So is anyone liking the new divisions and playoff format so far or is it awkward?

[Tawnos]

It really screws up the balance of the league and it also completely destroys the traditional enjoyment of the best teams progressing through the playoffs. The 1st round ends up being the best round now, which is stupid.

Well, really the second round often ends up being the best round, but that was true before in the old 1-8, IMO. I can think of more incredible 2nd round series than I can think of conference finals, not that there aren't great series to think of there either. A case can be made for last year's best series being any of Preds/Sharks, Pens/Caps or Blues/Sharks.

 

[Kamiccolo]

Looks like Jackets are tanking to steal that W1 spot from the Rangers, they got to change this playoff format because it rewards losing, makes no sense

They aren't tanking. They are a middle of the pack team who got really hot under a new coach with some young players breaking out before going back towards the norm. Can't fault them for that winning streak, was impressive, but outside of that they have been average.

 

[Bladerunner]

I still think it should be set up like:

Top Ranked Division Winner - 8th Seed
2nd Ranked Division Winner - 7th Seed
3rd Seed - 6th Seed
4th Seed - 5th Seed

This allows for more variety in playoff series. I know the NHL wants more divisional playoff rounds, but to me I always enjoyed the randomness of the playoff matchup seeding.

So if it currently stood as it is now, it would be:

Washington - Philadelphia
Montreal - Toronto
Columbus - Ottawa
Pittsburgh - NY Rangers

Minnesota - Calgary
San Jose - St. Louis
Chicago - Nashville
Anaheim - Edmonton

No change in the west. But this new system would give the divisional winners a better advantage (or an "easier" opponent.) i.e. Montreal would face 60 point 7th seed Toronto Maple Leafs instead of 69 point wild card New York Rangers

That's most likely one of the top modifications.

Another similar one that others have given is top two in each division, and 4 WCs regardless of division. The latter could transpose into the format you gave.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

It should be 1-16 for the whole league, 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15 etc.

More interesting matchups instead of the tired ones we see every single year. Much more fair and no pittsburgh vs caps until finals if they truly are the best teams. It's far more important to have the best possible finals than some east vs west nonsense. If one conference is weaker that just makes the finals much less interesting than conference finals, which is dumb.

I agree.

1-16, 2-15, etc. would be the least flawed option to take.

 

[These Are The Days]

The new 32 team NHL realignment

Campbell Conference

Norris Division

Chicago
St. Louis
Minnesota
Dallas
Nashville

Smythe Division

Edmonton
Winnipeg
Vancouver
Calgary
(Seattle)

Ross Division

San Jose
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Arizona
Anaheim
Colorado

Prince of Wales Conference

Adams Division

Buffalo
Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto

Patrick Division

New York Islanders
New York Rangers
New Jersey
Washington
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia

Hart Division

Detroit
Columbus
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Florida

Disadvantages

- Winnipeg really should belong in the Norris but if that happened the Smythe would not have enough members so the Jets go back to facing their traditional rivals.

- Detroit and Columbus really, really are not in a very optimal travel position within the Hart division. But fortunately they are geographically close enough to each other and Carolina to justify putting the 3 of them together. Same applies to the proximity of Florida and Tampa Bay to each other with a close distance Carolina as well. It's not perfect but it prevents the Adams and Patrick from being overloaded and it keeps Detroit and Columbus in the EST, AND prevents the "Adams markets" and Florida markets from being divisionally obligated to play each other like they are right now

PS: I DO think Seattle is next for expansion and higher on the list than QC. I don't agree with it but I think the NHL would view keeping the balance of conferences as a higher priority than bringing the Nords back.

 

[Tawnos]

I agree.

1-16, 2-15, etc. would be the least flawed option to take.

That's the least fair option. Teams don't play the same schedules. Because of that, the overall league ranking is a poor indicator of teams relative strength to each other. The more similar the schedule playoff teams share, the more fair the matchups are.

 

[KingsFan7824]

So the old format was flawed, where the division winners automatically got a #1-3 spot even if they weren't even close to deserving it. All the NHL would have had to do was removing the guaranteed top spot and just guaranteed at least one team from each division makes the playoffs, if that is so extremely important. Which it isn't btw, you should earn your playoff spot, end of story. If a division is so bad no teams are in the top 8, then none should be there. But no, NHL believes it's important for some odd reason. Another braindead tradition perhaps?

So in typical NHL fashion, they "fix" it by making it much, much worse and adds a bunch of extra flaws as sprinkles on the ****** icecream. I cannot think of any other organization where this would be acceptable.

That's not why they fixed it. They weren't even trying to fix the previous format. They changed it because of the realignment. If Winnipeg and the rest of the eastern conference could've been cool about them being in the SE division, nothing would've changed. The same way Dallas, Minnesota, Detroit, and Columbus needed to not make a big deal about being in divisions or a conference that made no geographic sense for a decade+.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The new 32 team NHL realignment

Campbell Conference

Norris Division

Chicago
St. Louis
Minnesota
Dallas
Nashville

Smythe Division

Edmonton
Winnipeg
Vancouver
Calgary
(Seattle)

Ross Division

San Jose
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Arizona
Anaheim
Colorado

Prince of Wales Conference

Adams Division

Buffalo
Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto

Patrick Division

New York Islanders
New York Rangers
New Jersey
Washington
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia

Hart Division

Detroit
Columbus
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Florida

Disadvantages

- Winnipeg really should belong in the Norris but if that happened the Smythe would not have enough members so the Jets go back to facing their traditional rivals.

