EXCEPT NAME ONE OF THE 31 TEAMS THAT HAVE BANNERS for such a purpose, Kev, THEN THINK how many NHL Teams share arenas whether they own them outright, where the shared team has more banners than the NHL team does, the quick answer to that is Boston, where there's more retired banners and jerseys for the Celtics than the Bruins, even in Toronto, they have banners same with Montreal, but only Montreal has Bell Centre to themselves.
Playoff Seeding System
- Thread starter MNNumbers
- Start date
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
Same reason you could have the top two teams knock each other out in the conference finals instead of the finals.
If you want to move away from that style, then you would have to go to a European football approach and just have a single table where everyone plays an equal number of games against one another and then you see 1-16.
In your criticism you're ignoring the concept of unbalanced schedules. Maybe Winnipeg and Nashville would have had worse records of they had to face the quality of competition that Pittsburgh did or had to put in the miles that a team like Calgary did.
Every team knows going in you have to be the best team from your division to make the conference finals and the best team in the conference to make the finals.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
The complaints are emanating from Toronto cause they for a change had a half decent season but don't get home ice. I mean its a huge travesty, they finished 4th in the conference
I guess only five teams had a good or better season this year then?
Someone is jealous of the Leafs or Toronto or both. Sad.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
As a person who buys tickets for multiple different sports every year, I like knowing my ticket affords me the opportunity to see every player in the league if I choose to.
The league seems to think it's important. The players seem to think it's important. But you don't. So I say we just listen to your opinion above all else.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
Rocko604
Sports will break your heart.
The conference standings wouldn't have produced as good of a first round this year like the division format has.
Top Sixteen teams in the league make the playoffs, regardless of division/conference/etc. Presidents Cup winner picks who they want to play out of the bottom eight seeds (9-16), their selection can be based on whatever criteria they want (regular season results/matchup, distance, hatred, whatever). Two seed picks and on down until everyone is paired up.
You can produce a selection show like the NCAA does and fans would eat it up.
You can produce a selection show like the NCAA does and fans would eat it up.
KevFu
Registered User
Um, lots of teams have Division Champs banners hanging. No one really CARES that you're a division champ. If you win the division and lose in the first playoff round, it's just something better to put on the banner than "Eastern Conference Quarterfinals" or "Metro Division Semifinals"
I only meant that winning a division with the 4th most points doesn't give you the 2 seed. It gives you the 4 seed because you had the fourth-most points.
KevFu
Registered User
#1 -Buying a ticket to every home game doesn't mean you get to see every player in the league play in person.
The schedule matrix doesn't work around the trade deadline (The Red Wings played SEVEN of their 15 Western Conference road games after the trade deadline. Six fan bases missed Tomas Tatar. NY Rangers fans in five markets had the team come to visit after the Rangers ran up the white flag).
The schedule matrix doesn't pick which goalie plays. The visiting team is really hoping they only have to use one goalie in their only game in that non-conference city.
And of course, the schedule matrix can't control injuries, suspensions or call ups/demotions, and scratches.
There's 23 guys on a team and only 20 dress for a game. You're not seeing everyone. You just THINK you are.
#2 - The players opinion is probably last on the list, behind the owners and the fans.
#3 - I'm really not sure WHY the league wants it, when all the data shows it's costing them tickets and money.
KevFu
Registered User
Exactly Right! Especially that part about teams records. Point totals are a product of the schedule played. In the NCAA, people accept that as fact all the time that some groups of teams are much stronger than other groups (the NCAA is just ridiculously flawed in how they deal with that for post-season, and their system is totally jacked up).
The reason that we don't have a truly fair, 60-game schedule, home and away with everyone, is because that leaves a lot of money on the table.
Sports leagues don't really care about "total fairness." they only care about as "as fair as possible while maximizing revenues."
(And that's why I brought up the H/A with everyone thing. Because that's a major detriment to making the conference seeding as close to fair as possible... and it's not bringing in more money!)
KevFu
Registered User
Let me give you an example of what this whole “The Season Ticket Holders want to see everyone” thing reminds me of.
