Hockey Shootouts - Page 4

Le Grande Orange · 11-27-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewG

How does a division game in old system have more meaning than current system? Becuase when you are competing for playoff spot with only 4 other teams instead of the entire conference, more teams are 'in the race' for playoff position. NOW WITH 7 and 8 teams per division, which modern league has.. well... it wouldnt work as well. The math isnt there becuase basically HALF of each division woudlnt make playoffs.

That's because the number of teams qualifying for the playoffs hasn't changed while the size of the league has. Back in the division playoff days you mention, it was a little ridiculous—16 teams out of 21 qualified for the playoffs. That's 76.2% of the league making it to the post-season. Teams played 80 games just to eliminate five clubs.

Now, of course, it's 16 out of 30, or 53.3% of the league making it to the post-season.

There has been talk of expanding the playoffs to 20 teams, which would bring the qualifying percentage up to 66.7%, which is roughly the NHL's historical average. There'd be 10 qualifiers in each conference, with the three division winners and the three highest wild card qualifiers getting a bye. The remaining four wild cards play a preliminary round. The two winners then move on to the next round and join the six clubs which had a bye.

Bluenoser · 11-28-2009, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Your quite annoying... apparently not willing to respect others views..

You're right, I was a bit aggressive, I apologize for that. I do respect others views, I'm just questioning them.

To LGO - my apologies, appears I'm not as well versed in play-off formats as I thought I was. Instead of relying solely on memory, I should have taken the time to look it up. Tks for pointing out my error.

canadiancreed · 11-28-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

There has been talk of expanding the playoffs to 20 teams, which would bring the qualifying percentage up to 66.7%, which is roughly the NHL's historical average. There'd be 10 qualifiers in each conference, with the three division winners and the three highest wild card qualifiers getting a bye. The remaining four wild cards play a preliminary round. The two winners then move on to the next round and join the six clubs which had a bye.

You'd think for a league that has botched team expansion, they'd be gunshy about expanding anything else. Guess not. Ah well, makes the regular season more irrelevant and add some silly wild card system since 20 doesn't divide as nicely as 16. At least we can copy the NFL and MLB for playoff format then. Maybe we can have the playoffs go into late June too! That'd be awesome!

Le Grande Orange · 11-28-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Ah well, makes the regular season more irrelevant and add some silly wild card system since 20 doesn't divide as nicely as 16.

It's really no different from when the NHL and NBA had 12 teams making the playoffs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Maybe we can have the playoffs go into late June too! That'd be awesome!

The preliminary round would be a best-of-three series.

And anyway, the Stanley Cup already lasts into June. The NHL has the longest season of any of the 'big four' pro sports leagues (8½ months from the start of the regular season to the conclusion of the playoffs).

canadiancreed · 11-28-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It's really no different from when the NHL and NBA had 12 teams making the playoffs.

Sounds like a good argument to stick with sixteen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The preliminary round would be a best-of-three series.

And another good reason to stick with sixteen. That and it would never happen, as best of seven's maximize team gate revenue. Best of three's are practically pointless in comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

And anyway, the Stanley Cup already lasts into June. The NHL has the longest season of any of the 'big four' pro sports leagues (8½ months from the start of the regular season to the conclusion of the playoffs).

Hence why not making it even longer would be a good idea. Granted some items could be done now, but adding yet another playoff round only adds added bloat for minimal gain, if any.

norva13x · 11-29-2009, 02:37 AM

For those of you that want to contract/relocate the sun belt teams:

I will keep my beloved Bolts thank you very much.

P.S.: Shootouts are stupid, I say if the score is tied at the end of OT, then it should be a tie. I am not sure why the U.S. is so obsessed with the idea that someone has to win and someone has to lose. A tie can be just as exciting. Unless of course it is the playoffs then off course their needs to be a winner.

Erik W. · 11-29-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norva13x

For those of you that want to contract/relocate the sun belt teams:

I will keep my beloved Bolts thank you very much.

You had better get a few thousand of your ticket-buying friends to agree with you, because their attendance has been plummeting.

canadiancreed · 11-29-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norva13x

For those of you that want to contract/relocate the sun belt teams:

I will keep my beloved Bolts thank you very much.

I'd recommened buying a powerball ticket then. You'd' probably be a better owner then the current bunch.

norva13x · 11-29-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

I'd recommened buying a powerball ticket then. You'd' probably be a better owner then the current bunch.

Yeah, our ownership sucks now and attendance is plummeting because of it. But I looked up some attendance figures and we were in the top ten a couple of years ago, so we have the fan base. Also I was amazed at how putrid Phoenix's attendance is. They are averaging like 9k a game. Ouch!

canadiancreed · 11-29-2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norva13x

Yeah, our ownership sucks now and attendance is plummeting because of it. But I looked up some attendance figures and we were in the top ten a couple of years ago, so we have the fan base. Also I was amazed at how putrid Phoenix's attendance is. They are averaging like 9k a game. Ouch!

Yes winning/given the top prize in a sport will help net some bandwagon jumpers for sure. I'm thinking attendance is presetting more because the bandwagon lost a few passengers though. The lousy ownership doesn't hurt though (but then again, that does seem to be the modus operandi of the NHL; hire those that mirror the one in charge.)

Jason Moyer · 11-29-2009, 02:35 PM

9k/game? Probably higher than what the Penguins were averaging 5 years ago.

Edit: Actually, it was 11.8k per game:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004

The above is essentially the reason I hate Pittsburgh sports fans. You'd never see the Flyers/Phillies/Eagles have a hard time packing the stands, and each of those teams has gone through much longer periods of losing than any Pittsburgh team.

