Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Playoff seeding & Divison winners


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,907 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 02 April 2012 - 11:14 AM

I could see making sure that each division champ has a spot in the top 8, but beyond that, go on points.

I'm not sure (cuz I suck at math) if it would be possible for a division to not have at least one team in the top 8.

I'm sure some numbersgeek will let me know.

#22 redstag88

redstag88

    Prospect

  • Member
  • 42 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 01:09 PM

I'd remove the top 3 status of division winners. I don't believe that the lack of incentive to win the division would have much of an effect on play. Teams are going to play hard regardless when the standings are as tight as they have been.



#23 SouthernHockeyHoney

SouthernHockeyHoney

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Location:NW Lower Penninsula, MI

Posted 02 April 2012 - 02:42 PM

Silly rule, which I have never understood.

A possible "bonus" for winning your division could be home-ice advantage in later rounds with a non-division opponent who was also NOT division winner, regardless of seeding.
The only thing better than a cold glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill.

#24 SouthernWingsFan

SouthernWingsFan

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 24,609 posts
  • Location:Mandeville, Louisiana (Greater New Orleans area)

Posted 02 April 2012 - 06:40 PM

To go further on my original response since it seemed kinda unfinished to me...

Again I have zero issues with giving a division winner some type of reward/high seed.

Somebody mentioned the NBA playoff formatting which I wasn't fully aware of. I know they just have two divisions per conference and that's pretty much what I would favor, even if the NHL didn't go into more detail as the NBA did.

As has been mentioned it doesn't make much sense for Philly-Pitt to likely be squaring off in the first round, same with Detroit-Colorado back in 2000 early in the playoff season, etc.

Divsion winners per conference would get the top 2 seeds (and I am going on the basis that the NHL adopts two divisions per conference, but that in itself is not the point and another discussion for another time), that would likely be enough to reduce so much discrepency between a divsion leader and lower seeds in most scenarios. Any re-seeding for the postseason probably wouldn't be necessary then.

Pretty much we are all in agreement that it is flawed and could use some tweaking up.

#25 T-Ruff

T-Ruff

    BAMF

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,726 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 02 April 2012 - 09:16 PM

Right now we should be fighting Vancouver for the 2nd seed, while LA is the 4th seed without home ice due to record.

I'm not familiar with the NBA system, but whats the point of calling them a 4th seed if they're not getting home advantage anyway? might as well call them the 5th seed unless I'm missing something

#26 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,520 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:52 PM

There is a point to winning the division because it means you automatically get a top seed.... That's the point. If they got rid of that than there's really no point for divisions. Just get rid of them and have two fifteen team conferences. The whole reason we have divisions is because it adds meaning to more games since more than just the top two teams and the 8th/9th teams are fighting for anything of significance. It also adds meaning to games earlier in the season since division games are crucial if you want to clinch your division.


Right now people are just mad at it because it's hurting us. But it has helped us a lot in the past and I'm sure people had no problem with it then.


I've always criticized the division seeding, even when the Wings were on top. You sort of make my argument. There really is no need for divisions, other than for scheduling purposes (guaranteeing certain teams play certain teams enough times). And lately it hasn't seemed to matter much, because we haven't seen a terribly weak division in a few years. But this year is reminding everyone how flawed the system is.

To be honest, I've never seen this importance of division games early in the season. They're just two points to most teams. They may say they're important but watching the games, there's no extra benefit to it other than that. I'm just going back to first principles, that being divisions don't need to exist except as a scheduling tool.
Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#27 Dimaline312000

Dimaline312000

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,182 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 09:14 AM

Change it. Why a team in one division has more points than a team in another but that other team his higher seeded just becasue they are leading their divison is stupid. Congrats to Divisonal Champs and all but the team with the most points SHOULD be the higher seed. If it means getting rid of the divisons than so be it. The way the league was supposed to be structured for next season until the NHLPA said no was going to be better anyways. I say get rid of the divisons and let the points be the deciding factor.

#28 Hatethedrake!

Hatethedrake!

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 03 April 2012 - 09:18 AM

Eliminate the divisions and make it just the 2 conferences. 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. Teams ranked according to points. Get rid of the loser point. Games end in a tie after 60 minutes. No overtime. Save that for the playoffs.


Jordan Tootoo will wreck shop.

We need someone like Parise that can penetrate the box.-blueadams

#29 evil204

evil204

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 372 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 09:56 AM

Question about playoff seeding: Let's say the Sharks win their division and finish 3rd, with fewer points than Detroit. If we were to face them in the 2nd or 3rd round, would they have home ice even though we had more points?

#30 Hatethedrake!

Hatethedrake!

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:15 AM

Question about playoff seeding: Let's say the Sharks win their division and finish 3rd, with fewer points than Detroit. If we were to face them in the 2nd or 3rd round, would they have home ice even though we had more points?


Correct. It is based on seeding. Division winners trump teams above them who have more points because they won their division.

One thing I am not sure about is this...lets say Detroit and Florida met in the Cup Final. Which team gets home ice? Florida who won its division? Or Detroit who has more points. I'm not sure what the criteria is when its teams in opposite Conferences.
Jordan Tootoo will wreck shop.

We need someone like Parise that can penetrate the box.-blueadams

#31 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,520 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:16 AM

Eliminate the divisions and make it just the 2 conferences. 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. Teams ranked according to points. Get rid of the loser point. Games end in a tie after 60 minutes. No overtime. Save that for the playoffs.


