Sunday, April 13, 2008
Number Two: Playoff Structure
I officially hate playoff structures in sports. Teams that win their divisions are given too much of an advantage over their opponents. A great example of this is the Washington Capitals finished 3rd in the East at the end of the season because they won the division. This means that they will get home advantage at least in the first round and will play weaker teams in their quest for the cup. The Capitals won the division, but they only had the 8th highest point total in the East. Instead of coming third, I think they should have gotten 8th because they were not better than any team that is in the 8th to 4th spots in the playoffs. This happens in lots of sports, like in football, when two teams are tied for a playoff spot, the tie is won by the team with the best division record. No tiebreaker game or point differentials, just the best division record. Don't get me wrong, I think that a team should be rewarded for winning their division, but not this much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The NBA has it right!!! Division leaders do not automatically get the top 3 spots. They have to earn it but they can't fall all the way to the bottom. Should they????
I think you're right. The system the NBA uses is so great with games-behind dictating spots and not points. Plus, the division winner usually does really well in the standings anyway because they play others in the division so much that the other teams falter. Unfortuanatly though, it can cut down on the intensity of division games when they mean the same as a game out of the division.
It may not seem fair to a team like the New York Rangers to be sitting without home ice advantage even though they had more points than the "3rd place" Capitals, but I think there's a big benefit to the NHL seeding system. It compensates for differences in divisions, so if you have a very competitive division like the Northwest you still have a shot at home ice, and similarly in a weak division like the Southeast you can have great races right to the end of the season even though 4 of the teams aren't going to make the playoffs.
I hear you on the NHL playoff structure being skewed to favour division winners, but there are two reasons the structure is sound. One is that with the prevalence of intradivisional play, its possible if the division is closely matched and the games were all split that no one team acheives separation from the rest of the division, even if they are all good teams. THe second is that its good for the business as a whole as the divisions are arranged on geographic lines. The artificial playoff seeding method helps promote regional representation, spreading the geographic impact of the games and hopefully helping the game as a whole.
Not that either applys to the Caps as they came out of a truly awful division, despite their amazing play down the stretch, did not deserve the seeding they received.
I know that competitive devisions like the Northwest approve of the playoff seeding because they play eachother so much that the best the division leader would get is the 5th seed, but then why doesn`t the NHL change the scheduling and not make the divisional teams play eachother so much! I think that would solve many problems with the schduling, and also some people with season tickets probably want to see a lot of different teams than just the same 4 over and over. The Caps also proved they didn`t deserve the 3rd playoff seed by losing to Philadelphia in the first round.
Post a Comment