NHL, NHLPA likely to extend playoff format another season UPD: extended
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
Mightygoose
Registered User
I can see the format staying the same until Seattle joins.
After that, there will no longer a need for wildcards. I can see a straight top 4 per division, perhaps make it 5 down the road with 5@4 one game play-ins.
After that, there will no longer a need for wildcards. I can see a straight top 4 per division, perhaps make it 5 down the road with 5@4 one game play-ins.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Another option is to "return" to the "top 8 in conference" and play 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 in opening round.
cutchemist42
Registered User
Go back to the proposal the NHL wanted 6 years ago. 4 divisions that get redeemed during final 4. Allows for more unique Stanley Cup matches.
The NHLPA complaint that it was unfair with 30 teams will no longer apply
The NHLPA complaint that it was unfair with 30 teams will no longer apply
Burke the Legend
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 8,317
- 2,850
I don't get why people have such a thing for this like it's more scientific or something. Point totals are distorted by an unbalanced schedule where certain teams are played more than others. This is still not an "accurate" seeding because of that.
The NHL desperately needs to cultivate more excitement in their product now that they have killed most of the old physical antagonism, and one way is more division games and a heavier emphasis on a division bracket to magnify rivalries. These games are much more exciting than inter-conference ones. Yes you will have years where the 4th seed in one division will clearly be weaker than the 5th place team in a different division, but that's really a small price to pay. Very simple, you gotta finish 4th against your divisional peers to get into the Cup bracket.
About playoffs:
The current hybrid seems like a strange critter to me, mostly because of the possibility of a double crossover.
After that, the matter comes down to the same thing we have been saying for years: The West and the East actually need 2 different things. What they need is this (all comments apply after Seattle joins the league, and assuming that home/away with everyone stays in place):
West:
Sched: Home/Away with East, and with opposite Western division. That's 48 games. All other games within Division.
Playoffs: 2 rounds in division. Then Western finals.
East:
Sched: Home/Away with West. That's 32 games, leaving 50. Then: either:
a) 4 games in division for 28, and 22 against the other division (that means 3 games v 6 teams and 2 games v 2 teams)
b) 3 games against the entire east, for 45. Then, 5 more games in division.
Playoffs: Seed 1 - 8, and play 3 rounds.
Since you can't have both, because a league with a schedule split looks minor league, then the needs of the West probably win, because the travel for Western teams to play the East's arrangements won't fly with the PA, and probably is not equitable for playoffs.
The current hybrid seems like a strange critter to me, mostly because of the possibility of a double crossover.
After that, the matter comes down to the same thing we have been saying for years: The West and the East actually need 2 different things. What they need is this (all comments apply after Seattle joins the league, and assuming that home/away with everyone stays in place):
West:
Sched: Home/Away with East, and with opposite Western division. That's 48 games. All other games within Division.
Playoffs: 2 rounds in division. Then Western finals.
East:
Sched: Home/Away with West. That's 32 games, leaving 50. Then: either:
a) 4 games in division for 28, and 22 against the other division (that means 3 games v 6 teams and 2 games v 2 teams)
b) 3 games against the entire east, for 45. Then, 5 more games in division.
Playoffs: Seed 1 - 8, and play 3 rounds.
Since you can't have both, because a league with a schedule split looks minor league, then the needs of the West probably win, because the travel for Western teams to play the East's arrangements won't fly with the PA, and probably is not equitable for playoffs.
Burke the Legend
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 8,317
- 2,850
Why do we *NEED* to have home/away inter-conference in the schedule? People keep claiming ticket holders want to see McDavid or something but there was a very interesting thread about this last year here where KevFu did a lot of research on attendance and resale prices and it turns out the numbers are noticeably worse for inter-conference compared to divisional rival games.
Home/Away vs Everyone is Bad for Business
If you cut that down to going through the other conference you get a nice clean 16 inter-conference + 24 other conf division + 42 divisional.
The math of this schedule is obviously true.
The math of KevFu is not as true as it looks initially, because the reality is that certain teams are NOT road draws no matter where they play, and there is insufficient data to really prove his supposition.
Nevertheless, if the league were to go to a 1 game versus opposite conference schedule, I maintain that the East and West STILL have different needs, and that the schedule you proposed is perfect for the West: 6-3-1.
