The problem with the hard bracket

[yave1964]

  I feel I am starting to sound like a whiner in here when I talk about the way the playoffs are set up, I recently found out we were using a hard bracket for the playoffs and here I go again.

 

 Here is my example.

  Columbus gets the 7 seed and upsets the Penguins. Logic would dictate that they would then move on to face the number one seed Bruins but no. Because they are bracketed with the Rangers/Flyers, lets just say the Flyers beat the Rangers.

 

  In the other bracket the Bruins beat the Wings, The Lightning beat the Canadiens. That leaves:

 

  6. Flyers Vs 8. Jackets

 

  1. Bruins vs 3. Lightning.

 

  If the teams were playing within their division all along, in other words if it was made simple by just putting the top four in each division in and having them duke it out for the first two rounds, it would make sense but no logic that I can think of allows for them to not reseed after the first round. 1 should not play 3 in the conference semis. It makes no sense.

  So there I go again. Sorry if I am sounding like I am whining too much, I just feel they threw some ideas into a hat and pulled them out and whatever came out first was the way they decided to do the playoffs. Ugh.

[hf101]

According to your example you do have each of the two wild card winners in their respective divisions.

 

But think of it this way if your Wings play Pittsburgh and end up winning the division you just might see an all Atlantic final.

 

I honestly don't think it matters, come playoff time you need 16 wins to Earn Lord Stanley's cup.  Given all the parity in the league generally the hot team with the fewest injuries in the playoffs is crowned champion.

[ruxpin]

See i don't have a problem with it, again.   It's not about "logic" it's about being used to the way it was.

 

This is division based.     The weird wrinkle is the wild cards, but @yave1964, in your example there's not even a weird wrinkle.  It is NOT 6V8 and 1v3.

 

It's 3 v. 4 in the Metro and 1 vs. 3 in the Atlantic.   That's logical.   Play within the division.   Division winner plays the other division winner for the conference and then the two conference winners play for the cup.   It's actually perfectly logical. 

 

Where it gets weird is say Toronto sneaks in there over Columbus (not likely, but pretend).   Both WCs would come from the Atlantic The second worst WC would play Pitt and would be "drafted" into the Metro division for both the round vs. Pitt AND the round vs. Rags/Flyers.   It's still logical but a little weird.   @hf101 is right you could wind up with an all Atlantic Division semi. 

 

 

But for logic.  it's in division.   then inter-division, then inter-conference.

[yave1964]

@hf101@ruxpin

 

It is nitpicky on my part to be sure. After Detroit somehow beat Boston last night and with three powederpuff games on the schedule remaining I wouldn't care if we were playing Dynamo Minsk in the first round, barring a collapse worthy of the Leafs or the 1964 Phillies the Wings are in, and like you guys say, that is all that matters....

[ruxpin]

@yave1964

What's the story on Datsyuk? Is he going to be ready?

If you guys draw the Pens in the first round I actually predict a second round for the Wings. Then you draw NYR/PHILLY so maybe even a third round.

I know you guys just beat them but I like your chances less against the Bruins

[brelic]

  I feel I am starting to sound like a whiner in here when I talk about the way the playoffs are set up, I recently found out we were using a hard bracket for the playoffs and here I go again.

 

 Here is my example.

  Columbus gets the 7 seed and upsets the Penguins. Logic would dictate that they would then move on to face the number one seed Bruins but no. Because they are bracketed with the Rangers/Flyers, lets just say the Flyers beat the Rangers.

 

  In the other bracket the Bruins beat the Wings, The Lightning beat the Canadiens. That leaves:

 

  6. Flyers Vs 8. Jackets

 

  1. Bruins vs 3. Lightning.

 

  If the teams were playing within their division all along, in other words if it was made simple by just putting the top four in each division in and having them duke it out for the first two rounds, it would make sense but no logic that I can think of allows for them to not reseed after the first round. 1 should not play 3 in the conference semis. It makes no sense.

  So there I go again. Sorry if I am sounding like I am whining too much, I just feel they threw some ideas into a hat and pulled them out and whatever came out first was the way they decided to do the playoffs. Ugh.

 

It sounds like you're looking at it from a conference-based view of the standings. We need to forget those (except for the wildcards, of course) because that system no longer exists. 

 

If we took your thought exercise one step further, would you consider it unfair that teams in the East are qualifying over some stronger teams in the West? Shouldn't it just be 1-16 across the league? East and West is just as arbitrary as Atlantic and Metro. 

