Why did #1 play #3 and #2 play #4 in the O6?

[daver]

What was the reasoning and would teams really be that motivated to finish #1 if it meant a harder first round matchup?

The league obviously gave thought to what the format should be and it seems counter intuituive that they would reward #2 with the easier matchup.

Was finishing #1 in the league seen as a lot bigger accomplishment as it now?

 

[Fenway]

What was the reasoning and would teams really be that motivated to finish #1 if it meant a harder first round matchup?

The league obviously gave thought to what the format should be and it seems counter intuituive that they would reward #2 with the easier matchup.

Was finishing #1 in the league seen as a lot bigger accomplishment as it now?

The format continued post-expansion - Look at 1971

The NHL did not want sweeps in the first round to ensure more games would be played.

I also think the NHL wanted to ensure there would be one Canadian team in the SCF. 1961 was the exception, when Chicago played Detroit.

It was an odd dynamic. The Rangers' owners did not want the headache of playoff games because the Ringling Brothers Circus was a cash cow at the old MSG.

HNIC also lobbied to keep expensive TV telco lines from the US ( $1 a mile a minute in 30-minute blocks ) down to a minimum. New York and Boston became very expensive, and a classic example is in 1959, when in a Game 7, CBC only carried the game from the start of the second period because of the expense of telco lines. from Boston.



Chicago games were not that expensive by comparison, as CBC only paid US fees from Chicago to Windsor.

 

[Crosby2010]

The league probably preferred that the #1 and #2 seed met in the Cup final. This is the best way to make it happen I guess. However, it didn't always work out that way.

 

[Staniowski]

What was the reasoning and would teams really be that motivated to finish #1 if it meant a harder first round matchup?

The league obviously gave thought to what the format should be and it seems counter intuituive that they would reward #2 with the easier matchup.

Was finishing #1 in the league seen as a lot bigger accomplishment as it now?

I don't know why it was originally set up this way but, as @Fenway touched on, my guess would be to ensure the semi-final matchups are more equal, more competitive. There are different philosophies about it, and views have probably changed over time.

Regarding motivation...there can be arguments about motivation under any scenario. For example, under 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, you can argue there's motivation to finish 1st...but what's the motivation to finish 2nd rather than 3rd?

Sports do brackets differently. In tennis, for example, it's common to see the semis as 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4. I believe 1 and 2 are always in opposite halves of the brackets, but 3 and 4 are drawn randomly, with one of them in either half....and the same for the next 4 placements, etc. So, it's partly random and partly ordered.

 

[MadLuke]

but what's the motivation to finish 2nd rather than 3rd?

Maybe not that strong in hockey, but home ice advantage ?

 

[seventieslord]

The format continued post-expansion - Look at 1971

View attachment 1029193

The NHL did not want sweeps in the first round to ensure more games would be played.

I also think the NHL wanted to ensure there would be one Canadian team in the SCF. 1961 was the exception, when Chicago played Detroit.

It was an odd dynamic. The Rangers' owners did not want the headache of playoff games because the Ringling Brothers Circus was a cash cow at the old MSG.

HNIC also lobbied to keep expensive TV telco lines from the US ( $1 a mile a minute in 30-minute blocks ) down to a minimum. New York and Boston became very expensive, and a classic example is in 1959, when in a Game 7, CBC only carried the game from the start of the second period because of the expense of telco lines. from Boston.



Chicago games were not that expensive by comparison, as CBC only paid US fees from Chicago to Windsor.

This is an anomaly season though. When expansion hit, they did the old 1v3 and 2v4 matchups in each division, with the winners facing each other for divisional titles and a finals berth. In just this season, they made it cross over, with the expectation that we'd see a E1vW2 and E2vW1 matchup, which of course did not happen, due to two upsets. It's obvious why they wanted to do this: so that no one had an "easy" route to the finals through the western division and we'd be more likely to get two eastern teams, or at least two original six teams, in the finals together. Luckily, that still happened.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, when Chicago played in the west, there was a completely balanced schedule, so their regular season record was not inflated by their division, and this playoff format ensured they never had a simple path to the finals, either.

For the next three seasons they still did the divisional crossovers, presumably to weed out weaker western teams that managed to win a round, except they finally began doing 1v4 and 2v3 matches prior. It worked... sorta. Eastern teams beat western teams in round 2, four out of six times, a majority but not a definitive one.

So 1970-71 was the only really wacky year. No one wants to see 1v2 and 3v4 matchups taking place in round 2, and they made sure after that, that it couldn't happen.

 

[seventieslord]

I really hate that they did a 1-3 2-4 format though. There needs to be an incentive to finish as high in the standings as possible. I think you're just as happy finishing 1st as you are 2nd, and in 3rd as you are 4th. The real issue was the 2-3 race. You finish 2nd, you get 4th. Finish 3rd and you get 1st. What a huge swing!

In 1943 just 4 points separated 2nd and 3rd. In 1946 it was just 3 points, In 1949 just one point, in 1950 3 points, in 1952 4 points, In 1956 2 points, In 1957 2 points, in 1959 4 points, In 1963 2 points, in 1966 3 points, and in 1967 2 points.

In 1968 in the west it was 2 points, and in 1970 both divisions had just a 4 point gap.

In 1943, 1946, 1952, and 1956 the first round results featured no upsets, so 3rd place was a real death sentence for a team that was so close to being 2nd place and getting the low seed opponent. Upsets became more common after that, though.

 

[Fenway]

I really hate that they did a 1-3 2-4 format though. There needs to be an incentive to finish as high in the standings as possible. I think you're just as happy finishing 1st as you are 2nd, and in 3rd as you are 4th. The real issue was the 2-3 race. You finish 2nd, you get 4th. Finish 3rd and you get 1st. What a huge swing!

In 1943 just 4 points separated 2nd and 3rd. In 1946 it was just 3 points, In 1949 just one point, in 1950 3 points, in 1952 4 points, In 1956 2 points, In 1957 2 points, in 1959 4 points, In 1963 2 points, in 1966 3 points, and in 1967 2 points.

In 1968 in the west it was 2 points, and in 1970 both divisions had just a 4 point gap.

In 1943, 1946, 1952, and 1956 the first round results featured no upsets, so 3rd place was a real death sentence for a team that was so close to being 2nd place and getting the low seed opponent. Upsets became more common after that, though.

1970 was odd as both Montreal and Toronto DNQ, that was a problem for HNIC, and the Orr-led Bruins became the big draw.

The O6 years and the first few years of expansion the NHL royalty was Toronto and Montreal, Detroit while US-based was popular in southwestern Ontario and Channel 9 in Windsor carried many games.

 

[reckoning]

In 70-71 Minnesota lost some games to some weak teams in the final week to finish 4th. There were allegations that they were trying to avoid playing Chicago in the 1st round.

The format was changed the next year, but that may have had more to do with the league not wanting their top draw (the Bruins) gone in the first round again.