Is there a way we can make the regular season more meaningful?

[Chardo]

Go back to 1-16 seeding like the old days.

 

[SecretOilersFan]

Outside of the Warriors, the NBA has been pretty competitive for years now.

Not to the same degree as the NHL or even other playoffs like the MLB or NFL. It's just how the game is. You never will get the same parity like the NHL. Granted I will give you this year is actually pretty competitive. Hopefully a new trend. Better than that awful period of GW and Cavs for eternity.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The primary goal would be to have fewer back to backs, healthier rested players, slightly less of a grind of a season for better quality hockey. That's not in my head.

I don't think there's any actual statistics to support that back-to-backs or lack of rest days increase injuries, and the "quality" of hockey is highly subjective and anecdotally it was not substantially higher during the shortened seasons we've seen. So yes, a lot of it is likely a case of your own mindset lending the way to confirmation bias. Injuries and boring games are gonna happen even you made it a 10-game season with a single-elimination playoff tournament.

 

[Machinehead]

Not to the same degree as the NHL or even other playoffs like the MLB or NFL. It's just how the game is. You never will get the same parity like the NHL. Granted I will give you this year is actually pretty competitive. Hopefully a new trend. Better than that awful period of GW and Cavs for eternity.

This is the first year since 2019 it's not gonna be Tampa Bay out of the East. Hockey fans seriously overrate the NHL's parity.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Personally, I like the NFL’s playoff format.

Top 7 in each conference make playoffs. Top seed in each conference gets a bye in the 1st or wild card round.

Succeeding rounds are re-seeded with top seeds getting lowest remaining seeds.

Favors top reg season teams way more than NHL

 

[Lshap]

There's no way to overlay urgency or meaning onto six months and 82 games. That's a long way to go for a payoff, no matter how good.

 

[Sharkbomb]

Personally, I like the NFL’s playoff format.

Top 7 in each conference make playoffs. Top seed in each conference gets a bye in the 1st or wild card round.

Succeeding rounds are re-seeded with top seeds getting lowest remaining seeds.

Favors top reg season teams way more than NHL

The problem with byes in hockey is if you keep series length at 7 the team with the bye would be sitting for at least a week, which seems dangerous in terms of losing rhythm and synch. The first round without bye teams would need to be shortened to maybe best of 3.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

The problem with byes in hockey is if you keep series length at 7 the team with the bye would be sitting for at least a week, which seems dangerous in terms of losing rhythm and synch. The first round without bye teams would need to be shortened to maybe best of 3.

Yeah that's definitely an issue, and im not even saying NHL should copy it, mainly for that reason.

 

[cowboy82nd]

I don’t have a dog in this fight tonight (Boston vs Florida). In fact, my team (CBJ) is one of the biggest beneficiaries of a huge playoff upset and the “variance” of playoff hockey.

But I’m starting to get to a point where I’m wondering what’s even the point of watching hockey October through March? Seems like it’s only meaningful if you’re a bubble team (which is maybe 1/3 of the league). If you’re above that, it doesn’t matter at all. (And if you’re below, it of course doesn’t matter, either, but I have less issue with that than it being meaningless for teams at the top.)

Home-ice is meaningless. Seeding is not particularly meaningful. Is there anything that can be done to at least make it feel/be somewhat more meaningful?

What's the point of watching anything, Enjoyment!

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I don't think there's any actual statistics to support that back-to-backs or lack of rest days increase injuries, and the "quality" of hockey is highly subjective and anecdotally it was not substantially higher during the shortened seasons we've seen. So yes, a lot of it is likely a case of your own mindset lending the way to confirmation bias. Injuries and boring games are gonna happen even you made it a 10-game season with a single-elimination playoff tournament.

The shortened seasons are a bad example because they're trying to cram a lot of games into a tight window to make up for a work stoppage. That's not the same as playing 70ish games over the current schedule.

There haven't been statistics because the NHL hasn't played 70 games since the 1960s, let alone deciding to study it so obviously it's anecdotal. But that doesn't mean it's worthless. There's a reason coaches call back to backs "Schedule lossses." Listen to what players have to say about them. And playing fewer games potentially leading to fewer injuries isn't exactly a hot take. Aside from time for more recovery and less of a grind, there's the simple reason that they will be playing fewer minutes. So there is less opportunity to get injured.

It's funny you say it's my mindset then you finish your post with your own unsupported claims. You simply disagree, which is fine, but no need to pretend for me it's confirmation bias and for you it's fact.

 

[LaCarriere]

The regular season already has meaning. The "overall" "better" teams in the regular season generally play the "weaker" teams in the first round, and it goes from there. Some teams just match up well/poorly against others (based on playstyle/systems), and that's always going to result in playoff variance when teams are seeded based on the rankings of a 82 game season, no matter what method you use to rank them.

The only way I can see it being more "meaningful", is if you go back to true 1-8 seeding, but let the #1 team in each conference pick who they play, then the next highest ranking team picks down the board, etc. Maybe Boston would have preffered to play somebody other than Florida... then give them that choice and if they lose it's on them. Or you could completely remove conferences and do the same thing based on 1-16 rankings.

But for that to be completely fair... you'd need completely balanced schedules so that you can't say the team who finished first (and was allowed to pick their opponent) played a bunch of weaker teams/divisions/conferences, but that will never logistically happen. To even be more "equal", you'd need equal rest/travel days, no teams playing back to back, etc. There will never be a perfectly balanced system/schedule.

At the end of the day the season is 82 games because it gives you a decent sense of where a team stands against the other 31 teams, but it's never going to be an absolute indication that one team is guaranteed to beat another.

