Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Western Conference Standings


Recommended Posts

just wondering.. isn't this a good thing? Doesn't this mean that there's more competition in the NHL now instead of having a few teams who are stanley cup favourites, then playoff contenders, then fighting for playoff, then no chance of making it, then the bottom. Or am I missing something??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just wondering.. isn't this a good thing? Doesn't this mean that there's more competition in the NHL now instead of having a few teams who are stanley cup favourites, then playoff contenders, then fighting for playoff, then no chance of making it, then the bottom. Or am I missing something??

You're rewarding teams for sucking though, you're basically saying, "Its okay if you're terrible, in our system, we still give terrible teams a chance."

It takes away from the competetive nature of running a NHL franchise properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're rewarding teams for sucking though, you're basically saying, "Its okay if you're terrible, in our system, we still give terrible teams a chance."

It takes away from the competetive nature of running a NHL franchise properly.

Agreed. Allowing 16 out of 30 teams to enter the playoffs is definitely rewarding mediocrity.

I would suggest balancing out the schedule by letting teams play each other twice, i.e. one home game, one road game, and 4 times against their division rivals, i.e. twice at home and twice on the road. I suck at maths but that should add up to game total of (4x4=16) + (2x25=50) = 66 games instead of 82.

(Please correct me if my math doesn't add up sportsfreak_39 :P)

After 66 regular seasons games, you allow the top 4 teams of each conference to proceed to the playoff rounds.

Ultimately, this would lead to increased competitiveness, fewer injuries, and better playoff hockey, while rewarding the 'winningest' teams in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Allowing 16 out of 30 teams to enter the playoffs is definitely rewarding mediocrity.

I would suggest balancing out the schedule by letting teams play each other twice, i.e. one home game, one road game, and 4 times against their division rivals, i.e. twice at home and twice on the road. I suck at maths but that should add up to game total of (4x4=16) + (2x25=50) = 66 games instead of 82.

(Please correct me if my math doesn't add up sportsfreak_39 :P)

After 66 regular seasons games, you allow the top 4 teams of each conference to proceed to the playoff rounds.

Ultimately, this would lead to increased competitiveness, fewer injuries, and better playoff hockey, while rewarding the 'winningest' teams in the league.

Wow someone else that think only 8 teams should get in!! :o:o

"Shoots firworks off, then realizes he didn't aim them upwards and it hit neighbors house. Proceeds to shoot more anyways."

I like the current system in terms of how many times each team matches up, its gives you control of your own destiny and you get a taste of around the league, the schedule can't be shortened and you still maintain that kind of control, the only kind of reduction I can think of is reduce the extra 3 "rivalry" counter-conference games and reduce the schedule to 79, its not much but its something.

Plus the owners would never go for it :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow someone else that think only 8 teams should get in!! :o:o

"Shoots firworks off, then realizes he didn't aim them upwards and it hit neighbors house. Proceeds to shoot more anyways."

I like the current system in terms of how many times each team matches up, its gives you control of your own destiny and you get a taste of around the league, the schedule can't be shortened and you still maintain that kind of control, the only kind of reduction I can think of is reduce the extra 3 "rivalry" counter-conference games and reduce the schedule to 79, its not much but its something.

Plus the owners would never go for it :P

Careful with the neighbors dude :lol:

Seriously, I don't think there's a place for mediocrity in sports. See, I'm a soccer and hockey person. These are the only two team sports I've ever played in my life and I've developed quite a passion for both of them.

What I really like about soccer is how champions are determined on the European club level. Teams play each other twice per season and the team with the most points in the standings wins the national championship in the end. Then all national champions face each other on the international level in the European champions league. The system is a little different and involves a group phase and a subsequent knockout round based on one home and one away game. To take home field advantage into account - which definitely is a huge factor in soccer - away goals scored 'count double' in the event the score is still tied after 90 minutes of the second game. The winner is then determined in one single game, i.e. a true final showdown. Obviously, it's not always the best team on paper that wins the championship and there are also fluke years in terms of teams that manage to win the national championship although they actually shouldn't, based on individual skill for example. It does, however, make for really interesting games because there is very little margin for error. I really like crunch time in sports I guess ;)

