The President's Trophy deserves way more respect.

[Dr Jan Itor]

The world doesn't revolve around north American sports.

For many sports , the champion is the team with the most points at the end of the season. As it should be.

What the hell's the point of the regular season then ? Glorified pre season ? It's insanity.

Separate the playoff and non-playoff teams and fund the league.

 

[Bank Shot]

If you don’t have my opinion then you’re dumb. Nice.

If it’s really an OUTSTANDING achievement then it would be a bigger deal to more hockey fans. It’s not. It’s an achievement for sure but it’s small potatoes in a league where we care about the Stanley Cup.

There isn’t a “curse” or anything with winning it but if it were really a huge deal I think we’d see more PT winners also win the Cup. They don’t. There’s been what, TWO PT winners who have won the Cup since the lockout? 2013 Hawks and 2008 Wings? It’s just not a signifier of much when the playoffs are such clearly, CLEARLY, a better level of competition.

Well if you are operating on the principle of, "If you aren't first, you're last" then I guess nothing is significant except winning the Cup.

You can live in your black and white world and I'll live in the other one.

 

[Panteras]

I’m just glad I’ve been able to see my team win a presidents trophy and a SC.

 

[wetcoast]

The world doesn't revolve around north American sports.

For many sports , the champion is the team with the most points at the end of the season. As it should be.

What the hell's the point of the regular season then ? Glorified pre season ? It's insanity.

Well for the owners and players it's about money.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

At the same time, they would have been negated just as much if they had lost in Finals Game 7 OT. Like the 16-0 Patriots losing the Super Bowl on a last minute drive. As a historically good team they only had two options: GOAT or choke. No in between.

Most years, it isn’t like that. The regular season champion is a good team but not 135 points good or 16-0 good.

Yup, see GS Warriors.

 

[Miri]

If you don’t have my opinion then you’re dumb. Nice.

If it’s really an OUTSTANDING achievement then it would be a bigger deal to more hockey fans. It’s not. It’s an achievement for sure but it’s small potatoes in a league where we care about the Stanley Cup.

There isn’t a “curse” or anything with winning it but if it were really a huge deal I think we’d see more PT winners also win the Cup. They don’t. There’s been what, TWO PT winners who have won the Cup since the lockout? 2013 Hawks and 2008 Wings? It’s just not a signifier of much when the playoffs are such clearly, CLEARLY, a better level of competition.

Whats dumb, i guess, is saying that its not outstanding achievement just because its not “big enough deal to hockey fans.” As if the fact, that you dont care about it, takes away something from the achievment of a team to be the most consistent winners over the course of six months and 82 games.

The point of the discussion anyway, is not whether fans care about it or not, its whether the consistency over longer period of time is actually not better measure of teams quality than winning the play-offs, even if the prize, you get for winning the play-offs, is the ultimate one (cause Merica, eh…). And therefore why, perhaps, it should deserve more recognition, than its getting, as seen in this very thread.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

They could do a "Supercup" right before the beginning of regular season or as the first game of the season, between the SC champs and the President's Trophy champ.

I like.

Bring back the O'Brien Trophy to present to the winner.

 

[x Tame Impala]

The point of the discussion anyway, is not whether fans care about it or not, its whether the consistency over longer period of time is actually not better measure of teams quality than winning the play-offs, even if the prize, you get for winning the play-offs, is the ultimate one (cause Merica, eh…). And therefore why, perhaps, it should deserve more recognition, than its getting, as seen in this very thread.

If your argument is that 82 games is a more precise measurement of a team's effectiveness I would disagree. You may think the more games eliminates variance but there's issues with that, subjectively of course...

1) There's a sporadic level of competition over the regular season. Teams don't play the same amount of games against each other. If it were a 64 game season perhaps you'd have a point but there are 18 games for each team in the regular season that are different from one team to the next.

2) Players get called up more frequently, players get injured more frequently, teams make trades, coaches get fired, etc...Rosters, and therefore the level of competition the team is bringing, is much more dynamic in the regular season than in the playoffs. Yes there are injuries in the playoffs but the rosters are much more set in stone.

3) 10-20 games of the season are decided in 3v3 OT or Shootouts. I love this format personally because the Regular Season is long and games have to end relatively quickly so players aren't exhausted or overly-injured. However this is obviously not how games end in the playoffs. Continuous OT is clearly the most accurate reflection of how a tied hockey game should play out until we find a winner.

4) Because of this OT format and the loser point, teams can and IMO do sometimes play "not to lose" as opposed to play to win. Ensuring at least one point out of two makes sense over the course of a long season.

5) Teams don't play to win the President's Trophy. They play to make the playoffs, be as healthy as possible before they start, and be ready to go come playoff time. Frequently teams will rest players towards the end of the season if they're comfortably in a playoff spot and "have nothing left to play for" before the playoffs start.

