EHM The Blue Line

Now, here is a thread which really, is something that might upset some people, but is not intended to do such. From what I have seen here, these forums have lots of fairly knowledgeable hockey fans from all over the world, so I think its worth throwing out there. I think this could be a very cool discussion!


TWO THINGS ABOUT THE NHL

THE PLAYOFF STRUCTURE IS BAD

THERE ARE TOO MANY


So first…..

THE PLAYOFF STRUCTURE SUCKS


I loved the playoff format with the Adams, Patrick, Smythe and Norris divisions. The bottom feeder (In the case of Patrick 2 bottom feeders) missed the playoffs while 1 played 4 and 2 played 3 in each division. I liked the fact you could be divisional playoff champ.

Hell, I dont like the fact they renamed the divisions and for the record the Eastern Conference is the Wales and the Western is the Campbell! But I digress….

I acknowledge that the current playoff structure is more fair overall. I mean in the old 21 team system you had for a few years the Norris being an absolutely horrid division. When I heard that the Leafs missing the playoffs for the 3rd straight year this year was the first time they had done that in over 50 years I was surprised. (Happy because Im a Habs fan!) I was surprised because I remember early to mid 1980s Leaf teams being really bad. Jim Korn, Jiri Chra and John Anderson… BAD TEAMS!! But back then it didn’t matter because as long as one other team sucked worse in your division… you made the playoffs. Of course the current NHL did keep in some faint way the old divisional loophole alive by ranking the 3 divisional winners 1-3.. I mean Carolina was almost a playoff team this year! But I believe the strategy was different back then.

Lets throw the Leafs out there again. Understand I REALLY hate the Leafs, but it’s a good example to prove my thinking. So Im unbiased!!!

The Leafs team that missed the playoffs for the last 3 years was far better than the Leaf teams of the 1980s. Heres how the Leafs did in most of the 80’s

From 1980-81

W L T PTS FINISHED PLAYOFFS
28 37 15 71 5 NO
20 44 16 56 5 NO
28 40 12 68 3 YES
26 45 9 61 5 NO
20 52 8 48 5 NO
25 48 7 57 4 YES
32 42 6 70 4 YES
28 46 6 62 5 NO

Now heres the Leafs record the last 3 years, and where they finished in their division: (Playoffs is if they would have made playoffs with OLD method)

W L T PTS FINISHED PLAYOFFS
41 33 8 90 4 YES
40 31 11 91 3 YES
36 35 11 83 5 NO

So in the first 8 years of the 1980s, the Leafs NEVER won more than 32 games, in fact only won more than 28 ONCE, yet they made the playoffs a modest 3 of 8 years. The team WASN’T EVEN CLOSE to being .500, yes they made the playoffs 3 times.

Now the last 3 years the Leafs not only were above .500 each of the years, they were a mile ahead of their 1980;s incarnations. Yet they failed to make the playoffs once.

I found/find, that with the old Divisional Driven playoff structure, meant your strategy to make the playoffs was based around 2 paths.

Path 1: If you were one of the top 8 teams in your conference, as what makes the playoffs now (Basically) you didn’t have to worry.

Path 2: If you weren’t an elite top 8 team, you could still make the playoffs if the other teams in your division was in the same boat.

Right now, in 2008.. if you are rebuilding the Leafs, you have a longer haul. Because with the old structure, things aren’t so dire, you have made the playoffs two of the last 3 years. But instead, you have a tougher path. More teams to jump ahead of.

Really.. why have divisions? I mean at least if you have 1 bad division like the Norris was in the 80’s, they all knew they wouldn’t win the cup but the first 2 rounds were divisional playoffs so gave fans something to cheer about. Hey, in that era the Norris knew it didn’t matter who won, because the Oliers would kick the snot out of you anyhow. But those first 2 rounds were to some degree a mini Stanley cup to build on.

So the NHL decides to change direction but not all the way… the top 8 teams make the playoffs… well almost….. Division winners THEN the next top 5. But as this structure has shown, at least 2 of the 3 divisional winners each year in this system would have made the playoffs if you ranked 1-8 anyhow.

In a nutshell, the NHL didn’t want teams that were weak to make the playoffs just because their division was weak. This, while a team in another division didn’t make it although they might have finished top 2 in a weaker division. I can understand that… but then why the hell have divisional winners all make it because now you still leave yourself open to probably one BAD team to make the playoffs every year? To me your not going all the way… top 8 in the conference or a divisional playoff structure which gives all teams a bit more hope IMHO.

