Playoff Seeding System

**wingwop** · 02-25-2002, 10:45 AM

I hate the existing system. I don't think teams should be penalized for playing in strong divisions. They should take the top 8 teams in each conference and number them 1-8 by points, not division winners. There would still be division winners.

**P.J Stock** · 02-25-2002, 10:57 AM

Yea Im with you on this one. It just makes more sense!

**cASe SenSiTive** · 02-25-2002, 11:01 AM

I'm with you one this for sure. Why should a team who is lucky enough to play in a weak division get the 3rd seed ahead of a team with a better record. It's unfair.

**wingwop** · 02-25-2002, 11:13 AM

Amen. This is one of several "small" changes the league should DEFINITELY look into!!

**ChrisFrez** · 02-25-2002, 11:24 AM

Bingo - this is something that should be changed! I never understood why the NHL has to do this.

A better question would be - why was this post made in the Rivalry section?

**wingwop** · 02-25-2002, 11:26 AM

Where would you have liked to have seen it?

**Darth Xed** · 02-25-2002, 11:35 AM

I think it is OK... it is the same system the NFL basically uses, and it works for them.

It makes the division games actually mean something...

Otherwise, what is the point of having divisions, or conferences for that matter... you mat as well just dump all the teams into one big lump...

**Darth Xed** · 02-25-2002, 11:35 AM

That being said, I perferred the old system where Divisions meant EVEN MORE...

**wingwop** · 02-25-2002, 11:37 AM

I disagree my friend. Divisions don't mean anything anymore anyway. It's all about the Conference. You'd know who's in your division, cause you play them more often making the games uglier and more personal.

**wingwop** · 02-25-2002, 12:20 PM

I've been thinking about what you said. I see your comparison, the BIG difference is that Division winners in football get a bi-week. The whole structure is built more on division. Hell they only play 16 games and half of them are against division opponents. So I see what you're saying, but it's apples and tangerines man.

**Darth Xed** · 02-25-2002, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by wingwop
I've been thinking about what you said. I see your comparison, the BIG difference is that Division winners in football get a bi-week. The whole structure is built more on division. Hell they only play 16 games and half of them are against division opponents. So I see what you're saying, but it's apples and tangerines man.

Actually only TWO of the 3 Division winners get a bye week... so there is incentive to finish as one of the top 2 division winners in the NFL...

I guess I just like to see the Divisions mean something... fight it out, and have good rivalries...

**wingwop** · 02-25-2002, 01:20 PM

It would be fine with me if they made it mean more.

**ken_valyi** · 02-25-2002, 02:55 PM

I'm with Xed on this one.

Division games have to mean something, or there's no sense in having them. The old system was way out of wack where a team that won more games then it lost wouldn't make the playoffs.

I agree that it sucks if your team finished second in the conference but gets fourth seed because they didn't win their division. The only way to break away from that is get rid of the divisions all together, which means we lose those nasty, vicious rivalries that make hockey interesting... and IMHO that's worse.

**wingwop** · 02-25-2002, 06:16 PM

I still disagree. You would never get rid of the divisions altogether and you still play them more which of course means rivalries. And by the way, look at what the wings and av's had for about 5 years. They're not in the same division. You gotta think globalization my man!!!

**Signal** · 02-26-2002, 04:22 PM

Ok, here's my vote...I say get rid of the divisions all together and schedule the teams where they ONLY play other teams within their own conference throughout the season!...You know, like how baseball used to...I think that would do a couple of things...First, it would help out teams from having to travel so much throughout the season...Secondly, it would make up for losing the divisional rivalries by possibly creating new rivalries from the conference teams playing each other alot more...Makes sense doesn't it??...I think it would make things easier and more fair for everyone...

Jason

Count Cane · 02-27-2002, 12:51 AM

Here's fuel for your fire Wingwop what if the Canes or Caps get the 3rd seed but by points standing finish 9th, it could happen. All sports use the division winners though NFl as previouly discussed the NBA where the winner of the other division in the Conference is the 2nd seed and now that MLB has gone to the wild card you may have the 2nd best team in the league without homefield advantage.

**Darth Xed** · 02-27-2002, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Signal
Ok, here's my vote...I say get rid of the divisions all together and schedule the teams where they ONLY play other teams within their own conference throughout the season!...You know, like how baseball used to...I think that would do a couple of things...First, it would help out teams from having to travel so much throughout the season...Secondly, it would make up for losing the divisional rivalries by possibly creating new rivalries from the conference teams playing each other alot more...Makes sense doesn't it??...I think it would make things easier and more fair for everyone...

Jason

I think the biggest problem with this system, and the main reason baeball dropped it, is that people in other cities like to see some of the big name guys...

For example, people in Anaheim want to see Jagr at leats once a year, and people in New Jersey want to see Joe Sakic once a year...

I know, I know, with the addition of the lasy few teams, not every team plays in every city right now, but it is darn close...

**wingwop** · 02-27-2002, 08:31 PM

That's easy for you to say. You're team is in the east and doesn't know about grouling travel schedules. Divisions are important to teams in the West more so because, most of the time those games are within 1000 miles!!

**ChrisFrez** · 02-28-2002, 06:07 AM

You got a good point there Mario - The Wings (until Columbus came into the League) were the ONLY team in the West in the Eastern Time Zone. We always seem to have looong road trips out West with the 2-3 hour time differences.

**wingwop** · 02-28-2002, 07:32 AM

I think our team would be even better if we had a easy travel schedule like the teams in the east. We might have like 100 points already!! 94 Points isn't too bad!!

Count Cane · 02-28-2002, 08:59 AM

If the Wings were in the East they would definitely have more points because they would get more games against the Southeast Division.

**Signal** · 02-28-2002, 03:28 PM

If the Wings were in the east they'd have LESS points cause they'd be gettin' punked by the Devils a WHOLE lot more!

Uh oh!!...*LOL*...

Jason

**wingwop** · 03-01-2002, 09:18 AM

I don't know about that. I think they'd adjust. Toronto did. The west got screwed out of Toronto. They were one of the best rivalries in hockey all time!!