[hf101]

If we took your thought exercise one step further, would you consider it unfair that teams in the East are qualifying over some stronger teams in the West? Shouldn't it just be 1-16 across the league? East and West is just as arbitrary as Atlantic and Metro. 

 

The problem with that scenario just like the one that ranks the teams in each conference via points is each team does not play each other team equally.   Teams play each other in each division most.  Then each conference.    

 

I'm cool with divisional play it is like it used to be when you had Norris, Campbell, Patrick and the Adams division winners.  It adds a few more banners to the rafters, 

[brelic]

The problem with that scenario just like the one that ranks the teams in each conference via points is each team does not play each other team equally.   Teams play each other in each division most.  Then each conference.

 

Exactly. Ideally you could distribute the games evenly, but because of travel distances, it's less viable. I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could schedule a cluster of games like they do in baseball - 2 games vs the Kings in LA, 2 games vs the Ducks in Anaheim, 2 games vs the Canucks in Vancouver, etc. I always thought it was a waste of resources and time to fly all that way for one game. It might create new rivalries, plus you get to play them again the next night to avenge your loss (or extend your dominance). I honestly think you'd have more emotion in regular season games more often. 

[yave1964]

It sounds like you're looking at it from a conference-based view of the standings. We need to forget those (except for the wildcards, of course) because that system no longer exists. 

 

If we took your thought exercise one step further, would you consider it unfair that teams in the East are qualifying over some stronger teams in the West? Shouldn't it just be 1-16 across the league? East and West is just as arbitrary as Atlantic and Metro. 

  I disagree with the West/East part, because the top 8 in the East make the playoffs regardless of what happens out west. I am fine with top 4 per division making it and having to duke it out for 2 rounds before moving out of the bracket, it is this wildcard seeding, which conceivably and very possibly could have the Jackets playing in my division and the Wings playing in yours come post season. The logic escapes me. Simply go top four per division and have them fight it out for 2 rounds or seed accordingly with the top 8 by conference, those are the ways that make the most sense. I agree it is being a bit picky, I am just so happy the Wings look to be making the playoffs in the first place that none of it matters, but it seems silly the way they are doing it.

[yave1964]

@yave1964

What's the story on Datsyuk? Is he going to be ready?

If you guys draw the Pens in the first round I actually predict a second round for the Wings. Then you draw NYR/PHILLY so maybe even a third round.

I know you guys just beat them but I like your chances less against the Bruins

  I agree we have about as much chance against the Bruins as Custer did against the Indians (though truthfully we beat them 3 of 4 times this year and some teams always seem to have other teams numbers) and would have a better chance in the Metro.

 

  Pavel skated yesterday and declared himself not ready to go. I have been keeping up with this with great interest and he did not blame his knee, he said his conditioning was off and he did not want to embarrass himself in the national game against the Bruins or hurt the team in such a quality game. Look for him to return Friday against the Sabres. And Ericsson is right around the corner for the blue line, he has been an anchor this year and his return is an under the radar quality return. And Zetterberg says he plans on returning come post season. Not saying we are going to knock off Pittsburgh but with those three coming back at least we will be ourselves against whoever we play. I am truthfully much more excited about next year than this and am just happy that it looks like the playoff streak is extended to 23 years, and now we are playing with house money against the big boys.

[ruxpin]

@yave1964

 

You know what really isn't logically fair?

 

Gustav Nyquist

 

Thankfully, I got him very early in fantasy.  Looks like I have a new keeper.  He's been utterly amazing.

[yave1964]

@yave1964

 

You know what really isn't logically fair?

 

Gustav Nyquist

 

Thankfully, I got him very early in fantasy.  Looks like I have a new keeper.  He's been utterly amazing.

The funny part is he was always a huge set up man in the minors and in college and nobody could have predicted this. We haven't had a sniper since the one year Hossa was here, God it is so nice seeing him night in and night out scare the hell out of the opposition. 12 goals in 10 games. Amazing. He made Chara seem like a seven foot traffic cone on that breakaway.

[radoran]

  I feel I am starting to sound like a whiner in here when I talk about the way the playoffs are set up, I recently found out we were using a hard bracket for the playoffs and here I go again.

 

 Here is my example.

  Columbus gets the 7 seed and upsets the Penguins. Logic would dictate that they would then move on to face the number one seed Bruins but no. Because they are bracketed with the Rangers/Flyers, lets just say the Flyers beat the Rangers.