That's a whole other issue, but I hate ties, too. Sports is about winning and losing and there's nothing more frustrating than having a game end in a tie. I do agree we should get rid of the loser point. A loss is a loss.
Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#32 CrimsonFlame

CrimsonFlame

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Location:Troy, Michigan

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:20 AM

I've always criticized the division seeding, even when the Wings were on top. You sort of make my argument. There really is no need for divisions, other than for scheduling purposes (guaranteeing certain teams play certain teams enough times). And lately it hasn't seemed to matter much, because we haven't seen a terribly weak division in a few years. But this year is reminding everyone how flawed the system is.

To be honest, I've never seen this importance of division games early in the season. They're just two points to most teams. They may say they're important but watching the games, there's no extra benefit to it other than that. I'm just going back to first principles, that being divisions don't need to exist except as a scheduling tool.


You're right in saying that if divisions don't get automatic top seeds than there's no point in having divisions. However, think about what the divisions bring to the table and the consequences of removing them. Division races make for exciting hockey. Especially at the end of the season. Why? Look at the Pacific and Southeast divisions right now. Teams are STILL vying for their playoff lives with only a few games left.

If you take away the divisions than what do you have? Meaningless hockey in a league where there is already too many games. Besides the top two seeds fighting for dominance you are going to have the other six basically coasting into the playoffs because the risks of injuring key players far outweighs gaining one seed in a league where seeding really doesn't matter that much aside from do you get to stay home an extra game.

It basically comes down to this: Would you rather help the wings out in a once in a while strange off year at the cost of making hockey games down the stretch a lot less entertaining every year?

#33 Hatethedrake!

Hatethedrake!

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:21 AM

That's a whole other issue, but I hate ties, too. Sports is about winning and losing and there's nothing more frustrating than having a game end in a tie. I do agree we should get rid of the loser point. A loss is a loss.


I'd sooner have the shootout winner get the 2 points and the losing team get none. Right now, too many teams rely on the overtime and shootout to get their points. Eliminating the garbage point would make teams try harder to win more games in regulation and in the overtime. Heck when the game was 1-1, you could see Florida playing for the guaranteed point. They've played the entire season that way. They've actually lost more games than they have won and they are a #3 seed.

Edited by Hatethedrake!, 03 April 2012 - 10:22 AM.

Jordan Tootoo will wreck shop.

We need someone like Parise that can penetrate the box.-blueadams

#34 redstag88

redstag88

    Prospect

  • Member
  • 42 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:15 AM

I agree with getting rid of the extra point. Or else make wins worth 3 points. Like the CCHA does, I would be in favor of that.

#35 wingsgirl001

wingsgirl001

    Hey Hey, Hockeytown!

  • Gold Booster
  • 6,752 posts
  • Location:Lansing, MI

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:55 AM

Remove the automatic seeding of division winners. Period. Stupid rule.

You can have your division winner banner all you want, but being the best team in the worst division shouldn't automatically give you home ice over a better team, no matter what the logic is.


Basically sums up my feelings on it. I can see why the divisions are there for scheduling purposes but when it comes to the playoffs teams should be seeded based on points.

i57ouh.jpg

Captain Z!


#36 RedWingsRox

RedWingsRox

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,109 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 03 April 2012 - 12:23 PM

This happens almost every single year to at least one side of the conference, it's just that this year the discrepancy is very pronounced.

2011 - Boston got 3rd seeding when they should have been 4th or 5th
2010 - Buffalo got 3rd when they should have been 4th, Van got 3rd when they should have been 4th
2009 - Van got 3rd when they should have been 4th
2008 - Wash got 3rd when they should have been 6th, Minnesota got 3rd when they should be 4th
etc.
etc.

I think when the seeding is 1 off, nobody cared but when the difference is between 3rd or 7th ... it really stands out.

Edited by RedWingsRox, 03 April 2012 - 12:24 PM.


#37 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,567 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:42 PM

The main problem with divisional winners getting 1-2-3 isn't so much that it's unfair, but that it undermines the whole ranking system. The whole idea of seeding teams 1-8 is so that the "best" team in the conference (seed 1) has the advantage of playing the "worst" team (seed 8). That's their reward for being ranked 1st. Or the 8th seed's hurdle for finishing in the lowest position. By putting "worse" teams at 4, it ruins this system by saying "hey, you weren't great but you still get a lower ranked opponent"

Just think of the number of puppies being squirted out by the owners of pro sports teams on this side of the pond if we were to introduce the relegation system that the EPL uses :lol:

Edited by F.Michael, 03 April 2012 - 03:43 PM.


'Evolution' created by Offsides

#38 CrimsonFlame

CrimsonFlame

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Location:Troy, Michigan

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:56 PM

Just think about it like this. There's 3 top seeded division winners, and then 5 wild cards. they are than ranked in their own respective categories while staying separate from the other. Than combined at the end.

#39 irishock

irishock

    Into the sunset

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 06:35 PM

I'm not familiar with the NBA system, but whats the point of calling them a 4th seed if they're not getting home advantage anyway? might as well call them the 5th seed unless I'm missing something



Yes you are right, but remember that 4th seed gets to at least face the 5th seed in the first round, instead of being a bottom 3 and having to face 1st, 2nd or 3rd seeders.

bringit.jpg


#40 Dabura

Dabura

    Everydayer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,087 posts
  • Location:In an octopus's garden

Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:27 PM

I don't mind it all that much, to be honest. *shrug*

Don't Toews me, bro!






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users