PDA

View Full Version : Hockey East future tournament structure



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

BC/HE
06-28-2012, 11:28 PM
With the addition of Notre Dame in 2013 and Connecticut in 2014 the Hockey East tournament format is likely to undergo some change or perhaps not. Many of us like the current format which leaves the bottom teams out as it makes the regular season mean more and the jockeying for position takes on added excitement as races develop for first place, home ice and final playoff spots. Could it stay as an 8 team playoff? Or a 10 team one or will everyone get a shot? With a 10 team playoff you could go to a Final 5 format which has proven successful out west. No byes would be needed in that format as only 10 are involved. Or maybe 4 teams could get byes and the other 8 play an elimination series to set up quarterfinal rounds. Let's get a discussion going on this and see what is the most desired format.

Snively65
06-28-2012, 11:38 PM
Or maybe 4 teams could get byes and the other 8 play an elimination series to set up quarterfinal rounds. Let's get a discussion going on this and see what is the most desired format.

Like AHA and ECAC, right? I like this plan best, but not sure how 2013-2014 would shake out with the odd number 11 teams. I guess that the bottom three regular season teams should be out that year.

jjmc85
06-28-2012, 11:52 PM
My vote would be keep it as is. Top 8 make the tournament with 3 and eventually 4 teams sitting at home.

ericredaxe
06-28-2012, 11:54 PM
I hope they keep it as top 8 make it.

Agganis
06-29-2012, 01:18 AM
I hate every team making the playoffs like every other league, but can't imagine them keeping 33% of the league out of the playoffs so my vote would be:

1-6 makes the Quarterfinals
7 hosts 10 and 8 hosts 9 in a one game playoff on Tuesday or Wednesday, winners play at 1 and 2 seeds in the quarterfinals

Puts a huge premium on finishing top half of the league and should make interesting final weekends with 5 potential races (RS Champion, 4th place for home ice, 6th place to avoid the 1 game play in, 8th place for home ice in the play in, and 10th place to make the play in) also avoids moving the end of the regular season forward by a week, which would constrict the schedule and make OOC games slightly more difficult to fit.

It won't happen, but I'd enjoy it if it did.

Ma#1ne Hky
06-29-2012, 03:37 AM
Once they have both UConn/Notre Dame in,play for the first 2 years with just the top 8 making it then after 2 years revisit the Playoff Format. But myself I hate when all the Teams make the playoffs,thats why they play the Regular Season.

FlagDUDE08
06-29-2012, 09:24 AM
As a comparison, the ECAC women do top 8 in a 12-team league. However, Hockey East women do top 6 in an 8-team league. I think it is likely to see the top 10 make it (not sure if they'd start it in 2013-14 or 2014-15) and then do a Final Five style tournament, similar to what the ECAC did in the 1990's prior to the Union rule.

UMLFan
06-29-2012, 09:43 AM
Please stay with Top 8.

Jim
06-29-2012, 09:55 AM
I favor doing away with playoffs and just extending the season and awarding the actual winner over the 25 plus conference season--I mean why should the 1st loser get a second bite at the apple? But I know that isn't happening. just guessing but I would be pretty surprised if at the end of the day they leave anyone out. Here's the model I see: Teams to be re-seeded after each of the 1st 2 rounds based on regular season finish. Round 1: 5-12,6-11, 7-10, 8-9. Reseed winners if necessary Round 2: 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5. Semi-finals: re-seed and #1-4, #2-3. Finals: 1-2. re-seeding after each round has the effect of giving more meaning to the regular season, at least a bit and avoids the situation where the rs champ has a tougher road to the finals than the 3rd palce team. It also makes it tougher for the lower regular season finishers to progress. If the 12 wins round 1, it gets reseeded as an 8 and has to play the top team in the 2nd round rather than #4. To me that is as it should be.

stuckinwi
06-29-2012, 09:59 AM
I favor doing away with playoffs and just extending the season and awarding the actual winner over the 25 plus conference season--I mean why should the 1st loser get a second bite at the apple?

