Alternate Playoff Format - Retrospective

[WordsOfWisdom]

So I went back to the playoff bracket of this 2015 season and applied a WHAT-IF scenario using the playoff format I proposed earlier. Here's is what it would have looked like:

 

CURRENT FORMAT:

 

 

PROPOSED FORMAT:

 

 

The difference? Top 3 teams in each division make the playoffs. (Total of 12 teams.) Division leaders get an automatic "bye" into round 2 as a reward for winning their division. Chop off the two "dead weight" teams in each conference.

 

While three of the four series went as planned, the Blues were upset in the first round. A St. Louis vs Chicago match-up would have been more intriguing than Chicago vs Minnesota I think.

 

In any event, they were similar. 

 

 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

So a top team's reward for finishing with a stellar record is to...............sit and wait possibly almost two weeks before seeing any playoff action??

Errr, no thanks.

In theory, I get what you are trying indicate, but in practice....well, you just can't have a team sit around all that time and expect them to be able to just 'turn it on' against a hungry team that has been in the fight and in 'go mode' that entire time.

 

The current format works well enough. A bit of repetition with teams seeing their division mates just a bit too much for my tastes though, but it works.

 

I still liked the previous 1-8 format used during the 90's where 1 and 2 are division winners, then teams seed throughout the Conference 3-8 based on their records/point totals Though personally, I think the point totals are bogus, better to go with the actual wins and losses, but that is for another thread.

 

As for your comment, Mr. @WordsOfWisdom , about Chicago - St. Louis being more intriguing, well, I realize I may come off as biased here (who are we kidding I AM biased...and I don't care   ), BUT, I don't see how a bunch of relatively slow footed, Hulk Smash team like the Blues would have fared any better against the Hawks than the Wild did.

I am one of those people NOT surprised the Wild beat the Blues because I have seen enough St. Louis games throughout the season to see that fast, skilled teams GIVE THEM TROUBLE!

 

And if the Wild made the Blues look like they were standing still...then the Hawks CERTAINLY would have done that twice over....so much for "intriguing matchups".

I know the final series count showed Chi 4, Min 0, but the Wild were certainly in just about every game, save one....just so happens the Hawks just had a bit more questions than the Wild had answers for

[flyercanuck]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

I hate byes. Your team sits there and gets rusty and cold while the team that wins the round is on a roll.

[WordsOfWisdom]

So a top team's reward for finishing with a stellar record is to...............sit and wait possibly almost two weeks before seeing any playoff action??

Errr, no thanks.

In theory, I get what you are trying indicate, but in practice....well, you just can't have a team sit around all that time and expect them to be able to just 'turn it on' against a hungry team that has been in the fight and in 'go mode' that entire time.

 

The current format works well enough. A bit of repetition with teams seeing their division mates just a bit too much for my tastes though, but it works.

 

I still liked the previous 1-8 format used during the 90's where 1 and 2 are division winners, then teams seed throughout the Conference 3-8 based on their records/point totals Though personally, I think the point totals are bogus, better to go with the actual wins and losses, but that is for another thread.

 

As for your comment, Mr. @WordsOfWisdom , about Chicago - St. Louis being more intriguing, well, I realize I may come off as biased here (who are we kidding I AM biased...and I don't care   ), BUT, I don't see how a bunch of relatively slow footed, Hulk Smash team like the Blues would have fared any better against the Hawks than the Wild did.

I am one of those people NOT surprised the Wild beat the Blues because I have seen enough St. Louis games throughout the season to see that fast, skilled teams GIVE THEM TROUBLE!

 

And if the Wild made the Blues look like they were standing still...then the Hawks CERTAINLY would have done that twice over....so much for "intriguing matchups".

I know the final series count showed Chi 4, Min 0, but the Wild were certainly in just about every game, save one....just so happens the Hawks just had a bit more questions than the Wild had answers for

 

Yeah, it's to try and reward the division winners somehow by giving them a chance to heal up, practice, and get ready for their second round opponent. (The theory being that whichever teams have to play in round one are going to get battered and suffer injuries.)

 

Irrelevant side note: I'm having a hard time looking at my computer screen because I walked into a tree branch tonight... 

 

I get what you're saying about the Blues. I just look at it and think: Why did St. Louis bother to finish 1st? In theory you're supposed to get an easier opponent, but with parity, all opponents are the same. Thus, you get no reward for finishing at the top of the division or conference. If anything, it's probably better to coast your way in, save your energy, land somewhere in the middle, and then turn it on for the playoffs.  Meh, who knows? My eye hurts... 

[ruxpin]

In the Blues case, it's better to not be the Blues. It doesn't matter where they finish; they're going to crap out.

I don't like the bye. I understand the reward thing but the reality is it is actually punishment. The bye team would have a very hard time winning the first game back. The second game to a lesser extent. But they will have already lost home ice advantage. I don't like a bye of a best of seven series. At all.

And you just made potentially 4 less playoff home games and 4 less gate receipts and television revenues a "reward" for finishing first. Out of curiosity, do you consider corporal punishment a "reward?"

There is not one single owner that would consider a potential $10-$12M loss in gate receipts a reward. And that's just gate.

The current playoff format isn't broken. We've had some incredibly engaging matchups the past few years. Let's quit fixing things that ain't broke.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

 

Ya, try telling an owner his reward for putting a good team together is less money than the guy who finished below you. 

 

That'll go over well.

[WordsOfWisdom]

In the Blues case, it's better to not be the Blues. It doesn't matter where they finish; they're going to crap out.

I don't like the bye. I understand the reward thing but the reality is it is actually punishment. The bye team would have a very hard time winning the first game back. The second game to a lesser extent. But they will have already lost home ice advantage. I don't like a bye of a best of seven series. At all.

And you just made potentially 4 less playoff home games and 4 less gate receipts and television revenues a "reward" for finishing first. Out of curiosity, do you consider corporal punishment a "reward?"

There is not one single owner that would consider a potential $10-$12M loss in gate receipts a reward. And that's just gate.

The current playoff format isn't broken. We've had some incredibly engaging matchups the past few years. Let's quit fixing things that ain't broke.

 

Hmm. Good point. How about something similar to MLB where the low seeded teams have to play their way into the playoffs with a best-of-1 elimination game? 

[ruxpin]

Hmm. Good point. How about something similar to MLB where the low seeded teams have to play their way into the playoffs with a best-of-1 elimination game? 

 

I think from a competition POV, that would probably be acceptable.  But you're still probably going to lose home gate for the 1st place team if the purpose of this is to eliminate a round (like your bracket above).

 

Sadly, I could actually see them ADDING this to the existing format so that two teams have to play a one-game elimination to be the second WC team.  Or two one game eliminations (#7 v. #10, #8 v. #9) to get to the wildcard.  Again, not for competition but for gate.   Because the playoff games are pretty much free money for the owners I could see them constructing a way to get more of it.

 

Personally, I'm fine with the way it is now but would entertain those who want to tweak the way teams are seeded.  Otherwise, I thought it was a pretty interesting playoffs.