Jump to content

Welcome to SPHL Forums

Welcome to SPHL Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information. Take advantage of it immediately, Register Now or Sign In.

  • Start new topics and reply to other fans of the SPHL!
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Add events to our community calendar
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Customize your experience here


Future

Playoffs 2018-19

Recommended Posts

Should the playoffs go to 7 games instead of 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about 7, but I don't see why 5 games isn't doable. Has anyone done the math on how much more 2-3 extra games is for an SPHL team?

This is going to sound crazy but there's an understanding with minor league/semi-pro sports that there will be some gimmicky stuff...why not lean into it? There aren't large sponsorship deals or TV right deals for the league to make money...it all comes from revenue from attendance. Why not make that an aspect of the game itself? Three games of a playoff series is considered "beer league" or gimmicky. The Challenge Round is considered gimmicky. Why not give points for attendance? It could provide franchises an opportunity to rally local fans/booster clubs to support attendance marketing pushes. Think about it, what if the top three teams are separated by only 1 or 2 points between the three of them with a certain number of points on the line for top attendance at the end of it. The last week of home games could include local pushes to actually help the teams (that whole 7th man thing in action). Yes, it's a big gimmick, but the league is already considered gimmicky by outsiders as well as some in local markets. I say lean into it and get creative to make the league more profitable. If revenues go up, we could have more playoff games or we could have more teams as investors may be more willing to take a chance on a more profitable league.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Geekwithabass said:

I don't know about 7, but I don't see why 5 games isn't doable. Has anyone done the math on how much more 2-3 extra games is for an SPHL team?

This is going to sound crazy but there's an understanding with minor league/semi-pro sports that there will be some gimmicky stuff...why not lean into it? There aren't large sponsorship deals or TV right deals for the league to make money...it all comes from revenue from attendance. Why not make that an aspect of the game itself? Three games of a playoff series is considered "beer league" or gimmicky. The Challenge Round is considered gimmicky. Why not give points for attendance? It could provide franchises an opportunity to rally local fans/booster clubs to support attendance marketing pushes. Think about it, what if the top three teams are separated by only 1 or 2 points between the three of them with a certain number of points on the line for top attendance at the end of it. The last week of home games could include local pushes to actually help the teams (that whole 7th man thing in action). Yes, it's a big gimmick, but the league is already considered gimmicky by outsiders as well as some in local markets. I say lean into it and get creative to make the league more profitable. If revenues go up, we could have more playoff games or we could have more teams as investors may be more willing to take a chance on a more profitable league.

Yeah maybe 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Geekwithabass said:

I don't know about 7, but I don't see why 5 games isn't doable. Has anyone done the math on how much more 2-3 extra games is for an SPHL team?

This is going to sound crazy but there's an understanding with minor league/semi-pro sports that there will be some gimmicky stuff...why not lean into it? There aren't large sponsorship deals or TV right deals for the league to make money...it all comes from revenue from attendance. Why not make that an aspect of the game itself? Three games of a playoff series is considered "beer league" or gimmicky. The Challenge Round is considered gimmicky. Why not give points for attendance? It could provide franchises an opportunity to rally local fans/booster clubs to support attendance marketing pushes. Think about it, what if the top three teams are separated by only 1 or 2 points between the three of them with a certain number of points on the line for top attendance at the end of it. The last week of home games could include local pushes to actually help the teams (that whole 7th man thing in action). Yes, it's a big gimmick, but the league is already considered gimmicky by outsiders as well as some in local markets. I say lean into it and get creative to make the league more profitable. If revenues go up, we could have more playoff games or we could have more teams as investors may be more willing to take a chance on a more profitable league.

Gimmick for the playoffs- give the teams with the highest attendance a 1-0 goal lead to start the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PlannedObsolescence said:

Gimmick for the playoffs- give the teams with the highest attendance a 1-0 goal lead to start the game.

What do you think about 7 games 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FlyersFan17 said:

Should the playoffs go to 7 games instead of 3

Never.....to much cost for the league and teams (travel).....arenas having open dates for games will always be a problem.....incase you haven't noticed, the SPHL doesnt make the big bucks like the NHL, money makes it work......

Though Id love it to always be 5 games my only guess about that is, the league tried it when Peoria got eliminated in 3 against Pensacola a couple years ago. It was probably pushing the arena's availability.....after all this time of year other things are or have been booked ( ex : circus, concerts, gun show)......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PlannedObsolescence said:

Gimmick for the playoffs- give the teams with the highest attendance a 1-0 goal lead to start the game.

I knew it - you're a closet Rivemen fan!  :rivermen2:

So which "highest attendance" numbers would you suggest be used as the discriminator, Perfesser?  Regular season totals or averages, #s from the previous round, #s from the previous game, advance ticket sales for that night's game, total tickets sold (verified) for that night, total tickets sold (rumored) for that night, total tickets dispensed (sold, comped, stacked on the counter at the local gas stations) for that night?  Gimmicks such as these could lead to places the League wouldn't wanna go in public.  :dontgetit:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like for the early rounds to be best of three and finals best of five, and all the arenas be given the dates that the playoff will run and only schedule events that will not require the ice to be taken down until they are eliminated from the playoffs.  I know it's a dream but sensible solution IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 2006 - 2007 season it was a best of 5 for the finals . FireAntz won 3 games to 1 over the Barracudas ... The Quarter Finals and Semi Finals were best of 3 ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Finals went Best-of-5 in 2010, 2011 & 2016 as well. As was pointed out elsewhere.

