Speculation: enlarge the playoffs

[Winger98]

Back in 1980 there were just 21 teams in the league, and 16 of them made the playoffs. That's 76% of the league playing for the cup in games that matter. Beginning with expansion to 22 teams in 91/92, the percentage of clubs making the playoffs has gradually slide to where we have it today, where we still have 16 teams making the playoffs but out of a 30 team league. And now we're adding Vegas to the mix, and likely a 32 team not soon after to fully balance the conferences.

So, why not let more teams into the playoffs? Go back up to 3/4 of the league, or 24 teams. Now, it could make the season longer, but the season could begin sooner, too. Or maybe the regular season could be shortened since we will have more teams contributing to the league revenue, and playoff games generate more profit for clubs anyway. Point is that the schedule could be made to work.

Another thing is that it might make the regular season less competitive. This is a good thing. With comparatively fewer teams making the playoffs, it's harder to get in, making it so teams have to fight harder to make it. I think it has encouraged more defensive systems, while also putting more stress (physical and psychological) on the players, likely leading to more injuries and worse hockey as the season wears on.

It's just something to kick around a bit.

Click to read more...

 

[InjuredChoker]

have less teams make the playoffs.

fix some on-ice rules and the point system to encourage teams be more aggressive offensively.

 

[Frk It]

have less teams make the playoffs.

fix some on-ice rules and the point system to encourage teams be more aggressive offensively.

So much this. Last thing we need is to have more teams make the playoffs, in a league where already over half the league qualifies.

 

[Winger98]

have less teams make the playoffs.

fix some on-ice rules and the point system to encourage teams be more aggressive offensively.

They've been trying for 15 years to alter the rules and point system to encourage more offense and the only time it has vaguely worked is when they just called a bun of penalties and played half the game at special teams.

I also don't see how fewer teams will lead to more offense, just a shorter postseason.

 

[Sparty]

I don't really disagree with your idea, but the only way to get more teams in the playoffs would be to have byes and I'm not sure that's a good idea.

How many teams get byes and how many games are played to see who advances out of the "first round," you can't really have teams waiting around for long. Play-in game? Best of three? Five? Obv you can't have the Presidents Cup winner (and whoever else) waiting for a seven game series to end.

 

[jkutswings]

Ideas for more offense (not necessarily advocating them; just that they should lead to more offense):

• Remove the Edmonton rule. You get X minutes of power play time, regardless of how many goals you score. Has the side benefit of making teams think twice about all the hooking and holding that’s no fun to watch.

• Implement a timer, where you are only allowed X seconds of puck possession in your defensive zone. The, “cycle behind the net 3 times” is no fun to watch, and even if the timer results in more dump and chase, I’d even rather see that than all the trapping and other dead puck nonsense.

• You play until somebody wins. No ties, no shootouts. First OT is 4-on-4. Second OT is 3-on-3. The odds of a game ever going to a third OT are incredibly slim to begin with, but I’d even consider 2-on-2 for that. And it would do away with points from shootout losses, and whether a win was in regulation or not.

• Do away with 5-on-5 altogether, and make the game 4-on-4, with 3 forwards, and 1 defenseman. That both provides more open ice for forwards, and makes Detroit’s shortage of defensemen much less problematic. (OK, that last one is tongue firmly in cheek.)

 

[Claypool]

I'll be all for more teams making the playoffs if you remove 12 games from the regular season. No back-to-back games, please.

 

[Run the Jewels]

So much this. Last thing we need is to have more teams make the playoffs, in a league where already over half the league qualifies.

Seriously. Reduce the number of playoff spots, end the loser point, and when crappy franchises that can't make any playoff revenue fold we can get down to a sustainable number of teams. Oh and repeal the ****ing salary cap, it's proven to be a total joke. Managers still can't control themselves and lock themselves into ****** contact after ****** contract. Here's a novel idea: if your GM sucks at managing your roster fire him and hire a replacement.

 

[Winger98]

Ideas for more offense (not necessarily advocating them; just that they should lead to more offense):

• Remove the Edmonton rule. You get X minutes of power play time, regardless of how many goals you score. Has the side benefit of making teams think twice about all the hooking and holding that’s no fun to watch.

