Opponents News 2: Hockey's the Reason for the Season

[Beeeej]

Hockey East ADs Vote to Change Playoff Format

"The league's athletic directors, meeting at the annual Coaches' Convention in Naples, Fla., voted this week to eliminate the first round of the Hockey East playoffs, meaning that the top eight teams in the regular-season standings will qualify for the tournament and the bottom three teams will be eliminated."

Smart move. Maybe the ECAC will take note.

Why smart? Shouldn't we have some sort of real reward for the top four finishers (a bye)? Under this proposed new system, the only reward is an easier pairing.

Why, just because that's how it's been since the ECAC tourney went from 10 teams to 12 in 2003? Home ice and an easier pairing is already pretty fantastic, and even the bye isn't a guarantee of anything - witness 2004, #2 Cornell gets a bye then promptly donkeys off a best-of-three against #9 Clarkson just a year after making the Frozen Four. And while it's not as shocking an upset, in 2007 #4 Cornell also gets a bye then drops two straight at home to #5 Quinnipiac.

Not because it's how things have been, but because it rewards teams who finish highly in the conference. It's strange to eliminate four teams from the playoffs, thereby increasing the important of the regular season for those at the bottom of the standings, while decreasing the importance for those at the top. Selfishly, this would also hurt Cornell.

Re: byes not being a guarantee of anything, that's true (as it should be), but those two instances you cited are the only two from the 12 times Cornell has earned a bye in the current playoff format that it did not win the quarterfinals.

You say it's strange to increase the importance of the regular season for those at the bottom of the standing, but it seems strange because you're looking at it in terms of the current format being the status quo ante. What was strange to me - downright absurd - was expanding the field to twelve teams in the first place, thus drastically decreasing the importance of the regular season for all twelve teams. Of course programs naturally still want to jockey for home ice and other advantages of finishing higher, but if they wanted, they could literally sit and spin on the ice and do nothing for 29-32 games and still make the conference playoffs. Even fifteen years later I think that's moronic. Reducing to 8 teams wouldn't decrease the importance of the regular season to the top four teams, it would simply change the palette of advantages gained by finishing near the top.

During the thirteen years of two different 10-team playoff formats, every time Cornell hosted the quarters (or "quints" ), even without the advantage of being a bye team hosting a non-bye team, they won. It's a small sample size, but 10 for 12 isn't much bigger.

[Scersk '97]

Home ice and an easier pairing is already pretty fantastic, and even the bye isn't a guarantee of anything - witness 2004, #2 Cornell gets a bye then promptly donkeys off a best-of-three against #9 Clarkson just a year after making the Frozen Four.

Certainly my right honourable friend will recall that we were without the services of Ryan Vesce, captain and second in points that season, for games two and three, and that he was "not 100%" in any way for game one.

Not an excuse, though.

[Beeeej]

Home ice and an easier pairing is already pretty fantastic, and even the bye isn't a guarantee of anything - witness 2004, #2 Cornell gets a bye then promptly donkeys off a best-of-three against #9 Clarkson just a year after making the Frozen Four.

Certainly my right honourable friend will recall that we were without the services of Ryan Vesce, captain and second in points that season, for games two and three, and that he was "not 100%" in any way for game one.

Not an excuse, though.

I couldn't forget if I wanted to. But even that is a strong argument that a bye isn't everything it's cracked up to be - we couldn't get our captain healthy and keep him healthy with two weeks off.

[jtwcornell91]

Hockey East ADs Vote to Change Playoff Format

"The league's athletic directors, meeting at the annual Coaches' Convention in Naples, Fla., voted this week to eliminate the first round of the Hockey East playoffs, meaning that the top eight teams in the regular-season standings will qualify for the tournament and the bottom three teams will be eliminated."

Smart move. Maybe the ECAC will take note.

Why smart? Shouldn't we have some sort of real reward for the top four finishers (a bye)? Under this proposed new system, the only reward is an easier pairing.

Why, just because that's how it's been since the ECAC tourney went from 10 teams to 12 in 2003? Home ice and an easier pairing is already pretty fantastic, and even the bye isn't a guarantee of anything - witness 2004, #2 Cornell gets a bye then promptly donkeys off a best-of-three against #9 Clarkson just a year after making the Frozen Four. And while it's not as shocking an upset, in 2007 #4 Cornell also gets a bye then drops two straight at home to #5 Quinnipiac.

