UPDATE: NHLPA votes for further negotiations on 24-team return to play format

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He's saying that that's why they chose that cut-off rather than lowering it to include other teams. They just cut off the number of teams at a point where the big markets happened to be, standings wise. If they'd been doing it in a manner that wasn't deliberately aimed at getting the Blackhawks et al. into the postseason, they would actually probably have cut it off at 16 or 20.

Or they want more teams in as a way of increasing revenue in a situation where the league has lost a ton of revenue.


This is not rocket surgery.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[topfiverecords]

How does revenue change significantly depending on which of the 24 teams are in? There’s no gate revenue.

It will benefit Sportsnet and NBC to have larger markets, but their contract with the NHL is already set. I’m sure the lawyers are hard at work to rework them but I doubt Sportsnet has told the NHL they’ll pay more if Montreal is in.

[MrMike]

I’d imagine having the play in rounds might offset some of the missed tv revenue for the final portion of the season.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well if it was me I’d have a play in tournament for the 5th through 12th teams in each conference.

It’s a 7 game round robin. Play each team once. No ties, no loser points, every game that is tied through 60 minutes plays 3 on 3 until someone scores.

12th place team starts with zero points. Every other team is awarded starting points based on projected points over 70 games in excess of the 12th place team.

You’d be talking about 2 extra games over the current projected set up.

So yeah some of the bottom teams could be mathematically eliminated early on. They’d only have to hang around and play a weeks worth of games or so. Then the top 4 teams from that move on to the real playoffs.

I like this train of thought quite a bit. I might make one minor adjustment - I would propose to do a round robin with the teams in 6-12, if they insist on taking 24 teams. 6 games each. The reason is that there is a pretty clean drop off between 5th and 6th place in both east and west.

And your points idea works well in rewarding the regular season play so far, not just making a clean slate

Otherwise, I would prefer to see 22 teams, if qualification is based on merit and actual chance to get in, and if they insist on a clean slate. Having .500 Montreal in is not really reasonable.

[topfiverecords]

More round robin than they’re proposing and you might as well just have a golf tournament instead.

Actually, I might watch that.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by MrMike

I’d imagine having the play in rounds might offset some of the missed tv revenue for the final portion of the season.

It adds 40 potential games. It's not huge, but given some of the markets involved it'll definitely help.

[dino7c]

Can't really compare the NBA to the NHL...The lower seeds in the NBA already have ZERO chance of actually winning a championship let alone adding more teams that can't compete.

A 7th or 8th seed has NEVER won the NBA championship and only and handful have advanced past the first round in NBA history

[Sylvanfan]

I would't be shocked if the NHL didn't want to see how this plays out a bit as a longer term play. Cowperson used to say that if you want to get more scoring in the regular season...put more teams in the playoffs. In a 30 team league with 16 playoff teams, too many coaches are coaching to save their jobs, hence the huge emphasis on defence. So now there are a few of these better scoring teams (and the Flames can be one of them) who get to play with found money. You usually don't last long in the playoffs if you can't defend.

Really if they were to shorten the season to say 78 games in a 32 team league, and have a playin round...maybe the on ice product is a bit more interesting.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Can't really compare the NBA to the NHL...The lower seeds in the NBA already have ZERO chance of actually winning a championship let alone adding more teams that can't compete.

A 7th or 8th seed has NEVER won the NBA championship and only and handful have advanced past the first round in NBA history

It’s even more shocking when you dig further:

Times a 1st seed won: 52
Times a 2nd seed won: 12
Times a 3rd seed won: 7
Times a 4th seed won: 1
Times a 6th seed won: 1

[dino7c]

lol rare for a 2 seed to win

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I would't be shocked if the NHL didn't want to see how this plays out a bit as a longer term play. Cowperson used to say that if you want to get more scoring in the regular season...put more teams in the playoffs. In a 30 team league with 16 playoff teams, too many coaches are coaching to save their jobs, hence the huge emphasis on defence. So now there are a few of these better scoring teams (and the Flames can be one of them) who get to play with found money. You usually don't last long in the playoffs if you can't defend.

