NeverForgetMac25

I'm sure it was a soda.

Cleary looks hilarious without a beard!

That's another one I just shook my head at. FAIL!

I'm loving this sooo much! Lebda, then Hudler, now Kopecky.

What media is everyone watching the Parade on? I'm on WXYZ.

:rotflmao: Hahaha, he just corrected himself 5 minutes later!

Did wxyz just call Jimmy Howard, "Jimmy David"? :nonono:

:rotflmao:

Ditto

Florida Panthers traded Igor Larionov to the Detroit Red Wings for Yan Golubovsky. :rotflmao:

Absolutely, as well as the SCF winner prediction.

Personally, I like the idea of going with the 4-8-12-16 system because I fear that doubling the points for each round is too rewarding of people toward the end of the game. Sometimes the hardest series' to predict are the early rounds, so I feel a multiples structure would be a great compromise between keeping it at 5 points per round and doubling the points each round. Here's my vote, but please continue to throw ideas out there so we can continue to have the best game possible: 1. 4-8-12-16 for picking the correct series winner in each respective round. 2. The bonus structure for picking the amount of games stays the same (3 for being exact, 2 for being one off, 1 for being two off, and 0 for being three off) 3. Have everyone pick a Western and Eastern Conference Champion as well as who they feel will be the Stanley Cup Champion. 3 points for each one you are correct in picking. This will help things become really exciting as the playoffs go further.

No, I was thinking then you just get 0 points for that series. Meaning, lets say the you picked the Wings to win the first round next year by a series score of 4-2. They go on to win 4-0. You would receive 4 points for picking the correct winner, but subtract 1 point because you were off by 2 games, thus giving you 3 total points for that matchup.

Such as what? We currently award 5 points for each correct series winner picked. Would you rather see a 5-10-15-20 points structure? 5-7-9-11? 4-8-12-16?

Thats an option as well. Perhaps something like 4-8-12-16, and then +1 if you get the series score exact, 0 if you're off by one, -1 if you're off by two, and -2 if you're off by three.

I like that alot too, but I worry about the bonus points for picking the correct series score. I wanted to make sure that people were rewarded for picking the correct series winner first and foremost, and then after that you got bonus points that (at best) couldn't touch the amount of points you were getting for picking the series winner. As it stands right now, if we went with the 1-2-4-8 system, one could get 1 point for guessing the correct winner of the series and an additional 3 for getting the series score exact (which would be 75% of that rounds points). That seems a little to much weight on picking the correct series score. What do you think? The key here is adding points to keep the game interesting, but at the same time keeping the weighting somewhat in balance with the bonus points.

Those are great suggestions! I especially like the first one.

How about this: Instead of giving away 5 points for each winner in each round, we give away 5 points for the first round winners, 7 for the second, 9 for the third and 11 for the SCF's? Keep the games played bonus structure the same, but weight the series winners that people get correct. Or we could do 4 points for the first round, than 6 for the second, 8 for the third and 10 for the SCF's (or even 4-8-12-16 respectively). Obviously, this would put an even greater emphasis on the later rounds.

^ Yeah, I understand the thought process behind how it would work, but I just wonder if people would or wouldn't want to have the chance of all their teams being eliminated very early. I just think there's gotta be a weighted system or some other bonus structure we could add to this game to make it uber-exciting right down to the wire. The thing is, with the flat scoring system that is currently used if you're not up near the top after the first round, you're SOL. The fact of the matter is that there are 64 potential points in the first round, and 56 combined potential points in the final three rounds. Perhaps, we weight the amount of points you get for picking the correct series winner as the rounds progress?

van Zant said yesterday we'd hear in the next day or two, so I can't imagine it'll be much longer. Probably later today or tomorrow.

What does that have to do with what Yemack was saying? His point was that the teams that are Cup contenders next year don't have room under the cap to add Sundin unless he takes a *major* paycut, where as the Wings are stacked with Swedes and have the room to add him (for next year only) without getting in cap trouble.

We can't do that though because of reseeding. Well, I guess we could but you would have a lot of people that get eliminated fairly early if there's a great deal of upsets.

But that's the NBA, so its not as impressive. TBH, I just don't see how anyone can think winning an NBA Championship is more difficult than winning the Stanley Cup. To me, its far and away the most difficult trophy to win in sports simply because of the physical and mental grind that comes with the tournament. I don't see the grind of the NBA Playoffs as being anywhere near the NHL.

Before I forget, I also wanted to open this thread up to discuss potential rule changes for next year. Please feel free to post ideas within this thread. Earlier in the playoffs, we mentioned having a weighted point system that got heavier as the playoffs got deeper. Suggestions?

As Nightfall mentioned, I feel his glory years are behind him. He could be a solid role player and be perfect as a #13 guy though. I still love him.