| 0 |
Subject: Playoff Format
Posted by: Cuz
- [213301420] Fri, May 17, 2002, 00:32
Does anyone else think it is ridiculous that Carolina has home ice advantage - even though they finished 9 points behind Toronto in the standings?
I think the NHL has to reconsider this playoff format - conceivably a team that finishes 9th overall in the conference can win their weak division and be seeded 3rd. Something is wrong there.
And what happens if Toronto meets Colorado in the final? Do they go by seeds or it is overall points for that matchup?
|
| 1 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Fri, May 17, 2002, 00:34
|
tis ridiculous
|
| 2 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Fri, May 17, 2002, 05:10
|
They go by overall points when the separate conference champions meet in the finals.
Division champions getting top seeds is not a new idea. I believe this format has been in various league for decades.
I don't think it's ridiculous, because I understand why they're doing it and it makes sense. I also see why it doesn't seem fair to a Leaf fan. But heck, home-ice advantage does not really seem that important these days anyways.
|
| 3 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Fri, May 17, 2002, 05:40
|
Just because the format has been around doesn't mean it is a good format. I don't think it is fair to any team - not just the Leafs.
It makes absolutely no sense when a team with 91 points has home ice advantage over a team that had 100 points.
The Leaf's had a much touhger division and Carolina won the weakest division in hockey. Put Carolina anywhere in the West and they don't even make the playoffs - yet they are 3rd seed in the east. Lousy rule.
And perhaps I don't understand why they are doing it - I don't think it does make sense. Maybe someone can clarify why they do it.
|
| 4 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Fri, May 17, 2002, 16:01
|
If they want to put the division leaders ahead like that break it down into only two divisions per conference, and the two top teams there can be seeded 1,2. At least that way you know they will be very competitive teams who get the top seeds -- because with only two divisions there will be 7-8 teams in each.
Home-ice advantage is important. Nearly every team's record is better on home-ice through the regular season... but more significantly, when teams go to game 7 (the real benefit of home ice in the playoffs) it has been the home team winning. Toronto over the Isles, Colorado over LA, Toronto over Ottawa, Colorado over San Jose -- all of the teams had home ice so far.
|
| 5 | The Left Wings
ID: 28851619
Fri, May 17, 2002, 17:44
|
You've got to understand that the NHL is not just a sport, it's also a business. It is not good for business if the whole Southwest Division misses the playoffs. And the way Carolina has been getting home-ice advantage, their ticket sales and other revenue are going to go up, and ice hockey will increase in popularity in that area. It's good for hockey as a whole.
|
| 6 | Leaf ~Fanatic
ID: 554591019
Fri, May 17, 2002, 20:13
|
It's not the league's job to make money for individual teams. So what if it is a business? Why should that dictate who makes the playoffs?
Sure the NHL should showcase it's product but so what if there are no Southwest teams in the playoffs? If the teams aren't good enough then they aren't good enough. Simple as that.
For all those years that only half of the Canadian teams have made the playoffs I don't see the League making a Canadian division to help Canadian teams make the playoffs.
It's a stupid rule and I hope one day a 9th overall team in the East division gets 3rd seed by winning it's division so perhaps the NHL will realise how stupid it is.
|
| 7 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Sat, May 18, 2002, 02:17
|
Its not only Leafs fans who would be upset anyhow. How about those in New Jersey? They definately got the shaft by not having home ice advantage over a team that had fewer points... and they lost out.
|
| 8 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 364571718
Sat, May 18, 2002, 07:30
|
I dont mind each division winner getting an automatic playoff bearth, but you should then seed the playoff teams according to their final points. So Carolina would have been seeded 7th, in front of Montreal. (So they still would have had home-ice advantage against Mtl in round 2... but not against Toronto or NJ.)
That way each division and geographic area can have a playoff team (TLW is right, the NHL does not want to see the whole South-East US lose interest in hockey by March simply because no teams made the playoffs) AND no team gets shafted by home ice advantage unfairness. Seems a simple solution to me.
Yes, I suppose the 9th seed would be pissed if they had more points than the division winner of a weak div, but really, how likely are the chances of that happening?
|
| 9 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Sat, May 18, 2002, 07:36
|
DET (1) vs. VAN (8) Road team went 5-1
COL (2) vs. LA (7) Road team went 2-5
SJ (3) vs. PHX (6) Road team went 3-2
STL (4) vs. CHI (5) Road team went 3-2
BOS (1) vs. MTL (8) Road team went 3-3
PHI (2) vs. OTT (7) Road team went 2-3
CAR (3) vs. NJ (6) Road team went 1-5
TOR (4) vs. NYI (5) Road team went 0-7
Total: Road team went 19-28
DET (1) vs. STL (4) Road team went 1-4
COL (2) vs. SJ (3) Road team went 4-3
CAR (3) vs. MTL (8) Road team went 3-3
TOR (4) vs. OTT (7) Road team went 4-3
Total: Road team went 12-13
Although the road teams were a grand total of 10 games under .500, it was only in 4 of the 12 series that the so-called home-ice advantage was truly an advantage. In 7 of the 12 series, the road teams were .500 or better. Therefore, I do not believe that home-ice is really that important statistically. Even though there might be a psychological effect, the effects surely did not show on the scoreboard all the time.
