Jacoby asked:
I was reading a feature on espn.com talking about hockey’s unpopularity and it said an underated reason was it’s too easy for a low (7/8) seed to beat a top seed in the playoffs. For instance when 8 seed Golden State beat top seed Dallas in the 1st round of the NBA Playoffs it was huge news however upsets seem more common and less signifigent in the NHL
The writer suggested giving the top seeds all home games in round 1 to make it harder for upsets. Well I venemously disagree it got me thinking. What if the NHL altered the home ice games a little. They currently use the 1,2,6,7 format but what if the higher seed had a choice of the order.
For instance lets say Mike Babcock wants to have the first 4 games at home and risk having to win on the road if they fail to sweep
Lets say Torterella wants to get 3 straight at home so he gives up game 1 for a 2,3,4, 7 format
People could argue and debate each choice and it’d be a nice little wrinkle to the playoffs IMO
What do you think about this idea?
True it’s not gonna happen because the owners won’t want to risk losing money.
I agree it ***** in the NBA the lack of competiviness. Also a game like say last night’ Lakers/Knicks game the result is never in question even before the game. If the Pens/Leafs play Toronto actually has a chance
Also the fact that half the teams are dumping good players for cap space for LeBron and this year’s free agent class and they’ve been doing it since 2007.
Also since Anaheim’s in last it would be surprising however I know what your saying
gr8 Eight- I think this would create more interest well giving a slight advantage to the higher seeds if used properly
Also I’d settle for Lakers/Celtics each year. Beats last years Magic/Lakers final
Being I only casually care about basketball, I root for the best matchup in last year’s case Cavs/Lakers
I agree with you in that it is a good idea for the purpose of giving the edge to the higher-finishing team. But there are two reasons why it cannot happen in the NHL.
1) The owners would never go for it because they cannot be guaranteed two home games in a series.
2) The Salary Cap is designed for leveling out the field and keeping teams in business. Therefore parity seems to be the goal and upsets more likely.
I admit that there is evidence to the contrary in the NBA for which I have no explanation or opinion.
The only thing that I will add Jacoby, is this-one of my biggest knocks on with the NBA (I am a fan of most sports) is that IT ***** that going into any given season, you can count on one hand, with absolute confidence, who will win the NBA championship. How much does that reek?
This year, Boston, LA (Lakers), Cleveland, Orlando WILL win it…..you can probably say the probability rate of one of those 4 teams winning it is 90%…..then there are another 4 teams that might share that other 10% probability, Dallas, SA, Miami…and maybe Houston. So, for every other NBA team, their season was over before it started…to me, that is terrible.
In the NHL and the NFL……and to a much lesser extent, the MLB…….each season starts out with hope for every franchise, most all of them (aside from the KC Royals, Toronto Maple Leafs and Oakland Raiders of the world) can, if several things go right, win the title…..that is GOOD for pro sports. Look at what the advent of the wild card has done for baseball, keeping several more fans interested and teams in the hunt beyond July.
I remember a few seasons back, in the NFL…..(around 2004? Don’t quote me) when the Eagles made the playoffs, they were the ONLY team that had made the playoffs for 3 consecutive years! Just think about that for a second…….at some point during those 3 seasons, EVERY yeam had MISSED the postseason with the exception of Philadelphia. Often times in the NFL, you will see a team win the Super Bowl only to miss the playoffs the next season (Pittsburgh Steelers this year? Maybe!).
Upsets are a good thing. Parity is a good thing. (although dynasty is a good thing too)
I like that I (or anyone) don’t know in early October who will win the Stanley Cup in June, it would take alot of the drama away from it.
Would it be shocking if any of Calgary, Vancouver, Detroit, Chicago, SJ, Anaheim etc came out of the West?
Would it be shocking if Philly, Pittsburgh, Washington, NJ, Boston, NYR etc won the East?
THAT is how I like it……….much better than me already knowing that the Celts will meet the Lakers for the NBA Championship. Where is the excitement in that? Tell me something I don’t already know.
Rant over.
I agree with Bob…
Also ESPN doesn’t just ignore hockey, they do everything they can to make it less relevant in their world. Who doesn’t like a Cinderella, really? ESPN lackeys with brand new Yankee hats I guess. It wasn’t big news when the Ducks beat the Sharks last year for instance b/c ESPN didn’t cover it.
I don’t like the idea at all, it isn’t fair at all, and it would lose money for the league.
Sounds like someone doesn’t like upsets. Why would someone want more predictability in sports? If either the Lakers or Celtics win the championship every year, that should be a turn-off to most fans. I like how it is wide-open in hockey; it makes things a lot more interesting.