HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHL divisional playoff format is drawing criticism

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-22-2017, 05:05 PM
  #26
Caeldan
Moderator
Whippet Whisperer
 
Caeldan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,998
vCash: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
You guys can't say that its okay for Rangers to fight for a wildcard spot with 94 pts while Habs (91), Sens (88) and Bruins (82) are in a better position of making them.
They're not fighting for a wildcard spot, but yes it's fine that they're 4th in their division because Metro and Atlantic play different schedules, and the bottom of the Metro is arguably weaker than the bottom of the Atlantic - at least when it comes to playing within their own division. Which will inflate the points of the top end of the division.

If they played between divisions an equal number of times, then yes a conference 1-8 seeding makes the most sense.

Caeldan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 05:16 PM
  #27
GoalDeny
Registered User
 
GoalDeny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 660
vCash: 50
The current format blows. I would change it to how the NBA currently does it, 1-8 with no guaranteed top-2 spot for the division winners. And with no re-seeding in the second round.

If I remember correctly, one of the NHL's arguments for changing the format was that 'new fans' would get confused with the re-seeding and that teams didn't like not knowing who they would potentially play in the second round.

Second round format:

1 vs. 8 winner plays 4 vs. 5 winner
2 vs. 7 winner plays 3 vs. 6 winner

I would also imagine that eventually under the current format the owners would start getting upset. Think about it, if you're the WSH/PIT/CBJ owner, and your team loses in the first round because of the current format, you'd be pretty pissed off at not getting the $X amount of money that comes with the extra home games in the second round.

GoalDeny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 05:27 PM
  #28
Zippy316
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 12,813
vCash: 500
I hate the whole divisional playoff set-up.

I'd rather them keep the qualifying format with the top 3 teams in the division + two wild cards, but then completely re-seed. Best team in the conference gets #1 seed. Best team in the other division gets #2 seed. Seed #3 - #8 by points.

If season ended today:

1. Washington
2. Montreal
3. Pittsburgh
4. Columbus
5. New York Rangers
6. Ottawa
7. Boston
8. Toronto

1. Chicago
2. San Jose
3. Minnesota
4. Edmonton
5. Anaheim
6. Calgary
7. St. Louis
8. Nashville

Problem solved IMO.

Zippy316 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 05:55 PM
  #29
NEPA
Registered User
 
NEPA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Country: United States
Posts: 1,215
vCash: 500
To expand on tarheel's point about adding another playoff spot I think a 1 game playoff between seeds 8 vs 9 for that last spot would be an interesting concept.

You have seeds 1-7 and you "term" seed 8 and 9 in the standings throughout the season as WC1 and WC2. WC1 gets the home playoff game. Winner of the game gets the final spot.

Having the 1 game playoff doesn't hurt anything imo.

NEPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 06:07 PM
  #30
Marmoset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoalDeny View Post
The current format blows. I would change it to how the NBA currently does it, 1-8 with no guaranteed top-2 spot for the division winners. And with no re-seeding in the second round.

If I remember correctly, one of the NHL's arguments for changing the format was that 'new fans' would get confused with the re-seeding and that teams didn't like not knowing who they would potentially play in the second round.

Second round format:

1 vs. 8 winner plays 4 vs. 5 winner
2 vs. 7 winner plays 3 vs. 6 winner

I agree with 1-8 but not with removing re-seeding. If re-seeding in the second round is "confusing", then what do we call the current system?

In the NBA the lack of re-seeding creates situations like the one currently in the Eastern Conference, where you are probably better off finishing 6 or 7 rather than 4 or 5, because at 4-5 you have to face the Cavs in the second round instead of third round. It's not that different from the type of thing the current NHL system presents, although it doesn't really become an issue until the second round, unlike the NHL format. However, any playoff system where finishing lower is an advantage has its issues.

A straight 1-8 with re-seeding gives the most advantage to each team in order of regular-season finish.