And why is it not the league's job to help the teams make money? Isn't it why they formed a league, so that it can help promote their game? Why shouldn't it dictate who makes the playoffs if they want to sell their game to an area in which hockey is growing from zero?
Half the Canadian teams make the playoffs is not a thing of concern. It might be something if none of the teams make it. The league doesn't want to make a Canadian division becauase of the geographical distance (which was partly why they changed the groupings around a decade ago), but you do see how the six teams are grouped in threes and stuck in two divisions.
Even if the 9th placed team made the playoffs as the third seed, I'd think it's still fine because the league wants playoff hockey played in each area of the continent for at least one round. I'll probably feel bad for 8th placed team who lost out on it, but hey, it's good for hockey.
JTD, the NJ-CAR series was decided in 6 games. There's no home-ice advantage there. In fact, NJ lost on home ice, and that's there own fault, if home ice is really a physical advantage rather than a psychological one.
|
| 10 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Sat, May 18, 2002, 11:20
|
Why should NJD fans be mad at the seeding system? Because they lost game 6, and the series, in New Jersey? I guess MON fans should be mad at the system since MON went 1-2 at home against CAR, right? The fact of the playoffs is that you have to win. Period. Home, away, wherever, you need to win. CAR lost home ice advantage in the MON series when they lost Game 2. From that point on, all MON had to do was win at home and they would have won the series. Instead, they lost games 4 and 6 at home and lost the series. CAR won on the road when it needed to in both series' which allowed them to win both series' in 6 games. Those complaining about home ice "advantage" would have a better argument if CAR was only winning at home and was taking 7 games to do so. As it is, CAR is just winning and that's what it takes to make it to where they're at. You can bet that if CAR beats TOR, they won't go winless on the road. And if they actually win one at TOR, then this entire thread is a moot point. Besides, when you look at the records, is there really an advantage either way? TOR away vs. CAR home
19-14-4-4 (46 pts) vs. 15-13-11-2 (43 pts) CAR away vs. TOR home
20-13-5-3 (48 pts) vs. 24-11-6-0 (54 pts) Looks about as even as it can get all the way around. In other words, whoever wins will just be the better team, regardless of home ice "advantage" or any other advantage.
|
| 11 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sat, May 18, 2002, 14:27
|
It doesn't matter who is actually winniing the series. It's the principal of the matter. It makes the regular season almost insignificant in terms of playoff seeding. If a team gets 100 points for example - they should have home ice advantage over any team they play who accumulated less points than them in the regular season. Otherwise, that almost makes the regular season a moot point in many cases - where is the inspiration to play if you know that even if you do get 100 points or whatever, you still may only be seeded 4th...It may even make the regular season more lacklustre than it already is if many teams don't put out all their effort in the regular season because of this very rule.
I don't mind Rogue's idea of the division winners getting in automatically as long as they are then seeded in terms of points.
|
| 12 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Sat, May 18, 2002, 14:59
|
Cuz, you keep forgetting one important fact: TOR vs. Southeast: 12-6-2-2 (22 games)
CAR vs. Southeast: 11-3-5-1 (20 games) In other words, TOR had more opportunity to beat up on the weak Southeastern divsion than CAR did, so maybe it is fair, using your own reasoning that a team with more opportunity to beat up on a weak conference shouldn't have an advantage, that CAR is the 3 seed. And if we're not going to reward winning a division, then why have divisions at all? Why not just have the Eastern Conference of 15 teams and the Western Conference of 15 teams?
|
| 13 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Sat, May 18, 2002, 17:55
|
Well said, KKB.
What do you mean lackluster, Cuz? Remember when the Islanders could have just lost their last game of the season so that they could draw the supposedly weaker Carolina? They surely didn't play lacklusterly, as they won that game and drew the supposedly stronger Leafs.
Was the regular season lackluster? Hell no. Look at the run the Canucks had. That was spectacular. Had the blues been playing lacklusterly the past few seasons? No, and they've definitely been seeding 4th a lot of times the past several seasons behind the Red Wings.
Maybe if you were involved in such a situation, you would think that it's moot and would play lacklusterly. But these NHL players are professionals, and they surely showed that they would try to win as many games as possible, regardless of the playoff format.
By the way, I believe it was me who initially raised the idea that the division winners should be guaranteed a playoff spot, which is ranked according to points. You can see it in What's the point in finishing 5th?, submitted by me.
|
| 14 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sat, May 18, 2002, 23:43
|
KKB...true Toronto had more games against, but the teams below Carolina were much weaker meaning Carolina didn't have to get as many points to finish first in their division as any other division winner had to get.
