Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - UPDATE: NHLPA votes for further negotiations on 24-team return to play format

getbak · 05-15-2020, 10:33 AM

I was thinking of something like that, but I wouldn't do the bottom 4 play-in. Just go straight to the top-4 making the playoffs and go from there.

What I was thinking was:

Assign each team points based on their performance in the season up to the cancellation. This could be either a cut-down to 68 games or just using the teams' points percentages at the stoppage as their starting points number.
In each hub, the six teams will play one game each against the other 5 teams, points are assigned as normal, or they could use this as a chance to try out a 3 point system with 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/SO win, and 1 for an OT/SO loss.
After all of the games have been played, the top 4 teams in each hub will play a standard playoff series 1v4 and 2v3. The winners of those will play each other to determine the final four teams, who will all convene in one of the hub cities to play the final 2 rounds of the playoffs.

In this scenario, all of the 24 teams would have a chance to make the playoffs, but the teams who performed best during the actual season will have the best chance.

Also, there's no reason to necessarily maintain the Division or even Conference structure for the hubs, especially if they're not going to have the host teams playing in their own cities (as was apparently mentioned by Treliving in the STH call yesterday). They could go with a straight 1-12 Conference ranking or even a 1-24 league ranking.

For example, if you did a straight 1-24 ranking, and distributed the teams in a snake structure using the final points percentage (which would be the structure to most-likely give a final 4 of the top 4 teams in the league), you'd have:

Code:

HUB 1BOS		71.4
VGK		60.6
CAR		59.6
NAS		56.5
VAN		56.5
MTL		50.0

HUB 2STL		66.2
PIT		62.3
DAL		59.4
FLA		56.5
NYR		56.4
CHI		51.4

HUB 3COL		65.7
PHI		64.5
NYI		58.8
CBJ		57.9
CGY		56.4
ARI		52.9

HUB 4	TBL		65.7
WAS		65.2
EDM		58.5
TOR		57.9
WPG		56.3
MIN		55.8

This gives a clear advantage to the teams who performed well in the regular season while still giving the lower teams a shot at making the playoffs, especially if they used a 3-point format and it was possible to get 15 points in 5 games.

The same thing could be done with a 1-12 Conference format, which would be better than keeping the Divisions separate just because the bad teams in the Pacific and Atlantic Divisions were so bad and the lower teams in the Metro and Central aren't nearly as bad.

05-15-2020, 10:33 AM	#645
getbak Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Calgary, AB Exp:	I was thinking of something like that, but I wouldn't do the bottom 4 play-in. Just go straight to the top-4 making the playoffs and go from there. What I was thinking was: Assign each team points based on their performance in the season up to the cancellation. This could be either a cut-down to 68 games or just using the teams' points percentages at the stoppage as their starting points number. In each hub, the six teams will play one game each against the other 5 teams, points are assigned as normal, or they could use this as a chance to try out a 3 point system with 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/SO win, and 1 for an OT/SO loss. After all of the games have been played, the top 4 teams in each hub will play a standard playoff series 1v4 and 2v3. The winners of those will play each other to determine the final four teams, who will all convene in one of the hub cities to play the final 2 rounds of the playoffs. In this scenario, all of the 24 teams would have a chance to make the playoffs, but the teams who performed best during the actual season will have the best chance. Also, there's no reason to necessarily maintain the Division or even Conference structure for the hubs, especially if they're not going to have the host teams playing in their own cities (as was apparently mentioned by Treliving in the STH call yesterday). They could go with a straight 1-12 Conference ranking or even a 1-24 league ranking. For example, if you did a straight 1-24 ranking, and distributed the teams in a snake structure using the final points percentage (which would be the structure to most-likely give a final 4 of the top 4 teams in the league), you'd have: Code: HUB 1 BOS 71.4 VGK 60.6 CAR 59.6 NAS 56.5 VAN 56.5 MTL 50.0 HUB 2 STL 66.2 PIT 62.3 DAL 59.4 FLA 56.5 NYR 56.4 CHI 51.4 HUB 3 COL 65.7 PHI 64.5 NYI 58.8 CBJ 57.9 CGY 56.4 ARI 52.9 HUB 4 TBL 65.7 WAS 65.2 EDM 58.5 TOR 57.9 WPG 56.3 MIN 55.8 This gives a clear advantage to the teams who performed well in the regular season while still giving the lower teams a shot at making the playoffs, especially if they used a 3-point format and it was possible to get 15 points in 5 games. The same thing could be done with a 1-12 Conference format, which would be better than keeping the Divisions separate just because the bad teams in the Pacific and Atlantic Divisions were so bad and the lower teams in the Metro and Central aren't nearly as bad. __________________ Turn up the good, turn down the suck!