Not because it's how things have been, but because it rewards teams who finish highly in the conference. It's strange to eliminate four teams from the playoffs, thereby increasing the important of the regular season for those at the bottom of the standings, while decreasing the importance for those at the top. Selfishly, this would also hurt Cornell.

Re: byes not being a guarantee of anything, that's true (as it should be), but those two instances you cited are the only two from the 12 times Cornell has earned a bye in the current playoff format that it did not win the quarterfinals.

I find this whole argument a bit odd, because and eight-team format would still have a reward for finishing in the top four: home ice in the quarterfinals.

Actually, it's been pointed out that the "old" (non-final-five) 10-team format had a benefit for each pair of spots in the standings: finishing 10th got you in the playoffs, finishing 8th got you home ice in the Tuesday night preliminary game, finishing 6th let you avoid the prelim and go straight to the quarterfinals, finishing 4th got you home ice in the quarters, and finishing 2nd got you a quarterfinal series against a team that had played an extra game Tuesday night.  As it turns out, that last advantage came with the disadvantage that the top two finishers didn't know which opponent to prepare for until Wednesday, so the coaches apparently didn't like the format.

[BearLover]

Hockey East ADs Vote to Change Playoff Format

"The league's athletic directors, meeting at the annual Coaches' Convention in Naples, Fla., voted this week to eliminate the first round of the Hockey East playoffs, meaning that the top eight teams in the regular-season standings will qualify for the tournament and the bottom three teams will be eliminated."

Smart move. Maybe the ECAC will take note.

Why smart? Shouldn't we have some sort of real reward for the top four finishers (a bye)? Under this proposed new system, the only reward is an easier pairing.

Why, just because that's how it's been since the ECAC tourney went from 10 teams to 12 in 2003? Home ice and an easier pairing is already pretty fantastic, and even the bye isn't a guarantee of anything - witness 2004, #2 Cornell gets a bye then promptly donkeys off a best-of-three against #9 Clarkson just a year after making the Frozen Four. And while it's not as shocking an upset, in 2007 #4 Cornell also gets a bye then drops two straight at home to #5 Quinnipiac.

Not because it's how things have been, but because it rewards teams who finish highly in the conference. It's strange to eliminate four teams from the playoffs, thereby increasing the important of the regular season for those at the bottom of the standings, while decreasing the importance for those at the top. Selfishly, this would also hurt Cornell.

Re: byes not being a guarantee of anything, that's true (as it should be), but those two instances you cited are the only two from the 12 times Cornell has earned a bye in the current playoff format that it did not win the quarterfinals.

I find this whole argument a bit odd, because and eight-team format would still have a reward for finishing in the top four: home ice in the quarterfinals.

Actually, it's been pointed out that the "old" (non-final-five) 10-team format had a benefit for each pair of spots in the standings: finishing 10th got you in the playoffs, finishing 8th got you home ice in the Tuesday night preliminary game, finishing 6th let you avoid the prelim and go straight to the quarterfinals, finishing 4th got you home ice in the quarters, and finishing 2nd got you a quarterfinal series against a team that had played an extra game Tuesday night.  As it turns out, that last advantage came with the disadvantage that the top two finishers didn't know which opponent to prepare for until Wednesday, so the coaches apparently didn't like the format.

Yeah I guess I'm assuming home ice isn't a significant advantage. If that's true, then changing to an 8-team format shifts the big incentive from the top 4 to the bottom 4. With that said, the current reward for a top-4 finish of home ice + week off to rest your players + no chance of being upset in the fist round might just be too good to the point of being unfair.

[Al DeFlorio]

Hockey East ADs Vote to Change Playoff Format

"The league's athletic directors, meeting at the annual Coaches' Convention in Naples, Fla., voted this week to eliminate the first round of the Hockey East playoffs, meaning that the top eight teams in the regular-season standings will qualify for the tournament and the bottom three teams will be eliminated."

Smart move. Maybe the ECAC will take note.

Why smart? Shouldn't we have some sort of real reward for the top four finishers (a bye)? Under this proposed new system, the only reward is an easier pairing.

Why, just because that's how it's been since the ECAC tourney went from 10 teams to 12 in 2003? Home ice and an easier pairing is already pretty fantastic, and even the bye isn't a guarantee of anything - witness 2004, #2 Cornell gets a bye then promptly donkeys off a best-of-three against #9 Clarkson just a year after making the Frozen Four. And while it's not as shocking an upset, in 2007 #4 Cornell also gets a bye then drops two straight at home to #5 Quinnipiac.

