Playoff Seeding System

[MNNumbers]

I'm not sure where to put this, but there is a very interesting situation brewing in the East right now. I am supposing that Crayton, among others, might chime in here..

Right now, in the east, the Top3 teams are all from the Atlantic, and the next 5 are from the Metro. This is true even when adjusting for the schedule differences between the divisions. (I have an algorithm that does that perfectly - statistics and all, you know.)

As we know, that means the playoff brackets would be:
1/8 and 2/3 in one bracket and,
4/7 and 5/6 in the other.

And, there is something about that which seems unfair.

I have written a long set of criteria which, I thought, fixed every piece of all the possibilities for the playoffs, but this one is so unique that even my long list is unable to handle it.

Personally, I think that the East should just go to 1-8 seeding. That's because everyone is ETZ, and so travel is fine. But, the West can't do that because 3 TZs, etc.

So, how do you write the rules to accommodate this situation and get a 'fair' bracket in the West? And, I know this is a hypothetical discussion, because the NHL will never go to 'different system for East and West' and also because the likely thing is, when they get to 32 teams, that it's going to be 2 rounds in division.

Comments?

Click to read more...

 

[MaskedSonja]

I'm not sure where to put this, but there is a very interesting situation brewing in the East right now. I am supposing that Crayton, among others, might chime in here..

Right now, in the east, the Top3 teams are all from the Atlantic, and the next 5 are from the Metro. This is true even when adjusting for the schedule differences between the divisions. (I have an algorithm that does that perfectly - statistics and all, you know.)

As we know, that means the playoff brackets would be:
1/8 and 2/3 in one bracket and,
4/7 and 5/6 in the other.

And, there is something about that which seems unfair.

I have written a long set of criteria which, I thought, fixed every piece of all the possibilities for the playoffs, but this one is so unique that even my long list is unable to handle it.

Personally, I think that the East should just go to 1-8 seeding. That's because everyone is ETZ, and so travel is fine. But, the West can't do that because 3 TZs, etc.

So, how do you write the rules to accommodate this situation and get a 'fair' bracket in the West? And, I know this is a hypothetical discussion, because the NHL will never go to 'different system for East and West' and also because the likely thing is, when they get to 32 teams, that it's going to be 2 rounds in division.

Comments?

Didnt i read somewhere that a 1-16 playofg system was being mused on?

They did 1-8 before and i think will again. I jusy hope div leader is a playoff seed but not guaranteed 1-3. Southeast division should be a learned lesson.

I think they will see how 4x4 works after seattle (and drop wildcard) is in. They really arent getting rivalries they hoped for so far i think.

Torontoband detroit used to do west coast playoffs but getting new york and east coast teams might get some backlash. Only "fair" way is 1-16 playoff bracket seeding coast to coast. With the parity issue dont see nhl going for it if one conference ends up basically taking 10 or more bracket spots

 

[Past Considerations]

Either the divisional system or the wild card system needs to go, because the matchups involving the wild cards are not guaranteed to be divisional, so it simply moronic to pretend like the first two rounds are divisional.

Preferably both go as 1-8 with the reseeding every after every round was so much better.

 

[Radical Realignment]

They really arent getting rivalries they hoped for so far i think.

That's because the current format allows for divisional crossover. A better system for rivalries would be for the 4th & 5th place teams in each division to play a best-of-three wildcard series ... and then face the top seed in their division. This will increase chances of rivalries, keep travel to a minimum, and force teams to defeat their own divisions and conferences before earning the right to play for The Cup.

The whole 1-8 or 1-16 seeding system just dilutes any possibility of rivalries whatsoever.

 

[patnyrnyg]

A 1-16 format would be dumb. I know the NBA is mulling it over, but I doubt the NHL is considering it. What happens when you have a match-up of LA vs Carolina in the first round, the Kings win and then have to play the Caps in the 2nd round? That is how many cross-country trips for the Kings? How many games starting at 4-4:30 local time in LA and 10-10:30 in Carolina and Washington? The NBA will realize this is a dumb idea when an east coast team like the Knicks or Celtics matches up with the Kings, Lakers, or Clippers in the first round and the ratings in NY and Boston for the late starts are terrible.

As far as the East this year. Yes, the Atlantic have the 3 best records, and then the Metro has the next 8, with the other 5 Atlantic teams all below the 8 Metro teams. So, you can make the argument that the top-3 teams in the Atlanic are skewed by having more games against those 5 weaker teams. Secondly, 2-2 1/2 months ago, it was the opposite. Tampa had the best record in the East, and the top-5 in the Metro were all better than everyone else in the Atlantic aside from Toronto (they were somewhere in the middle of the 5 metro teams). The 6th team in the Metro was also higher than the Boston, at the time the 3rd team in the Atlantic. Philadelphia wasn't even in that top-6 in the Metro. The point is, the standing can change and flip-flop pretty quickly.