Marmoset is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 07:19 PM
  #31
Caeldan
Moderator
Whippet Whisperer
 
Caeldan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,998
vCash: 249
As long as you have a divisional weighted schedule, a divisional playoff is the fairest system.
Change the schedule, then change the playoff format

Caeldan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 07:21 PM
  #32
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,935
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEPA View Post
To expand on tarheel's point about adding another playoff spot I think a 1 game playoff between seeds 8 vs 9 for that last spot would be an interesting concept.

You have seeds 1-7 and you "term" seed 8 and 9 in the standings throughout the season as WC1 and WC2. WC1 gets the home playoff game. Winner of the game gets the final spot.

Having the 1 game playoff doesn't hurt anything imo.
And on top of that, you make the 9th seed the new "bubble", so there's a good chance 10th and 11th seed fans are still fully engaged until the final game of the season. 12th and 13th seed fans are most likely paying attention as well, at least until the very bitter end.

Basically the only teams that are completely out of it are the tank jobs. And you're not even changing the final playoff bracket substantially.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 08:10 PM
  #33
NEPA
Registered User
 
NEPA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Country: United States
Posts: 1,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
And on top of that, you make the 9th seed the new "bubble", so there's a good chance 10th and 11th seed fans are still fully engaged until the final game of the season. 12th and 13th seed fans are most likely paying attention as well, at least until the very bitter end.

Basically the only teams that are completely out of it are the tank jobs. And you're not even changing the final playoff bracket substantially.
You and I both agree (probably the minority to boot) on this :that along with expansion to 32 teams there needs to be an added playoff spot. Especially since we've went from 26 teams (in the late 80's to late 90's) to soon 32.

People say "too many teams, ect ect" but one of the cool things ive always regarded with the nhl is your team can get off to a poor start but you are truly never out of it if your team can work through it.

I think what I am proposing can appease both sides to this argument.

NEPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 08:17 PM
  #34
Belieber
Never Say Never
 
Belieber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Country: Canada
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
I hope they change it back, although it's great for time zone reasons once the playoffs start. Guaranteeing 7pm pacific starts is good for everyone from fans to tv networks.

Belieber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 08:19 PM
  #35
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEPA View Post
You and I both agree (probably the minority to boot) on this :that along with expansion to 32 teams there needs to be an added playoff spot. Especially since we've went from 26 teams (in the late 80's to late 90's) to soon 32.

People say "too many teams, ect ect" but one of the cool things ive always regarded with the nhl is your team can get off to a poor start but you are truly never out of it if your team can work through it.

I think what I am proposing can appease both sides to this argument.
How are you going to have 9 teams in the play-offs for each conference? Don't want to se teams get byes to the 2nd round.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 08:25 PM
  #36
NEPA
Registered User
 
NEPA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Country: United States
Posts: 1,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
How are you going to have 9 teams in the play-offs for each conference? Don't want to se teams get byes to the 2nd round.
Did you even read my post before my last one

If you actually read my idea, I mentioned nothing about bye weeks.


Last edited by NEPA: 03-22-2017 at 08:33 PM.
NEPA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 08:35 PM
  #37
Guardian17
Strong & Free
 
Guardian17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,681
vCash: 500
To win the Stanley Cup, you're going to have to beat some really good teams whatever round you play them in.

Guardian17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 09:30 PM
  #38
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 9,698
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Either go 1-8 or stay true to the divisional format. The latter makes for better playoff rivalries which is why I like it. Yeah it can be unfair but that's just the way it goes. Stanley Cup is he Conference Final Winners, Conference Final should be Division winners IMO.

But the wild card is such a crappy compromise you get the worst of both. Lose out on rivalry matchups and have an unbalanced playoff bracket. Just go with the 1-8 if the teams are worried about missing out on a spot. While to me it wasn't the best system it was easily the second best system. What they have now is just so underwhelming as an idea.

Roughneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 10:26 PM
  #39
Jeffrey93
Registered User
 
Jeffrey93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
This system is perfect. Play your division first....makes sense for so many reasons (rivalries, tv, travel, etc.).

