NHL, NHLPA likely to extend playoff format another season UPD: extended

[SwaggySpungo]

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.

I never understood this argument.

What possible difference does it make?

The classic Oilers-Flames series from the 80s weren’t any worse because they happened in the 2nd round (Smyth Final) instead of the 3rd round (Campbell Final).

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Why do we *NEED* to have home/away inter-conference in the schedule?

The owners think fans want it [perhaps because a small but very vocal minority of fans say it], and that's all that matters.

Nevertheless, if the league were to go to a 1 game versus opposite conference schedule, ...

Scheduling "issues" aren't getting touched any time soon. Plus, I feel like we've discussed that topic [the "ideal" regular season schedule] to death. As in, I almost want to copy all the different ideas into a document and then when it comes up again, I can just paste it to save everyone the time of posting/explaining theirs. [Not a shot at you, MNNumbers, just a general observation.]

Another option is to "return" to the "top 8 in conference" and play 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 in opening round.

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.

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.

On the topic of playoff formats: I've long wanted cross-conference play in the playoffs. I get why it won't happen [potential increased travel, especially for Eastern Time Zone teams] but it would be an easy way to account for differences in conference strength presuming that the goal of the playoffs is to try and get the two best teams to the Finals and given that there's no way to create a balanced schedule [which eliminates the possibility of going straight 1-16 as we saw in the first couple years after the NHL-WHA "merger"] unless you notably reduce the length of the season.

I'm indifferent on whether there's a play-in round of some type that expands the playoff field. If it happens, I think it has to involve a reduction in the length of the regular season or an earlier start date. I don't know if there's appetite for either of those, but I'm really not sure there's appetite for an expanded playoff field for a variety of reasons.

Ultimately, what matters is what the NHLPA and owners want. Everything else is a fun exercise in hypotheticals, but it doesn't move the needle on what's going to happen.

 

[StreetHawk]

I never understood this argument.

What possible difference does it make?

The classic Oilers-Flames series from the 80s weren’t any worse because they happened in the 2nd round (Smyth Final) instead of the 3rd round (Campbell Final).

Last season 3/4 division winners made the Conference Finals, with the exception of Nashville who lost to Winnipeg, the 2nd best team in the Central, who ultimately fell to Vegas who was actually below them in points by 5.

NHL is not the NBA where everyone expect GS Warrior to be in the finals. That's more of a sure thing than TB getting into the Cup finals.

Right now Cal/SJ are battling for first in the Pacific to avoid Vegas in round 1. But, that does not mean that the division winner is going to be an overwhelming favourite should the 2nd place team end up defeating Vegas in round 1. All it means is that your chances of getting to round 2 are higher being the top seed vs being the #2 seed due to your first round opponent.

 

[Tawnos]

I like divisional playoffs way more than conference playoffs. They need to get rid of the home/away against the opposite conference and add the extra games to the divisional schedule.

I would have no problem with re-seeding the final 4 and potentially end up with cross-conference semi-final.

What I would also like is a 3 game play-in between 4 and 5, followed by a 5-game "first round" (aka divisional semi-final)

 

[gstommylee]

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.

That will never happen. NHL will never have only 16 games vs other and the rest be divisional games. It would be boring playing the same division and conference games over and over and over again. People want to see the super stars of the NHL every year not every other year. It what draws people to the game.

 

[pbgoalie]

4 in each division

1 vs 4
2 vs 3

Home team decided by head to head record
Tie breaker is overall record

 

[MNNumbers]

That will never happen. NHL will never have only 16 games vs other and the rest be divisional games. It would be boring playing the same division and conference games over and over and over again. People want to see the super stars of the NHL every year not every other year. It what draws people to the game.

That's not what he said.

He said...
Vs division. 6 games each ...42
Vs conference... 3 games each... 24
Vs other conference... 1 game...16

 

[Cellee]

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.

Play in round?

Definitely not

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Play in round?

Definitely not

play in rounds were an abject failure, the AHL never plays everybody the way the other 2 leagues do

 

[gstommylee]

That's not what he said.

He said...
Vs division. 6 games each ...42
Vs conference... 3 games each... 24
Vs other conference... 1 game...16

Besides the point the NHL will never go away from having 32 games vs the other conference at all period. That is too much divisional games. It will get boring. Fans want to see the all the super stars from all teams during home games

Plus season schedule has nothing to do with the topic of playoffs.

 

[Tawnos]

Besides the point the NHL will never go away from having 32 games vs the other conference at all period. That is too much divisional games. It will get boring. Fans want to see the all the super stars from all teams during home games

Plus season schedule has nothing to do with the topic of playoffs.

