Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are the Flames Canada's best shot at a cup this year?
(9 hours ago)topgun Wrote:
(10 hours ago)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(10 hours ago)topgun Wrote: I gave you the current scenario this season and the same teams meeting last season. I haven't looked back further on this.
I did. Unless I missed some, teams have only played each other in the first round in consecutive years once: Pittsburgh and the Rangers. 

In 2017 in East these were the top 3 teams:

Washington
Pittsburgh
Columbus

All 3 were from the Metropolitan Division. With the new format #3 in the conference Columbus ended up playing the Pittsburgh which was the #2 seed. Columbus has a great season their reward for it was playing Pittsburgh and starting on the road. Under the previous format Columbus would have played the #6 seed. What any hockey fan want their team to play in the first round, the #2 seed or the #6 seed? (Ottawa)

Last year the top 2 teams in the Western Conference Winnipeg and Nashville had to play each other in the second. The current format creates more inequities than the previous system. I can't see how anyone can deny that.

Unless the NHL runs a true 1-16 format, there will always be inequalities. People called that second round Winnipeg/Nashville series the true Stanley Cup Finals. Should we run a 1-16 format to ensure a similar travesty never occurs again? If we do that though, then there will be inequities in the regular season schedules. So we need to adjust the regular season schedule. Every team will have to play each other the same number of times. But that is not enough. Teams need to play each other an even number of times, so that each team gets the same number of home games. So the NHL season needs to be 60 games or 120 games. That is the only way to ensure equity.

To win the Cup you need to beat the best teams. If Nashville could not win the second round, they do not deserve to win the Cup. If the Leafs could not beat Boston in the first round, then they do not deserve to win the Cup. You are exaggerating the inequities created by the current system. Whether it was the second round or the third round or the finals, Winnipeg and Nashville were going to have to face each other. They will not change the system because a team might not make it as far as they would have in another system. That is a ridiculous standard to use. 

There is more to hockey than 'equity'. Ignoring the logistical issues that arise under 1-8 or 1-16 systems, regional rivalries are important for the league. There is more fan engagement when regional rivalries are present. To sacrifice rivalries and fan engagement in the name of equity is silly and bad business.

Canuck fans hate Chicago and they hate Boston. Neither team plays within the division. Look at the hatred between the Predators and the Ducks. Last off season Johansen and Kesler were still chirping each other. Hockey was doing excellent under the previous format and GROWING as was the revenue. Just look at the Cap going up under the old system. 

You've shifted the goal posts to from where your started. Your first reply to me was :

Quote:topgun:

I don't like the new playoff format. The old 1 vs. 8 in each conference was a better format. It rewarded teams that finished higher in the standings by playing the lower. The current format penalizes teams that are playing in a strong division.

TheOilerFan83:

Which teams are being penalized?

If I am shifting goal posts, it’s a result of you being unable to keep a straight line. All I’ve done is respond to your talking points

For example, you brought up the same teams playing each other all the time, not me.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(9 hours ago)TheOilerFan83 Wrote: A round by round break down of home ice advantage is far more relevant to the conversation.

Ugh....I'm already getting a headache..
"I drink to make other people interesting"
~ E. Hemmingway
Reply
Thanks given by:
(9 hours ago)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(9 hours ago)topgun Wrote:
(10 hours ago)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(10 hours ago)topgun Wrote: I gave you the current scenario this season and the same teams meeting last season. I haven't looked back further on this.
I did. Unless I missed some, teams have only played each other in the first round in consecutive years once: Pittsburgh and the Rangers. 

In 2017 in East these were the top 3 teams:

Washington
Pittsburgh
Columbus

All 3 were from the Metropolitan Division. With the new format #3 in the conference Columbus ended up playing the Pittsburgh which was the #2 seed. Columbus has a great season their reward for it was playing Pittsburgh and starting on the road. Under the previous format Columbus would have played the #6 seed. What any hockey fan want their team to play in the first round, the #2 seed or the #6 seed? (Ottawa)

Last year the top 2 teams in the Western Conference Winnipeg and Nashville had to play each other in the second. The current format creates more inequities than the previous system. I can't see how anyone can deny that.

Unless the NHL runs a true 1-16 format, there will always be inequalities. People called that second round Winnipeg/Nashville series the true Stanley Cup Finals. Should we run a 1-16 format to ensure a similar travesty never occurs again? If we do that though, then there will be inequities in the regular season schedules. So we need to adjust the regular season schedule. Every team will have to play each other the same number of times. But that is not enough. Teams need to play each other an even number of times, so that each team gets the same number of home games. So the NHL season needs to be 60 games or 120 games. That is the only way to ensure equity.

