Changing Series Structure?

The current NHL playoff series structure is 2-2-1-1-1.

This means the lower seed gets Game 6.

The most common length of a series is 6 games, thus some have argued lower seeds in the NHL may get an advantage if they muster a 3-1 series lead, or ultimately take a 3-2 lead going back home. In the Cup Final this has often failed but I digress.

In the NBA, at least in the Final, the 2-3-2 format is utilized. This not only gives Game 6 & 7 to the higher seed, but lowers trips by two, which can only mean less jet-lag.

Thoughts?

For those wondering, there are also proponents of the 3-4 and 1-3-3 system as well but I feel it's too momentum driven.

I like it the way it is.

The current NHL playoff series structure is 2-2-1-1-1.

This means the lower seed gets Game 6.

The most common length of a series is 6 games, thus some have argued lower seeds in the NHL may get an advantage if they muster a 3-1 series lead, or ultimately take a 3-2 lead going back home. In the Cup Final this has often failed but I digress.

In the NBA, at least in the Final, the 2-3-2 format is utilized. This not only gives Game 6 & 7 to the higher seed, but lowers trips by two, which can only mean less jet-lag.

Thoughts?

For those wondering, there are also proponents of the 3-4 and 1-3-3 system as well but I feel it's too momentum driven.

Wasn't 2-3-2 the the way it was back in the day? I'm pretty sure that's how the Canucks were able to do so well in their '94 Cup run.

The problem with 2-3-2 is that there is a point where the road team will have played more home games than the home team. I consider it more fair to always give the home team the advantage and that also means the home team will make more money on average.

The 2-3-2 format benefits the lower seed enormously if it's a 1-1 split.

1994 Sharks-Red Wings; I'm not saying Detroit comes back if down 3-1 game 5 is in Detroit, but it basically means you're screwed if the higher team doesn't go up 2-0.

The 2-3-2 has been proven to be bad for the team with home ice the majority of times it`s been used.

1983-84 Stanley Cup Final

Home Ice NY Islanders

Series goes 5 games.

Edmonton splits in NY, then wins the next 3 at home

1984-85 Stanley Cup Final

Home Ice Philadelphia

Series goes 5 games.

Edmonton splits in Philadelphia, then wins the next 3 at home

1993-94 Conference Quarter-Finals

Home ice Detroit

Series goes 7 games.

San Jose gets split in Detroit, then wins 2 of 3 at home and wins game seven in Detroit

1993-94 Conference Semi-Finals

Home Ice Dallas

Series goes 5 games.

Vancouver sweeps both games in Dallas then takes 2 of 3 at home.

1993-94 Conference Semi-Finals

Home Ice Toronto

Series goes 7 games.

Toronto gets split in first 2 in Toronto, drops 2 of 3 in San Jose, and wins final 2 at home to win series in seven games.

1993-94 Conference Finals

Home Ice Toronto

Series goes 5 games.

Vancouver gets split in first 2 in Toronto, and then wins all 3 in Vancouver.

The home ice team is 1-5 under the 2-3-2 format. And in the one series won by the home ice team, Toronto over San Jose, Toronto was a goalpost away in OT from losing that series and dropping that record to 0-6.

I did not realize that the San Jose vs Detroit series was also a 2-3-2 Edited to add it.

Given that 4 of the six series ended in 5 games it means that the home ice team in four of those series did not get the advantage of either one of those last 2 home games. In fact that format was a disadvantage given that those game 5 elimination games were played on the road rather than at home as they would be under the 2-2-1-1-1 format.

Other than reducing travel I can`t see why any team with home ice would choose that format, especially since the reduction in travel does not make up for the potential loss of a extra home game.

Wasn't 2-3-2 the the way it was back in the day? I'm pretty sure that's how the Canucks were able to do so well in their '94 Cup run.

