[Athletic] Appetite to change the NHL playoff system is increasing

[Howboutthempanthers]

No division winners got top 3 regardless of points.

2011-2012 NHL Hockey Standings

In 2012 the panthers were seeded 3rd with 94 points despite several other 100 point teams in the conference.

No. My last sentence in my first post was about the fact that I wouldn't mind if they changed to that format in the future.

 

[Curufinwe]

Another GM liked the idea of the top eight in each conference making it, with the top two in each division locking in a playoff spot while giving the remaining spots to the best finishers in each conference regardless of division.

This would be a much better system. Four divisions, two in each conference is plenty. All they have to do is move Arizona or Calgary to the Central when Seattle joins the Pacific.

The 17-18 playoffs first round would have looked like this:

1 TB v 8 NJ
2 Was v 7 CBJ
3 Bos v 6 Phi
4 Tor v 5 Pit

1 Nas v Col
2 VGK v 7 LA
3 Win v 6 SJ
4 Min v 5 Ana

But, more importantly, with reseeding, the second round would have been this assuming the 3 seed won each hypothetical matchup:

TB v Tor/Pit
Was v Bos

Nas v Min/Ana
VGK v Win

 

[mdm815]

@Curufinwe that is a simpler way without dramatically changing what’s there now. Honestly i would support a winner of each division gets the top 2 seeds then do wildcard 3-8. I just want 1v8 back lol. The first round is amazing in this system, but it hurts rounds 2 and 3 in my opinion.

 

[StreetHawk]

@Curufinwe that is a simpler way without dramatically changing what’s there now. Honestly i would support a winner of each division gets the top 2 seeds then do wildcard 3-8. I just want 1v8 back lol. The first round is amazing in this system, but it hurts rounds 2 and 3 in my opinion.

I’m fine with any playoff format so long as the regular season is fairly setup so that everyone has the same strength of schedule to borrow a football term, to qualify for the playoffs.

Can’t be doing 2 games against the other 3 divisions hen play 34 games against 7 teams and do 1 vs 8. Too imbalanced.

You’d have to do 3 games against all 15 conference foes and have the remaining 5 be a set group that you rotate each year.

So Winnipeg would play northwest group
Of Edm, cal, can, sea, col in 2020 then SW group of LA, SJ, Ana, LB, AZ in 2021, then central of Nas, Min, Stl, Chi, Dal in 2022 and back to the NW group in 2023 and continue that cycle. Like how the nfl rotates which divisions teams play each year as a set schedule. That’s as close to fair you can get to go 1 vs and thus no division winners.

 

[KingsFan7824]

This would be a much better system. Four divisions, two in each conference is plenty. All they have to do is move Arizona or Calgary to the Central when Seattle joins the Pacific.

The 17-18 playoffs first round would have looked like this:

1 TB v 8 NJ
2 Was v 7 CBJ
3 Bos v 6 Phi
4 Tor v 5 Pit

1 Nas v Col
2 VGK v 7 LA
3 Win v 6 SJ
4 Min v 5 Ana

But, more importantly, with reseeding, the second round would have been this assuming the 3 seed won each hypothetical matchup:

TB v Tor/Pit
Was v Bos

Nas v Min/Ana
VGK v Win

And that's the issue. It's the same reason the 80's format was what it was; the league has never known what to do with the western conference. They even had Philly and Pit in the western conference after the 67 expansion. Nashville goes over one time zone by playing Colorado, then possibly has to play in Anaheim, then possibly in Vegas. That sort of potential travel didn't stop Detroit from winning multiple Cups while in the West, but the Wings were also the #1 team making a huge stink about their location when realignment was being discussed.

1-8 literally works perfectly in the East. There's nothing to it. Nothing else to take into consideration. It's all one time zone.

 

[Ola]

How would a more teams get in scheme look?

If 8 teams qualified for the best of 16 and 8+8 played a shorter series, say best of 3 during 4 days, to establish the remaining top 16 — there is just so little difference between finishing 9th and 24th...

But I don’t know, I am not totally against it. It premiers the top 8 more because they would face more tired teams in the original first round. Of 16 of 32 teams making the POs and 24 of 32 teams making the POs I would prefer the later for the quality of the regular season game. Too many teams are out too early with 16/32.

It wasn’t long ago at all that 16 of 24 teams made the POs. 24 of 32 just moves you back to what 1994. Before that it was 16 of 22 right.

 

[EON]

When Seattle enters, put them in the Pacific, move Arizona to the Central. Go back to 1v8 seeding, and winning your division only guarantees you home ice in the first round. Using this past season's results:

1. TB vs. 8. NJD
2. BOS vs. 7. CBJ
3. WSH vs. 6. PHI
4. TOR vs. 5. PIT

1. NSH vs. 8. COL
2. WPG vs. 7. LAK
3. VGK vs. 6. SJS
4. MIN vs. 5. ANA

 

[mdm815]

As I’ve said I’m a proponent of 4 divisions per conference, with winning your division guaranteeing you a playoff spot but not your actual positioning. You’re playing 6 games vs division and 4 vs conference. The downside is that you would only see the other conference once.

