- Post a comment
- Skip to the latest comment
- Back to the blog
Has the time come for the National Hockey League to revert to the 2-3-2 playoff format for the Stanley Cup final?
For the fourth year in a row, the NHL has ended up with a final that is a geographic nightmare, pitting a team (Ottawa) from about as far north and east as it can get, against a team (Anaheim) about as far south and west as it can get.
There are no direct flights, which doesn’t pose as much of an issue to the players, since they all charter anyway, but it still means they’ll be in the air at least five hours and thus, probably wouldn’t fly out after games when the series switches venues, but will hunker down in their hotel rooms for an extra night, just to reduce the wear and tear on the players’ bodies.
It was like that in ’06 (Carolina-Edmonton), ’04 (Tampa-Calgary) and ’03 (New Jersey-Anaheim), all of which went the full seven-game distance. In fact, the last final with relatively easy travel was in ’02, when the Red Wings defeated the Hurricanes. It was also the last time a Western Conference team prevailed in a Stanley Cup final, no small coincidence. One could argue that teams in the West are used to the rigors of the travel and that makes it an advantage, if they have to start ping-ponging back and forth, across the country for Games 5, 6 and 7.
More likely though, the toll of a year’s worth of logging travel miles tends to catch up with the Western Conference representatives – and that certainly might have been the case if Detroit had advanced.
The Red Wings, an Eastern time zone team, played its opening round in the Mountain time zone (Calgary) and then had consecutive series against Pacific time zone teams (San Jose and Anaheim). One day, last week, I was outside the Red Wings’ dressing room in the Honda Centre and Kirk Maltby was frantically riding an exercise cycle – after the game – saying that he was doing it to get his legs going, which seemed to have been lost somewhere above 30,000 feet on the flight out.
Generally, teams have rejected the 2-3-2 format in the Stanley Cup final for two reasons: One, it might grant the lower-seeded team an extra home date if the series ended in five; and two, for the brief time the NHL played a 2-3-2 format in the final, the Edmonton Oilers capitalized by getting a split on the road and then sweeping their three home games to win the Stanley Cup in 1984 and 1985. Still, major-league baseball and the NBA both play a 2-3-2 format and live with the consequences. If they can do it - in sports that are far less taxing than hockey - then it should be good enough for the NHL as well.
-
Walter Dnes from Vaughan, Canada writes: How about a compromise? The current 2-2-1-1-1 format is murder on the players in any series between widely dispersed teams. 2-3-2 fails the smell-test, because the lower-seeded team can conceivably win a series with a home advantage. I propose 2-3-1-1 format. Schedule the first 2 games at the lower-seeded team's arena. Schedule the next 3 at the higher-seeded team's arena. Games 6 and 7, if necessary, would still require trips. In a 4-game-sweep, my proposal is no worse than the current system; i.e. 2 games in each team's arena. If a series goes more than 4 games, my proposal saves 1 trip versus the current format. AND IT NEVER GIVES HOME ICE ADVANTAGE TO THE LOWER-SEEDED TEAM!!!
- Posted 23/05/07 at 5:39 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Iain Bowman from London, United Kingdom writes: Eric, normally you're good but you're way off base on this one.
2-2-1-1-1 works. We tried 2-3-2 in the 80s and as you say, the Oilers rode it to 2 Cups they might not have won otherwise.
The travel issue is a red herring. Teams have an enormous amount of travel in the regular season (well at least in the Western Conference they do). The logical extension of your argument is to simply play all the games in one city and do away with the travel completely.
If exhaustion is a real worry, then maybe the regular season could be trimmed or the preliminary round (conference q/f whatever they're calld these days) trimmed back to a best-of-5. Of course neither will happen because they affect the owners where it hurts them most...in the pocketbook.
Also, remember, back in the 80s, the first 4 games of a series were played in 5 days, at least through the first two rounds. So today's players really have it easy by comparison.
Please let's stick with 2-2-1-1-1. So much else has been messed with in the NHL lately, can we just leave the game alone and get on with it, and stop trying to find solutions to every little thing that has ever bugged anybody ever?- Posted 24/05/07 at 9:46 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Canuck Expat from United States writes: I disagree with Eric on this one. 2-3-2 doesn't award the team with home-ice advantage enough. I don't mind the current format and don't buy the argument that it's taxing on the players. They get a lot of days off and get paid a lot of money to put up with the travel. However, if this such an issue, why not go 3-2-2? Give the home-team the first three games, then two away, then two back at home. This actually rewards the home-team for finishing with a better record and put's more importance on where teams finish in the standings. I personally like the current model but if they need to change it, they should change it so that team that has the better regular season is rewarded.
- Posted 24/05/07 at 9:56 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Ken Marshall from New York, United States writes: Another alternative: a neutral ice site for the finals. The ice in Anaheim, for example, was already looking a bit soft this past week.
I think I agree with Eric on this. One hardly considers the more important factor, though: the tonnes of pollutants produced by the extra flights and transportation for fans, media, and the whole carnival.- Posted 24/05/07 at 10:28 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment
This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?
You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!
Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.
Alert us about this comment
Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

