HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Is the time right for a 20 team playoff field? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1314943)

Mightygoose 01-02-2013 06:31 PM

Is the time right for a 20 team playoff field?
 
With the word on the street that 20 teams in the playoff could be right around the corner as early as this spring

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2013/...by_four_teams/

Is it too soon?

Have always envisioned it once expansion to 32 happens (still think it's coming) and the realignment is complete.

How they can do it is have the 8 team conferences, seeds 1 through 3 are 'playoff, teams. Seeds 4 and 5 are 'play in' teams and they borrow a page from MLB's book and have a sudden death game at the #4 home and go from there.

They'll be no need to play and extra week or 2 later (yet) just start the schedule on a Tuesday instead of Thursday (Plus Thursday night football looks like it's here to stay)

Confucius 01-02-2013 06:35 PM

Oh it's a money grab. Maybe the league really wants the Leafs in the playoffs.....

Theokritos 01-02-2013 06:43 PM

How about a 30 team playoff field? How about playoffs from October to April (best-of-100-series or something)? The regular season doesn't have a lot of meaning anway with so many teams making the playoffs.

The CyNick 01-02-2013 06:46 PM

Nothing wrong with the idea. The more teams you have in the race at the end of the season, the better.

One night with 4 sudden death games would be pretty cool. Would make more sense if they ended the season on a Saturday, and did this on a Sunday. That way they could have all the games on TV (12PM, 3PM, 7PM, 10PM).

Krishna 01-02-2013 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stix and Stones (Post 57028167)
Oh it's a money grab. Maybe the league really wants the Leafs in the playoffs.....

They'd still find a way to miss.

And for the OP :

If the league actually cares about the game, they won't change the playoffs.

They are perfect. Why bother changing something?

What's next? 30 team playoffs after an 82 game season?

flashy 01-02-2013 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theokritos (Post 57028437)
How about a 30 team playoff field? How about playoffs from October to April (best-of-100-series or something)? The regular season doesn't have a lot of meaning anway with so many teams making the playoffs.

Take it easy. It's 20 teams, no need to exaggerate everything.

I think it will be good for the league, especially for the weaker markets.

Acesolid 01-02-2013 06:53 PM

It's ridiculous in my opinion.

I think 16 is the perfect number of teams. Here's why:

-Only the elite of the league gets in. The teams that get there deserve it.

-Unlike in Baseball, where a team can be eliminated from playoff contention before the season starts. With 16 teams all teams have a realistic shot, even with a poor start to the season.

-The season is still very important. In a league where 20 teams make the playoffs, some teams would basically know beforehand they'll make it. And clinch a berth quite early.

-It's perfectly fair. When you reach the playoffs (a difficult feat), the clock is back at zero and everyone has a shot at glory. The mentality that the lower seeds need to be bruised with a preliminary round before they reach the playoffs proper and play the ''big boys'' is just dumb.

I think the current system works best, and I'd like MLB more if it had a similar playoff system in place.

santiclaws 01-02-2013 06:53 PM

I guess they miss the eighties, when 16 out of 21 teams got in. You're 17 games under .500? Welcome to the playoffs!!

spudnick 01-02-2013 06:53 PM

It's a horrible idea. The regular season is a farce right now can you imagine a 20 team playoff. A team can be sub 500 and make it. Although why not, the league is a joke and the product is near unwatchable as it is

Montreal Shadow 01-02-2013 06:56 PM

I don't exactly like the idea of 2/3rd of the league making the playoffs. It should actually be lower. The playoffs would be a more rewarding experience. I personally think 8 teams should make it and not 16. I understand those thinking it'd be too little though.

Tinalera 01-02-2013 07:06 PM

Not saying I agree with it, but I could honestly see the NHL eventually work it that top 20 teams make the playoffs, and bottom 10 teams get a shot at number one pick in lottery.

That way the NHL can say "It's no lose for the fans for excitement: you either get into the playoffs or your guaranteed a top 10 pick with a chance for first overall"

Again, not saying I AGREE with it-but with the NHL and the whole "parity/entertainment" aspect of it, this setup within 5 years wouldn't surprise me.

The CyNick 01-02-2013 07:06 PM

You could have a deal where there is something like a 15-20 point gap between 4th and 5th. Which could be wiped out in one game. Some would argue that is terrible.

But overall, I think its okay. Most years, I would think the gap between 4 and 5 wouldnt be that huge.

GKJ 01-02-2013 07:07 PM

The only expansion of the playoffs I would support is if 8 and 9 are tied, they go to a one-game playoff a la baseball.

Theokritos 01-02-2013 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashy (Post 57028683)
Take it easy. It's 20 teams, no need to exaggerate everything.