In 18 years working in college basketball (at multiple schools) we ALWAYS have to re-assess what we are going to do for basketball game programs. There's essentially four options:
#1 - Big, nice, full of content, and full of ads.
#2 - Cheap paper handouts with no ads.
#3 - Somewhere in between 1 and 2. (Nice color front, some quick info and a couple ads)
#4 - No programs, tell everyone to use their phone.
If you do #1, people complain that there’s too many ads, and the content inside isn’t up to the minute.
- You HAVE to have ads to offset the cost of printing a book.
- Printing books takes a few days, so the text is always out of date compared to what you read online before the game.
If you do #2, people complain that the programs are cheap and look terrible.
- They DO look terrible, but they’re cheap and up to the minute… hot off the copier.
If you do #4, everyone complains. Especially old people (and IT).
So the common sense answer is #3. Except, YOU STILL GET ALL THE SAME COMPLAINTS FROM #1 AND FROM #2 (And from #4 from the people too stupid to pick one up).
People think they should be bigger, and nicer, with more information or features.
People think any number of ads greater than zero is too many ads.
They complain that the game programs from Thursday and Saturday are basically the same, except a quick update for a different opponent. (Which is true, because it had to be at the printer at 9 a.m. Friday morning so we could get it by 5 pm Friday, so
I updated it at midnight Thursday and did it as quickly as possible so I could get the hell out of there).
You cannot have “more stuff in it” and “up to the minute.” Because more stuff takes time to write and print.
You cannot have “nice” or "Bigger" and “ad free” because nicer costs money and the ads have to offset that.
I feel like the NHL’s fan feedback with regard to the schedule is:
- We want more rivalry games
- We want to see everyone at home once a year.
- We want to more Saturday games.
- Why are Saturday games so expensive compared to Tuesday games?
- We want to host four playoff rounds per year because we always win the Cup.
The NHL owners read that feedback said
We can’t create more in-season Saturdays.
We definitely aren’t lowering Saturday ticket prices
We can't all win the Cup every year. Building a Cup winning team isn’t easy.
We can't have MORE rivalry games AND more non-conference games at the same time.
We all can’t agree on an alignment that creates more divisions, which would create more rivalry games (Without giving SOMEONE FEWER rivalry games).
What about playing everyone?
And they looked at the data. And it said exactly what I say it says.
And the teams that are really bad at hockey and have bad attendance said “I can’t give them a winning team, so our attendance is going to bad anyway… But if we make the schedule change, I can tell them ‘I HEARD YOU and I’m GIVING YOU something you want, and the Cup winner will come too, just give me time’ and build trust with them.”
And the teams that sell out all the time said “Our arena will be full no matter what, we don't give a damn."
And that meant the teams that are in the 90% to 98% capacity range and aren't bad at hockey and would read the data and say "This is stupid" were out-voted because there's only a handful of those teams.
KevFu,
Concerning your 6-4-1 scheduling idea.....What does that look like for western teams?
In other words, let's group the East into sections:
A- Huge road draws for Western Clubs: I think that MTL, TOR, DET, NYR, PIT, BOS might be the only ones here
B- Middling: TBL, WAS, PHI
C- All the rest: BUF, OTT, NYI, NJD, CMB, CAR, FLO
For fairness' sake, we assume that half from each group come to Colorado every year under your proposal.
That means that, under a 5/4-2 schedule, Colorado gets the other half in comparison, so.....
TOR, DET, BOS, TBL, WAS, BUF, NYI, CAR
Under 6-4-1, Colorado plays all of the Pacific twice instead of once, so...
LAK, ANA, SJS, ARZ, VGK, VAN, EDM, CGY
Now, the one other difference is going to be within the 8-team group. I don't know who COL would have for their 3 rivals, and I don't think it makes much difference within their division, so I think that part is actually a wash.
So, you tell me, since this applies to every Central team. Which of those 2 lists gets better attendance in Colorado? In the other Central Div barns? And, maybe you say that WPG, MIN, CHI, NAS don't matter because they sell out every ticket. So, the ? is just about COL, STL and DAL.
