WordsOfWisdom Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 If the season ended today, the Atlantic top seeded Montreal Canadiens with their "amazing" 70 points would face the "woeful" New York Rangers...... with 77 points. Wrap your head around that one for a moment. Can we just cut the entire Atlantic division from the playoffs this year? None of these teams deserve to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 I don't think any of them will get past the first round anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfondajane Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I was thinking crazy here! Throw everyone into one division and top eight teams make the playoffs! Then how do you do the regular season schedule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 21, 2017 Author Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, notfondajane said: I was thinking crazy here! Throw everyone into one division and top eight teams make the playoffs! Then how do you do the regular season schedule? When I look at the standings now it makes my eyes bleed. It looks like an unsorted list of teams. To a non-hockey fan, they would have no clue how the teams were arranged. If you had one division, you'd be guaranteed to have the top teams in the top 8. Maybe have a balanced schedule perhaps? I think they should seed the division leaders 1 and 2, and then everyone else (3-8) by points. I hate this "top 3" thing because you're guaranteed to have a weak division somewhere and two or three of those teams will suck. It's too confusing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 On 2/20/2017 at 11:35 PM, WordsOfWisdom said: When I look at the standings now it makes my eyes bleed. It looks like an unsorted list of teams. To a non-hockey fan, they would have no clue how the teams were arranged. If you had one division, you'd be guaranteed to have the top teams in the top 8. Maybe have a balanced schedule perhaps? I think they should seed the division leaders 1 and 2, and then everyone else (3-8) by points. I hate this "top 3" thing because you're guaranteed to have a weak division somewhere and two or three of those teams will suck. It's too confusing as well. Wait - I thought this was done in an attempt to appease the traditionalists who "missed" the old Adams/Patrick/Norris/Smythe days when the first two rounds of the playoffs were entirely intradivision? Take 1991-92 for instance when the Rangers (105 points) had a first round series with the Devils (87 points) while the Canadiens (93 points) took on the Whalers (a whopping 65 points). Or 1992-93 when the Nordiques (104 points) took on the Canadients (102) points while Capitals (93 points) lucked into the Islanders (87 points). As long as you have any system that does anything but seed teams 1 through 8 based on points this is going to happen. Moving along... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 22, 2017 Author Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, B21 said: Wait - I thought this was done in an attempt to appease the traditionalists who "missed" the old Adams/Patrick/Norris/Smythe days when the first two rounds of the playoffs were entirely intradivision? For simplicity sake, maybe they should go back to that instead. It's easier to understand. 1 hour ago, B21 said: As long as you have any system that does anything but seed teams 1 through 8 based on points this is going to happen. True. 1 hour ago, B21 said: Moving along... :-) \-|-/ / \ /_ |_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said: For simplicity sake, maybe they should go back to that instead. It's easier to understand. True. \-|-/ / \ /_ |_ I think this was done to help foster some rivalries as well. Not that Pens/Flyers or Pens/Caps needed any more juice. But man do I hate the f------ Blue Jackets right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 27, 2017 Author Share Posted February 27, 2017 On 2/20/2017 at 11:35 PM, WordsOfWisdom said: When I look at the standings now it makes my eyes bleed. It looks like an unsorted list of teams. To a non-hockey fan, they would have no clue how the teams were arranged. If you had one division, you'd be guaranteed to have the top teams in the top 8. Maybe have a balanced schedule perhaps? I think they should seed the division leaders 1 and 2, and then everyone else (3-8) by points. I hate this "top 3" thing because you're guaranteed to have a weak division somewhere and two or three of those teams will suck. It's too confusing as well. Looks like Greg Wyshynski agrees with me on this issue. He posted the following article about a week after I posted this thread: https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/is-the-nhl-standings-format-screwing-up-the-playoffs-175515110.html He points out the same flaw and comes to the same conclusion. Maybe he reads my posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I get the gripe with the current system, and yes, sometimes things like this are absolutely broken. I'll give you an extreme example of that. Here in Mississippi, the top four teams in each high school football district go to the playoffs. This past season, that meant that in one five-team district, the fourth place team won one district game -- the only game they won for the entire season. We had a 1-9 team make the playoffs... That said, in professional sports, there's enough parity that you'll never see anything that extreme. The traditionalist in me likes the current setup (one of the few changes made in recent years that I do like). The only change I'd make is to make it four teams from each division so that it would go back to the old system. The reason I like that is that, as stated previously, it helps encourage rivalries, including in the regular season. If you know that your division standing solely determines your playoff standing, how much harder are you going to play against those rivals, especially when we get toward the end of the year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted March 4, 2017 Author Share Posted March 4, 2017 On 2/28/2017 at 11:37 AM, ScottM said: I get the gripe with the current system, and yes, sometimes things like this are absolutely broken. I'll give you an extreme example of that. Here in Mississippi, the top four teams in each high school football district go to the playoffs. This past season, that meant that in one five-team district, the fourth place team won one district game -- the only game they won for the entire season. We had a 1-9 team make the playoffs... That said, in professional sports, there's enough parity that you'll never see anything that extreme. The traditionalist in me likes the current setup (one of the few changes made in recent years that I do like). The only change I'd make is to make it four teams from each division so that it would go back to the old system. The reason I like that is that, as stated previously, it helps encourage rivalries, including in the regular season. If you know that your division standing solely determines your playoff standing, how much harder are you going to play against those rivals, especially when we get toward the end of the year? (I know I'll get heat for saying this again but...) If you could make it so that the #1 team in the division begins their best of 7 series up 1 game to 0 I'd be thrilled with that. I call it a "tilted series". Somehow, some way, I would want the division leader to have a reward for finishing first after 82 games other than "you get to play the team with 5 less points than you have instead of the team with 4 less points". Back in the 80's when that system was used, a first place team might have 100 points and the 4th place team might have 82 points. It was a big gap. Today it would be a 105 point team going up against a 100 point team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck_Pun Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 16 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said: Somehow, some way, I would want the division leader to have a reward for finishing first after 82 games other than "you get to play the team with 5 less points than you have instead of the team with 4 less points". In Australian football the top four teams have the 'double chance'- if they win the first game they get a week off, if they lose they play the following week against the elimination final winners. I'm not sure how something similar could be applied in hockey, though. I've attached the flowsheet for those who are bored and/or interested. I agree with the division system creating... skewed results. It should at least be based on conference standings to reduce the problems created by weak divisions. That said, I'm also of the opinion that too many teams make the playoffs in the first place. When more than 50% of the teams are in it, making the playoffs seems less like recognition of a good/quality season but rather middle and middling teams finding a way to drag themselves over the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted March 6, 2017 Author Share Posted March 6, 2017 On 3/4/2017 at 11:58 AM, Puck_Pun said: In Australian football the top four teams have the 'double chance'- if they win the first game they get a week off, if they lose they play the following week against the elimination final winners. I'm not sure how something similar could be applied in hockey, though. I've attached the flowsheet for those who are bored and/or interested. Interesting. (Although in hockey, teams complain when they have a week off lol.) On 3/4/2017 at 11:58 AM, Puck_Pun said: I agree with the division system creating... skewed results. It should at least be based on conference standings to reduce the problems created by weak divisions. That said, I'm also of the opinion that too many teams make the playoffs in the first place. When more than 50% of the teams are in it, making the playoffs seems less like recognition of a good/quality season but rather middle and middling teams finding a way to drag themselves over the line. Agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.