This system wouldn't make much sense in hockey, of course. As I already explained when debating whether the regular season should be shortened or not, I feel the NHL season is far too long. Often, it's a wear and tear, especially towards the end of the playoffs. Don't get me wrong, playoff hockey is one of the most exciting events in all sports but I steel feel the regular season should be shortened significantly. Teams are playing 82 games plus possibly another 28 before being allowed to hoist the cup. This is an awful lot of hockey which isn't really necessary IMO. Therefore, I'm absolutely in favor of shortening the regular season and reducing the number of playoff teams to 8 overall. Obviously, there are a lot of reasons for having such a long season, most of them being of financial nature, and the same reasons clearly speak against a reduced number of regular season games.

The problem I have with your suggestion is that if you really were to limit the the number of playoff teams to 8 while virtually maintaining the number of regular season games, there would be even more unnecessary hockey going on. Teams would be out of the playoff race even earlier and attendance would probably drop even further in certain markets. The Western Conference standings are sort of an anomaly right now. Although it would be great in theory to spread talent to the extent that huge point gaps between teams would become an anomaly, it's not going to happen and it's against the nature of sports in general. There will always be winners and losers and that's ultimately the reason why I spend hours watching hockey and soccer :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful with the neighbors dude :lol:

Seriously, I don't think there's a place for mediocrity in sports. See, I'm a soccer and hockey person. These are the only two team sports I've ever played in my life and I've developed quite a passion for both of them.

What I really like about soccer is how champions are determined on the European club level. Teams play each other twice per season and the team with the most points in the standings wins the national championship in the end. Then all national champions face each other on the international level in the European champions league. The system is a little different and involves a group phase and a subsequent knockout round based on one home and one away game. To take home field advantage into account - which definitely is a huge factor in soccer - away goals scored 'count double' in the event the score is still tied after 90 minutes of the second game. The winner is then determined in one single game, i.e. a true final showdown. Obviously, it's not always the best team on paper that wins the championship and there are also fluke years in terms of teams that manage to win the national championship although they actually shouldn't, based on individual skill for example. It does, however, make for really interesting games because there is very little margin for error. I really like crunch time in sports I guess ;)

This system wouldn't make much sense in hockey, of course. As I already explained when debating whether the regular season should be shortened or not, I feel the NHL season is far too long. Often, it's a wear and tear, especially towards the end of the playoffs. Don't get me wrong, playoff hockey is one of the most exciting events in all sports but I steel feel the regular season should be shortened significantly. Teams are playing 82 games plus possibly another 28 before being allowed to hoist the cup. This is an awful lot of hockey which isn't really necessary IMO. Therefore, I'm absolutely in favor of shortening the regular season and reducing the number of playoff teams to 8 overall. Obviously, there are a lot of reasons for having such a long season, most of them being of financial nature, and the same reasons clearly speak against a reduced number of regular season games.

The problem I have with your suggestion is that if you really were to limit the the number of playoff teams to 8 while virtually maintaining the number of regular season games, there would be even more unnecessary hockey going on. Teams would be out of the playoff race even earlier and attendance would probably drop even further in certain markets. The Western Conference standings are sort of an anomaly right now. Although it would be great in theory to spread talent to the extent that huge point gaps between teams would become an anomaly, it's not going to happen and it's against the nature of sports in general. There will always be winners and losers and that's ultimately the reason why I spend hours watching hockey and soccer :D

Curse you Chilja, why must you keep making long detailed posts!!!! :P

I myself don't even see the point of having playoffs, although thats a whole other debate right there. I want to see a champion at the end of the year, not someone who did alright or mediocre and fluked their way through some short tournament while another team dominated for the whole season and had a bad couple of games in the "playoffs" and gets screwed.

People call it playing under pressure, I call it *****. Which is why I'm in favor of longer playoff series and less teams, it lessens the luck factor in the postseason. If the season was cut to 70 games I would favor 4 teams 11 or 13 game series.

However in MLB theres only 8 teams that make the postseason and 162 reg season games and revenues are fine, a lot of teams are still in the race but I like how the really weak ones are done by midseason, as you said medicrity should not be rewarded. Though it would work even better in the NHL because of the loser point which result is the orgy you see in the West right now.

