johansen@agrigene.UUCP (12/14/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR GOALIE***
It seems to me to be pretty clear that the best team in the NHL is
the Edmonton Oilers. For the sake of discussion, I would be interested
in people's opinions of which team is the 2nd best team in the NHL. I
don't mean simply in the standings but rather in talent etc. Likely
candidates include Washington, Philadelphia, Calgary, and Toronto :-).utrupin@yale.ARPA (CS666 Is History) (12/15/85)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Keywords: **** DON'T EAT THIS LINE **** *SIGH* Remember when the Islanders even made the list of second best considerations? Now the Maple Leafs do, and they don't? *SIGH* Times have changed in two short years. Oh, well. Go team. (I don't have an opinion, I'm just reminiscing. Oh, by the way, Yale is ranked #4 in the nation in college hockey! We broke RPI's unbeaten streak in their rink) -Josh Trupin utrupin@yale-cheops
crnivani@acf4.UUCP (Carlo Cernivani) (12/16/85)
The view from Section 309 at Madison Square Garden hasn't been the best in terms of seeing good hockey. Herb Brooks, Craig Patrick, and the boys have seen to that. It would be difficult to list the Ranger problems but we do get to see how the game should be played every now and then. The general feeling in my section is that after the Oilers you have a couple of teams on the second plateau. The Flyers are clearly there. Individually their talent is good, not great. Kerr, Propp, Howe, and Froese form a good core but the thing that makes the Flyers such a strong team is, what else, work and discipline. When they work within the framework of their system they're tough to beat. The Oilers, like the Stanley Cup Islander teams, can beat you any way you want to go. The Flyers on the other hand have to show up each night and execute to win. Obviously, they do that quite regularly. The Flyers should make the finals this year. The Calgary Flames have a strong team. They have a ton of size up front and can wear you down with a good checking game with plenty of physical play on the boards and around the net. They're probably still a couple of players away but they always give the Oilers a tough time. The Oilers are to the Flames what the Islanders have always been to the Rangers. The team to beat in the conference and the team that has/had the one big play, the one lucky bounce, the one roll player come through to beat you. The Flames, like the Rangers, rise to the occasion of the challange but are always *this* far away. Until they can get past the Oilers the Flames will have to wait. IF the Oilers faulter (*cough*), then look for the Flames to be there. The Washington Caps are a mystery to us. They have a strong defensive game. Langway comes to play every night. They're forwards (Carpenter, Gartner, etc.) are quick, move the puck well, and at times are quite explosive. It may just be a matter of time and a bit more experience in the playoffs but they still have to show they can do it in April. The Islanders were the obstacle, now it's the Flyers. They're our dark horse pick in the conference. After the Flyers, Flames, and Caps you have a mess of teams that are up and down. Bruins: the offense isn't there. Quebec: If they played everybody like they play Montreal they'd be someone to contend with. Winnipeg has been a major disappointment. What's they're story?? Before the year started I thought Chicago would rebound from last year and turn it around. Guess not. Then there's Buffalo. Defense, defense, defense. Bowman = zzzzzzzzzzzz. Last but not least, you gotta love the Red Wings. They're making the Ranger payroll look like a dime store operation. They're minor league affiliate must be serving champagne and caviar in between periods. Like we keep saying at the Garden, you can buy talent but you CAN't buy a winner. It's a good thing I didn't get started on the Rangers. I'd be typing for hours. Carlo A. Cernivani Usenet: ...!floyd!cmcl2!crnivani 251 Mercer Street New York, N.Y. 10012 (212) 460-7157 Arpa: Cernivani@NYU.ARPA ps. COME HOME JOEY MULLEN!
animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr) (12/24/85)
Along with a number of other musings on who should be number 2 in the NHL, Carlo Cernivani made a couple pithy observations about our beloved Norris division [I mean the hockey teams, not the division of the Norris estate, which was the cause of an interesting $2.5-million lawsuit agains Bill Wirtz, owner of the Blackhawks]: > Before the year started I > thought Chicago would rebound from last year and turn it around. Guess not. > > Last but not least, you gotta love the Red Wings. They're making the Ranger > payroll look like a dime store operation. The Hawks and Redwings are both suffering from the same problem: they're stuck in the Norris division, which means that there's really little or no reason to play hard during the regular season. When the whole regular season serves to eliminate only one team, *and* the division contains one consistently cellar-bound team like Toronto (does anyone really doubt that they'll pull out a few come-from-ahead defeats and be eliminated by Valentine's Day?), who cares if you finish first or fourth, or what your record is? Those of you who follow football have probably noticed the difficulty the Bears had playing hard after they clinched their division. I've noticed the same problem with the Hawks all season--much of the time they've just been going through the motions waiting for the game to end. You might wonder why the Smythe division doesn't have this problem, even though it has the certifiably awful L. A. Kings (a Norris team if there ever was one). I think the reason is that the three remaining teams (Edmonton, of course, takes first place by default) are fighting to avoid fourth place and its inevitable first-round elimination at the hands of the Oilers. If you finish second or third, you at least have a chance at the second round. And of course, the Wales conference teams are evenly-enough matched that nobody's guaranteed a playoff spot until the last week of the season; hence, good play. I think the only real solution to this problem is some sort of revision to the playoff system, one which makes the real season matter for something. How about this: only eight teams make the playoffs (instead of 16), with four being the division champs and the other four being chosen based on their records (say two from each conference, but they could be from the same division). In the Norris division especially, that kind of a playoff setup could make the regular season games worth watching. Dan Starr ihlpa!animal Chicago Stadium 2nd Balcony 4/D/D/13
cjsgro@watrose.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) (12/25/85)
Dan Starr's article on the state of the Norris Division, in which he states that only 8 teams should make the playoffs, deserves comment. Of course, sixteen teams in the playoffs is ridiculous; the only thing that this provides is a list of teams who weren't good 'enough' (at all??) as opposed to teams 'of championship caliber'. However, until the NHL can make it financially (and comfortably), we'll never see it changed. The rationale is that it would be economically disasterous to reduce the number of playoff teams, due to the negative stigma of missing the playoffs and the cash that would be lost to the team owners. I do not think that we can use more whining about how badly the NHL is doing. Let's not be fooled into thinking that the playoff situation is new, either. Even when there were only six teams in the league, a full 66% of them made the playoffs. -- Carlo Sgro ...![ihnp4||decvax||allegra||clyde||utzoo]!watmath!watrose!cjsgro "ihnp4 Express: Overnight to the USA or you don't pay!"
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (12/31/85)
> I think the only real solution to this problem is some sort of revision to > the playoff system, one which makes the real season matter for something. > How about this: only eight teams make the playoffs (instead of 16), with > four being the division champs and the other four being chosen based on > their records (say two from each conference, but they could be from the > same division). In the Norris division especially, that kind of a playoff > setup could make the regular season games worth watching. > > Dan Starr > ihlpa!animal > Chicago Stadium 2nd Balcony 4/D/D/13 Some sort of revision is needed, but Dan's proposal is much too drastic ever to be considered by the NHL. A much less drastic and possibly even better idea would be a return to the system used about 10 years ago: The first three teams in each division make the playoffs, with the first place team getting a bye from the first round. 12 out of 21 teams is a little more than half so it's a fairly reasonable number of teams to have in the playoffs, and it adds a lot more meaning to the regular season not just for the teams around 3rd and 4th place in the division, but also for the teams around 1st and 2nd, since getting first place in the regular season actually means something. With the current standings there would be close battles for 3rd in 3 of the 4 divisions (possibly even 4 if Toronto continues to play above .500), with more than two teams being invovled in all but one of them, and there would also be battles for 1st in two divisions, one between 3 teams and the other between all 5. As it is now, finishing first in the division is not enough of an advantage to be worth trying hard for, so the better teams in the division really have nothing to play for. Even in the hotly contested Adams Division, the teams all know that they have a 80% chance of making the playoffs and if they do it doesn't matter where they place. However, with a bye at stake, things would get pretty hot in Norris Divison (I'll bet Dan and the other Black Hawk fans would see much better hockey) and much hotter in the Adams. Even the Capitals might make a fight of the Patrick if they were faced with the prospect of getting a bye versus possibly having to play the Islanders in the 1st round of the playoffs. I think the NHL would be wise to adopt such a system because, even though they might balk at it because they'd be losing income from the four 1st vs. 4th series, they would probably make it back and more in increased regular season revenues. More importantly though, adopting a reasonable playoff system would gain the league a lot of respect, which could give them the better US TV deal that they've always wanted. The 1st vs. 4th series are often uninteresting anyway; a regular season game between the 1st and 2nd teams where a bye may be at stake is a much better attraction. The often exciting 2nd vs 3rd series would be kept, and they can leave them as best of 5 series provided they schedule them with a minimum number of days off, so that the first place team would not have to sit around too long. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen) (01/03/86)
In article <7738@watrose.UUCP> cjsgro@watrose.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) writes: >Dan Starr's article on the state of the Norris Division, in which he states >that only 8 teams should make the playoffs, deserves comment. Of course, >sixteen teams in the playoffs is ridiculous... Even more ridiculous is that in the Adams division only four teams make the playoffs. A few days ago, Buffalo (in fifth place in the division and so out of the playoffs) was EIGHTH overall in the league! TANJ, is there? \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen I'm all lost in the Supermarket I can no longer shop happily I came in here for that special offer Guaranteed personality (c) The Clash, 1979 ---- TANJ = There Ain't No Justice (credit to Larry Niven...)
