Talk:2008 Stanley Cup playoffs/Archive 1

Archive 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Withdrawn by nominator --Djsasso (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for New Bracket

2008 Bracket

{{16TeamBracket/2  
| RD1=Conference Quarterfinals
| RD2=Conference Semifinals
| RD3=Conference Finals
| RD4=Stanley Cup Finals
| RD2-group1='''[[Eastern Conference (NHL)|Eastern Conference]]'''
| RD2-group2='''[[Western Conference (NHL)|Western Conference]]'''

| RD1-seed01=1
| RD1-team01='''Montreal Canadiens'''
| RD1-score01='''4'''
| RD1-seed02=8
| RD1-team02=Boston Bruins
| RD1-score02=3
| RD1-seed03=2
| RD1-team03='''Pittsburgh Penguins'''
| RD1-score03='''4'''
| RD1-seed04=7
| RD1-team04=Ottawa Senators
| RD1-score04=0

| RD1-seed05=3
| RD1-team05=Washington Capitals
| RD1-score05=3
| RD1-seed06=6
| RD1-team06=Philadelphia Flyers
| RD1-score06=3
| RD1-seed07=4
| RD1-team07=New Jersey Devils
| RD1-score07=1
| RD1-seed08=5
| RD1-team08='''New York Rangers'''
| RD1-score08='''4'''

| RD1-seed09=1
| RD1-team09='''Detroit Red Wings'''
| RD1-score09='''4'''
| RD1-seed10=8
| RD1-team10=Nashville Predators
| RD1-score10=2
| RD1-seed11=2
| RD1-team11=San Jose Sharks
| RD1-score11=3
| RD1-seed12=7
| RD1-team12=Calgary Flames
| RD1-score12=3

| RD1-seed13=3
| RD1-team13=Minnesota Wild
| RD1-score13=2
| RD1-seed14=6
| RD1-team14='''Colorado Avalanche'''
| RD1-score14='''4'''
| RD1-seed15=4
| RD1-team15=Anaheim Ducks
| RD1-score15=2
| RD1-seed16=5
| RD1-team16='''Dallas Stars'''
| RD1-score16='''4'''

| RD2-seed01=1
| RD2-team01=Montreal Canadiens
| RD2-score01=
| RD2-seed02=
| RD2-team02=
| RD2-score02=

| RD2-seed03=2
| RD2-team03=Pittsburgh Penguins
| RD2-score03=
| RD2-seed04=
| RD2-team04=
| RD2-score04=

| RD2-seed05=1
| RD2-team05=Detroit Red Wings
| RD2-score05=
| RD2-seed06=
| RD2-team06=
| RD2-score06=

| RD2-seed07=
| RD2-team07=
| RD2-score07=
| RD2-seed08=
| RD2-team08=
| RD2-score08=

| RD3-seed01=
| RD3-team01=
| RD3-score01=
| RD3-seed02=
| RD3-team02=
| RD3-score02=

| RD3-seed03=
| RD3-team03=
| RD3-score03=
| RD3-seed04=
| RD3-team04=
| RD3-score04=

| RD4-seed01=
| RD4-team01=
| RD4-score01=
| RD4-seed02=
| RD4-team02=
| RD4-score02=
}}

To leave your comments about this new bracket redesign, click, here.

2007 Bracket

{{16TeamBracket/2  
| RD1=Conference Quarterfinals
| RD2=Conference Semifinals
| RD3=Conference Finals
| RD4=Stanley Cup Finals
| RD2-group1='''[[Eastern Conference (NHL)|Eastern Conference]]'''
| RD2-group2='''[[Western Conference (NHL)|Western Conference]]'''

| RD1-seed01='''1'''
| RD1-team01='''Buffalo Sabres''' 
| RD1-score01='''4'''
| RD1-seed02=8
| RD1-team02=New York Islanders
| RD1-score02=1
| RD1-seed03='''2'''
| RD1-team03='''New Jersey Devils'''
| RD1-score03='''4'''
| RD1-seed04=7
| RD1-team04=Tampa Bay Lightning
| RD1-score04=2

| RD1-seed05=3
| RD1-team05=Atlanta Thrashers
| RD1-score05=0
| RD1-seed06='''6'''
| RD1-team06='''New York Rangers'''
| RD1-score06='''4'''
| RD1-seed07='''4'''
| RD1-team07='''Ottawa Senators''' 
| RD1-score07='''4'''
| RD1-seed08=5
| RD1-team08=Pittsburgh Penguins
| RD1-score08=1