I think it will be good for the league, especially for the weaker markets.

The only thing that is exaggerated is the number of playoff teams. I don't care for the markets, I care for the value of hockey. 20 out of 30 teams in the playoff teams means that the regular season (=what teams achieve from October-April) is nearly meaningless because the 20th best team can still win the Championship if that team does well from April-June. I'd love to see a regular season with more meaning, ergo fewer playoff teams.

The CyNick 01-02-2013 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudnick (Post 57028739)
It's a horrible idea. The regular season is a farce right now can you imagine a 20 team playoff. A team can be sub 500 and make it. Although why not, the league is a joke and the product is near unwatchable as it is

16 of 21 used to make it. Those playoff years were still intense.

Its not like the season is 162 games like in baseball.

dont get me wrong, I would be fine with fewer regular season games, but I see no issue with a one game playoff. It makes those top 3 spots all the more valuable. And at the same time it gives hope for more teams, which leads to more meaningful games later in the season. On top of that it creates another big event for the NHL to promote, which they have very of right now.

The CyNick 01-02-2013 07:13 PM

Here's a couple questions for the nay sayers

If they adopted the play in system, would you watch those one game eliminations?

Would one additional game, hurt the existing 16 team playoff format?

Correct answers are Yes, and then No. So its a good move.

Xref 01-02-2013 07:15 PM

If 20 teams making the playoffs means no more lockouts, then I'm all for it. It's all about the bank folks, not about anything else.

Acesolid 01-02-2013 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 57029427)
Here's a couple questions for the nay sayers

If they adopted the play in system, would you watch those one game eliminations?

Would one additional game, hurt the existing 16 team playoff format?

Correct answers are Yes, and then No. So its a good move.

But what happens when a home team loses this one game elimination on a bad ref call and everyone throws beer cans on the ice?

The reason it's a 7 games series is so the best team wins. In a single game anything can happen, and that's not a good thing in my opinion.


Theokritos 01-02-2013 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acesolid (Post 57029599)
The reason it's a 7 games series is so the best team wins.

The next question is: If we're looking for the best team, then why should the 20th ranking team be in the mix at all? Or the 16th ranking for the matter...*cough*

The 20 team proposal is all about markets and not at all about hockey.

The CyNick 01-02-2013 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acesolid (Post 57029599)
But what happens when a home team loses this one game elimination on a bad ref call and everyone throws beer cans on the ice?

The reason it's a 7 games series is so the best team wins. In a single game anything can happen, and that's not a good thing in my opinion.


Well thats a larger discussion.

Should the Super Bowl be a best of 3? Anything can happen in one game afterall. But its one game, something crazy stuff happens, people seem to be fine with it.

World Cup? Best of what? 5?

Its a play in. If you look at how baseball has their set up, they tried to put some value back in winning the division. You win the division, and you're safe from the Wild Card craziness. If you dont, well, you gotta deal with whatever happens.

In the new NHL playoffs, you better scratch and claw your way to those top 3 spots in the conference. If not, you're going to face the challenge that comes with a winner take all situation.

Butch 19 01-02-2013 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theokritos (Post 57028437)
How about a 30 team playoff field? How about playoffs from October to April (best-of-100-series or something)? The regular season doesn't have a lot of meaning anway with so many teams making the playoffs.

That's a great idea. It simplifies everything - everyone gets in!!

:laugh:

WingedWheel1987 01-02-2013 08:03 PM

One of the worst ideas i have ever heard of.

haseoke39 01-02-2013 08:11 PM

hate it hate hate hate it

RandV 01-02-2013 08:46 PM

It would be a lot like the shootout really. Some people will ***** and complain about it saying it's the worst thing ever and hockey is ruined, but the game will go on regardless and all but the most bitter of fans will get used to it.

I don't think it's a big deal personally, and the wildcard round is always going to be fun. You can say it would weaken the playoffs or the meaning of the regular season but really you're never going to get worse than the already mentioned 16/21 team format. Also consider that the original 6 days are a cherished part of hockey history, 2/3rd's of the teams made it back then didn't they? And at the end of the day if a 10th seed wildcard is able to overcome the odds and win it all it's not like it would cheapen the Stanley Cup.

leeaf83 01-02-2013 08:53 PM

i don't mean to sound pretentious but I'm shaking my head at these people sarcastically saying 20 teams making the playoffs would be the same thing as all 30 teams making it

if fewer than 23 teams make the playoffs, it would still not have the highest percentage of teams in the playoffs (76% from 1980-1991)


the vast majority of the life of the NHL 66% or more teams made the playoffs, it only dipped below that for a short period of time in the 70's and since 1994


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.