My argument for making 24 team playoffs permanent.

[canuckster19]

Alright, I know the counter arguments, too many teams, makes the regular season meaningless, bye teams are at a disadvantage, etc etc, are these really true though?

My argument, no these aren't true, are quite incorrect, and there is proof.

I'll start with the easiest one, bye teams are at a disadvantage. Historically this is untrue, when the NHL had bye teams in the late 70s, there was only one upset of a "play in" team beating a bye team. Toronto as the #6 overall seed played the first round and beat the New York Islanders who had a bye. So 5 years, 20 playoff series, only one by team was ever upset. Note however that of those 20 playoff series of bye rounds, some of those series consisted of two teams that played in the first round, and some series of two bye teams, byes were awarded for winning the division. The NHL re-seeded the league based on the regular season standings after the first round, so there was never any bracket.

Having 24 teams makes the regular season meaningless? Well, I'd say with the kinds of playoffs we've been having lately, it's already meaningless. Here's my argument, if the bye teams are worried about getting knocked out by teams who are playing hot, then what was the point of the regular season? What motivation are there for teams to play full out 82 games if it doesn't mean anything in the end? It screws the fans over hard, and it's noticeable in the quality of play in games late in the year between teams who have nothing to play for, whether that be because they are long out of the playoffs or securely in. Having 24 teams along with byes certainly makes it more likely that there will be a lot more to play for around game 70-75 than there is today. If the argument as well is that Chicago or Montreal are fully capable of upsetting Pittsburgh or Edmonton, then really, it does say a lot that the regular season has become meaningless.

It also makes the lottery less of a farce, the bottom 8 of the league will likely all be worthy of a good pick and knowing they likely had something to play for a lot longer, there's less chance for tanking.

In my opinion, a 24 team playoff will always give teams something to play for late in the season. It'll be good for the fans, it will reward teams correctly for playing hard during the season.

Click to read more...

 

[JT Kreider]

god no

 

[Paperbagofglory]

10 teams, 2 wild card matchups. Top 2 in each division make it, the two wildcards can cross over if they have a higher points total than a wildcard team in the other conference, would make some interesting matchups.

Make the playoffs actually difficult to quality for, make it mean something.

The less teams the better.

 

[nofehr]

I'd be more open to an expanded playoffs if it meant a shortened regular season. Adding another round of playoffs would mean the cup would probably be awarded in late June.

 

[CraigsList]

No... Keep it 8 teams from each conference. With an additional team coming in it only makes sense that half the conference qualifies and the other half does not.

I was for the wildcard format when it was first made, but as the years have gone on by I feel like the 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, and 4v5 format was much better.

 

[MessierII]

No leave it at 16 teams. It’s fine.

 

[Riddum]

There should be playoffs for draft picks. Like the bottom 4 sh**ty teams having a tourney for the last 4 picks. The next 4 etc...

 

[Name Nameless]

Yeah, I was thinking the same for not that long ago.

Until I realized with 24 teams it just gets to easy to make the playoffs. Granted, one extra round, but it's just to easy. The regular season will be meaningless. Yeah, you said it.

 

[theVladiator]

First, why could not you have waited at least until you got a chance to see it? Why make the argument now?

Second, I do not think you have made a good argument at all that current 16 teams payoffs leads to a meaningless regular season. You haven't really connected the dots there. Yes, hot teams can produce upsets, so? That aspect stays the same between 24 team and 16 team playoffs, so it's a wash, not a pro or a con. I think the concern would be that with more teams getting in, it would intuitively mean less competition for those spots.

Finally, it won't happen anyway because it means 2 more weeks in an already very long season.

 

[Micklebot]

The biggest downside i see to keeping 24 team playoffs is that the trade deadline won't see as many deals and will overwhelmingly be a sellers market.

I also think the format needs serious tweaking, a team like this years pens should be getting a bye. Basically the expasion should essentially be a tounament to award the wild card spots,

 

[VoidCreature]

What is happening this year is not a 24 team playoff. It is a 16-team tournament to determine entry into the normal, 16-team playoffs.

 

[jetsforever]

The main argument against 24-team playoffs IMO is devaluing the regular season, which I believe still stands strong. All you have to do is make sure you're in the top-24 teams and then the other details of the RS don't matter, for 82 whole games. It's already not extremely important (as pointed out in OP) and this just makes it worse.

 

[jetsforever]

What is happening this year is not a 24 team playoff. It is a 16-team tournament to determine entry into the normal, 16-team playoffs.

I agree that 24 teams is weird/bad but what you're describing is basically a 24 team playoff by definition. You can't have that number of teams on a straight bracket with no byes etc. The last 4 rounds involve 16 teams.

 

[Just Linda]

Last year Tampa played Columbus in round 1.

If it was a 24 team format, Columbus would have played Montreal and Tampa could have potentially have faced New York if New York won its play-in series against Toronto.

