SterioDesign Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 per John Shannon Hearing some GMs are going to propose a tweak in the playoff format today.Trying to use divisional rivalries more,rather than cross-over. Interesting. I wonder if it would be on how teams makes the playoffs like top 4 teams in each divisions or if its simply who plays who in the playoffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) Between terrible officiating and ridiculous realignment, his league is turning itself into a joke fast. There was nothing wrong with the playoff format, even non hockey fans would concede it was one of the most exciting sporting events. Now it just gets muddled, less streamlined, and forced rivalries will become boring fast. Edited November 12, 2013 by dmann422 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted November 12, 2013 Author Share Posted November 12, 2013 well im not for all those changes but having the top 4 spots making it could be useful for us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Shouldn't they wait for one of these to be played before tweaking it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) Shouldn't they wait for one of these to be played before tweaking it? it just goes to show that there was very little thought put into this. All they do is look at ratings for a series like flyers-pens in 2012 and say "zomg we need to force more of these matchups!" Next thing you know after 5 years they'll be clamoring to change it again because it will get stale fast and balance of power will have changed between several teams, creating better possible rivalries. Edited November 12, 2013 by dmann422 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roomtemp Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Here's my answer to the it will create rivalries. Do the Rangers and Capitals have this intense rivalry meeting in the playoffs how many times recently? Rivalries are created by geographical boarders or by chance. Unless you meet a team in the playoffs in the later rounds (conference finals and such) you can't build it from just having them play alot in the playoffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 If it's the top 4 teams in each division, that only helps the Devils! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-Man Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) No way they can do this at mid-season. At best, it would be considered for next year. Obviously standings will change significantly through the season, but imagine telling 5th place Montreal (19 pts) and 6th place Ottawa (18 pts) in mid-season that now one of them has to finish at least 4th because Carolina would make it instead of them. Because everyone would much rather see #4 Carolina vs. #1 Pittsburgh instead of Montreal vs. Pittsburgh. Edited November 12, 2013 by Z-Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 No way they can do this at mid-season. At best, it would be considered for next year. Obviously standings will change significantly through the season, but imagine telling 5th place Montreal (19 pts) and 6th place Ottawa (18 pts) in mid-season that now one of them has to finish at least 4th because Carolina would make it instead of them. Because everyone would much rather see #4 Carolina vs. #1 Pittsburgh instead of Montreal vs. Pittsburgh. Yeah, it's definitely for next season but it just makes them look stupid to want to "fix" something before it's even happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Between terrible officiating and ridiculous realignment, his league is turning itself into a joke fast. There was nothing wrong with the playoff format, even non hockey fans would concede it was one of the most exciting sporting events. Now it just gets muddled, less streamlined, and forced rivalries will become boring fast. Boston-Montreal, Edmonton-Calgary, Montreal-Quebec, Washington-Pittsburgh, Detroit-StLouis, Detroit-Chicago, Isles-Rags, Edmonton-Los Angeles were all rivalries born from divisional playoffs, and they were never, ever forced or boring. And I'm sure there were others I'm not thinking of from that great 1981-1993 run of Norris, Smythe, Adams, Patrick division playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Boston-Montreal, Edmonton-Calgary, Montreal-Quebec, Washington-Pittsburgh, Detroit-StLouis, Detroit-Chicago, Isles-Rags, Edmonton-Los Angeles were all rivalries born from divisional playoffs, and they were never, ever forced or boring. And I'm sure there were others I'm not thinking of from that great 1981-1993 run of Norris, Smythe, Adams, Patrick division playoffs. Most of these are geographic rivalries that would have taken place otherwise. Boston/Montreal is old school and has nothing to do with the playoffs in the 80's. Edmonton/LA was because of a trade. If Sidney Crosby got traded to say, Buffalo, the Sabres and Penguins are going to have a heated rivalry. That's how it goes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Boston-Montreal, Edmonton-Calgary, Montreal-Quebec, Washington-Pittsburgh, Detroit-StLouis, Detroit-Chicago, Isles-Rags, Edmonton-Los Angeles were all rivalries born from divisional playoffs, and they were never, ever forced or boring. And I'm sure there were others I'm not thinking of from that great 1981-1993 run of Norris, Smythe, Adams, Patrick division playoffs. most of those rivalries continued into the expansion period anyways.Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't want to play the flyers, penguins rangers and islanders in first and second round matchups every year, year after year. Never mind the caps jackets and hurricanes. The league is simultaneously trying to expand the schedule where every team sees each other twice but then come the playoffs you're locked into the same five or six teams. It's a dual message that makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Most of these are geographic rivalries that would have taken place otherwise. Boston/Montreal is old school and has nothing to do with the playoffs in the 80's. Edmonton/LA was because of a trade. If Sidney Crosby got traded to say, Buffalo, the Sabres and Penguins are going to have a heated rivalry. That's how it goes Boston-Montreal played 9 straight seasons in the playoffs from 1984-1992 and then again in 1994. That's the kind of thing that builds a rivalry. Their rivalry began because of their repeated playoff matchups way back in the leagues infancy. Same with Montreal and Detroit in the late 50's, where they played each other in the finals almost every year. The Miracle on Manchester happened long before the Gretzky trade, as did their series in 85 and 87. That trade added notoriety when they played each other in 1989, and they played each other in 90, 91, and 92, and the Kings knocked the Oilers out of contention in 