Would you then relegate the bottom team to the ECAC and promote the top finisher there? Seems reasonable ;)

Patman
06-29-2012, 10:17 AM
Here's one for our new tv friendly league..,

All teams in... Monday/Tuesday single game opening round 5-12 at better seed... Remaining teams at better seed Friday/Saturday or Saturday/Sunday... Semis and finals per the usual... Maximum tv exposure

UncleRay
06-29-2012, 10:41 AM
I hate it when leagues take everybody to the tourney. If you want to move on, play like you deserve it during the regular season - that's what it is there for. And I don't like reseeding in a tourney. If you are seeded eighth and knock of number one, you deserve the easier path at that point. The way I look at it, a winner takes the higher seed of the two teams playing.

FiveHole12
06-29-2012, 11:17 AM
I favor doing away with playoffs and just extending the season and awarding the actual winner over the 25 plus conference season--I mean why should the 1st loser get a second bite at the apple?
You'd change your tune if you were collecting the $$ generated through the playoff system. ;)
And they ain't playing for an apple... it's a trophy. ;) :D

Me... stay with the top 8 and the bottom 4 hit the links early.

brassbonanza
06-29-2012, 11:28 AM
I favor doing away with playoffs and just extending the season and awarding the actual winner over the 25 plus conference season--I mean why should the 1st loser get a second bite at the apple?

This would put the entire league at a SEVERE PWR disadvantage compared to the rest of the country. Top 10 with a play-in game single elimination round for 7-10 Eight is too small, 12 is too many.

WarriorDJ
06-29-2012, 12:02 PM
When UVM joined HEA, no changes were made to the playoff structure, but I think 12 teams will necessitate a change. Top 10 makes a lot of sense, and if it works out west, it's good enough for me. Leaving 4 teams out would jump the percentage of non-playoff teams from 1/5 to 1/3 and could hurt the playoff system IMO (i.e. fewer underdogs).

mookie1995
06-29-2012, 12:49 PM
As long as we move to providence, I'm cool

Jim
06-29-2012, 12:52 PM
This would put the entire league at a SEVERE PWR disadvantage compared to the rest of the country. Top 10 with a play-in game single elimination round for 7-10 Eight is too small, 12 is too many.Well,, sure and it wouldn't make as much money either...which might even be a bigger motivatior...I would want every conference to follow suit. Of course, as I said, it will never happen. Post season tournaments are too valuable and in an era of everyone gets a trophy, telling someone your out because you finished 2nd will NEVER return. I suspect that even if they stay with the Top 8 or even the top 10 for a few years, everybody gets a 2nd chance will ultimately come to dominate and everyone will get into the post season at that point.

brassbonanza
06-29-2012, 12:55 PM
As long as we move to providence, I'm cool

At UConn's press conference today announcing the HE move, the president of the XL Center said he was going to bid on the HET. He can have fun with that one. They can't even keep an AHL team there!

Jim
06-29-2012, 01:06 PM
At UConn's press conference today announcing the HE move, the president of the XL Center said he was going to bid on the HET. He can have fun with that one. They can't even keep an AHL team there!People can bid on anything...doesn't mean they get it...but I'm not sure that the AHL situation is very meaningful...it was a pretty signifcant step down from the NHL in fact, and has been run and marketed only modestly well by the various "owners." I mean, how many people would show up at Fenway if the Sox moved to Charlotte and were replaced by the Triple A PawSox?

brassbonanza
06-29-2012, 01:16 PM
People can bid on anything...doesn't mean they get it...but I'm not sure that the AHL situation is very meaningful...it was a pretty signifcant step down from the NHL in fact, and has been run and marketed only modestly well by the various "owners." I mean, how many people would show up at Fenway if the Sox moved to Charlotte and were replaced by the Triple A PawSox?

The AHL was more of a sarcastic jab. The point is, it ain't moving to Hartford, that's just a pipedream pump-up statement from the XL guy trying to make that irrelevant arena seem a bit more relevant. 80% of the current league can take a train into the basement of the Garden. 30% of the league can practically see the Garden from their dorm window. Why move it to a place where one of 12 teams can easily get there?