Jump to content

2018 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread


LittleBallofHate
 Share

Recommended Posts

I absolutely detest this format, it makes the regular season mean even less. What the hell is the point of playing well all year just so you can meet a tougher opponent in the second round while two other teams with less points face off against each other? It's fvcking stupid. 
We have Vegas (109) vs San Jose (100) and Nashville (117) vs Winnipeg (114) what the hell is the point of being the best team in the league all regular season if it provides no benefit in the playoffs? Why should two teams with less points than the other two teams get the benefit of facing one another instead of playing tougher teams? They did nothing to earn that benefit. 
They did it this way so morons who can't figure out how to reseed after each round can fill out stupid brackets before the playoffs start. 

Agreed. I detest this format and have from day one. Go back to the 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 format. They won’t though, because the people who run the NHL are morons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Satans Hockey said:

I absolutely detest this format, it makes the regular season mean even less. What the hell is the point of playing well all year just so you can meet a tougher opponent in the second round while two other teams with less points face off against each other? It's fvcking stupid. 

We have Vegas (109) vs San Jose (100) and Nashville (117) vs Winnipeg (114) what the hell is the point of being the best team in the league all regular season if it provides no benefit in the playoffs? Why should two teams with less points than the other two teams get the benefit of facing one another instead of playing tougher teams? They did nothing to earn that benefit. 

They did it this way so morons who can't figure out how to reseed after each round can fill out stupid brackets before the playoffs start. 

If you're the best team in the conference, you're gonna get through, and home ice is the advantage you win by having a strong regular season. If Nashville doesn't get passed Winnipeg, they weren't the best team in the west. There's no parade or banner for getting to the conference final. There's no "benefit" of coming out of a weaker division. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thecoffeecake said:

If you're the best team in the conference, you're gonna get through, and home ice is the advantage you win by having a strong regular season. If Nashville doesn't get passed Winnipeg, they weren't the best team in the west. There's no parade or banner for getting to the conference final. There's no "benefit" of coming out of a weaker division. 

There is enormous financial upside to playing in the conference finals rather than losing to the 2nd best team in the Western Conference in the 2nd round.

Let's say Nashville gets through Winnepeg in a long, exhausting 7-round series. They'll now play in the conference finals against a team who had an easier path to get there, despite having a less successful regular season. It isn't fair to Nashville, it isn't fair to Winnipeg. 

The team who won the Presidents Trophy has the hardest 2nd round matchup in the NHL. 

Read that again slowly if you have to.

It's idiotic. Period.

Edited by Kinkyisth3b3st
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, thecoffeecake said:

If you're the best team in the conference, you're gonna get through, and home ice is the advantage you win by having a strong regular season. If Nashville doesn't get passed Winnipeg, they weren't the best team in the west. There's no parade or banner for getting to the conference final. There's no "benefit" of coming out of a weaker division. 

How does San Jose not benefit getting to play Vegas instead of Nashville? 

It definitely benefited Ottawa(98) last year when they got to play Boston (95) in the first round and then play the Rangers (102) in the second round when you had Washington (118) vs Pittsburgh (111) in the second round. Pittsburgh was the second best team in the regular season and they weren't even rewarded with home ice in the second round of the playoffs. They won anyway but that doesn't defeat the fact that this system doesn't reward regular season play.

It's a joke and if it actually affected the Devils you damn well wouldn't be happy about it. 

Edited by Satans Hockey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is enormous financial upside to playing in the conference finals rather than losing to the 2nd best team in the Western Conference in the 2nd round.
Let's say Nashville gets through Winnepeg in a long, exhausting 7-round series. They'll now play in the conference finals against a team who had an easier path to get there, despite having a less successful regular season. It isn't fair to Nashville, it isn't fair to Winnipeg. 
The team who won the Presidents Trophy has the hardest 2nd round matchup in the NHL. 
Read that again slowly if you have to.
It's idiotic. Period.

It renders the regular season even more meaningless than it already it is. It makes NO sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Satans Hockey said:

How does San Jose not benefit getting to play Vegas instead of Nashville? 