The new structure eliminates rivalries. Sure this year Montreal plays Boston and the NYR play the Devils like the good old days… but really, any year you can get things like Montreal vs Atlanta…. *yawn* Come on!! In the old days the Habs would play either Buffalo, Quebec, Boston or Hartford and there was better rivalries because of this! For at least 2 roudns the teams knew each other well and HATED each other, it was better hockey because of it… IMHO.

It used to be more fun to be a fan because divisional standings was something you followed a whole lot more. I mean if you live in Buffalo and are a big hockey fan.. you still may know whos in playogff position in thw west, even though your team doesn’t play there, but who is 3rd in the NW?? Most wont know.. it SEEMED if it were 1984 and the divisional structure was different youd more likely then know who was 3rd in the Smythe. It was more in the press, it really weas like 4 mini leagues inside a bigger one.

So either go to the top 8 teams and scrap divisions or go to old system. Right now its halfway and I think it sucks.


Which brings us now to:


THERE ARE TOO MANY TEAMS IN THE NHL

I am one of the people who believe that there are too many teams in the NHL, or at the very least some poor markets out there for NHL clubs.

Now I do understand to a degree that people in the US are big on College/University sports where there are a ton of teams. MLB and the NFL have a bunch of teams as well and their playoff structures are more rigid than hockey so its tougher to get a playoff shot at a championship compared to hockey. So to those south of the Great White North they may think the current size of the NHL is not bad.

With so many European members here as well in these forums, the football league also have a lot of teams (Soccer as some of you insist on calling it!) different ways to organize the leagues ect.


Some background…

Now I grew up with my grandfather pretty well insisting the NHL died in 67 with expansion. 6 teams was enough.

My dad who played a s a maskless goaltender for the RCAF Flyers in the 1960’s peaked as an NHL fan in the 70s where he thought the 12-15 clubs was good.

Now personally I became a hockey nut when the league was at 21 teams. This is funny to a degree because I love stats, and having 3 divisions of 5 and one odd one at 6 was against my organized nature… but hey… that’s the way it was! Lol!

But right now 30 teams is just too darn much. Way too much. You cant even divide this up into the aforementioned divisional system of the 1980s because you would have an odd 3 divisions in each conference…

There is always talk of expansion again. And of course it probably wont be to Canada, because Bettman would rather move to KC where the NHL failed before. Hed rather have non hockey markets like Atlanta and Nashville instead of Winnipeg and Quebec. Its maddening… its illogical for the good of the game, but its not about that, its all about trying to make more money.

I wont be as scientific as I was with my divisional debate. But it boils down to the talent pool being watered down to nothing while more importantly to me the cities being awarded franchises in recent years are BAD HOCKEY MARKETS. This to me is because the NHL is in the end, a business.

Id like the NHL to contract to 24 teams. 4 divisions of 6 where the top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs. But contraction will never happen.

Here where people get mad at me if they are fans of the following teams, but sorry…

Scrap Atlanta, Nashville, one of the Florida state teams (or both really) drop Phoenix, add Columbus to the fold. And Carolina?? The team is named after a natural disaster that kills many Americans each year… which is fitting, because cities like that having teams I think is killing the league for many real fans.

Hey… in 1983 Id watch a playoff game between the North Stars vs the Blackhawks because you knew the teams hated each other because of rooted rivalry with playoff structure… who cares if they were under .500 each!!?? Id rather watch that then seeing Carolina or like last year Atlanta playing ANYBODY.

Without reading the whole thing...only 5 teams in the NHL were not over .500 this year. Yep 5. So...that just tells you the 3 point system is silly.

Too many teams in the league for sure, but the ratio of teams in playoffs vs those out is perfect. The talent pool is not watered down as much as the teams are so overcoached it is ridiculous. When you have coaches telling guys like Jaromir Jagr they must play the system or they get no ice time...you have a problem. Hence scoring is down, not because of water down, but because of coaching. Oh yeah, and WAYYYYYYYYYY better goaltending than in the old days..when even in the NHL they often stuck the fat kid in net.

The rivalry system is still good NYR-NJ is a great first round to have.


But something has to be done to make the game fast paced again. Last nite the ref in the Col-Min game put the whistle away. Honestly, that may be the best game I have seen in years. But still, it was not as exciting as 1994, or even 1993 playoffs. Just missing something (and not the Canucks)

So yeah..random rant from me

Beefs with the NHL...

...darn, where do I even begin...

