James Tanner: Thoughts on New Rule Changes Looking into the new rules the NHL just announced.

I like em all.

I agree with most of the blog's assessment of the rule tweaks, they seem to make sense.

Personally though I didn't mind that the playoff format resulted in top contenders meeting in the first round. The trade off is that the current format encourages regional, divisional rivalries in the first round, and potentially could lead to series rematches more often, and I think the rivalry potential is worth it.

Also the first round is when teams are fresh and uninjured, I actually thought having some clash of the titans right off the bat was exciting.

I agree with most of the blog's assessment of the rule tweaks, they seem to make sense.

Personally though I didn't mind that the playoff format resulted in top contenders meeting in the first round. The trade off is that the current format encourages regional, divisional rivalries in the first round, and potentially could lead to series rematches more often, and I think the rivalry potential is worth it.

Also the first round is when teams are fresh and uninjured, I actually thought having some clash of the titans right off the bat was exciting.
- Zezel

I agree with everything you're saying. No doubt those were both great series. No doubt rivalries to make the game a little more exciting. I guess were we differ is that i just don't know if those things are worth the fact that it makes the playoffs more of a crap shoot and lessens the value of the regular season.

For example, the Sharks are known as first round chokers, but that isn't exactly fair as the reward they got for getting what 110 points (?) was that they had to face LA. Certainly if the regular season is worth being 82 games long, they deserved a better matchup?

I just think seeding 1-16 would mean the "best" teams win more and provide more value to the first 7 months of the season. I get though that most people disagree and that's why they do things the way they do them, so it's all good.

OT rule change is awful for the season ticket holders (myself) that pay an extra amount to see my home team shoot twice at one end of the rink and can't see the team win in OT.

PO are a different story. Don't bother bringing that up.

Not a fan of this one at all.

I agree with everything you're saying. No doubt those were both great series. No doubt rivalries to make the game a little more exciting. I guess were we differ is that i just don't know if those things are worth the fact that it makes the playoffs more of a crap shoot and lessens the value of the regular season.

For example, the Sharks are known as first round chokers, but that isn't exactly fair as the reward they got for getting what 110 points (?) was that they had to face LA. Certainly if the regular season is worth being 82 games long, they deserved a better matchup?

I just think seeding 1-16 would mean the "best" teams win more and provide more value to the first 7 months of the season. I get though that most people disagree and that's why they do things the way they do them, so it's all good.
- James_Tanner

A team not getting rewarded for a strong season is a valid point, the Sharks certainly didn't get rewarded at all this time around.

OT rule change is awful for the season ticket holders (myself) that pay an extra amount to see my home team shoot twice at one end of the rink and can't see the team win in OT.

PO are a different story. Don't bother bringing that up.

Not a fan of this one at all.
- Shenanigans20

I never really thought of that. I guess if you have end seats, that's kind of a bad thing, but really, you should just be happy you can get tickets/ afford them and that you get to witness NHL hockey.

Personally, if it helps lesson shootouts I think it's a good idea. I sympathize with you to a degree, but it's only a few people who will be hurt by this vs the untold millions who will benefit by seeing less shootouts. And - big plus - OT goals count in hockey pools, shootout goals don't.

OT rule change is awful for the season ticket holders (myself) that pay an extra amount to see my home team shoot twice at one end of the rink and can't see the team win in OT.

PO are a different story. Don't bother bringing that up.

Not a fan of this one at all.
- Shenanigans20

They are trying to have more games decided in OT by forcing the long player change. Anything that has the potential to reduce the number of games decided by the gimmick is OK by me.

Overall a good piece, though I didn't really understand the part on seeding.

You say it's not fair that good teams such as STL/chi and SL/LA should not have to play each other in the first round but what your leaving out is that if the were indeed the top teams in their conference they wouldn't have had to. Truth of the matter is Ana and Col were the best in the west and as such they played the lower seeded wild card teams...what's unfair about that? it's pretty simple, if you want to play the worst team going into the 1st round, then WIN!...and come out with a better record.