It definitely benefited Ottawa(98) last year when they got to play Boston (95) in the first round and then play the Rangers (102) in the second round when you had Washington (118) vs Pittsburgh (111) in the second round. Pittsburgh was the second best team in the regular season and they weren't even rewarded with home ice in the second round of the playoffs. They won anyway but that doesn't defeat the fact that this system doesn't reward regular season play.

It's a joke and if it actually affected the Devils you damn well wouldn't be happy about it. 

 

4 hours ago, Kinkyisth3b3st said:

There is enormous financial upside to playing in the conference finals rather than losing to the 2nd best team in the Western Conference in the 2nd round.

Let's say Nashville gets through Winnepeg in a long, exhausting 7-round series. They'll now play in the conference finals against a team who had an easier path to get there, despite having a less successful regular season. It isn't fair to Nashville, it isn't fair to Winnipeg. 

The team who won the Presidents Trophy has the hardest 2nd round matchup in the NHL. 

Read that again slowly if you have to.

It's idiotic. Period.

By this logic, we shouldn't have conferences at all. You can't draw an arbitrary line with this outrage. A 1-16 reseeding format is what you have to support if you think this format is "idiotic". Otherwise, it's never going to be "fair". Why should the Caps have had to play Toronto in the first round last year instead of Nashville? Toronto finished a point ahead of the Preds, so why should Chicago have recieved the benefit of getting Nashville in the first round? The best team is going to win the cup, period. 

This format cultivates rivalries. You should have to beat the best team in your division to earn the right to play for the conferences. Why do we bother with divisions or conferences at all? And why even bother with a playoff? We spend 82 games determining the the best team in the league, why should a 2 month tournament determine the league champion? You want to talk about unfair, there it is. 

Obviously there's more money to be made league wide with this format, otherwise the people who make the money in this industry, the owners, wouldn't have approved it. Or maybe they're flushing money down the drain just to piss you off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thecoffeecake said:

By this logic, we shouldn't have conferences at all. You can't draw an arbitrary line with this outrage. A 1-16 reseeding format is what you have to support if you think this format is "idiotic". Otherwise, it's never going to be "fair". Why should the Caps have had to play Toronto in the first round last year instead of Nashville? Toronto finished a point ahead of the Preds, so why should Chicago have recieved the benefit of getting Nashville in the first round? The best team is going to win the cup, period. 

Because you play eastern teams way more than the western teams. There should be some reward to playing regular season games otherwise what's the point? What's the benefit of playing well and getting a higher seed? And ya can't say home ice cause Pittsburgh didn't it in the second round last year despite being the second best regular season team in the league. 

 

1 hour ago, thecoffeecake said:

"This format cultivates rivalries. You should have to beat the best team in your division to earn the right to play for the conferences. Why do we bother with divisions or conferences at all? And why even bother with a playoff? We spend 82 games determining the the best team in the league, why should a 2 month tournament determine the league champion? You want to talk about unfair, there it is. "

 

Does it though? What new rivalries have come out of this new format? Especially when you can jump over to a division that isn't yours to begin with. The 82 game season should be about giving yourself the best chance to win the cup in the playoffs by giving an advantage but it doesn't.

 

1 hour ago, thecoffeecake said:

Obviously there's more money to be made league wide with this format, otherwise the people who make the money in this industry, the owners, wouldn't have approved it. Or maybe they're flushing money down the drain just to piss you off.

Is there? If divisional games were such big money makers why don't we play division rivals more than 4 times a year? Only twice at home every season, perhaps because most fans here don't give a sh!t about Columbus, Carolina or Washington despite them being in our division? The league is run by fools. 

Edited by Satans Hockey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thecoffeecake said:

 

By this logic, we shouldn't have conferences at all. You can't draw an arbitrary line with this outrage. A 1-16 reseeding format is what you have to support if you think this format is "idiotic". Otherwise, it's never going to be "fair". Why should the Caps have had to play Toronto in the first round last year instead of Nashville? Toronto finished a point ahead of the Preds, so why should Chicago have recieved the benefit of getting Nashville in the first round? The best team is going to win the cup, period. 