The optics of having a 62 win team playing a 31 win team in the modern NHL is just too bad for me.

The west wouldn't be as bad though.

Either way, I'm not of a fan of the idea. 24 team only works this year because the world is on fire and please give me hockey. If it wasn't for that, I would be pretty hard no against bar this idea.

 

[VoidCreature]

I agree that 24 teams is weird/bad but what you're describing is basically a 24 team playoff by definition. You can't have that number of teams on a straight bracket with no byes etc. The last 4 rounds involve 16 teams.

The league disagrees. Conditional picks don't count this play-in as making the playoffs.

It's not the regular season, but it's not a playoff round. It's something else. Unique.

 

[Mr Positive]

24 is too much, but I could see a 20 team, 10 per conference. That means 1 bye for each division champ.

You make a good point that byes are actually a good reward for teams that excel. It's just that it is a special year where it means they would be rusty. Normally they'd just have a good rest.

edit: on 2nd thought my counting is off I think.

 

[gtrower]

16 teams is already too many. Sub .500 teams shouldn’t have the chance to get hot and win a championship in a sport that is usually decided by a few bounces. Absurd for over 50% of teams in a league to make the postseason.

24 teams?! You’d have the higher seeds start resting players in February.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

They could always push the byes off on the bottom playoff teams...if the thought is that byes would turn top teams cold and rusty.

 

[jetsforever]

The league disagrees. Conditional picks don't count this play-in as making the playoffs.

It's not the regular season, but it's not a playoff round. It's something else. Unique.

Well they might call it something different this year but it is a literal play-off with series and everything, involving 24 teams. How else would a 24-team playoff work?
Also the conditional pick thing was because at the time the conditions were set, there were expected to be only 16 playoff teams so that's the fairest way to count them.
Also, the current rumours are that these stats will be "playoff" stats.

 

[ForumNamePending]

We are a season away from achieving symmetry (32 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1) and the OP just wants to through that away!?

Seriously though, I'm totally good with the usual 16 team field, but I guess I could be talked into teams 7-10 in each conference playing some type of play-in, but 24 teams, and teams 5-12 having to "play-in", seems a bit much... imho.

 

[LeHab]

From most recent CBA:

16.2 Playoff Games. The NHLPA has consented to granting the League, either in the 2005-06
NHL Season, or, alternatively, in the 2006-07 NHL Season, the option to institute in any League
Year a "Playoff Qualification Round" preliminary to the Playoffs, which will consist of one (1)
round involving four (4) Clubs in each Conference, with each series in the round having a
maximum of three (3) games, with the winner of each series advancing to the Playoffs. If the
League institutes a Playoff Qualification Round in either 2005-06 or 2006-07, the parties agree
to thereafter jointly evaluate and discuss such experience. If the League desires to implement a
Playoff Qualification Round with respect to future NHL Season(s), it may only do so with the
consent of the NHLPA, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Playoffs will consist of
four (4) rounds, with each series in each round having a maximum of seven (7) games.

Pre-covid the league has at least somehow seriously enough considered this as an option (4 teams instead of 8 per conference) to include in CBA.

 

[WatchfulElm]

I agree 16 is not enough in a 32 teams league. It does make the regular season meaningless for a bunch of teams that are too low in the standings by christmas time already. The current format allows teams to tank too much.

20 teams would be ideal. It creates more competition lower in the standings. It also creates competition to be in the top 6 of each association to avoid the play-ins. More competition all across the standings. It makes the regular season more relevant, creates more races to follow, involves more teams and reduce tanking. I see very few reasons not to do it.

 

[Mickey Marner]

This isn't a 24-team playoff. It's a 16 team playoff with 8 spots guaranteed and 16 teams competing for the final 8 spots in lieu of the regular season. An 82 game season being too long to sustain interest is a separate issue. ~10% of the points being dolled out from extra-curricular activities causing artificial clutter is a greater problem.

 

[cowboy82nd]

I agree 16 is not enough in a 32 teams league. It does make the regular season meaningless for a bunch of teams that are too low in the standings by christmas time already. The current format allows teams to tank too much.

20 teams would be ideal. It creates more competition lower in the standings. It also creates competition to be in the top 6 of each association to avoid the play-ins. More competition all across the standings. It makes the regular season more relevant, creates more races to follow, involves more teams and reduce tanking. I see very few reasons not to do it.

How can you even say that after last season Stanley Cup champion? I think the Blues were in last place on January 3rd or something like that.

 

[GrkFlyersFan]

And yet 24 teams will record playoff stats(per Bill Daly). The only thing not playoffs about the play-ins are for the purposes of conditional picks, which is fine and probably fair.

Anyway OP, you make a lot of good points, but in a normal season, keep it 16. When Seattle joins, exactly half the teams will make the playoffs. There will still be tanking, just less of it. It's a joke for instance that Montreal and Chicago are in.