Jason Moyer · 12-02-2009, 06:06 PM

Timely article on ESPN:

NHL -- Here's why it's time to revisit the three-points-for-regulation-win system - ESPN

kq76 · 12-02-2009, 06:54 PM

Wow. That's pretty sad that they'd rather have a bunch of mediocre-looking teams (they call it parity, but if it's parity it's contrived parity) than letting the real stars of the league shine. I'm all for wanting teams to have a shot at winning the cup (aka preventing something like the AL East in baseball), but parity in itself isn't something I think one should aim for. The NFL's got it right: you have the full spectrum of great to awful teams and a team's fortunes could change at any time, or they could last awhile too.

EDIT: Also, I know how much they talk about how much of a stand-up straight-shooting guy Burke is, but I think that's a load of BS. I don't believe for a second that he couldn't see through that, "well, we did the math and the standings wouldn't change." Maybe some of the GMs are too stupid to see that things would probably get more intense if you increase the prize, but I doubt Burke is. What they're most likely thinking is the longer more teams are in contention the better off they are because the easier it'll be to fill the seats late in the season. Now maybe in the end they have a point (do we as fans really want to risk our teams being out of contention for the playoffs fairly early on? personally, I don't think I'd mind as I'm more a fan of the game than just the Canucks), but let's be honest about our motives at least.

canadiancreed · 12-02-2009, 06:54 PM

when i doubt, make it more complex. fun.

Le Grande Orange · 12-02-2009, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Timely article on ESPN:

NHL -- Here's why it's time to revisit the three-points-for-regulation-win system - ESPN

Only problem with that proposal is that it still stupidly rewards losing teams with a point. Teams losing a game do not deserve a point. A 3-2-1 point system for regulation/overtime/shootout wins seems much better to me.

View Poll Results: Do you like hockey shootouts?
Thumbs Up!	18	50.00%
Thumbs Down.	13	36.11%
Meh.	1	2.78%
Not Into Hockey.	3	8.33%
They should have monkeys on ice figure skating decide the result!	1	2.78%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

11-29-2009, 02:35 PM	#71 (permalink)
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 4,537 Thanks: 15 Thanked 74x in 56 posts	9k/game? Probably higher than what the Penguins were averaging 5 years ago. Edit: Actually, it was 11.8k per game: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004 The above is essentially the reason I hate Pittsburgh sports fans. You'd never see the Flyers/Phillies/Eagles have a hard time packing the stands, and each of those teams has gone through much longer periods of losing than any Pittsburgh team. __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "In 1973, the year I first ran for Congress, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce concluded a year-long investigation that found--and I quote--'drug use exists...in all sports and levels of competition...In some instances, the danger of improper drug use--primarily amphetamines and anabolic steroids--can only be described as alarming'" -- Henry Waxman Last edited by Jason Moyer; 11-29-2009 at 02:38 PM.

12-02-2009, 06:06 PM	#72 (permalink)
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 4,537 Thanks: 15 Thanked 74x in 56 posts	Timely article on ESPN: NHL -- Here's why it's time to revisit the three-points-for-regulation-win system - ESPN __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "In 1973, the year I first ran for Congress, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce concluded a year-long investigation that found--and I quote--'drug use exists...in all sports and levels of competition...In some instances, the danger of improper drug use--primarily amphetamines and anabolic steroids--can only be described as alarming'" -- Henry Waxman

12-02-2009, 06:54 PM	#73 (permalink)
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Vancouver Posts: 7,623 Thanks: 282 Thanked 332x in 190 posts	Wow. That's pretty sad that they'd rather have a bunch of mediocre-looking teams (they call it parity, but if it's parity it's contrived parity) than letting the real stars of the league shine. I'm all for wanting teams to have a shot at winning the cup (aka preventing something like the AL East in baseball), but parity in itself isn't something I think one should aim for. The NFL's got it right: you have the full spectrum of great to awful teams and a team's fortunes could change at any time, or they could last awhile too. EDIT: Also, I know how much they talk about how much of a stand-up straight-shooting guy Burke is, but I think that's a load of BS. I don't believe for a second that he couldn't see through that, "well, we did the math and the standings wouldn't change." Maybe some of the GMs are too stupid to see that things would probably get more intense if you increase the prize, but I doubt Burke is. What they're most likely thinking is the longer more teams are in contention the better off they are because the easier it'll be to fill the seats late in the season. Now maybe in the end they have a point (do we as fans really want to risk our teams being out of contention for the playoffs fairly early on? personally, I don't think I'd mind as I'm more a fan of the game than just the Canucks), but let's be honest about our motives at least. __________________ Useful Links: Manuals \| Downloads \| Newsletters \| Knowledge Base \| New Tech Support \| Updated Forum Rules Interactive Online League Directory - find or advertise a league today! Canadian Baseball League - uses OOTP11, running steadily since April 2002 Last edited by kq76; 12-02-2009 at 07:02 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-29-2009, 02:37 AM	#66 (permalink)
norva13x Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 450 Thanks: 114 Thanked 21x in 19 posts	For those of you that want to contract/relocate the sun belt teams: I will keep my beloved Bolts thank you very much. P.S.: Shootouts are stupid, I say if the score is tied at the end of OT, then it should be a tie. I am not sure why the U.S. is so obsessed with the idea that someone has to win and someone has to lose. A tie can be just as exciting. Unless of course it is the playoffs then off course their needs to be a winner.

12-02-2009, 06:54 PM	#74 (permalink)
canadiancreed Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 11,025 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 463 Thanked 116x in 85 posts	when i doubt, make it more complex. fun.