To win the Cup you need to beat the best teams. If Nashville could not win the second round, they do not deserve to win the Cup. If the Leafs could not beat Boston in the first round, then they do not deserve to win the Cup. You are exaggerating the inequities created by the current system. Whether it was the second round or the third round or the finals, Winnipeg and Nashville were going to have to face each other. They will not change the system because a team might not make it as far as they would have in another system. That is a ridiculous standard to use. 

There is more to hockey than 'equity'. Ignoring the logistical issues that arise under 1-8 or 1-16 systems, regional rivalries are important for the league. There is more fan engagement when regional rivalries are present. To sacrifice rivalries and fan engagement in the name of equity is silly and bad business.

Canuck fans hate Chicago and they hate Boston. Neither team plays within the division. Look at the hatred between the Predators and the Ducks. Last off season Johansen and Kesler were still chirping each other. Hockey was doing excellent under the previous format and GROWING as was the revenue. Just look at the Cap going up under the old system. 

You've shifted the goal posts to from where your started. Your first reply to me was :

Quote:topgun:

I don't like the new playoff format. The old 1 vs. 8 in each conference was a better format. It rewarded teams that finished higher in the standings by playing the lower. The current format penalizes teams that are playing in a strong division.

TheOilerFan83:

Which teams are being penalized?

If I am shifting goal posts, it’s a result of you being unable to keep a straight line. All I’ve done is respond to your talking points

For example, you brought up the same teams playing each other all the time, not me.

The whole thing started about teams being penalized by having a great season and then having to play another team that had a great season when it's 1 vs. 4 compared to 1 vs. 8. 

No other league uses a divisional format in the playoffs. They have plenty of rivalries and it hasn't hindered their growth.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(Yesterday, 04:59 PM)teamblue Wrote:
(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(Yesterday, 11:26 AM)Bong13 Wrote: Home ice means very little in the playoffs

It might mean more if the split was 5 to 2....  Silly

Remember when they tried that stupid 2-3-2 games split?

YUP...  

To be honest, I would love it if , in the 1st round only, the top 4 teams in each conference were given a 5 to 2 split... 

Obviously a balanced sked would be necessary and instead of having all these division winners and wild cards, we'd basically need seeds 1 through 8 in each conference... and I don't see any of that happening anytime soon.


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by:
(8 hours ago)topgun Wrote:
(9 hours ago)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(9 hours ago)topgun Wrote:
(10 hours ago)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(10 hours ago)topgun Wrote: I gave you the current scenario this season and the same teams meeting last season. I haven't looked back further on this.
I did. Unless I missed some, teams have only played each other in the first round in consecutive years once: Pittsburgh and the Rangers. 

In 2017 in East these were the top 3 teams:

Washington
Pittsburgh
Columbus

All 3 were from the Metropolitan Division. With the new format #3 in the conference Columbus ended up playing the Pittsburgh which was the #2 seed. Columbus has a great season their reward for it was playing Pittsburgh and starting on the road. Under the previous format Columbus would have played the #6 seed. What any hockey fan want their team to play in the first round, the #2 seed or the #6 seed? (Ottawa)

Last year the top 2 teams in the Western Conference Winnipeg and Nashville had to play each other in the second. The current format creates more inequities than the previous system. I can't see how anyone can deny that.

Unless the NHL runs a true 1-16 format, there will always be inequalities. People called that second round Winnipeg/Nashville series the true Stanley Cup Finals. Should we run a 1-16 format to ensure a similar travesty never occurs again? If we do that though, then there will be inequities in the regular season schedules. So we need to adjust the regular season schedule. Every team will have to play each other the same number of times. But that is not enough. Teams need to play each other an even number of times, so that each team gets the same number of home games. So the NHL season needs to be 60 games or 120 games. That is the only way to ensure equity.

To win the Cup you need to beat the best teams. If Nashville could not win the second round, they do not deserve to win the Cup. If the Leafs could not beat Boston in the first round, then they do not deserve to win the Cup. You are exaggerating the inequities created by the current system. Whether it was the second round or the third round or the finals, Winnipeg and Nashville were going to have to face each other. They will not change the system because a team might not make it as far as they would have in another system. That is a ridiculous standard to use. 

There is more to hockey than 'equity'. Ignoring the logistical issues that arise under 1-8 or 1-16 systems, regional rivalries are important for the league. There is more fan engagement when regional rivalries are present. To sacrifice rivalries and fan engagement in the name of equity is silly and bad business.

Canuck fans hate Chicago and they hate Boston. Neither team plays within the division. Look at the hatred between the Predators and the Ducks. Last off season Johansen and Kesler were still chirping each other. Hockey was doing excellent under the previous format and GROWING as was the revenue. Just look at the Cap going up under the old system. 

