Ongoing NHL thread - Part deux

[Cobiemonster]

yes it would, but it makes the ROW stat column, and the urgency to go for it in overtime meaningless.
I'm of the belief that points is points, and a one game do or die would be pretty freakin' sweet.
maybe they could just use the ROW column to determine home ice for the one-game playoff

Yep agreed! So for example, if Boston and Florida tied, Boston would get home ice for the game - I know the PA has talked about not wanting the players to play more than they need to(the whole 3 on 3 OT game and the argument that the players would get taxed even more) but I think there would be a lot of intrigue with this type of game

Also, maybe it will make teams play more aggressive so that they don't end up in a situation like that where they have to play a one game playoff

 

[forty_three]

I don't have time to find the other leagues or CHL threads. And since these two things will hopefully affect an NHL roster as soon as this season, here goes:

Big Ten Defensive player of the year, Mike Reilly. The guy the Jackets supposedly moved Wiz to make room for.
Gophers Bring Home Big Ten Honors - University of Minnesota Official Athletic Site
Now, if he would only sign...

And Bjork Bjork Bjorkstrand is, well, still going.
BJORKSTRAND NAMED DENNY'S WHL PLAYER OF THE WEEK

11 points in four games and takes over the scoring lead with 57g / 108pts in 55 games. Zoinks.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

If they didn't have shootouts, I'd be in favo(u)r of the one game playoff idea for a tie-breaker.

But because of the shootouts, I'd rather they stick with the current tie-breaker. I think it's totally fair to give the nod to the team that managed to win more games the real way rather than benefiting from the skills competition at the end just because the league sees the need to force a winner in every game.

 

[dare2be]

If they didn't have shootouts, I'd be in favo(u)r of the one game playoff idea for a tie-breaker.

That was my point about making the entire one-game playoff a shootout.

 

[pixburgher66]

Forget that. Just go straight to a full-team shootout. Goalies and backups included.

Hell, coaches and trainers too.

I WAS BORN FOR THIS.

 

[pixburgher66]

Poll: do you prefer the new format or the old 1-8 format in playoff seeding? I sort of miss 1-8. And that's not simply because the Pens are going to have a rough first round draw.

 

[Cobiemonster]

If they didn't have shootouts, I'd be in favo(u)r of the one game playoff idea for a tie-breaker.

But because of the shootouts, I'd rather they stick with the current tie-breaker. I think it's totally fair to give the nod to the team that managed to win more games the real way rather than benefiting from the skills competition at the end just because the league sees the need to force a winner in every game.

The one game tie-breaker wouldn't have shootouts

Also, I think you could make the case, for example, that a team like the Panthers would be just as worthy as Boston because even though the Panthers might be in a lot of shootouts, it tells you that they are competitive in just about every game(they get blown out once in a blue moon) and they're close to breaking out

I've seen Boston get blown out more in a two week stretch than the Panthers have all season - the Panthers are consistent and if they can get that one more top notch scorer, they're in serious business - they have all the other capabilities you need in a winning team

 

[Cobiemonster]

Poll: do you prefer the new format or the old 1-8 format in playoff seeding? I sort of miss 1-8. And that's not simply because the Pens are going to have a rough first round draw.

There are parts of the 1-8 seeding that I miss, but overall, the new format is good because it encourages rivalries and it makes for more heated series, imo

 

[pixburgher66]

There are parts of the 1-8 seeding that I miss, but overall, the new format is good because it encourages rivalries and it makes for more heated series, imo

I hear that most often when the subject is brought up...but really, in a league where you play everyone at least twice, I don't think it's hard to get heated in every single series. Rivalries seem more prevalent to me now than ever, and I think it's simply because there's competition and parity. Currently in the East I think the matchups are actually the same. But going down the last few weeks of the season there'll likely be no change in them, whereas when it's 1-8 there's more uncertainty in the last few weeks.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

There are parts of the 1-8 seeding that I miss, but overall, the new format is good because it encourages rivalries and it makes for more heated series, imo

My argument against the rivalries is that it limits them to the opening rounds. Example, the Flyers and Penguins cannot play each other in the conference finals anymore. The Devils have played division rivals in 4 of the 5 conference finals on their way to the finals. Those are some of the greatest series I can remember and they wouldn't happen under the current format.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Poll: do you prefer the new format or the old 1-8 format in playoff seeding? I sort of miss 1-8. And that's not simply because the Pens are going to have a rough first round draw.

If the season ended today, the matchups in the east would actually be the exact same under either system.

Having said that, I prefer 1-8. I think it's way cooler if division rivals wind up meeting in the conf. finals than in the first round.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

The one game tie-breaker wouldn't have shootouts

Also, I think you could make the case, for example, that a team like the Panthers would be just as worthy as Boston because even though the Panthers might be in a lot of shootouts, it tells you that they are competitive in just about every game(they get blown out once in a blue moon) and they're close to breaking out

I've seen Boston get blown out more in a two week stretch than the Panthers have all season - the Panthers are consistent and if they can get that one more top notch scorer, they're in serious business - they have all the other capabilities you need in a winning team

That's the worst reason possible for why they should change that. The Bruins have currently won 9 games more than Florida the proper way - either in regulation or in OT. The Panthers have had 17 times where they weren't able to settle a game before the shootout. By far the highest in the league. They've also lost an additional 4 in OT, whereas Boston has only lost 1.