| RD1-seed09='''1'''
| RD1-team09='''Detroit Red Wings'''
| RD1-score09='''4'''
| RD1-seed10=8
| RD1-team10=Calgary Flames
| RD1-score10=2
| RD1-seed11='''2'''
| RD1-team11='''Anaheim Ducks'''
| RD1-score11='''4'''
| RD1-seed12=7
| RD1-team12=Minnesota Wild
| RD1-score12=1

| RD1-seed13='''3'''
| RD1-team13='''Vancouver Canucks'''
| RD1-score13='''4'''
| RD1-seed14=6
| RD1-team14=Dallas Stars
| RD1-score14=3
| RD1-seed15=4
| RD1-team15=Nashville Predators
| RD1-score15=1
| RD1-seed16='''5'''
| RD1-team16='''San Jose Sharks'''
| RD1-score16='''4'''

| RD2-seed01='''1'''
| RD2-team01='''Buffalo Sabres'''
| RD2-score01='''4'''
| RD2-seed02=6
| RD2-team02=New York Rangers
| RD2-score02=2

| RD2-seed03=2
| RD2-team03=New Jersey Devils
| RD2-score03=1
| RD2-seed04='''4'''
| RD2-team04='''Ottawa Senators'''
| RD2-score04='''4'''

| RD2-seed05='''1'''
| RD2-team05='''Detroit Red Wings'''
| RD2-score05='''4'''
| RD2-seed06=5
| RD2-team06=San Jose Sharks
| RD2-score06=2

| RD2-seed07='''2'''
| RD2-team07='''Anaheim Ducks'''
| RD2-score07='''4'''
| RD2-seed08=3
| RD2-team08=Vancouver Canucks
| RD2-score08=1

| RD3-seed01=1
| RD3-team01=Buffalo Sabres
| RD3-score01=1
| RD3-seed02='''4'''
| RD3-team02='''Ottawa Senators'''
| RD3-score02='''4'''

| RD3-seed03=1
| RD3-team03=Detroit Red Wings
| RD3-score03=2
| RD3-seed04='''2'''
| RD3-team04='''Anaheim Ducks'''
| RD3-score04='''4'''

| RD4-seed01= E4
| RD4-team01= Ottawa Senators
| RD4-score01=1
| RD4-seed02= '''W2'''
| RD4-team02= '''Anaheim Ducks'''
| RD4-score02='''4'''
}}

Comments are appreciated. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To leave your comments about this new bracket redesign, click, here.

Comments

1. Oppose Not even slightly, Makes it alot harder to read, and possibly violates policy by having graphics for the sake of making it look good. Very hard to read this version. -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose It just doesn't do anything better than the current one. Grsz11 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose As per Djsasso, this might be against WP:DIAGRAM. It's a good idea, but I think the basic template is much more efficiant, and frankly, having it as a standard across Wikipedia is much better than our project using something completely random. – Nurmsook! (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose: More complicated and is not an improvement. Goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (diagrams and maps). This article is also the incorrect place to discuss a template used on hundreds of articles. Flibirigit (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose Little artistic appeal and is rather confusing without the conjoining lines.
6. Oppose because I find it hard to read. The current style is a very conventional bracket design that is familiar to most sports fans. Why change what works? BTW, I note that the 2007 bracket shown here contains several errors (first-round and second-round series that are incorrectly located on the bracket due to the NHL's practice of reseeding), although I recognize that accuracy wasn't the point of including last year's bracket here. 1995hoo (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Why change what works? The original is much cleaner, and the balls for the seeds is kind of corny and places all the emphasis on seeding and not on the matchups and results.Civil Engineer III (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Agree Becuase it looks great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.88.132 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose It is very hard to read and the colours of the previous version is adequate. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator withdrew suggestion. Flibirigit (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2008 Playoff Bracket Misleading