The only thing I'd change is the Wild Card setup. Instead of the next 2 teams earning a wild card into the playoffs....have the 4th & 5th seeded teams in each division play a best of 5 (or 3) to make the playoffs. Even a one off would be pretty entertaining (like MLB's wild card game).

The winner of that series or game makes the 4th spot in the division playoffs. So every first and second round matchup is between team within each division.

Before the NHL changed to the 1v8 format divisions were a big thing. If you're in a division that is better that year, you need to play your tough opponents...that you've faced more than anyone else all year....first. Makes for great first rounds and builds rivalries to be continued year after year. If you're in a division that is weaker that year.....everyone has a shot at getting their stuff together and making it to the conference finals.....an upset there? And your 5th place (given the wild card format I suggested earlier) in the division team could be playing for the Stanley Cup.

People complaining about the current system are short-sighted and are only staring at the standings. Not taking into account all the other variables.

How dare a league with divisions have a playoff system that includes divisions? How silly eh? You play in your division first, then your conference then for the whole league.

Jeffrey93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 10:56 PM
  #40
Elephant Igloo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llama19 View Post
To quote:

...It's not the first time a loaded division has caused consternation about this playoff format ask teams in the Central Division but the groans are getting louder now with no end in sight."
Haha, yep, it's all fun and games until New York is inconvenienced!

Elephant Igloo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 12:17 AM
  #41
Mr. Fancy Pants
Registered User
 
Mr. Fancy Pants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gifu
Country: Japan
Posts: 380
vCash: 500
I like the divisional format. They should have kept it simple and just went with top 4. Sure one year one division might be stronger but then another division will be stronger the next year. I don't see why the PA had an issue with it. It's not like less players are making the playoffs.

If a better team faces a tougher opponent and gets knocked out early then tough. They weren't good enough to win the Cup anyway.

Mr. Fancy Pants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 12:28 AM
  #42
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Been saying it since it was announced; a regional playoff is needed:

1. Washington* vs. 16. Boston
2. Pittsburgh* vs. 14. Toronto
3. Chicago* vs. 15. Nashville
4. Columbus vs. 10. Ottawa*
5. Minnesota* vs. 13. St. Louis
6. NY Rangers vs. 8. Montreal*
7. San Jose vs. 12. Calgary*
9. Anaheim* vs. 11. Edmonton
*won regular season series

1. Washington* vs. 7. Ottawa
2. Pittsburgh* vs. 5 Montreal
3. Chicago* vs. 8 Calgary
4. Minnesota* vs. 6. Anaheim

1*v4, 2v3*, Capitals > Blackhawks in SCF

Crayton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 12:59 AM
  #43
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsanuri View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Other than some crazy ideas, my opinion would be to make the East 1-8, because all the teams are in the same time zone. It's really easy to figure out the East. They should then let the Western franchises figure out what works best for them. No more one size fits all. If the western teams want 1-8, that's great. If they want a strict top 4, that's fine. If they want to keep this hybrid thing, or change it a little, that's ok. To me, there's no reason the two conferences need the same playoff format. I don't even think they need the same alignment, should either conference want to do something different. Like if the East wants smaller divisions, while the West wants to keep larger ones, why not do that?
Having two different systems would be very amateurish to me. And I think get quite a bit of ridicule from the media for it.
Every major sport's playoff system has media critics. The casual fan won't realize the difference so long as there are fifteen 7-game series. The easy fix for me would be to keep current qualification, go 1v8 but with first round tweaks to ensure at least 2 or maybe even 3 divisional series in each conference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEPA View Post
To expand on tarheel's point about adding another playoff spot I think a 1 game playoff between seeds 8 vs 9 for that last spot would be an interesting concept.

You have seeds 1-7 and you "term" seed 8 and 9 in the standings throughout the season as WC1 and WC2. WC1 gets the home playoff game. Winner of the game gets the final spot.