Now, replace the Pac teams for the Central teams and run the same comparison for:
ARZ, and any other Pac team which doesn't totally sell out.
What you keep telling me is that there is enough difference that this particular change should be made. I am cutting down the discussion to the nitty gritty of the particular clubs. Give me the numbers. For Carolina, it was 150 seats per game. That's not enough to warrant a change, because, by your own admission, the night of the week makes more difference than that in Carolina.
2nd section:
Concerning 'fairness'.....
Many here say the scheduling differences make playoff qualification 'unfair'. I disagree. For 3 years, I have run an informal Bradley-Terry analysis of the standings. That's a mathematical model which gives perfect empirical results in comparing teams with differing schedules. What I have found every year is that the actual standings end up within a point or two of the B-T rankings. It doesn't seem statistically correct to say that one Shootout goal somehow makes the schedules 'unfair.'
Concerning your 6-4-1 scheduling idea.....What does that look like for western teams?
In other words, let's group the East into sections:
A- Huge road draws for Western Clubs: I think that MTL, TOR, DET, NYR, PIT, BOS might be the only ones here
B- Middling: TBL, WAS, PHI
C- All the rest: BUF, OTT, NYI, NJD, CMB, CAR, FLO
For fairness' sake, we assume that half from each group come to Colorado every year under your proposal.
That means that, under a 5/4-2 schedule, Colorado gets the other half in comparison, so.....
TOR, DET, BOS, TBL, WAS, BUF, NYI, CAR
Under 6-4-1, Colorado plays all of the Pacific twice instead of once, so...
LAK, ANA, SJS, ARZ, VGK, VAN, EDM, CGY
Now, the one other difference is going to be within the 8-team group. I don't know who COL would have for their 3 rivals, and I don't think it makes much difference within their division, so I think that part is actually a wash.
So, you tell me, since this applies to every Central team. Which of those 2 lists gets better attendance in Colorado? In the other Central Div barns? And, maybe you say that WPG, MIN, CHI, NAS don't matter because they sell out every ticket. So, the ? is just about COL, STL and DAL.
Now, replace the Pac teams for the Central teams and run the same comparison for:
ARZ, and any other Pac team which doesn't totally sell out.
What you keep telling me is that there is enough difference that this particular change should be made. I am cutting down the discussion to the nitty gritty of the particular clubs. Give me the numbers. For Carolina, it was 150 seats per game. That's not enough to warrant a change, because, by your own admission, the night of the week makes more difference than that in Carolina.
2nd section:
Concerning 'fairness'.....
Many here say the scheduling differences make playoff qualification 'unfair'. I disagree. For 3 years, I have run an informal Bradley-Terry analysis of the standings. That's a mathematical model which gives perfect empirical results in comparing teams with differing schedules. What I have found every year is that the actual standings end up within a point or two of the B-T rankings. It doesn't seem statistically correct to say that one Shootout goal somehow makes the schedules 'unfair.'
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
Its better and easier to promote that you will see Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin and every other star in the league. Don't need a program for that.
The league and players prefer that. That's all that matters.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
Outside of Tatar's family, nobody has ever bought a seasons ticket to see Tatar.
The guys who matter will be there every game. Injuries are a fluke occurrence. It would be absurd to create a matrix that prevents stars from coming into certain buildings because of a "well, they might get injured, so why try?" Mentality.
KevFu
Registered User
Yet, they don't try to get everyone to make all their "only trip of the year" roadies before the trade deadline.
Like I said, this is one of those things where they're taking fan feedback (which is full of contradictions), and saying "We can basically get this one accomplished, even though it doesn't REALLY make business sense, we can say we’re listening to the fans.”
It’s something that people think makes sense, because of how people’s brains work. But the opposite is true — kind of like everyone freaking out about pro sports in Las Vegas, and sports gambling scandals.
Your brain does this: “Vegas = Gambling. Sports + Gambling = Scandal. Therefore, Sports in Las Vegas = Gambling Scandal, aka sports fixing.”
But the reality is that Las Vegas has legal, regulated sports gambling with oversight. And it’s the oversight of sportsbooks that notice odd betting behavior and alert the authorities when there’s point shaving scandals. Vegas casinos are the first line of defense against sports books.