In fact, if you put Carolina in any other division - the highest they finish in that division is 4th.
And I think they should just go back to 2 divisions in each conference - I think that would be much better.
TLW - I didn't see your earlier thread so I did not know you had raised the idea. I would support a change to that for sure. I think the division winners should get into the playoffs - the only problem I am having is that they should not automatically be seeded 1-2-3 if the point totals dictate otherwise.
And besides the Canucks this year - I did see some lacklustre hockey at times. I have the NHL Center Ice package on the good old satellite system and many teams in the middle of the pack played some boring and uninspired hockey IMO.
|
| 15 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Sun, May 19, 2002, 14:47
|
"I dont mind each division winner getting an automatic playoff bearth, but you should then seed the playoff teams according to their final points. So Carolina would have been seeded 7th, in front of Montreal. (So they still would have had home-ice advantage against Mtl in round 2... but not against Toronto or NJ.)"
Exactly.
-- Although, under your revised system Carolina would no longer face Montreal, since they were 7th seed. Toronto would get the easy 2nd round opponent. Of course teams can win on the road, but, as Cuz said, its the principle of it. Lets have teams rewarded and/or punished based on their regular season finish -- not their geographical location.
|
| 16 | quik_ag
ID: 368423022
Sun, May 19, 2002, 18:54
|
it's a business decision more than anything else. the NHL doesn't want all of the games at any one time to be centered around a given geographic area -- be that the northeast corridor, or perhaps at some point the southeast corridor. The objective is to sell out all of the home games and since the team with home-ice advantage gets the first pair of games, it's preferable to spread the games out to begin with. You don't want people to have to choose between the rink an hour east of them and the rink an hour west of them because that cuts into the net sales of tickets and the net TV ratings.
Usually, it's not that big of a deal. This season was an abnormality with Carolina. Teams are still rewarded for good regular season play, there's still only this one condition.
|
| 17 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Sun, May 19, 2002, 19:07
|
But ABC -and hence the NHL- almost always schedule their broadcasts of different games at the same time (we all know how the laegue has catered to the wishes of ABC). Several weekends this playoff year the NHL has scheduled all games in the same time slot. Is that not making consumers chose which game to watch? That would seem to me to spread the ratings - which are seriously low in the US anyways - even thinner.
I don't see how TV or geography should affect it.
|
| 18 | quik_ag
ID: 368423022
Sun, May 19, 2002, 19:30
|
perhaps notsomuch the tv ratings, but ticket sales for sure.. they're trying to avoid a situation where you have, for example, NYR, NJD, PHI, WAS home-ice advantage to start the playoffs. This situation would give you 8 games in maybe 4 days all taking place within a couple hundred miles of each other. This would water down the ticket sales. I've heard the TV ratings argument cited before also, but can't recall the justification, so i'll withdraw that possibility from my argument.
|
| 19 | Synergy
ID: 23937922
Sun, May 19, 2002, 22:24
|
Theoretically, ticket sales should be irrelevant to the equation. If a team has a good fan base, it should sell out its playoff tickets easily.
|
| 20 | The Left Wings
ID: 54591923
Mon, May 20, 2002, 00:08
|
That's the problem, Synergy, "if". How many teams out of 30 really have a good fan base?
There are a lot of teams that cannot sell out their home games.
It all comes down to business decisions. The fans have no say in this matter at all. If the owners or GMs of the Leafs and the other teams affected by Carolina being seeded third, they would be the ones making the suggestions for a rule change. But since they agreed upon this current rules, I don't really think that they care what the fans think. As long as every game is sold out, that's all matters to them. Are you going to boycott a home game because you feel that your team got gypped? Probably not, and even if you do, the GMs and the owners won't know and the games will still be sold out. So unless you can create some massive city-wide boycott, there's probably nothing you can do but complain.
|
| 21 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Mon, May 20, 2002, 03:37
|
"it's a business decision more than anything else. the NHL doesn't want all of the games at any one time to be centered around a given geographic area"
I disagree -- the league loves having the huge market, eastern seaboard teams in the playoffs. They have to be hating a Toronto/Carolina eastern final because of purely business reasons -- how many people, outside of those areas and who arent die-hard hockey fans are even interested in this series? I'm not even sure the general public knows Carolina has a team.
"perhaps notsomuch the tv ratings, but ticket sales for sure.. they're trying to avoid a situation where you have, for example, NYR, NJD, PHI, WAS home-ice advantage to start the playoffs."
There is no doubt in my mind those games would all be soldout quite easily, whereas with Carolina (a team with hideous attendance throughout its short history) in the Eastern finals there are plenty of empty seats (most of which were filled by Leaf fans for game 2 by the look of it).
"That's the problem, Synergy, "if". How many teams out of 30 really have a good fan base? There are a lot of teams that cannot sell out their home games."