I don’t agree with that point. At all. Divisional games don’t lose anything for how many times they happen and, despite getting to see McDavid, Rangers v Oilers games are some of the most boring of the year. (I’m a Rangers fan, so ditto any other Western star and their team)

And the idea that the NHL will never go away from it is strange since they’ve only been on it for like 10 years. The thinking around this stuff changes from time to time.

 

[KevFu]

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.

Kinda. Glad I won you as a convert.

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.

Nah. Over the seven years I’ve checked on it, the math holds up. Just because a handful of teams in any given year are outliers to the trend by a few dozen fans (when there’s a variety of circumstances not included, like day of the week, promo nights, team success, etc) doesn’t mean that the overall principle isn’t totally true.


For example, compare the standings to SPENDING over a seven year stretch. 20+ of 31 teams are going to be where you’d expect. But some young, cheap teams will be out of the basement unexpectedly and some older expensive teams will be at the bottom as they’ve peaked and are regressing. It won’t be the SAME teams in those categories each year, but about the same number. Everyone still believes you’re more likely to win if you’re spending to the cap on talent; even though there’s a few outliers. Obviously, spending SMART helps you win and spending DUMB just wastes money; and drafting SMART and being good BEFORE you have to pay all your guys what they’re worth is the goal of everyone who rebuilds.

It’s the same thing with the H/A being bad for business. The outliers don’t negate the principle in the least.


You’re right that CERTAIN teams don’t draw well no matter who they play. Certain teams also draw well at home no matter whom they’re playing; and certain teams draw great on the road wherever they go.

The problem is that when you compare the “Draw Great” group and the “Draw Poorly” group, there’s simply more “poorly” than “Great” (aka, more teams DON’T have McDavid/Crosby/Ovechkin than HAVE McDavid/Crosby/Oveckin). By a sizable margin.


The ideal schedule would get the road teams that don’t draw well playing a lot of their road games at cities that draw well no matter who comes to town, or make as many of these matches MEAN MORE in the standings (aka conference or division games. (FLA/TB in the Adams division is the prime example of this).

Besides the point the NHL will never go away from having 32 games vs the other conference at all period. That is too much divisional games. It will get boring. Fans want to see the all the super stars from all teams during home games

Plus season schedule has nothing to do with the topic of playoffs.

That would be true if we were going to like “EIGHT games vs your division (54), ONE vs everyone else (24)”

But playing SIX vs division is only going to make fans say “Geez, THEM again?” if it’s one of three lackluster division opponents and not one of the four marquee division opponents.

If FLA, TB, OTT, BUF, NYI, NJD, CBJ, CAR don’t draw well on the road, and DAL, ARZ, NASH, STL, MIN, ANA, LA, CAL, VAN don’t draw well on the road, you’re better off playing the DIVISION non-draws more and the non-conference non-draws LESS, because the opponents are lackluster, but the GAME means more in the standings.

 

[StreetHawk]

Travel is a huge issue. All west coast teams it would be a 4 hour flight to get to Chicago. It’s 4-4.5 hours to fly to Nashville. It’s 3-4 hours to get to Dallas. It’s 3:15 to 3:30 to get to Minnesota. To Winnipeg would be 2:40 from Van and I’m guessing 3:30 from LA. To get to STL it’s would be 3:30 to 4 hours.

And add in a 2 hour time zone change.

Any team in the East the longest flights would be to Carolina, TB, FLA. Still under 2 hours from Toronto to Raleigh. Around 3:10 from Tor to Miami. 2:45 to get to TB from Toronto. But no time zone changes. Basically that’s going from Vancouver or Seattle to get to LA/Ana.

 

[tony d]

Not a fan of the wild card at all. I think that they should go to straight top 4 in each division.

 

[Red Dread]

Not a fan of the wild card at all. I think that they should go to straight top 4 in each division.

What about in the event there are teams with more points in some divisions that don't qualify than those who do who are in an easier division?

 

[StreetHawk]

What about in the event there are teams with more points in some divisions that don't qualify than those who do who are in an easier division?

Luck of the draw. No system is perfect. Harder matchups with easier travel or easier matchup with harder travel?

 

[DaBadGuy7]

To solve any potential travel issues in a 1-8 format is to stagger the series out more with more days off between travel days imo. NBA does that a lot in between Games 2 and 3 and Game 4 and 5 is at least 2 or even 3 days off between. Also, that probably helps NBC and Sportsnet as well. Instead of having to broadcast 4 games a night, they might have 2 or 3 games a night during the week.