 

[ichbinkanadier]

I don’t have a dog in this fight tonight (Boston vs Florida). In fact, my team (CBJ) is one of the biggest beneficiaries of a huge playoff upset and the “variance” of playoff hockey.

But I’m starting to get to a point where I’m wondering what’s even the point of watching hockey October through March? Seems like it’s only meaningful if you’re a bubble team (which is maybe 1/3 of the league). If you’re above that, it doesn’t matter at all. (And if you’re below, it of course doesn’t matter, either, but I have less issue with that than it being meaningless for teams at the top.)

Home-ice is meaningless. Seeding is not particularly meaningful. Is there anything that can be done to at least make it feel/be somewhat more meaningful?

Yes. Make it an actual championship in its own.

As an example-

Every team plays every other team twice- home and away.

First place takes home the X Cup.

Instead of using the regular season (and stop calling it the regular season, call it The Series Championship instead) as a round Robin to eliminate teams from playoff contention, all teams enter into a qualifying tournament.

4 groups of 8 for 14 games, 8 groups of 4 for 6 games....however.

How to group them? If you go with 4 groups- top 4 lead a group, bottom 4 are assigned a group and the rest are randomly assigned.

Or just randomly assign all teams. Some may object based on fairness, but if you want the regular season to mean something in and of itself, don't make grouping dependent on it.

Top two teams in each group qualify for the Stanley Cup Elimination Championship.

Seeding is determined by qualifying round records and winning percentage after each successive round (again, if you use the regular season the implication is it's only relevant for the playoffs).

If a team wins the X Cup and the Stanley Cup? They become The NHL Champions- the undisputed championship team, which would become a big hallmark for a team since in the NHL it is not common for the 1st overall team to also win the Stanley Cup.

So a team wins the Stanley Cup but finished 5th overall?

"Great, ya won one championship but couldn't win the X Cup!" Boom, the "regular" season ain't so regular anymore.

RE: number of games played.

Regular seasib would be 62, qualifying round could be 14 for 76 games total. Teams would lose 6 games, but you've effectively turned 14 "regular" season games into playoff-like games, meaning higher tickets prices, higher t.v. money, etc.

 

[EverTheCynic]

Less games.

82 games is completely absurd for a game as taxing on the body as hockey. There isn't a single justification for the length of the season beyond money.

I'd be willing to bet the NHLPA would be willing to collectively reduce their salaries if it meant a more manageable season. 50 games tops.

Would make the regular season more meaningful. Would see far less injuries. Older players able to play for longer. League would be faster and a lot more intense.

Regular season games are a joke. It's basically glorified pond hockey at this point.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Yes. Make it an actual championship in its own.

As an example-

Every team plays every other team twice- home and away.

First place takes home the X Cup.

Instead of using the regular season (and stop calling it the regular season, call it The Series Championship instead) as a round Robin to eliminate teams from playoff contention, all teams enter into a qualifying tournament.

4 groups of 8 for 14 games, 8 groups of 4 for 6 games....however.

How to group them? If you go with 4 groups- top 4 lead a group, bottom 4 are assigned a group and the rest are randomly assigned.

Or just randomly assign all teams. Some may object based on fairness, but if you want the regular season to mean something in and of itself, don't make grouping dependent on it.

Top two teams in each group qualify for the Stanley Cup Elimination Championship.

Seeding is determined by qualifying round records and winning percentage after each successive round (again, if you use the regular season the implication is it's only relevant for the playoffs).

If a team wins the X Cup and the Stanley Cup? They become The NHL Champions- the undisputed championship team, which would become a big hallmark for a team since in the NHL it is not common for the 1st overall team to also win the Stanley Cup.

So a team wins the Stanley Cup but finished 5th overall?

"Great, ya won one championship but couldn't win the X Cup!" Boom, the "regular" season ain't so regular anymore.

RE: number of games played.

Regular seasib would be 62, qualifying round could be 14 for 76 games total. Teams would lose 6 games, but you've effectively turned 14 "regular" season games into playoff-like games, meaning higher tickets prices, higher t.v. money, etc.

LOL, stop trying to make it like soccer. It’s fine the way it is. We don’t need to put more importance into winning the “regular season”. it’s fine the way it is now.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

In this case, wouldn’t Boston/Florida been a 1v8 matchup anyway?

yeah but only because the best team in each conference plays the 2nd wild card

 

[ichbinkanadier]

LOL, stop trying to make it like soccer. It’s fine the way it is. We don’t need to put more importance into winning the “regular season”. it’s fine the way it is now.

Is it?

See the problems the NBA is having because the regular season is seen as not important? Who's to say this fate doesn't befall the NHL? Or MLB?

And by the way, no soccer league is set up like that. If they do have a tournament cup- such as the FA Cup- it is paralleled with the season and includes teams from all professional levels, not just the top tier.

 

[Pavels Dog]

And playing fewer games potentially leading to fewer injuries isn't exactly a hot take.

I think it's definitely a hot take. Injuries can happen at literally any time, doesn't matter if it's a pre-season game, game 78 of regular season, the All-star game, practice, in the gym or a heated Game 7 of the playoffs.
10 less games may be 10 less opportunities for injury, but a shorter schedule also puts more pressure on players to play through injuries and potentially aggrevating them. You want the games to be more meaningful right? That's what players do when games mean a lot. You might have less "day-to-day" injuries and more "week-to-week" or "month-to-month".

 

[Reindl87]

The better seed gets homecourt advantage in every game of the series.
The regular season would improve by a 100%.