Do You Think Parity Works in the NHL?

[Guest Shoreline]

Right - its artificial parity for marketing purposes. The league just wants the fans to believe every team has a chance. I agree the point system has created that artifice, not the salary cap or expansion. It has little to do with the parity of play on the ice, or the "product" on the ice that Bettman is always blathering on about. The irony is that most people would concede that it is tougher for teams outside of the bubble to make up ground, despite their appearance of a winning record (only six teams are under .500 points % wise).

So true. There was a post I made long ago to show the difference in point spread as a factor of parity by the NHL standard and indeed the point spread between winning and losing teams is much less. I can't believe I didn't use the word artificial (I usually do) like you did, but that's exactly what it is. It's not necessarily to make the worst teams better, but to make them closer to the bottom tier of playoff teams and make it seem like they aren't losing as much. Most fans of sports are keen on "W" and "L", and certainly shootout and overtime losses all take away from the "L" column, giving the illusion that the team is better than it really is, and creating an artificial parity or "race" out of something that shouldn't have been.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Shoreline

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

It's only a framework that all teams have to operate under, but not all teams wish to be competitive. Maybe it's a bad time of the season to be looking at this figure, but six teams are currently at least $10 million dollars under the cap. They must figure that their money is better off in their bank account.

[Barrie 900]

2. The simple fact that over 50% of the teams make the playoffs is ridiculous. 16 teams in and only 14 teams out is a shamless revenue grab by the owners, nothing more. There is nothing "sporting" or competive about having teams with such poor records making the playoffs. Only 6 teams from each conference should go.

I agree. Just like the NFL, I think the first two teams in the conference should get a bye, and the 3-6 seeds play a best of 3, with the winners moving on to play the well rested best teams in the Conferences in a best of 7.

There's to many upsets in the hockey playoffs with teams finishing 7th and 8th playing the trap and riding a hot goalie, making very poor match ups in the later rounds, decreasing interest overall.

I've been complaining about this and posting about it for years. With the way it's currently set up, the last month of the season, there's to much focus on who's going to make the final two playoff spots, while the top teams in the League are just killing time. To many times with this set up, the best teams get eliminated early in the playoffs because they've been playing meaningless hockey for to long. The current system gives to much of an advantage to the .500 teams.

IF the league only allowed 6 per conference, the focus would be on who will finish 6th over all, instead of 7th and 8th, and there would be focus and a race by the teams leading the division on who finishes in 1 + 2 to get the byes. More teams would be playing more meaningful hockey, and the season would actually mean something. This system gives the advantages to the best teams, and that's the way it should be.

I know the League won't change because without a American TV deal, it's a gate driven league and needs as many playoffs games it can get. However, I think if the league cuts back the playoff teams, you'd have better playoff match ups, more interest, leading to better TV ratings, giving the League a better chance at landing that TV deal they want/need.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I agree. Just like the NFL, I think the first two teams in the conference should get a bye, and the 3-6 seeds play a best of 3, with the winners moving on to play the well rested best teams in the Conferences in a best of 7.

There's to many upsets in the hockey playoffs with teams finishing 7th and 8th playing the trap and riding a hot goalie, making very poor match ups in the later rounds, decreasing interest overall.

I've been complaining about this and posting about it for years. With the way it's currently set up, the last month of the season, there's to much focus on who's going to make the final two playoff spots, while the top teams in the League are just killing time. To many times with this set up, the best teams get eliminated early in the playoffs because they've been playing meaningless hockey for to long. The current system gives to much of an advantage to the .500 teams.

IF the league only allowed 6 per conference, the focus would be on who will finish 6th over all, instead of 7th and 8th, and there would be focus and a race by the teams leading the division on who finishes in 1 + 2 to get the byes. More teams would be playing more meaningful hockey, and the season would actually mean something. This system gives the advantages to the best teams, and that's the way it should be.

I know the League won't change because without a American TV deal, it's a gate driven league and needs as many playoffs games it can get. However, I think if the league cuts back the playoff teams, you'd have better playoff match ups, more interest, leading to better TV ratings, giving the League a better chance at landing that TV deal they want/need.

In theory, a bye seems reasonable, but in practice it wouldn't work IMO. The teams receiving a bye would have to wait for the first series to end. This would take 2+ weeks if at least one of the series goes seven games. To me, this is too long for a team to sit without playing any games. This could lead to even more upsets, with skill having a smaller impact than what you mentioned.

[Barrie 900]

Since 2001, only one NHL team has won more than one Cup.

Also, the NBA does not have a real cap. They have a luxury tax system that really isn't much different than baseball.

Finally, championship wins is not the only factor determining parity.

I think that kind of proves my point about Baseball.

Also, with your championship comment, I should point out, Baseball only allows 8 teams in the playoffs, but since 1993, there's only been 2 teams that hasn't made the playoffs, Kansas City and Pittsburgh, in a 30 team league. The reason why they haven't made it is their own fault instead of the current set up. Now that's parity!

In theory, a bye seems reasonable, but in practice it wouldn't work IMO. The teams receiving a bye would have to wait for the first series to end. This would take 2+ weeks if at least one of the series goes seven games. To me, this is too long for a team to sit without playing any games. This could lead to even more upsets, with skill having a smaller impact than what you mentioned.

That's why the first round is a best of 3.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I think that kind of proves my point about Baseball.

Also, with your championship comment, I should point out, Baseball only allows 8 teams in the playoffs, but since 1993, there's only been 2 teams that hasn't made the playoffs, Kansas City and Pittsburgh, in a 30 team league. The reason why they haven't made it is their own fault instead of the current set up. Now that's parity!

That's why the first round is a best of 3.

Sorry- I must have passed that over. To me, having the playoffs last so long is exciting. Also, I think teams like Columbus, Nashville, etc. would likely lose fan support if they never made the playoffs.

[Konnan511 1,736]

There's fake parody, and it's called a three point system.

[Buppy 1,720]

I think that kind of proves my point about Baseball.

Also, with your championship comment, I should point out, Baseball only allows 8 teams in the playoffs, but since 1993, there's only been 2 teams that hasn't made the playoffs, Kansas City and Pittsburgh, in a 30 team league. The reason why they haven't made it is their own fault instead of the current set up. Now that's parity!

That's why the first round is a best of 3.

Maybe I should have completed that tought. The NBA has pretty much the worst parity of the major sports, and has pretty much the same cap structure as baseball. I'm not saying there's no parity in baseball, just that the lack of a cap can not be credited for that.

However, 18 years is an awful big range. How many teams ever go that long without a playoff appearance? In the NHL, only Toronto and Florida have not made the playoffs since the lockout. It's a lot easier to make, sure, but it's also one third the duration. No one has gone more than 9 years without making the playoffs.

In the NFL, the longest active droughts are 11 years. Cleveland is the only team to go 18 seasons without a division title. (Though the Lions will most likely hit 18 next season.) Only three other teams have gone more than 10 years without winning their division.

No one in the NBA has gone more than 7 seasons without a playoff appearance. In baseball, only 4 teams have missed in the last 9 seasons.

All that really shows is that you practically have to try to miss the playoffs for that long a span. There are a lot of factors needed to really measure parity. No one stat gives you a very good look. Then there are a lot of factors that contribute to parity, a salary cap being just one. Baseball does we without a cap. I think the NHL needs it both for the health of the league and for parity.

[Buppy 1,720]

There's fake parody, and it's called a three point system.

Not sure I'd agree with that. It's not like only bad teams get loser points. Almost every team has 8-12 loser points, and most have 3-6 SO wins. Those 'extra' points are pretty evenly distributed.