Under the old format, Florida wouldn't even have a slim chance of making the POs, regardless of how competitive they've been in those games. But under the forced winner and loser point system we have now, their inability to actually beat teams while playing hockey leaves them still having an outside chance at getting in.

It would be an absolute travesty if they finished tied in points after 82 games and the league didn't give any weight to the fact that the Bruins managed to win 39 of theirs the old fashioned way and Florida could only do it 29 times (that's extrapolating both teams' current ROW % over the full 82 games).

 

[Cobiemonster]

That's the worst reason possible for why they should change that. The Bruins have currently won 9 games more than Florida the proper way - either in regulation or in OT. The Panthers have had 17 times where they weren't able to settle a game before the shootout. By far the highest in the league. They've also lost an additional 4 in OT, whereas Boston has only lost 1.

Under the old format, Florida wouldn't even have a slim chance of making the POs, regardless of how competitive they've been in those games. But under the forced winner and loser point system we have now, their inability to actually beat teams while playing hockey leaves them still having an outside chance at getting in.

It would be an absolute travesty if they finished tied in points after 82 games and the league didn't give any weight to the fact that the Bruins managed to win 39 of theirs the old fashioned way and Florida could only do it 29 times (that's extrapolating both teams' current ROW % over the full 82 games).

Just because you think it's the proper way doesn't mean winning in the shootout isn't proper - a win is a win - if the league wants to change the rules, they can, until then, the teams can win whichever darn way they choose

The rules are the rules and if you're Boston, maybe you should have played better in the first half of the season - they deserve to be fighting tooth and nail for a final spot because they sucked in the first half of the season and they had a horrendous road trip in February until they finally removed their heads from their ass

So yes, let's punish the Panthers just because they don't win games the "old-fashioned way" - points are points and if they were tied with Boston, then that means that at the end of the day, regardless of what you think the rules should be, they would be equal with Boston - if you think it's a travesty that Boston would have to play an extra game to get in, then it would be a travesty for the Panthers to not get an opportunity after how hard they worked to get to that point - you can't punish teams just because you don't think the rules are the way you want them to be

Besides, the Panthers only have five less wins than Boston and at the end of the day, wins are wins - it's time to stop painting teams like the Panthers as a mickey mouse team and acting like they aren't competitive enough to deserve a shot if they were tied - if you're going to use the argument that the Panthers don't win the "old-fashioned way", then you can't say that Boston is THAT much better because the Panthers only have one less regulation loss than Boston, so it tells me that the Panthers are just as competitive of a team and that a lot of games in the league come down to OT/SO, it's not just the Panthers

 

[BGDave]

Surely you are not equating a team outscoring an opponent over 60 minutes to a team that scores more penalty shots (as few as 3) than the other team?

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Kill the shootout, bring back the tie, make wins worth 3 points and ties worth 1.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Kill the shootout, bring back the tie, make wins worth 3 points and ties worth 1.

No ties

With possible 3 on 3 in the future, there will still be shootouts but not as many, which could make the shootouts even more fun and interesting

There have been some GREAT shootouts this season - the 20 round shootout in Florida, and there have been a few that have gone 10 or 11 rounds too - some real good ones

 

[mattola]

screw it. make wins 2 pts and ties and losses NO points. and ties only go into consideration for some form of tie breaker for a 8th/9th place team. Im kidding... but not well maybe

can you imagine. you go into OT KNOWING that if you both tie both gets nothing for points with your season on the line. how hard those teams would go for a win

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

No ties

With possible 3 on 3 in the future, there will still be shootouts but not as many, which could make the shootouts even more fun and interesting

There have been some GREAT shootouts this season - the 20 round shootout in Florida, and there have been a few that have gone 10 or 11 rounds too - some real good ones

No 3 on 3 either. This is becoming a joke. We're talking about a game people pay hundreds to watch and players are paid millions to play and we're turning it into a make-up-the-rules-as-you-go playground game. Next lets use a round ball instead of a puck if it's still tied after 5 minutes of 3 on 3 and then have the coaches duel each other using Arizona Territory rules and if still we don't have a winner have a zamboni race.

Is this a good time to mention the sport is having a World Cup with a "rest of world" team and they're actively pursuing locating a franchise in Las Vegas where there is as much interest in hockey as there is in Mathletes?

 

[forty_three]

screw it. make wins 2 pts and ties and losses NO points. and ties only go into consideration for some form of tie breaker for a 8th/9th place team. Im kidding... but not well maybe

can you imagine. you go into OT KNOWING that if you both tie both gets nothing for points with your season on the line. how hard those teams would go for a win

No reward for not winning!

My dream is a team pulling the goalie while tied late in the third because anything short of a win does nothing. That would be more exciting than any shootout ever could be.

 

[Cobiemonster]

No 3 on 3 either. This is becoming a joke. We're talking about a game people pay hundreds to watch and players are paid millions to play and we're turning it into a make-up-the-rules-as-you-go playground game. Next lets use a round ball instead of a puck if it's still tied after 5 minutes of 3 on 3 and then have the coaches duel each other using Arizona Territory rules and if still we don't have a winner have a zamboni race.

Is this a good time to mention the sport is having a World Cup with a "rest of world" team and they're actively pursuing locating a franchise in Las Vegas where there is as much interest in hockey as there is in Mathletes?

Bruce Boudreau and Ken Hitchcock have to run from one end of the ice to the other with their shoes on - that would be fun!