4 wildcards per conference?

QuadrupleDeke

33% more deke
Aug 6, 2009
4,807
81
Boston, MA
Right now the 6th place team in the Metro is on pace for more points than the 3rd place team in the Atlantic, meaning:
  • the Maple Leafs would make the playoffs as a 3-seed despite being the 9th-best team in the Eastern Conference
  • the Hurricanes would miss the playoffs as the 6th-best team in the Metro even though they are 11th overall in the entire NHL (6 teams with a worse record would make the playoffs over them)

I would prefer going back to top-8 in each conference making the playoffs, but at a minimum there should only be 2 guaranteed spots per division with 4 wildcards per conference.

To illustrate how lopsided the divisions are, here is every team that is currently on pace to end the season with at least 98 points:

Atlantic Division
Boston (115.9)
Tampa Bay (114.5)

Metropolitan Division
Washington (113.6)
Pittsburgh (110.3)
NY Islanders (105.4)
Philadelphia (100.4)
Columbus (100.4)
Carolina (98.1)

Central Division

St. Louis (106.5)
Colorado (105.4)
Dallas (102.1)

Pacific Division

-none-
 

Curufinwe

Registered User
Feb 28, 2013
55,502
42,244
Get rid of the wildcards altogether.

The top 8 from each conference make the playoffs, with the division winners getting the top two seeds.

1 Bos v 8 Car
2 Was v 7 Phi
3 TB v 6 CBJ
4 Pit v 5 NYI

1 StL v 8 Nas
2 Van v 7 VGK
3 Col v 6 Cal
4 Dal v 5 Edm
 

Dynamite Time

Where Is My Mind?
Jan 23, 2018
3,579
1,765
Austin, TX
Get rid of the wildcards altogether.

The top 8 from each conference make the playoffs, with the division winners getting the top two seeds.

1 Bos v 8 Car
2 Was v 7 Phi
3 TB v 6 CBJ
4 Pit v 5 NYI

1 StL v 8 Nas
2 Van v 7 VGK
3 Col v 6 Cal
4 Dal v 5 Edm
I agree, the top 16 going into the postseason won’t always be 50/50 per Conference necessarily but top 8 teams per Conference should be there.

I’d go with Division winners get the 1st and 2nd seed vs the other 3-8 but this layout as well gets the top 8 into the postseason.
 
Last edited:

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,399
2,980
Agree with OP. Keep the divisional format the way it is, but have just the top 2 teams from each division take top spots (seeded 1-4). This allows the best teams to actually make the playoffs (5-8).
 

Trap Jesus

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
28,686
13,456
Might as well do top 8 from each Conference. I guess you could have each division winner take a top 2 seed to make divisions mean something, but doesn't really matter IMO.
 

nshlphoenix

Registered User
Feb 11, 2020
180
149
Having 2 divisions per conference cuts down on the old problem with the 3 division winners getting in automatically (I’m looking at you southeast division leaders). With 2 there’s less of a chance that a division winner would be outdone by the 9th seed on their own conference.
 

Suntouchable13

Registered User
Dec 20, 2003
43,031
18,047
Toronto, ON
The NBA has the fairest system. top 8 in each conference make it. Winning your division guarantees you nothing. Orlando Magic won the South East division last year but was still seeded 7th in the Eastern conference, for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG

deckercky

Registered User
Oct 27, 2010
9,379
2,452
Once Seattle joins, the NHL should get rid of the wildcard rather than looking at expanding it. Some divisions will be better - that will balance out over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LatvianTwist

Dr Pepper

Registered User
Dec 9, 2005
70,349
15,497
Sunny Etobicoke
Either go back to the top eight getting in (top two seeds go to division winners) like it used to be, simple....

OR....

Go to a divisional system, top four in each division make it in.

With that second option you probably run the greater risk of a 5th seed missing out - as would be the case this season, probably - but this whole wildcard shtick isn't going to last.

Bettman's ham-fisted attempt to force divisional rivalries is too clunky.

Once Seattle enters the league? 4 divisions, 8 teams per division, half of each division makes the playoffs. Can't go wrong with that.
 

NickWIHockey

Registered User
Jan 3, 2013
316
22
Port Washington, WI
I favor adding tiebreaker games if teams are tied on points at the end. lets say Boston and Toronto both have 94 points at the end of the season and are tied for the last playoff spot. have a coin flip to determine who hosts the playoff game and have the game the next night. win or go home. baseball does it, in fact you had 2 tiebreakers in the NL in 2018.
as for the playoffs. i'd go to 20 . 7 vs 10 and 8v 9 in a best of 3 playin round, then the winners get reseeded and play the 1 and 2 seeds. you had a preliminary round back when the NHL had 21 teams and 16 made it. 20/32 is 62.5% as opposed to the 76.2% in the early 80s. this would keep many more teams in the playoff hunt and mean the fight for 6th is important to avoid the play-in round . this year the extra teams would be Carolina and Florida in the East ( based on current standings) and Winnipeg and Nashville in the West.
 

