• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      All Threads Must Contain Tags!   07/25/2017

      ALL THREADS MUST CONTAIN TAGS   All threads in this forum must contain tags prefixed to topic titles. The purpose of the tags is to eliminate confusion in recent threads lists, and to create an organized and consistent environment. Moderators may immediately lock and thread that does not contain tags.    Tags must be placed at the start of your thread title, following this exact formatting:    [Tag] Thread Title   Here are some of the most used popular tags:    [Proposal]
      A trade, or trades, for next season, or even the off-season.
      [Off-Season]
      FA signings, off-season trades for RFA's, UFA's rights etc...
      [Value Of]
      (A question regarding a players worth, whether from another team, or the Canucks)
      [Speculation] Posting a rumor (with a source of course), but providing why it could be possible for the Canucks to land that player.   [Discussion]
      Thoughts on team trading strategy and composition.   Please feel free to create your own tag if none of these suit your thread.   
Adarsh Sant

[Discussion] Playoff Format/Pairings don't reward better regular season performance

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Ok so the Playoff pairings are now set. Here is how they look according to overall league standings.

 

1 v 17

2 v 8

 

5 v 12

9 v 11

 

3 v 15

4 v 7

 

6 v 14

10 v 13

 

You can see the flaw right away. For example, the 10th place team has an easier match up than the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 9th place teams. The team in 4th is ending up with the hardest 1st round matchup. Theoretically this should not happen.

 

 

If each higher seed won their pairing, this is what we'd get. 

 

1 v 2

5 v 9

 

3 v 4

6 v 10

 

So the one of the 1st and 2nd place teams will be gone by the third round, and one of the 3rd or 4th teams will be gone by the third round. This should not happen as teams who rank higher in the regular season should get an easier path to the finals. 

 

 

I'm not saying the old system is the way to go, I'm just saying this one is flawed. Better regular season performance should correlate with an easier path to the finals. This is not the case currently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm using these standings.

 

hjglhgljgjh.PNG

Edited by Adarsh Sant
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is fine why fix it do you not like good teams playing good teams and if changed there will always be people saying the same thing that it is not right, so why bother????

 

go back to old conferences I say but to many that will not work either so just leave it

 

 

so far the caps are the big team that hates it, it is what it is to bad for them play on and get better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cripplereh said:

it is fine why fix it do you not like good teams playing good teams and if changed there will always be people saying the same thing that it is not right, so why bother????

 

go back to old conferences I say but to many that will not work either so just leave it

 

 

so far the caps are the big team that hates it, it is what it is to bad for them play on and get better

What??? The Caps would have the easiest route according to seeding position

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The league only ever did 1v16 for two seasons, and they will never do it again, so it shouldn't be used as a comparable.  A better comparable would be the old 1v8 system with division champs getting the top seeds.

 

1v8 would look like this:

 

Tampa v NJ (same)

Washington v Columbus (same)

Boston v Philly

Toronto v Pittsburgh

 

Nashville v Colorado (same)

Vegas v L.A. (same)

Winnipeg v San Jose

Minny v Anaheim

 

Half the matchups are the same.  So is the current system really that bad?

 

Edited by goalie13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

The league only ever did 1v16 for two seasons, and they will never do it again, so it shouldn't be used as a comparable.  A better comparable would be 1v8.

 

1v8 would look like this:

 

Tampa v NJ (same)

Washington v Columbus (same)

Boston v Philly

Toronto v Pittsburgh

 

Nashville v Colorado (same)

Vegas v L.A. (same)

Winnipeg v San Jose

Minny v Anaheim

 

Half the matchups are the same.  So is the current system really that bad?

 

The 2nd round would be where it would change.

 

Winnipeg v Nashville wouldn't happen.

 

And Tampa vs Boston wouldn't happen.

 

The current system has them colliding in round 2. Which doesn't make sense as they are the top 4 teams.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

The 2nd round would be where it would change.

 

Winnipeg v Nashville wouldn't happen.

 

And Tampa vs Boston wouldn't happen.

 

The current system has them colliding in round 2. Which doesn't make sense as they are the top 4 teams.

 

Fair enough.

 

Personally, I like the 1v8 system, but I also like the idea of re-seeding the final 4.  That way there is a chance the best two teams could meet in the final even if they are in the same conference.

 

Ditch the conference championships, nobody likes them anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I hate this argument... Seeding is done in reference to your own division... because you and your division have the exact same schedule in the regular season. I’d be much happier with a top 4 in each division (then division champion goes to conference finals)... but I understand there is a entertainment factor to the wildcard format. So I’m okay with it.  

 

A team that has to play WSH, PIT, CBJ, PHI twenty times in a season (NJ), IMO, has a harder schedule than a team that only has to play BOS/TB ten times (or BOS/TB/FLA/DET 20 times). I would rank the Devils ahead of the Leafs this season. Season standings have them 7th and 15th. And even with the current format devils have a harder path to the cup. Fair?

 

4 of the bottom 5 teams are in the Atlantic. That severely impacts the standings. 

