The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
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.
-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.
Ridiculous you say? lol Ridiculous is insinuating that only the elite of the league gets in when you allow 16 out of 30, more than half, of the teams into the playoffs. There are not 16 "elite" teams in the league. A team that needs a shootout win on the last day of the regular season to make the playoffs, isn't elite. Period.
A difficult feat you say? Being in the top 52% of the league is difficult? The team making the the playoffs as the 16th seed is closer to being the worst team in the league than the best...and they still make the cut. The reason or adding an extra "round" isn't to bruise any body. Once you get that low in the playoff seeding, the thought is that any team on the cusp is worthy of getting in, make them play for it. I don't necessarily endorse the idea, but I understand where they're coming from with the idea, and it wouldn't bother me any either way.
Enough people complained about Florida getting the 3rd seed in an 8 team conference playoff format. I'm sure it would go over even better if only 4 teams made it.
If you wanted to do 8, go with the realigned 4 larger groups, and it's the conference winners, and then the best 4 remaining records.
No chance it's less than 16 teams though, even if it probably should be. Too much money.
Agreed on all accounts. There are other possibilites than 3 division winners plus one team.
20 teams making the playoffs is a joke. But it'll happen; it'll happen because it's a money grab for the owners, and the players will be all for it because it gives them a better chance to win the cup. The grueling 82 game regular season will be further demeaned but of course the integrity of the game means nothing to these millionaires and billionaires as long as they can keep cashing in.
If they did a playoff for those last 4 teams I would be less opposed but then you have to give the 1 seed(s) a bye under the current Conference format to even everything out. Wouldn't be too opposed to this but this won't happen because the owners will cry about their 1 seeded teams not generating 1st round revenue. Garbage..
What's next.. the 15th seed gets home ice in the Conference Finals? Please. This league is broken.. get rid of the teams that are breaking it. The only viable long term solution that I can see.
Has anyone mentioned in this thread that according to Kypreos on HC at Noon yesterday, it was entirely possible that they would do this for the first year only as a way to bring in more fans and revenue but that it wouldn't continue? Kypreos didn't know for sure about that but he said it was possible...
20 teams making the playoffs is a joke. But it'll happen; it'll happen because it's a money grab for the owners, and the players will be all for it because it gives them a better chance to win the cup. The grueling 82 game regular season will be further demeaned but of course the integrity of the game means nothing to these millionaires and billionaires as long as they can keep cashing in.
If they did a playoff for those last 4 teams I would be less opposed but then you have to give the 1 seed(s) a bye under the current Conference format to even everything out. Wouldn't be too opposed to this but this won't happen because the owners will cry about their 1 seeded teams not generating 1st round revenue. Garbage..
What's next.. the 15th seed gets home ice in the Conference Finals? Please. This league is broken.. get rid of the teams that are breaking it. The only viable long term solution that I can see.
It's a money grab for both the owners AND the players. Playoff revenues are part of HRR that both sides divvy up.
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.
this. The regular season means nothing with that many teams in the playoffs. I could see some addition but only to like 17 or 18
While most people are focusing on how this new format would give the 9th and 10th seed a chance they don't deserve, I'm looking at how it makes life harder on the 7th and 8th position teams by making them get thorough a 1-game play-in to make the playoffs. It also gives the top 6 teams an extra 1 or 2 days of rest before their series start.
It's not so much adding teams to the playoffs as it is adding to the competition for the last 2 spots. It also makes the competition for the 6th or higher position greater to avoid a dangerous 1-game play-in.
I think it's a bad choice of words to call what's being proposed a "20-team playoff". It makes it look from the surface like the playoffs are being diluted, but they really aren't. It's still a 16 team playoff with 4 7-game series, but you have one more challenge to get in if you're in 7th through 10th place. I know if my team were in 7th to 10th place, I wouldn't consider them "in the playoffs" until AFTER they win that one game.
If it were a 3-game series, I'd agree that it's effectively an additional round of playoffs, but at 1 game, it feels much more like it's for the right to be in the post-season.
I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to call what's being proposed a "20-team playoff". It's still a 16 team playoff with 4 7-game series, but you have one more challenge to get in if you're in 7th through 10th place. I know if my team were in 7th to 10th place, I wouldn't consider them "in the playoffs" until AFTER they win that one game.
If it were a 3-game series, it'd feel like an additional round of playoffs, but one game and it feels more like it's for the right to be in the post-season.
Bet the teams consider them playoff games for the purpose of pricing tickets.
__________________
Truth should never get in the way of a good persecution complex.
Has anyone mentioned in this thread that according to Kypreos on HC at Noon yesterday, it was entirely possible that they would do this for the first year only as a way to bring in more fans and revenue but that it wouldn't continue? Kypreos didn't know for sure about that but he said it was possible...
When the NHL was granted the (unexercised) rights to expand the Playoffs after the last Lockout, it was just for a single year - to then be evaluated, with both NHL & NHLPA approval needed to continue it.
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.
I want to emphasis that specific point. Last season the Canucks were coasting repeatedly down the stretch because barring a collapse that would make Toronto jealous, it bordered on impossible for us to miss, more so the year prior. Look back to when Washington was a powerhouse. Now imagine ten teams from each conference qualifying could you have coasting as early as November.
As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke. Don't fix it." The playoffs are not broke. So leave them alone.
Ridiculous you say? lol Ridiculous is insinuating that only the elite of the league gets in when you allow 16 out of 30, more than half, of the teams into the playoffs. There are not 16 "elite" teams in the league. A team that needs a shootout win on the last day of the regular season to make the playoffs, isn't elite. Period.
