The Rangers have been rewarded for having a worse record than the Pens and Sens. Tonight's game proves that teams should be rated by their record. I know I've poked fun at the Pens, but is there any way they or the Sens should be below the Crashers?
2007-04-17 16:37:56 · 12 answers · asked by balderarrow 5 in Sports ➔ Hockey
All a division winner should get is a guaranteed spot in the playoffs. That way, if the winner of a weak division finishes with a worse record than the other 7 playoff teams, that division winner would open the playoffs on the road against the top team in the conference.
Steve Kerr suggested this idea for the NBA playoffs because of a problem in the NBA's Eastern Conference, but his proposed solution could also work for the NHL.
2007-04-17 17:13:26 · answer #1 · answered by Judge Ghis 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all, winning your division has to count for something, otherwise, what would be the point in even having teams split up into all the separate divisions? If you win your division, and you don't get at least a top 4 seed, and home ice advantage, then what does it matter if you win a division at all? If you do, and end up with a 6th seed and no home ice, it means nothing. You might as well have one big division of 15 teams in each conference for all the good divisions would be doing. Just have the top 8 teams be the top 8 seeds. (That's sarcasm by the way, I am by no means suggesting that!)
And you can't say that all a division winner should be guaranteed is a playoff spot, cuz this isn't the NBA, where a team barely .500 is gonna win a division and also barely be in the top 8 records of the conference. The NHL goes by points, where even losing can be rewarding. Teams that finish first are not gonna have less points than 8 other teams in the conference, it just ain't gonna happen.. there's only 10 other teams that can possibly be higher than another first place team anyway, and there's no way a 5th place team is gonna have more points than a 1st. So it's pretty much a guarantee that finishing first will be a playoff spot anyway.
I do think what the NBA has done is a good idea, and would not be against the NHL doing the same. Having the 3 division winners be in the top 4 seeds, with the best 2nd place team moving in there wherever their record deems them to be. And to make a correction to the person who posted the standings in this new format, since Anaheim and Nashville had the same points, and the Predators had more wins, then they would actually have had the #2 seed in the West with Anaheim being #3.
2007-04-17 20:28:52 · answer #2 · answered by Rich 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and no.
First, it adds much needed intensity to division games. If there is one thing that the NHL needs right now, it is blood feuds between teams that are a bus ride apart. Divisional hockey is based on rivalries, and at least for the fans, the window dressing should be that there divisional games are much more important. Hence, in a tightly contested division, the games that the fans want to see are much more important. Likewise, a division with three or four strong teams should have the winner rewarded, even though much of its season was spent beating up, and getting beat up by foes with a near equivalent skill level.
Second, what does it matter? This is the playoffs. Think the Red Wings were happy to play the Oilers last year in the first round?
Hockey has always been a sport about emotion and hunger and if a top seed loses that, they deserve to lose to a lower seed. Moreover, in the playoffs, all teams are equal. The best teams should rise to the top (though it could be the team with the hot goaltender, but I digress). The playoffs are a new season, and from what I can gather, every team that makes it deserves to be there just as much as the next, so why bother about who is supposed to beat whom? Just go out there and take care of business.
When you combine those two rationales, it seems to me that the system is fine. Preserve and build rivalries while giving every team a chance in the playoffs.
If your team can take care of its business, seeding does not matter.
2007-04-17 19:18:05 · answer #3 · answered by greatbeone 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the top 3 teams from each conference shouldn't necessarily be the top 3 division leaders.
In this case, Atlanta had less points than the Sens and Pens but still finished 3rd due to the fact they won the division.
They need to take away the point for OT or SO loss, that clearly messes up the standings. Atlanta had 11 points because of OT/SO loss. Without those points, they would've finished with 86 points and maybe would not have made the playoffs....
I think the playoff format is fine but the standings need to be changed so the better teams are at the top and finish with home ice advantage and the weaker teams finish lower in the standings.
2007-04-17 16:52:00 · answer #4 · answered by Sly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Overall the playoff format is very good and in my opinion one of the best of the major sports. The only change I would recommend using the example of Atlanta is all division leaders are guaranteed a playoff spot but are seeded to record. Therefore Atlanta would be seeded 6th not 3rd. I would prefer that Sens or Pens aren't eliminating one another and either the N.Y. Rangers or Atlanta go to second round.
2007-04-17 17:10:09 · answer #5 · answered by HabsFanfrmCan 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've always disagreed with the three division winners getting top 3 slots. I think a division winner should only get a first round high seed and everything after that should be strictly based on points. If we didn't have the OT/SO stupidity Tampa, Rangers and Isles would not be in playoffs. Canes, Leafs and Habs would be. Games should be decided by game play. The tie needs to come back.
2007-04-18 00:38:37 · answer #6 · answered by PuckDat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
since when is 6th rewarded? If Tampa didn't screw up they would play against the Thrashers in round one. The pens and sens earned that 4-5 spot they coudn't move up because Buffalo kicked *** and the Devils came on strong late to take the atlantic. The Rangers are Hot and a 3-0 series suprised me. and they are rated by their record with the exception of the first three the others are by record.
2007-04-17 16:54:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't like that idea. You greatly reduce the chance of a series between traditional geographic rivals (ie: Boston and Montreal). Plus each team only plays 18 games out of Conference and it's silly to seed with other teams playing each other once or rarely twice. Also nice for TV that each half of the country has a horse in the finals... To say nothing of the travel...
2016-05-17 22:27:32 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they should change the division leaders from seeds 1-3 to seeds 1-4 like the NBA. The division leaders would still get home ice advantage.
The first round would've looked like this:
y - Buffalo (113 pts)
y - New Jersey (107 pts)
Ottawa (105 pts)
y - Atlanta (97 pts)
Pittsburgh (105 pts)
NY Rangers (94 pts)
Tampa Bay (93 pts)
NY Islanders (92 pts)
y - Detroit (113 pts)
y - Anaheim (110 pts)
Nashville (110 pts)
y - Vancouver (105 pts)
San Jose (107 pts)
Dallas (107 pts)
Minnesota (104 pts)
Calgary (96 pts)
2007-04-17 16:58:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes i dont c how winning your division should get u anything. it should go by total points. it would make the playoff spots a lot more competetive and teams would have to play harder because there is no guarantee that winning the division will get u in the playoffs
2007-04-17 16:41:25 · answer #10 · answered by StealthShadow 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