93 in the regular season. These were all rivalries that got to build and escalate because of matchups happening every year. Geographical rivalries occur BECAUSE they are in the same division, which leads to repeated games and a familiarity. Detroit-Colorado was one of the biggest rivalries of the post-divisional playoff era, and it was because they played each other in 96, 97, 99, 00, 02, etc, and it got bigger as it went. They have no proximity. Geography doesn't mean much to the players on the ice. Geography is more of a rivalry for fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted November 12, 2013 Author Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) talking about rivalry, my blackhawks fan buddy was arguing with me the other day that Blackhawks/Cannucks had a better rivalry than Devils/Rangers... lol how cute Edited November 12, 2013 by SterioDesign Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Boston-Montreal played 9 straight seasons in the playoffs from 1984-1992 and then again in 1994. That's the kind of thing that builds a rivalry. Their rivalry began because of their repeated playoff matchups way back in the leagues infancy. Same with Montreal and Detroit in the late 50's, where they played each other in the finals almost every year. The Miracle on Manchester happened long before the Gretzky trade, as did their series in 85 and 87. That trade added notoriety when they played each other in 1989, and they played each other in 90, 91, and 92, and the Kings knocked the Oilers out of contention in 93 in the regular season. These were all rivalries that got to build and escalate because of matchups happening every year. Geographical rivalries occur BECAUSE they are in the same division, which leads to repeated games and a familiarity. Detroit-Colorado was one of the biggest rivalries of the post-divisional playoff era, and it was because they played each other in 96, 97, 99, 00, 02, etc, and it got bigger as it went. They have no proximity. Geography doesn't mean much to the players on the ice. Geography is more of a rivalry for fans. My point was these were all things that would happen eventually. Boston and Montreal would have a rivalry whether they played 9 out of 10 years or 1 out of 10 years. I'm willing to give this mess a go, but that they want to edit it before it's happened makes me think we'll be going back to 5 times 6 and open playoffs in two years anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 My point was these were all things that would happen eventually. Boston and Montreal would have a rivalry whether they played 9 out of 10 years or 1 out of 10 years. I'm willing to give this mess a go, but that they want to edit it before it's happened makes me think we'll be going back to 5 times 6 and open playoffs in two years anyway. I don't think there is anyway they are going back to six divisions, certainly not until two more western teams are added.The playoff format will probably stick for a while and after a few years they will either realize that forced rivalries are not good for the sport or the forced rivalries will continue to draw ratings that it will be a cash cow the nhl won't want to give up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 talking about rivalry, my blackhawks fan buddy was arguing with me the other day that Blackhawks/Cannucks had a better rivalry than Devils/Rangers... lol how cute I'll give him Chicago-Detroit being up to par with a Rangers-Devils rivalry, but definitely not Vancouver-Chicago, what a joke.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 I don't think there is anyway they are going back to six divisions, certainly not until two more western teams are added. The playoff format will probably stick for a while and after a few years they will either realize that forced rivalries are not good for the sport or the forced rivalries will continue to draw ratings that it will be a cash cow the nhl won't want to give up. It's only a two year trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) It's only a two year trial. do have a link for this? are you referring to realignment as a whole or just the playoffs?I was under the impression that Detroit and Columbus are in the east for good. Edit : I forgot the nhlpa's approval was only for three seasons. I somehow doubt that it will revert back so long as the league wants it the same. Edited November 12, 2013 by dmann422 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Isn't this about the re-seeding? So teams don't end up in the other division-thingmabob? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) Isn't this about the re-seeding? So teams don't end up in the other division-thingmabob? That's what I gather. It's easily the dumbest thing the NHL has done in my lifetime....although maybe that goes to the trapezoid. Either way, I was trying to explain it to a friend yesterday that a team in another division, can win our division because of the wild card spots. It's confusing to say the least. Edited November 12, 2013 by ATLL765 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-Man Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) do have a link for this? are you referring to realignment as a whole or just the playoffs? I was under the impression that Detroit and Columbus are in the east for good. Edit : I forgot the nhlpa's approval was only for three seasons. I somehow doubt that it will revert back so long as the league wants it the same. Yep. The NHLPA will vote to continue the current conference realignment after two seasons. Regardless of the vote, it will stay the same for one additional season, and then any changes would come after that. Edited November 12, 2013 by Z-Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-Man Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Hearing some GMs are going to propose a tweak in the playoff format today.Trying to use divisional rivalries more,rather than cross-over. If they're so interested in "Divisional Rivalries," why are Florida and Tampa in a division with the Northeast teams? Why Carolina and Columbus in a division with Pit/Phi/NY/NJ? I agree with others, these are "forced" division rivalries, or not rivalries at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 If they're so interested in "Divisional Rivalries," why are Florida and Tampa in a division with the Northeast teams? Why Carolina and Columbus in a division with Pit/Phi/NY/NJ? I agree with others, these are "forced" division rivalries, or not rivalries at all. Because Columbus, Carolina, Florida, and Tampa don't really have division rivals. Columbus had Detroit, I guess, but not really, and now they have Pittsburgh. Florida and Tampa didn't have anyone. Carolina also - not really any rivals. These teams have to go somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.