- Detroit and Columbus really, really are not in a very optimal travel position within the Hart division. But fortunately they are geographically close enough to each other and Carolina to justify putting the 3 of them together. Same applies to the proximity of Florida and Tampa Bay to each other with a close distance Carolina as well. It's not perfect but it prevents the Adams and Patrick from being overloaded and it keeps Detroit and Columbus in the EST, AND prevents the "Adams markets" and Florida markets from being divisionally obligated to play each other

PS: I DO think Seattle is next for expansion and higher on the list than QC. I don't agree with it but I think the NHL would view keeping the balance of conferences as a higher priority than bringing the Nords back.

If they get to 32 teams, the divisions will be 4 or 8 teams. The last realignment was a unique situation. Should be a fun fight to see which teams get broken up if they go 8 divisions, but when they can, the NHL has usually had even divisions/conferences.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

That's the least fair option. Teams don't play the same schedules. Because of that, the overall league ranking is a poor indicator of teams relative strength to each other. The more similar the schedule playoff teams share, the more fair the matchups are.

Why value fairness?

A 1-16 system almost assuredly leaves the League with the best teams advancing each round. That's especially true the deeper a team goes into the playoffs. To the extent that there will be teams with relative strengths that are not well represented under overall League ranking, most likely they'll get exposed quickly as being mismatched and removed quickly from playoff contention during the natural workings of the playoff process.

 

[MessierII]

I love the current format

 

[These Are The Days]

If they get to 32 teams, the divisions will be 4 or 8 teams. The last realignment was a unique situation. Should be a fun fight to see which teams get broken up if they go 8 divisions, but when they can, the NHL has usually had even divisions/conferences.

Rightfully so that they always had even amounts of teams.

But I've got to be honest with you, 8 teams per division is just too freaking many. Under no circumstance should teams like Anaheim and Arizona ever be in the same division as a team from Edmonton over 1,500 miles away. I know the players should be able to deal with it because they get world class travel but for the respective organization it would save them so much time and travel expenses to not travel as far.

Simply put, the land mass of US and Canada is just too big to be divided 4 ways. Do it 6 ways and it makes sense. 8 divisions chops it up too much because how do you decide which 4 teams play each other and break up the rivalries?

Plus having a division with an extra team per conference is negligible because the playoff seeding would be done exactly as before the realignment. If you had a weak division only the top team made it and the others missed the playoffs.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

What the geniuses at the NHL marketing department fail to realize is that rivalries are dead because the physical aspects of the sport have decreased by 90%+ in the last 5-10 years.

I mean any rivalry in the NHL these days just seems completely forced. Give me fair playoff seedings over any attempt to "reignite rivalries" in an age where a face wash is a 2 min penalty.

 

[Kamiccolo]

What the geniuses at the NHL marketing department fail to realize is that rivalries are dead because the physical aspects of the sport have decreased by 90%+ in the last 5-10 years.

I mean any rivalry in the NHL these days just seems completely forced. Give me fair playoff seedings over any attempt to "reignite rivalries" in an age where a face wash is a 2 min penalty.

When players can't fight because they are forced into wearing helmets and visors which they can't take off during the fight, and therefore just bust up their hands, then yeah, no **** the rivalries are dead.

100% agree. Only rivalries now are when teams get upset in a series or there is a dirty hit or something.

 

[MNNumbers]

What the geniuses at the NHL marketing department fail to realize is that rivalries are dead because the physical aspects of the sport have decreased by 90%+ in the last 5-10 years.

I mean any rivalry in the NHL these days just seems completely forced. Give me fair playoff seedings over any attempt to "reignite rivalries" in an age where a face wash is a 2 min penalty.

I think I agree with this, right down to the geniuses at NHL not realizing what's happened.

As for playoffs..The problems in making a good system (for next year, with 31 clubs) are basically tied up in the fact that the Western Conference spans 3 Time Zones, and no one wants to play 2 time zones away. The present situation is a forced concession to that.

I think the West would prefer 2 rounds in Division regardless, for travel and TV.
I think the East would prefer 1-8.

How do you reconcile that?

 

[Kurt Cobain]

I absolutely despise the new format. There was no reason to change it whatsoever.

 

[Blitzkrieg365]

I hate it, 1-8 was so much better.

 

[KingsFan7824]

But I've got to be honest with you, 8 teams per division is just too freaking many. Under no circumstance should teams like Anaheim and Arizona ever be in the same division as a team from Edmonton over 1,500 miles away. I know the players should be able to deal with it because they get world class travel but for the respective organization it would save them so much time and travel expenses to not travel as far.