In terms of soccer, are you pro or anti- pen kicks especially in big games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curse you Chilja, why must you keep making long detailed posts!!!! :P

I myself don't even see the point of having playoffs, although thats a whole other debate right there. I want to see a champion at the end of the year, not someone who did alright or mediocre and fluked their way through some short tournament while another team dominated for the whole season and had a bad couple of games in the "playoffs" and gets screwed.

People call it playing under pressure, I call it *****. Which is why I'm in favor of longer playoff series and less teams, it lessens the luck factor in the postseason. If the season was cut to 70 games I would favor 4 teams 11 or 13 game series.

However in MLB theres only 8 teams that make the postseason and 162 reg season games and revenues are fine, a lot of teams are still in the race but I like how the really weak ones are done by midseason, as you said medicrity should not be rewarded. Though it would work even better in the NHL because of the loser point which result is the orgy you see in the West right now.

In terms of soccer, are you pro or anti- pen kicks especially in big games?

Haha :D

I have to admit that I had a bit of spare time today and felt like expressing myself a bit more in detail. Rest assured though, it won't become a habit :P

You're right about the luck factor. I can't stand watchin teams luck in the postseason like the Flyers last year. Although there might be some conclusions to be drawn from that series for our organization, there is no doubt in my mind the Flyers considered themselves lucky after eliminating us last year. Maybe behind closed doors. Anyway, I can't say much about the MLB myself because I think I've watched about 2 baseball games in my entire life. It's not that I don't like the sport itself or that I think baseball sucks or something, I've just never developed some kind of passion for it compared to hockey for example. I guess it's just not my thing.

As for penalty kicks in general, it's the biggest joke in soccer IMO. It's pure lottery, just as much a crapshoot as shootouts in hockey, but it has been officially part of this game for almost 40 years now. Considering they actually drew lots before to determine the winner of a game if they had no other choice (e.g. in big tournaments), I believe this system is already a major advancement :D

Big difference in soccer is though that the penalty kick system is only used in cup tournaments, meaning you'll never see a regular season game ending with a penalty shootout (at least in national championships).

Taking the World Cup as an example, I have to admit that I find penalty shootouts incredibly exciting to watch. People often call soccer boring because it's a low-scoring game but that's exactly what I find so fascinating about it. Sometimes only one small mistake within 90 minutes decides a game and there's not much you can do about it. Between really good teams, it's often a battle of perfection and there is just no somewhat reasonable way to determine a winner other than penalty kicks. It's not like hockey where you can substitute players on a rolling basis and therefore could theoretically play 2342 overtime periods. You reach your physical limit much faster when chasing a ball up and down a 100m field for 90 minutes without getting a real breather. The added 30 minutes for overtime in soccer is more than enough IMO. If there was a better way than penalty shootouts to determine a winner, I'd be happy about it but right now, I actually don't see any alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think watching Soccer, Baseball Golf, Curling and the like although fun to play, are the equivalent of watching paint dry for the spectator.

Foot ball and Hockey what can I say.

Let it roll going to a 12 teams in system instead of 16 would be better. But the owners and league want as much gate and TV as possible. Should go back to a best of 5 for the first rd with 16 teams in I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha :D

I have to admit that I had a bit of spare time today and felt like expressing myself a bit more in detail. Rest assured though, it won't become a habit :P

You're right about the luck factor. I can't stand watchin teams luck in the postseason like the Flyers last year. Although there might be some conclusions to be drawn from that series for our organization, there is no doubt in my mind the Flyers considered themselves lucky after eliminating us last year. Maybe behind closed doors. Anyway, I can't say much about the MLB myself because I think I've watched about 2 baseball games in my entire life. It's not that I don't like the sport itself or that I think baseball sucks or something, I've just never developed some kind of passion for it compared to hockey for example. I guess it's just not my thing.

As for penalty kicks in general, it's the biggest joke in soccer IMO. It's pure lottery, just as much a crapshoot as shootouts in hockey, but it has been officially part of this game for almost 40 years now. Considering they actually drew lots before to determine the winner of a game if they had no other choice (e.g. in big tournaments), I believe this system is already a major advancement :D

Big difference in soccer is though that the penalty kick system is only used in cup tournaments, meaning you'll never see a regular season game ending with a penalty shootout (at least in national championships).