In the playoffs?? Almost every team will have no problem selling-out, aside from a few anomalous cities (where the NHL shouldn't be in the first place). Maybe I'll grab some playoff attendance numbers -- but I find it hard to fathom any of the others (besides Carolina) not selling-out.
Sure its easy enough to say it comes down to "business decisions" but a lot of Bettman's so-called business decisions don't make any sense --> enter the faithful hockey fans with criticism.
|
| 22 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Mon, May 20, 2002, 04:07
|
Ok, these are the teams with the worst regular season attendance who made the playoffs: Phoenix, NY Islanders, Boston, Carolina (funny how two are relocation teams -- strange 'business decision' there, wouldnt you say?).
capacity, # of 1st round home games, attendance
phx: 16,213 - 2 - soldout
NYI: 16,291 - 3 - soldout
bos: 17,565 - 3 - soldout
car: 18,730 - 3 - 98%
This is just a small sample (how many boxscores do ya want a guy to look through?), and although these teams arent close geographically, I think this highlights how selling tickets is not a problem in the playoffs... even for the teams who havent been selling all year.
(**sidenote on overall attendance: 19 teams averaged over 90% capacity for 2002, and only 4 teams were below 80% -- not really too bad at all)
|
| 23 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Mon, May 20, 2002, 05:24
|
Yea, I don't see how it is a business decision at all.
|
| 24 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Mon, May 20, 2002, 12:22
|
The fact is that CAR, TAM, FLA, and ATL are all relatively new to their area compared to teams like MON, DET, TOR, etc. The only way these teams get noticed is by going far in the playoffs. JayTDawg said, "I'm not even sure the general public knows Carolina has a team." Well guess what? They know now. Maybe not the general public -- but who really in the general public could name more than their local teams anyhow -- but surely all those that have watched SportsCenter just once in the last 2 weeks or so. And so that's what it comes down to: exposure. Without it, teams only have a local fan base and are viewed by players as the equivalent of Siberia. With it, a teams fan base grows and players start warming to the idea of a trade or free agency signing with those teams. This doesn't happen overnight, but a couple of years like this one for CAR over the course of 5 years certainly won't hurt matters. For the long-term picture to look bright, the NHL needs to showcase the teams in the SouthEast as much as possible because they are the teams that people know the least about. Everyone might as well just get used to it because the NHL wants hockey in the South to succeed. They want more fans than those within 500 miles of the Canadian border. If they piss off a few fans -- keep in mind that we're talking about long-time die-hard fans like yourselves -- then so be it. Why? Because you'll still be a fan next year while they've added new CAR fans to the mix. So all in all, they've increased their fan base because of it. Who, in the South, would care 2 cents about an all-Canadian Conference Final? Nobody. And would there be any new Canadian fans? Minimal. At least compared to the number of fans added to the fan base because of CAR. And we all know what more fans lead to, so I won't even go into that, but it's safe to say that it's a business decision. If you can't see how it's a business decision when you look at the big picture, then there's really no further need to discuss the matter.
|
| 25 | sosa
ID: 13383014
Mon, May 20, 2002, 13:02
|
Yeah that Carolina team is awesome, I'm so impressed with their regular season, winning just 35 of 82 (42.68292683%) games. Only 9 teams in the NHL won fewer games. And a goal differential of zero? Wow! Detroit vs Carolina in the finals, what a showcase of competitive hockey that would be! Smell the ratings!
|
| 26 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Mon, May 20, 2002, 15:25
|
Well, I can't see it being a business decision because Carolina would have made the playoffs anyways - 7th seed - and I don't see how the extra home game would create all these new fans you are raving about. Sure going deep into the playoffs creates more interest - Carolina could have gone this deep into the playoffs from the 7th position. Even you said that home ice hasn't been an advantage- and if the team is really good enough then they could do it.
I don't see the problem with guaranteeing the division winner a playoff spot and then deciding seed based upon points.
Besides - if the league truly wanted to create new fans down South then they would do more than give the division winner home ice advantage - they would find a way to help them make their teams better. The fact is that Tampa, Florida, Atl are weak teams and have been for most of their existence, (the exception being the year Florida made the finals), and this is why fan interest is so low - a poor product. None of those teams are going to win the division any time soon- so I don't see how it helps the Southern teams - excpet Carolina.
But, if those teams were to improve significantly and challenge for middle of the conference pack or their division lead then I bet you'd see the interest zoom through the roof.
Having better teams will create much more fan interest than having a division winner seeded third.
And do go along with Sosa - the League does hate this Carolina/Toronto matchup - the ratings are horrible. There is no interest down south outside of Carolina. So how did the division help make significantly more fans in the South?? It didn't. The fact Carolina went to the third round attracted slightly more fans in Carolina. But that is such a small gain and if Carolina were to tail off again in the coming years - it will be back to 7,500 people/game.
