| Author |
 Topic  |
|
dbc
(Been Here Awhile)
865 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2012 : 9:57:19 PM
|
| I think the league made a mistake and I hate the new 5 game playoff format the league is using where the lower seeded team has the first two games at home and then the higher seeded team has the last three. # 8 Reading beat #1 Elmira, #6 Wheeling beat #3 K-Zoo,# 7 SC beat #2 Gwt and #5 FL beat #4 Greenville. Now the four highest seeded teams are under pressure and must win 3 of 4 games to advance. I understand the economics of it but I think it really takes away from the benefit of finishing higher. We will see the final results but starting at home to me is a big advantage. Thoughts? |
|
|
bags
(Person With Nothing Better To Do!)
USA
2224 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 10:39:32 PM
|
How about a simple fix- reverse the games. Start out with the higher's
three home games and finish w/ the lower's. Granted a sweep doesn't allow
a home game for the lower, but one victory in three brings it back to
your place for the final two. If you can't manage one win in three, you
don't deserve a home game anyway. |
 |
|
|
n/a
deleted
149 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 02:24:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dbc
I think the league made a mistake and I hate the new 5 game playoff format the league is using where the lower seeded team has the first two games at home and then the higher seeded team has the last three. # 8 Reading beat #1 Elmira, #6 Wheeling beat #3 K-Zoo,# 7 SC beat #2 Gwt and #5 FL beat #4 Greenville. Now the four highest seeded teams are under pressure and must win 3 of 4 games to advance. I understand the economics of it but I think it really takes away from the benefit of finishing higher. We will see the final results but starting at home to me is a big advantage. Thoughts?
Most ECHL organizations have budgets in the $2.5 million range. It's pretty ludicrous that the league would adopt a playoff format which COULD POSSIBLY save eight teams around $5000 each for the huge competitive disadvantage it causes. For the sake of analysis, let's say two of the 8 teams MIGHT have to fly an additional time (Florida and Greenville). Add an additional $20,000 to the total possible savings.
By my estimates, the ECHL has decided that around $60,000 in potential savings among organizations with approximately $20 million in annual budgets is worth essentially nullifying one of the few competitive advantages (opening at home) EARNED over the course of a rigorous 72 game/6 month season.
I couldn't justify this policy if I were a decision maker in the league. It's not fair to the fans, but it's really, really not fair to the players and coaching staffs. The league is already adopting a cost savings measure by having only a 5 games series, so the "open away" policy just reeks of unjustifiable penny pinching.
|
Edited by - n/a on 04/04/2012 03:37:46 AM |
|
|
|
cloneinator
(Been Here Awhile)
USA
597 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 07:10:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bags
How about a simple fix- reverse the games. Start out with the higher's
three home games and finish w/ the lower's. Granted a sweep doesn't allow
a home game for the lower, but one victory in three brings it back to
your place for the final two. If you can't manage one win in three, you
don't deserve a home game anyway.
There is no way you can deny a team at least one home playoff game. Can you imagine if the Cyclones would have backed into the playoffs and got swept (Everyone knows they couldn't pull one off on the road). People on here would have been furious. |
...And on the eighth day, GOD created the Cyclones! |
|
|
|
dbc
(Been Here Awhile)
865 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 09:54:30 AM
|
1st game attendance:
Reading 2727
Florida 2137
Wheeling 1512
SC 1250
You have to wonder if anyone even makes any money |
|
|
|
cMan2KellyCup
(Been Here Awhile)
USA
540 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 11:31:44 AM
|
| It had more to do with the distance teams had to travel... and remember that in 2010 we played the first two games at home and SC had home ice, so I dont know what everyones complaining about lol... |
KELLY CUP CHAMPIONS- 2008, 2010
AMERICAN/EASTERN CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS- 2008, 2010, 2014
DIVISION CHAMPIONS- 1996, 2008, 2009, 2013
2008 BRABHAM CUP CHAMPIONS
Boards + visitors = broken bones! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
149 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 2:48:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dbc
1st game attendance:
Reading 2727
Florida 2137
Wheeling 1512
SC 1250
You have to wonder if anyone even makes any money
Costa Papista-the former Bombers owner-claimed that his team lost over $100,000 when the Bombers went to the finals in 2007. Given that Dayton averaged a sickly 1,800 at home during that playoff run, this claim appears to be reasonable.
