My argument for making 24 team playoffs permanent.

[HFBS]

I'd be fine with 24 teams making the playoffs as long as they reduce the league to 16 teams.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Nah

 

[n00bxQb]

I don’t even like the 24-team playoffs now under the extenuating circumstances (would’ve preferred 20).

16 teams under normal circumstances is ideal, IMO.

 

[Sinistril]

24 teams, make the final 12 spots a 1 game knockout tournament where the best 4 teams take the final 4 playoff spots where the 7th and 8th teams from each conference get a by- so they only have to win once and the 9th-12th teams from each conference have to win 2 in a row. Fine by me. Making the playoffs has become increasingly difficult as we get expansion after expansion. Why would you not expand the playoffs at the same time? Suddenly we're in a situation where being a fan f***ing sucks because not only are successful teams (in terms of $$) subsidizing the rest of the league, they also often miss the playoffs due to that subsidization. My only problem with it this year is its out of the blue.

From an NHL business standpoint, extra $$ for those extra games and teams might not siphon off fans towards the end of the season as they are slowly eliminated from playoff contention. Teams with injury problems during the season will get a chance to show they are elite and Canadian teams like the laffs or the Canucks that have large incentives to spend enough to stay competitive and not tank detroit style will be able to continue their bubble rebuild strategy.

I mean, really, if paying fans are subsidizing teams with no fans, we should at least get to see our teams have a chance in the playoffs.

 

[Ukapitalo]

No, cuz lame, but also because half of everyone's team get injured in playoffs no matter which round they're in. That would mean somewhere up to 20% of paid players would start the next season with either an upper or lower body injury lol.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I like the idea of a 20 team playoffs.

Not sure why players and owners aren't all on board to make more money.

 

[BoltSTH]

IMO back to 16 teams is the best (I like quality over quantity), but the format should be 1-8, 2-7, 3-6,4-5 for each coverence. Best two teams should have a chance to play in the conference finals , not the second round, as happens a lot with current format.

 

[Eisen]

I'd rather have 8 teams than 24. Strengthens the regular season and to me play off hockey is often not that attractive anyway.

 

[JianYang]

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.

I think the bye concern is specific to this season. Teams have been off for months, and the play in team will come in having played meaningful games.

As for the 24 team playoff, it won't turn me off as a fan. It will take us back to the early 90s with the same ratio of playoff teams, which I grew up with.

Having said that, I most prefer sticking with what we had pre covid. I don't have a compelling reason to change the 16 team qualification as a fan, but surely, the owners do, and quite frankly, I'm surprised that this hasn't been a bigger topic on their part as the league continually expanded over the last 30 years while keeping the playoff number the same.

 

[Jeremy Hronek]

I'm okay with how they do it now, although I wish they would do 1 vs 8 or even combined conferences and do 1 vs 16.

 

[Leafs87]

I don’t wanna hear your argument.

why have a regular season in this case? To knock out 7/8 teams?

 

[coolboarder]

I would make an argument for a 6 team in a division only if they reduce from 82 games to about 70 games and no wildcard crossovers and first round would be best of 5 and loser bracket plays a loser bracket just to get back in the bracket with robin round format of 2 games in 3 nights at a top seeded host, no travelling involved, no double robin round, just two games featuring 3 losers in the first round and the winner of robin round would advance to 2nd round. If there is a 1-1 tie for all three games, then what I would introduce an Armageddon similar to chess but the format would be similar to OT for 4th day. So they start faceoff just as normal for first period but this time, a difference is that first goal ends a game then next team that didn't play first game plays the winner or the loser.

Scenario of Armageddon match might look like this, the winner scored 5 minutes in the first period, game's over and allow 5 minutes of break for the bye team playing in the 2nd game. That game, whoever scored the first goal, if the winner of first game also scored the first goal, then Armageddon match is over, the team A is the winner regardless of 3rd game is played. Teams plays the 20 minutes period, if the score is scoreless, then intermission then another 20 minutes is played until a goal is scored, then game is over. It's like mini-games in one day.

Loser bracket might look this:
Day 1 Team A vs Team B (5-4) OT
Day 2 Team B vs Team C (4-2)
Day 3 Team C vs Team A (1-0)
Day 4 Off All Team A, B, and C with 1-1 record.
Day 5 Armageddon Match All 3 teams playing on same day with mini-games with first goal ends the mini-games. 2 goals difference wins the Armageddon match and advances to 2nd round of playoffs. 2 quick goals in 2 mini-games can end the Armageddon match.

Or
Day 1 Team A vs Team B (7-2)
Day 2 Team A vs Team C (1-0) 2OT

Team A with 2-0 record advances to 2nd round of playoffs while Team B and C are eliminated from the playoffs with 0-1 record. Top seeded hosting the loser bracket round. Then the bracket would be normal and it's single elimination at this point on with best of 7. It also makes sense to have a best of 5 for first round and saving 2 games for loser bracket round where anything can happen.

No byes, and it prevents upset by 6th seed vs 1st seed and allow for top seed to get back into the bracket. But at this point, they lose its home ice advantage. It also allows for winner of 1st round some rest without losing their momentum from the regular season and playoffs. If they choose to go with 24 teams playoffs at this point, I do not want that at all. I still prefer 16 teams playoffs.

 

[BrokenFace]

Regular season games already lack importance. No reason to make regular season games even less important just so several more mediocre GMs and coaches can keep their jobs. Half the teams already make the playoffs; we don't need more.

 

[Dicky113]

You would have them play 3000 games to eliminate 7 teams? What’s the point ? Why not just have all teams in playoffs every year and skip the regular season all together ?

 

[wetcoast]

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...

This sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

The lottery is here to stay sadly just like 3 on 3 OT becasue it attracts interest not that it's actually good for the NHL really.

 

[ItWasJustified]

I like the idea of a 20 team playoffs.

Not sure why players and owners aren't all on board to make more money.

If that's the argument, there's no reason why not all the teams make the playoffs. And let's have every playoff series a best of 14. Teams could earn twice as much money in every series as they do now!

 

[hoglund]

teams with losing records shouldn't be making the playoffs.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

I dont support a 24 team playoffs(I think 16 is perfect), but if that's the direction the league wants to head in, I could see some sort of shortened regular season(76 games instead of 82) with a similar format to what's being used now working decently well.