If on the other hand you're saying there should be no conferences once playoffs start, just seeds 1-16.....then you realize you've just eliminated the need for any type of div/conf system?....how exactly would that work, I can't think of any major sport that follows that?

A team not getting rewarded for a strong season is a valid point, the Sharks certainly didn't get rewarded at all this time around.
- Zezel

Right, but if time after time they also fail to make it past the first round then maybe they are not the best and don't deserve it?....

Seeding 1-16 would be interesting but travel would get out of hand, although I guess even it up for the western team who generally are forced to travel more.

Based on last years standing you would still get some quality team facing off in the first round. I guess really SJS vs NYR would be the only series with crazy distance.

1. BOS vs 16 DAL
2. ANH vs 15 DET
3. COL vs 14 CLB
4. STL vs 13 PHI
5. SJS vs 12 NYR
6. PIT vs 11 MIN
7. CHI vs 10 LAK
8. TBL vs 9 MTL

I aslo think the potential for upsets will increase with Eastern teams generally being not as strong as the West.

there should be a rule that teams with more points don't miss the playoffs while worse teams make it just because they are in an easier division.

There is, to an extent, it's the wildcard rule.

Edit: Actually it isn't even to an extent, the rule full out worked, the top 8 in the East and West made the playoffs last year.

Seeding 1-16 would be interesting but travel would get out of hand, although I guess even it up for the western team who generally are forced to travel more.

Based on last years standing you would still get some quality team facing off in the first round. I guess really SJS vs NYR would be the only series with crazy distance.

1. BOS vs 16 DAL
2. ANH vs 15 DET
3. COL vs 14 CLB
4. STL vs 13 PHI
5. SJS vs 12 NYR
6. PIT vs 11 MIN
7. CHI vs 10 LAK
8. TBL vs 9 MTL

I aslo think the potential for upsets will increase with Eastern teams generally being not as strong as the West.
- belcherbd

Nice job with this, goes to show no matter how you rank a team like LA who just seems to float until the playoffs come around will always kinda skew things a bit. As for SJ I don't think they would have beat the Rangers anyway.

I agree 2 or 3 points should be given out per game never both. I like 3-0 for a regulation/ot win and 2-1 for a shootout win.

Nice job with this, goes to show no matter how you rank a team like LA who just seems to float until the playoffs come around will always kinda skew things a bit. As for SJ I don't think they would have beat the Rangers anyway.

I agree 2 or 3 points should be given out per game never both. I like 3-0 for a regulation/ot win and 2-1 for a shootout win.
- ky678468

I think SJS would of smoked NYR, they were playing really well going into the playoffs and were pretty all series against LA with every game being determined by 1 goal except game 5 and game 7. I don't understand the critics of SJS they are an excellent team.

Overall a good piece, though I didn't really understand the part on seeding.

You say it's not fair that good teams such as STL/chi and SL/LA should not have to play each other in the first round but what your leaving out is that if the were indeed the top teams in their conference they wouldn't have had to. Truth of the matter is Ana and Col were the best in the west and as such they played the lower seeded wild card teams...what's unfair about that? it's pretty simple, if you want to play the worst team going into the 1st round, then WIN!...and come out with a better record.

If on the other hand you're saying there should be no conferences once playoffs start, just seeds 1-16.....then you realize you've just eliminated the need for any type of div/conf system?....how exactly would that work, I can't think of any major sport that follows that?
- nikel

Really great point, well put.

I actually really like the format. From my own interest as a fan, I'm intrigued that the format raises the odds that the Leafs will play teams like Mon, Buff, Bos, Ott if/when they make a first round. Or really any of the combinations of teams, having a couple of local rivals play in the first round two or three times over a handful of years, like when the Sens and Leafs met frequently. Those playoff series are the best in my opinion and this format just increases the odds of them happening.