68 Game Rollback

[Ace]

Didn’t see this discussed so far, apologies if it’s elsewhere...Interesting format if possible, as the article points out some pretty good match ups occur:


https://www.tsn.ca/seravalli-how-a-6...rmat-1.1464422

68-Game Rollback

Central Division
1 Colorado vs. WC2 Vancouver
2 St. Louis vs. 3 Dallas

Pacific Division
1 Vegas vs. WC1 Nashville
2 Edmonton vs. 3 Calgary

Metropolitan Division
1 Philadelphia vs. WC1 Carolina
2 Washington vs. 3 Pittsburgh

Atlantic Division
1 Boston vs. WC2 Islanders
2 Tampa vs. 3 Toronto

The matchups would be juicier in the 68-game rollback. A Battle of Alberta, Sidney Crosby against Alex Ovechkin, plus Vegas versus NashVegas – all in the first round – would qualify as sensory

[Geeoff]

I don't mind it. It would lead to some weirdness where one team's 68th game might have been another's 69th but any system in which the teams play an uneven amount of games is gonna have warts


One thing that would suck is that Alexander Ovechkin would lose a goal, which makes me think they will not go this route

[Scroopy Noopers]

The story lines in the Edmonton Calgary series would have been history making. All the former players, the chosen one, Ward, man.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

One thing that would suck is that Alexander Ovechkin would lose a goal, which makes me think they will not go this route

I think the rollback would only be for playoff ranking purposes, can't imagine they would take away player stats but who knows I guess.



Raises more interesting questions though, what do they do with player bonuses, especially if rolling back a game would cause a player to lose out. Do they go by percentage of the 82 game schedule? if so then the same rule should apply to trade conditions. Any rookies who got a late season call up that will miss out on 9 games and burning an ELC year?

[Vinny01]

It would be something else to jump into a series against the Oilers but better than having to be WC2 and having to go through the central division.

No fans, not able to watch at a bar, going to be weird if it even happens

[The Cobra]

it makes zero sense to do a rollback vs. just going by winning percentage,

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

it makes zero sense to do a rollback vs. just going by winning percentage,

Explain. I don't see that one resolution is any more or less outlandish than the other.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[FanIn80]

For any headline-readers in the crowd, the important take away is that the article isn't discussing rolling the season back 68 games, it's talking about rolling every team back to their individual 68-games-played mark.

I definitely thought it meant rolling back 68 games at first, and was like... can't wait to read the comments on this... but once I saw no one was freaking out, it was like... dammit now I have to click the link and read the bloody thing.

Anyway, just some more embarrassing insight into how my brain works.

[Canada 02]

if they do play again, I think the playoff position should be based solely on division or intra-conference record

division standings based on division record only
wild card spots based on intra-conference record only

should make unbalanced games played outside division or outside the conference less relevant

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

if they do play again, I think the playoff position should be based solely on division or intra-conference record

division standings based on division record only
wild card spots based on intra-conference record only

should make unbalanced games played outside division or outside the conference less relevant

But in-division/conference could still be really unbalanced. What about teams who have had more opportunities to play against OTT and DET compared to another who has played extra games against BOS and TBL?


As for the 68 game rollback (or any other idea that involves 'deleting' games), I think the question is whether it is the most recent game or the earlier games that should be kept?

[The Yen Man]

Seems like the fairest way to determine playoff teams IMO. Make it so 68 games was the ending point, and for teams that played beyond 68, too bad, those points don't count (again just for playoff team determination, doesn't apply to player goals, points, etc).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

if they do play again, I think the playoff position should be based solely on division or intra-conference record

division standings based on division record only
wild card spots based on intra-conference record only

should make unbalanced games played outside division or outside the conference less relevant

This just does not work because I believe most teams have only played about 2/3 of their intra-conference schedules, and these would be extremely unbalanced.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[codynw]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

it makes zero sense to do a rollback vs. just going by winning percentage,

Are there any teams that are in by points percentage but miss by doing a 68 game rollback?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by codynw

Are there any teams that are in by points percentage but miss by doing a 68 game rollback?

No. The 16 teams would all be the same but the matchups would change.

For example, the Flames would play the Oilers instead of the Blues in the first round.

https://www.tsn.ca/seravalli-how-a-6...rmat-1.1464422