 

 

 

The nerd in me would suggest division standings is based entirely on game vs your own division and wild card standings are based entirely on games vs teams outside your division. Way too complicated for the average fan, thus not a good format. But it would provide a much more fair standings.

Edited by Art Vandelay
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should let the higher seed teams choose their opponents.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there might be more travel involved but I'd love to see the 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, etc. etc. format. Fair is fair and that would be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lancaster said:

They should let the higher seed teams choose their opponents.  

But Edmonton is finished and everyone would want to play them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Adarsh Sant said:

What??? The Caps would have the easiest route according to seeding position

Guess what?  Next year it'll different. And the following year it'll be different than next year and this year.

 

Now if you show a larger sample size of at least 10 years, maybe your argument would have some merit.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the current system... but when we are the team that can benefit from it, I think I will love it.

 

If you are in a weak division, it's like getting a free pass to the conference final and wait for the other division champion to come out all battered and bruised.

 

I think we should try this format for at least 5 more seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a guy on YouTube think he might be a member here. His name on YouTube is "thehockeyguy".  He talks about a system being used by the southern professional hockey league's I believe it is. Essentially it allows top seeded teams select opponents for who they think they matchup best vs.  

 

It is an intriguing idea. I am definitely botching the description but I recommend checking it out. Very cool concept. Would add another layer of excitement to playoff placement. Imagine a team targets you as a weak link. That would be one hell of a motivator lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rush17 said:

There is a guy on YouTube think he might be a member here. His name on YouTube is "thehockeyguy".  He talks about a system being used by the southern professional hockey league's I believe it is. Essentially it allows top seeded teams select opponents for who they think they matchup best vs.  

 

It is an intriguing idea. I am definitely botching the description but I recommend checking it out. Very cool concept. Would add another layer of excitement to playoff placement. Imagine a team targets you as a weak link. That would be one hell of a motivator lol.

Here is the video on it. So the first round is a challenge round. Check it out very cool.

 

 

This guys from Vancouver and covers a bunch of teams.  Surprisingly not overly bias towards the Canucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Adarsh Sant said:

The 2nd round would be where it would change.

 

Winnipeg v Nashville wouldn't happen.

 

And Tampa vs Boston wouldn't happen.

 

The current system has them colliding in round 2. Which doesn't make sense as they are the top 4 teams.

 

Totally agree the system seems flawed as the top teams will be playing eachother in the second round, however as stated by the NHL when they changed to this format "it builds rivalries within a division". By facing off against a division rival in the second round you are working on building those rivalries. Its the same as how during the regular season you play your own divisional teams more. The league is trying to build up these rivalries to get fans excited. Not sure if its working how they envisioned but it was their plan from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spitfire_Spiky said:

Totally agree the system seems flawed as the top teams will be playing eachother in the second round, however as stated by the NHL when they changed to this format "it builds rivalries within a division". By facing off against a division rival in the second round you are working on building those rivalries. Its the same as how during the regular season you play your own divisional teams more. The league is trying to build up these rivalries to get fans excited. Not sure if its working how they envisioned but it was their plan from the beginning.

The SPHL format may be able to do that too. Maybe the NHL is worried about excessive fights if teams feel slighted by that system. Not sure if it's the best but it is an alternative.

 

I feel bad for Minnesota and St Louis. They kept getting screwed by the Hawks year after year lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for 1-8 in conference, and the top 3 seeds get to select their opponents. That would provide the most benefit for a successful regular season, and be something worth fighting in the standings for.

 

The thing is, the 8th seed (or 16th seed) isn't necessarily the weakest team. Last year Nashville was the final seed, mostly because of struggles earlier in the year. Plus there's who your team matches up best against.

 

Also, every year there's a team that gets a major injury right before the playoffs (i.e. - Minnesota losing Suter), who suddenly becomes the team you'd want to play the most.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fine

 

You can't use the x vs y logic you have given it is an unbalanced scheduled driving final standings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction: with expansion and the next CBA the NHL will expand the playoff format.

 

I predict they will keep the current format and expand the wild card to four teams per conference.  Those teams will either play a single play-in game or a best of three.  More playoff games = more revenue for the league and the players.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2018 at 2:34 AM, Rob_Zepp said:

But Edmonton is finished and everyone would want to play them.

I mean.... the top seed teams can choose within their conference the opponents that did qualify for the playoffs.  

 

I would make for better theatrics.  The breakdown and analysis of each team by the media, all the stats and stuff, all trying to predict why the #1 team should choose whoever, etc, the #2 and #3 team being unable to full prep because they're not 100% certain who their opponent will be.  Maybe the #1 seed won't choose the #8 because of season series, how the #8 got hot into the playoffs.... instead maybe it will be #1 vs #5 due to injuries or something. 

The GM of the team pulling out the card of their opponent on live national TV, kind of like the draft lottery.

 

The chosen team would probably feel slighted that they are perceived to be the "easy" target.  Or if there's an upset, the fans would be wondering why management made the choice they made.  

 

It would certainly make the playoff format more interesting for sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.