You've shifted the goal posts to from where your started. Your first reply to me was :

Quote:topgun:

I don't like the new playoff format. The old 1 vs. 8 in each conference was a better format. It rewarded teams that finished higher in the standings by playing the lower. The current format penalizes teams that are playing in a strong division.

TheOilerFan83:

Which teams are being penalized?

If I am shifting goal posts, it’s a result of you being unable to keep a straight line. All I’ve done is respond to your talking points

For example, you brought up the same teams playing each other all the time, not me.

The whole thing started about teams being penalized by having a great season and then having to play another team that had a great season when it's 1 vs. 4 compared to 1 vs. 8. 

No other league uses a divisional format in the playoffs. They have plenty of rivalries and it hasn't hindered their growth.

No offence topgun, but you are all over the place on this one. You bring up the leafs, then say it isn’t about the leafs. Then you bring up repetition of opponents on one specific season. You also bring up the benefits of playoffs to small market teams... 

It’s the playoffs. You’re trying to win a championship and prove you’re the best. Once you make the dance, you shouldn’t be afraid to play anyone.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(8 hours ago)topgun Wrote:
(9 hours ago)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(9 hours ago)topgun Wrote:
(10 hours ago)TheOilerFan83 Wrote:
(10 hours ago)topgun Wrote: I gave you the current scenario this season and the same teams meeting last season. I haven't looked back further on this.
I did. Unless I missed some, teams have only played each other in the first round in consecutive years once: Pittsburgh and the Rangers. 

In 2017 in East these were the top 3 teams:

Washington
Pittsburgh
Columbus

All 3 were from the Metropolitan Division. With the new format #3 in the conference Columbus ended up playing the Pittsburgh which was the #2 seed. Columbus has a great season their reward for it was playing Pittsburgh and starting on the road. Under the previous format Columbus would have played the #6 seed. What any hockey fan want their team to play in the first round, the #2 seed or the #6 seed? (Ottawa)

Last year the top 2 teams in the Western Conference Winnipeg and Nashville had to play each other in the second. The current format creates more inequities than the previous system. I can't see how anyone can deny that.

Unless the NHL runs a true 1-16 format, there will always be inequalities. People called that second round Winnipeg/Nashville series the true Stanley Cup Finals. Should we run a 1-16 format to ensure a similar travesty never occurs again? If we do that though, then there will be inequities in the regular season schedules. So we need to adjust the regular season schedule. Every team will have to play each other the same number of times. But that is not enough. Teams need to play each other an even number of times, so that each team gets the same number of home games. So the NHL season needs to be 60 games or 120 games. That is the only way to ensure equity.

To win the Cup you need to beat the best teams. If Nashville could not win the second round, they do not deserve to win the Cup. If the Leafs could not beat Boston in the first round, then they do not deserve to win the Cup. You are exaggerating the inequities created by the current system. Whether it was the second round or the third round or the finals, Winnipeg and Nashville were going to have to face each other. They will not change the system because a team might not make it as far as they would have in another system. That is a ridiculous standard to use. 

There is more to hockey than 'equity'. Ignoring the logistical issues that arise under 1-8 or 1-16 systems, regional rivalries are important for the league. There is more fan engagement when regional rivalries are present. To sacrifice rivalries and fan engagement in the name of equity is silly and bad business.

Canuck fans hate Chicago and they hate Boston. Neither team plays within the division. Look at the hatred between the Predators and the Ducks. Last off season Johansen and Kesler were still chirping each other. Hockey was doing excellent under the previous format and GROWING as was the revenue. Just look at the Cap going up under the old system. 

You've shifted the goal posts to from where your started. Your first reply to me was :

Quote:topgun:

I don't like the new playoff format. The old 1 vs. 8 in each conference was a better format. It rewarded teams that finished higher in the standings by playing the lower. The current format penalizes teams that are playing in a strong division.

TheOilerFan83:

Which teams are being penalized?

If I am shifting goal posts, it’s a result of you being unable to keep a straight line. All I’ve done is respond to your talking points

For example, you brought up the same teams playing each other all the time, not me.

The whole thing started about teams being penalized by having a great season and then having to play another team that had a great season when it's 1 vs. 4 compared to 1 vs. 8. 

No other league uses a divisional format in the playoffs. They have plenty of rivalries and it hasn't hindered their growth.

You just called me out for ‘shifting goal posts’ and now you are talking about other leagues.
Reply
Thanks given by:
There's a derail thread in the Off Topic section... 

