|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 12, 2017 10:11:32 GMT -5
So it's very possible that the Atlantic division will only send 3 teams to the playoffs, while the Metro will send 5.
As of today, that means Philadelphia would move over to the Atlantic. However, do they automatically assume the #4 seed even though they could wind up with more points than both Ottawa and Boston or do the 2/3 and crossover spots get re-seeded based on points?
It's important because as the #1 seed in the Atlantic, the Habs should get the benefit of playing the weakest team in the 1st round regardless of who it is (i.e. if Ottawa has fewer points than the crossover team, then OTT drops to the #4 spot and we would play them). The Flyers have faded a bit, but I'd hate to see us matched up against a 97-point crossover team in the 1st round while the Bruins and Senators could wind up with worse records and face each other.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 12, 2017 10:33:08 GMT -5
I don't think wild-cards get re-seeded, BH. Skilly pointed it out a few days ago when the Leafs would've played the Bruins...and we would've played Washington who had more points than Toronto and Boston. Regardless...they should go back to the Top 8 Seeding format. 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. Yep, we could end up being royally screwed right off the bat. If that's the case, maybe we should slowly drop out of first place in late March....
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 12, 2017 11:00:17 GMT -5
With as much realignment as there's been, and new teams, and moved teams, and the oncoming team in Vegas, go back to 1 thru 4 in each division. I still believe it bore out the most compelling playoffs. There's so much parity now that it's rare to have one whole division significantly weaker than the rest, and certainly not year after year.
Of course, I'm also in favor of the following things that will never happen:
*No more loser point; there's nothing wrong with a tie. Loser points allow teams to present the illusion of being in the thick of it. *Vast, continued, reduction in the size of goalie equipment. *Wooden sticks. Composite stick budgets are ridiculous, and normal people can't afford them.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 12, 2017 11:09:10 GMT -5
maybe we should slowly drop out of first place in late March.... That's going to be hard, given how sucky our division is.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 12, 2017 11:47:07 GMT -5
I don't think wild-cards get re-seeded, BH. nope, no reseeding. so you could wind up with a (right now and not likely) Philly/NYR conference final.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 12, 2017 11:50:53 GMT -5
*No more loser point; there's nothing wrong with a tie. Loser points allow teams to present the illusion of being in the thick of it. and that's the reason it will stick around . . . to stick it to hopeful fans of teams on the edge of contention. maybe slight reduction . . . but lots of talk that results in not much happening get rid of the composites and the goalies may be more amenable to reduced equipment size. nah, they won't be. and who cares about normal people, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 12, 2017 11:56:22 GMT -5
maybe we should slowly drop out of first place in late March.... That's going to be hard, given how sucky our division is. yup, the Habs are the best of a bad bunch. need to go on an extended losing streak to have that happen, and if we do then we're in the mix to drop out of playoff contention! 1. MTL 58 2. BOS 49 8. DET 40
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 12, 2017 12:11:49 GMT -5
*No more loser point; there's nothing wrong with a tie. Loser points allow teams to present the illusion of being in the thick of it. and that's the reason it will stick around . . . to stick it to hopeful fans of teams on the edge of contention. maybe slight reduction . . . but lots of talk that results in not much happening get rid of the composites and the goalies may be more amenable to reduced equipment size. nah, they won't be. and who cares about normal people, anyway? I don't see the loser point going either. League can sell it to the peons that they believe exist and aren't smart enough to realize when their team is a playoff contender and when they're not. To that end, good on Colorado and Phoenix for essentially saying they're out of it. Must chap Bettman to have teams admit this early that they're out. Wouldn't want a game between Phoenix and Colorado at the end of March to be meaningless. *eyeroll* If I were ever named commissioner, one of the first things I'd do is hire Corey Hirsch. He laid it out beautifully on air with Sportsnet a couple of years ago. He'd head the goalie section of the competition committee. This is a very basic approximation, but goalies are likely 3" taller and 20-30 pounds heavier than their counterparts of 30 years ago. There's nothing we can do about that. We can mandate goalies wear jerseys the same size as skaters. None of this over-sized jersey business. That will go a long way to reducing chest and arm protector size. Look at this, and tell me how much is about protection and how much is