It would be interesting to know how the Cyclones did in their Championship seasons. 12000+ crowds-especially when the ownership gets a major chunk of concession revenue-would seem to possibly make the playoffs financially worthwhile.
Also, while there is little doubt that the lack of time available to promote the playoffs hurts attendance in the early rounds, there's another factor at work. Each announced number costs a team $2. This $2 goes to the league to defray certain playoff expenses including air travel in the finals. Honesty in announced numbers becomes the best policy |
|
|
|
Reggie Dunlop
(The Next Level!)
USA
399 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 3:21:03 PM
|
| This is a ridiculous format. Just ask Elmira, Greenville and Stockton how they like it. Ostensibly, the league is punishing the teams who proved themselves over 72 games. Cost conscious, yes. Rewarding for the higher seeds, no. |
|
|
|
Reggie Dunlop
(The Next Level!)
USA
399 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 11:16:25 AM
|
| Greenville is the first victim of the new playoff format. |
|
|
|
elvis77
(Loves To Post!)
1435 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2012 : 12:34:09 PM
|
I've had issues with the playoff format, mostly because of the way teams out west just about get a free pass to get in and with the Conference winner getting a 1st round bye, they just about get a free trip to the finals.
In the East, I'm not sure what everyone is all fired up about. Is it really too much to ask the home ice team to travel first? I don't think so. All it asks of the team is win 1 road game to earn a split and return home for what has become a 3 game mini-series, all on home ice. Even if team loses both road games they still have home ice to come back. I'm sorry but if a team can't get up to won 1 game on the road at the start of a series then that team isn't worthy of Kelly Cup Championship.
Would a 2-2-1 format be better? Sure, but the ECHL is a cost conscious League so anytime travel costs can be reduced they are going to do it. Being cost conscious is what keeps the League as stable and viable as it is.
As far as Greenville being a victim? Give me a break. Greenville played Florida in the 4 v 5 match up. The 2 teams were separated by just 3 points in the regular season and boasted goalies that posted near identical numbers against each other.
Kalamazoo didn't have any problems in earning a split on the road. Elmira dropped both road games but return home and are now forcing a 5th game after winning 2 straight. At this time of year it doesn't matter where the game is played; it's playoff hockey, just win the game. |
"PBR can do that to you....1,2,3,12 beers and you're f**ked"
-oscar
"and i don't give a damn 'bout my bad reputation" - joan jett
"beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy." - benjamin franklin
"is that a pulled pork sandwich i smell?"
"some things are just better without pants...."
www.cycwords.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
Reggie Dunlop
(The Next Level!)
USA
399 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2012 : 4:38:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by elvis77
As far as Greenville being a victim? Give me a break. Greenville played Florida in the 4 v 5 match up. The 2 teams were separated by just 3 points in the regular season and boasted goalies that posted near identical numbers against each other.
Break given, all-knowing sage. This format neuters the concept of rewarding the higher-finishing team. Ask Dean Stork how he liked playing on the road for the first two games after earning more points over 72 games. The team that earned the privilege of having home ice reaps no benefit until game five. |
|
|
|
dbc
(Been Here Awhile)
865 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2012 : 5:29:52 PM
|
"In the East, I'm not sure what everyone is all fired up about. Is it really too much to ask the home ice team to travel first? I don't think so. All it asks of the team is win 1 road game to earn a split and return home for what has become a 3 game mini-series, all on home ice. Even if team loses both road games they still have home ice to come back. I'm sorry but if a team can't get up to won 1 game on the road at the start of a series then that team isn't worthy of Kelly Cup Championship."