Which was the idea behind the current alignment.

Simply put, the land mass of US and Canada is just too big to be divided 4 ways. Do it 6 ways and it makes sense. 8 divisions chops it up too much because how do you decide which 4 teams play each other and break up the rivalries?

Plus having a division with an extra team per conference is negligible because the playoff seeding would be done exactly as before the realignment. If you had a weak division only the top team made it and the others missed the playoffs.

Not only too big, but teams are in odd places. The NFL, NBA, and MLB don't have to deal with a soon to be 24/7 split between two countries. The Stars are the only team in Texas. The NBA actually has a lot more teams, 17 of 30, west of the ETZ than in the ETZ. 16 of 30 in MLB.

That's why I'm in favor of, at the very least, different playoff formats for the East and West in the NHL. I'm also not opposed to weird numbers of divisions and/or different amounts of teams per division. The reality of the NHL universe is unique. Instead of one size having to fit all, if it's going to be split East/West, I don't think there's any real reason that the divisions/conferences can't be molded around the franchises, instead of the franchises forced into the same one mold.

 

[tsanuri]

Which was the idea behind the current alignment.



Not only too big, but teams are in odd places. The NFL, NBA, and MLB don't have to deal with a soon to be 24/7 split between two countries. The Stars are the only team in Texas. The NBA actually has a lot more teams, 17 of 30, west of the ETZ than in the ETZ. 16 of 30 in MLB.

That's why I'm in favor of, at the very least, different playoff formats for the East and West in the NHL. I'm also not opposed to weird numbers of divisions and/or different amounts of teams per division. The reality of the NHL universe is unique. Instead of one size having to fit all, if it's going to be split East/West, I don't think there's any real reason that the divisions/conferences can't be molded around the franchises, instead of the franchises forced into the same one mold.

There are people here that complain that the new format is hard to understand. Which I don't understand how that is. But you change to using different formats for each conference then it would become harder to understand for sure. And the NHL would get a lot of grief over it being different in each conference. Not too mention that I don't think the BOG would go for using different systems. Since it would give an advantage to one half vs the other in the league.

 

[Rysto]

A 1-16 system almost assuredly leaves the League with the best teams advancing each round. That's especially true the deeper a team goes into the playoffs. To the extent that there will be teams with relative strengths that are not well represented under overall League ranking, most likely they'll get exposed quickly as being mismatched and removed quickly from playoff contention during the natural workings of the playoff process.

Except for the minor point that teams at geographic extremes like Vancouver, Florida or California are likely to be utterly screwed by a 1-16 series. Something like Anaheim/Chicago is already bad enough, travel wise. Can you imagine what a first-round machup between a California-based team and a North East US-based team would do to them? They'd be utterly exhausted by the second round.

 

[Syek]

Not great, last year the Blues and Blackhawks met in the second round and they were both on an absolute roll. Too many good teams eliminated too early because of the new format.

 

[TNT87]

I don't like this format.

 

[Tawnos]

I absolutely despise the new format. There was no reason to change it whatsoever.

Aside from the fact that at least 15 teams in the league wanted to make a change.

 

[Zalos]

The change in format did not affect much. I still consider the first round of the playoffs to be the most exciting. When there are eight series going on at the same, you can bet that at least one or two of them will be exciting and spectacular. I haven't witnessed a really exciting Stanley Cup Finals for years.

 

[Lupul1990]

The funny thing with the current format is than this year it's better to finish 4th in Metropolitan than 1st, 2nd or 3rd. It's better because the 4th team in Metropolitan will join Atlantic Division ladder, so it avoids playing against any other Metropolitan teams until Conference Finals.

As it stands right now, the play-off's in EC would look like this:

Atlantic:
Canadiens - Rangers
Senators - Bruins

Metropolitan:
Capitals - Maple Leafs
Blue Jackets - Penguins

But if you assign current positions in Conference to these teams, you have:

Atlantic:
EC 5 vs EC 4 (with EC 5 having home ice)
EC 6 vs EC 7

Metropolitan:
EC 1 vs EC 8
EC 2 vs EC 3

So EC 4 (which is the first wild card) is the biggest winner here.

 

[hockey4sale]

What the geniuses at the NHL marketing department fail to realize is that rivalries are dead because the physical aspects of the sport have decreased by 90%+ in the last 5-10 years.

I mean any rivalry in the NHL these days just seems completely forced. Give me fair playoff seedings over any attempt to "reignite rivalries" in an age where a face wash is a 2 min penalty.

This is very true, and it becomes more obvious with each new season. Rivalries are born from hate and hate is ignited by tough physical games. The league has reduced physicality to the very bare minimum, Refs are on the watch every game, guys like Tom Wilson can't touch a player without getting called for roughing or charging.

Now, since rivalries are dead just eliminate divisional format all together, simply have 15 teams in each conference to play in Round Robin format. Top 8 teams will make the playoffs with 1-8, 2-7 etc. match ups and then do re-seeding after each round.

To me this would be the most fair system, the league has to forget the past and pay more attention to modern day trends