30 replies to this topic

[maxpower]

The odds of things like maxpower's 'weak bracket' are very slim.  If we assume that all teams are equally likely to make the playoffs, in an 8 team bracket and let's just assume 4 get in to make it easier, the Devils, upon getting in, would have a 43% chance of playing either the Penguins, Flyers, or Rangers in the first round.  

 

I mean you can just as easily draw up an 8 team playoff where no rivals play each other at all.

 

But they're playing the team as is:

 

Since they went to the old "new" system:

 

Buffalo 

Boston x 3

NYR X 5

Montreal

Ottawa x 3

Pittsburgh x 3

Florida x 2

Toronto x 2

Philadelphia x 5

Carolina x 4

Tampa x 2

 

That's off the top of my head, I may have missed on here and there.

 

31 playoff series.

17 against the new 6 team pod (wouldn't have played Columbus)

14 against the other 8 team pod.

 

I don't think it's going to cause huge significant change, these are teams they've been playing half the time anyway.

[Triumph]

Huh?  They would play them way more often than half the time.  Consider also that it's not the Devils' birthright to make the playoffs every year.

 

The Rangers and Flyers have met twice since they went to the new system, and none since 1997.

 

The Islanders and Rangers met once.  I recognize the Islanders only made the playoffs 4 times in the new system, but still.

 

Point is, the teams in the pod would become bigger rivals by virtue of the schedule, and then they'd play more often in the playoffs.  You'll get a lot of carping by superfans who follow every playoff series starting to call rematches that don't involve their team boring, but they are silly.

[maxpower]

Huh?  They would play them way more often than half the time.   Consider also that it's not the Devils' birthright to make the playoffs every year.

 

The Rangers and Flyers have met twice since they went to the new system, and none since 1997.

 

The Islanders and Rangers met once.  I recognize the Islanders only made the playoffs 4 times in the new system, but still.

 

Point is, the teams in the pod would become bigger rivals by virtue of the schedule, and then they'd play more often in the playoffs.  You'll get a lot of carping by superfans who follow every playoff series starting to call rematches that don't involve their team boring, but they are silly.

 

I haven't even gotten into that yet, that I feel the teams in our pod are being schemed on a bit.

 

BTW, the Rangers haven't played alot of playoff series themselves.   You're not going to hit repetitive matchups if you don't go often and you almost never win when you get there.

 

It remains to be seen what the system is.   There's a new one leaked every day.     If it's a locked system, yeah, maybe they'll hit on the "desired" matchups more often than not.   I'm just not sure it's worth the cost of the change.   Having "better" 1st round series are at a cost of everything that comes afterwards.

 

If there's a cross-over (wild cards), though, right there starts the cheapening of the concept.    And gives cynical people like me more of a case that this has nothing at all to do with building playoff rivalries.

[Triumph]

I don't see how there's not wild cards.  And I don't see how that's at the cost of the 2nd round - the 2nd round would be better too.  And as I said, the 3rd round is rarely a divisional matchup as it is, and you'd figure to get more repetitive third rounds because you've sheltered the teams from one another.

[maxpower]

I don't see how there's not wild cards.  And I don't see how that's at the cost of the 2nd round - the 2nd round would be better too.  And as I said, the 3rd round is rarely a divisional matchup as it is, and you'd figure to get more repetitive third rounds because you've sheltered the teams from one another.

 

The second round is going to be a crapshoot.   It's 2 out of 8 teams.   Yeah, the potential matchups are limited but 2 out of 8 is pretty open.   The attractiveness of this is hitting on money series in the first round.

 

With the wild cards, the thing is, if there's a crossover, there's going to be years when the concept is cheapened.   Especially if they do WC 1 WC 2, instead of 4th place teams being seeded 4th in their division if a crossover is not necessary.

 

I just feel like this is being done for the benefit of a couple of teams, and no more.   And I hate that all of these "power" teams business wise got lumped with each other, with two patsies from Florida (who will not be able to compete with them, even with the "improved" road gate) thrown in even though the alignment makes travel concerns seem like a farce.

[Triumph]

The second round is going to be a crapshoot.   It's 2 out of 8 teams.   Yeah, the potential matchups are limited but 2 out of 8 is pretty open.   The attractiveness of this is hitting on money series in the first round.

 

I don't agree.  You will have some repeat 2nd rounds, or teams that face each other twice in three years, etc.  