Not because it's how things have been, but because it rewards teams who finish highly in the conference. It's strange to eliminate four teams from the playoffs, thereby increasing the important of the regular season for those at the bottom of the standings, while decreasing the importance for those at the top. Selfishly, this would also hurt Cornell.

Re: byes not being a guarantee of anything, that's true (as it should be), but those two instances you cited are the only two from the 12 times Cornell has earned a bye in the current playoff format that it did not win the quarterfinals.

I find this whole argument a bit odd, because and eight-team format would still have a reward for finishing in the top four: home ice in the quarterfinals.

Actually, it's been pointed out that the "old" (non-final-five) 10-team format had a benefit for each pair of spots in the standings: finishing 10th got you in the playoffs, finishing 8th got you home ice in the Tuesday night preliminary game, finishing 6th let you avoid the prelim and go straight to the quarterfinals, finishing 4th got you home ice in the quarters, and finishing 2nd got you a quarterfinal series against a team that had played an extra game Tuesday night.  As it turns out, that last advantage came with the disadvantage that the top two finishers didn't know which opponent to prepare for until Wednesday, so the coaches apparently didn't like the format.

Yeah I guess I'm assuming home ice isn't a significant advantage. If that's true, then changing to an 8-team format shifts the big incentive from the top 4 to the bottom 4. With that said, the current reward for a top-4 finish of home ice + week off to rest your players + no chance of being upset in the fist round might just be too good to the point of being unfair.

The critical point that goes right over your head is that teams that finish ninth through twelfth in a twelve-team league have no business being in a post-season tournament, just like teams that finish fifth through seventh don't play in the Ivy lacrosse tournament and teams that finish fifth through eighth don't play in the Ivy basketball tournament.

[BearLover]

Hockey East ADs Vote to Change Playoff Format

"The league's athletic directors, meeting at the annual Coaches' Convention in Naples, Fla., voted this week to eliminate the first round of the Hockey East playoffs, meaning that the top eight teams in the regular-season standings will qualify for the tournament and the bottom three teams will be eliminated."

Smart move. Maybe the ECAC will take note.

Why smart? Shouldn't we have some sort of real reward for the top four finishers (a bye)? Under this proposed new system, the only reward is an easier pairing.

Why, just because that's how it's been since the ECAC tourney went from 10 teams to 12 in 2003? Home ice and an easier pairing is already pretty fantastic, and even the bye isn't a guarantee of anything - witness 2004, #2 Cornell gets a bye then promptly donkeys off a best-of-three against #9 Clarkson just a year after making the Frozen Four. And while it's not as shocking an upset, in 2007 #4 Cornell also gets a bye then drops two straight at home to #5 Quinnipiac.

Not because it's how things have been, but because it rewards teams who finish highly in the conference. It's strange to eliminate four teams from the playoffs, thereby increasing the important of the regular season for those at the bottom of the standings, while decreasing the importance for those at the top. Selfishly, this would also hurt Cornell.

Re: byes not being a guarantee of anything, that's true (as it should be), but those two instances you cited are the only two from the 12 times Cornell has earned a bye in the current playoff format that it did not win the quarterfinals.

I find this whole argument a bit odd, because and eight-team format would still have a reward for finishing in the top four: home ice in the quarterfinals.

Actually, it's been pointed out that the "old" (non-final-five) 10-team format had a benefit for each pair of spots in the standings: finishing 10th got you in the playoffs, finishing 8th got you home ice in the Tuesday night preliminary game, finishing 6th let you avoid the prelim and go straight to the quarterfinals, finishing 4th got you home ice in the quarters, and finishing 2nd got you a quarterfinal series against a team that had played an extra game Tuesday night.  As it turns out, that last advantage came with the disadvantage that the top two finishers didn't know which opponent to prepare for until Wednesday, so the coaches apparently didn't like the format.

Yeah I guess I'm assuming home ice isn't a significant advantage. If that's true, then changing to an 8-team format shifts the big incentive from the top 4 to the bottom 4. With that said, the current reward for a top-4 finish of home ice + week off to rest your players + no chance of being upset in the fist round might just be too good to the point of being unfair.

The critical point that goes right over your head is that teams that finish ninth through twelfth in a twelve-team league have no business being in a post-season tournament, just like teams that finish fifth through seventh don't play in the Ivy lacrosse tournament and teams that finish fifth through eighth don't play in the Ivy basketball tournament.

I know it's en vogue to trash me on here, but there are other "critical points" to consider, such as rewarding teams for having great regular seasons.