All of these dampen the significance of the President's Trophy. It's not that it doesn't matter, just that the league isn't structured around it's importance. The playoffs are the true test. Fans can writhe their hands about small sample sizes and luck being a factor but I think that's nonsense. When the playoffs start the chips are down. How effective are you as a player and how effective are you as a team to win games when it's most needed? Can you do that over 2 months and 4 rounds of the most intense hockey in the world? If so then you get to be crowned as a Stanley Cup Champion.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[SmoggyTwinkles]

It's ridiculous that so many NHL fans deride the President's Trophy and dismiss it as meaningless. Teams and players should take pride in being more successful than 31 other teams over an 82-game sample size. It's a testament to the group's talent, consistency, effort, and cohesion. Fans should be grateful and thrilled to watch their team win night-in and night-out for seven months.

I've long held this opinion, but--as a Panthers fan--the time is right to declare it.
The 2021-22 President's Trophy run was by far the most entertaining season of hockey I've ever watched. It was disappointing when they were swept in the second round, but that couldn't negate how much fun the lead-up was. The 2022-23 season couldn't even keep me engaged until the playoffs. As the 2023-24 season concluded, I found myself really, really hoping they could win enough games to catch the President's Trophy again. Obviously the playoffs were exhilarating, but they were equally stressful since the small sample size of each series is so luck dependent. You're more focused on your team not losing as opposed to actually winning.

When we look at team (and to a lesser extent player) success, the President's Trophy should count a tier below the Cup.
For example, in the Salary Cap Era, the Kings have won 2 cups (one entirely on the back of Jonathan Quick), 10 playoff series, and made the playoffs 9 times. Can anybody seriously claim that they've been more successful than the Capitals and Bruins? Does anybody really believe that they're more comparable to the Lightning and Blackhawks than the Blues and Red Wings?

The reason it gets so little respect is because the players themselves won't touch it because it's considered a curse, because the job is not done yet.

The players don't want the presidents trophy, they want the cup.

The fans don't want the presidents tropy, they want the cup.

Anything less is a failure. That's why the Stanley Cup means so much, it's all that really matters.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

How many coaches are strategizing to win the President's trophy?

With the obvious exceptions of resting goalies and sometimes resting players late in seasons coaches strategize to win every game. Maybe not to the same extent as the playoffs but coaches want to win the Presidents' Trophy not because it's the Presidents' Trophy but because you won as many games as possible. Why do people pretend like coaches or players don't care about winning games in the regular season? As someone pointed out the cup winner is almost always a top team in the regular season.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The reason it gets so little respect is because the players themselves won't touch it because it's considered a curse, because the job is not done yet.

The players don't want the presidents trophy, they want the cup.

The fans don't want the presidents tropy, they want the cup.

Anything less is a failure. That's why the Stanley Cup means so much, it's all that really matters.

Speak for yourself. I prefer the cup but I damn well want my team to win the presidents' trophy on top of it. Neither team won the cup but the 2014 team made it to the Final and I still hold the 2015 team in higher regard because the 2014 team was a 96 point team. The team was much better than that record but it still felt fluky. This is why as a New York Giants fans as much as I cherish the 2007 and 2011 Super Bowls I realize they were kind of fluky and wish we dominated those seasons. The great teams win the cup AND dominate in the regular season.

 

[frontsfan67]

You ask any player if they’d rather go undefeated in the regular season or hoist the Stanley cup at the end of the season and all of them are telling you they’d rather hoist the cup.

Presidents trophy means absolutely nothing especially when most of the time that team doesn’t even make it to the finals let alone win it all.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

I don't think the PT should have any extra ceremonies or anything like that, but I do agree the fans should appreciate it a little bit more.

I guess the teams own fans do, or at least I hope. It takes a good team and a heck of an effort to finish first.

 

[MadLuke]

Whats dumb, i guess, is saying that its not outstanding achievement just because its not “big enough deal to hockey fans.”

That make some sens to me.

There is no actually achievement occurring here, people are putting pucks in nets in a made up competition.

It is an achievement to do what people put a big deal in only because consider it is a big deal (not because there anything actually going on here), because that what get valued and that what team try to do because it is valued.

I don't think the PT should have any extra ceremonies or anything like that, but I do agree the fans should appreciate it a little bit more.

I guess the teams own fans do, or at least I hope. It takes a good team and a heck of an effort to finish first.

If an eastern team has 110 pts and the western has 109 pts in a year when there is a significant difference in caliber between the conference, how much should the fans appreciate that 1 pts difference ? How much of a let-down a shoutout going the other way should be ?

 

[SmoggyTwinkles]

Speak for yourself. I prefer the cup but I damn well want my team to win the presidents' trophy on top of it. Neither team won the cup but the 2014 team made it to the Final and I still hold the 2015 team in higher regard because the 2014 team was a 96 point team. The team was much better than that record but it still felt fluky. This is why as a New York Giants fans as much as I cherish the 2007 and 2011 Super Bowls I realize they were kind of fluky and wish we dominated those seasons. The great teams win the cup AND dominate in the regular season.

You're probably better off with having those feelings.

I LOVED seeing Matthews score 69 goals and get the all time Leafs record. That was really quite something to witness.