 

  In the other bracket the Bruins beat the Wings, The Lightning beat the Canadiens. That leaves:

 

  6. Flyers Vs 8. Jackets

 

  1. Bruins vs 3. Lightning.

 

  If the teams were playing within their division all along, in other words if it was made simple by just putting the top four in each division in and having them duke it out for the first two rounds, it would make sense but no logic that I can think of allows for them to not reseed after the first round. 1 should not play 3 in the conference semis. It makes no sense.

  So there I go again. Sorry if I am sounding like I am whining too much, I just feel they threw some ideas into a hat and pulled them out and whatever came out first was the way they decided to do the playoffs. Ugh.

 

This is akin to what I've been saying about home ice being a problem with this new system. Lower seeds can get home ice advantage while upper seeds knock each other out. Again, as it stands now, the Habs (#4 in the Conference) would play on the road against Tampa (#3). Meanwhile, the "#5" seed Rangers host the #6 Flyers.

 

They went with this "division" based system, as others have noted, in a nod towards the history of the league - and to "drum up" playoff rivalries. They went with the cross-division wild cards so that there wouldn't always be the same teams knocking heads in the division format and to allow some cross-division playoff matchups.

 

The East/West break makes sense from a travel perspective. It's not "arbitrary" at all - it's specifically designed to cut down on travel time and expense. It's also the reason that Detroit is now in the "East." If the League was just seeded 1-16 across the board, for example, the Flyers would currently play San Jose in Round One. Likewise the Kings would host Tampa. Boston draws Phoenix. That's a lot of cross country travel in the first round which can be exhausting, not to mention expensive.

[brelic]

This is akin to what I've been saying about home ice being a problem with this new system. Lower seeds can get home ice advantage while upper seeds knock each other out. Again, as it stands now, the Habs (#4 in the Conference) would play on the road against Tampa (#3). Meanwhile, the "#5" seed Rangers host the #6 Flyers.

 

It's only a problem if you compare to a system that no longer exists. The division winners play each other, and will be seeded according to points. So the Flyers would not get home ice advantage over the Habs in an ECF matchup.

[radoran]

It's only a problem if you compare to a system that no longer exists.

 

Well, it's a "problem" because teams with better records won't get home ice while teams with lesser records will.

 

I'm not making a direct connection to the previous system (which had the awful #3 seed problem).

 

If the situation was reversed - and the Flyers were "#4" and wouldn't get home ice and had to travel to the "#3" Rangers while Tampa at #5 does get home ice and plays #6, I'm thinking there would be more "concern" expressed around here.

[ruxpin]

If the situation was reversed - and the Flyers were "#4" and wouldn't get home ice and had to travel to the "#3" Rangers while Tampa at #5 does get home ice and plays #6, I'm thinking there would be more "concern" expressed around here.

 

For some maybe.  For me no because Tampa is in a different division.  Knowing that is the case going in and knowing my seeding in the Metro has absolutely nothing to do with the seeding in the Atlantic, that issue doesn't even occur to me much less concern me.

[radoran]

For some maybe. For me no because Tampa is in a different division. Knowing that is the case going in and knowing my seeding in the Metro has absolutely nothing to do with the seeding in the Atlantic, that issue doesn't even occur to me much less concern me.

 

Right, but that's accepting the guidelines and under the guidelines as currently set up, I absolutely agree that it's a perfectly cromulent way to do the seeding.

 

I'm objecting to the guidelines themselves - just as I did to giving the #3 seed to the Little Sisters of the Poor under the old system.

 

Not that my objections mean a damn thing

 

If the Flyers were in a position to have a better record and still not get home ice, we'd have all sorts of reports about it on CSN, etc. And the players would say "we have to win 16 regardless, it doesn't matter your opponent, etc."

 

Likely the reason they went back to a variation of the "old old" system because of the travel and time zone issues. It's more of an issue out West where going from, for example, St. Louis or Chicago to Los Angeles or San Jose (while not as long as Boston or Philadelphia, for example) is still over two time zones and a lot of travel.

[Commander Clueless]

Top 8 teams in the conference make the playoffs.

 

1vs8, 2vs7, etc.

 

 

Seems logical.

 

OR

 

Even better!

 

Cut the regular season short. All teams make playoffs. Go back to 16 teams per conference (because it's stupid not to).

 

1vs16, 2vs15, etc.

 

Leafs can participate! YAY PARTICIPATION!