So that is why I don't see it as a great business decision - they could find many other ways to promote the game - and if you don't want to discuss the matter further then please feel free not to.
|
| 27 | quik_ag
ID: 368423022
Mon, May 20, 2002, 15:41
|
it's a business decision. and it's also a decision that was made long before this carolina debacle. it's an entirely academic argument because it was a decision made with regards to division winners, and not carolina the franchise.
thus, anecdotal evidence such as "carolina is a 7th seed, seeded 3rd" is uncalled for. Sure, it's possible that weaker team,s will get a boost to the 3rd seed, but more often than not, the boost will be substantially smaller. the extra home games simply give more people in each geographic area an opportunity to see a playoff game. Which, in my opinion and in the league's thinking will create more lifelong fans.
it's also uncalled for to speculate on how the carolina fans will react to a poorer showing somewhere down the road. that has little to do with anything and without any evidence to back it up, it's speculative.
furthermore, i don't see home-ice advantage being so insurmountable that a stronger team such as Toronto wouldn't be able to beat the lowly carolinians. the extra millions in revenue for carolina from a single home game, however, could make a truckload of difference and aid in the building of fledgling frachises in the coming seasons.
|
| 28 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Mon, May 20, 2002, 15:52
|
If teams make the playoffs then their fans will get to see a playoff game regardless. I was only using Carolina seeded 3rd etc because that is what happened this year- so it is not anecdotal, it is fact. It is what can happen with this rule.
And the evidence is in attendance records - not just in Carolina. But it is true that when a team doesn't do well the attendance drops.
And again, why should Toronto have to play without home ice advantage in the playoffs - even if it isn't insurmountable - when they worked so hard all year to get more points than all but one team in the Eastern Conference?
It's the principal of the matter.
|
| 29 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Mon, May 20, 2002, 16:16
|
Does this mean that I don't want the NHL to succeed in the South? Of course not. I would love nothing more than a League full of Stability. I think the League does a poor job of marketing it's product and they have to improve it significantly.
I also beleive in a sense of fair play though. And it is a poor choice to penalize a team with more points in the regular season by taking away their home ice advantage to a lesser acheiving team. The team with more points earned them and regardless of the marketing ploys or the fan base woes - business decision or not, it should be more fair.
|
| 30 | quik_ag
ID: 165410
Mon, May 20, 2002, 16:32
|
right. it's not fair. it's business. i think we agree.
|
| 31 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Mon, May 20, 2002, 16:50
|
Something can be disputed even if it is business. Its a pretty elementary argument that the teams should be seeded only on points, the way its been traditionally done (or at least in the past it had only been two division leaders used). In my opinion, Bettman is simply following the model of the NFL and MLB with six divisions whereas I think the NBA's four makes more sense for the NHL. With 16 of 30 teams making the playoffs the league's postseason structure should resemble bball's more closely than the others.
Business-wise six divisions does not even cut down on travel costs because, as was pointed out before, teams often play more games against other divisions than their own.
|
| 32 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Mon, May 20, 2002, 17:25
|
sosa, you don't have to be impressed by their regular season, but you should be impressed by their postseason. Very few people on this very forum picked CAR to do anything in the first round, nevermind the second round. The fact is that they've stepped up when they needed to in the playoffs and it's carried them further than teams that a lot of people had pegged for the Cup Finals. They did what they needed to do to make it to the playoffs and now they're winning when it all really counts. Home ice advantage or not. Cuz, you're right that I said home ice advantage doesn't mean much to the teams, but it does to the fans -- as shown by the very existence of this thread -- by allowing the opportunity for more games for CAR fans to go to. Overall, I think this is just one of many reasons for the current playoff format, but the biggest reason is because of what JayTDawg pointed out in that in every sport division winners are rewarded for winning their division. Sure the Southeast is a weak division right now, but that's not to say that it will always remain that way. Who knows what can happen 3-5 years from now? I guess it all just boils down to personal preference. Personally, I prefer to reward division winners because otherwise there's no point in having divisions in the first place and I really don't like 2 15-team conferences. Just too boring, IMO. Beyond that, I say that if TOR wanted a top 3 seed this year, then they just needed to get that 1 extra point to beat out BOS. They didn't, so they're not. It will give them something more to fight for next season.
|
| 33 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Mon, May 20, 2002, 19:29
|
Well, I to think division winners should make the playoffs automatically. But go back to the 2 divisions like they used to have and like they use in basketball. Then seed them 1-2.