about filling space. the arms are bigger than Hulk Hogans back when he was on steroids full time. I mean vitamins. Same with pads and gloves. Hockey pants would reduce in size to be same as skaters. League and manufacturer logos would be in mandated positions on the lower front of the legs. Leg pads would not be allowed to block these logos. That means leg pads stop where the pants begin. Just like it used to be. We've just increased space above and below the arms dramatically. We've removed the material designed to fill the space between the knees in a butterfly position. More goals will result, and we haven't even touched the gloves yet. Appropriately sized gear will still offer the same level of protection. None of this increasing the size of the nets. Make the position more about the art of the save again. Baseball, rightly, doesn't allow aluminum or composite bats in the majors. Why? Everyone would be hitting 50 home runs a season or more. I have friends that play competitive softball, and know how much their bats cost. It's comparative to modern sticks, and it's ridiculous. At lower levels, I get putting in devices that create a little more offense and excitement. At the pro level, these are the creme of the crop. Technology shouldn't dictate performance, and it shouldn't force parents to take out second mortgages for stick budgets. Man, if I was a guy like Gallagher I'd be all over wooden sticks. He doesn't have a great shot. Get in front and dare people to hack your stick. Watch theirs disintegrate while you get multiple games out of one stick.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 12, 2017 13:36:17 GMT -5
quit making sense, will you? you touched on it, but those baskets they call gloves have got to go, too.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 12, 2017 14:06:18 GMT -5
quit making sense, will you? you touched on it, but those baskets they call gloves have got to go, too. Wasted logic, I know lol. It's like today ... I see Lebrun retweeting a column by Craig Custance about going to three points for a win. It's asinine. The loser point was to artificially keep clubs in the playoff race. A 3 point win counteracts that. So, just go back to 2 points for a win, 0 points for losses, and a point for a tie. No more arbitrary skills competitions to decide games. Maybe, we change the skill. Get rid of the shootout for hardest shot. Team with player that can shoot puck hardest wins. That's fair. Right? But I digress lol.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 12, 2017 14:48:47 GMT -5
This year is a good example. There are only 4 teams with fewer points than games played (COL, ARI, NYI, DET) and the Islanders and Wings are basically at .500. Crazy.
I don't like the loser point either, but if you are going to give an OT or SO winner 2 points, then you basically have to give the OT or SO loser a point. Teams shouldn't be punished for playing to a tie after regulation.
The answer is to reward regulation wins more than OT or SO wins.
My preference is 2 points for a regulation win, 1 point for an OT or SO win, and 0 points for losing. The 3-on-3 OT is almost as gimmicky as the shoot-out, so right off the bat they should be devalued. Losers accustomed to getting at least a point for a regulation tie would be compensated by the fact that the winner of OT or the SO would only get a point, so you mostly end up in the same place. Teams would be worried about being unlucky in the OT or SO and miss those points over the course of the season, but who cares? Win more games in regulation!
Everyone would end up with a lower point total at the end of the year, but who cares? It would restore value to the regulation win and devalue the gimmick wins.
|
|
|
Post by Gogie on Mar 29, 2017 15:40:58 GMT -5
Thought I'd give this thread a bump. I was trying to find a definitive source for information on the playoffs and found this: 2017 NHL Playoff Structure It's actually pretty clear what happens (and basically is what Skilly and others said earlier). Top three teams in each division are seeded 1 through 3 in their division. The next two teams with the best records in the conference also make the playoffs as wild card teams. The wild card team with the most points is seeded as the number 4 seed in the division that has the first seed with the least points (as of today that would mean the Rangers would be the number 4 seed in the Atlantic division). The other wild card team becomes the number 4 seed in the other division (the Bruins would be seed 4 in the Metropolitan division). Round one of the playoffs has seed 1 vs seed 4 and seed 2 vs seed 3 in each division with the higher seed having the extra home game if a series goes 7 games. The two winners of the first round in each division play against each other for the division title, again with the higher seeded team having home-ice advantage in a 7-game series. For the Habs this means that they would have home-ice advantage for the first two rounds of the playoffs. The rest of the playoffs are pretty straight forward - the two remaining teams in each conference play for the conference title and the conference winners play for the Stanley Cup. In both cases the team with the most points gets home-ice advantage.
|
|