PDA

View Full Version : This Week in ECAC Hockey: Packed Playoffs



Pages : [1] 2

ECACHL writer
02-10-2010, 02:32 PM
How many is too many?

Red Cloud
02-10-2010, 02:53 PM
All 12 is fine. This isn't the pros - there are far fewer games in the season, and there's still only one winner at the end. Give the teams that had a bad luck streak during the season the opportunity to redeem their season at the end of the year.

kdiff77
02-10-2010, 03:13 PM
All 12 is fine. This isn't the pros - there are far fewer games in the season, and there's still only one winner at the end. Give the teams that had a bad luck streak during the season the opportunity to redeem their season at the end of the year.

I agree. RPI and Brown, seeded 11th and 12th respectively, made nice runs last year, and that wouldn't have happened if they weren't actually in the playoffs (duh).

Of course, I'm biased because, as a Brown fan, we probably wouldn't make it at all very often if they didn't have all the teams make it. I assume fans at schools like Cornell or Clarkson, which are usually both at the top of the league, would feel differently (although the Clarkson fans may agree with me for this season at least).

MarkEagleUSA
02-10-2010, 07:32 PM
The current format works so why mess with it? I also agree it's nice that a team that had some bad luck during the season can still redeem themselves in the post-season.

FlagDUDE08
02-11-2010, 07:21 AM
I think my choice's description hit the nail on the head. This league is very tough. Not to mention, if you really want to exclude teams, that's already done for the national tournament. Give them all a chance at it. Granted it makes the only reasoning for the regular season be to get some information on your opponents, but why not? Might as well guarantee the teams more games, and let's face it... who wouldn't want more hockey?

I know this is an ECAC thread, but after a year or two, I wouldn't be surprised if the WCHA started to only allow 10 teams into the playoffs, just so they could have their "Final Five". I mentioned it because I found it interesting you included 10 teams as a choice.

klumpmypants
02-11-2010, 07:12 PM
The current format works so why mess with it? I also agree it's nice that a team that had some bad luck during the season can still redeem themselves in the post-season.

You gentleman seem to forget that the ECAC used to only take 10 teams to the playoffs. That format worked and yet they messed with it. Before ECAC flirted with its own Final Five for however many years it was, they had two-one game playoffs (7 vs 10, 8 vs 9) to decide the last two teams in the quarterfinals. I actually liked that format the best. It was unique to the ECAC and the one-game format in those opening games also adds to the playoff suspense. And obviously there is a greater potential for upsets when you only play one game.

Let's not kid ourselves, the reason the league went to a 12-team playoff format was purely revenue driven. This way, eight of the teams get an extra two or three games on their home ice.

I do think the current system waters down the regular season a bit, particularly for teams at the bottom. My biggest problem is there is little difference between finishing 1st and 4th or 9th and 12th.

35-Year Go Big Red Fan
02-11-2010, 07:39 PM
The best thing about the current format is that it makes virtually every game in the last few weeks of the regular season meaningful to at least one of the competing teams. Having the bye week is a big incentive to make the top four. I don't think this system really hurts the regular season at all.

Red Cloud
02-11-2010, 07:42 PM
You gentleman seem to forget that the ECAC used to only take 10 teams to the playoffs.

No, I'm well aware. This is meaningless.


Let's not kid ourselves, the reason the league went to a 12-team playoff format was purely revenue driven. This way, eight of the teams get an extra two or three games on their home ice.

This is bad because... ?


I do think the current system waters down the regular season a bit, particularly for teams at the bottom. My biggest problem is there is little difference between finishing 1st and 4th or 9th and 12th.

There's a big difference between finishing 1st and 4th, or 9th and 12th. If you finish 12th, guess what? You get the best team that didn't receive a bye in the first round. If you finish 9th? You get the team that finished just ahead of you. Big difference, champ.

klumpmypants
02-11-2010, 07:52 PM
There's a big difference between finishing 1st and 4th, or 9th and 12th. If you finish 12th, guess what? You get the best team that didn't receive a bye in the first round. If you finish 9th? You get the team that finished just ahead of you. Big difference, champ.[/QUOTE]

Actually in this league, it isn't. The middle is always bunched up. Look at the standings. This is exactly my point. Thanks for re-emphasizing it.

Red Cloud
02-11-2010, 08:39 PM
Actually in this league, it isn't. The middle is always bunched up. Look at the standings. This is exactly my point. Thanks for re-emphasizing it.

A) Learn how to quote.

B) The middle is not "always" bunched up. Even when it is, the better teams end up in the better slots.

If you want to keep up with a losing argument, be my guest. Why not start by explaining why revenue was a bad reason to move to 12 teams?

burgie12
02-11-2010, 09:57 PM
With only 22 league games, a bounce here or a penalty call there has a serious effect on the game results, and therefore, a (more) serious effect on the final standings.

The playoff system should include less teams iff (that's if and only if for you people who don't like math / logic) the conference schedule goes up to 28 games. And, on a side note, I am against that happening. I like having so many non-conference games. It allows the coach more time to develop his favorite lines and for teams to build a chemistry.

