Good afternoon LG! I don’t know if this has been a topic of discussion before or maybe it hasent either way without further ado... I completely agree with the game 7 format that all three lines should play a minimum of 2 games, with the pivotal game 7 lineup being whomever you see fit. I also understand that all 3 lines must play in the first 4 games. Having said that, would you agree or disagree whether or not a team should be able to play a line 3 times before game 7? Now obviously there is a stipulation to this rule. A team can only play a line for its 3rd game before game 7 only in a elimination situation. The only time this rule will NOT be an option for a team is if they are loosing in the series 0-3 and have not played all three lines in the series. All rostered players should be given the opportunity to play. Egos take a backseat. For example, scenario 1 (option applied) -Team A plays its 1st line game 1&2, wins both against Team B. -Team B wins game 3, 4, and 5. Leads series 3-2 vs Team A. -Team A by rule is given the option to play its 1st line game 6 do to the above stipulation of having an elimination game, and all 3 lines have played within the first 4 games. If team A wins game 6, by rule Team A will advanced to game 7 against Team B. However, Team A has exhausted there 3 game limit for one line and must use either line 2 or 3, or a combination of both, but all players playing in game 7 for Team A must have only played 1 game prior to game 7. Scenario 2 (option denied): Team A plays line 1 game 1&2 and plays line 2 in game 3 and is loosing the series 0-3 to Team B. Team A is now in a elimination game for game 4, however only 2 lines have played in the first 3 games, therefor by rules line 3 has to play game 4 and Team A is denied the option to apply the elimination rule lineup. Now I know in scenario 1 for instance, say if Team A looses game 6, then that means one line would have only played one game in the series. Some may agree or disagree with this but that’s why it’s an option, it’s not something you have to use... But if your down 3-2 wouldn’t you want to have your studs try and get you to that pivotal game 7 and hope your “role players” can squeak out a game 7 win! A little dramatic I know but it might spice things up a little bit. Regardless I’m just thinking out loud and trying to be the best I can be for theeee L.G. l GET BUSY l
Shoud involve something like only the higher seed can do this so its like an actual home is advantage
It’s just an idea, not looking to recreate the wheel. I think the higher seed already has the advantage with being able to see lineups first in game 1&2 as an advantage, but in my opinion, I think both team should be given the option in this scenario
Well first off Mr. Girgss I appreciate your kind words. No one actually knows if there idea is “good” until it’s seen by the community, who then shares there comments and concerns on the topic at hand. I’m not in favor of or opposed to this idea because I can play devils advocate for both sides, either way, we’ll all wait for your good idea write up soon . Gl in the Final.
I would be okay with this simply because it's a way for teams to make better use of avail, it's always shitty when you know your game 7 lineup isn't all available for game 7. The only caveat to that is you would have to make the higher seed have home ice advantage for game 6, otherwise the away team has all the leverage since there is no benefit to home ice in a game 7.
