Gary Bettman on Playoff Expansion Rumours, Growing The Game and His HOF Induction | 31 Thoughts

[Fenway]

Sportsnet video podcast. Jeff and Elliotte sit down with NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman to discuss his Hall of Fame induction, the NHL's growth and future, and family.

Click to read more...

 

[cbcwpg]

“A number of governors are still interested in seeing an expanded playoff format,” said Johnston. “And as we’ve talked about in previous weeks, it’s not something that commissioner Gary Bettman is in favour of, but these owners don’t seem to want to go away on this idea.”

“(There’s) some talk there about a 7-10, 8-9 (play-in game/series),” said Johnston, before adding, “we even had one governor saying he’d like to see 24 teams in the playoffs, which is pie-in-the-sky, of course.”

 

[MNNumbers]

Why are we re-awakening news that's a month old, cbcwpg?

Is it because of something that was said at the BOG meeting?

 

[cbcwpg]

Why are we re-awakening news that's a month old, cbcwpg?

Is it because of something that was said at the BOG meeting?

The quote I posted was from HNIC this past weekend. From discussions at the BOG meetings.



Gary might think it's dead, but there are owners that want it discussed.

 

[MNNumbers]

The quote I posted was from HNIC this past weekend. From discussions at the BOG meetings.



Gary might think it's dead, but there are owners that want it discussed.

Thanks. Got it.

 

[SwaggySpungo]

I am 200% in favor of this.

Instead of 7-10 and 8-9 in each conference, I'd prefer 4-5 in each division play the Wildcard game for the 4th seed. The standings would finally make sense again. And it creates so much more intrigue for the regular season.

- Finishing 1st in your division becomes much more important, as you face the wildcard winner, who just played an extra game.
- Finishing top 3 in your division become much more important, to avoid wildcard and guarantee clinching playoffs.
- Battle for the 4th and 5th spots make the season more meaningful for more teams.

Trust me. In a 32 team league, fans in certain cities are going to have very long droughts without playoffs. There are going to be LOTS of Carolina Hurricanes and Buffalo Sabres in this league.

 

[USAUSA1]

I respect Gary but hate his nonchalant attitude. It's ok to show emotions.

 

[Cor]

It's kinda odd that Bettman is so against expanding the playoff format.

He calls 24 of 32 teams making the playoffs "pie-in-the-sky" but the NHL adapted the 16 team playoff format back when they had 21 teams.

 

[Albatros]

I think Bettman's spot on, the balance is good as it is so why try drastic changes that have the potential to ruin a season or even several seasons altogether.

 

[the4thlinegrinder]

I am in favour of a play-in game/series (best of 3) as it would make the playoff race more interesting and important. Instead of one race for the last playoff spot, there’d be 3 races; for the play-in spot, for the 8th place spot (home ice in the play-in), and for the 7th spot. More fanbases would be invested in the regular season for a longer amount of time.

And really, the NHL will have added 11 teams since the 80’s and 0 playoff spots? Adding 2 or 4 teams for a play-in round (which would kick off the playoffs with a couple game 7’s) and then keeping the rest of the playoffs as they are would be in line with the expansion of teams.

 

[USAUSA1]

Play in games should be ONE game only. It wouldn't go over as a best of series.

 

[MNNumbers]

Play in games would have to be a one game only.

But the problem with this in hockey is that 'one game' doesn't really make sense. Hockey is a game which tends to upsets and streaks more than any other, because it is low scoring, and a hot goalie makes a huge difference.

In fact, while there is no way to prove this, it would be my contention that any of the SC playoffs in the last 10 years could be re-run in their entirety, and no SCF matchup would repeat, and no champion would win the 2nd time around.

 

[USAUSA1]

Play in games would have to be a one game only.

But the problem with this in hockey is that 'one game' doesn't really make sense. Hockey is a game which tends to upsets and streaks more than any other, because it is low scoring, and a hot goalie makes a huge difference.

In fact, while there is no way to prove this, it would be my contention that any of the SC playoffs in the last 10 years could be re-run in their entirety, and no SCF matchup would repeat, and no champion would win the 2nd time around.

That what makes play in games great. The intensity, urgency, low scoring creates drama. Fans would eat it up.

 

[SwaggySpungo]

It's kinda odd that Bettman is so against expanding the playoff format.

He calls 24 of 32 teams making the playoffs "pie-in-the-sky" but the NHL adapted the 16 team playoff format back when they had 21 teams.

24 actually is too much, in my opinion. 20 would be perfect.

Top 6 in each conference (or top 3 in each division) guaranteed playoffs. Then 7-10 & 8-9 (or 3-4 in each division) play the one-game wildcard.