For me, it'd be easier to state what I do like about the NHL:

1. It's an ice hockey league.
2. My home city has a team in it.

...and that's about it. Everything else can be written down as something I hate about the league. ...too many teams... too many games... divisions/conferences... Nashville, Los Angeles, Florida, Tampa, Texas, Phoenix... too much "to be determined" in the playoffs... new uniforms... Gary "Are-tard" bettman... goalie equipment sizes... officiating... the rules...

first of in bias, i love the hate on the coyotes, lets just kill the franchise as its making a comeback, yeah sound great

on to non-bias, i didn't start watching hockey again till recently this year (thanks to again the coyotes) but my problems are no where near these long spiels.

First, too many penalties, i'm sorry but i remember hockey when i use to watch it in the 90's as players beat the **** out of each other all game, it seems like always a spearing, hooking, high stick etc etc. call, i remember when the most common penalty was cross checking.

Second change the format of the playoffs. Its the first round and that 1 v 8 isn't of best of 7 importance, if you can't win in 5, go home period. a 5-7-7-7 at least.

Third, stop rewarding teams for sucking less then the rest of the division. "oh, you had a .490 win pct, but since the rest of the division is worse then you here you go you can be the 3rd team in. Either let them be the 8 teams but sort those 8 by points OR scrap the division and make it win or go home. If you can't win enough games to be in the top 8, then you shouldnt be rewarded for it by being in the top 8 much less top 3

Third, stop rewarding teams for sucking less then the rest of the division. "oh, you had a .490 win pct, but since the rest of the division is worse then you here you go you can be the 3rd team in.

Yeah, this one has always annoyed me, too.

Just because a team is leading a division doesn't mean they worthy of a top three spot.

Nothing makes a league look dumber than a points-sort that comes out like this:

1. 104
2. 102
3. 94
4. 99
5. 97
6. 95
7. 94
8. 94

first of in bias, i love the hate on the coyotes, lets just kill the franchise as its making a comeback, yeah sound great

It's certainly not about hate on the Coyotes... it's just that there are many other cities with fans who are far more deserving of an NHL team.

Attendence figures for the last three years show that Phoenix's avg. attendance % is decreasing. 89% crowd in 2006; 85.6% in 2007; 84.7% in 2008. I'm sure there are plenty of cities who could consistently put up at least 90% attendances. And many who could even post 100% attendances on a yearly basis, like many current teams are already doing.

But don't think this is just Phoenix. It's a handful of teams who aren't carrying their weight... and as a result, they unfortunately need to go for the sake of the NHL's future health.

Im not nuts about Phoenix, but Ill be honest, its probably because winnipeg moved there to becoem that team, Ill admit if they had bene an expansion franchise I might think differently.

Id axe six other teams before them.. but they arent an institution.

I feel bad in the sence that Coyote of the sea is an honest fan.. but Im talking the big picture.. I was a die hard Monytreal Expos fan.. but we didnt deserve that franchise and we all know what happned there.

If there is one thing I think personally the NHL should fix,it is the overtime rules for playoff games,take last nights Dallas-San Jose game for example,the game went to 4 overtimes because they insist upon playing 20 Minute periods on end till someone scores a goal. I mean,that is just ridiculousw players could get hurt easily from Fatigue just from playing that long.

This is why I particularly like the shootout,it is short and it DECIDES things,whereas playing 20 minute overtime periods with no end,and the refs refusing to call penalties to force power plays that could decide the game and/or Series,does not

So you could complain and critisize a lot about how many teams there are or the playoff structure,but really a lot of little things should be fixed first.

Im not crazy about the shootout.

If I had my way, 2 points win, 1 tie with NO OT or Shootout.


What Id really want is play OT untill someone scores period like baseball... which means you could make standings 'GB1" which I prefer. But really tyhats probably too radical...

A point for losing in ot or shootout?? why!!!

if they ever change OT in the playoffs to 4x4 I will snap. No freaking shootouts, no freaking 4x4.

The playoffs of the NHL are a GRIND. They are supposed to be a GRIND. The winner of the Stanley Cup should barely have a player able to stand up when they lift it.

Sorry...but I have always been a person who grew up dreaming of scoring that winning goal in game 7 of the Stanley Cup final in OT, Double OT, Triple OT.

Not once have I ever ever thought it would be cool to score that winning goal while the other team's goalie and I were the only players on the ice. Well...not true one dream had me hooked on a breakaway against Ken Dryden...and then I scored on the penalty shot. But that is different. Cause I laughed and laughed when I realized the guy who dumped me was Big Bird. No..not Larry..actually Big Bird. I was a kid okay?