I think a table for 2 just opened up...  Wink


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by: teamblue
I must’ve missed the major disagreement, but I will respond to the initial question. I actually do think Calgary has a slightly better chance of winning the Cup than Toronto. And the reason is simple. I actually think their defence is slightly better and I am not seeing much difference between Johnny Gaudreau and Connor McDavid at this point. He is a solid MVP candidate as far as I’m concerned.

They have more playoff experience as well and Mark Giordano has been in my opinion the best defenceman in the league this year.

The Canucks have had some luck and beautiful performances by Pettersson that has made Calgary seem vulnerable, but I have seen other games where Calgary has absolutely dominated the game and the Canucks have been lucky not to run into that team. Calgary is legit, as are the Leafs.

My preference for the Flames over the Leafs is literally by a nose. And anybody taking a preference can be easily wrong.
Reply
Thanks given by:
I think the Flames have a much better blueline than Toronto. Toronto may have less goals against but they've had Vezina caliber goaltending, something the Flames haven't. Come playoff time, i don't know anyone that would prefer a 2nd pairing with Gardiner  and Zaitsev compared to Hamonic and Hanifin.
If you need a sign to stay alive tonight, this is it!
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2 hours ago)bicboi Wrote: I think the Flames have a much better blueline than Toronto. Toronto may have less goals against but they've had Vezina caliber goaltending, something the Flames haven't. Come playoff time, i don't know anyone that would prefer a 2nd pairing with Gardiner  and Zaitsev compared to Hamonic and Hanifin.

TO v Calgary

Anderson, if healthy... better than the Rittich/Smith combo... but if Anderson is off, it's no contest.

Calgary D, overall, a better group from top to bottom than the Leafers

Up front, both teams have a ton of offensive talent, but in terms of playoff "grit", Flames win again.

Coaching - gotta go with Babcock... but Peters has done some great things , but still, Babcock

All that said, when it comes to a Cup run... Tampa, Washington, Nashville and Winnipeg might have something to say ( among others ).


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2 hours ago)bicboi Wrote: I think the Flames have a much better blueline than Toronto. Toronto may have less goals against but they've had Vezina caliber goaltending, something the Flames haven't. Come playoff time, i don't know anyone that would prefer a 2nd pairing with Gardiner  and Zaitsev compared to Hamonic and Hanifin.

Yes, Haminic brings the heart while Hanifin brings that blazing speed. Calgary also has that hot unscouted goalie ala Matt Murray, Ron Hextall... Something about that team scares me if you have to play them.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2 hours ago)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(2 hours ago)bicboi Wrote: I think the Flames have a much better blueline than Toronto. Toronto may have less goals against but they've had Vezina caliber goaltending, something the Flames haven't. Come playoff time, i don't know anyone that would prefer a 2nd pairing with Gardiner  and Zaitsev compared to Hamonic and Hanifin.

TO v Calgary

Anderson, if healthy... better than the Rittich/Smith combo... but if Anderson is off, it's no contest.

Calgary D, overall, a better group from top to bottom than the Leafers

Up front, both teams have a ton of offensive talent, but in terms of playoff "grit", Flames win again.

Coaching - gotta go with Babcock... but Peters has done some great things , but still, Babcock

All that said, when it comes to a Cup run... Tampa, Washington, Nashville and Winnipeg might have something to say ( among others ).

I think Winnipeg is the only team that I ever seen play Vancouver this year that beat us so badly, I don’t think we even had a chance. Even if I was the referee.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2 hours ago)Canucksfansince1989 Wrote:
(2 hours ago)SAVARYGUY Wrote:
(2 hours ago)bicboi Wrote: I think the Flames have a much better blueline than Toronto. Toronto may have less goals against but they've had Vezina caliber goaltending, something the Flames haven't. Come playoff time, i don't know anyone that would prefer a 2nd pairing with Gardiner  and Zaitsev compared to Hamonic and Hanifin.

TO v Calgary

Anderson, if healthy... better than the Rittich/Smith combo... but if Anderson is off, it's no contest.

Calgary D, overall, a better group from top to bottom than the Leafers

Up front, both teams have a ton of offensive talent, but in terms of playoff "grit", Flames win again.

Coaching - gotta go with Babcock... but Peters has done some great things , but still, Babcock

All that said, when it comes to a Cup run... Tampa, Washington, Nashville and Winnipeg might have something to say ( among others ).

I think Winnipeg is the only team that I ever seen play Vancouver this year that beat us so badly, I don’t think we even had a chance. Even if I was the referee.

If you were the ref that night, you could have called interference on their goal... It flippin interfered with my happiness that night...   Wink


I've never been there before, but once I went there twice...
Reply
Thanks given by: Canucksfansince1989


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)