HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

The new playoff format - specifically, the wildcard/crossover rule

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-27-2013, 01:34 PM
  #26
MuzikMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
I wonder if the PA might try to force a 2-3-2 series format on the owners for series involving a crossover team to bring down travel. The owners sure as hell wouldn't like it, but it would be a reasonable request from the players' perspective if they're so concerned with travel. You can't appeal to travel concerns by having division-based regular season and playoffs, then have Vancouver/Nashville or San Jose/St. Louis criss-crossing the continent four times.
It's not that big a deal, it's been happening all along with the Conference-based playoffs and would continue to happen in the WCF and SCF. At least there won't be a senario where an Eastern Time Zone team plays a Pacific Time Zone team prior to the Stanley Cup Finals.

The NHL tried the 2-3-2 format way back when they first started the Conference-based playoffs in 1993-94. That year, the NHL still had two divisions per confernece but they started the playoff seeding that we know today, however for the Western Conference if two teams in different divisions played each other, the series would be 2-3-2 in an effort to reduce travel. The advantage seemed to go the the lower seeded Pacific teams who could claim home ice advantage by splitting the first two games on the road before having the next 3 at home. Consider the success of 7th seeded Vancouver and 8th seeded San Jose when they played higher seeded teams in the Central Division:
  • Vancouver: 4-1 vs Dallas (WSF) & 4-1 vs Toronto (WCF)
  • San Jose: 4-3 vs Detroit (WQF) & 3-4 vs Toronto (WSF)
  • every time, there was a split after the first two games
  • every time, the lower seeded home team went 2-1 or better in games 3-5
  • the lower seeded home team was 4-0 in Game 5, a game that would normally be a road game
  • 2 of the 4 series' were done in 5 games with the lower seeded team advancing, the other 2 times the higher seeded team went into game 6 facing elimination
  • the Toronto Maple Leafs have the distinction of being the only team to win a 2-3-2 series where they were the higher seeded team (WSF vs San Jose) but had to win games 6 & 7; they also are the only team to go 0-3 on the road portion of games 2-5 (WCF vs Vancouver)

The NHL abandoned the 2-3-2 format after one season.

MuzikMachine is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 01:42 PM
  #27
Greyhounds
Registered User
 
Greyhounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashua
Country: United States
Posts: 11,047
vCash: 500
My idea would have been that top team in each of 4 divisions qualify for playoffs. After that, it's the next 12 teams in terms of points.

If it happens that there are 8 teams from each conference that qualify, then playoffs are within the conference as now, until the finals.

Otherwise, teams are seeded 1 through 16.

This way, some years will have division/conference rivals meet in the playoffs, and other years it's pot-luck.

Greyhounds is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 01:52 PM
  #28
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Definite disadvantage travel wise for the Western conference since the east would have a guarantee of being in the same time zone.
Isn't it like that in other sports too when it comes to midwest and western teams? Take the NBA for example - last year the LA Clippers had to play the Memphis Grizzles in the first round.

How about MLB? That's not even an east-west split. Teams from the east coast could play teams from the west coast in the Divisional Series round.

I think there's just a reality where if you have a team in the midwest or west in any sport you're going to travel more, and the NHL is no exception.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:15 PM
  #29
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,037
vCash: 500
First two rounds in conference; reseed for final 4.

All I really want is for the possibility of two great teams in the same division to meet in the final. Such a rivalry would be gripping to anyone with a pulse.

No more anticlimaxes.

saskganesh is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:18 PM
  #30
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,230
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
At first, the divisional playoff idea was brought back up to promote and/or build rivalries. Now we have this horrid 'wildcard' issue. Looking at standings from previous years, I may have another, at least palateable idea. 1st round 'wildcard' opponent based on geography... Or maybe I shoud say time zones. Example based off last years standings, with the proposed alignment.

Pacific: 1. Vancouver, 2. Phoenix, 3. SJ 'wildcard' 4. LA, 5. Calgary
Midwest: 1. St Louis, 2. Nashville, 3. Chicago

Here, I would pair Calgary with St Louis. Media would get better TV times than having St Louis and La in the 1st round.

Northeast: 1. Boston, 2. Detroit, 3. Florida
Atlantic: 1. NY Rangers, 2. Pittsburgh, 3. Philly 'wildcard' 4. NJ, 5. Washington

Here, I would pair Washington with Boston. It's not as important here I guess. I suppose in the East if a 'wildcard' 4th is significantly closer to the opposing 1st, then that's an obvious 1st round match.

garry1221 is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:34 PM
  #31
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221 View Post
At first, the divisional playoff idea was brought back up to promote and/or build rivalries. Now we have this horrid 'wildcard' issue. Looking at standings from previous years, I may have another, at least palateable idea. 1st round 'wildcard' opponent based on geography... Or maybe I shoud say time zones. Example based off last years standings, with the proposed alignment.