Having the 1 game playoff doesn't hurt anything imo.
I did a write-up on something similar last year with 4 play-in games (4a-wcb, 4b-wca). Something like an 8-9 game would certainly work, effectively giving both teams 50% of a playoff spot. If travel and byes were of no concern, a straight 20-team playoff might be best. A good playoff system (and there is one better than the 90s system) can actually increase fan interest for the regular season

Crayton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 01:17 AM
  #44
DaveG
Global Moderator
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 37,982
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEPA View Post
To expand on tarheel's point about adding another playoff spot I think a 1 game playoff between seeds 8 vs 9 for that last spot would be an interesting concept.

You have seeds 1-7 and you "term" seed 8 and 9 in the standings throughout the season as WC1 and WC2. WC1 gets the home playoff game. Winner of the game gets the final spot.

Having the 1 game playoff doesn't hurt anything imo.
8-9 or, going one step further, 2 play-in games. 4 plays 5 from the other division in their conference. Winner of each game moves on to the playoffs.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 07:57 AM
  #45
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,205
vCash: 500
I don't like the idea of an 8-9 play-in game or even an 8-9 best of 3. What I would like to see is if 2 teams are tied for the last spot, then have a play-in game rather than use the tie-breaker.

I am all for divisional play-offs. Was thrilled when I heard it was being discussed. However, would prefer it was just straight top-4. You finish 5th but have a better record than teams in the other division(s)? Too bad. Just like if you finished 9th in the East, but had a better record than the team that finished 7th and 8th in the West.

But, I HATE this wild card cross-over. I do not know any Rangers fans who WANT the Rangers to finish 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. Everyone I know would rather they finish 4th and that to me is a problem. I would rather they just go top-8 in conference with division winners getting the top-2 seeds than this wild card cross-over non-sense. Yes, I think there should be a reward for winning your division and that is to be guaranteed home-ice the first 2 rounds.

However, anyone who thinks the league should change because "it is not fair...." is being really naive. If they see that early round ratings are significantly higher than the past few years of the 1-8 conference system, then they will not change anything. The "casual" fan is more likely to tune in for a first round series of Rangers-Pens then they are Rangers-Senators and their thinking is people will tune into the 3rd round regardless of who is playing.


Last edited by patnyrnyg: 03-23-2017 at 08:04 AM.
patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 08:04 AM
  #46
NCRanger
Bettman's Enemy
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
8-9 or, going one step further, 2 play-in games. 4 plays 5 from the other division in their conference. Winner of each game moves on to the playoffs.
I've been advocating for a 7-10 and 8-9 three game in four night series ever since the league expanded to 30 teams.

It's VERY easy to accomplish and even fit in a similar time frame to the existing playoff schedule.

Season ends on a Sunday.

Tuesday - 7 @ 10 and 8 @ 9
Wednesday - 6 @ 3 and 5 @ 4
Thursday - 10 @ 7 and 9 @ 8
Friday (if necessary) - 10 @ 7 and 9 @ 8
Saturday - 6 @ 3 and 5 @ 4
Sunday - WC2 @ 1 WC 1 @ 2

Then move forward.

Seeds 1 and 2 do get a week off (Division winners). However, that's not as ridiculous as it might sound based on the way some 1st round series are already scheduled.

Go back to conference seeding all the way down the line, other than division winners being the #1 and #2 seeds.

In this scenario as of today:

East:
1. Washington
2. Montreal
3. Pittsburgh
4. Columbus
5. NY Rangers
6. Ottawa
7. Toronto
8. Boston
9. NY Islanders
10. Tampa

NCRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 08:10 AM
  #47
Scandale du Jour
JordanStaal#1Fan
 
Scandale du Jour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,382
vCash: 2066
Under the old format, if three teams in the same division were 1-2-3 in the league, 2 and 3 would still play each other in the first round and COULD play 1 in the second round.

1 (div winner) vs 8
2 (div winner) vs 7
3 (div winner) vs 6
4 (super div runner up) vs 5 (super div 3rd place)

Then, if all the favourites win... 1 vs 4.

People like to whine.