I think with 2 divisions you could get away from what they do now - which is teams play more games aginst other teams out of their division. That may allow for more intense rivalries and perhpas a little more control over their own destiny. That makes much more sense to me and it still holds much excitement for the fans.
|
| 34 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Mon, May 20, 2002, 19:30
|
I just think with 3 divisions in each conference it is unfair to automatically seed them 1-2-3.
|
| 35 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Mon, May 20, 2002, 20:02
|
Cuz, now you're arguing against yourself. What's the difference between seeding 3 division winners 1-2-3 and seeding 2 division winners 1-2? According to your own postings, shouldn't a 2 division system's seeding still be based on wins/points? In other words, according to your own previous posts, if Division A's top 4 teams are higher than Division B's top team, then too bad for Division B's top team. But now you say that it's ok, as long as it's 1 less team, to seed the division winners with the top seeds. Although I do wish that teams would play more games within their own division to promote rivalries, I also like the 3 division format. 2 divisions just gets too crowded. Plus, again going back to business decisions, it's much more appealing to fans to have 3 division races instead of 2. Also, more team's can be involved in a division race this way, since they're competing against a fewer total number of games. In other words, in a 2 division setup, you may have 4-6 teams trying to win the divisions as the season winds down. In a 3 division setup, you'll likely have at least 6, and maybe up to 8 or 9 teams trying to win the division. This draws more fans by drawing in the fans of those extra teams. Looking at the Eastern Conference, there were 6 teams within 4 points (2 wins) of the division title or in the division title lead. In the Western Conference, there were 5 teams in that situation. In the NBA, there was only 1 team that was within 2 games back of the division winners, meaning there were a total of 5 teams involved in the division title fight compared to 11 in the NHL. The math adds up to more excitement for the fans of hockey.
|
| 36 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Mon, May 20, 2002, 22:00
|
KKB - yes, reading my statements it appears I contradict myself. I apparently typed one thing but still meant seed by points. It has been a long day and I typed something I wasn't intending to, sorry.
To clarify my point - However many divisions the NHL has had, has now, or decides to go to in the future(if they do), I think the division winners should be guaranteed a playoff spot. Then, I think you should seed based upon points.
I do see your point on more division races, but I still think the hockey of 10 years ago when there was 2 divsions/conference was better. But, perhaps that won't work as well with then number of teams they have now.
|
| 37 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Tue, May 21, 2002, 04:43
|
I don't know where you get your impression that Carolina only gained "slightly more fans" during the playoffs. Have you heard that Raleigh is currently a hockey-crazed town?
And to get a good on-ice product, you need money. Where does the money come from? The fans. How do you get more fans? By exposing the team more to the general public. How do you expose the team more? By having them play as many playoff games as possible (but not pissing off other teams' owners/GMs at the same time). Of course, if the team falters in the future, the current effort will be wasted (look at the Lightning after their lone playoff appearance, a 4-2 loss to the Flyers). But all we want is to give those teams a chance. Whatever they do with it is their matter.
This is like a bigger, stronger brother helping his little brother by giving him some advantage that does not seem fair to outsiders. Call it a handicap if you will. But it is with the handicap that the little brother get to improve faster.
|
| 38 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Tue, May 21, 2002, 05:56
|
Sure teams get more exposure by playing more games - but they should do it fairly and on their own merrits - not from the help of a big brother and not at the expense of other teams acheivements. If Carolina goes deep into the playoffs then good on them, but why should they get a push forward when other teams are penalized as a result of this helping hand?
I get my impression that Carolina only gained marginal amounts of fans from the fact the first game they sold out in the playoffs was game 2 of Round 3.
|
| 39 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Tue, May 21, 2002, 08:23
|
Cuz, that just further proves the point that the further CAR goes in the playoffs, the more fans they're gaining. As to the first point, that's why TLW said that they have to give a "push" while "not pissing off other teams' owners/GMs at the same time," so they use a common practice of seeding division winners highest. IMO, it's more detrimental to the sport to send a message to a division and the fans of the teams of that division that their division winner isn't worthy of a top seed than it is to have a team like TOR seeded 2 spots lower than they would be under your system. And as TLW has already shown, home ice advantage doesn't mean much in these playoffs and TOR has already regained home ice advantage in the TOR/CAR series and that's what good teams do; they gain home ice advantage by winning on the road. It's theirs to lose now.
|
| 40 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Tue, May 21, 2002, 18:56
|
Well KKB, I would hope the further a team goes in the playoffs the more fans they would get. I haven't disputed that all along. But I don't think that really has anything to do with winning their division. I think Carolina could have gotten to the 3rd round seeded 7th - I still say they would have beaten NJ. Everyone here is saying that home ice is not really an advantage in the playoffs anyways - so why then is it such a big deal that teams be seeded upon points? (I happen to think home-ice in the playoffs is a big deal, therefore go by pts)
People are saying that the whole point of the current system is to get the division winners home ice advantage in order to draw more fans. If it is indeed an effective system then why did it take until the 3rd round to sell out a home game? You would think that Carolina winning the division and getting home ice against New Jersey should have drawn more fans on it's own. But they only got 15,401 fans to the first game. And only 17,104 to game 5. Capacity there is 19,000, so really, they didn't even sell out game 2 of round 3 - the attendance was 18,924.
If they won home ice advantage - like they did - and the system worked like it is supoosed to, wouldn't you think that they could have sold out any games in the first and second rounds?
