|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Feb 4, 2005 22:59:59 GMT 1
This years play off groups should be much more intense than last year with each team playing 8 times between 3 weekends thus meaning lots more mid week games. For costs sake I hope we avoid Belfast as getting over there will be a tad dear
|
|
Dave17
I'm A Regular Now
Nose against the plexi
Posts: 336
|
Post by Dave17 on Feb 5, 2005 11:25:09 GMT 1
Personally I think this is a bad idea.There was nothing wrong with the home and away system of last year. It seems its just another way of getting more money from the fans. Besides, why does the blaze have to woop other teams 4 times to get to the playoffs when 2 will do  |
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Feb 6, 2005 13:46:32 GMT 1
I fall somewhere in between and prefer the way it used to be in the BNL days, Obviously numbers dictate that it isn't feasible however I thought last years groups were over too quickly
|
|
|
|
Post by JP on Feb 6, 2005 18:03:05 GMT 1
So, exactly how do the games work out - we play each team how many times? My brain isn't functioning too good at the moment (lots of things going on)  |
|
|
|
Post by King Rich on Feb 6, 2005 19:14:07 GMT 1
It would make sense to have 8 games in the group stages so we play the other teams twice home and twice away each.
But in the fixtures in the Burning Issue it has just 6 games for the play-off group stages. Does that mean that some teams will have a home advantage?
Maybe our resident "official Blaze person" on the forum could shade some light on this!
|
|
|
|
Post by JP on Feb 6, 2005 23:40:01 GMT 1
After reading it again, i undertstand the layout - cheers Rich |
|
Carpo
Post-Happy
Posts: 596
|
Post by Carpo on Feb 7, 2005 10:43:57 GMT 1
As i understand it the league wanted more games due to Manchester not taking part this season.
The problem really is the number of mid-week games, and also for those of us not in Arenas/Dual-pads that have Junior/Women's fixtures to fit in....
|
|
SallyMahers
Wow, I Can Post
Anyone for a puck in the burgoynes? That's got to hurt!
Posts: 137
|
Post by SallyMahers on Feb 7, 2005 11:31:03 GMT 1
My understanding is that last years play-off competition was perceived as too short without the usual play-off anticipation/rivalry able to be built. We will play each team in our group two home and two away. The fixtures in the back of the programme are incorrect and there will probably be (depending on arena ice times) weekends and then some mid-week fixtures. It is hoped that it will become more of a "competition" this way. Thats how I understand it anyway!  |
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Feb 7, 2005 16:21:32 GMT 1
I'm all for the extended series as opposed to last years blink-and-its-gone set up, however wish some sort of organisation could have gone into extending the season and having the finals weekend say 3 weeks later and schedule most of the fixtures for weekends.
This would be more amenable for the fans as less requirement to take time off work/school etc and would also add to the revenue with increased attendances.
That said I understand how the arena teams struggle to get time but surely by extending the group games they have more time to play around with
|
|
SallyMahers
Wow, I Can Post
Anyone for a puck in the burgoynes? That's got to hurt!
Posts: 137
|
Post by SallyMahers on Feb 7, 2005 16:32:45 GMT 1
I'm all for the extended series as opposed to last years blink-and-its-gone set up, however wish some sort of organisation could have gone into extending the season and having the finals weekend say 3 weeks later and schedule most of the fixtures for weekends. This would be more amenable for the fans as less requirement to take time off work/school etc and would also add to the revenue with increased attendances. That said I understand how the arena teams struggle to get time but surely by extending the group games they have more time to play around with Unfortunately that is too difficult to arrange as we have GB fixtures to fit in following the play-off weekend etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Feb 7, 2005 16:38:13 GMT 1
I know, I was taking a hindsight view to it. The actual decision on how many games changed a number of times in early season planning
|
|
rocky
Wow, I Can Post
Posts: 129
|
Post by rocky on Feb 7, 2005 19:10:02 GMT 1
The following format would probably work out better.
1. Elite League Winners go straight to Play-off weekend.
2. Other 6 teams pair off. 2nd v 7th, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th.
3. Play best of 5 or best of 7 series of games, a la NHL!
4. 3 winning teams join league champs in Nottingham.
Downside would be that if we drew Cardiff we would only need to play 4 games (wins), but if we drew Steelers, we would be out after just 4 games.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Giguere35 on Feb 7, 2005 20:39:46 GMT 1
[quote author=rocky .
Downside would be that if we drew Cardiff we would only need to play 4 games (wins), but if we drew Steelers, we would be out after just 4 games.
Our luck against the squeelers has got to change some time
|
|
|
|
Post by King Rich on Feb 7, 2005 21:47:41 GMT 1
It wouldn't be traditional if every team entered the play-offs, and it would take some edge off the Elite season.
|
|
Carpo
Post-Happy
Posts: 596
|
Post by Carpo on Feb 7, 2005 22:53:37 GMT 1
The following format would probably work out better. 1. Elite League Winners go straight to Play-off weekend. 2. Other 6 teams pair off. 2nd v 7th, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th. 3. Play best of 5 or best of 7 series of games, a la NHL! 4. 3 winning teams join league champs in Nottingham. Downside would be that if we drew Cardiff we would only need to play 4 games (wins), but if we drew Steelers, we would be out after just 4 games. Any thoughts? Sorry but that has no chance of working at all. Under that setup no team owner would want to win the league as they would be missing out on gate money! |
|
