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

Are the Playoffs Rigged? (Put on Your Tinfoil Hat, We're Going In...)


TOMapleLaughs

Recommended Posts

Our last series vs. SJ. In particular the Sedin penalty that ended it.

Bernier's series-deciding penalty when LA had got away with a boarding play just before.

Gelinas' non-goal vs. TB.

Gretzky high-sticking Gilmour, bleeding, uncalled and goes onto score gwg.

Otto's kicked-in goal.

The last NYR-Was series, in which OV claims conspiracy for the NHL wanting the talent-lacking Rangers to advance. This is not the first or last time American O4 teams have been called out in concpiracy theories.

Precident-setting finals suspension of Rome on a hit no worse than a multitude of hits made by Boston that season and playoffs.

No penalties at all in the TB-Boston quarterfinal game 7.

Hossa boards Hamhuis heavily in the 2010 Chi-Nas series. Hossa scores the pivotal game 5 ot winner when he should have been given a game misconduct and then suspended for 2 playoff games, a set precedence.

Multiple disallowed Sedin-Burrows goals in the last Van-LA series, including one that took 7 minutes of review to wave off. If 7mins is required, sorry, but the call, it was deemed a goal by the refs, including the now-infamous Paul Devorski, should've standed.

The 2009 and 2010 Vancouver-Chicago series. Ladd cross-checks Kesler in the face uncalled. Various uncalled Hawk infractions for both series. Calls that were made if Vancouver was doing it.

Vancouver gift-wrapped the 2011 series vs SJ.

There are too many to list really, but the majority of controversial calls or non-calls tend to favour teams the NHL wants to have advance in the plaoyoffs. Certain revisionist history says that the losing teams were merely outplayed, but if actual memory serves, the losing teams were often jobbed, either very often or in key moments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if that extra help and immunity was given to cup-winning teams during the playoffs?

There are some key instances of that in recent years, led by Hull's skate being in the crease.

From your example imo terry gregson is the reason why nhl reffing has gotten considerably worse in the last 10 - 15 years. The idea of that jack hole being put in charge of anything is mind blowing. Modern reffing is a direct result of his inability to follow a rule book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually New Jersey, New York Rangers and New York Islanders are in the same media market so it makes no difference

NHLTVMarkets_zps27077b66.jpg

Are you implying that as many ranger fans would be watching the finals with the Devils playing instead of the Rangers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NJ got to the finals because they shelled out big bucks for the Nhl to (for awhile) retain Kovy and they needed to start to fill their new arena in Newark pronto.

The Rangers will have to vacate MSG and they'll have to build a new arena as well. I'd expect them to get to the finals/win a cup sooner or later. But we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you implying that as many ranger fans would be watching the finals with the Devils playing instead of the Rangers?

well I can't do that I don't have the viewer numbers :lol: but they are the same media market so it is probably around the same.

New jersey's playoff success and New yorks cup win only once makes that much more sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well I can't do that I don't have the viewer numbers :lol: but they are the same media market so it is probably around the same.

New jersey's playoff success and New yorks cup win only once makes that much more sense now.

They made sense already.

I doubt the numbers would be the same though. I don't think every fan of a team watches games their teams aren't involved in. I would think it would be much more profitable for the league to have the Rangers in a cup final as opposed to the Devils.

Last Devils series against LA was a pretty poor showing for tv viewers actually.

http://www.sportsmed...from-last-year/

There is really no logical reason for the league to want the Devils in the finals. At best it's always a mediocre showing in the ratings.

I wish I could find the viewership from the 94 series. IIRC the 94 series is the second most viewed series to last years finals.

Furthest I can find is 95. Weird thing I see is finals with Detroit are often quite low. Not as low as with Jersey but still quite low in comparison to most teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NJ got to the finals because they shelled out big bucks for the Nhl to (for awhile) retain Kovy and they needed to start to fill their new arena in Newark pronto.

The Rangers will have to vacate MSG and they'll have to build a new arena as well. I'd expect them to get to the finals/win a cup sooner or later. But we'll see.

They paid a 3 million dollar fine. Once. For attempting to circumvent the cap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They made sense already.

I doubt the numbers would be the same though. I don't think every fan of a team watches games their teams aren't involved in. I would think it would be much more profitable for the league to have the Rangers in a cup final as opposed to the Devils.

Last Devils series against LA was a pretty poor showing for tv viewers actually.

http://www.sportsmed...from-last-year/

There is really no logical reason for the league to want the Devils in the finals. At best it's always a mediocre showing in the ratings.

I wish I could find the viewership from the 94 series. IIRC the 94 series is the second most viewed series to last years finals.

Furthest I can find is 95. Weird thing I see is finals with Detroit are often quite low. Not as low as with Jersey but still quite low in comparison to most teams.

There are actually numbers on each of the finals pages I have(http://www.nytimes.c...agewanted=print) and they are not exactly the same but around the same for the teams.

"FOX'S RATING IN FINALE SOARS". The Buffalo News. June 26, 1995. p. D3.

So it's 10.6 rating versus 16.1 and 5.2 (10.7 rating for both networks combined)

10.6 and 10.7 basically the same with a few fluctuations.

The ratings your talking about happened when NJ was down and out the ones I am talking about are when they actually were stacked and were up 3-0 like the kings were. If we check the wings number it's probably the same for that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are actually numbers on each of the finals pages I have(http://www.nytimes.c...agewanted=print) and they are not exactly the same but around the same for the teams.

Jump up to:a b "FOX'S RATING IN FINALE SOARS". The Buffalo News. June 26, 1995. p. D3.

So it's 10.6 rating versus 16.1 and 5.2 (9.9 rating for both)

10.6 and 9.9 basically the same with a few fluctuations.

There are actually numbers on each of the finals pages I have(http://www.nytimes.c...agewanted=print) and they are not exactly the same but around the same for the teams.

Jump up to:a b "FOX'S RATING IN FINALE SOARS". The Buffalo News. June 26, 1995. p. D3.

So it's 10.6 rating versus 16.1 and 5.2 (9.9 rating for both)

10.6 and 9.9 basically the same with a few fluctuations.

Nice.

Thank you for sharing the link. When I have some more time I'm going to take I look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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