Here's my bracket!
now we know your Cup Tiebreaker!
This was probably discussed in the previous thread, but if the Rangers had won one more game and had more points than Montreal, would they have had home ice advantage? The only thing I could find on the NHL website under playoff format says
but I'm sure they never intended it for that situation...?Home-ice advantage through the first two rounds goes to the team that placed higher in the regular-season standings.
Nope, Montreal (or whoever finished 1st in the Atlantic) would have had home ice regardless of how many points the Rangers had. Welcome to the NHL's divisional playoff format, where the intention to have playoff rivalries results in at least two matchups where the teams have literally never played each other in the postseason.
It's incredibly stupid and nobody likes it.
I dont think its stupid, but there should be a addendum where the wildcards stay in their own division if there is one from each division, and only do the crossover if one division occupies both wildcard spots. Its possible that the Rangers win the Atlantic, and the Leafs win the Metro this year. Unlikely, but a possibility.
This is an even worse idea, congrats. Why would you want to punish a Division even more for being completely dominant and having 4 of the 5 best teams in the conference all play each other in the first round? The WCs aren't even the issue, Division winners SHOULD get Home Ice over them, even if the records are wonky but the dumb as fuck 2v3 Division first round match-up is dumb as fuck. It should be 2 Division winners, then 3-8 in the conference seeded.
It wouldn't even change who made the playoffs this year, just who each team faces. We have 2v3, 4v5 and 6v7 matchup in the East and that's stupid, period.
Matchups should have been;
WSH v TOR
MTL v BOS - HOLY SHIT RIVALRY
PIT v OTT - The storylines for Crosby slashing off Methot's finger would hype this one up
CBJ v NYR - TORTS FACES OLD TEAM
Only two matchups in the west change and they would be "arguably" lesser, as you lose Yeo and McClellan vs their old teams;
MIN v SJ
EDM v STL
this whole division playoff shit is fucking terrible
I like the idea of trying to force regional/rivalry matchups but they have to change the way the seeding works for teams that don't win their division.
But at the same time, there is no perfect method and there will always be unhappy people
There is no perfect method but there are surely more "fair" methods that still accomplish what the league is aiming for.
Nice job on the write up Judai. I have never picked the Perds to win the Stanley Cup, but I'm going for it this year. Full bracket with games per series is below. Also, NHL 17 simulation has the Perds winning the Cup haha:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-17-...164223019.html
You can't have both though. The only "forced" rivalry matchup in this format is the 2v3 division matchup. They are screwing better teams, for a mediocre chance at a rivalry game in 4 total matchups and they got ZERO actual rivalries out of it.
PIT v CBJ isn't a big matchup cause of rivalries, it's because they are the 2nd and 4th best teams in the entire NHL, playing in the first round.
OTT v BOS, not a rivalry.
MIN v STL, not a rivalry.
EDM v SJ, not a rivalry.
The closest games to Rivalries are all Division winners vs WCs. CHI v NSH, legit rivalry, MTL v NYR and the Price/Kreider Saga, ANA v CGY has some bad blood this year.
Just reward the better teams and give fair matchups and let the rivalries form on their own like they always do.
95% of the time Division winners as 1/2 seeds and 3-8 seeded would be pretty perfect, and the only real complaint would be a year like this were PIT/CBJ have a better record then MTL but "division winner bonus" is an easy defense of that. Anyone who would argue in that scenario is just being a shit.
I'm nearly positive that at first this was how it was set up (or at least how they explained it on nhl.com). I remember it specifically saying the only time a team would play in the other division was a 2nd wildcard moving over. (And regardless of the points of the division winners it was always the 2nd wildcard that moved.) Much later I went back and the explanation was different.
It's probably just west coast bias but I'm pretty indifferent to the matchups and how seeding is done. And that's probably because changing it would have minimal effects for the west teams.
I'm not gonna make the effort myself but I'm sure if I toss it out there one of you will; would changing the way seeding is done (i.e. To a 3-8 format) have had drastic differences in past playoff positioning? Or are you all getting into it this year because it's a bit of an anomaly how strong the Metro is compared to the Atlantic this year?
Here is my own stupid idea, that i honestly didn't think about pro/cons so here it is
First round is a round robin type.
So all 8 team of the east face each other once. (aka forcing all of them to do 7 games first round)
The first of each division will always be at home for first round and 7-8 will always be away, while 3-4-5-6 do both home and away
The 4 teams with the best score goes to 2nd round, where it goes back to normal with the 'best season team left face the worse team of the season left'
That way it would 'force' team to do better since spot 7-8 are always away.
Like it said it's quick Idea sent like that
@Rata God no on that round robin format
It's been a thing every year but it's blown up this year due to building up AND because it's just unbelievably bad this year and East Coast biased is pushing it. It wouldn't change a ton of matchups but there has been at least one bad matchup every year where a team is getting screwed for being good, in the wrong division.
It also affects the 2nd round, like the Caps having to face the Pens last year, even though the Pens were #2 in the conf.