I think the fact that they went deep is the reason they draw more fans. But, again, they probably could have gone this far anyways.(I think they are under-rated)
Perhaps using Carolina as the only example is not a great idea, because they had fan problems before hand and it is also not likely that a 7th place team in points will win their division too often. And maybe I am way off base and being to hard on the current system, I do admit that.
And, maybe we are taking this too far. My only problem was that teams should be seeded based upon points. It seems only fair, thereby each team has the whole season to earn their position - and as I said above, more times than not a divsion winner will be close to third seed anyways - so I guess it works both ways.
If the league is trying to attract more fans and promote their product then I think there are more constructive ways to do it. To start, they could provide much better TV marketing - schedule the games more effectively. They have to clean up the economic situation. They have to devise some kind of revenue sharing or something. And please- somebody say salaray cap. I think they should follow the lead of the NFL. Small market teams thrive in that league.
|
| 41 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Tue, May 21, 2002, 20:34
|
salaray cap!
there I said it!
|
| 42 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Tue, May 21, 2002, 21:46
|
Cuz, the flaw in your reasoning is that you're reading "get the division winners home ice advantage in order to draw more fans" as "sellout the arena." That's simply not the case for a team like CAR. What home-ice advantage did is allow CAR fans to see them beat NJD for the first game of round 1 and their attendance jumped by 3,000 for the next home game. It remained at those levels for the 3rd home game of the NJD series. And then it carried over into the 2nd round with no fewer than 18,700 fans being at all 3 home games. And then we go to the Conference Finals and maintain the same attendance levels. I think having home-ice advantage for that first series was the catalyst. After that, you have to maintain seeds for the sanity of the fans. NHL is not a popular sport, so they can't have a complex system for the playoffs. They need something that people can understand very quickly. So, a team seeded 3rd, with home-ice advantage, in the first round needs to have it in the second round, and all subsequent rounds, if they face a lower seed. Again, we fall back to it being a business decision. Also, that 19,000 figure comes from the Carolina Hurricanes web site, which has numbers that seem very rounded (to the nearest 500 it seems). I went to the actual arena site and their technical specs show numbers that are more realistically unrounded. I wouldn't be surprised to see that the actual capacity of the arena for hockey is more around 18,800, which would give them a few more sellouts to this point. Either way, they've been either at, or very close to, capacity since that first home game against NJD, a game they wouldn't have had so early in the playoffs without the division winner getting the 3 seed. It's difficult to determine what effect this had, but I think it had at least some effect and if something can have at least some effect to bring more fans into the game, the NHL will do it. Especially if other major sports leagues are doing the same thing. Kind of a "monkey-see-monkey-do" type of attitude.
|
| 43 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Tue, May 21, 2002, 21:50
|
BTW, I agree about the economic concerns and it's prevelant in all leagues. Even the NFL doesn't have it right, yet. Right now, the NFL is just a player carousel with owners overloading their team for 2-3 years to make a run at the Super Bowl and then suffering, and forcing their fans to suffer, under the penalties of the salary cap for 3-5 years. Just look at the Jaguars and what will become of the Ravens. Sure teams can do it right under the NFL system, but the "right way" doesn't seem to be the most popular way to handle things currently. I'm not sure what the answers are and couldn't even begin to layout many ideas, but I do know that nobody has it right yet. Yet.
|
| 44 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Wed, May 22, 2002, 01:06
|
I don't see that as a flaw in my reasoning. I do not take that statement to mean a sellout neccessarily - and I did say that perhaps Carolina wasn't the best of examples.
Besides, what if Carolina did not have home ice and won one of the first two games in NJ - wouldn't attendance rise just as much as it did because they won the first game at home? Theoretically it should have - in fact, if I know my home team is coming home with a split on the road I am just as pumped as I would be had they won game 1 at home.
I do agree that you have to maintain seeds through the playoffs. But I don't see how it is more confusing to seed by points acheived from the start.
Anyways, We could go in circles for many more days, but maybe we can discuss other things now, like a way to raise the popularity of the NHL in the US. I would love nothing more than the NHL to figure out a way to keep the small market cities not just alive - but competative on a long term basis. I don't want to see any more Canadian teams leave - or any small market US teams for that matter. I would not be surprised if there is no hockey in 2004 due to a labor dispute.
|
| 45 | JayTDawg
ID: 57327171
Wed, May 22, 2002, 02:02
|
KKB, I posted some building capacity numbers on #22. Some online box scores list detailed attendance for each game (not rounded ones) if you are looking for something like that. ESPN has the building capacities (see nhl -> statistics -> attendance).
