Should the NHL adopt 2-3-2 for Playoff series or Finals Only

[benfranklin]

Discuss

Click to read more...

 

[dirtydanglez]

what's the reasoning for the change?

 

[Killer Orcas]

Would save money and travel wear and tear on players. However lower seaded team would have a decent advantage if they split the first two games thus negating having a higher seed.

 

[SirKillalot]

No.

 

[McShogun99]

Just go crazy. 3-3-1 or even crazier, 4-3.
No owner would agree to anything other then the current format since it give both teams at least 2 home games and the revenue that comes with it.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Just go crazy. 3-3-1 or even crazier, 4-3.
No owner would agree to anything other then the current format since it give both teams at least 2 home games and the revenue that comes with it.

I wouldn't mind trying 331. 22111 to me is perfect.

 

[Juicy Pop]

Historically, would more series have ended with the winner on home ice?

That would be the only benefit for me.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

No.

The team with the better record should have the home advantage. 2-3-2 essentially gives it to the other team.

 

[Stephen]

Any appetite for a 3-2-2?

 

[kvladimir]

Just go crazy. 3-3-1 or even crazier, 4-3.
No owner would agree to anything other then the current format since it give both teams at least 2 home games and the revenue that comes with it.

2-3-2 still gives both teams 2 home games minimum. It only changes where games 5 and 6 are to save an entire trip between the two cities.

I have been outspoken about this for many years: I think it's absurd not to adopt this format, especially in the NHL, when games are so frequent (usually 2-3 days apart), and playoff series with huge travel and time zone differences are so common (though that is another issue...)

The supporters of 2-2-1-1-1 format are generally thinking about the momentary point in the series where the lower-seeded team gets an additional game at home over their opponents (game 5) and like the poster above said, worried that it's too much of an advantage if the lower seed splits the first 2 games and ends up able to win the series by winning the three games at home in a row.

However, I have a question for every higher seed that has ever and will ever exist:

You're really worried that the format would cause you to lose a series in 5 games?

Because if you're not, then there's no reason to complain. If the series reaches 6 games, all of them are now in your building, which is a major advantage! What kind of loser mentality is this to not accept a momentary favour to the lower seed in home games when the benefit is significantly less travel??? The only argument I sort of get is "what if we beat them in 5, that's less home revenue for us!", but that's still nonsensical when you consider the other benefits, and winning in 5 is a very specific scenario.

At the very least, this should be standard for any series between teams more than one time zone apart (Pacific-Central, Pacific-Eastern, Mountain-Eastern), to minimize the disruption to players' routines that moving between time zones causes.

No.

The team with the better record should have the home advantage. 2-3-2 essentially gives it to the other team.

Because home ice advantage definitively decides who wins, right? Your team is 20 points ahead in the standings, but oh no, we have to win 1/3 games on the road??? The horror!

 

[Golden_Jet]

No,
but you should give an opinion OP on what you think, as mods don't seem to like threads opening up, with 1 word discuss, and can’t blame them really.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Because home ice advantage definitively decides who wins, right? Your team is 20 points ahead in the standings, but oh no, we have to win 1/3 games on the road??? The horror!

No, but you needed to make a strawman for your response, so maybe there isn't that many solid of a reasons to go 2-3-2?

You're also ignoring the monetary implications. If I'm the owner of the team with the better record, I want them back on home ice as soon as possible.

 

[Hospy]

Playoffs should be a war of endurance.

It should be 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 and players have to travel by bus.

 

[Barrie22]

2-3-2 still gives both teams 2 home games minimum. It only changes where games 5 and 6 are to save an entire trip between the two cities.

I have been outspoken about this for many years: I think it's absurd not to adopt this format, especially in the NHL, when games are so frequent (usually 2-3 days apart), and playoff series with huge travel and time zone differences are so common (though that is another issue...)

The supporters of 2-2-1-1-1 format are generally thinking about the momentary point in the series where the lower-seeded team gets an additional game at home over their opponents (game 5) and like the poster above said, worried that it's too much of an advantage if the lower seed splits the first 2 games and ends up able to win the series by winning the three games at home in a row.

However, I have a question for every higher seed that has ever and will ever exist:

You're really worried that the format would cause you to lose a series in 5 games?