In 1994, in series where there was consderable distance between the two cities, the league allowed the higher seeded team to choose between the 2-2-1-1-1 and 2-3-2 formats. This format was used for the first round series between Detroit/San Jose and Toronto/San Jose the second round series between Dallas/Vancouver, and the conference final series between Toronto/Vancouver. Considering the two series that involved Vancouver only went five games (meaning only one game was switched from the regular formation, I don't think they benefitted all that much (other than financially) from the switch)

I believe that the option still exists for a higher seeded team to request the format change, but it's never exercised because they want to guarantee the revenue should the series go exactly five games. And considering it's been eighteen years since we've seen a series with this format, I could very likely be wrong.

i think the team with home ice advantage should be able to pick the structure.. that would utilize having 'home ice' even more.

I see no diffrence, TBH.

The only difference I would like to see is not in the games structure, but in the seedings themselves. I think it should work like a draft, where the first place team gets to choose who to play instead of having to play the 8th place team. Maybe Vancouver would prefer to play Phoenix in the first round? If so, they would get to pick it. Then St. Louis would get to pick to play LA/San Jose/Detroit or whoever else they want to play. This year in the East, its pretty safe to say that the 4th/5th place teams are better than the 3rd place team, so why does the 6th place team get to play an easier team? Turn it into a draft, and it turns into a 1st versus their choice, 2nd versus their choice, 3rd versus their choice (assuming the 1st place team doesn't pick to play one of those teams) and the last two teams remaining get to battle it out. It gives more incentive to the teams that do better.

The only difference I would like to see is not in the games structure, but in the seedings themselves. I think it should work like a draft, where the first place team gets to choose who to play instead of having to play the 8th place team. Maybe Vancouver would prefer to play Phoenix in the first round? If so, they would get to pick it. Then St. Louis would get to pick to play LA/San Jose/Detroit or whoever else they want to play. This year in the East, its pretty safe to say that the 4th/5th place teams are better than the 3rd place team, so why does the 6th place team get to play an easier team? Turn it into a draft, and it turns into a 1st versus their choice, 2nd versus their choice, 3rd versus their choice (assuming the 1st place team doesn't pick to play one of those teams) and the last two teams remaining get to battle it out. It gives more incentive to the teams that do better.

This fails if seed 1 picks seed 2 giving next choice to seed 3. Why should seed 3 get an easier matchup than seed 2? Defeats the benefits of being second best in the conference.

If you were to do some kind of draft thing, you would at a minimum have to exclude selecting division champs, which would mostly defeat the purpose of the rule

Most sports have the 2-3-2 because there is less travel. Otherwise I like the 2-2-1-1-1 better.

This all goes under the heading of "it ain't broke".

The only difference I would like to see is not in the games structure, but in the seedings themselves. I think it should work like a draft, where the first place team gets to choose who to play instead of having to play the 8th place team. Maybe Vancouver would prefer to play Phoenix in the first round? If so, they would get to pick it. Then St. Louis would get to pick to play LA/San Jose/Detroit or whoever else they want to play. This year in the East, its pretty safe to say that the 4th/5th place teams are better than the 3rd place team, so why does the 6th place team get to play an easier team? Turn it into a draft, and it turns into a 1st versus their choice, 2nd versus their choice, 3rd versus their choice (assuming the 1st place team doesn't pick to play one of those teams) and the last two teams remaining get to battle it out. It gives more incentive to the teams that do better.

That would be funny. We don't want the #8 seed, we want Florida the #3 seed.

:laugh:

2-4-1


"Home" team starts on the road but then get 4 straight at home.

2-2-3

Then doing good in the regular season would actually mean something

2-2-3

Then doing good in the regular season would actually mean something


But then one team would play 5 at home versus 2 for the other ? :huh:

Most sports have the 2-3-2 because there is less travel. Otherwise I like the 2-2-1-1-1 better.

By 'most sports' you really just mean baseball. NBA uses 2-2-1-1-1 until the Final, and then changes to 2-3-2.

I think 2-3-2 is stupid. If the road team wins one of the 1st 2 then can come home and close out the series without ever having to go back.

The 2-3-2 format benefits the lower seed enormously if it's a 1-1 split.

1994 Sharks-Red Wings; I'm not saying Detroit comes back if down 3-1 game 5 is in Detroit, but it basically means you're screwed if the higher team doesn't go up 2-0.

Go back and look at AHL playoff brackets if you want to see how much of an advantage this can be to the lower seed.

