35 replies to this topic

[BSLMikeLowe]

Ultimately, the NHL regular season is about only one thing: making the playoffs. Seeding is meaningless. If you get in, you've got as much of a shot as anyone else, whether you're the 8-seed or the 1-seed in your conference.

And that, to me, is a pathetic reason to have a regular season.

The NHL is the only league in which seeding is beside the point. In my opinion, a smart team will bust their butt to make the playoffs, then rest their key players so they are healthy and fresh for the playoffs.

Couldn't you make a similar argument for the NFL? The playoff seeding for the last 12 SB Champs has been (starting with the most recent): #4, #6, #1, #2, #5, #3, #6, #2, #1, #2, #2, #4. So over that period, the #6 seed (the last team in each conference to make the playoffs) has won the same number of titles as the #1 seed. Sounds like the goal at the beginning of the season should simply be "making the playoffs."

[Nuclear Dish]

Ultimately, the NHL regular season is about only one thing: making the playoffs. Seeding is meaningless. If you get in, you've got as much of a shot as anyone else, whether you're the 8-seed or the 1-seed in your conference.

And that, to me, is a pathetic reason to have a regular season.

The NHL is the only league in which seeding is beside the point. In my opinion, a smart team will bust their butt to make the playoffs, then rest their key players so they are healthy and fresh for the playoffs.

Couldn't you make a similar argument for the NFL? The playoff seeding for the last 12 SB Champs has been (starting with the most recent): #4, #6, #1, #2, #5, #3, #6, #2, #1, #2, #2, #4. So over that period, the #6 seed (the last team in each conference to make the playoffs) has won the same number of titles as the #1 seed. Sounds like the goal at the beginning of the season should simply be "making the playoffs."

Except that the setup of the NFL playoffs isn't such that .500 teams often get in as the wild cards. Rather, the wild card teams are often more deserving than some of the division winners.

Also, when you are talking about 12 out of 32 teams making it, I am not as bothered by making the goal to "just make the playoffs". In the NHL, it's 16 out of 30, I believe. So over half the teams are getting in. In other words, be average enough to get in, then get hot.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Couldn't you make a similar argument for the NFL? The playoff seeding for the last 12 SB Champs has been (starting with the most recent): #4, #6, #1, #2, #5, #3, #6, #2, #1, #2, #2, #4. So over that period, the #6 seed (the last team in each conference to make the playoffs) has won the same number of titles as the #1 seed. Sounds like the goal at the beginning of the season should simply be "making the playoffs."

Except that the setup of the NFL playoffs isn't such that .500 teams often get in as the wild cards. Rather, the wild card teams are often more deserving than some of the division winners.

Also, when you are talking about 12 out of 32 teams making it, I am not as bothered by making the goal to "just make the playoffs". In the NHL, it's 16 out of 30, I believe. So over half the teams are getting in. In other words, be average enough to get in, then get hot.

My point was more in response to your statement that playoff seeding is meaningless in the NHL, and not so much the percentage of teams that get in and how deserving they are. You could honestly make the argument that playoff seeding really doesn't mean as much as many like to think in any of the four major North American pro leagues. The only league I can think of where the higher seeds consistently win titles is the NBA. And I think that has more to do with the fact that the best teams in that league tend to finish at the top in the regular season, and subsequently advance in the playoffs, rather than any advantage they gain from where they are seeded.

[Nuclear Dish]

OK, I can accept that. I just think the NHL is especially egregious in this way. Too many teams making it, and then the high seeds having a so-so track record of success. You'd think that if they are going to let .500 teams in, they'd get crushed in the first round, the way it tends to work in the NBA. But that's just not the case.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Of course the other side of the coin is that a diminished regular season hurts the NHL more than the other leagues revenue-wise. Nearly every NFL game is must-see-TV, at least if your favorite team is playing or otherwise impacted. MLB has almost double the number of regular season games to make money. And the NBA has better league-wide TV deals during the regular season (in the US)....and as mentioned, in the NBA the regular season results are usually a much better barometer of how the postseason will play out. Factor in that the gap in the caliber of play during the regular season vs postseason is greater in the NHL than the other 3 (IMO), and I agree that the NHL does have a problem that it needs to address in the upcoming CBA.

[mweb08]

Ultimately, the NHL regular season is about only one thing: making the playoffs. Seeding is meaningless. If you get in, you've got as much of a shot as anyone else, whether you're the 8-seed or the 1-seed in your conference.

And that, to me, is a pathetic reason to have a regular season.

