Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Do You Guys Think This Is Fair?

Recommended Posts

It doesn't matter your argument, sports is about peaking at the right time. All teams strive to build their game through out the year and peak for important games. That can mean smaller peaks for games against rivals or tough opponents, or it can mean big peaks for playoffs and championship games. If you peak too soon, you'll likely get beat by teams who are more ready at the time.

It's a very important part of preparation that teams have as a goal to aim towards and not everyone can get it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the teams in the west really stacked up.

1. Nashville

2. Phoenix.

3. L.A.

4 Vancouver

5. Detroit

6. Chicago

7. St Louis

8 San Jose

Can't blame them for being good at the right time.

Blake Price said the Canucks sucked all season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But would you guys say the same thing about the 3 examples I mentioned at the end as well? Is it really fair to have the hockey game be decided by its final 5 minutes, student's grade be decided only with the final exam, sales person's commission be decided by his sales only in the last month?

If you could design the system from scratch, would the current system be the fairest one in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it isn't totally fair, but here's the kicker...it's apples and oranges. It's College Basketball. Each team competes in their conference and earns the rewards based on that. Then there's March Madness. The 2 aren't really related at all. In hockey, teams slug it out over 82 games, play everybody and an eventual winner is crowned (President's Cup). The rewards for a successful season are there. Personal rewards (salary, trophies, fans etc etc). Then comes our version of March Madness. It's basically a different season. And if you want a true comparison game to equate the fairness of the SC playoffs...pick Rock / Paper / Scissors. In head to head competition Team A beats Team B, Team B beats Team C, Team C beats Team A. So it all comes down to luck of the draw. In round 1 you could draw a team that you dominate or one that dominates you. In round 2 same same and all the way through. By the time it gets to the Conf. finals any given team could be left saying "too bad we didn't face them in round 1 cause we could have beaten them and we'd maybe be the team in the Conf. finals". So fair...no, not when compared to the context of the regular season. But as a side personal note, I would love to see the playoffs done in more of a tournament fashion than a play-down bracket system. The only reason I say that is due to Rock / Paper / Scissors. A team could draw 3 favorable teams on their way to the SCF, but maybe had they face any 4 of the other teams in the same conf they would have lost. What if you had to play each of the other 7 teams in the conf twice in the opening round (1 home / 1 away) with only the 3 teams with the best record advancing from each conf. Round 2 sees the team from each conf with the best record getting a bye to the conf finals, and #2 and #3 play a best of 5 series...winner meets #1 in conf finals (best of 5)...winners meet in SCF. This way it reduces the number of 1st round upsets, and truly the 3 best teams (they beat all the other teams in their conf) get to advance. And that's my 2 nickels (pennies are useless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...