• Do away with 5-on-5 altogether, and make the game 4-on-4, with 3 forwards, and 1 defenseman. That both provides more open ice for forwards, and makes Detroit’s shortage of defensemen much less problematic. (OK, that last one is tongue firmly in cheek.)

Agree entirely about removing the Edmonton rule. I don't see why a team should be penalized less because they give up a goal. If slashing a guy is a two minute penalty, he should be in the box for two minutes. Have to wonder if we'd see the refs back off on calls even more, though. Because they don't want to unduly influence the game, as if not making a call doesn't affect the outcome.

With 5v5 and room on the ice, I don't know why the league isn't mandating that new stadiums being built have the capability of easily expanding five feet wider if need be. I'm pretty certain the Wings new arena will be able, and it's been something Calgary has kicked around while they jockey for new digs. It's not like it would be enlarging to Olympic sized sheets of ice, but more of a hybrid to give just a little bit more room for guys who are now regularly 6'1'' and 200# rather than the 5'9'' 165# guys that used to make up hockey teams.

 

[Ezekial]

I wouldn't want to add or remove any teams. 16 qualifiers send pretty standard when inevitably there are 32 teams; except baseball and their crazy regular seasons and 30 teams.

Less playoff hockey is awful in my opinion - my most enjoyed time in all of sports as a neutral fan.

Adding byes would be terrible and wouldn't you need to add an insane number of teams to avoid that?

 

[PelagicJoe]

I'm all for more offense in the NHL. They can start by either shrinking the size of the goalie equipment or increasing the size of the goal, bring back the eXtra space behind the net, and get rid of that pointless trapezoid rule.

 

[PelagicJoe]

Seriously. Reduce the number of playoff spots, end the loser point, and when crappy franchises that can't make any playoff revenue fold we can get down to a sustainable number of teams. Oh and repeal the ****ing salary cap, it's proven to be a total joke. Managers still can't control themselves and lock themselves into ****** contact after ****** contract. Here's a novel idea: if your GM sucks at managing your roster fire him and hire a replacement.

All of this. The cap sucks big time and all it does is keep the floundering garbage teams like Arizona on life support. Hockey was better before the lockouts.

 

[Flowah]

have less teams make the playoffs.

fix some on-ice rules and the point system to encourage teams be more aggressive offensively.

Unless you redo the East v West thing, or give byes, you need either 16 or 8.

Would people be okay with 4 teams from each conference?

 

[Flowah]

Oh and repeal the ****ing salary cap, it's proven to be a total joke. Managers still can't control themselves and lock themselves into ****** contact after ****** contract. Here's a novel idea: if your GM sucks at managing your roster fire him and hire a replacement.

Doesn't a salary cap force better managing? Seems that way to me.

 

[jkutswings]

Doesn't a salary cap force better managing? Seems that way to me.

I wonder if it's revenue sharing that they're ultimately upset with.

 

[Winger98]

I wonder if it's revenue sharing that they're ultimately upset with.

I think it's the floor more than the cap. Teams that wouldn't spend in the past now do, taking a lot of guys off the market. If you have to blow $55 million on your roster, you may as well sign your best guys.

 

[Bench]

I think the word you're looking for, Winger98, is embiggen.

 

[Ezekial]

Unless you redo the East v West thing, or give byes, you need either 16 or 8.

Would people be okay with 4 teams from each conference?

I always find it odd that a fan wants less games or less teams in the playoffs. I get that the regular season is long, but really? You'd rather make the off-season another 2-3 months longer so you can watch less hockey? I doubt you really believe the league is so watered down you'd rather watch/follow nothing.

And no, I like the extra round.

 

[Flowah]

I always find it odd that a fan wants less games or less teams in the playoffs. I get that the regular season is long, but really? You'd rather make the off-season another 2-3 months longer so you can watch less hockey? I doubt you really believe the league is so watered down you'd rather watch/follow nothing.

Personally I can't stand watching any other sport so I'd be okay with hockey all year if the athletes were capable of it.

I think there's value in having the Stanley Cup be 4 rounds of best of 7 series. It's the toughest trophy in sports. Anywhere from 16-28 sets of the most grueling, physical, 60 minutes of pure play. It's awesome.