 

With the wild cards, the thing is, if there's a crossover, there's going to be years when the concept is cheapened.   Especially if they do WC 1 WC 2, instead of 4th place teams being seeded 4th in their division if a crossover is not necessary.

 

It would be monumentally dumb to do it this way, but we'll see how it shakes out.

 

 

I just feel like this is being done for the benefit of a couple of teams, and no more.   And I hate that all of these "power" teams business wise got lumped with each other, with two patsies from Florida (who will not be able to compete with them, even with the "improved" road gate) thrown in even though the alignment makes travel concerns seem like a farce.

 

Those teams are still under a salary cap, which I think is the biggest thing that no one's taking into account.  You've got a salary cap and 30 teams, so you're less likely to have dynasties and furthermore you're going to have more playoff turnover as parity increases.  I'm too lazy to compare, but we had 10 years between lockouts and then 7 years this time around - I bet the playoff matchups during this lockout were more varied.  Chicago and Vancouver played each other 3 times, and the Devils and the Rangers played 3 times.  I guess Boston and Montreal did too, I think?  Either way, that's not a lot.  People love to cite things like Edmonton-Dallas, but that's just not likely in a capped 30 team league with loser points.  

 

The conference moves will be because of a few teams, but I think divisional playoffs aren't.  And the Southeast sucks, and part of why it sucks, aside from all the teams being bad all the time, is that there's no rivalry.  And there's no rivalry because, IIRC, since they went to 6 divisions, 2 Southeast teams have met in the playoffs one time, in 2003.

Edited by Triumph, 27 February 2013 - 10:57 PM.

[ATLL765]

What, nobody's happy with that.  The biggest issue with Detroit and Columbus in the Central division is that as the schedule is played now, these teams have all their conference away games not against each other starting at 8 against divisional opponents.  Then they have to play away games against the Pacific and Northwest, which means 4 games at 8, 8 games at 9, and 8 games at 10.  I can't imagine the bitching and complaining that would come out of here if the Devils had to play nearly a fifth of their schedule where the games don't start until 9 PM.

 

I like the idea of divisional playoffs.  Who cares about Devils-Rangers in the Conference Finals - it could be decades before they'd meet in the Conference Finals again, the odds were already super-slim that they would meet twice there ever since they went to three divisions.  For all the rivalry Ottawa-Toronto had, they never met in the Conference Finals - there are only a few iterations which produce the certainty of meeting in a Conference Final:  If the teams were seeded 2-6, 4-7, 5-7, 6-8, and 7-8.  The rest involve the playoffs shaking out the right way, and there are tons more possible playoffs where they can't meet in the Conference final (e.g. 1-7, etc.)

I never suggested taking NJ out of the atlantic. I suggested swapping Detroit and Pittsburgh for eachother, then put Winnipeg in the NW, Minn in the Central and NSH to the SE.

This puts the divisions which I suggested altering at:

Central:
PIT, CBJ, CHI, STL, MIN
 

Northwest:

VAN, WPG, CGY, EDM, COL

 

Atlantic:
NJD, DET, NYR, NYI, PHI

 

Southeast:
NSH,TBL,FLA,WSH,CAR

[NJDevs4978]

Pittsburgh away from Philly AND Washington would be insane.

[Triumph]

Pittsburgh in the Central is insane, forget about rivalries.  

 

One thing I don't understand is why both Detroit and Columbus have to move to the East if the schedule is going to be so much more balanced?  Right now the concept for the schedule is NBA style with increased divisional games.  So if you leave one of those teams out west and they get stuck into the 'new' Central, only one of the 'new' Central teams plays 2 time zones away.  I guess it's more travel than anything else, but under this plan every team travels more.

[ATLL765]

Pittsburgh away from Philly AND Washington would be insane.

Hey, the thing was about time zones. I was thinking of a way to keep travel down and whatnot. Are PIT, CBJ, STL, CHI and MIN or even DET(who should really just shut up and stay in the west) really that odd of a division? They're all really close geography wise. Maybe not quite atlantic div close, but close.

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

I don't understand why both western conference divisions have 7 teams if supposedly one of the purposes of the realignment is to plan for expansion. The two most likely places for expansion are Quebec City and the Greater Toronto Area. If they go this route the only possible way to expand looks like Seattle in the Pacific and GTA in the Mid-West (creating the same old travel/time zone issues).

If I were in Quebec I'd be trying to fight this realignment plan by whatever means necessary.

Edited by halfsharkalligatorhalfman, 28 February 2013 - 05:19 PM.