Scandale du Jour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 08:28 AM
  #48
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Igloo View Post
Haha, yep, it's all fun and games until New York is inconvenienced!
How is New York being inconvenienced? They are going to benefit most likely according to most people. I don't think they will beat the Habs in the first round, but everyone seems to think they are the "easier" team when compared to the Caps, Pens, Jackets.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 08:46 AM
  #49
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fancy Pants View Post
I like the divisional format. They should have kept it simple and just went with top 4. Sure one year one division might be stronger but then another division will be stronger the next year. I don't see why the PA had an issue with it. It's not like less players are making the playoffs.

If a better team faces a tougher opponent and gets knocked out early then tough. They weren't good enough to win the Cup anyway.
The league's first public idea had Colorado in the pacific, Detroit and Columbus in the Central, two games against everyone outside your division, and a top 4 playoff format. That seemed to satisfy the issues Detroit and Columbus had of being in the West, along with other central time zone teams that aren't thrilled about multiple west coast trips, because there wouldn't have been a "West" anymore. The 4 divisions would've been independent of each other. Which is why one idea was reseeding the 3rd round, and it wouldn't necessarily be the winner from the Central and Pacific playing each other every year. That seemed to be a sticking point, and things never got that far.

This current hybrid format is trying to be all things to all people at the same time. One size has always fit all, and it's never worked since 1967. The geography is always off. When the league had byes and a league wide playoff, teams with better records might have had more travel than teams with worse records. In the 80's, the format was what it was because you had Detroit and Toronto in the Campbell conference, which was essentially the western conference, and they didn't want to have to make multiple trips to LA or Vancouver every round(ok, really Edmonton and Calgary), so it was a strict top 4, regardless of records. Then it went to a 1-8 conference format, and Toronto got out of the west as soon as they could. They were further east than Detroit, and had a province neighbor in Ottawa now in the league, so the financial powerhouse Leafs got to be in the East(thanks to the move of both the Nordiques and Whalers opening up a spot), while the expansion Blue Jackets were put in the West. Then the league realigned, and had a western conference that included eastern teams, and 2 divisions that spanned 3 time zones. Today, thanks to the Thrashers moving, you have unbalanced conferences in what had been a balanced league, and this odd compromise of a playoff format.

As has been said, if this format repeatedly hurts the big money teams, then they might change it. Otherwise, they'll probably stick with it, and the current alignment, until forced to change by circumstance, because leagues like stability. That meant Dallas, Minnesota, Detroit, and Columbus got the short end previously. Now, if the top of one division is great in a particular year, they just have to deal with it.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2017, 09:48 AM
  #50
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,935
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCRanger View Post
I've been advocating for a 7-10 and 8-9 three game in four night series ever since the league expanded to 30 teams.

It's VERY easy to accomplish and even fit in a similar time frame to the existing playoff schedule.
The benefits I see to a format like this:

1) Contrary to the argument that it devalues the regular season, it actually increases interest in the regular season for at least 3-4 teams per conference. As it stands, the NHL has a well-documented problem with maintaining fan interest in the regular season, so I don't think there's a good argument that the status quo should be protected. Bringing in more markets during the stretch run would have tangible benefits for the league as a whole and several franchises in particular.

2) It creates more playoff dates. Plain and simple. More high-profile games to broadcast, more high-dollar tickets to sell.

3) It gives lower-seeded teams a jolt of excitement that's more significant than squeaking across the line and then immediately getting slaughtered by a top seed. Imagine the excitement in Toronto or Winnipeg if they won a play-in series, even if they got quickly axed in the main bracket.

4) It actually privileges the top seeds a bit more, giving them the advantage of facing an exhausted lower seed. And frankly, that's a good thing for the league. I like a Cinderella story as much as the next guy, but the truth from a marketing standpoint is that you want your top teams to still be there in the later rounds, and you want to be able to promote the stars who feast on weakened first round opponents.

5) It creates an engaging new dynamic where there's a BIG difference between finishing 6th and 7th, so there's added interest in the middle-tier race.


I really don't see a significant downside. "That's too many teams" isn't a business argument, not to mention it doesn't hold water in hockey culture where 50%+ playoff qualification has been the norm for several generations.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:13 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.