Edited April 3, 2014 by Commander Clueless

[brelic]

Well, it's a "problem" because teams with better records won't get home ice while teams with lesser records will.

 

This only happens when you compare it to the old system. It's a division-based system now - conference standing has no importance other than the wildcards and ECF matchup. 

 

You could look league-wide and make the same argument, that some Eastern teams with weaker records are sneaking into the playoffs (Columbus) over Western teams (Phoenix). But league-wide is not how playoffs seeds are computed; just as conference standings are not how divisional playoffs are seeded. It's not a 'problem'; just a 'different' way of doing things.

 

I'm unsure as to your position. Do you believe the NHL should return to the previous format because of this comparative unfairness?

[brelic]

Go back to 16 teams per conference (because it's stupid not to).

 

Wait... you want to ADD two teams to the league??

[radoran]

This only happens when you compare it to the old system. It's a division-based system now - conference standing has no importance other than the wildcards and ECF matchup. 

 

You could look league-wide and make the same argument, that some Eastern teams with weaker records are sneaking into the playoffs (Columbus) over Western teams (Phoenix). But league-wide is not how playoffs seeds are computed; just as conference standings are not how divisional playoffs are seeded. It's not a 'problem'; just a 'different' way of doing things.

 

I'm unsure as to your position. Do you believe the NHL should return to the previous format because of this comparative unfairness?

 

As I said to ruxpin, it's a perfectly cromulent way to go about it once you accept the division-based format. In the division-based format it's entirely correct.

 

I don't like the division-based format. I don't like the hard bracket within a division. I don't like the idea that a team with a lesser record can get the obvious benefit of home ice while a team with a better record doesn't.

 

Especially with the two divisions, I don't have a problem with a "division winner" getting the 1/2 seeds (although in extremely rare instances you might have the problem I see with the current system). At least then you are rewarding "winning" something. But the rest of the Conference should be seeded 3-8 according to record. As it stands, the Flyers and Rangers should both be on the road to face the Habs/Bolts. As it is, either the Habs or the Bolts are essentially penalized for being in the same division.

 

I think that sucks.

 

Wait... you want to ADD two teams to the league??

 

So does the NHL...

[ruxpin]

I absolutely agree that it's a perfectly cromulent way to do the seeding.

 

Lisa Simpson, is that you?

[ruxpin]

But the rest of the Conference should be seeded 3-8 according to record.

 

Don't you think, even just a little bit, that is putting too much emphasis on "conference" rather than the divisional emphasis they're attempting?   I mean, either one is artificial and arbitrary when you think about it, so might as well go with what they have rather than putting personal emphasis on something that no longer has it intrinsically.  It helps the reflux.

 

Come to think of it, "cromulent" is probably an apt word.  

 

I can't criticize the "too much emphasis" thing though.  I'm currently doing at least similar in the shootout discussion.

[radoran]

Don't you think, even just a little bit, that is putting too much emphasis on "conference" rather than the divisional emphasis they're attempting?   I mean, either one is artificial and arbitrary when you think about it, so might as well go with what they have rather than putting personal emphasis on something that no longer has it intrinsically.  It helps the reflux.

 

Come to think of it, "cromulent" is probably an apt word.  

 

It's why I'm using it - I'm certainly not sitting up late at nights worried about the setup of the NHL playoff brackets. But I do comment on threads

 

To that end - I don't get the whole need for a "divisional emphasis" in the playoffs. The divisions are primarily there to give relevancy to the scheduling - they're not completely arbitrary. Neither, as I described earlier, is the "conference" format.

 

The league - and the individual teams - have an interest in not having cross-country first round playoff matchups - which is what the situation would be rightnow where there would be three of them.

 

Beyond that, I don't understand the "need" to have a division-heavy emphasis on the playoffs. We've just left a system that frequently rewarded a team from the Southeast and penalized teams with better records by moving them down the seeding.

 

Again, I understand rewarding a "division winner" (especially now that there are only two of them) for their regular season accomplishment of winning the division. I don't understand rewarding the Rangers, for example, with a home ice series simply because they came in second in the division. Nor do I understand penalizing the Habs and Bolts simply because they are in the same division.

 

If there's anything "arbitrary" about the division-emphasized playoffs, that's it.

[Commander Clueless]

Wait... you want to ADD two teams to the league??

 

Well, I was kidding around a bit with the second idea, but really....as long as they are even. Having more in one conference than the other is idiocy, IMO.