The bracket makes it seem like the winner of 1-8 will play the winner of 2-7; and, the winner of 3-6 will play 4-5. According to CBS Sports, the match-ups go 1-8 plays 4-5, and 2-7 plays 3-6 (http://sportsline.com/nhl/playoffrace/bracket). The bracket on this page should be modified. Jasoncknapp (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The NHL re-seeds in the second round. So the top remaining team still plays the lowest team and the second highest remaining team plays the second lowest. If you look at the bottom of that link you posted it explains. "Note: The Stanley Cup Playoffs are not based on a true bracket system. After the Conference Quarterfinals, the No. 1 seed is assured of playing the lowest-seeded team in the conference. The higher seed of any matchup receives home ice advantage." -Djsasso (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd inspect the bracket closely, the Conf. QF and Conf. SF aren't connected to one another. --Howard the Duck 11:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and the same complaint arises every year. The brackets are a convenient shorthand look at how the playoffs are going, and should stay. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated: Would you guys go with the home team on top convention this year? --Howard the Duck 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Home team on top in the brackets you mean? They already are... -Djsasso (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They'd screw up once we go to the Conference Finals. See 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs for example. --Howard the Duck 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We won't know that it's screwed up till we know which two teams are in the final. The example you show is correct as the Carolina team was the home team. At which point all you would have to do to fix it is put the Western Conference on top of the bracketing. -Djsasso (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is rather awkward, isn't it? So that means you guys have to change the template or something. Why not follow the NBA convention that italicizes the team name with the home court advantage? In that way it wouldn't look silly as seen on the 2006 Playoffs page where the Eastern Conference Finals didn't line up correctly. --Howard the Duck 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well all you would do is cut the western conference teams and paste them above the eastern conference teams. But yeah italics works for me too. I am easy. -Djsasso (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to modify the template coding, though (switch the colors). Which brings me to... why is there a specialized NHL template when the general bracket template would've worked? --Howard the Duck 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The colours are based on the conference colours, but now that I think about you are right. Might as well just italicize. There is a specialized template because of the reseeding involved etc. -Djsasso (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

However, now that I look at the talk page for the template, it appears that someone adjusted the final round incase the west is first seed over the east. -Djsasso (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't make things too complicated. The bracket is just a visual aid, it's not "official". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Look guys, whatever suits your tastes. I just found it awkward on 2006 ECF that Carolina was at the top of Buffalo when it should be the other way around -- and that'll happen this year if a upsets happen. --Howard the Duck 02:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I say that we should get rid of all the lines that go from round to round, and just put the match ups placed with the top remaining seed located all the way on the top. Since there are no lines, the top seed in each match up can go on the top of each match up. There is no true bracket in the NHL, so thus drawing any line down doesn't really make sense either. Thanks. --Sukh17 ^{T • C • E} 05:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the matchups are already predetermined once the Conf. SF starts since the two winners from each conf. will face each other for the Conf. Finals -- then the two conf. champions will face each other at the Finals. It's only the lines between the Conf. QF and Conf. SF that should be removed and the awkward rule of home ice at the top. --Howard the Duck 11:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that the contrast between "no lines" and "lines" in different parts of the bracket is important. It helps communicate that the teams are reseeded after the first round (not feeding into any particular portion of the bracket) but after that, the pairings are fixed. As for home team on top, the best approach (IMO) is to put the home team on top in the first two rounds, but then do the more natural thing of having the team feed into whatever line of the bracket it belongs on after that, instead of rearranging the bracket. Since the NHL uses a very simple method of assigning home advantage (higher seed), a mere visual inspection will resolve any ambiguities. Anybody who has followed the NCAA Tournament can tell who is the "home team" and gets to wear the white jerseys, irrespective of what line they're on, because seedings work pretty simply in conventional circumstances. Only in tournament situations with unorthodox rules (i.e., NBA, if we're being honest that's the only counter-example anybody is talking about) is something unique needed to signify the home team. As for the Cup Finals, I think any solution (or no solution at all!) would work; there's no particular need for the bracket design to communicate that very small nugget of knowledge. If you really feel it necessary, I think italicizing the home team is the best approach, with a note in the brief text introduction to the bracket explaining the convention. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've said that, there's absolutely no reason to be italicizing or doing any other distinction at all until the Cup Final since the higher seed always has the home ice advantage. --Howard the Duck 08:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think we would even need italicizing for the Cup Finals. The same seeding rules would apply to that. The only way I could see using italicization would be if the same seed was facing each other. (E1 vs. W1, E2 vs. W2. etc.) --CrimsonBlood820 (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The same seeding rules do not apply. The team with the best regular season record has home ice in the Finals, irrespective of their Conference seeding. For example, if Washington (E3) played Dallas (W5) in the Cup Finals, Dallas would have home-ice advantage. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The brackets for the last 2 years, at least, use the E/W format in the finals. The bracket is merely a summary. In the previous brackets, the team with home ice is on top. That format could be used in the final bracket also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, this "home team on top" thing can become something of an obstructive fetish. If we make sure the home team is on top in the Cup Finals, we have to "flip" the entire bracket if a West team ends up having the advantage. I believe the NBA project italicizes the home team, since in the NBA, home court has nothing to do with seeding. I would recommend we do either that, or nothing at all, to indicate who has home advantage. Every bracket is more focused on tournament path (in terms of opponents) than home/away distinctions. That it can sometimes conveniently convey home/away distinctions is an incidental benefit. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Or just change the colors in the last bracket, whatever's easiest. How was it done the last couple of years? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We never really were concerned with home ice advantage, I think that was why this came up because the other year it had the home team on top in the finals and he thought that was wierd. Personally I don't think it really matters. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokers. Indent your postings properly folks; it's difficult to read a posting that's about 2-words wide & numerious lines long. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have an idea for changing the look after the second round:

	Conference Quarterfinals					Conference Semifinals					Conference Finals					Stanley Cup Finals
	1	Montreal Canadiens	4
	8	Boston Bruins	3
						1	Montreal Canadiens
						6	Philadelphia Flyers
	3	Washington Capitals	3
	6	Philadelphia Flyers	4
	Eastern Conference
	2	Pittsburgh Penguins	4
	7	Ottawa Senators	0
						2	Pittsburgh Penguins
						5	New York Rangers
	4	New Jersey Devils	1
	5	New York Rangers	4
	1	Detroit Red Wings	4
	8	Nashville Predators	2
						1	Detroit Red Wings
	2	San Jose Sharks	3
	7	Calgary Flames	3
	Western Conference
	3	Minnesota Wild	2
	6	Colorado Avalanche	4
	4	Anaheim Ducks	2
	5	Dallas Stars	4

This makes it a little easier to read. For example, let's take Montreal and Philly. By having their first round results directly to the left of them, it makes it easier to see who the second round playing teams played in the first round. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See the new bracket proposal at Template talk:NHLBracket#New bracket proposal. --Howard the Duck 06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The re-shuffling of the first round once it's over strikes me as being needless and possibly misleading. It's already stated that they are re-seeded, and there are no horizontal lines connecting the first and second rounds. The way the above is described is how it was done in 2006, I think. For 2007, they stuck with the seed-ordered first round. Either way works, but I think it looks better to have them in seed order in the first round, to be consistent with the verbiage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If the new template gains favor, it's my intention to start going back to prior years and ordering the seeds in past years to be 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are to be brackets AT ALL, then it's pointless to arrange them in any order other than the order as it turns out after the second round. True, the NHL does not use a "real" bracket system as used in, say, the NCAA Basketball Tournament. But if you're going to use the graphical bracket system, showing seeds, then it's pointless to show teams in one spot in one round and another in another, REGARDLESS of a notation that it's not a true bracket system. The purpose of a bracket is to provide an "at-a-glance" style reference, and by using a bracket where a team is in Bracket A in the first round but jumps to Bracket B in the second, you rob the system of its utility. If there is really no true "bracket" system, then it is NOT IMPORTANT that someone (me) reordered the first round boxes after that round was over, because the placement of the teams in a "traditional" seeding position (such as the NCAA's) is not important. Thus, the change harms nothing. I vehemently object to the notion that we MUST use the 1-8/4-5, 2-7/3-6 order, because in practice that order doesn't reflect how it shook out. Otherwise, scrap the bracket model altogether. 1995hoo (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The bracket visually represents how the playoffs work. One aspect of how the playoff works is that teams are re-seeded. Consensus was actually reached two years ago about this matter, to leave the series ordered 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5, and the debate was had again last year. Not reordering the teams, along with the absence of connecting lines from the SF to QF, is a conspicuous visual indicator (supplementing the textual description) of how the playoff works. The disconnect that you're talking about is exactly why they aren't re-ordered; otherwise it tends to suggest that, before the playoffs began, it was known that the winners of those series would face each other. As noted in this discussion as well, there is a proposal for a new template that (in my opinion) improves on these concerns. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should leave the first round 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 and place the highest seeds at the top for subsequent rounds. Another visual cue which could make it easier is to create additional horizontal space (1cm ought to do it) between each round, and somehow remove the bracket connectors between the quarter-finals, semi-finals, and championship. There should still be enough room for the "bracket" to fit on a single screen. Jeff kuta (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff kuta: the point of having the bracket connectors in subsequent rounds, and omitting them between the QF and SF, is to visually suggest via that difference/distinction the process of re-seeding. There is a proposal to redesign the bracket and a link to the discussion page for the template in this thread. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving QFs