The NHL is the only league in which seeding is beside the point. In my opinion, a smart team will bust their butt to make the playoffs, then rest their key players so they are healthy and fresh for the playoffs.

I think baseball is pretty similar, but I haven't run the numbers.

Of course it's harder to make the playoffs in baseball, so there's that.

[Oriole85]

Ultimately, the NHL regular season is about only one thing: making the playoffs. Seeding is meaningless. If you get in, you've got as much of a shot as anyone else, whether you're the 8-seed or the 1-seed in your conference.

And that, to me, is a pathetic reason to have a regular season.

The NHL is the only league in which seeding is beside the point. In my opinion, a smart team will bust their butt to make the playoffs, then rest their key players so they are healthy and fresh for the playoffs.

Couldn't you make a similar argument for the NFL? The playoff seeding for the last 12 SB Champs has been (starting with the most recent): #4, #6, #1, #2, #5, #3, #6, #2, #1, #2, #2, #4. So over that period, the #6 seed (the last team in each conference to make the playoffs) has won the same number of titles as the #1 seed. Sounds like the goal at the beginning of the season should simply be "making the playoffs."

Difference is there isn't 80 games in the NFL, the difference between one and six in the NFL is naturally going to be much tighter than one and eight in the NHL. Also, 12 out of 32 teams make it as opposed to 16 out of 30. And there's real home-field advantage in single-elimination. And the only way to getting a home is winning your division except in the unlikely event the 5th and 6th seeds met in the Conference title games. Lastly and maybe most importantly, the top two teams get byes which give rest especially to veteran teams. I was thinking when the Vikings w/Favre made the NFC title game(and almost the Super Bowl) some years back they needed that bye week and would've needed another one for teh SB had they made it.

[Oriole85]

OK, I can accept that. I just think the NHL is especially egregious in this way. Too many teams making it, and then the high seeds having a so-so track record of success. You'd think that if they are going to let .500 teams in, they'd get crushed in the first round, the way it tends to work in the NBA. But that's just not the case.

I think this goes both ways though. If it's all chalk in the early rounds couldn't be worse, it's like lets not tune until the conference finals. Just trying to use a different point of view. As I've stated any league where half the teams make the playoffs to determine it's champion has a problem.

[mweb08]

I'm not sure if this point has been made, but you could argue that for many teams, the NHL regular season is more meaningful than in other sports. What I mean by that is that for the teams in the middle of the pack, the games really matter because they're fighting for a playoff spot and anything can happen if they make it. Those same MLB teams aren't usually fighting for a playoff spot and the NBA teams that are won't be good enough to advance far anyway unless they're getting a key player back from injury or something.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Couldn't you make a similar argument for the NFL? The playoff seeding for the last 12 SB Champs has been (starting with the most recent): #4, #6, #1, #2, #5, #3, #6, #2, #1, #2, #2, #4. So over that period, the #6 seed (the last team in each conference to make the playoffs) has won the same number of titles as the #1 seed. Sounds like the goal at the beginning of the season should simply be "making the playoffs."

Difference is there isn't 80 games in the NFL, the difference between one and six in the NFL is naturally going to be much tighter than one and eight in the NHL. Also, 12 out of 32 teams make it as opposed to 16 out of 30. And there's real home-field advantage in single-elimination. And the only way to getting a home is winning your division except in the unlikely event the 5th and 6th seeds met in the Conference title games. Lastly and maybe most importantly, the top two teams get byes which give rest especially to veteran teams. I was thinking when the Vikings w/Favre made the NFC title game(and almost the Super Bowl) some years back they needed that bye week and would've needed another one for teh SB had they made it.

I can't recall enough about recent NHL playoff history to say for sure, but based on the premise of this thread it would seem the difference between #1 and #8 in the NHL (once they get to the playoffs) isn't that much greater than #1 and #6 in the NFL.

And as I previously posted, 9 of the past 12 NFL Champs won at least 1 playoff game on the road (not counting the neutral-site SB) and 3 of those won all three playoff games on the road. That seems like a very high number for a sport that places such a premium on home-field. As for the bye week during the wild card round, only half of the past 12 SB champs had one.

[Oriole85]

I can't recall enough about recent NHL playoff history to say for sure, but based on the premise of this thread it would seem the difference between #1 and #8 in the NHL (once they get to the playoffs) isn't that much greater than #1 and #6 in the NFL.

And as I previously posted, 9 of the past 12 NFL Champs won at least 1 playoff game on the road (not counting the neutral-site SB) and 3 of those won all three playoff games on the road. That seems like a very high number for a sport that places such a premium on home-field. As for the bye week during the wild card round, only half of the past 12 SB champs had one.