And that’s exactly what I mean. It’s “better and easier” to promote that you will see “Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin” and “every other star.” People might circle the date on the calendar for Ovechkin, or Crosby. Or McDavid. But they don’t circle the date for all 31 teams making their only trip to the conference each year. It’s not even half. It’s a third. And that’s a money loser.
BTW, who’s selling season tickets promoting McDavid in the Eastern Conference? Or “Come to ONE of 41 home games when Ovechkin visits” in the West? That kind of promise/marketing isn’t fooling anyone.
You’re the type of person who’d love to see all 30 other teams visit your local team, because you’re interested in seeing the best talent, and you can name a guy you wanna see in person on every team in the league? THEY’VE GOT YOU. You’re not going to burn your season tickets because you only have WAS, PHI, NYI, and NJD visiting this season, and PIT, NYR, CAR, CBJ come next year.
The players like it? I’d like to see data on that. I’m guessing there’s TONS of quotes from players who say they like it… and I bet you their hometowns are in the other conference.
Ask the Europeans on the Kings if they’d rather the league send them to Buffalo once a year, or book an extra game in Anaheim. I’m guessing they choose the closer trip.
Regardless of the fact that most people refuse to see how stupid this is as a business decisions, we should probably get back on topic.
In the seven other active threads about expansion (Seattle! Toronto! Quebec! Houston! Wherever!) people are saying “The league is too big. Anything over 32 is too many teams to be a cohesive league.”
So run it like two leagues, who’s champions meet, and have occasional and sporadic interleague play. Baseball gave us the model 100 years ago and it worked just fine. And the attendance data from BASEBALL shows exactly what I’m talking about… six years ago, Houston lost 107 games in the National League and finished DMFL. Texas was third in their division. They played TWO series, in interleague play and the thing sold out. Everyone in each city circled the dates, bought tickets, etc.
They moved Houston into the AL West, so they’re division rivals with Texas. They have six series per year now. BOTH TEAMS WERE GOOD two years ago, and the attendance was down 12,000 fans per game from the interleague games.
If you want to maximize attendance and revenues, the smartest thing the NHL could do would be to split the league in half; make a West, Central, East, Other East division in each conference… and then play almost all your games against 5 of the 8 divisions, and almost ignore the other 3 divisions.
You’ll create some new rivalries because you’ll be in a division fighting “new” teams for seeding — like when the Mets and Braves became rivals when baseball moved Atlanta to the East in 1994. And you’ll have sellouts for the rivalry interleague games (like the Mets-Yankees series).
Instead, the NHL puts local rivals in the same division… and then plays 54 of 82 games against non-division teams.
SINCE WHEN does the NHL Master schedule play into the so-called fascination with who plays who and when such as the TDL you're losing the fanbases and the forum with your current narrative, there, Kev.....
coolboarder
Registered User
Why can't we just let the Eastern conference go with 1-8 Conference playoff system while the Western Conference teams could go strictly divisional 1-4 for each with different schedule matrix. For Eastern Conference, they can keep their schedule matrix and change their playoff to 1-8 while Western Conference would go different schedule matrix. The playoff would be divisional for Western Conference as their travel is vast far and wide than the Eastern Conference. With the new schedule matrix, the Western Conference teams would play majority of their games within their own time zones and ease up the travelling between Central and Pacific teams by reducing 3 games to just 2 games. It does not have to be fair playoff system but spice things up a little bit. No more Western Conference and it be split into two Conference while Eastern Conference keeps their system.
Central Conference schedule matrix:
Divisional games: 6 games each vs 4 other divisional opponents = 24 games and 5 divisional games against 2 divisional opponents = 10 games
Total Divisional games: 34 games
Non-divisional games: 2 games each vs 24 opponents for 48 games
Total games: 82
Pacific Conference schedule matrix
Divisional games: 5 games each vs 6 other divisional opponents = 30 games and 6 games against one divisional opponent.
Total Divisional games: 36 games
Non-divisional games: 2 games each vs 23 opponents for 46 games
Total games: 82
Playoff would be 1 v 4 for Pacific and Central conference while Eastern Conference would go with 1-8 match-ups.