msy@siemens.UUCP (01/04/86)
[if the line eater ate the blue line, there would be no off-side calls]
The idea of 1st place team getting a bye in the first round may sound good to
the players (and possibly to the fans), but the owners will never go for it.
A better solution might be to let the first place team get an uneven home
field advantage.
Four teams from each division will make the playoffs. The second and third
place team will play a normal 5 game series. The 1st and 4th place team will
play a 5 game series - all in the 1st place team's home ice. This might get
a bit UNinteresting since the 1st place team will have too much advantage, but
the following advantages can result (some may be arguable):
- The 4th place team has a chance (though not much of a chance) for the cup.
- The 1st place team gets (light) work out instead of sitting out for a few
days and be out of shape for the next round.
- The owners are happy because they do not lose any revenue.
- The battle for 1st-2nd place will be very interesting since the 1st place
team will get such an easy 1st round playoff.
- The battle for 2nd-3rd place will be as interesting as they are now.
- The battle for 3rd-4th place will be very interesting since being 4th means
no home ice for the 1st round playoff.
- The battle for 4th-5th place will also matter (interesting??) since 5th place
team will not make it to the playoffs.
As you can see, there are no forseeable faults with this plan. Any comments??
Siemens Research and Technology Laboratories Marcus S. Yoo
Princeton, NJ
UUCP: {ihnp4|princeton|adrvax}!siemens!msy
ARPA: princeton!siemens!msypmm1920@ritcv.UUCP (01/06/86)
> > >Dan Starr's article on the state of the Norris Division, in which he states > >that only 8 teams should make the playoffs, deserves comment. Of course, > >sixteen teams in the playoffs is ridiculous... > > Even more ridiculous is that in the Adams division only four teams > make the playoffs. A few days ago, Buffalo (in fifth place in the > division and so out of the playoffs) was EIGHTH overall in the league! > TANJ, is there? > \tom haapanen > watmath!watdcsu!haapanen There is only one problem to all this speculation and ideas -- the NHL will never do it! Unfortunately! Most of us realize that a different format is needed. One of the Adams div. teams will not make the playoffs this year. They all deserve to be in the playoffs (now that Hartford is better). Possibly, the NHL will smarten-up a little and, for example (without giving this a LOT of thought), will take the top 3 teams in each division and then the top 2 teams in the conference out of the teams remaining (understand?!). This still gives them 16 teams which is what they want for economic reasons. Paul Meyerhofer
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (01/13/86)
> The idea of 1st place team getting a bye in the first round may sound good to > the players (and possibly to the fans), but the owners will never go for it. > A better solution might be to let the first place team get an uneven home > field advantage. > Four teams from each division will make the playoffs. The second and third > place team will play a normal 5 game series. The 1st and 4th place team will > play a 5 game series - all in the 1st place team's home ice. This might get > a bit UNinteresting since the 1st place team will have too much advantage, but > the following advantages can result (some may be arguable): > ... > - The owners are happy because they do not lose any revenue. > ... > As you can see, there are no forseeable faults with this plan. Any comments?? > > Siemens Research and Technology Laboratories Marcus S. Yoo > Princeton, NJ > UUCP: {ihnp4|princeton|adrvax}!siemens!msy > ARPA: princeton!siemens!msy The only problem I can see with this plan is that the owners of teams that have a good chance of finishing 4th would probably complain because they would be losing the revenue from home games in the playoffs. On the other hand, the overall revenue would probably be greater because the games in the first place team's arena would probably be better attended, since in general interest tends to be higher in the cities with the better teams. So, if the 4th place team could share some of the profits from the games, I think it's idea they might just go for. This is far from being my favourite alternative playoff method, but I think it's the one that would be most likely to be accepted, so I'm all for it. At this stage, I'm willing to accept anything that will make the regular season meaningful. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
djm@rayssd.UUCP (Dan R. Murphy) (01/23/86)