Because if you're not, then there's no reason to complain. If the series reaches 6 games, all of them are now in your building, which is a major advantage! What kind of loser mentality is this to not accept a momentary favour to the lower seed in home games when the benefit is significantly less travel??? The only argument I sort of get is "what if we beat them in 5, that's less home revenue for us!", but that's still nonsensical when you consider the other benefits, and winning in 5 is a very specific scenario.

At the very least, this should be standard for any series between teams more than one time zone apart (Pacific-Central, Pacific-Eastern, Mountain-Eastern), to minimize the disruption to players' routines that moving between time zones causes.


Because home ice advantage definitively decides who wins, right? Your team is 20 points ahead in the standings, but oh no, we have to win 1/3 games on the road??? The horror!

As something like 40% of series ends in 5 games, then it is more likely the bottom seed sees a better showing of revenue in the playoffs then a home team. No owner is going to go for a playoff plan where they lose out on money unless the series goes the distance.

 

[El Travo]

Just go 7-0. If you can't secure a higher seed, you don't get to play in front of your fans.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

No. I don't care about the owners saving money, and travel wear and tear is wildly overrated.

 

[Breakers]

My opinion yes they should

Ratings showed it lost momentum with the days off which was too many.
Bettman still hasn’t grasped this concept

Florida to Edmonton is a heck of a flight

 

[Kingfan1967]

2012 Playoffs if 2-3-2
1st round
LA vs Vancouver (home ice Van )
LA wins in 5 ( Vancouver loses revenue on the 5th game , LA gains revenue)

2nd round
LA vs St Louis (home ice)
LA wins 4-0 so no change

3rd Round
LA vs Anaheim (home ice)
LA in 5 so Anaheim loses revenue and LA gains

Final
LA vs NJ Devils
LA wins in 6 - no change, but LA Wins on the road instead of at home (LA fans lose, the NJ fans lose watching the road team win).

Thats 2 extra games at home for the 8th seed, that seems a little unfair.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

what's the reasoning for the change?

No,
but you should give an opinion OP on what you think, as mods don't seem to like threads opening up, with 1 word discuss, and can’t blame them really.

The World Series is going on right now and MLB uses 2-3-2 for the ChampionshipSeries and WorldSeries. Imagine that's why the thread was made.

But there really isn't a reason for hockey do adpot it. Baseball does it largley to compact their schedule (they have best of 3 and best of 5 in first two rounds instead of 7, as well) and fit the postseason in while weather is still manageable.

Just go 7-0. If you can't secure a higher seed, you don't get to play in front of your fans.

This but unironically, honestly

 

[BB79]

Discuss

No. Playoffs are the best. If you need to shorten anything, take 10 games off the regular season. End of discussion

Side note- MLB should shorten the regular season by a month and change to all 7 game series. 162 mostly boring regular season games only to shorten the best part of the season? Dumb move. Was there any question if the A's or White Sox were going to be in the playoffs? End the season around September 10th and have a proper playoff season

 

[crowi]

I'd rather see them adopt a ~70 game regular season over this.

 

[Lunatik]

I don't care what they do... 2-2-1-1-1, or 2-3-2
just no more Finals (or any series) with 12 f***ing days off in a 7 game series. That is a f***ing joke.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The World Series is going on right now and MLB uses 2-3-2 for the ChampionshipSeries and WorldSeries. Imagine that's why the thread was made.

But there really isn't a reason for hockey do adpot it. Baseball does it largley to compact their schedule (they have best of 3 and best of 5 in first two rounds instead of 7, as well) and fit the postseason in while weather is still manageable.



This but unironically, honestly

also baseball plays every day when in a city,

 

[Breakers]

I don't care what they do... 2-2-1-1-1, or 2-3-2
just no more Finals (or any series) with 12 f***ing days off in a 7 game series. That is a f***ing joke.

Exactly
its the days off that is killing it, it goes way too far into the summer months

sportsnet, TSN both had analysts saying the interest is fading big time.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

Playoffs should be a war of endurance.

It should be 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 and players have to travel by bus.

Better yet make it dog sled like the 1905 Dawson City Nuggets

Dawson City Nuggets - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org