Pacific: 1. Vancouver, 2. Phoenix, 3. SJ 'wildcard' 4. LA, 5. Calgary
Midwest: 1. St Louis, 2. Nashville, 3. Chicago

Here, I would pair Calgary with St Louis. Media would get better TV times than having St Louis and La in the 1st round.

Northeast: 1. Boston, 2. Detroit, 3. Florida
Atlantic: 1. NY Rangers, 2. Pittsburgh, 3. Philly 'wildcard' 4. NJ, 5. Washington

Here, I would pair Washington with Boston. It's not as important here I guess. I suppose in the East if a 'wildcard' 4th is significantly closer to the opposing 1st, then that's an obvious 1st round match.
Exactly, garry, Divsional Playoffs could've been approximated all along, with the 6-Division structure, in the way they're planning to do them. I've been suggesting that since 18 months ago.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:38 PM
  #32
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
The NHLPA shot down the last proposal party because they didn't like the playoff setup. Why would they go along with the same plan now?
Why would they agree to a wildcard that doesn't address any of their concerns?

Tough Guy is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:40 PM
  #33
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupertslander View Post
there would be no more than two crossover series in any playoff round.
Two crossover series per conference, which would be 4 total (or 50% of the 1st round series).

Utterly stupid idea. Utterly, utterly stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221 View Post
Initially 'wildcard' was brought up because of the imbalance of the 7/7/8/8 thing. That was at least reasonable. With the current top 3 guaranteed, next 2 in each conference, wild... It negates the original gripe regarding chances of making the playoffs. The latest matrix as a whole is a mess from my POV regardless
It's a complete disaster. This league has no idea what it's doing.

Tough Guy is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:41 PM
  #34
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Dawg View Post
Why would they agree to a wildcard that doesn't address any of their concerns?
It does address some of their concerns though. The NHLPA didn't like the fact that in a pure divisional format certain deserving teams would have a harder time getting into the playoff, whether it's because they play in an 8 team division, or because they play in a stronger division. The wild card option at least allows a better team in a stronger division a playoff spot as opposed to a lesser team in a weak division.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:43 PM
  #35
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,209
vCash: 3000
According to NHL.com, there will be two wildcard teams per conference. If the first two rounds are to be played within the division and the two wildcard teams both come from one division, wouldn't one of them have to play the first two rounds in the division they don't play in? If so, which team goes in the other conference? Does the lower ranked wildcard team go into the division with the highest ranked team?

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:44 PM
  #36
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
It does address some of their concerns though. The NHLPA didn't like the fact that in a pure divisional format certain deserving teams would have a harder time getting into the playoff, whether it's because they play in an 8 team division, or because they play in a stronger division. The wild card option at least allows a better team in a stronger division a playoff spot as opposed to a lesser team in a weak division.
The conference imbalance is not addressed. And weak teams can still make it ahead of strong teams under this idiotic system, so that wasn't addressed either.

The whole thing is just dumb. Leave things the way they are.

Tough Guy is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 02:46 PM
  #37
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Dawg View Post
The conference imbalance is not addressed. And weak teams can still make it ahead of strong teams under this idiotic system, so that wasn't addressed either.

The whole thing is just dumb. Leave things the way they are.
That's why they came up with the wild card idea.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they had a system like they did in 1993-94: the #1 and #2 seeds in each conference are the division winners, then seeds 3-8 are the teams with the most points after that.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:09 PM
  #38
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
According to NHL.com, there will be two wildcard teams per conference. If the first two rounds are to be played within the division and the two wildcard teams both come from one division, wouldn't one of them have to play the first two rounds in the division they don't play in? If so, which team goes in the other conference? Does the lower ranked wildcard team go into the division with the highest ranked team?
That would be stupid, wouldn't it. Let's say 4 teams from each Division actually qualify, but the top seed from the Conference is in one Division and the lowest seed wildcard is in the other Division, then is the League actually going to switch matchups to opposite Divisions?

Just matchup the top seed within its own Divsion, why do it any other way.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:13 PM
  #39
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
That's why they came up with the wild card idea.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they had a system like they did in 1993-94: the #1 and #2 seeds in each conference are the division winners, then seeds 3-8 are the teams with the most points after that.
Wild card does nothing to address the imbalance.

3 of 7 divisional spots in the west. 3 of 8 in east

2 of 14 wild card spots in west. 2 of 16 in east.

If they had done the play in with only the eastern teams it would have addressed the imbalance.

I'm good with the set up, but they should just do top four. The would card accomplished very little.

The CyNick is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:20 PM
  #40
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,209
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
That would be stupid, wouldn't it. Let's say 4 teams from each Division actually qualify, but the top seed from the Conference is in one Division and the lowest seed wildcard is in the other Division, then is the League actually going to switch matchups to opposite Divisions?

Just matchup the top seed within its own Divsion, why do it any other way.
I'm not saying to switch it if exactly four teams from each division makes the playoffs.