This is what NHL should be considering for players' health and well being prolong their career playing in Western Conference with minimum travelling as possible. Top 2 teams alive from Eastern Conference be drawn with Pacific and Central winners for a random series and home ice advantage to be drawn as well for a best of 7 series with a 2-3-2 format. If both eastern conference teams are drawn in a match-up in either semi-final or a Cup final series, the highest points getter would be home-ice with a 2-2-1-1-1 format. If EC teams meet in the semi-final and whosever wins would meet and home ice should be determined by the draw with a 2-3-2 format in the Cup Final.
The reason why I use draw system because all 3 conference would have different schedule matrix and difficult to determine which team is deserving of a home-ice advantage. 2-3-2 does not lean to any advantage to one team or another.
I prefer this for Pacific Conference to split into a divisions, North and South. Just until Seattle official becomes an expansion team.
North
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
San Jose (Seattle)
South:
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Arizona (San Jose)
Schedule Matrix:
Divisional games: 8 games vs 3 opponents: 24 games
Conference games: 3 games vs 4 opponents: 12 games
Non-conference games: 2 games vs 23 opponents: 46 games
It will save North and South from travelling another 1,200 miles - 1,500 for each trip north and south. The goal is to have teams staying in one area as much as possible that Eastern Conference teams enjoy, getting into their own bed after a short trip road game.
Playoff would be 1 v 2 divisional series then North and South division winner meet for the Pacific Championship. Home ice would alternate, North having a home ice advantage on an even year while South would have the home ice advantage on odd year.
Central Conference schedule matrix:
Divisional games: 6 games each vs 4 other divisional opponents = 24 games and 5 divisional games against 2 divisional opponents = 10 games
Total Divisional games: 34 games
Non-divisional games: 2 games each vs 24 opponents for 48 games
Total games: 82
Pacific Conference schedule matrix
Divisional games: 5 games each vs 6 other divisional opponents = 30 games and 6 games against one divisional opponent.
Total Divisional games: 36 games
Non-divisional games: 2 games each vs 23 opponents for 46 games
Total games: 82
Playoff would be 1 v 4 for Pacific and Central conference while Eastern Conference would go with 1-8 match-ups.
This is what NHL should be considering for players' health and well being prolong their career playing in Western Conference with minimum travelling as possible. Top 2 teams alive from Eastern Conference be drawn with Pacific and Central winners for a random series and home ice advantage to be drawn as well for a best of 7 series with a 2-3-2 format. If both eastern conference teams are drawn in a match-up in either semi-final or a Cup final series, the highest points getter would be home-ice with a 2-2-1-1-1 format. If EC teams meet in the semi-final and whosever wins would meet and home ice should be determined by the draw with a 2-3-2 format in the Cup Final.
The reason why I use draw system because all 3 conference would have different schedule matrix and difficult to determine which team is deserving of a home-ice advantage. 2-3-2 does not lean to any advantage to one team or another.
I prefer this for Pacific Conference to split into a divisions, North and South. Just until Seattle official becomes an expansion team.
North
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
San Jose (Seattle)
South:
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Arizona (San Jose)
Schedule Matrix:
Divisional games: 8 games vs 3 opponents: 24 games
Conference games: 3 games vs 4 opponents: 12 games
Non-conference games: 2 games vs 23 opponents: 46 games
It will save North and South from travelling another 1,200 miles - 1,500 for each trip north and south. The goal is to have teams staying in one area as much as possible that Eastern Conference teams enjoy, getting into their own bed after a short trip road game.
Playoff would be 1 v 2 divisional series then North and South division winner meet for the Pacific Championship. Home ice would alternate, North having a home ice advantage on an even year while South would have the home ice advantage on odd year.
Cool boarder....
I think the best, which would make most money, really, is something like your suggestion.
East: 32 games vs West. 4 games against your own division. 3 games against 6 from the other division. 2 games against the rest. Or, 3 against the entire conference plus 5 games in your division. Playoffs: 1-8.
