Sorry, I don't agree with this argument. The point of a regular season is entertainment. Do you really want just a two-month tournament for the Cup starting in April, and that's all until the following spring?Quote:
Originally Posted by nki
Sorry, I don't agree with this argument. The point of a regular season is entertainment. Do you really want just a two-month tournament for the Cup starting in April, and that's all until the following spring?Quote:
Originally Posted by nki
I think it sucks. They talk of baseball but baseball just added two teams last season and they play a one game elimination. Almost a punishment for only being a wild-card team. is hockey gonna do the same? A one game playoff? Not a big fan of that, and if it's an extra full series it cheapens the regular season.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmytheKing
I agree with nki on this one. Adding more teams to the playoffs DOES water down the regular season. IMO, there are too many teams in it as it is. If there were a way to make the WHOLE season more meaningful I'd be for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelEyes
As to the added teams: I heard it was just for this season. Then again, once they go that route you know the owners would love to add more teams eventually. argh.
jom
ridiculous to add more playoff teams. It only worked in baseball because there were so few playoff spots previously. 8/30 to 10/30
With half the teams making the playoffs already, just ugh.
Now if they reduced the regular season by 10 games, I wouldn't mind so much.
That's the way it worked before the more recent expansions. 16 got in out of what, 20-22 teams? Yeah, that did suck, you had teams under .500 in the playoffs. Then again, if that wasn't the case, the Miracle on Manchester would have never happened since the Kiings were something like 17 games under .500 that season.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron
I didn't mean literally scrap the whole regular season, was just trying to voice my displeasure. I'm entertained when games have meaning, in my opinion there should be some amount of "oh boy now what" feeling after you lose a game, there has to be something at stake with a regular season game, there has to be some meaning to failure and success. Nobody wants to just go aw shucks, better luck next time after a loss, there has to be some tangible punishment to losing and tangible reward for winning that is not too easy to recover later on. With what they've proposed it is very hard to get emotionally invested into a single game, and personally I can't be entertained if I'm not emotionally invested.Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelEyes
My only real argument with a potential expansion is I've always liked the idea that there were 8 and then 16 wins to get the cup. You do play in's and it's now potentially 19 or 20 for one team, 16 for another.
I think this might be stemming from the Flyers Rangers last game of the season matchup 2 years back. Don't need playoffs for that, the regular season should be compelling enough.
Its the one thing I've never liked about the NFL playoffs although before parity getting a bye week was thought to be a huge advantage. Now it's been how many seasons since a bye week team won it all consistently? Saints took it in 2009 season and 2008 was Pittsburgh who I think was a 1-2 seed. Other than that they've all been playing on wildcard weekend.
I'll probably grumble its a shame until it benefits the Kings.
That gives me a better idea of what you were on about.Quote:
Originally Posted by nki
Remember the pre-1991-92 NHL, in which 16 of the 21 teams made the playoffs? (which is not to say that I think expanding the playoffs is a good idea -- I don't).Quote:
Originally Posted by nki
We still have 1 week before anything gets done. At least, by that time, we'll have closure.
...buncha a-holes.
