Sooooo, should Trotz start Lindback on Tuesday or just ride Pekka the rest of the way? There is the possibility that we can clinch the 4th seed before the last game allowing Pekka to rest before the playoffs. Slim as that possibility may be.

Sooooo, should Trotz start Lindback on Tuesday or just ride Pekka the rest of the way? There is the possibility that we can clinch the 4th seed before the last game allowing Pekka to rest before the playoffs. Slim as that possibility may be.
- Predaceous

I think it might help let them know not to take the start of the game for granted. I approve coach.

I think it might help let them know not to take the start of the game for granted. I approve coach.
- Section106

Go for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd like somebody to explain to me why the current playoff setup is better than a straight points setup. Give me a tangible reason why division winners should receive special treatment. Because it seems like McCann's entire counterargument can be summed as: "Playoff hockey is entertaining just the way it is, so stop complaining; you're making our sport look bad."

I am aware that the playoffs are entertaining and difficult. I am aware that every team will have to beat good teams in order to win a championship, regardless of seeding. But that is not a justification for endorsing the current seeding system over any other system. At best, it's a justification for not caring.

"You have to beat the best teams eventually" is not an argument for choosing one system over another. It is only an attempt to silence debate. If that is your entire argument, then why not just throw all the playoff teams in a hat and pick opponents totally at random? So what if St. Louis has to play Vancouver in the first round -- gotta play the best teams eventually!

In my mind, the playoff seeding should reward teams for regular season play by giving better teams more favorable matchups. A straight-points system does this more effectively than a division-winner system; ergo, a straight-points system is the better choice.

If you disagree, tell me why your system is better -- don't just tell me that things are fine as is and I should stop being a whiner.

I'd like somebody to explain to me why the current playoff setup is better than a straight points setup. Give me a tangible reason why division winners should receive special treatment. Because it seems like McCann's entire counterargument can be summed as: "Playoff hockey is entertaining just the way it is, so stop complaining; you're making our sport look bad."

I am aware that the playoffs are entertaining and difficult. I am aware that every team will have to beat good teams in order to win a championship, regardless of seeding. But that is not a justification for endorsing the current seeding system over any other system. At best, it's a justification for not caring.

"You have to beat the best teams eventually" is not an argument for choosing one system over another. It is only an attempt to silence debate. If that is your entire argument, then why not just throw all the playoff teams in a hat and pick opponents totally at random? So what if St. Louis has to play Vancouver in the first round -- gotta play the best teams eventually!

In my mind, the playoff seeding should reward teams for regular season play by giving better teams more favorable matchups. A straight-points system does this more effectively than a division-winner system; ergo, a straight-points system is the better choice.

If you disagree, tell me why your system is better -- don't just tell me that things are fine as is and I should stop being a whiner.
- Sven22[/]

I'm not sure how one way is more tangible than a another? I think the divisions are in place so teams play a majority of there games in a certain radius to cut down on travel costs and to create rivalries. I think this year is some what of a weird year when one division is poor and one is really strong. I wouldn't change it bc of one flukey season. Teams are rewarded for there regular season play, the better you play the higher you get seeded and win your division then the lower seed you play. They are not going to restructure the whole concept of the NHL seeding system just because some years a division winner has less points than the 4 seed. If you want a favorable match up I suggest you finish in first, and yes things are fine you are whining.

My initial thought would be that going strictly on points requires the elimination of Divisions which would completely change the scheduling and local, inter-divisional rivalries will be a thing of the past.

I like the battles Nashville faces against their Division foes and the unbalanced number of games they play.

You may not like that the Pacific has fewer points but I bet when the teams in that Division play each other there's better, more intense hockey.

Sooooo, should Trotz start Lindback on Tuesday or just ride Pekka the rest of the way? There is the possibility that we can clinch the 4th seed before the last game allowing Pekka to rest before the playoffs. Slim as that possibility may be.
- Predaceous

U have to go with pekka. Think about it if u play Lindback and he gets on a hot streak when do u sit pekka for the playoffs? Or do put pekka in bc he helped get u in and he is higher paid? I say play pekka until he drops and avoid any drama..

U have to go with pekka. Think about it if u play Lindback and he gets on a hot streak when do u sit pekka for the playoffs? Or do put pekka in bc he helped get u in and he is higher paid? I say play pekka until he drops and avoid any drama..
- PREDX1

But.. you have to give your backup goalie some ice time so he'll be ready to go when needed.

U have to go with pekka. Think about it if u play Lindback and he gets on a hot streak when do u sit pekka for the playoffs? Or do put pekka in bc he helped get u in and he is higher paid? I say play pekka until he drops and avoid any drama..
- PREDX1

I'm just talking about one game to give Pekka a little more rest. Pekka is our undisputed number one.

But.. you have to give your backup goalie some ice time so he'll be ready to go when needed.
- Shelly

Fair enough, start pekka and close out with lindy.

My initial thought would be that going strictly on points requires the elimination of Divisions which would completely change the scheduling and local, inter-divisional rivalries will be a thing of the past.

I like the battles Nashville faces against their Division foes and the unbalanced number of games they play.

You may not like that the Pacific has fewer points but I bet when the teams in that Division play each other there's better, more intense hockey.
- Section106

Exactly. Unless and until everyone plays the exact same teams the exact same amount of times you can't dismiss the division winner for having less points. My guess is, based on how the Preds have played against the Pacific this year, that they would have significantly less points if they had to play those teams two extra games instead of the Central where they've dominated.