The problem with the hard bracket

[ruxpin]

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

 

Dammit. There you go making sense again.  Put in that context, I can't really argue your point.   I don't have a problem with the divisional format, but now (late to the party) at least completely understand where you're coming from.   Point to rad.

[radoran]

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.

 

I completely agree with this. Absolute idiocy. Especially with a division-heavy emphasis. Teams in a seven-team division have less competition for playoff spots than divisions with eight teams.

 

Which is why both seven-team divisions are int he West and the West is where they are planning the next expansion (Seattle, Vegas, Kansas City, Victoria, Saskatoon, etc.)

 

Dammit. There you go making sense again. 

 

I'm sorry

[Commander Clueless]

I completely agree with this. Absolute idiocy. Especially with a division-heavy emphasis. Teams in a seven-team division have less competition for playoff spots than divisions with eight teams.

 

Which is why both seven-team divisions are int he West and the West is where they are planning the next expansion (Seattle, Vegas, Kansas City, Victoria, Saskatoon, etc.)

 

 

I'm sorry

 

Whether it's expansion or a re-re-organization, they really need to fix this. For the reasons you mentioned, its stupid. I also hate the divisional emphasis. I appreciate the rivalry thing, but let teams develop their own rivalries. It should be the best teams make it and the top teams play the lower teams, period. If it's all teams from one division, so be it.

 

If they do expand, then maybe we can try the everybody makes the playoffs format.

 

Pure chaos. I'm an agent of chaos.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Commander Clueless

[brelic]

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.

 

It sounds like you are attributing the new format to some sort of 'need' by the league. I'm not sure there are any 'needs' involved; only decisions to tweak the way things are done in the name of continuous improvement. Many fans argue that those 'improvements' are not actually improvements (shootouts, hybrid icing, new divisions and names, expansions, relocations, overseas exhibition games, etc). Those making the decisions, however, I'm sure they believe they are making the product better.

 

I can't identify a 'need' to move to this format; only a desire to make the product better. And to that end, more divisional playoff rivalries may well accomplish that goal or it may not.

 

If you don't like it, don't worry; they'll change it all over again at the next lockout in 2020.

[radoran]

I appreciate the rivalry thing

And to that end, more divisional playoff rivalries may well accomplish that goal or it may not.

 

See, I don't really get the "rivalry" thing. Some of my most memorable playoff series came against teams that weren't in the Flyers division - Buffalo, Ottawa, Tampa, Boston.

 

Given that only one of the "divisional" matchups guarantees a matchup of two division foes - it's not even effective at that goal.

[Commander Clueless]

See, I don't really get the "rivalry" thing. Some of my most memorable playoff series came against teams that weren't in the Flyers division - Buffalo, Ottawa, Tampa, Boston.

Given that only one of the "divisional" matchups guarantees a matchup of two division foes - it's not even effective at that goal.

I actually agree with you. I guess I should have said that I appreciate what the NHL is trying to do - get people pumped up.

To that end, why not let more rivalries be born in the playoffs?

Sure, play more regular season games against established rivals. That's probably a sound business move.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Commander Clueless

[radoran]

Sure, play more regular season games against established rivals. That's probably a sound business move.

 

But they actually reduced the number of in-Division games with the new alignment - specifically to get to play each team in the other Conference home and home.

 

Used to be six games against each member of your division - that's down to four. I actually like that because, quite frankly, six games was a bit much. Two against each team from the other conference and 3 (or 2) against the other division in your conference.

 

The "division-emphasis" in the playoffs was apparently intended to foster more "rivalries" to replace the regular season games lost, but, again, they only "guarantee" two such series each year. This year, for example, "rightnow" both wild cards would play in the "other" division in both Conferences.

 

Seems like an awful lot of bending to get those few "division rivalry" games.

 

To that end, why not let more rivalries be born in the playoffs?

 

When I was in Buffalo, I learned that, for the Sabres fan, the Flyers are one of their most hated teams in the league - all because of playoff rivalries. First the 1975 Cup elimination of the vaunted French Connection, but then the 94-95, 96-97, 99-00 and even the 10-11 playoff losses. Seven of their nine playoff appearances since they jettisonned the last "division heavy" playoff bracket included the Flyers.

 

That, my friend, is how one creates "rivalries." And it's why a trip to Philadelphia has been one of the biggest Sabre Fan Road Trips in recent years.

[Commander Clueless]

But they actually reduced the number of in-Division games with the new alignment - specifically to get to play each team in the other Conference home and home.

 

Used to be six games against each member of your division - that's down to four. I actually like that because, quite frankly, six games was a bit much. Two against each team from the other conference and 3 (or 2) against the other division in your conference.

 

The "division-emphasis" in the playoffs was apparently intended to foster more "rivalries" to replace the regular season games lost, but, again, they only "guarantee" two such series each year. This year, for example, "rightnow" both wild cards would play in the "other" division in both Conferences.

 

Seems like an awful lot of bending to get those few "division rivalry" games.

 

 

 

 

When I was in Buffalo, I learned that, for the Sabres fan, the Flyers are one of their most hated teams in the league - all because of playoff rivalries. First the 1975 Cup elimination of the vaunted French Connection, but then the 94-95, 96-97, 99-00 and even the 10-11 playoff losses. Seven of their nine playoff appearances since they jettisonned the last "division heavy" playoff bracket included the Flyers.

 

That, my friend, is how one creates "rivalries." And it's why a trip to Philadelphia has been one of the biggest Sabre Fan Road Trips in recent years.

 

True enough. It seems like they can't decide between diversity or divisional, and keeping bouncing around.

 

And to your last point, bingo. Why not encourage more diversity in playoff series? Let the hate flow!

 

I'm good with removing the divisions altogether.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Commander Clueless

[yave1964]

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.

The league is halfway in with the conference thing by allowing two 'wildcard' teams to play in whichever division they make it a conference. By making it a hard playoff with no reseeding after the first round they are halfway in a divisional alignment.

 

  Just do one or the other. Go the two division winners and seed everyone else 3-8 without factoring in this ridiculous wild card, or simply make it a division thing, with the top 4 from each division making it and playing each other in the first two rounds before moving on. Right now they are halfway in on both and that is what I do not like. Just pick one or the other and go with it. Division or conference, either is fine this half way in and halfway out is what I do not like.

[ruxpin]

Just do one or the other. Go the two division winners and seed everyone else 3-8 without factoring in this ridiculous wild card, or simply make it a division thing, with the top 4 from each division making it and playing each other in the first two rounds before moving on. Right now they are halfway in on both and that is what I do not like. Just pick one or the other and go with it. Division or conference, either is fine this half way in and halfway out is what I do not like.

 

I really don't care either way and am not bothered by the way it is currently.  But I have to say that between you and rad on this thread I'm viewing it entirely differently and wouldn't at all be opposed to changing it to one or the other systems you mention.

 

The current wild card set up IS weird.  I'm okay.  It's quirky.  I like quirky.   But I certainly get where you and rad are coming from.