I also don’t think it’s crazy to think that the east and west formats could be different, but that hurts my OCD too much

 

[Sypher04]

no guaranteed spots to top divisional seeds. Everything on merit.

Rank 1-8

1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5

simple, fair.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

8 4 team divisions would be terrible.

There will always be a weak division where an undeserving team gets in over strong teams in other divisions.

The NFL consistently has 8-8 and 9-7 teams make the playoffs over 10 win teams.

The (Carolina) Panthers in 2014 wen 7-8-1 and had HOME FIELD in the first round.

I severely dislike the current NHL format, but it is light years better than the NFLs 8 division system

Terrible, terrible idea

 

[StreetHawk]

no guaranteed spots to top divisional seeds. Everything on merit.

Rank 1-8

1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5

simple, fair.

If everything is on merit then regular season games must be equally alocatted. So play every team in conference 3 times and the 5 games left over you play a set of 5 that you would play once every 3 years to be consistent. Cause it makes zero sense to play more divisional games then do playoffs based on conference standings. Not an equal split of opponents.

The fear of the divisional playoffs is having an Edm and cal from the mid 80’s who were the top 2 regular season teams play in round 2. I get that. But, you’re dealing with a lot more time zone issues in rounds 1 and 2 if you play in conference for the west.

 

[Sypher04]

If everything is on merit then regular season games must be equally alocatted. So play every team in conference 3 times and the 5 games left over you play a set of 5 that you would play once every 3 years to be consistent. Cause it makes zero sense to play more divisional games then do playoffs based on conference standings. Not an equal split of opponents.

The fear of the divisional playoffs is having an Edm and cal from the mid 80’s who were the top 2 regular season teams play in round 2. I get that. But, you’re dealing with a lot more time zone issues in rounds 1 and 2 if you play in conference for the west.

I actually don't care so much about who meets in the second round tbh. That's too hard to manage against.

My bigger issue is teams being appropriately matched in round 1. This year for example, it's crazy that Toronto, with the 6th best point total in the league, had to play a team higher than themselves in the first round and without home ice. Yes, I understand you gotta beat whoever you draw to win the cup, but it's not much of a reward for a strong regular season. The teams that finish best should get the matchups. That's simply logic imo. 1v8 system would have put the Leafs up against the Pens in round 1, which would've been tough too, but probably a better matchup.

 

[Harvey Birdman]

Just make it where division winners get #1 and #2 seed, then seeding after is points, 8 teams make it from a conference. East first round last year would have been...

Tampa VS New Jersey
Washington VS Columbus
Boston VS Philadelphia
Toronto VS Pittsburgh

Not even looking at it in a way better or worse for my team or any teams chances. That's vastly more entertaining first round. At least to me it is.

 

[StreetHawk]

I actually don't care so much about who meets in the second round tbh. That's too hard to manage against.

My bigger issue is teams being appropriately matched in round 1. This year for example, it's crazy that Toronto, with the 6th best point total in the league, had to play a team higher than themselves in the first round and without home ice. Yes, I understand you gotta beat whoever you draw to win the cup, but it's not much of a reward for a strong regular season. The teams that finish best should get the matchups. That's simply logic imo. 1v8 system would have put the Leafs up against the Pens in round 1, which would've been tough too, but probably a better matchup.

But the regular season wasn’t setup for Toronto and New Jersey to play virtually the same set of opponents. Just happened that Atlantic was top and bottom heavy. 3/6 top teams with 4/6 worst teams while metro was more even.

You will have 32 non conference games when Seattle arrives. How to split the remaining 50 games so that it’s a fair race for all 16 conference teams. 3 games each and rotate those 5 games against the same opponents every 3 years seems fair enough. What vet they decide to do, it should be the same when Seattle arrives. Don’t go to conference then to divisional. Pick one and stick with it.

No system is perfect. What is the nhl prepared to trade off?

 

[Sypher04]

But the regular season wasn’t setup for Toronto and New Jersey to play virtually the same set of opponents. Just happened that Atlantic was top and bottom heavy. 3/6 top teams with 4/6 worst teams while metro was more even.

You will have 32 non conference games when Seattle arrives. How to split the remaining 50 games so that it’s a fair race for all 16 conference teams. 3 games each and rotate those 5 games against the same opponents every 3 years seems fair enough. What vet they decide to do, it should be the same when Seattle arrives. Don’t go to conference then to divisional. Pick one and stick with it.

No system is perfect. What is the nhl prepared to trade off?

I get what you're saying but I just don't see number of divisional games as a huge problem. Not having the teams that finished with the most points appropriately seeded in the playoffs just seems like a bigger problem imo

 

[NoMessi]

I think it's more about the 2nd round I think.

Rather than have teams face each other simply based on divisions (where 1st team can potentially play the 2nd best team in the league), they just run 1-8 all the way through the finals.

I can't count how many times Pittsburgh-Washington should have been the Conference Finals, instead of the 2nd round.

I Can, 4.

or 5, but both teams somehow got robbed by Halak in 2010.