around here.

 

Given the travel and other concerns I don't have a problem with the Conference format. I also don't have a problem giving seeds to division winners (now that we don't have the Little Sisters of the Poor division).

 

I do have a problem with non-division-winning teams in the same Conference not getting home ice over teams in the same Conference that have fewer points than they do. It makes no sense to me at all.

[ruxpin]

.I do have a problem with non-division-winning teams in the same Conference not getting home ice over teams in the same Conference that have fewer points than they do. It makes no sense to me at all.

 

I hear you.  I just don't personally have a problem with it.

 

I guarandamntee you that there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth around here.

 

You're right.  But then again, since when did we Flyers' fans need a reason (valid or otherwise) to wail or gnash teeth?   (As an aside, why does "gnash" have a "g" in it??)

[radoran]

(As an aside, why does "gnash" have a "g" in it??)

The same reason "night" does - it just does.

 

Because English.

 

Alteration of Middle English gnasten, gnaisten, possibly of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse gnastan, a gnashing.

 

I just don't personally have a problem with it.

 

Nope. Sorry. You're Wrong.

 

[ruxpin]

@radoran

 

I know you (and Yave) are trying to have a conversation on principle, but just to have a little fun with the specific example creating the situation this year.

 

Revenue aside, as a team and as a fan:   If you're Tampa, would  you rather Montreal on the road or the Rangers (MSL) at home? ( I think that would be the matchup if they cross-pollinated the conference seedings)

 

Tough call, but unless or until the Habs prove something to me in the playoffs, I think I prefer Montreal if I'm Tampa.

[radoran]

I think I prefer Montreal if I'm Tampa.

 

Sure, and the Flyers would probably prefer the Habs ("3" seed, Flyers sitting "6") than the Rangers, too.

 

gnash gnash gnash

[yave1964]

My big thing is either make it a divisional thing or a conference thing. The way it is currently set up it is both and neither.

 

  Allow the top four from each division in and have 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 OR

 

Have two division winners followed by 3-8 according to record.

 

  The way it is currently done is just plain confusing. Of course it is possible Boston plays either Detroit or Toronto and Pittsburgh draws either Washington or Columbus, in which case all is moot. Just killing time in a topic, lol.

[Vanflyer]

and everyone who deserves to be golfing is yelling "Fore!"

 

You can't possibly be alluding to the Maple Leafs!

[pilldoc]

You can't possibly be alluding to the Maple Leafs!

 

Speaking of which...have you read their message boards.  They are in full panic mode with the very real realization that they might not make the playoffs.  They are practically calling everybody out.  it very entertaining to say the least!

[Vanflyer]

Speaking of which...have you read their message boards.  They are in full panic mode with the very real realization that they might not make the playoffs.  They are practically calling everybody out.  it very entertaining to say the least!

 

They should be in full panic mode. Their team (and particularly their defense) is in complete disarray. While not mathematically impossible, I think if they lose to detroit (who is fighting for wild card spot), their goose is cooked. 

 

I like Carlyle, but if they don't make the playoffs, I think he is gone (and possibly noonis as well). 

[ruxpin]

Toronto's season is unofficially over. Funny I actually was specifically thinking of the Leafs when I typed the "Fore!" comment.

They're currently losing to Detroit. They lose that, put a fork in them. They're done.

[ruxpin]

Do you think the Leafs situation is on Carlyle? I'm not sure, but I don't watch them enough to argue either way.

[Vanflyer]

Do you think the Leafs situation is on Carlyle? I'm not sure, but I don't watch them enough to argue either way.

 

I think Noonis has to shoulder a significant blame. He did not shore up the problems on D. That said, its not his fault he inherited that stiff Phaneuf or that Bernier has been injured. At the end of the day you have to recognize being outshot nearly 30% more than shots being generated is a significant problem. Also having a near dead last PK. That falls on Carlyle, regardless of personnel. 

[flyercanuck]

Do you think the Leafs situation is on Carlyle? I'm not sure, but I don't watch them enough to argue either way.

 

 

 There is no way Carlysle is teaching that team to play that style of hockey. Which means the players aren't listening to him.

[Polaris922]

The Leafs are a tough team to figure... they show moments of great passion and ability, then streaks of who the hell are you again?  

[flyercanuck]

@Polaris922

 

 Not sure I'd call it passion. They get outplayed pretty much every single game. The entire team watches their goalie keep them in games, but if he doesn't get a star they don't win. Period.