Not once have I dreamt that it would be in a 4x4 5 minute OT.

The league can go to 4 on 4...but not until the teams have played for at least 3 full games. 6 OT's///then go 4x4. But only then because the teams only have 4 players who can stand up. Yep you got it...the 4 who never actually get on the ice during the game. Steve Ott, Mark Fistric...those guys. Then they get to live their dream.

batdad wrote: Well...not true one dream had me hooked on a breakaway against Ken Dryden...and then I scored on the penalty shot. But that is different. Cause I laughed and laughed when I realized the guy who dumped me was Big Bird. No..not Larry..actually Big Bird. I was a kid okay?

Man... you Canadian kids are weird!

Yeah I was a kid..who hated the Habs and loved Sesame Street. Now how is that different from you Bruins? Give me a break.

I'd like to see them "fix" the 3 point system for the regular season. problem is, a game won outright in regulation is worth 2 points, but a game won in OT/SO is worth 3? They need to standardize it, make all games worth 3, so a win is worth 3, So/OT win is worth 2, and SO/OT loss is worth 1.

Or, now that there are no ties, get rid of the points system.

The only way i'd be willing to entertain shootout in playoffs, a suggestion I heard today was to do a shootout after 3 OT periods. Not many games get that far in the first place, and for the "ratings gods" in order to get the NHL back on real channels and off VS here in the US i'd be willing to consider that as a fan.

batdad wrote:Now how is that different from you Bruins? Give me a break.

everyone knows ths Bruins couldnt score on Dryden....

I say to a 3 point system(which I think the league did too, a few months ago...?).

I always like the simplest and most streamlined solutions, which is why I would propose this if I were in the league:

Any win = 1 point
Any loss = 0 points

You win 82 games, you finish with 82 points. You win none, you finish with none.

Shootouts suck. Period. No way i'd watch any playoff game if there was shootouts in it. Winners win by scoring goals, not by winning the lottery. You want to win and advance to the next round? Prove you deserve it and score a goal!

However, refs non calling penalties in OTs is stupid. An infraction is an infraction, no matter if it's regulation time or OT.

4-on-4 5 minutes OT are useless. Five minutes is just too short to score. Put it up to 10 minutes, even at 5-on-5, and you'll see way more games decided in OT, leaving the shootouts to the place they deserve: being useless.

4-on-4 5 minutes OT are useless. Five minutes is just too short to score. Put it up to 10 minutes, even at 5-on-5, and you'll see way more games decided in OT, leaving the shootouts to the place they deserve: being useless.

This is one I really, really agree with.

Five minutes is ridiculous. I mean, with that small amount of time compared to a standard period of play, it's almost like they don't want the tie broken.

And then after that five minutes, they jump into the all-out score-fest shootouts as if the game's been going on for days, and they need something to end the game as soon as possible. ...it's only been five minutes, what's the hurry?

Shadd666 wrote:Shootouts suck. Period. No way i'd watch any playoff game if there was shootouts in it. Winners win by scoring goals, not by winning the lottery. You want to win and advance to the next round? Prove you deserve it and score a goal!

However, refs non calling penalties in OTs is stupid. An infraction is an infraction, no matter if it's regulation time or OT.

4-on-4 5 minutes OT are useless. Five minutes is just too short to score. Put it up to 10 minutes, even at 5-on-5, and you'll see way more games decided in OT, leaving the shootouts to the place they deserve: being useless.

May I just ask how you equate shootouts with winning the lottery,if you think it is luck then that is not entirley accurate,a shootout is all about the shooter reading the Goalies mind and movements,as is the same for the goalie trying to read the shooters movements. It's one on one shooter versus Goalie,and does bring in new stratagies to the game that you don't normally use in regulation.

Personally if I were to change Playoff overtime I would shorten the sudden Death periods to 10 minutes,and have 2 overtime periods,after that if there is no winner have a shootout.

...It's one on one shooter versus Goalie...

Which is the travesty in the whole shootout concept.

A 19 vs 19 team sport... reduced to one on one.

hobbitrjw wrote:

Shadd666 wrote:Shootouts suck. Period. No way i'd watch any playoff game if there was shootouts in it. Winners win by scoring goals, not by winning the lottery. You want to win and advance to the next round? Prove you deserve it and score a goal!