There have been MUTLIPLE threads about this, and it really is a silly argument. The league is really not concerned about what is "fair" when talking about the 2nd seed in the conference hacing to play the 3rd seed in the conference in the first round. Everyone on here can come up with a format they think it is best, and it will not change anything.

 

[LeHab]

I'm not against a one year try for a 1-16 system. Would it make sense to have a 2 home - 3 away - 2 home format to minimize travel time like baseball? Habs wont be making playoffs for a while so experiment at will.

 

[jkrdevil]

I'm not against a one year try for a 1-16 system. Would it make sense to have a 2 home - 3 away - 2 home format to minimize travel time like baseball? Habs wont be making playoffs for a while so experiment at will.

There is just a disparity between the schedule between east and west that seeding 1-16 wouldn’t be fair, imo

I’m on the record saying when Seattle joins the league moves to a 4-conference, 8 division formats

 

[StreetHawk]

There is just a disparity between the schedule between east and west that seeding 1-16 wouldn’t be fair, imo

I’m on the record saying when Seattle joins the league moves to a 4-conference, 8 division formats

Then it will create a scenario where #5/6 in one division are better than #4 in another. Like we have in the east. Right now, 3 teams (5-7) in metro are ahead of the #4 seed in the Atlantic.

No scenario is perfect. But, we know someone will complain in the future about something.

 

[jkrdevil]

Then it will create a scenario where #5/6 in one division are better than #4 in another. Like we have in the east. Right now, 3 teams (5-7) in metro are ahead of the #4 seed in the Atlantic.

No scenario is perfect. But, we know someone will complain in the future about something.

Well the schedule formula would likely be different. 6 games against you division, 4 vs your cross division within Conference and 2 games vs everyone else in the league.

 

[Stumbledore]

There is just a disparity between the schedule between east and west that seeding 1-16 wouldn’t be fair, imo

I’m on the record saying when Seattle joins the league moves to a 4-conference, 8 division formats

There will always be a disparity between East and West, given the geography and distance between teams. At one time, everyone regarded travelling distance as a major disparity between teams. Now, with refined science, it appears that the biggest cause of wear and tear is how many time zones you have to travel and how often you cross a time zone before playing a game. It turns out that with the NHL's schedule, Winnipeg leads the league in how many games are played immediately after crossing a time zone. And then there's so many teams which rarely play games outside their time zone.

No matter how you configure playoff seeding, you'll always have some disparity because the established, moneyed and powerful teams are in the East and will never give up their advantage.

 

[tony d]

I've wanted a 1-16 format for yrs. Would ensure some fresh matches and also would get better matches throughout the playoffs.

 

[StreetHawk]

Well the schedule formula would likely be different. 6 games against you division, 4 vs your cross division within Conference and 2 games vs everyone else in the league.

Wow.......
Divison - 6*7 = 42
Conference - 4*8 = 32
League - 2*16 = 32

106 game regular season? That's 24 more games than what they have now.

Division games drop from 6 to 4 saves 14 games. Cut conf. game from 4 to 3 saves 8 games. Now down to 84 games. Still need to work it out to get down to 82.

 

[gstommylee]

There is just a disparity between the schedule between east and west that seeding 1-16 wouldn’t be fair, imo

I’m on the record saying when Seattle joins the league moves to a 4-conference, 8 division formats

Not going to happen, the NHL is going to be going to a 8 division format and split up rivalries. This isn't the NFL to where there such a format would work.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The league seems to have the regular season schedule and playoff format at odds. A more division heavy schedule, and they go with a conference format. If the schedule is more spread out, the playoffs get more confined. The top 3 in each division are guaranteed today, but they added an extra game against each team in the other conference. If that's done on purpose, it's probably to mix things up, but it feels like the schedule should align more with the format.

Always been in favor if 1-16 in theory. If they're sticking with two separate conferences with one in one time zone, I'm a total proponent of different formats for each, if that's what teams would agree to. One size having to fit all doesn't always make sense.

Every time the league has changed the format, they've thrown a twist in there. I don't believe it's been the same format twice. I'm not sure if they would simply go back to 1-8 in each conference and that's that. Whatever format they go to next, I hope they go with that re-seed the 3rd round idea that was out there during the last re-alignment. Could play around with that if needed. If the 1st seed is on the east coast, and 4th is on the west, then 1st could play 3rd or something like that.

 

[MNNumbers]

Since this has turned into more of a schedule/alignment discussion, allow me....

IF we assume that Seattle is coming in as the 32nd team, then the schedule matrix will need to change. Why?
Because the current matrix is based on:
4 vs divsion = 28
3 vs conf = 24
2 vs rest = 32
Which makes an 84 game schedule, and we know that the players would balk at that.

