Do you think a 1-16 playoff matchup would be better than conferences?

[Last Gleaming]

Would 1-16, if we had a balanced schedule, really be better? Most people seem to value seeing the rivals early on over having a perfectly-open playoff bracket. For example, San Jose would be in line to face Toronto right now instead of the Kings in the 1st round. Or Boston would face Anaheim instead of the Leafs. The Lightning would be up against the Blues or Avs instead of possibly the Panthers. And so on.

There could be a compromise solution though. Re-seed at the next level up after each round. Divisional seeding for the 1st round, conference-wide seeding for the 2nd round, league-wide seeding for the 3rd round, and the last 2 teams to survive, regardless of conference or division affiliation, contest the Stanley Cup.

At most 3 possible cross-conference series. Produces more variety in matchups without totally abandoning the divisional/conference alignment and puts emphasis on having as strong of a regular season as possible.

 

[Machinehead]

What airline gets from NY to LA in 3 hours??

And to the topic, no I don't think it would be better. This league is already lacking in rivalries. That format would make the playoffs even more random. Also, the 1-8 format was better.

Maybe because we force teams together who are basically sick of each other instead of letting new blood form?

Pens/Caps was a great rivalry but it's f***ing done. I have zero interest in watching their inevitable series this year.

 

[Gnashville]

Tampa Bay Lightning rewarded by traveling across the country to LA for games 3 and 4 vs 16th seeded King then get to travel to Anaheim for the next series vs 12th seed Ducks then play 5th Seed San Jose while 2nd seed Rangers play NJ, Islanders, and Philadelphia.

 

[Ducks DVM]

As long as the fans of east coast teams are ok watching their teams start a first round series at 10PM, then sure.

So....never going to happen.

 

[Machinehead]

As long as the fans of east coast teams are ok watching their teams start a first round series at 10PM, then sure.

So....never going to happen.

Yeah, local tv rights for first round are another major problem here.

I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. Just do 1-8.

 

[De Montreal]

Always felt Kovalev at 4.5 m per for 4 seasons was a great deal. That was in 2006 so 4.5 at the times is more like 6 right now but still.

 

[Redder Winger]

The NBA has had talks about this due to the parity (or lack there of) throughout the league because of the Golden State Warriors. The NHL is the most balanced league i've ever seen because I truly believe that any team that makes the playoff has a shot to win the cup, even if it's a slim chance. But with that being said, would having the top 16 teams make up the playoff seeding be a good idea to implement? Or would you want the conferences to stay?

I'd rather go 1 vs 4 in each division and have divisional champs.
Sure, someone in a tough division gets screwed and someone in an easy division gets something they didn't really earn.
But divisional playoff hockey is awesome. And it creates rivalries that last and spice up regular season games.

 

[Redder Winger]

Always felt Kovalev at 4.5 m per for 4 seasons was a great deal. That was in 2006 so 4.5 at the times is more like 6 right now but still.

More like $8.2M

 

[N o o d l e s]

I’ve had this idea before, especially because it would be so cool to have rivals potentially play for the Cup, but the travel is just too much.

Also: 1-8 was perfectly f***ing fine

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Not to derail the thread, but I can't stand the *********ory "balanced league" rhetoric anymore.

The Red Wings won the Stanley Cup in June 2008. Champions since then in each of the 4 major leagues.

NFL - Giants, Steelers, Saints, Packers, Ravens, Patriots, Seahawks, Broncos, Eagles (9)

MLB - Red Sox, Phillies, Yankees, Giants, Cardinals, Royals, Cubs, Astros (8)

NBA - Lakers, Spurs, Mavs, Heat, Cavs, Warriors (6)

NHL - Pens, Bruins, Hawks, Kings (4)

Hockey fans - making fun of the NBA for having no parity, while talking about how much parity they have in their league that has less parity than the NBA.

I get what you’re saying, and don’t really follow the other leagues, but as far as the NHL goes i think it’s silly to say cup winners define how much parity there is.

Just because the same teams managed to go all the way doesn’t mean the league isn’t tight. If Boston or LA wins the cup this year on paper it looks like ”here we go again one of the powerhouses won another one”, but then you realize they haven’t even been to the 2nd round in the last few years.

And even if we went with this logic, in hockey there’s some many variables, injuries, bounces, bad calls, that if did the past decade again the cup winners could be totally different.

Also i feel like parity have been getting stronger as of late. Tampa, Nashville, Winnipeg have zero cups in the last decade, and there are other teams too that are only a couple pieces away from contending.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

Yes, I remember when it use to be that way.
1st: Stronger teams aren’t eliminated by other strong teams till the latter part of the process.
2nd: you can end up with divisional rivals playing in the finals.

Think one day L.A. and San Jose, Montreal & Toronto or Pittsburgh and Philadelphia just to name three.