[Al DeFlorio]

Hockey East ADs Vote to Change Playoff Format

"The league's athletic directors, meeting at the annual Coaches' Convention in Naples, Fla., voted this week to eliminate the first round of the Hockey East playoffs, meaning that the top eight teams in the regular-season standings will qualify for the tournament and the bottom three teams will be eliminated."

Smart move. Maybe the ECAC will take note.

Why smart? Shouldn't we have some sort of real reward for the top four finishers (a bye)? Under this proposed new system, the only reward is an easier pairing.

Why, just because that's how it's been since the ECAC tourney went from 10 teams to 12 in 2003? Home ice and an easier pairing is already pretty fantastic, and even the bye isn't a guarantee of anything - witness 2004, #2 Cornell gets a bye then promptly donkeys off a best-of-three against #9 Clarkson just a year after making the Frozen Four. And while it's not as shocking an upset, in 2007 #4 Cornell also gets a bye then drops two straight at home to #5 Quinnipiac.

Not because it's how things have been, but because it rewards teams who finish highly in the conference. It's strange to eliminate four teams from the playoffs, thereby increasing the important of the regular season for those at the bottom of the standings, while decreasing the importance for those at the top. Selfishly, this would also hurt Cornell.

Re: byes not being a guarantee of anything, that's true (as it should be), but those two instances you cited are the only two from the 12 times Cornell has earned a bye in the current playoff format that it did not win the quarterfinals.

I find this whole argument a bit odd, because and eight-team format would still have a reward for finishing in the top four: home ice in the quarterfinals.

Actually, it's been pointed out that the "old" (non-final-five) 10-team format had a benefit for each pair of spots in the standings: finishing 10th got you in the playoffs, finishing 8th got you home ice in the Tuesday night preliminary game, finishing 6th let you avoid the prelim and go straight to the quarterfinals, finishing 4th got you home ice in the quarters, and finishing 2nd got you a quarterfinal series against a team that had played an extra game Tuesday night.  As it turns out, that last advantage came with the disadvantage that the top two finishers didn't know which opponent to prepare for until Wednesday, so the coaches apparently didn't like the format.

Yeah I guess I'm assuming home ice isn't a significant advantage. If that's true, then changing to an 8-team format shifts the big incentive from the top 4 to the bottom 4. With that said, the current reward for a top-4 finish of home ice + week off to rest your players + no chance of being upset in the fist round might just be too good to the point of being unfair.

The critical point that goes right over your head is that teams that finish ninth through twelfth in a twelve-team league have no business being in a post-season tournament, just like teams that finish fifth through seventh don't play in the Ivy lacrosse tournament and teams that finish fifth through eighth don't play in the Ivy basketball tournament.

I know it's en vogue to trash me on here, but there are other "critical points" to consider, such as rewarding teams for having great regular seasons.

They would be rewarded by playing the fifth through eighth seeds, likely the teams they would have been playing in the current format anyway.  Letting teams with three or four wins in 22 regular-season games play for the league's tournament championship is ridiculous.

[Tom Lento]

Hockey East ADs Vote to Change Playoff Format

"The league's athletic directors, meeting at the annual Coaches' Convention in Naples, Fla., voted this week to eliminate the first round of the Hockey East playoffs, meaning that the top eight teams in the regular-season standings will qualify for the tournament and the bottom three teams will be eliminated."

Smart move. Maybe the ECAC will take note.

Why smart? Shouldn't we have some sort of real reward for the top four finishers (a bye)? Under this proposed new system, the only reward is an easier pairing.

Why, just because that's how it's been since the ECAC tourney went from 10 teams to 12 in 2003? Home ice and an easier pairing is already pretty fantastic, and even the bye isn't a guarantee of anything - witness 2004, #2 Cornell gets a bye then promptly donkeys off a best-of-three against #9 Clarkson just a year after making the Frozen Four. And while it's not as shocking an upset, in 2007 #4 Cornell also gets a bye then drops two straight at home to #5 Quinnipiac.

Not because it's how things have been, but because it rewards teams who finish highly in the conference. It's strange to eliminate four teams from the playoffs, thereby increasing the important of the regular season for those at the bottom of the standings, while decreasing the importance for those at the top. Selfishly, this would also hurt Cornell.

Re: byes not being a guarantee of anything, that's true (as it should be), but those two instances you cited are the only two from the 12 times Cornell has earned a bye in the current playoff format that it did not win the quarterfinals.

I find this whole argument a bit odd, because and eight-team format would still have a reward for finishing in the top four: home ice in the quarterfinals.