Taking the World Cup as an example, I have to admit that I find penalty shootouts incredibly exciting to watch. People often call soccer boring because it's a low-scoring game but that's exactly what I find so fascinating about it. Sometimes only one small mistake within 90 minutes decides a game and there's not much you can do about it. Between really good teams, it's often a battle of perfection and there is just no somewhat reasonable way to determine a winner other than penalty kicks. It's not like hockey where you can substitute players on a rolling basis and therefore could theoretically play 2342 overtime periods. You reach your physical limit much faster when chasing a ball up and down a 100m field for 90 minutes without getting a real breather. The added 30 minutes for overtime in soccer is more than enough IMO. If there was a better way than penalty shootouts to determine a winner, I'd be happy about it but right now, I actually don't see any alternative.

What did I just say Chi??!! :P:P

The Flyers absolutely got lucky that Price for a couple of games after he was dominant the series before, decided to forget how to stop a puck, Biron decided he would play Roy for a few games and the Habs couldn't score to save their lives.

Thats the result of small sample size, anything can happen because its professional sports. Obviously the better teams have an advantage, but in that playoff series persay, I believe Philly had like a 35-38% chance of winning (it was something like that), which means if we go back in time and replay that series 100 times, Philly will win a large handful of them, that unfortunately was one of those times.

I like Soccer for its gameplay, I hated watching the World Cup end in penalties, there doesn't have to be scoring to appreciate a game.

My suggestion is make longer intermission between Extra Times for more rest and allow for more subs so that a coach can rotate his guys in and out, anything but Penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did I just say Chi??!! :P:P

The Flyers absolutely got lucky that Price for a couple of games after he was dominant the series before, decided to forget how to stop a puck, Biron decided he would play Roy for a few games and the Habs couldn't score to save their lives.

Thats the result of small sample size, anything can happen because its professional sports. Obviously the better teams have an advantage, but in that playoff series persay, I believe Philly had like a 35-38% chance of winning (it was something like that), which means if we go back in time and replay that series 100 times, Philly will win a large handful of them, that unfortunately was one of those times.

I like Soccer for its gameplay, I hated watching the World Cup end in penalties, there doesn't have to be scoring to appreciate a game.

My suggestion is make longer intermission between Extra Times for more rest and allow for more subs so that a coach can rotate his guys in and out, anything but Penalties.

Sorry, I couldn't resist :P It'll be short this time haha

Agreed, I have enjoyed a lot of scoreless soccer games in the past.

As for the longer intermission, I don't know really. The problem remains the substitutes. It is crucial to limit the length of a soccer game because players are physically incapable of playing over an extended period of time. Sometimes players even cramp up within 90 minutes, depending on how hard they're going for it. You'd basically have to substitute every player on the field to make that happen, which would change the nature of the game completely. You can't even play back-to-back games in soccer. You just can't. I mean you could but it would be a pathetic display of soccer. The problem with the World Cup is that it is a very short tournament. Imagine a team going through 4 extra times until winning a semi-final, only to get a beating in the finals because they just can't keep up with their opponent anymore because the other team is well rested and only needed 90 minutes to advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I couldn't resist :P It'll be short this time haha

Agreed, I have enjoyed a lot of scoreless soccer games in the past.

As for the longer intermission, I don't know really. The problem remains the substitutes. It is crucial to limit the length of a soccer game because players are physically incapable of playing over an extended period of time. Sometimes players even cramp up within 90 minutes, depending on how hard they're going for it. You'd basically have to substitute every player on the field to make that happen, which would change the nature of the game completely. You can't even play back-to-back games in soccer. You just can't. I mean you could but it would be a pathetic display of soccer. The problem with the World Cup is that it is a very short tournament. Imagine a team going through 4 extra times until winning a semi-final, only to get a beating in the finals because they just can't keep up with their opponent anymore because the other team is well rested and only needed 90 minutes to advance.

They should stretch out the # of days between World Cup games then, its not like anything more important in soccer is going to happen that can't wait. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...