However, refs non calling penalties in OTs is stupid. An infraction is an infraction, no matter if it's regulation time or OT.

4-on-4 5 minutes OT are useless. Five minutes is just too short to score. Put it up to 10 minutes, even at 5-on-5, and you'll see way more games decided in OT, leaving the shootouts to the place they deserve: being useless.

May I just ask how you equate shootouts with winning the lottery,if you think it is luck then that is not entirley accurate,a shootout is all about the shooter reading the Goalies mind and movements,as is the same for the goalie trying to read the shooters movements. It's one on one shooter versus Goalie,and does bring in new stratagies to the game that you don't normally use in regulation.

Personally if I were to change Playoff overtime I would shorten the sudden Death periods to 10 minutes,and have 2 overtime periods,after that if there is no winner have a shootout.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion hobbit. However, in my mind as a person who has studied this game for over 25 years this is purely silly. Sorry, but it is.

This would be like

1. Ending the world series game 7 with a home run derby or a "who can pitch the fastest" competition.
2. Ending the Super Bowl with a quarterback accuracy contest, or a fastest 40 yard competition
3. Ending a Nascar race with a drag race involving all 20 cars who were on the last lap
4. Ending the NBA or NCAA final four with a slam dunk competition after 2 OT periods.
5. Ending a soccer//football game with a header competition, or penalty kick...oh wait!

Sorry...but none of those 5 tell you which team is the best. All they tell you is that Antii Miettanen (spell for me Tasku?) or Nikko Kapanen or Jussi Jokkinen or Jarko Ruutu are good at stickhandling and shooting. Sorry...but these guys actually should have to get to the goalie and have the chance first.

I hope to bloody God you never get to be president of any hockey league. Cause this garbage of a shootout in the NHL playoffs would ruin hockey completely. Sorry...but it will.

Hockey should be what it is meant to be. Play til someone wins. 5x5.....in the playoffs. It is a long drawn out war....not a simple silly pool game.

batdad wrote:5. Ending a soccer//football game with a header competition, or penalty kick...oh wait!

hobbitrjw wrote:May I just ask how you equate shootouts with winning the lottery,if you think it is luck then that is not entirley accurate,a shootout is all about the shooter reading the Goalies mind and movements,as is the same for the goalie trying to read the shooters movements. It's one on one shooter versus Goalie,and does bring in new stratagies to the game that you don't normally use in regulation.

Personally if I were to change Playoff overtime I would shorten the sudden Death periods to 10 minutes,and have 2 overtime periods,after that if there is no winner have a shootout.

Not a lottery in the sense of it being just luck, but in the sense that the winner of the hockey game is determined by something that has very few to deal with hockey. Which sucks.

Sure, shootouts require some skills. But it's not some hockey play, just a few very specific skills. We already have the skill competition in the All-Star Game for that kind of useless stuff.

Hockey is a war. And you never see a war end with some gentle duetists. The whole troops fight eachother until there's a winner. So OT sudden death fits way better than freaking shootouts to hockey. Hockey is hockey... Not some soccer ballerines with skates who dropped the grass for the ice.

Those who don't follow hockey know it as a very physical sport, even if they don't know anything else about it... Which means that this physical part is of a very big importance in hockey. It's a big part of hockey identity. Now tell me where you can see any sort of physical play in a shootout? Nowhere. Shootouts have nothing to deal with hockey. Period.

I don't know what crossed Bettman's mind 3 years ago when he introduced the shootouts to hockey, but it was probably the worst decision he ever made (out of the several stupid ones he made) because this one denaturates the game.

Now you want shootouts in the playoffs? Wow... how great the winner would be by winning this Stanley Cup game 7 in... the shootouts? Sorry, but i don't buy it. I prefer seeing tired guys in third or fourth OT battling along the boards, backcheking, hitting, taking hits to help their team to make the play, chase the open ice, make some great passing play, and finally find a way to figure out the opponent's goalie to win the Cup after an epic team effort. Those guys really deserve their win, because they really did everything that needed to be done to emerge with the win, both on individual and collective sides. If you prefer to see players winning the Cup by sitting on the bench while one of their teammate somehow scored on a shootout breakaway, that's your choice. But then please don't call it hockey anymore, and don't give them the Stanley Cup. This Cup is not made for naff winners, but for real hockey players.

Sbufkle wrote:

batdad wrote:Now how is that different from you Bruins? Give me a break.

everyone knows ths Bruins couldnt score on Dryden....

OUCH!