West: Too many time zones. 2 against everyone and the rest in your division. Playoffs entirely divisional.
PA like it because less travel. Odds of playoffs are half the teams make it in both conferences.
Less travel for the players. Start times closer to overall to maximize TV.
BEST. But, won't happen because it looks Mickey Mouse.
I think the best, which would make most money, really, is something like your suggestion.
East: 32 games vs West. 4 games against your own division. 3 games against 6 from the other division. 2 games against the rest. Or, 3 against the entire conference plus 5 games in your division. Playoffs: 1-8.
West: Too many time zones. 2 against everyone and the rest in your division. Playoffs entirely divisional.
PA like it because less travel. Odds of playoffs are half the teams make it in both conferences.
Less travel for the players. Start times closer to overall to maximize TV.
BEST. But, won't happen because it looks Mickey Mouse.
Icedog2735
Registered User
That definitely isn't a selling angle, or big selling point, to a full season ticket package, which is what you are talking about. However, it definitely IS a marketing angle for partial season ticket plans (8-12 game plans) for teams. As a Flyers fan, an 8-game plan with a few division and conference games with an Edmonton (McDavid) game is more likely to persuade me to buy it than one with an Arizona game per se. I know that's not your main point, but I don't think it can be 100% discounted.
cbcwpg
Registered User
Vegas #5 vs SJ #11
Tampa #3 vs Bos #4 or Tor #7
Pitts #10 vs Wash #6 or CLB #14
Nash #1 vs Win #2
2nd round of the playoffs and the #1 ( Nashville ) and #2 ( Winnipeg ) teams in the overall standings have to meet and one will be eliminated. That's what's wrong with the current system.
Tampa #3 vs Bos #4 or Tor #7
Pitts #10 vs Wash #6 or CLB #14
Nash #1 vs Win #2
2nd round of the playoffs and the #1 ( Nashville ) and #2 ( Winnipeg ) teams in the overall standings have to meet and one will be eliminated. That's what's wrong with the current system.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Tampa and Boston in Rd 2 isnt any better. Those 2 matchups should be the conference finals.
Nash 117
Jets 114
TB 113
Bos 112
cbcwpg....
How do you 'fix' the problem? The only way is to extend the West to 1-8. But, then, you run into all the things where the western teams might ALL might to travel across multiple time zones for 2 rounds, and the PA doesn't want that, and the league really doesn't either, for start times. And, even then, is this any better?
Nash #1 v San Jose #11
Vegas #5 (home ice) v Winnipeg #2 (where Vegas has home ice because of being division champ)
Or, do you remove the division champion privilege of being the #2 seed?
And, while you are at that, Minnesota would be more than happy to play the #5 seed (Anaheim) with home-ice, rather than playing at Winnipeg.
The whole thing just needs balance. There are competing ideas, and there is no way to accommodate them all. Seeding fairness is going to somehow be directly at odds with (player convenience) and (TV preferences). I'm going to guess that TV preferences will have a strong influence, even if the TV guys are not actually part of the discussion. In other words, the NHL knows what NBC wants.
In your opinion.
I just don't see a problem with it.
In fact, a marquee matchup of regular season heavyweights, like NSHvWIN, ups the interest and raises the stakes in the 2nd round. The stakes will be high enough already in the Conference and Cup finals. And if those two teams remain good for a number of years, then repeated playoff matchups in this system will help create a legitimate rivalry. That sounds more fun to me than making sure we postpone their matchup for one round, or miss out on the chance of them meeting at all because of attrition in the playoffs.
killer1980
Registered User
It all means the best playoff series will probably be in the early rounds and the final could end up like the '67 Super Bowl or '68 SC.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Brian Leetch on Rich Eisen Show talking about 30 year NYR Stanley Cup Anniversary- Latest: SeanAveryTheGreatOne
-
-
-
OT: HFPens Community Lounge: Or Ogrezilla and LOGiK's Nerd Thread ;)
- Latest: Honour Over Glory
Upcoming events
-
Preliminary Final Brisbane Lions vs Geelong Cats - MCG, MelbourneWagers: 5Staked: $1,759.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-