Actually, it's been pointed out that the "old" (non-final-five) 10-team format had a benefit for each pair of spots in the standings: finishing 10th got you in the playoffs, finishing 8th got you home ice in the Tuesday night preliminary game, finishing 6th let you avoid the prelim and go straight to the quarterfinals, finishing 4th got you home ice in the quarters, and finishing 2nd got you a quarterfinal series against a team that had played an extra game Tuesday night.  As it turns out, that last advantage came with the disadvantage that the top two finishers didn't know which opponent to prepare for until Wednesday, so the coaches apparently didn't like the format.

Yeah I guess I'm assuming home ice isn't a significant advantage. If that's true, then changing to an 8-team format shifts the big incentive from the top 4 to the bottom 4. With that said, the current reward for a top-4 finish of home ice + week off to rest your players + no chance of being upset in the fist round might just be too good to the point of being unfair.

The critical point that goes right over your head is that teams that finish ninth through twelfth in a twelve-team league have no business being in a post-season tournament, just like teams that finish fifth through seventh don't play in the Ivy lacrosse tournament and teams that finish fifth through eighth don't play in the Ivy basketball tournament.

I know it's en vogue to trash me on here, but there are other "critical points" to consider, such as rewarding teams for having great regular seasons.

They would be rewarded by playing the fifth through eighth seeds, likely the teams they would have been playing in the current format anyway.  Letting teams with three or four wins in 22 regular-season games play for the league's tournament championship is ridiculous.

I know this is an internet message board, but let's try to ease up on asserting long-held opinions as absolute incontrovertible truth here. Beyond finances and scheduling logistics there isn't really any hard and fast reason for a playoff field to cut off at any particular number of teams, and of course finances and scheduling logistics have basically nothing to do with determining which team is better (except in so far as they act as barriers to doing so - for example, we can't make every playoff series best of 15).

You're free to think a 12 team playoff in a 12 team league is absurd - and FWIW I also find it silly - but it really doesn't matter. The league could go to 10 of 12 and have a 4 team best 2-of-3 play-in (like today, but with the RS taking out the bottom two). Or it could just go to top 4 plays in Placid with no on-campus series. Or it could go to the old-school Ivy League Lax model and just make the RS the only thing that matters (assuming the NCAA would still allow that auto-bid). All of these are just as valid as the current tournament format, and all of them have their good points and their bad points from the perspective of league accolades, league representation in the NCAA tournament, and finding the best team.

If you ask me, and of course nobody did, I think keeping the current scheduling format but shortening it to 10 teams would be just fine. It generates more gate revenue for most teams, it has the "every 2 spot" reward structure JTW pointed out upthread, and it eliminates the "next opponent" uncertainty for the QF bye teams. It gives the kind of RS rewards BearLover is prioritizing while allowing the "playoffs should be restricted" purists to feel a little better about things.

[Trotsky]

It was 8 when we were a 17-team league.  By that ratio it would be 6.  Three on-campus best-of-threes. Three winners advance to Placid, the bottom two play the first night, the winner plays the RS champs the next night.  Now every slot starts to be really, really important.

[Al DeFlorio]

ESPNU crawler says Quinn leaving BU for Rangers.

[scoop85]

Oliver Wahlstrom, who was a Harvard commit and is almost certain to go in the top-10 in this year's NHL draft, has flipped to BC.  Harvard still has an excellent class coming in, but losing Wahlstrom takes a bit of the luster off that class.

[French Rage]

Oliver Wahlstrom, who was a Harvard commit and is almost certain to go in the top-10 in this year's NHL draft, has flipped to BC.  Harvard still has an excellent class coming in, but losing Wahlstrom takes a bit of the luster off that class.

Good news for his future wife that Oliver will not be playing hockey at Harvard.

[Trotsky]

Oliver Wahlstrom, who was a Harvard commit and is almost certain to go in the top-10 in this year's NHL draft, has flipped to BC.  Harvard still has an excellent class coming in, but losing Wahlstrom takes a bit of the luster off that class.

Good news for his future wife that Oliver will not be playing hockey at Harvard.

Preppy!

[Al DeFlorio]

Oliver Wahlstrom, who was a Harvard commit and is almost certain to go in the top-10 in this year's NHL draft, has flipped to BC.  Harvard still has an excellent class coming in, but losing Wahlstrom takes a bit of the luster off that class.

In a Boston Globe article today, Wahlstrom says it came down to Michigan or BC.  He apparently lived for awhile in Boston and said he feels he's a Boston kid.