Really if they were to shorten the season to say 78 games in a 32 team league, and have a playin round...maybe the on ice product is a bit more interesting.

That is a poster this website desperately misses.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

How does revenue change significantly depending on which of the 24 teams are in? There’s no gate revenue.

It will benefit Sportsnet and NBC to have larger markets, but their contract with the NHL is already set. I’m sure the lawyers are hard at work to rework them but I doubt Sportsnet has told the NHL they’ll pay more if Montreal is in.

Well I'm sure Montreal and Chicago will sell more merch, more sports gambling etc

[sureLoss]

News Update

Frank Seravalli @frank_seravalli
#NHL commissioner Gary Bettman expected to formally unveil the league's 24-team return to play format this afternoon at 4:30pm, followed by a media availability at 6pm.

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Can't really compare the NBA to the NHL...The lower seeds in the NBA already have ZERO chance of actually winning a championship let alone adding more teams that can't compete.

A 7th or 8th seed has NEVER won the NBA championship and only and handful have advanced past the first round in NBA history

Just for argument's sake, in the 1998-99 season the Knicks made the finals as an 8th seed. That was a lockout shortened season. I can't see any 8th seed making the Finals in any format they choose this year. I can't see the Knicks making the finals any time soon.

[Toonage]

And Pierre LeBrun immediately follows Frank's tweet with one of his own cautioning people that there is much more work ahead and this does not guarantee anything etc.

We get it. No guarantee. Everyone knows this.

This bugs the hell out of me. Just the news with less personal opinion please. Especially from LeBrun who seems intent on taking on the role of tempering expectations. I don't need to have every bit of potential good news followed by a sprinkling of pessimism. We have plenty of that literally everywhere.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Toonage

And Pierre LeBrun immediately follows Frank's tweet with one of his own cautioning people that there is much more work ahead and this does not guarantee anything etc.

We get it. No guarantee. Everyone knows this.

This bugs the hell out of me. Just the news with less personal opinion please. Especially from LeBrun who seems intent on taking on the role of tempering expectations. I don't need to have every bit of potential good news followed by a sprinkling of pessimism. We have plenty of that literally everywhere.

The tweet does read as though it’s been finalized.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by P-DAZZLE

Just for argument's sake, in the 1998-99 season the Knicks made the finals as an 8th seed. That was a lockout shortened season. I can't see any 8th seed making the Finals in any format they choose this year. I can't see the Knicks making the finals any time soon.

The 8th place seeds in the NBA are 5 games under and 1 game under .500.

The 9th place seeds are 16 games under and 8 games under .500.

No point in going to more than 16 teams in the NBA. The first round is essentially a joke already with 16 teams.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

The tweet does read as though it’s been finalized.

McKenzie, Friedman, Johnston, Pagnotta & Seravalli were all able to convey the news of today without telling us not to get our hopes up. They shouldn't have to. This was already explained when the news broke originally. They're doing what they should. Telling us the pertinent info.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Toonage

McKenzie, Friedman, Johnston, Pagnotta & Seravalli were all able to convey the news of today without telling us not to get our hopes up. They shouldn't have to. This was already explained when the news broke originally. They're doing what they should. Telling us the pertinent info.

For the top percentile of avid hockey fans, yes we are aware. Even still, when I read that tweet I thought I had missed another vote of some type. A word such as “proposed” or “planned” would have changed that entire tweet.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I like this train of thought quite a bit. I might make one minor adjustment - I would propose to do a round robin with the teams in 6-12, if they insist on taking 24 teams. 6 games each. The reason is that there is a pretty clean drop off between 5th and 6th place in both east and west.

And your points idea works well in rewarding the regular season play so far, not just making a clean slate

Otherwise, I would prefer to see 22 teams, if qualification is based on merit and actual chance to get in, and if they insist on a clean slate. Having .500 Montreal in is not really reasonable.

That works too. Anything that would give some proportional weight to the actual standings, while still allowing a reasonable chance for any invited teams to advance, seems preferable.

But I suspect they will go for the drama of the extra elimination series.