But I want to see that Stanley Cup celebration just once in my lifetime...........

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You're probably better off with having those feelings.

I LOVED seeing Matthews score 69 goals and get the all time Leafs record. That was really quite something to witness.

But I want to see that Stanley Cup celebration just once in my lifetime...........

Me too and I rather win the cup but I can't wrap my head around not wanting to win the Presidents' Trophy on top of that unless you're simpleton that thinks there's a curse.

 

[frontsfan67]

Me too and I rather win the cup but I can't wrap my head around not wanting to win the Presidents' Trophy on top of that unless you're simpleton that thinks there's a curse.

Every team wants to win the presidents trophy don’t get it twisted. But in a comparison with the real trophy at the end of the year- the Stanley cup. No player wants a stupid regular season award more than winning it all with your brothers after a long gruelling season.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Every team wants to win the presidents trophy don’t get it twisted. But in a comparison with the real trophy at the end of the year- the Stanley cup. No player wants a stupid regular season award more than winning it all with your brothers after a long gruelling season.

But I don't think any fan wants the PT over the cup. The point is that the PT is not completely meaningless.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Only NHL teams have won the President's Trophy. Non-NHL teams have won the Stanley Cup.

 

[LuLover96]

I saw a take on here a while back that I agree with wholeheartedly: The Presidents Trophy is awarded to the best team in the NHL, but the Stanley Cup is awarded to the last team standing.

To win the first one, all you need to be is really good and relatively lucky with injuries. Once you're safely in a playoff spot there's really no pressure to win the next game, or the game after that. You get paid handsomely to play a childhood game and while you always try to win, it doesn't matter much.

The second one requires you to put your heart, soul, blood, sweat and tears into every shift. You play broken and burnt out for a chance to play in the next game or round, and all this is without getting paid a salary. Suddenly, hockey isn't a job anymore - it's a war showcasing every choice you have ever made to get to this spot. It's the most grueling tournament in sports and nothing comes close. That's why it's so much harder to win than a lowly award for the "best team," and most often the "best" team finds a way to lose eventually.

 

[x Tame Impala]

With the obvious exceptions of resting goalies and sometimes resting players late in seasons coaches strategize to win every game. Maybe not to the same extent as the playoffs but coaches want to win the Presidents' Trophy not because it's the Presidents' Trophy but because you won as many games as possible. Why do people pretend like coaches or players don't care about winning games in the regular season? As someone pointed out the cup winner is almost always a top team in the regular season.

Place finishes of Cup winners post-lockout...

Panthers: 5th
Vegas: 5th
Avs: 2nd
Tampa: 8th
Tampa: 4th
St. Louis: 12th
Washington: 6th
Pittsburgh: 2nd
Pittsburgh: 4th
Chicago: 7th
Los Angeles: 10th
Chicago: 1st
Los Angeles: 13th
Boston: 7th
Chicago: 3rd
Pittsburgh: 8th
Detroit: 1st
Anaheim: 4th
Carolina: 4th

Again, there isn't a PT curse or anything like that. It's just very clear that some teams don't always go full throttle in the regular season because they know the President's Trophy isn't the prize. It's more like a happenstance. I can't speak for all teams but I know for certain the Hawks were not trying to win a President's Trophy every single year. They knew the real season starts in April and they had to save their bodies for that. I'm certain Tampa did that as well.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

It might be just copium but there's a ton of random variance in a seven game series between two good teams that can swing a result. But over an 82 game sample size you have a good picture of he quality of the team.

European soccer leagues determine champions by season standings and don't have playoffs.

And the world cup, which more people care about, determines the winner on a single game elimination basis once you get past the group stage.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

While the jinx myth about winning it is just that, I'll take winning a couple rounds in the playoffs over the Presidents Trophy. As a Cats fan, the cup win was the high point, but being the 8th seed that made it to the finals was better than winning a Presidents Trophy.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

I saw a take on here a while back that I agree with wholeheartedly: The Presidents Trophy is awarded to the best team in the NHL, but the Stanley Cup is awarded to the last team standing.

To win the first one, all you need to be is really good and relatively lucky with injuries. Once you're safely in a playoff spot there's really no pressure to win the next game, or the game after that. You get paid handsomely to play a childhood game and while you always try to win, it doesn't matter much.

The second one requires you to put your heart, soul, blood, sweat and tears into every shift. You play broken and burnt out for a chance to play in the next game or round, and all this is without getting paid a salary. Suddenly, hockey isn't a job anymore - it's a war showcasing every choice you have ever made to get to this spot. It's the most grueling tournament in sports and nothing comes close. That's why it's so much harder to win than a lowly award for the "best team," and most often the "best" team finds a way to lose eventually.

The sentiment I understand but the logic breaks down a bit under scrutiny.

Neither accomplishment is 'harder' than the other. Each team has exactly the same set of conditions to play under. It's possible to determine if one format is more skill-testing than the other, also of course if one format has less variance than the other.

It's equally likely that each format could test for different skills, and likely does since at a minimum rules enforcement changes.