Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I would argue that this—like the last change rule—provides a very small advantage. Thus, my argument for the anticipated tournament would be for no added home-ice advantages provided to higher seeded teams, since home ice itself provides such a minimal or negligible advantage as to make it essentially moot. The real reward for higher seeded teams is the opportunity for additional playoff revenue, provided by the potential of selling tickets for three or four home games.
|
Very small advantages become big advantages with all things equal. Given NHL parity, I'd argue that coaches would consider these huge.
Also I'm not sure I understand how would the league get rid of these advantages? One team has to put their line out first (disadvantage) and one of the two players taking the faceoff has to put their stick down first (disadvantage).