Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Right, but we are talking about historical precedents that are now at least 40-years in the past. The League has changed so much over the course of that time that I don't think these appeals to the game of long-past eras hold much legitimacy. But moreover, I also think with how entrenched the League has been about the current playoff format that this exemplifies just how critically important it is to them, the players and the fans. Even amid some pretty dramatic changes in the 1980s, 90s and oughts, the one constant has been four rounds in a seven-game format, six players aside, and by resolution of scoring more goals than the other team in each game. It has been like this for so long now, that I would argue this is as sacred a tradition as there is in the League today.
Sixteen wins. That is what every Stanley Cup champion of the present era has had to achieve. Anything less than that is anathema in my books.
|
Anathema? Well that is one extreme reaction. Sports as well as any other institutions change as the environment evolves. An SC champion with say 14 wins vs 16 wins doesn't strike me as some gimmicky, extreme compromise. This regular season is already longer than other shortened seasons and I bet you can't name those tainted champions without looking.
Other pro sports have evolved their playoff formats in recent years for less important reasons.
Sorry guess I just can't buy the "we've done it this way for 30 years so can't change" argument about anything really, much less a spectator sport which exists for no reason other than to provide people entertainment. But it truly is a question of personal taste as there don't seem to be any persuasive arguments.