Playoff Seeding System

[Radical Realignment]

I'm not buying that. Nor do I see the problem, really. What's the concern? That a low seed will make it to the CFs or SCF? The Preds did that last year, in this system (which will be even better if the WC is between the 4th & 5th place teams in each division), and, as I recall, it was cause for great excitement and exposure for the league.

I'd much rather have the early rounds stocked with rivalries than have them be little more than a fait accompli by having seeding be 1-8, or even worse 1-16. Give me the rivalries. Give me the excitement of Pens-Flyers in Rd. 1, Pens-Caps in Rd. 2 (Jets-Preds looks pretty good, too!) ... I'm more interested in the playoffs now than I was during the 1-8 malaise that preceded this system.

 

[LeafShark]

The problem with conference playoffs is that teams like Vancouver Nashville could be playing in the first round. The problem with divisional playoffs is lack of variety and inequality. This is why I like my group of 4 playoff structure. I gives greater equity and variety while pushing the potential Vancouver Nashville series to the second round.

Again it works like this.

16 teams make the playoffs

1st round is divisional (no change)
2nd round is the 4 remaining teams within the conference seeded.
3rd round is the 4 remaining teams within the league seeded.
4th round is the 2 remaining teams.

The only real issue with this structure is that the only team that *wins* something.... is well... the Stanley Cup Champion.

 

[Bookie21]

I love the way it is set-up now. It is starting to create some great rivalries, which is better for the game. Remember the old Adams Division rivalries of the late 80's, early 90's....Habs, Nordiques, Hartford, Bruins, Buffalo. Great first and second round match-ups for years, created really good rivalries. Hopefully they keep the current format, as it will grow into that agan

 

[coolboarder]

It is not about the seeding, it's all about the schedule matrix determined by the regular season match-up. If you have 7 weaker teams in one division and you play more games against them, naturally, points in the standing would be inflated while other division teams would face 7 weaker team only twice a year and the opportunity to earn points against them are 14 points while the top teams in the same division would earn a potential up to 60 points against divisional opponents. If you in a division all strongest team, your opportunity to pad up points is not good. So therefore, it is better if teams would go strictly with divisional bracket to ensure the fairness for all party involved. I also am advocating to the league to scrap the Wild Card because 3 games against 5-4 divisional games is also disparity due to strength of the division and the weakness in other in the same conference.

If you sweep all season series, your opportunity to earn points is 4-6 points per team against conference opponents while opportunity to earn points in weaker division is 8-10 points per team, depending on # of games in a season. In a stronger division, you might split up points against divisional opponents and average to 4-5 points per team across the board while you might sweep 6 points on average and over a long run, the top team in a weaker division might earn more points than the top team in a stronger division. While the top team in a weaker division might sweep with 8-10 points and split up other division with 3 points and if you do the math, naturally, the top team in a weaker team would have more points than the top team in stronger division and how is this fair in a conference 1-8 format? Top team in weaker division would earn 11-13 points on average while other top team in stronger division would earn on average of 10-11 points. If you do that average 6 more times with same result excluding matches between the top team between both divisional leader, the top team in the weaker division would run away with 9 more points. That is to me, a greater difference when determining seeding for the first round. You can make the same argument who is deserving of a home-ice advantage in the Stanley Cup final where the opportunity to earn from other conference to only 4 points compared to 8-10 points.

So in conclusion, divisional playoff with no Wild Card is the way to go for one reason: schedule matrix is made for the strict divisional format. If you want to go with 1-8 system, you would have to scrap the divisions and go with 4 games across the board and no extra games against a certain team. If you want 1-16 playoff system, you'd have to play 2 games each across the board with no extra games against a certain team.

I believe that this is the first year in the Western Conference where teams belongs to the divisional bracket without any cross over due to Wild Card system and the result has shown to be true, top seed is deserving of a short series against a team that knows them well in the regular season.

 

[coolboarder]

cbcwpg....
How do you 'fix' the problem? The only way is to extend the West to 1-8. But, then, you run into all the things where the western teams might ALL might to travel across multiple time zones for 2 rounds, and the PA doesn't want that, and the league really doesn't either, for start times. And, even then, is this any better?
Nash #1 v San Jose #11
Vegas #5 (home ice) v Winnipeg #2 (where Vegas has home ice because of being division champ)
Or, do you remove the division champion privilege of being the #2 seed?

And, while you are at that, Minnesota would be more than happy to play the #5 seed (Anaheim) with home-ice, rather than playing at Winnipeg.

The whole thing just needs balance. There are competing ideas, and there is no way to accommodate them all. Seeding fairness is going to somehow be directly at odds with (player convenience) and (TV preferences). I'm going to guess that TV preferences will have a strong influence, even if the TV guys are not actually part of the discussion. In other words, the NHL knows what NBC wants.

Vegas #5 vs SJ #11
Tampa #3 vs Bos #4 or Tor #7
Pitts #10 vs Wash #6 or CLB #14
Nash #1 vs Win #2

2nd round of the playoffs and the #1 ( Nashville ) and #2 ( Winnipeg ) teams in the overall standings have to meet and one will be eliminated. That's what's wrong with the current system.

Here is a reply to you both to my post above analyzing on schedule matrix. Not much details but this is reason why we go divisional playoff format.

 

[gstommylee]

The problem with conference playoffs is that teams like Vancouver Nashville could be playing in the first round. The problem with divisional playoffs is lack of variety and inequality. This is why I like my group of 4 playoff structure. I gives greater equity and variety while pushing the potential Vancouver Nashville series to the second round.

Again it works like this.

16 teams make the playoffs

1st round is divisional (no change)
2nd round is the 4 remaining teams within the conference seeded.
3rd round is the 4 remaining teams within the league seeded.
4th round is the 2 remaining teams.

The only real issue with this structure is that the only team that *wins* something.... is well... the Stanley Cup Champion.

Na first round being divisional is a bad idea.

Here is what it should be. Top 4 of each division make the playoffs

then its seeded based on record best record of conference plays worst record of conference 1-8 2-7 3-6 4-5.

 

[Radical Realignment]

Na first round being divisional is a bad idea.

Here is what it should be. Top 4 of each division make the playoffs

then its seeded based on record best record of conference plays worst record of conference 1-8 2-7 3-6 4-5.

No thanks. That's the old system.

And completely eradicates any meaning to having divisions in the first place. It also reduces the chances of legitimate rivalries forming. We're seeing this play out in real time now. Pens-Caps for the third year in a row in the 2nd round. Everyone is talking about it. And it makes great theater. And that's after an already-marquee Pens-Flyers first round.

Give me more of this and less of the watered down 1-8 conference seeding. With divisions having 8 teams, with either a weak or strong division, it's almost guaranteed that you'll end up facing a tough opponent by the 2nd round. And if you advance beyond that, well, you're facing a team that has conquered its own division and has been playing well enough to win two best-of-seven series (and maybe a best-of-three if a 4-5 wildcard is ever instituted). Every road to the SCF is difficult one. As it should be. And along the way, we get some great rivalries developed (or continued).

I'm still not seeing any downside to this format (especially with a wildcard to account for weaker/stronger divisions).