According to someone's post earlier in this thread, this is last year's teams under this system:

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

Carolina - 82
NY Islanders - 79
Columbus - 65

Central
Detroit - 102
Boston - 102
Florida - 94

Ottawa - 92
Buffalo - 89
Tampa Bay - 84
Toronto - 80
Montreal - 78

If New Jersey and Washington were the two wildcard teams and the first two rounds are to be played within the division, which one of the wildcard teams would you put in the other division? Wouldn't it be more fair if New Jersey plays their first two rounds against Central Division teams? It would be 1v4, 2v3. Since the Rangers had the most points, they should play against the team with the least amount of points, which is why the Devils would go to the other conference.

If one wildcard team comes from each division, then no switch would have to be made. After just reading on Yahoo, the highest seeded team will play the worse wildcard team.


Last edited by Screw You Rick Nash: 02-27-2013 at 03:30 PM.
Screw You Rick Nash is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:25 PM
  #41
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
That's why they came up with the wild card idea.
What do you mean "that's why they came up with the wild card idea"? The wildcard doesn't address the unbalanced conferences AT ALL and it barely addresses the issue of teams with fewer points making the playoffs ahead of teams with more points.

It's just dumb.

Tough Guy is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:27 PM
  #42
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
That's pretty much what's planned, though apparently only Round by Round, not necessarily for the whole Playoffs.

Still don't like it though. If Chicago, for example, wins the Regular Season West, they shouldn't have to play LA in the 1st Round.
Once a wild card team cross over, a wild card winner will still remain in other division bracket for round 2. This is what it stated in the article.

LA would play against the winner of the mid-west 2nd and 3rd seed for the round 2 match-up no matter what.

coolboarder is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:37 PM
  #43
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolboarder View Post
Once a wild card team cross over, a wild card winner will still remain in other division bracket for round 2. This is what it stated in the article.

LA would play against the winner of the mid-west 2nd and 3rd seed for the round 2 match-up no matter what.
Where do they come up with these ideas?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:42 PM
  #44
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Where do they come up with these ideas?
Where else would they go? So if LA got moved to the Midwest for the play-offs and won the first round, then what? Should they go back to the Pacific and have a 3-team round-robin while the winner of the 2-3 series in the Midwest just gets a bye to the next round?

patnyrnyg is online now  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:45 PM
  #45
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Where else would they go? So if LA got moved to the Midwest for the play-offs and won the first round, then what? Should they go back to the Pacific and have a 3-team round-robin while the winner of the 2-3 series in the Midwest just gets a bye to the next round?
van1st vs ana3rd
La2nd vs Chi3rd
Van wins, La Wins
then
Van1st vs La.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:48 PM
  #46
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Where do they come up with these ideas?
I will quote the TSN article. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=416887

Quote:
It would be divisional playoffs, not conference playoffs, so 1 vs. 4, 2 vs 3 in the first round. The two fourth seeds would be made up of the wild-card teams. The top division winner based on regular-season points in the standings would face off against the lower-ranked wild-card team. The other division winner would play the higher-ranked wild-card.

First-round winners then meet in second round in the division championship; Third round sees Pacific winner vs. Mid-West winner in Western Conference finals; Central winner versus Atlantic winner in Eastern Conference finals; Eastern and Western Conference champions meet in Stanley Cup finals.

coolboarder is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:49 PM
  #47
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
I'm starting to have second thoughts on what's being planned. I believe MoreOrr and others have brought this up too - if you are the division winner, heck even the president's trophy winner, why would you be potentially punished by having to face a cross continental team and all that extra travel that goes with it? If they do it this way maybe they could a 2-5 set up with only the first 2 games in the wildcard's arena - the rest would be played at the division winner's arena. Although I'm not sure how practical that would be.

Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:49 PM
  #48
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
van1st vs ana3rd
La2nd vs Chi3rd
Van wins, La Wins
then
Van1st vs La.
This is not how it works here, buddy. Look at my most recent post.

coolboarder is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 03:57 PM
  #49
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,209
vCash: 3000
From ESPN:
Quote:
The new plan calls for divisional playoffs, not conference playoffs as the NHL currently has. The division winner with the most regular-season points will play the lowest-seeded wild-card team in the first round, with the other division winner playing the other wild-card team.
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/89...ns-source-says

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

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


Central
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?

Screw You Rick Nash is offline  
Old
02-27-2013, 04:20 PM
  #50
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
From ESPN:


http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/89...ns-source-says

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

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


Central
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?
With the proposed format for next year, I believe the matchups of last year in the Eastern Conference would have been:

Atlantic:
#5 WSH vs #1 NYR
#3 PHI vs #2 PIT

Central:
#4 NJ vs #1 BOS
#3 FLA vs #2 DET

New Jersey would be the crossover team. Boston actually finished higher in the league standings than Detroit due to tiebreakers even though they both had 102 points.

Shockmaster is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.