This format cultivates rivalries. You should have to beat the best team in your division to earn the right to play for the conferences. Why do we bother with divisions or conferences at all? And why even bother with a playoff? We spend 82 games determining the the best team in the league, why should a 2 month tournament determine the league champion? You want to talk about unfair, there it is. 

Obviously there's more money to be made league wide with this format, otherwise the people who make the money in this industry, the owners, wouldn't have approved it. Or maybe they're flushing money down the drain just to piss you off.

There are two conferences because a team from New Jersey shouldn’t travel to California more times than they travel to New York. Players get exhausted by the end of the year, and a huge part of that is the air travel. 

Cultivates rivalries? Haha, okay Gary. Name a single rivalry “cultivated” by this new playoff format. Playoff rivalries happen because good teams make the playoffs frequently in a short time. This playoff format doesn’t change that even a tiny bit. 

The NHL season is 82 games long and in that time you have to establish yourself as one of the 8 best teams in your conference. The strongest teams play the weakest teams, and the winners move on. That’s how every single playoff format is in the major US sports. I’m trying to counter your points, but now I’m not so sure you have any idea what your point is. 

The NHL “fixed” a system that wasn’t broken. It changed for the sake of... changing. With their new format, the two most successful regular season teams are playing against each other in the 2nd round. Of 4. 

You can continue to die on this sinking ship if you really want to keep defending it, but there’s obviously nothing else I can say to convince you. It’s a terrible, terrible, terrible format. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Satans Hockey said:

Because you play eastern teams way more than the western teams. There should be some reward to playing regular season games otherwise what's the point? What's the benefit of playing well and getting a higher seed? And ya can't say home ice cause Pittsburgh didn't it in the second round last year despite being the second best regular season team in the league. 

 

"This format cultivates rivalries. You should have to beat the best team in your division to earn the right to play for the conferences. Why do we bother with divisions or conferences at all? And why even bother with a playoff? We spend 82 games determining the the best team in the league, why should a 2 month tournament determine the league champion? You want to talk about unfair, there it is. "

 

Does it though? What new rivalries have come out of this new format? Especially when you can jump over to a division that isn't yours to begin with. The 82 game season should be about giving yourself the best chance to win the cup in the playoffs by giving an advantage but it doesn't.

 

Is there? If divisional games were such big money makers why don't we play division rivals more than 4 times a year? Only twice at home every season, perhaps because most fans here don't give a sh!t about Columbus, Carolina or Washington despite them being in our division? The league is run by fools. 

The reward is you make the playoffs and get home ice. You gotta win the games one way or the other. I don't care if Nashville and Winnipeg is 1st 2nd or 3rd round, the better team comes out either way. 

I agree with you about jumping divisions. I think if 4 teams from each division make it, they should be put in their own division's bracket. But of course in the long term it's good for rivalries when you're often getting series between teams of reasonable proximity who play more in the regular season, who compete more directly in the playoffs. I think in our division especially, as we're packed with natural rivalries. 

It gives you more interesting and ongoing storylines with a structure like this, too. This metropolitan second round matchup has become one of my favorite parts of the playoffs. You don't get that with just a scramble of teams in a conference format. Competing within your division should mean something, and I love the Washington/Pittsburgh matchup, who fought all year for the top of the division, and same with what will hopefully be Boston/Tampa. These things linger into the regular season, too. I think it's a lot of fun. Win your division, and you get to move on. 

These decisions are calculated over countless hours of deliberation. Those "fools" know a lot more than you do about enhancing the league's bottom line. Of course this was experimental, but the league wasn't sacrificing a big check to roll the dice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Kinkyisth3b3st said:

There are two conferences because a team from New Jersey shouldn’t travel to California more times than they travel to New York. Players get exhausted by the end of the year, and a huge part of that is the air travel. 

Cultivates rivalries? Haha, okay Gary. Name a single rivalry “cultivated” by this new playoff format. Playoff rivalries happen because good teams make the playoffs frequently in a short time. This playoff format doesn’t change that even a tiny bit. 