Ask the Ravens if they thought having home-field advantage would've made a difference in the AFC Championship?

I think the big difference and sorry to sound like a broken record is that home-field advantage means the most in the NFL since it's only a single game. I do think in recent years that seeding has mattered less. I'd still say it matters more than the NHL. And the big difference is only 1/3 of the teams make it in the NFL and 1/2 them in the NHL do. Also winning your division means a lot more, case and point, Denver and Pittsburgh(or Baltimore).

[Nuclear Dish]

And so it happens... the #8 seed wins it all.

It's really about making the playoffs and hoping you've got a goalie who can get hot.

It gives me hope that the Blues will win it one of these years. They have 2 goalies, both of whom are capable of getting hot enough to win it all.

[Oriole85]

And so it happens... the #8 seed wins it all.

It's really about making the playoffs and hoping you've got a goalie who can get hot.

It gives me hope that the Blues will win it one of these years. They have 2 goalies, both of whom are capable of getting hot enough to win it all.

I think this true in any sport, maybe hockey more than the others. Packers won as the six seed a two years ago and Giants got in as a 9-7 division winner by winning their last game last year. I recall Billy Beane calling the baseball playoffs a crapshoot as well. Cardinals won by getting hot at the right time as well. And I remember in 2007 when I was in Colorado, how the Rockies got hot at the right time and made an improbably World Series run (although they lost). Just depends on how open you make the playoffs. If you want to have over half your teams make the playoffs, that comes with watering down your regular season.

[JeremyStrain]

And so it happens... the #8 seed wins it all.

It's really about making the playoffs and hoping you've got a goalie who can get hot.

It gives me hope that the Blues will win it one of these years. They have 2 goalies, both of whom are capable of getting hot enough to win it all.

Only if you are just casually following it and didn't know the details of what happened.

The Kings were not a playoff team coming into the season, they were missing some pieces, made some big trades giving up pieces and were counting on instant chemistry with Richards who they had just traded for. They were also hoping Quick took another big step in his development, as last year he showed he was good, but this was his first year as THE guy. (Like Holtby next year hopefully)

Losing and gaining some players they were hanging around just out of the playoffs, and then took the big risk on Jeff Carter. Adding him sparked Richards, and revitalized Carter, and all of a sudden they were a team with two elite scoring lines, an elite PP defenseman, and a young goalie getting more confident. They were a MUCH different team after the trading deadline, and were the best #8 seed you've seen in a LONG time.They gelled and hit their stride right at the end of the regular season and just rolled the playoffs, comparing them to the other teams on paper, they should have.

So this isn't just a case of a # 8 stumbling into the Stanley Cup.

[Pedro Cerrano]

And so it happens... the #8 seed wins it all.

It's really about making the playoffs and hoping you've got a goalie who can get hot.

It gives me hope that the Blues will win it one of these years. They have 2 goalies, both of whom are capable of getting hot enough to win it all.

Only if you are just casually following it and didn't know the details of what happened.

The Kings were not a playoff team coming into the season, they were missing some pieces, made some big trades giving up pieces and were counting on instant chemistry with Richards who they had just traded for. They were also hoping Quick took another big step in his development, as last year he showed he was good, but this was his first year as THE guy. (Like Holtby next year hopefully)

Losing and gaining some players they were hanging around just out of the playoffs, and then took the big risk on Jeff Carter. Adding him sparked Richards, and revitalized Carter, and all of a sudden they were a team with two elite scoring lines, an elite PP defenseman, and a young goalie getting more confident. They were a MUCH different team after the trading deadline, and were the best #8 seed you've seen in a LONG time.They gelled and hit their stride right at the end of the regular season and just rolled the playoffs, comparing them to the other teams on paper, they should have.

So this isn't just a case of a # 8 stumbling into the Stanley Cup.

And didn't the Kings miss out on being a 3 seed or something by 2 points? A buddy of mine had this to say on Facebook and I think it's pretty appropriate (he's a HUGE hockey fan):

"All the fans looking at the Kings and thinking, 'We just gotta get in and we could win' aren't seeing the whole picture. That Kings team has a ton of talent all over the ice. That was the best 8th seed ever. Your 8th seed won't be the same."

[JeremyStrain]

Yeah they missed being a 5 seed by 2 points, and things were complicated in the West having 4 100+ point teams in one division, that made things kind of wonky, and they had 15 OT losses which is pretty crazy, it was like 3rd in the NHL or something. Just a weird year all around.