I see that someone above proposed moving the QFs around to match the eventual pairings in the SFs. Although I am new to all of this, I have tried to get up to speed and my review of last year's playoff discussion page indicates that consensus was reached at that time that leaving the QFs in the original 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 order, irrespective of where the teams end up in the SFs, is intended to indicate visually the concept of re-seeding. When combined with the absence of black lines between the first two rounds, but the presence of black lines thereafter, it is intended to visually convey the notion that the matchups from the 1st to the 2nd round are not pre-determined (as in the NBA or NCAA Tournament). Sliding around the QFs suggests that the pairings were preordained, since nobody sees what they looked like before they were changed. See the talk page for last year's playoff article for further elaboration. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with that. First, to say "what they looked like before they were changed" is misleading because that implies that there were some kind of pairings, rather than (as others argue) a pool of potential matchups. Second, who is to be considered the audience here? Hardcore NHL fans, or casual fans? I submit that a graphical aid of this sort ought to be made as useful as possible for the casual reader, given that the hardcore fan doesn't come to Wikipedia for his hockey news. (Of course those of us who are hardcore fans are more likely to care about these issues and edit the articles, though.) The casual reader wants to glance at the bracket and see how the playoffs shook out, or are shaking out, and to use a special format that the average Joe off the street will not take time to study in detail robs this sort of graphical aid of its utility. 1995hoo (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically a casual hockey fan, and I come to the article to see how the tournament is going, at a glance, so we should definitely keep the brackets as a visual aid. As to the first round, it doesn't matter all that much, but scrambling them to artificially make them align with the second round is something I find confusing to look at. Keeping them in the 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 order in the first round just looks better to me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 1995hoo, since this is no true "bracket tournament", like the March Madness, the bracket should be used as a summary of how the tournament actually turned out. E.g. last year; to check easily who Anaheim had to beat to get to the final. This has been done in the European Champions League aswell. It is also a non-true 'bracket tournament', since a new draw is held between the 1st round and the QF's. With today's article the step between the Conference QF's and SF's is "washed out", and should be fixed. lil2mas (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, as this version (1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5) is how its displayed on NHL press releases etc. So this would be the correct way to go about it. Secondly the lack of lines and the note right below the bracket more than make up for any misleading that might happen. To be quite honest I am just shocked at how much wasted time and space this seemingly minor topic has taken up. -Djsasso (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. The same debate happens every year, like it was a new thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why not realize that there is a need for easier viewing. If people want to know how the process of re-seeding works, we can write that in text below. The current design doesn't clarify this anyway.
And where is this NHL press release you're talking about? I found this one on the NHL.com Rangers' website: [1] And this is how CBS Sportsline does it: [2] The only bracket I can find using the current layout is this one on Red Wings' homepage: [3] But it isn't providing any seeding information, so it is necessary to do it that way. Our bracket shows this information, and should therefore be set-up like CBS' or Rangers' bracket! lil2mas (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that there is a need for easier viewing, I see that people like change for the sake of change. Or WP:ILIKEIT or whatever. That being said perhaps those interested should see the new bracket format that was proposed and I feel is a better way to handle it than moving around the bracketing. Template_talk:NHLBracket#New_bracket_proposal. Personally I think its important to not move them around to illustrate that it is not a true bracket. To move them around would indicate otherwise and contradict what is later stated below. -Djsasso (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Theilert says "If people want to know how the process of re-seeding works, we can write that in text below." But it's already there. And Djsasso makes the excellent point that retrofitting the first round to the second round is liable to make the casual reader go "HUH?" because there is then no rhyme or reason to the first group. If it's listed in seeding order, you can kind of figure out what's going on between the first and second rounds without even reading the explanatory text... but in case you can't, that text is there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This reasoning is exactly why it should remain 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5, irrespective of what the next-round matchups end up being. There are many reasons to do it this way. If you want to talk about things being "official," perhaps the most convincing argument is that the NHL itself orders the QF series, labeling them Series A-H; there is every reason to maintain this ordering in our visual representation. Moreover, as I noted above, the combination of the un-reordered series and the absence of black connecting lines with the more conventional bracket design further to the right is intended to conspicuously convey, visually, the NHL's reseeding playoff format. At any rate, there are two things to recall: (1) consensus was reached on this two years ago and the debate was had again last year (with the same outcome) and (2) there is a proposed template redesign (which I support) that I am hoping will help quell some of these (apparently) annual arguments. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)