I do think the NHL should try to give the top 2 teams in the conference some type of advantage in the first round. Home ice in playoff hockey is meaningless and there wasn't much difference between the #1 team and the #9 team in the west this year, crazy parity.
Although these past two years have been great playoffs because of the parity.
I don't like it. The talent is watered down. Should cut the league down by about 10 teams and see level of play skyrocket. Of course this isn't going to happen so I guess its okay. Nothing can really be done in the salary cap era.
I think the OP is confused because he's only paying attention to seedlings and not really watching the games.
1) Vancouver vs 8) Los Angeles:
LA isn't a typical 8 seed. They were a game away from the 3 seed. They played like crap until the TD and got really hot at the right time. It's not like the 8 seed is the Avs who don't deserve to be there. Not to mention, the Canucks are also missing one of their best players and have kept all 3 games really close.
It's not like there's 30 playoff caliber teams in the NHL. The bottom 3rd of the NHL is still terrible. There are still 5-7 not bad, but not good enough teams, about 8 playoff teams that aren't favorites to win it all but are certainly capable, and 5 "favorites".
The NHL is perfect right now. The Ottawa senators were supposed to be picking Yakupov when the season started and now they are giving arguably the best team in the NHL a great series and they might even make it to the 2nd round.
The NBA is losing popularity fast. Very fast. Why? Because everyone knows the only important games are some combination of Chicago, Miami, San Antonio, or LA.
The MLB recognized that people are tired of the Yankees and Red Sox making it every year so they added a wild card spot to do what???...that's right, add parity.
In terms of average entertainment game to game on any night, the NHL is the best at having the best regular season in all of sports.
It's great for entertainment/excitement purposes, but (if you care about such things) it's making winning the Stanley Cup less and less about being "the best team in the league", and more and more about getting hot at the right time, staying free of injuries, and having your goaltender play well, because the margins between the teams are so small that any minor shift in those three areas has a huge effect on series outcomes. Since the lockout effectively ended the top-heavy Red Wings/Avalanche/Devils era, the only years where I would feel comfortable saying "yeah, the Stanley Cup champion was definitely the 'best' team in the league that season" are 2007 (Ducks) and 2008 (Red Wings). Of course, determining the 'best' team in the league is more for discussion/debate purposes than anything substantive.
Parity has turned the NHL playoffs into March Madness with a 7 game series, it's incredible. The unpredictability of the playoffs has created a stronger sense of tension and entertainment.
parity is great because it keeps the league from getting stale, no better example than the NFL. before the cap was put in, the same teams dominated every year and the league was boring. since then? its become an 11$ Billion dollar a year sport, that gets more popular every season. i guess maybe you dont like it because before parity the Habs were actually good. deal with it.
Actually the NFL is boring now and it was great before. I'm a big NFL fan too and watch every game but it's basically flag football now where the QB/WR has all the advantage.
The only reason NFL is so popular now is fantasy football, gambling, internet, office pools, etc.
Niners/Cowboys dynasties were a lot better and ratings just as high.
Basically shows the league is not about "skill" as skill would always prevail in a 7 game series like the NBA.
Upsets are great in the 1st few rounds but then you end up with a bunch losers in the finals.
Or it shows that teams are much closer in skill level? NBA is not something hockey should be aspiring to where people tune in for the last 10 mins of the game for entertainment, sounds fun.
Besides if skill should always prevail why even have a playoffs? Why not end it with the presidents trophy?
It's not like there's 30 playoff caliber teams in the NHL. The bottom 3rd of the NHL is still terrible. There are still 5-7 not bad, but not good enough teams, about 8 playoff teams that aren't favorites to win it all but are certainly capable, and 5 "favorites".
Not really, Buffalo, Anaheim, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Dallas all these teams could easily win a series against "playoff" teams.
Anaheim would be favorite over most of these playoff teams.
Good thread and I could not agree more. I, like many fans much preferred the days of dynasty and elite teams as opposed to the current watered down commie system of Bettman Inc. There was enough parity as there was anyways, and sometimes it was fun to watch agreat team put on a show and win 11-2. The current system is nonsense. A fehr'er way of doing things would be more like MLB.
The NHL like any other pro sports league is a business. Which business do you think will do better, one that has only a few teams have a shot at a title or one that 20 out of 30 teams have a realistic shot? It's not rocket science. The Nhl has more parity than any other league thus having a higher entertainment value which turns into profit. Not to mention it's better for the fans. The OP's "coin flip" analogy is over reaching at best. Not even close to how it REALLY is.
Good thread and I could not agree more. I, like many fans much preferred the days of dynasty and elite teams as opposed to the current watered down commie system of Bettman Inc. There was enough parity as there was anyways, and sometimes it was fun to watch agreat team put on a show and win 11-2. The current system is nonsense. A fehr'er way of doing things would be more like MLB.
The problem is, player salaries are too high. If we just capped what you could pay an individual at $2 million then we wouldn't have to worry about not having dynasties. Everything could be the way it was back in the 70s and 80s and players would still do very well financially.
Player greed has forced a cap upon us. In the 80s, salaries were reasonable and any team could afford any roster they wanted. By the late 80s, salaries began to spiral out of control and a cap was needed. The 90s and early 2000s was a complete disaster with no cap.
Player salaries have ruined your fantasy NHL. Get that under control and we can go back to the days of your youth.
Oilers were a poorly run team. That is why they sucked during the '90's.
What did you think of the '80's? Was the lack of parity bad for hockey?
There was complete parity - player salaries were reasonable and any team could afford any roster they wanted. Intelligent management created dynasties, not fat wallets. Parity is equal OPPORTUNITY not equal win/loss totals.
Today player salaries are out of proportion with revenues thus, a cap is required. Cap individual players at $2 million and we can go back to the 80s.
Current structure of NHL is somehow communistic imo. I don't agree you have to earn success now. In fact, u can just sit and do nothing and you get top-class players for that through the draft. Is that good? I'm not sure. I don't like the cap as well.
how is that a bad thing?
MOD Imagine a league where you can have Crosby, Stamkos, and Ovi on the same line not to mention what an uncapped teams payroll could do for the rest of the team.
What you and a few others have failed to realize is that the league has a way more talent than it used to have 20 years ago. Essentially every team has all stars on their roster and any given night, those all stars can produce and win hockey games. The communism reference is laughable.
Last edited by Fugu: 04-17-2012 at 12:26 PM.
Reason: ...
The problem is, player salaries are too high. If we just capped what you could pay an individual at $2 million then we wouldn't have to worry about not having dynasties. Everything could be the way it was back in the 70s and 80s and players would still do very well financially.
Player greed has forced a cap upon us. In the 80s, salaries were reasonable and any team could afford any roster they wanted. By the late 80s, salaries began to spiral out of control and a cap was needed. The 90s and early 2000s was a complete disaster with no cap.
Player salaries have ruined your fantasy NHL. Get that under control and we can go back to the days of your youth.
Player salaries are not too high and have never been too high. MOD
Teams that cannot compete for talent on the open market should move or just accept their fate and know their place.
Last edited by Fugu: 04-17-2012 at 12:27 PM.
Reason: let's not get carried away with libelous claims