Especially look at the Hamilton Bulldogs Calder Cup victory.

I like the current format as far as games go. What I would change is the division leaders getting the top 3 automatically. I say do it by points on a general standard

2-4-1


"Home" team starts on the road but then get 4 straight at home.

Game 7 on the road!?

NBA is terrible and a disgrace sport let alone the NBA playoffs. To even consider anything from the NBA playoffs into the greatest sport ever is a flat out insult.

NBA, you keep your 2-3-2 series and 5 game first round matchup bologne.

In the 2-2-1-1-1 format

the lower seed has 2 advantages
1) They have Game 6 (a likely end game) at home
2) They have Game 4 at home in the odd chance the lower seed has a chance to sweep

The higher seed has 3 advantages
1) Game 5 at home (less likely than to be clincher than 6 but still common)
2) Play more home games
3) Game 7 (which would be the most important game in the series) at home

There is SOME advantage to being the lower seed but that's pretty clearly out weighed by the benefits of being the higher seed.

NBA is terrible and a disgrace sport let alone the NBA playoffs. To even consider anything from the NBA playoffs into the greatest sport ever is a flat out insult.

NBA, you keep your 2-3-2 series and 5 game first round matchup bologne.

NBA? A joke? I would have never guessed. Even when they allowed players to wear the number (or really non-number) 00. What kind of crap is that?

It's fine how it is. Even though the most common series length is 6 games, who is winning the majority of those match ups? I would assume the higher seed still wins most of them so what's the problem? I like that a team can't be eliminated without at least seeing home ice twice.

Instead of saying the lower seed has an "advantage" of closing out the series at home "only" needing a 1-1 split, why not expect the higher seed to perform like the higher seed and not lose 3 in a row?

Being a Pistons fan, I saw first hand what effect the 2-3-2 format had, but it wasn't because the lower seed got an advantage, it's because the Lakers, the higher seed, were not good enough to win one measly game on the road. Their fault.

I think having both Game 6 & 7 is a huge sell for the higher seed. Game 6 and 7 will most often generate more profit than a Game 3 for example.

I absolutely understand that a 2-2-1-1-1 format means the higher seed can end the series in 5 and host 3 games.

However I don't feel it justified having the 2 extra travel times, plus why should the lower seed get Game 6? As I said it's the most common length of a series, though I'd like some numbers, I think it's 29% of the time.

I also like the idea of the higher seed starting on the road. A 2-3-1-1 format may be the middle ground solution.

In a 2-3-1-1 format, the higher seed sees a high guarantee of hosting 3 games. The lower seed still gets Game 6 and the higher seed gets Game 7.

But it also takes away 1 extra trip and gives momentum to the higher seed if indeed the 2-3-2 format favors the team getting 3 straight at home.



On the draft idea, I think you make it a draft for the upper 4 seeds as a divider from the bottom 4. Example:

No top 4 seed can choose to play another top 4 seed.

The 4th seed would in effect have no choice, but the top 3 seeds could opt between the 8th, 7th, 6th or 5th seed.

It would be great because the lower seed would get insulted that bit more if picked first by the 1st seed. At the same time it still serves a purpose. A once 4th seed that dropped to 7th seed may be preferred to an 8th seed that went 9-1 to get into the playoffs.

NBA? A joke? I would have never guessed. Even when they allowed players to wear the number (or really non-number) 00. What kind of crap is that?

Both John Davidson and Martin Biron have worn 00 in the NHL.

There's no legitimate reason to give the lower seed more home games at any point during the series than the higher seed. The bottom line is that the higher seed earned the extra home game and the revenue that comes with it. That is how it should stay. The play will always change and any system will have its advantages and disadvantages for both sides but the money is the biggest factor in this. The higher seed has earned that extra gate money.

NBA? A joke? I would have never guessed. Even when they allowed players to wear the number (or really non-number) 00. What kind of crap is that?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/nhl.greatest.players.by.jersey.number/images/00-john-davidson.jpg

Ideally 1-1-1-1-1-1-1(like in the SEL for instace) is the best. There's no chance to build momentum at home or anything. But since traveling is harder in NA, I think the current format is the right way to go.