Aggie204
Expect the worst, you’ll never be disappointed.
Boston was my team after the Jets left the in the 90’s and the eastern team I still follow . It’s a sweet-sweet feeling.
Last edited:
Anderson let in a couple of very weak goals but did anyone see that great pass from Gardiner to the Bruins ? Just awful , makes Myers pizzas look good .Did you see him throw Frederick Anderson under the bus during his post game presser? Lots of speculation that Babcock will be fired this offseason.
Every game is meaningful. I mean look at the Pens this year. Without the loser point they don't even make the playoffs, same as Colorado. Chicago doesn't even sniff a WC spot either. 90 points would likely be the playoff mark at that point.
Jets were #8 in playoff PP % (ahead of the Sharks before last night's outburst). The Jets were #4 in the NHL in PP % in the regular season. The Jets had a number of flaws last season, but the PP wasn't an important issue.It might have been a bad call in the sense that it maybe shouldn't have been 5 minutes, but the refs have been reffing by severity of outcome forever.
The two exact same hits to a player will result in two different outcomes depending upon the amount of distress the player being hit appears to have received. The refs felt they had to give 5 minutes because of the result, not because of the action.
Regardless, Vegas should be embarrassed by letting in 4 goals on a 5 minute penalty. Hell, if it had been the Jets , the Jets would have been lucky to get 4 shots on a 5 minute man advantage.
I would've been a lot closer if I Constanza'd my bracket and picked the opposite of what I thought was going to happen...Those are easily the most craziest playoffs I have experienced since following the NHL actively. I really wonder if there is one person in the hockey world who's playoff-bracket is still intact.
And oh boy... is it fun to read the Leafs "season is over" thread
Yes, I realized this proposal would have more teams out of the running earlier. Still, you gotta hope that having more intense games leading up to the point of mathematical elimination would make up for it. Might get a few more good games as teams try to play spoiler. But really, if you're going to a game between a couple of cellar dwellers, you probably shouldn't have high expectations of seeing playoff style hockey anyway.
The worst thing about a bye is that it is actually incentive to not finish first. You would lose up to 4 games of playoff revenue. I like the idea of a financial incentive for winning. Maybe 10% of game ticket revenue goes to the winning organization. In fact, make it 10% per goal difference. Lose by 10 goals, kiss all that money goodbye. Of course, if the players are pissed off at the owner, this might drive the wrong behavior.
It still doesn't make every game meaningful. The problem of less than full effort in the regular season has been around for a very long time. It eliminates playing for the tie, which is a different, but related, issue.
Reading some other forums and online articles... lots of people wanting an apology from the NHL on what is perceived to be a blown call , like the NFL apologized to the Saints.
Be prepared to wait...People in Buffalo are still waiting for their apology RE: Brett Hull skate in the crease.
I only cheer for the Jets.
I'll still watch for the entertainment and hope for a team that has not won a Cup before like Columbus or St. Louis with one exception.
NEVER VEGAS!
It's never been done in this league as far as I know. We've always had either a loser point or a tie. But never neither. If the only thing you got was points for a win and nothing for a loss and no chance of a tie. Then you might be more inclined to win some games.
I can't remember if there were always ties or not. Doesn't matter. Your solution would eliminate a problem we used to have, teams/players playing for the tie late in games. The current system much reduced, but did not eliminate that. It would not affect the lack of intensity in the regular season. Those are 2 different issues that exist separately. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a step in the right direction.
I have the answer, though I am nowhere near the first to say it, so I'll make no effort to pretend I'm the brainchild behind it. I'm just the messenger.
Anyways:
Highest seed (either by league or by conference) gets to hand select their first round opponent. Either within the conference only or league wide. But they pick who they play.
Do you pick a team you match up well against? do you pick a rival that you direly want to crush for your fan base's edification? Do you pick a team that seems to have some serious dysergy going on (i.e. perhaps our own Jets)?
Being able to hand-select an opponent would be an advantage manyfold greater than a mere extra home game. And best of all, it's a skill-based edge. I love it when perks are skill based.
And best of all, it will throw any and all ridiculous accusations of "bracket-fixing-by-tanking" right out the window.
I see lots of potential for this to go wrong for teams. Bad choices would be very common.
View attachment 219787
Nostril Matthews looks like Relic from Beachcombers. Actually Relic might be better dressed
And it's always at the coach. Never the guys on the ice. So and so plays to much. So and so plays to little. We don't have the right lines. They don't give good enough speeches. they don't adjust properly. They adjust to much. They adjust to little. The lines change to much. The lines are to static. Th coach needs more control. The coach needs less control. It's become a comedy among fan bases on here now.
But it wouldn't hurt to try. Teams used to play for the tie, now they play for the point and maybe give it a bit more juice to get that extra one if needed. If there is no loser point then those 10 games you take to overtime actually mean something.