View Single Post
02-27-2013, 05:52 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 775
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
From ESPN:

I don't understand this. Let's say last year went like this:

NY Rangers - 109
Pittsburgh - 108
Philadelphia - 103
New Jersey - 102
Washington - 92

Detroit - 102
Boston - 100
Florida - 94

Wouldn't that article suggest that Detroit would have to play New Jersey while Boston would play Florida? How does that make any sense?
I agree. It seems the NHL is wanting their divisional playoffs but this Wild Card scenario is turning this into a hybrid conference/divisional matchup. The only guaranteed matchup is 2 & 3 in each division. If the objective is to have divisional matchups, then the interdivisional playoff rounds for the first two rounds should be kept to a minimum.

Here's another flaw to this proposal. In 2010-11 the Western standings were as follows (adjusted to represent the current realignment and only showing playoff temas):

Nashville - 99
Chicago - 97
Dallas - 95

Vancouver - 117
San Jose - 105
Phoenix - 99
Anaheim - 99
Los Angeles - 98

In the actual 2010-11 final standings, Anaheim finished ahead of Nashville in the Western Conference standings, however under this proposal Anaheim would play Nashville with Nashville having home ice advantage even though Anaheim finished higher due to tie breakers. Should it not be Nashville vs Los Angeles? Then the 5th seeded team still qualifies but has to do the more travel than than the higher seeded wild card team.

MuzikMachine is offline