Kronojon
02-11-2010, 10:02 PM
If an 11 or 12 seed can make it to Albany (or soon AC) and/or win the ECAC tourney, then they deserve it. Also, as a fan who has witnessed my team have some terrible seasons, I'm still happy to have a few extra games to pay attention to, even if they are going to lose (or pull out an unexpected 1st round win, and make a good run at a 2nd round win like RPI last year).

FlagDUDE08
02-12-2010, 06:17 AM
With only 22 league games, a bounce here or a penalty call there has a serious effect on the game results, and therefore, a (more) serious effect on the final standings.

The playoff system should include less teams iff (that's if and only if for you people who don't like math / logic) the conference schedule goes up to 28 games. And, on a side note, I am against that happening. I like having so many non-conference games. It allows the coach more time to develop his favorite lines and for teams to build a chemistry.

28 game seasons would never happen because the ivies are only allowed to play 29 games total in a season. The only way it could happen is if you ditch the point system, go on record percentages, and allow the non-ivies to play each other one more time.

aweise
02-12-2010, 08:22 AM
If an 11 or 12 seed can make it to Albany (or soon AC) and/or win the ECAC tourney, then they deserve it. Also, as a fan who has witnessed my team have some terrible seasons, I'm still happy to have a few extra games to pay attention to, even if they are going to lose (or pull out an unexpected 1st round win, and make a good run at a 2nd round win like RPI last year).

We've been in this boat, too. Union had many horrible seasons where they finished 11th/12th and stayed home. It would have been nice to see what would have happened had they gone on the road with nothing to lose....not that anything would have come from it, but we'll never know.

That said, this was tough for me, but I voted for 10 teams. If I was a Clarkson fan this year, I'm not sure I'd want to see 2 more games that my team is likely to lose. Sure, they would be playing with nothing to lose and it might be fun to cause a major upset (see: 2001 Vermont). However, I always like to see the best teams fight it out at the end and their seasons shouldn't be "ruined" by losing 2 out of 3 to a team that just never had anything going for them all year. Yes, the higher seeds better take care of business so as not to "ruin" their seasons, but I'd just rather see the best teams go at it.

Just think...how would you RPI fans like to finish 5th and then lose 2 games to Clarkson? Unlikely, but what if?

Red Cloud
02-12-2010, 08:44 AM
Just think...how would you RPI fans like to finish 5th and then lose 2 games to Clarkson? Unlikely, but what if?

A) Extra motivation to finish 4th or higher.
B) If it happened, they'd deserve it.

Jasma
02-12-2010, 10:15 AM
I don't believe that revenue was the reason for expanding to all 12 teams. Nobody makes any money on the first round of the playoffs.

I think that they went to the current format when the Ivies were usually the bottom four teams most years. They had a 28 game limit on their regular season schedule and wanted their teams to have a couple of additional games.

This league is competitive, but I don't thin you can realistically call it "tough" top to bottom. Most years only one or two make it to the NCAA and it has been years since one of the teams made it to the Frozen Four and more than 20 years since an ECAC team won a national title.

The bottom two teams should not be in the playoffs. Cut them out, reward the top two with byes, and make the regular season more meaningful.

SlyFoxMan7
02-12-2010, 10:21 AM
How would 10 teams making the playoffs work with 2 bye teams? Am I spacing or after the first week, 8 teams would have played so 4 teams would remain, add in the two bye teams and you have 6 teams left after the first week.

Maine-iac
02-12-2010, 02:48 PM
How would 10 teams making the playoffs work with 2 bye teams? Am I spacing or after the first week, 8 teams would have played so 4 teams would remain, add in the two bye teams and you have 6 teams left after the first week.

Oh, you could do something like the bottom 4 teams (7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9) have one game play-ins; then traditional 8 -team seedings (1 vs 8-9 winner, 4 vs 5, 3 vs 6, and 2 vs 7-10 winner) play best of three series, then to the final four and etc. to the championship.

For me, the current 12-team process is very good. Reward the top 4 teams with a week-off bye, re-seed the winners from the bottom 8 first round series, best of 3 series to get to the final four site, semis and championship.

Wholin1
02-12-2010, 03:07 PM
I remember all to well the dismal and not so long ago seasons when Union was a shoo in for 11th or 12th, and frankly I preferred to see the coup de grace with the conclusion of the regular season rather than facing the additional and seemingly inevitable humiliation. In going back to the 10 team system, you have the shootout at the top and also the extra competitive factor of the lower echelon teams trying to fight their way out of the bottom slots. Off topic a bit but I believe the women have the 8 team playoff system. I'm wondering if a change is in the works there?

SlyFoxMan7
02-12-2010, 03:12 PM
Oh, you could do something like the bottom 4 teams (7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9) have one game play-ins; then traditional 8 -team seedings (1 vs 8-9 winner, 4 vs 5, 3 vs 6, and 2 vs 7-10 winner) play best of three series, then to the final four and etc. to the championship.

For me, the current 12-team process is very good. Reward the top 4 teams with a week-off bye, re-seed the winners from the bottom 8 first round series, best of 3 series to get to the final four site, semis and championship.

Yes, that's true but the poll response says, "cut the number of byes in half". Not sure how he'd get that to work out.