 

[Bench]

I always find it odd that a fan wants less games or less teams in the playoffs. I get that the regular season is long, but really? You'd rather make the off-season another 2-3 months longer so you can watch less hockey? I doubt you really believe the league is so watered down you'd rather watch/follow nothing.

And no, I like the extra round.

Less regular season games would be a welcome change. For one, the wear and tear on these guys playing such a physical contact sport is insane. Baseball and basketball can't even come close to the pounding, yet hockey is playing the same number of games as basketball players. That's crazy to me.

I also like the idea of regular season games having more impact. In an 82 game season, it's hard to get too excited or down about any one game. You can be in 1st place halfway through and drop out of the playoffs by the final game. Less games means there's more on the line each time you tune in or go to the arena. And presumably you'll end up with a higher quality product as the players are going to be more rested.

Sunday is such a religion in America because every single NFL game matters. High stakes, barely any room for error. A game here or there is the difference of a playoff season or back to rebuilding. That's kind of fun!

The sweetspot is probably somewhere around 50-60 games. Then do the full playoffs as usual.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Doesn't a salary cap force better managing? Seems that way to me.

You still have managers making awful decisions like Scott Gomez and Wade Redden getting insane contracts. Hell, even Ken Holland had one of those awful free agent signings in Stephen Weiss. So the idea a cap is going to prevent General Managers from making awful decisions seems like wishful thinking. There has also been a reliance on longer term with the cap in place. This has created lots of bad contracts that either end up being bought out or being put on LTIR or buried in the minors (Redden specifically). All bad outcomes due to trying to game the cap.

There should be a cap floor based on league revenues but a salary cap has only hurt successful teams. It hasn't done anything to make crap teams any better.

 

[Chance on Chance]

I'm all for more offense in the NHL. They can start by either shrinking the size of the goalie equipment or increasing the size of the goal, bring back the eXtra space behind the net, and get rid of that pointless trapezoid rule.

perfect. that way goalies cant whine saying they'll get hurt. I know itll never happen but with the size of players these days the ice needs to be a bit bigger. Also so much subtle interference nowadays

 

[Fear]

Did you watch the Euro this year? They increased the number of teams that qualified for the elimination rounds (compared to the world cup) and it lead to a very safe, boring, uncreative style of play, as everyone was just playing for ties.

 

[Ezekial]

Less regular season games would be a welcome change. For one, the wear and tear on these guys playing such a physical contact sport is insane. Baseball and basketball can't even come close to the pounding, yet hockey is playing the same number of games as basketball players. That's crazy to me.

I also like the idea of regular season games having more impact. In an 82 game season, it's hard to get too excited or down about any one game. You can be in 1st place halfway through and drop out of the playoffs by the final game. Less games means there's more on the line each time you tune in or go to the arena. And presumably you'll end up with a higher quality product as the players are going to be more rested.

Sunday is such a religion in America because every single NFL game matters. High stakes, barely any room for error. A game here or there is the difference of a playoff season or back to rebuilding. That's kind of fun!

The sweetspot is probably somewhere around 50-60 games. Then do the full playoffs as usual.

I get the thinking behind it, I would never support it though. To credit your point on March 1st (60-64 GP for each team) only 1 team made the playoffs that wasn't in it at that time - Philly. But, Pitt was actually the 8 seed at that time, in the last 20 games they went 16-4 and added +35 to their GD, hitting their stride then led them to the cup.

I don't want to watch less hockey. I hate the off season, all the ******** we talk every day kills me. I'm marking the days to the world cup. 50-60 games **** that.

 

[InjuredChoker]

You still have managers making awful decisions like Scott Gomez and Wade Redden getting insane contracts. Hell, even Ken Holland had one of those awful free agent signings in Stephen Weiss. So the idea a cap is going to prevent General Managers from making awful decisions seems like wishful thinking. There has also been a reliance on longer term with the cap in place. This has created lots of bad contracts that either end up being bought out or being put on LTIR or buried in the minors (Redden specifically). All bad outcomes due to trying to game the cap.

There should be a cap floor based on league revenues but a salary cap has only hurt successful teams. It hasn't done anything to make crap teams any better.

cap doesn't prevent general managers making awful decisions. not many things in life prevent one from being a moron.

cap just makes you pay from awful decisions. removing the cap doesn't for rich teams.