Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Kinda wish they would change the playoffs a little, change it so that the two teams from the same division don't play in the first round. Instead have (Lets use the west as an Example) have the # 2 team from the Pacific play the #3 team from the Central, and then the #2 Central team plays the #3 Pacific team. That way there would be a little more variety in the first round.

if the playoffs started today this is what the bracket would look like
#1 (Central) Nashville vs (LWC) Colorado
#1 (Pacific) Vegas vs (HWC) Los Angeles
#2 (Pacific) San Jose vs #3 (Pacific) Anaheim
#2 (Central) Winnipeg vs #3 (Central) Minnesota

This is what the bracket would look like if they changed it to the way I proposed.

#1 (Central) Nashville vs (LWC) Colorado
#1 (Pacific) Vegas vs (HWC) Los Angeles
#2 (Central) Winnepeg) vs #3 (Pacific) Anaheim
#2 (Pacific) San Jose vs #3 (Central) Minnesota

Not a whole lot different but I like the variety and it eliminates some of the vs same division matches especially in the first round (Cause if the playoffs started now each first round series in the west would be same division matchups). It's a small nitpick but one I'd like to see. The same would of course happen in the Eastern Conference.

Anyone else? Or is the current system the best?

The Winnipeg vs Minnesota round, is building into a big rivalry.

Gil Dobie wrote:The Winnipeg vs Minnesota round, is building into a big rivalry.

The first round in division matchups do add a little rivalry excitement in round 1, does make the first round very interesting. For me though I like the variety of different opponents, ones you don't see many times during the year.

I was with you Ryan the last couple years, but when I saw the pairings a couple days ago, the first round looked awesome to me.

It was...
Nashville v St Louis
Vegas v Colorado
San Jose v Anaheim
Winnipeg v Minnesota


Washington v Philadelphia
Pittsburgh v Columbus
Boston v Toronto
Tampa v Jersey (but Florida with enough game in hand to catch)

That would have been a great rivalry round.

BTW, if you wanted variety, I think the better way is to have 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc... If you're always playing somebody from the other division in the first round, then you wind up with the same problem you're trying to avoid.

And if they keep divisions, I would save #1 and #2 for the two division winners regardless of points.

Gil Dobie wrote:The Winnipeg vs Minnesota round, is building into a big rivalry.

It's been the talk of the NHL all year.

bandl wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:The Winnipeg vs Minnesota round, is building into a big rivalry.

It's been the talk of the NHL all year.

Haha, not much else to talk about other than Vegas and their goalie that cost Cindy a few more cups.

89Hen wrote:I was with you Ryan the last couple years, but when I saw the pairings a couple days ago, the first round looked awesome to me.

It was...
Nashville v St Louis
Vegas v Colorado
San Jose v Anaheim
Winnipeg v Minnesota


Washington v Philadelphia
Pittsburgh v Columbus
Boston v Toronto
Tampa v Jersey (but Florida with enough game in hand to catch)

That would have been a great rivalry round.

That is true enough.

bandl wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:The Winnipeg vs Minnesota round, is building into a big rivalry.

It's been the talk of the NHL all year.

No that would be the Colorado Avalanche, who finished with 48 points last year and are in a playoff spot with 90 points right now.

Grizalltheway wrote:

bandl wrote: It's been the talk of the NHL all year.

No that would be the Colorado Avalanche, who finished with 48 points last year and are in a playoff spot with 90 points right now.

How many talks of the year can we have in the NHL?

Any talk about having more than one talk of the year is bullshit.

bandl wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: No that would be the Colorado Avalanche, who finished with 48 points last year and are in a playoff spot with 90 points right now.

How many talks of the year can we have in the NHL?

Any talk about having more than one talk of the year is bullshit.

Well I guess that means you're wrong. Sucks to suck!

I like the current setup - reminds me of the olden days when the divisions used to be named after old people I didn't know (well, I guess the Prince of Wales was more of a title, rather than a person, so that could be a current person, but that was a conference so nevermind). Back then, the Flyers playing the New York teams every year in the playoffs was cool because it was a real rivalry.

GannonFan wrote:I like the current setup - reminds me of the olden days when the divisions used to be named after old people I didn't know (well, I guess the Prince of Wales was more of a title, rather than a person, so that could be a current person, but that was a conference so nevermind). Back then, the Flyers playing the New York teams every year in the playoffs was cool because it was a real rivalry.

The Flyers definitely played the Rangers and Islanders a lot, but they actually had a bunch of different opponents, I think you'd be surprised. 70's and 80's they played:

1971: Black Hawks
1973: North Stars, Canadiens
1974: Flames, Rangers, Bruins
1975: Leafs, Islanders, Sabres
1976: Leafs, Bruins, Canadiens
1977: Leafs, Bruins
1978: Rockies, Sabres, Bruins
1979: Canucks, Rangers
1980: Oilers, Rangers, North Stars, Islanders
1981: Nordiques, Flames
1982: Rangers
1983: Rangers
1984: Capitals
1985: Rangers, Islanders, Nordiques, Oilers
1986: Rangers
1987: Rangers, Islanders, Canadiens, Oilers
1988: Capitals
1989: Capitals, Penguins, Canadiens

89Hen wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I like the current setup - reminds me of the olden days when the divisions used to be named after old people I didn't know (well, I guess the Prince of Wales was more of a title, rather than a person, so that could be a current person, but that was a conference so nevermind). Back then, the Flyers playing the New York teams every year in the playoffs was cool because it was a real rivalry.

The Flyers definitely played the Rangers and Islanders a lot, but they actually had a bunch of different opponents, I think you'd be surprised. 70's and 80's they played:

1971: Black Hawks
1973: North Stars, Canadiens
1974: Flames, Rangers, Bruins
1975: Leafs, Islanders, Sabres
1976: Leafs, Bruins, Canadiens
1977: Leafs, Bruins
1978: Rockies, Sabres, Bruins
1979: Canucks, Rangers
1980: Oilers, Rangers, North Stars, Islanders
1981: Nordiques, Flames
1982: Rangers
1983: Rangers
1984: Capitals
1985: Rangers, Islanders, Nordiques, Oilers
1986: Rangers
1987: Rangers, Islanders, Canadiens, Oilers
1988: Capitals
1989: Capitals, Penguins, Canadiens

I was born in '72 - didn't really start to notice until around '80 or so (hence why I know Leon Stickle).

GannonFan wrote:

89Hen wrote:1974: Flames, Rangers, Bruins

I was born in '72 - didn't really start to notice until around '80 or so (hence why I know Leon Stickle).

I think 1972 was my first year of playing ice hockey, so I was probably more aware than your average fan. I will never forget that Flames series to open the playoffs in '74, probably my first real memory of watching. Game 4 (clincher) was on my birthday, Flyers are up 3-0 in the series but down 3-0 in the game. When it went to OT I actually predicted a Dave Schultz goal to win it. My pop laughed at me, but Schultz got the case of Tastykakes.

Also from 1974, ingrained in my memory. Still gives me goosebumps. Orr and Espo trying to negate the mortal lock that was Kate Smith by giving her flowers. Nice try.