Cuz, from what I've heard the lockout in 2004 could span more than one season... good grief.
|
| 46 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Wed, May 22, 2002, 05:43
|
What's wrong with a big brother helping out a little brother?
|
| 47 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Wed, May 22, 2002, 05:50
|
Well, only the fact that it penalizes others, that's all. I think the teams do need help in some way and should get it.
|
| 48 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Wed, May 22, 2002, 08:21
|
JayTDawg, missed that the first time, but it looks like I was right about the figure being less than 19,000. This means that CAR has actually been selling more than capacity on occasion. Cuz, I didn't say that it was confusing to seed by points from the start. What I said was that the NHL has popularity that is far less than that of the NFL, NBA, and MLB. This means that the casual fan who picks up watching hockey during the playoffs will expect division winners to be the higher seed, just like in those other sports. Therefore, the NHL likely feels a responsibility to give them that. Grizzled vets, like a lot of people on these boards, could go on and on for days about things that seem inherently wrong about the system, but the fact is that the casual, and new, fans won't care. They have an expectation of what the playoffs are and for the NHL to draw those fans further into their game, they need to fulfill those expectations. What you see as unfair, the NHL sees as following suit with the other major leagues and giving new fans, which are really their most important fans, what they expect. The increased exposure for a team like CAR is just added bonus.
|
| 49 | ProWeb
ID: 19402215
Wed, May 22, 2002, 15:02
|
OUI !!!
|
| 50 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Wed, May 22, 2002, 16:12
|
Well, I do agree that new fans have different expectations and perhaps the NHL does feel they have to to cater to that to draw fans further in. The format is right up Betman's alley. But, I am of the opinion that you should change the game(or not change it) for the better of the game itself. If the product is good enough - which I think hockey is - then it should sell itself to a degree. I agree it does need help to gain new fans, however. But I also think the average fan(of any sport) is smart enough to pick up on any rules that differ from other sports.
Again, I think better ways to sell the game to new fans are out there, the League either doesn't have the answers or choses not to explore them.
In the end, it doesn't even matter because the format is here and it will likely not be changed so no matter how much old school fans would like it to, this is the way it is for now - and nothing we say can change that.
|
| 51 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Wed, May 22, 2002, 18:51
|
The NHL is not Lipton Brisk Ice Tea, in the sense that even if it's so good, it still won't sell itself, mainly because people in the south knows absolutely nothing about hockey, and thus no matter how good the teams are, they wouldn't go to the games.
What they need is just what is happening right now. A team going deep into the playoffs and creates a general interest to learn this game. And an extra home game means extra oppotunities for people to go to a hockey game for the first time in their lives. If some of them decides to become a fan, they'll likely buy some merchandise (be it a cap or a jersey or a hotdog or a beer) and go to future games, that means millions of dollars because of just that one extra home game. That would certainly help the team to further improve itself.
|
| 52 | Cuz
ID: 213301420
Wed, May 22, 2002, 20:08
|
That has nothing to do with 3rd place seeding. I agree they need a team to go deep - but they could have done that regardless. In fact they haven't even needed that extra home game you are talking about so how did it help? It hasn't. They would have played the same amount of home games if they didn't have home ice advantage.
|
| 53 | Leaf ~Fanatic
ID: 554591019
Wed, May 22, 2002, 21:15
|
I think that everyone here agrees that the NHL needs desperately to attract new fans. I think the playoff format in place isn't neccessarily the best way to go. I think if it does help, it is in very limited fashion.
Cuz is right by saying that the format hasn't really helped out the Hurricanes very much at all by giving extra games because they haven't even used the extra games in any series yet. They have gotten where they are because they are playing exceptionally well as a team and I think they would have gotten there seeded 7th. So TLW's argument that the extra home games are there to attract fans doesn't hold much water in this case.
Like Cuz also said earlier, for the NHL to draw the amount of fans it needs they have to find other ways to do it. The divisional format isn't going to attract many more fans on it's own.
I think the board is split on the idea of seeding. Some think seeding by points is a good idea and others like the current format.
I agree with Cuz that the division winners should be guaranteed a playoff spot and then seeded by points. I beleive that this idea was shared originally by TLW as well.
Others may disagree but I guess it doesn't matter because we can't change it anyways.
|
| 54 | sosa
ID: 13383014
Thu, May 23, 2002, 02:26
|
In the NBA the 2 division winners per conference get the top 2 seeds, but home court advantage is given to the team with the better record. Like this year the Lakers had the home court advantage against the Spurs in round 2 even though the Lakers were the 3rd seed and the Spurs 2nd. This would work in hockey wouldn't it? It seems like something they could consider, and before anyone says "The casual fan won't understand that, it's confusing", consider that a tournament with re-seeding like the NHL uses is more confusing than a straight bracketed tournament like in basketball. I'm not saying re-seeding is Chinese calculus but if we're talking about casual fans we'll assume nothing.
This way Carolina could still be the 3rd seed and open against a theoretically weaker 6th seed, play the 8th seed in round 2, but wouldn't be awarded home ice over a team like Toronto. Toronto wouldn't have had to steal home ice from Carolina by winning Game 1. It would have been theirs to begin with by virtue of their regular season.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|