SotasicA

Registered User
Aug 25, 2014
8,489
6,402
Get rid of the wildcards altogether.
This.

But with pure divisional playoffs. 1st vs 4th, 2nd vs 3rd. First you decide division champion, then conference, then league. No silly re-seeding or comparing standings points between two teams playing different schedules.

You have to win your division to battle for conference title. Not get thrown into another side of the bracket randomly.
 
Last edited:

Dr Pepper

Registered User
Dec 9, 2005
70,349
15,497
Sunny Etobicoke
This.

But with pure divisional playoffs. 1th vs 4th, 2nd vs 3rd. First you decide division champion, then conference, then league. No silly re-seeding or comparing standings points between two teams playing different schedules.

You have to win your division to battle for conference title. Not get thrown into another side of the bracket randomly.

Don't go bringing logic into a thread like this.....Bettman doesn't care for such ideas.
 

member 305909

Guest
My ptefered system would be that 4 teams from each division to the play-offs but in the first round they would play across divisions.

I mean central 1-pacific4, pacific 1-central 4, central 2-pacific3, pacific 2-central 3.

The same system in the east too.
 

GIN ANTONIC

Registered User
Aug 19, 2007
18,786
14,617
Toronto, ON
4+4 making the playoffs in each conference is asking for problems. Atlantic is pretty trash outside of Boston and Tampa and Metro is a blood bath. Right now you would have Toronto and Florida making the playoffs with less points than Carolina and Philly. That’s egregious
 

SotasicA

Registered User
Aug 25, 2014
8,489
6,402
4+4 making the playoffs in each conference is asking for problems. Atlantic is pretty trash outside of Boston and Tampa and Metro is a blood bath. Right now you would have Toronto and Florida making the playoffs with less points than Carolina and Philly. That’s egregious
But it shouldn't be about just "making the playoffs". That should not even be the goal of a hockey team. It should be winning a championship. Your division, your conference, the league. If you can't even crack the top 4 in your division (the only teams playing your schedule), you don't deserve to continue your season and battle for a divisional title.

I don't like 5th or 6th place teams qualifying for the playoffs. They have been soundly defeated in the regular season. No excuses.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
Funny that no one has mentioned that teams in different divisions play different schedules. This is why they don't just take the top 8. Instead of whining about a team with more points missing the playoffs we will have whining that teams are getting more points because their division is too easy.

Its always something
 

member 305909

Guest
Even though most people would like to see a different system, as do I, but the present system also has its appeals.

I like the speculation on whether in each division there's going to be 3,4 or 5 teams in the playoffs. That number changes constantly.

For example, Carolina is only one point away from the currently worst playoff-team but as a sixth team in their division they really have to catch up four points to reach the fifth in their own division.

It's been for weeks now the position that there would be five teams from the Pacific in the playoffs and three from the Central.

That may turn the other way round though or at least 4+4.

The Pacific is so close that Vancouver may both win their division or miss the playoffs and we are at 55+ games stage.
 

Trap Jesus

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
28,686
13,456
The only reason the top 3 in each division making the playoffs became a thing was to create divisions rivalries in the playoffs. If you're only putting through the top 2, you have the potential to get zero divisional match-ups. Might as well just do top from each division and 6 wild cards.
 

TheDoldrums

Registered User
May 3, 2016
12,154
18,137
Kanada
Yeah the playoff system has always sucked. It sucked when the Leafs finished 7th in the league and had to play the team that finished 3rd. It's never been about fairness.
 

GIN ANTONIC

Registered User
Aug 19, 2007
18,786
14,617
Toronto, ON
But it shouldn't be about just "making the playoffs". That should not even be the goal of a hockey team. It should be winning a championship. Your division, your conference, the league. If you can't even crack the top 4 in your division (the only teams playing your schedule), you don't deserve to continue your season and battle for a divisional title.

I don't like 5th or 6th place teams qualifying for the playoffs. They have been soundly defeated in the regular season. No excuses.

What? Points are points. Who are the metro teams beating up on? OK the devils are bad but every division has at least one bad team and the Atlantic and a pacific have multiple awful teams. The metro is stacked that’s why there are six good teams who have more points than the 3rd place Atlantic team. It’s not because of a lack of quality competition on their part
 
  • Like
Reactions: AD Skinner

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->