We should get to 5 games consistently before wondering about 7. This isn't the NHL with over 30 teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MacGuy said:

The Finals went Best-of-5 in 2010, 2011 & 2016 as well. As was pointed out elsewhere.

We should get to 5 games consistently before wondering about 7. This isn't the NHL with over 30 teams.

 What if they got more teams 

Edited by FlyersFan17
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JMC-STL said:

I knew it - you're a closet Rivemen fan!  :rivermen2:

So which "highest attendance" numbers would you suggest be used as the discriminator, Perfesser?  Regular season totals or averages, #s from the previous round, #s from the previous game, advance ticket sales for that night's game, total tickets sold (verified) for that night, total tickets sold (rumored) for that night, total tickets dispensed (sold, comped, stacked on the counter at the local gas stations) for that night?  Gimmicks such as these could lead to places the League wouldn't wanna go in public.  :dontgetit:

If indeed the Havoc are Mr Combs' favorites, as some have suggested, it would be total regular season attendance numbers. Interesting permutations you have posited, but these ("advance ticket sales for that night's game, total tickets sold (verified) for that night, total tickets sold (rumored) for that night, total tickets dispensed (sold, comped, stacked on the counter at the local gas stations) for that night") only pertain to a single home game and would not be fair (but then again, who says Mr Combs or the league is fair?) to the visiting team. Why not "go in public" with goofy gimmicks- the SPHL is known for innovations! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MacGuy said:

The Finals went Best-of-5 in 2010, 2011 & 2016 as well. As was pointed out elsewhere. 

We should get to 5 games consistently before wondering about 7. This isn't the NHL with over 30 teams.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Geekwithabass said:

I don't know about 7, but I don't see why 5 games isn't doable. Has anyone done the math on how much more 2-3 extra games is for an SPHL team?

This is going to sound crazy but there's an understanding with minor league/semi-pro sports that there will be some gimmicky stuff...why not lean into it? There aren't large sponsorship deals or TV right deals for the league to make money...it all comes from revenue from attendance. Why not make that an aspect of the game itself? Three games of a playoff series is considered "beer league" or gimmicky. The Challenge Round is considered gimmicky. Why not give points for attendance? It could provide franchises an opportunity to rally local fans/booster clubs to support attendance marketing pushes. Think about it, what if the top three teams are separated by only 1 or 2 points between the three of them with a certain number of points on the line for top attendance at the end of it. The last week of home games could include local pushes to actually help the teams (that whole 7th man thing in action). Yes, it's a big gimmick, but the league is already considered gimmicky by outsiders as well as some in local markets. I say lean into it and get creative to make the league more profitable. If revenues go up, we could have more playoff games or we could have more teams as investors may be more willing to take a chance on a more profitable league.

No way that would ever happen.  A league who did that wouldn't even be professional.  You can't give teams advantages based on things the players can't control.  Plus, look at the cities populations.  Some are way bigger than others.  Then the size of arenas would come into play.  Not even the FHL would touch on some gimmick like this and they are dying for more attendance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Greg81102 said:

No way that would ever happen.  A league who did that wouldn't even be professional.  You can't give teams advantages based on things the players can't control.  Plus, look at the cities populations.  Some are way bigger than others.  Then the size of arenas would come into play.  Not even the FHL would touch on some gimmick like this and they are dying for more attendance.

If you had followed the FHL for each of its 8 silly seasons, that statement would NEVER come out of the end of your fingers/stylus.  computerpunch.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JMC-STL said:

If you had followed the FHL for each of its 8 silly seasons, that statement would NEVER come out of the end of your fingers/stylus.  computerpunch.gif

I've followed them enough to know they do crazy stuff.  But i've never heard of them making rules to give teams advantages for anything that the players or coaches have no control over.  They might have gave teams points for games being cancelled and never played, that is bad enough.  But nowhere as bad as giving teams extra points for having more in attendance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I've pondered whether the SPHL should adopt a Euro-style aggregate score format if they're only gonna do best 2 of 3 for all their series ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Aceface905 said:

Honestly I've pondered whether the SPHL should adopt a Euro-style aggregate score format if they're only gonna do best 2 of 3 for all their series ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Post of the Year!  :cuphold:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2018 at 6:58 PM, Aceface905 said:
On 4/27/2018 at 6:58 PM, Aceface905 said:

Honestly I've pondered whether the SPHL should adopt a Euro-style aggregate score format if they're only gonna do best 2 of 3 for all their series ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

On 4/27/2018 at 7:29 PM, JMC-STL said:

Post of the Year!  :cuphold:

Havoc would have won after the 2 games anyway under this format- though even number of goals (8 in aggregate- 6-5 Havoc at Peoria, 3-2 Rivermen at Huntsville), Havoc had more "away" goals- 6-3. Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tricky bit is that they ONLY do overtime if they’re tied after both games. That being said:

Peoria would still beat Roanoke, 7-3

Knoxville would still beat Pensacola, 9-5

Macon would beat Evansville 7-3

BUT Mississippi would have beaten Huntsville 7-4.

This is the downside to going by aggregate score—if you win one game by buckets, you’ve basically got it in the bag. Even including the OT goals wouldn’t swing things in either direction in those two series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not opposed to a 2-game total goal series, but doesn’t that further dwindle the advantage of a top seed? No extra home game if it goes the distance. All you get is a choice of opponent and maybe a choice of playing home 1st or 2nd in the rare instance arena availability doesn’t make that choice for you. In a league where 80% are already making the playoffs, the regular season needs all the help it can get to remain important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members
     
     

    No registered users viewing this page.

     
×