Ramius Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 From ESPN This will be a matter for the board of governors to approve, but look for two more teams to be added in each conference and for the seventh through 10th teams to play best-of-three series immediately after the end of the regular season. This preliminary round would lead into the traditional four best-of-seven series for the Cup. This brings to 20 the number of teams that would qualify for the playoffs. That's a lot. But it's also a good business practice and will mean more excitement in more cities and will see fewer teams selling off players at the trade deadline, not to mention more revenue generated all around. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=2106971 Long column, but some good stuff 382432[/snapback] Thanks...i read that column and somehow missed that i guess the one good thing will be that it'll keep the lower teams from trading off all of their good players...
Alaska Darin Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Honestly, 20 teams in the playoffs suck...why not just scrap the regular saeson and make it 1 big playoff series since all the teams are gonna make it anyway... NHL screwed the pooch on this one... 382428[/snapback] I don't know, an extra round of playoff hockey means two things to me: 1. An extra week of lounging in front of the tube drinking beer and eating snacks while screaming at friggin' Euros. 2. An even better chance that Detroit will lose to some pretender.
nobody Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 The playoffs are where the teams make their money. Players don't get paid by the teams during the playoffs so whatever money comes in from ticket sales is profit for only the team.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 I think your question is answered in part by going back to the general premise. Us small western minds (as opposed to the small eastern minds) seem to have difficulty holding more than two premises in our heads at the same time (and if they seem contradictory even though in reality they are both true fuggadaboutit). The playing field in the NHL teams is not level at all. However, it is far more level than it has been and this is a great thing. The new CBA appears not to be perfect at all, but is far better if only because both the NHL and NHLPA seem to be prepared to agree to it. Some may cite particular flaws and use them to claim that it sucks completely. Others will cite the benefits (like the little fact they will now be ablle to play the game) and also make a false claim that the CBA is the greatest thing or even perfect. Both are wrong, but that is life which is rarely if never perfect. The key questions it strikes me is not whether the playing field is truly level (it is not as rich teams are rich and poor teams actually are also rich but far poorer for example than the conglomerate that owns the Rangers). The poor teams are at a competitive disadvantage, but this disadvantage can be overcome if a poor team is very good from top to bottom and gets good luck and breaks. The questions are: 1. Is this better? Demonstrably yes as they had to shut down the league underthe old system and the new system has the aggreement of both parties over a lengthy number of years so it is much better. 2. Is the deal sustainable? Hard to say for sure because the key to sustainability is the degree to which the two formerly warring parties realize and operate as partners who profit from co-operating to get money from you and me rather than opponents who when they battle over the split actually do not get money from you and me. There are some good signs however, because their appear to be signficsnt facets of the new CBA which parrot the NFL/NFLPA aggreement and the the football model has proved to be sustainable so far as the owners and players have proffitted far beyond the levels they achieved when they were at war and the deal has been successfully extended a couple of times. By creating an NHL version of the football CBA (tying player salaries to revenues in a salary cap with a range) it is possible for the NHL to achieve an NFL level of sustainability if the two sides can get over arguing over the shape of the table and truly learn to play well together as partners. It looks good so far but we'll see.
SilverNRed Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Honestly, 20 teams in the playoffs suck...why not just scrap the regular saeson and make it 1 big playoff series since all the teams are gonna make it anyway... NHL screwed the pooch on this one... 382428[/snapback] Agreed. Why play 82 games if most teams end up making the playoffs anyway? They should shorten the regular season significantly so that the playoffs begin March 1st and the whole thing is wrapped up in April, and the playoffs can get some attention before the NBA playoffs and MLB really take center stage.
bobblehead Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 With the more marquee players being able to spend 6-9 mil more than Buffalo, that probably means they will be able to get that one superstar that Buffalo will not be able to. Not the best situation, but far, far better then the handful of teams gobbling up everyone. No more situations like Kariya/Selanne going as a tandem to Colorado.
SDS Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 With the more marquee players being able to spend 6-9 mil more than Buffalo, that probably means they will be able to get that one superstar that Buffalo will not be able to. Not the best situation, but far, far better then the handful of teams gobbling up everyone. No more situations like Kariya/Selanne going as a tandem to Colorado. 382504[/snapback] Huh?
bobblehead Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Huh? 382510[/snapback] Yeah, I know. 1/2 liter of Mt. Dew this morning. 'nuff said.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 With the more marquee players being able to spend 6-9 mil more than Buffalo, that probably means they will be able to get that one superstar that Buffalo will not be able to. Not the best situation, but far, far better then the handful of teams gobbling up everyone. No more situations like Kariya/Selanne going as a tandem to Colorado. 382504[/snapback] Even if this post did make sense, Kariya playing there had nothing to do with money. He signed for peanuts to play with Selanne again and for a shot at the cup.
shrader Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Even if this post did make sense, Kariya playing there had nothing to do with money. He signed for peanuts to play with Selanne again and for a shot at the cup. 382541[/snapback] He also signed that deal so he could become an unrestricted free agent the next year. I forget how that ended. Where did he sign with the following offseason?
MDH Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 I'm not going to complain. Playoff hockey is an awesome thing to behold. The more the merrier. 382389[/snapback] The playoffs, in any sport, are only an "awesome thing to behold" because you're watching the very best pair off for weeks in a row. Allow everybody into the dance and the quality of the game isn't any better than the regular season.
CBusBillsFan Posted July 16, 2005 Posted July 16, 2005 If it can get playoff hockey to Columbus then I'm all for it.
Recommended Posts