The NHL season is 82 games long and in that time you have to establish yourself as one of the 8 best teams in your conference. The strongest teams play the weakest teams, and the winners move on. That’s how every single playoff format is in the major US sports. I’m trying to counter your points, but now I’m not so sure you have any idea what your point is. 

The NHL “fixed” a system that wasn’t broken. It changed for the sake of... changing. With their new format, the two most successful regular season teams are playing against each other in the 2nd round. Of 4. 

You can continue to die on this sinking ship if you really want to keep defending it, but there’s obviously nothing else I can say to convince you. It’s a terrible, terrible, terrible format. 

Just one quick point because I just responded to Satan and should probably do work, the old system rewarded the top 3 seeds to division champions. In that old Southeast conference, there were years no team was better than average. The last year of that old format, we were heavy favorites over the third seeded Panthers. We finished 8 points better than Florida and played game 7 in Sunrise. That doesn't happen now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thecoffeecake said:

Just one quick point because I just responded to Satan and should probably do work, the old system rewarded the top 3 seeds to division champions. In that old Southeast conference, there were years no team was better than average. The last year of that old format, we were heavy favorites over the third seeded Panthers. We finished 8 points better than Florida and played game 7 in Sunrise. That doesn't happen now. 

My beef was always “they should re-seed regardless of division in the playoffs”. It was the thing I would change about the old system. HOWEVER. I think that “aw darn NJ has to play a game 7 on the road” is significantly and astronimically easier to swallow than “this team finished with the 2nd most points in the entire league has to play the president’s trophy winner in the second round” 

Edited by Kinkyisth3b3st
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

2-2. Great game so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“But the NHL playoffs are so fvckin boring dude Lebron is looking to make the NBA finals for the 18th consecutive season!”

-CarpathianForest, probably. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kinkyisth3b3st said:

My beef was always “they should re-seed regardless of division in the playoffs”. It was the thing I would change about the old system. HOWEVER. I think that “aw darn NJ has to play a game 7 on the road” is significantly and astronimically easier to swallow than “this team finished with the 2nd most points in the entire league has to play the president’s trophy winner in the second round” 

The thing is though, the old system would've set up a Preds/Jets second round matchup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thecoffeecake said:

No, I mean by design, that's what was constructed. 

It would be 1 and 4 if they didn’t move either Nashville or Winnipeg as part of the realignment. But that’s all you know. You don’t know what division Vegas would be in. You don’t know what the 1st round matchups would have been BECAUSE you don’t know what division Vegas would have been in.

Regardless, if they kept these “2 division” formats and seeded the conferences 1-8 with 1 and 2 going to the division winners, which is what I’m advocating (and every other sane person on the planet), you’d have 3-seeded Winnipeg playing a non-Nashville team in the 2nd round. 

I am curious if EVER in the old format you had the #1 and #2 teams in hockey play each other before the conference finals. It’s now happened, what, two years in a row in this garbage format? 

Edited by Kinkyisth3b3st
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kinkyisth3b3st said:

It would be 1 and 4 if they didn’t move either Nashville or Winnipeg as part of the realignment. But that’s all you know. You don’t know what division Vegas would be in. You don’t know what the 1st round matchups would have been BECAUSE you don’t know what division Vegas would have been in.

Regardless, if they kept these “2 division” formats and seeded them 1-8 with 1 and 2 going to the division winners, which is what I’m advocating (and every other sane person on the planet), you’d have 3-seeded Winnipeg playing a non-Nashville team in the 2nd round. 

I am curious if EVER in the old format you had the #1 and #2 teams in hockey play each other before the 2nd round. It’s now happened, what, two years in a row in this garbage format? 

I just don't mind that. I don't understand the need to push this matchup one round further. It's a 4 round tournament. If it was an 8 round tournament, I might be more inclined to agree with you. I'm certainly not bothered by Winnipeg and Nashville meeting in the 2nd round instead of the 3rd. It's marginal. I also don't agree with the idea that it's automatically better to have the best teams meeting later in a playoff. The best team is gonna win the cup, and that's what matters.

I love the additional significance to inter divisional matchups, and like I've said, there's one minor change I'd make to this structure. I know I'm in the minority, and Seattle's admission will probably lead to another realignment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.