However, in the east, where the big draws are spread across both divisions, I think that the schedule would start with 4 games v opposite conference = 32 games.
That leaves 34 against your own division, and that would be fine by me.
My own absolute favorite sched (well, not really, because my favorite has QC in it), goes like this:
4 separate conferences.
Play 2 of them games = 32 games
Play the other 1 game = 16 games
Play the rest in your division.
I would do a full rotation on the who plays who, so that everyone sees all the other teams in their barn 5 times in 6 years. That's hardly a miss at all, really, and re-emphasized divisional play.
But there are other choices, too.
i favor going back to a 1-8 format,. and expanding to add a playin round once Seattle joins. the ahl did this in the early 2000s when the IHL teams joined. the top 6 seeds get byes and teams 7-10 playoff in a best of 3 series, the 7-10 winner plays the 2 seed the 8-9 winner plays the 1.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Nick that was a failure, because that's not what the procedure was because 1 division had 8 teams and that was based on 4th vs 5th in both divisions, hence the cross-over to the opposite division, you're not placing an Atlantic team in the Metro division playoff.... the mini series was an absolute failure, because not all AHL Teams play everyone league-wide, same issues since 2014/15 once the Pacific was created then points percentage came into effect, no wonder why fans are turning away from the AHL...
THAT'S WHY the NHL has resisted using a cross-over style format.
Harvey Birdman
…Need some law books, with pictures this time…
After Seattle joins as long as the wild card is eliminated I don’t care. Can’t stand it. Go back to the 1 - 8 seeding. Or top 4 in division setups.
You’ll never see a playin in the NHL. Too much risk for injury by forcing additional games and you don’t want to be playing any later in June than you already are so it’s never happening
I feel if you're going full divisional playoff format for the first two rounds, you need to alter scheduling to allow more intradivisonal matchups. Saw 6 v division, 3 v other division within conference, 1 v other conference, and yeah, that's probably the ideal format if you're going that route IMO. Honestly I'm for that schedule anyway, even with current format. I think the current schedule would be best for 1v8.
LeHab
Registered User
- Aug 31, 2005
- 15,957
- 6,259
I would prefer the top 3 from each conference chose who they want to play within their conference.
They won’t do top 4. They’ll keep the WC to ensure you don’t have a scenario where a 4 in one division gets in with 85 points and a 5 in another misses with 96
Harvey Birdman
…Need some law books, with pictures this time…
They probably very well will do that. I just hate WC formats. I ether want the 1-8 to come back or a top 4, I probably won’t get ether but it’s what I hope for.
Harvey Birdman
…Need some law books, with pictures this time…
There should never be choice in post season formatting. While I dislike the current format. I’d much rather keep it that there ever being a pick or choose.
Even when Seattle arrives you’re playing 32 games against the other conference.
Leaving 50 games against 15 teams. Conference play means Play every team 3 times then rotate those extra 5 games against a set of teams every 3 years.
Take Chi. Year 1 they get van, sea, SJ, LA, Ana. Year 2 get LV, AZ, Col, Cal, Edm. Year 3 get Stl, Dal, Nas, win, Min. Then in year 4 back to the west coast teams. Just an example.
That’s the best you can do.
Limit it to division based and you play each non division 2 times to get to 48 games leaving 34 against 7 teams. So 5 games each with 1 team you only play 4 times.
Either or.
This is by the best and really only viable, fair choice.
It's criminal that so often the best series is the 2nd not 3rd round.
It's just not fair and damages the product.
Maybe I would like to see a Jets-Predators 3rd round, so stupid it can't be.
As long as the regular season schedule reflects conference play that’s fine.
But I don’t expect western teams will be keen on traveling 2 time zones potentially in the early rounds like Vancouver did in 2011 to play Chicago and Nashville. That’s where I think the hold up will be. Need 75% to say yes to conference play.
Western teams might say harder matchups but lighter travel is better than longer travel with maybe more favourable matchups.
I’m not sure why they can’t just keep the current format and then re seed in round 2. Also in round 2 I don’t agree that a higher slotted team should automatically have home ice. So if for example WC1 beats a division winner there’s no way in hell WC1 should be the road team in round 2 if they face a team who finished 2 or 3 just because their division was weaker. This actually has only occurred once since the new format. Islanders/Lightning in round 2 in 2016