So, what to do?
It's my opinion that there are hints in NHL history that help us figure out what might happen.
First, the league continues to make noise that the owners LIKE the "everyone plays in everyone else's barn" idea. That tells me that the 16 x 2 = 32 part won't change.
Next, in the last round of realignment, the original plan was 4 equal conferences, and the schedule was 2 vs everyone else and the rest in your conference (call it division here if you want). And, the playoffs were: Top 4 in each conference(division). The WC and the 3 vs (other division in conference) only happened because the PA didn't like the inequality in the sched and the playoff chances.
It's therefore my idea that the league will go back to that idea, and we will have:
2 vs everyone not in my Conference (Division) = 2 x 24 = 48
All the rest in my Conference (Division) = 4 x 7 = 28, +....1x6 = 34 and that's the sched. I call this 5/4 x 2. It means: 5 against all the Conference (except 4 against one of the team), and 2 against everyone else).

If the owners decide to keep the Wild Card, then it goes:
In Division: 4 x 7 = 28
In Conference: 3 x 6 and 2 x 2 = 22
Out of Conference: 2 x 16 = 32

Those are the only options, if we assume the owners' talk about the h/h with everyone is real.

And, last: I haven't heard anything from anyone in the league about 8 divisions of 4. And, I think the NFL playoff structure shows why. It's bad, with bad teams winning a 'division' and getting home field as a result. NFL doesn't have a choice with only 16 games to be played. NHL can do much better. So, I would be really surprised to see 4-team divisions.

 

[gstommylee]

Since this has turned into more of a schedule/alignment discussion, allow me....

IF we assume that Seattle is coming in as the 32nd team, then the schedule matrix will need to change. Why?
Because the current matrix is based on:
4 vs divsion = 28
3 vs conf = 24
2 vs rest = 32
Which makes an 84 game schedule, and we know that the players would balk at that.

So, what to do?
It's my opinion that there are hints in NHL history that help us figure out what might happen.
First, the league continues to make noise that the owners LIKE the "everyone plays in everyone else's barn" idea. That tells me that the 16 x 2 = 32 part won't change.
Next, in the last round of realignment, the original plan was 4 equal conferences, and the schedule was 2 vs everyone else and the rest in your conference (call it division here if you want). And, the playoffs were: Top 4 in each conference(division). The WC and the 3 vs (other division in conference) only happened because the PA didn't like the inequality in the sched and the playoff chances.
It's therefore my idea that the league will go back to that idea, and we will have:
2 vs everyone not in my Conference (Division) = 2 x 24 = 48
All the rest in my Conference (Division) = 4 x 7 = 28, +....1x6 = 34 and that's the sched. I call this 5/4 x 2. It means: 5 against all the Conference (except 4 against one of the team), and 2 against everyone else).

If the owners decide to keep the Wild Card, then it goes:
In Division: 4 x 7 = 28
In Conference: 3 x 6 and 2 x 2 = 22
Out of Conference: 2 x 16 = 32

Those are the only options, if we assume the owners' talk about the h/h with everyone is real.

And, last: I haven't heard anything from anyone in the league about 8 divisions of 4. And, I think the NFL playoff structure shows why. It's bad, with bad teams winning a 'division' and getting home field as a result. NFL doesn't have a choice with only 16 games to be played. NHL can do much better. So, I would be really surprised to see 4-team divisions.

They would balk at 2 more games? The current season is 82 41 home 41 away and suddenly going to 84 is a bad thing?

 

[MNNumbers]

They would balk at 2 more games? The current season is 82 41 home 41 away and suddenly going to 84 is a bad thing?

Come on, Tommy. It's a union. This union balked at the last realignment because the thought the travel wasn't equal between the 16-team west and the 14-team east.

It's in the CBA that it's an 82 game season (at least I'm assuming it is). It would have to be negotiated. That's what I mean by 'balking'.

 

[gstommylee]

Come on, Tommy. It's a union. This union balked at the last realignment because the thought the travel wasn't equal between the 16-team west and the 14-team east.

It's in the CBA that it's an 82 game season (at least I'm assuming it is). It would have to be negotiated. That's what I mean by 'balking'.

The CBA would be up for renewal when Seattle begins playing anyways. Making a huge stink over 2 additional games is imo ridiculous.

 

[MNNumbers]

The CBA would be up for renewal when Seattle begins playing anyways. Making a huge stink over 2 additional games is imo ridiculous.