I don't see a single downside to that plan.

 

[SwaggySpungo]

I think Bettman's spot on, the balance is good as it is so why try drastic changes that have the potential to ruin a season or even several seasons altogether.

As recently as 1997:

16/26 = 61.5% of teams make the post-season.

20/32 = 62.5% of teams make the post-season.

That doesn't look too "drastic" to me. If anything, adding all of these teams without expanding playoffs is drastic.

 

[Cor]

24 actually is too much, in my opinion. 20 would be perfect.

Top 6 in each conference (or top 3 in each division) guaranteed playoffs. Then 7-10 & 8-9 (or 3-4 in each division) play the one-game wildcard.

I don't see a single downside to that plan.

Oh I agree. I wouldn’t do 24, but it’s not that crazy

 

[Albatros]

As recently as 1997:

16/26 = 61.5% of teams make the post-season.

20/30 = 62.5% of teams make the post-season.

That doesn't look too "drastic" to me. If anything, adding all of these teams without expanding playoffs is drastic.

24/32 is 75 %

I think we have now a better balance than before, but even if you favor the situation in 1997 this proposed change would not be comparable to it. 20 is not a good number already because it messes up the playoff tree.

 

[SwaggySpungo]

24/32 is 75 %

I think we have now a better balance than before, but even if you favor the situation in 1997 this proposed change would not be comparable to it. 20 is not a good number already because it messes up the playoff tree.

Nobody is talking about 24 teams (which also messes up the playoff tree).

The proposal is to add 2 more wildcard teams to each conference, making a total of 20/32 = 62.5% (same as it was in 1997).

- Top 3 teams in each division make the playoffs.
- 4 plays 5 in a one-game wildcard for the 4th seed before the actual "playoffs" start (like baseball).
- You are then left with the traditional 16-team tree.

 

[Boeser Fan]

Lets hope it NEVER goes higher than 16 teams in the playoffs!

 

[Brick City]

Lets hope it NEVER goes higher than 16 teams in the playoffs!

Yeah, have to agree here and surprised we seem to be the minority report in this thread. One of the biggest knocks against hockey's legitimacy in the US (besides ties, and yes I know the NFL has them, but (a) they're rare and (b) the NFL is a tad more popular than the NHL) was "doesn't everyone get into the playoffs?"

16 out of 21 teams making the playoffs was absolutely embarrassing. It took adding 11 teams to get the NHL close to the ratios of the rest of US sports leagues (NBA: 16 out of 30; NFL: 12 out of 32; MLB: 10 out of 30). The NHL is still on the high end, and even in a vacuum, absolutely should not cross 50% imo.

 

[canuckster19]

Yeah, have to agree here and surprised we seem to be the minority report in this thread. One of the biggest knocks against hockey's legitimacy in the US (besides ties, and yes I know the NFL has them, but (a) they're rare and (b) the NFL is a tad more popular than the NHL) was "doesn't everyone get into the playoffs?"

16 out of 21 teams making the playoffs was absolutely embarrassing. It took adding 11 teams to get the NHL close to the ratios of the rest of US sports leagues (NBA: 16 out of 30; NFL: 12 out of 32; MLB: 10 out of 30). The NHL is still on the high end, and even in a vacuum, absolutely should not cross 50% imo.

I think you can tone down the hyperbole somewhat, the NBA only had 23 teams in the mid-late 80s and had a 16 team playoff as well.

I’m all for a 24 team playoff expansion and here’s why. Divide the league into 8 divisions of 4. 2nd plays 3rd seed in best of 3, winner plays division winner in best of 5.

Because making the playoffs is solely divisional, the team with the greatest differential to making the playoffs gets the first pick, not necessarily the team with the fewest points. Eliminates tanking and makes more games later in the season meaningful.

 

[cutchemist42]

Hate the idea. If playoffs expanded, I wouldn't even bother with the league until playoffs started. Would make the season useless to me.

 

[SwaggySpungo]

Hate the idea. If playoffs expanded, I wouldn't even bother with the league until playoffs started. Would make the season useless to me.

Regular season games would be more important, not less.

The new system would reward excellence (teams with good regular season records) more than the current system does, as only the top 6 in each conference would be guaranteed a playoff spot.

 

[NCRanger]

It would certainly cut down on "tanking" and would allow teams that are stuck in hockey purgatory a chance at playing in the post-season without totally destroying the franchise just to have a shot at a draft pick.

 

[Noldo]

I suspect that for play-in to gather support it would have to be best of three, perhaps even with all games in higher seed’s building, because that way no team would lose guaranteed playoff revenue compared to the current system. With one game play-in the teams would potentially trade two playoff home games (with possibility for third even if the team does not advance) to one.