If you don"t think it makes a difference, then I fully expect the other leagues to adopt this policy. While we are at it--why not make the best of seven series start with three home games for the lower seeded team and then have four games at home for the higher seeded team. Same "logic" applies |
|
|
|
elvis77
(Loves To Post!)
1435 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2012 : 9:07:35 PM
|
@Reggie - Of course Dean is going to be salty, he lost...
@dbc - Higher level leagues have more money so there's no need for them to change. Lower level leagues are much more regional and therefore have shorter travel requirements. Just take a look at the SPHL map (http://www.thesphl.com/view/thesphl/history-of-the-sphl/sphl-team-map-1) or the Federal League (http://www.pointstreaksites.com/view/thefederalhockeyleague/fhl-info/team-map). Those Leagues don't have to worry about the potential of a Florida match up with Elmira. At the AA level and below, controlling costs is a key to running a stable league. It's why the ECHL is what it is and why CHL is on verge of losing more teams and potentially dissolving all together.
As I said before it comes down to money and it's been mentioned numerous times from various unofficial sources that an ECHL playoff run can actually coast an organization money. I'm not sure if that's true or not but I've heard if from enough unrelated sources that I feel it holds water.
Is a 2-3 series the best option? No, of course not but it doesn't change that the higher seeded team can still win 3 home games and advance. It's not fair to deny a team a home game by flipping the series to 3-2.
Now, I will concede that not switching the the 7 game series to a 3-4 format for the same reason is the flaw in my argument, but I still don't see what the big deal is; win your games and advance. |
"PBR can do that to you....1,2,3,12 beers and you're f**ked"
-oscar
"and i don't give a damn 'bout my bad reputation" - joan jett
"beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy." - benjamin franklin
"is that a pulled pork sandwich i smell?"
"some things are just better without pants...."
www.cycwords.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
149 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2012 : 02:26:51 AM
|
Total savings by screwing teams out of full home ice advantage.
Florida vs. Greenville: No savings-higher seed lost
South Carolina vs. Gwinnett. No savings-higher seed lost.
Wheeling vs. Kalamazoo: No savings-higher seed won.
Reading vs. Elmira: Doubt if any savings were realized. The two cities are so close (200 miles) that Reading probably bussed back after game 4 on Saturday and will return earlier today to game 7 in Elmira. An extra bus trip is cheaper than 2 nights worth of hotels and one and a half days of per diems. So this particular series offered no potential savings regardless of how long it lasted.
The 3 other series went less than 5 games so each team had the same amount of costs that they would have under a 2-2-1 format.
Even if Elmira holds seed, it's hard to believe that the league will opt for this format again. No one saved any money and at least two organizations are very pissed off. Perhaps three after tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
149 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2012 : 02:46:09 AM
|
In the West, one higher seed has won and another has lost. There is one series to be settled-Idaho at Ontario.
It might yield greater savings in the West to do this format due to the much higher likelihood of air travel involved.
Total savings league wide: One extra airfare for two teams (Idaho/Ontario). Call it an $800 fare (probably high) for 60 people. That's less than $50,000 worth of savings between 14 teams.
In addition to this insignificant savings, three teams-Las Vegas, Colorado and Greenville got screwed out of an additional home date due to series sweeps so-even in light of low first round attendance-they LOST revenue as a REWARD for finishing HIGHER than their opponents.
The more one looks at this format, the more idiotic that it becomes. |
Edited by - n/a on 04/09/2012 02:47:44 AM |
|
|
|
bags
(Person With Nothing Better To Do!)
USA
2224 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2012 : 10:07:42 AM
|
I repeat my same idea- if you have to use a 3-2 format, give the higher seed
the first three games and if the lower wants a home game, they have
to win one game. Any team who can't win one road game doesn't deserve
to move on anyway. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