> > Four teams from each division will make the playoffs. The second and third > place team will play a normal 5 game series. The 1st and 4th place team will > play a 5 game series - all in the 1st place team's home ice. This might get > a bit UNinteresting since the 1st place team will have too much advantage, but > the following advantages can result (some may be arguable): I liked your idea very much. The owners would not go for this because of the revenue loss (i.e. gate, concessions, souveniers, etc.) the fourth place team would sustain. Dan Murphy Raytheon SSD Portsmouth, RI
mre@laidbak.UUCP (Mike Eisler) (01/29/86)
Last year someone posted an article that suggested a playoff format that would both keep the owners happy, and give the regular season meaning. As I recall, the first place team would play the fourth place team of the division in a combination best of 5/7 series. The first place team need only win 3 games to win the series; the fourth place team would need to win 4 games to win. This system would result in the affected owners giving up only one game of revenue in the initial playoff round. The first place team would have home ice advantage too (the first two games at home, next two away, and last two, if necessary, at home). The format of second place team versus third place team would be unchanged. The incentive to finish first place in a division is obvious. The incentive to finish second place is the same as before. The incentive to finish third place is to avoid a tough series against a first place team. There is still the incentive to avoid finishing fifth or sixth, but even more so. This system really encourages teams to avoid anything worse than a third place finish. An owner of a first place team should gladly give up one game of first round playoff revenue since his odds of getting second round revenue are better. I think that this format would encounter bitter resistance only in divisions where there is a wide disparity of talent. Currently, 3 of the divisions are up for grabs, except Edmonton's (forgive me for not remembering what division they play in).
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/02/86)
There have been a lot of talks about playoff format and making the regular season more meaningful. However, I find an interesting scenario. If the Penguins are locked up with 3rd place and the Islanders 4th in the Patrick Division (this is not impossible, as of 2/1, Pittsburgh is only 4 points out of 3rd place,) will the Capitals have incentives to fight for 1st place? We all know they always lose to the Isles in the playoffs, while they haven't lost to the Penguins for a couple years. -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA
ins_alhg@jhunix.UUCP (Louis H Griffel) (02/12/86)
In article <8656@ucla-cs.ARPA> lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) writes: > If the Penguins are locked up with 3rd place and the Islanders >4th in the Patrick Division (this is not impossible, as of 2/1, >Pittsburgh is only 4 points out of 3rd place,) will the Capitals >have incentives to fight for 1st place? We all know they always >lose to the Isles in the playoffs, while they haven't >lost to the Penguins for a couple years. > Why does everyone write off the Islanders? As of now THEY are only six points behind the Capitals. Maybe the Capitals should have to worry about fighting they Penguins for third instead of the Flyers!! Maybe the @#$% Penguins won't even make the playoffs. Are you guys just jealou of the four Stanley Cups ???
paul@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (Paul Brownlow in the rain forest) (02/19/86)
> In article <8656@ucla-cs.ARPA> lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) writes: > > > If the Penguins are locked up with 3rd place and the Islanders > >4th in the Patrick Division (this is not impossible, as of 2/1, > >Pittsburgh is only 4 points out of 3rd place,) will the Capitals > >have incentives to fight for 1st place? We all know they always > >lose to the Isles in the playoffs, while they haven't > >lost to the Penguins for a couple years. > > > > Why does everyone write off the Islanders? As of now THEY are only six points > behind the Capitals. Maybe the Capitals should have to worry about fighting > they Penguins for third instead of the Flyers!! Maybe the @#$% Penguins > won't even make the playoffs. Are you guys just jealou of the four > Stanley Cups ??? The Islanders have a reasonable team, but it is *nowhere near* the team which won 4 consecutive Stanley Cups. Many of the players that wear rings on every finger are no longer on the team. We are not jealous of the 4 cups (quite an accomplishment!!!), but only realizing the change in the team and other teams in the division. -- ------- Paul Brownlow Data I/O Corp. Redmond, WA ..uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!pilchuck!paul "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"