 

[StreetHawk]

To solve any potential travel issues in a 1-8 format is to stagger the series out more with more days off between travel days imo. NBA does that a lot in between Games 2 and 3 and Game 4 and 5 is at least 2 or even 3 days off between. Also, that probably helps NBC and Sportsnet as well. Instead of having to broadcast 4 games a night, they might have 2 or 3 games a night during the week.

Depends on arena availability as well.

LA, Col, Chi, Dal share with an nba team in the west. Tor, NYR, Det, Bos, Phi, Was, NYI for a few more years.

You can’t play consecutive nights because of the risk of long overtimes.

But can the NHL really extend their season that long? They do have extra days between games but sometimes they do that on non travel games which is stupid. Extra day off should always be for games 2 to 3 or 4-5.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

On X games vs. division teams and "that's too much" - a lot of this has little to do with the number of games played. Much has to do with when they get played. St. Louis played all 4 of its games vs. Winnipeg by December 7. 4 of the 5 vs. Chicago were played in the first 16 games; the 5th will get played in Game 80, or almost 5 months later.

Edmonton didn't play a game until the 19th game of the season (November 17) but played Chicago 2x and Nashville 2x in 7 games (between games 6-12). By the time they played a division rival, they had played 10 games vs. teams in the Eastern Conference. There's these kinds of examples all over the place.

If the league can't fix that, any changes to "fix" the schedule won't really matter, because fans will still have "we don't play often enough / we play too often" as a criticism.

 

[LadyStanley]

31 Thoughts: Will NHL players fight for change to playoff format? - Sportsnet.ca

Friedman with a few points

More than ever, players are letting it be known to the NHLPA that they are unhappy with the playoff format. I was a little skeptical because it is CBA time, and no one easily gives up anything during negotiations. However, the complaints are legit. It is unlikely that things will be changed for next year, but the players have to sign off on anything longer than that and have asked for more proof that the current setup works as intended.

While it has fuelled rivalries in California and certainly Pittsburgh/Washington, it hasn’t given a Battle of Alberta, a Battle of Ontario, a Montcalm/Wolfe re-enactment, Islanders/Rangers or even Florida/Tampa. If we had more of those, there’d be fewer complaints. One of the reasons the previous method was changed was NBC wanted more certainty of match-ups in the second round. In theory, you could go to brackets (1-vs.-8 winner faces 4-vs.-5 winner, etc.) as opposed to the previous re-seeding.

Rivalries only work when all/both teams make it to the dance

 

[StreetHawk]

31 Thoughts: Will NHL players fight for change to playoff format? - Sportsnet.ca

Friedman with a few points




Rivalries only work when all/both teams make it to the dance

Wonder how many western conference players want to have longer travel and 2 hour time zone changes in the early rounds?

We’ve heard names like atamkos, Marchand, Yandle quoted. But haven’t seen any jets, flames, Preds, etc.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

31 Thoughts: Will NHL players fight for change to playoff format? - Sportsnet.ca

Friedman with a few points




Rivalries only work when all/both teams make it to the dance

A Bracketed 1-8 seeding format like the NBA makes the most sense to all parties. Division winners are 1-2 and 3-8 are everybody else.

 

[patnyrnyg]

My vote would be for top-4 in the division. No wild-cards, no cross-overs. You finish 5th and have a better record than the team that finished 3rd or 4th in another division? too bad. If you are the 3rd wild-card in your conference now, but have a better record than both wild-cards in the other conference, is anyone whining for you?

 

[patnyrnyg]

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.

You do realize from 94-2013, the top-2 seeds in the Eastern Conference played in the Conference Finals only once? It is not the NBA where the favorites pretty much win every series. Would you rather have them play in the 2nd round or not at all? Note: there were 2 or 3 other seasons where the teams with the 2 best records were in the same division, one was the 4th "seed" and they wound up playing in the ECF. 94 (Rangers-Devils), 2000 (Flyers-Devils) and maybe one other season that I just can't think of off the top of my head.

 

[patnyrnyg]

A Bracketed 1-8 seeding format like the NBA makes the most sense to all parties. Division winners are 1-2 and 3-8 are everybody else.

The NBA is a different animal. The only true rivalry that stands the test of time in the NBA is Lakers-Celtics. The rest come and go and are more like flavors of the month. The rivalries in the NBA are star-based. Lebron vs Curry for example. Secondly, the NBA play-offs are pretty much meaningless until the Finals and sometimes the Conference Finals gets a surprise.