Well, get ready for ridiculous. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not taking sides. I'm saying:
1- The evidence from the last realignment suggests that the owners would prefer a balanced league (4 8-team conferences) and no WCs. Since the 3-games-vs-the-other-division exists solely because of the WC, then the evidence suggests that the owners would prefer to drop it. Hence, the 5/4 - 2 schedule.
2- If the owners decide they LIKE the WC, then the easy thing to do is a 4 - 3/2 - 2 schedule, where the 2 games that need to be lost to keep the sched at 82 games are 2 games against Conf, but not Div opponents (for example, Minn would play ANA and LAK only twice, rather than 3 times). It's not perfect, but the current sched isn't either. And, it's easier to drop those 2 games than to figure out how to bargain the union over moving to 84 games.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[gstommylee]

wouldn't surprise me if the NHL would at least attempt to go at 84 and see what the union wants out of it. We did get 2 new teams since the last CBA got done.

 

[MNNumbers]

And, on alignment.....

Several options:
1- If Arz stays, then Seattle goes in the Pac, and the alignment has 2 choices, neither good:
a) Col to the Pac, and both Cgy and Edm to the Central, or....
b) Some combination of 2 of Arz, VGK and COL in the Central with Seattle still in the Pac.

If Arz goes to Hou, then no problems. Houston plays in the Central and there is nothing to fix.

If, for some strange happening, Arz actually relocates to Seattle (We are trying to cover all bases here), then nothing changes from the present.

If, for some really strange reason, Hou doesn't want the Yotes, and Arz can't stay there, and Seattle gets expansion, and Arz>>>QC, then everything goes flying up in the air.....

 

[gstommylee]

And, on alignment.....

Several options:
1- If Arz stays, then Seattle goes in the Pac, and the alignment has 2 choices, neither good:
a) Col to the Pac, and both Cgy and Edm to the Central, or....
b) Some combination of 2 of Arz, VGK and COL in the Central with Seattle still in the Pac.

If Arz goes to Hou, then no problems. Houston plays in the Central and there is nothing to fix.

If, for some strange happening, Arz actually relocates to Seattle (We are trying to cover all bases here), then nothing changes from the present.

If, for some really strange reason, Hou doesn't want the Yotes, and Arz can't stay there, and Seattle gets expansion, and Arz>>>QC, then everything goes flying up in the air.....

Arz to central is probably what's going to happen. Colorado is more central then cgy and edm. Seattle is much closer to CGY and EDM then those 2 teams is to the central division. Travel distance matters.

NHL is not going to allow a western to eastern conference relocation. They want to keep it 16/16 so coyotes will probably end up in houston.

By the time Seattle starts playing, Coyotes could already be in Houston. So its kinda of a moot point to discuss the whole pacific central alignment right now.

 

[MNNumbers]

Arz to central is probably what's going to happen. Colorado is more central then cgy and edm. Seattle is much closer to CGY and EDM then those 2 teams is to the central division. Travel distance matters.

NHL is not going to allow a western to eastern conference relocation. They want to keep it 16/16 so coyotes will probably end up in houston.

By the time Seattle starts playing, Coyotes could already be in Houston. So its kinda of a moot point to discuss the whole pacific central alignment right now.

I agree that that first domino to fall here will be what happens to Arizona. I say that because I think that the NHL and whatever local ownership actually exists in AZ seem to feel that they need a different arena, but I don't think they will get one. And, for numerical reasons that i won't detail here, I don't think they can wait past spring 2019 for that. So, it's my opinion that something will happen in Summer 2019.

You say that Houston is the likely landing place. I would agree (I would, but I can't completely.) There is something about the way that Fertitta in Houston spoke about the process that leads me to believe that he holds all the cards, and he knows is, and he doesn't feel like he NEEDS NHL in his building. That might mean that Houston is a choice which leaves $$ on the table. And, i won't predict. I just think that nothing is assured.

 

[gstommylee]

I agree that that first domino to fall here will be what happens to Arizona. I say that because I think that the NHL and whatever local ownership actually exists in AZ seem to feel that they need a different arena, but I don't think they will get one. And, for numerical reasons that i won't detail here, I don't think they can wait past spring 2019 for that. So, it's my opinion that something will happen in Summer 2019.

You say that Houston is the likely landing place. I would agree (I would, but I can't completely.) There is something about the way that Fertitta in Houston spoke about the process that leads me to believe that he holds all the cards, and he knows is, and he doesn't feel like he NEEDS NHL in his building. That might mean that Houston is a choice which leaves $$ on the table. And, i won't predict. I just think that nothing is assured.

He said he's interested in the NHL and the league and him have talked but it comes down to the price. I think its possible that he didn't like the 650m asking price for expansion.

 

[MNNumbers]

He said he's interested in the NHL and the league and him have talked but it comes down to the price. I think its possible that he didn't like the 650m asking price for expansion.

He said he's interested. yes. But it was immediately after his discussion with Bettman. Any businessman would say that at that point, no matter how serious he was. No need to burn bridges.

I think you are right about the expansion price, but I would be guessing to say..."Any price." So, i'm ust not sure he wants in, even at 500M