A difficult feat you say? Being in the top 52% of the league is difficult? The team making the the playoffs as the 16th seed is closer to being the worst team in the league than the best...and they still make the cut. The reason or adding an extra "round" isn't to bruise any body. Once you get that low in the playoff seeding, the thought is that any team on the cusp is worthy of getting in, make them play for it. I don't necessarily endorse the idea, but I understand where they're coming from with the idea, and it wouldn't bother me any either way.
The top-16 would generally be more elite than the top-20.
And teams making the Playoffs on Shootout points,... that's a problem with the Points System, not the Playoff format.
Has anyone mentioned in this thread that according to Kypreos on HC at Noon yesterday, it was entirely possible that they would do this for the first year only as a way to bring in more fans and revenue but that it wouldn't continue? Kypreos didn't know for sure about that but he said it was possible...
A one time deal will quickly turn into the new standard when the owners and players realize they can make more money. Personally I don't mind a 20 teams playoff format with 7,8,9,10 vying for the last two spot maybe in a best of 3. It make getting a highter seeding position so much the better. Because right now at the end of the season you got a mediocrity race for the eight spot and higher team coasting to the playoff. With this format the race is now for the six guarantee playoff spots.
I want an 8 team playoff. 16 teams is too many. You get teams that have no business being in the playoffs in there and they knock out teams that deserve getting in by playing well all season. Make the regular season mean something. 20 teams is ridiculous. Why don't they just expand to 32 and let everyone in at that point?
I think it it's a bad of words to call what's being proposed a "20-team playoff". It makes it look from the surface like the playoffs are being diluted, but they really aren't. It's still a 16 team playoff with 4 7-game series, but you have one more challenge to get in if you're in 7th through 10th place. I know if my team were in 7th to 10th place, I wouldn't consider them "in the playoffs" until AFTER they win that one game.
If it were a 3-game series, I'd agree that it's effectively an additional round of playoffs, but at 1 game, it feels much more like it's for the right to be in the post-season.
But that's unfair! I want a fair playoff where the best team at the time wins!
I dont want one where a single freak incident can (and will) make deserving teams lose! (I once again point you to the DISASTER that was the one game ''playoff'' game in the MLB.) In a best of seven series, such an incident has little impact, since the best team should come out on top in the end.
I want the best team to win. The idea that a team that finished 8th needs to be penalised is just dumb. I want fair playoffs, where all teams in it have the same shot at victory and the best teams in seven games series advancing.
I think it it's a bad of words to call what's being proposed a "20-team playoff". It makes it look from the surface like the playoffs are being diluted, but they really aren't. It's still a 16 team playoff with 4 7-game series, but you have one more challenge to get in if you're in 7th through 10th place. I know if my team were in 7th to 10th place, I wouldn't consider them "in the playoffs" until AFTER they win that one game.
If it were a 3-game series, I'd agree that it's effectively an additional round of playoffs, but at 1 game, it feels much more like it's for the right to be in the post-season.
So then ultimately, what is the point of being 7th instead or 10th? What is the point of finishing with potentially 8-10 more points than a team 3 spots below you to have to play a one game playoff, that you could very well lose and have your season ended?
Whether you call it "playoffs" or not, it further diminishes the importance of regular season games, by a lot.
And eventually, if the NHL gets too greedy, it will hurt regular season interest too. And the regular season is still your main product, hopefully the league doesn't forget that.
But that's unfair! I want a fair playoff where the best team at the time wins!
I dont want one where a single freak incident can (and will) make deserving teams lose! (I once again point you to the DISASTER that was the one game ''playoff'' game in the MLB.) In a best of seven series, such an incident has little impact, since the best team should come out on top in the end.
I want the best team to win. The idea that a team that finished 8th needs to be penalised is just dumb. I want fair playoffs, where all teams in it have the same shot at victory and the best teams in seven games series advancing.
Fair is a relative concept. Is the existing playoff structure is "fair" just because we're accustomed to it?
I think this proposal is a win for 3 reasons:
1- You get more teams in the running for the playoffs later in the regular season. This keeps fans of more teams interested and increases revenues.
2- You make the 7th and 8th place teams "earn it" a little more by requiring them to get through a 1 game play-in. This actually increases the "integrity" of playoff teams slightly even though more teams have a shot at getting in. And hey, they aren't facing the 1st place team, they're facing #9 or #10. If they can't get into the 6th or higher ceed or win the one-game play-in, I don't see them as being robbed of something they earned.
3- You can have a great weekend of 4 win-and-in games that would get a lot of attention. Aside from being intense games for fans of all 8 teams involved, you'd have the attention of fans of the 4 teams in the #1 and #2 positions to see who they match up against in Round 1.
So then ultimately, what is the point of being 7th instead or 10th? What is the point of finishing with potentially 8-10 more points than a team 3 spots below you to have to play a one game playoff, that you could very well lose and have your season ended?
Whether you call it "playoffs" or not, it further diminishes the importance of regular season games, by a lot.
And eventually, if the NHL gets too greedy, it will hurt regular season interest too. And the regular season is still your main product, hopefully the league doesn't forget that.
The teams in that area of the points curve are usually packed pretty tightly together. 8th place now generally comes down to the last game, so why wouldn't the battle for 6th to avoid a 1-game playoff AND the battle for 10th to get into a 1-game playoff?
You essentially create 2 playoff races in each conference, and there's no way that the 6th to 7th place gap AND the 10th to 11th place gap are both big differentials!
