State, Provincial, or close proximity rival teams

[CBCnutcase]

I'd say that the old divisional playoff system helped a lot to build those regional rivalries.

Divisional playoffs is the way to go to force team rivalries.

No way. It was monotonous. The current conference playoff set up is the best way. Variety helps. It allows for those regional rivalries to play each other in an epic 3rd round which could not happen under the old system.

Detroit and Chicago have played each other twice in the conference final. The battle of Pennsylvania has happened in the conf. finals. So has the Sabres and Leafs, Flyers and Rangers, Flyers and Devils (twice), Penguins and Devils, and the Rangers and Devils.

The current system allows for unusual rivalries to happen in any of the first 3 rounds. The Stars-Oilers battles were born from playing each other 6 out of 7 years.

 

[barneyg]

I'm aware of it's not a perfect solution. It's a solution none the less. And I agree that a two team expansion and a reshuffling to 4 8 teams divisions would solve that problem with my solution a bit. Even more if the league went to a more division heavy schedule.

I like divisional playoffs but not your "top 2 from each division + two wildcards". As evidenced from your BUF-NYR matchup, with relatively equal-strength divisions you'd end up with 7 vs 8 most of the time. And sometime you'd end up with 1 vs 2 as well. I don't have a good sense of how this can be solved without 7- and 8-team divisions, but if I understand your proposed scheme correctly finishing 3rd and even 4th is always better than finishing 2nd if you're making the playoffs.

 

[MoreOrr]

I like divisional playoffs but not your "top 2 from each division + two wildcards". As evidenced from your BUF-NYR matchup, with relatively equal-strength divisions you'd end up with 7 vs 8 most of the time. And sometime you'd end up with 1 vs 2 as well. I don't have a good sense of how this can be solved without 7- and 8-team divisions, but if I understand your proposed scheme correctly finishing 3rd and even 4th is always better than finishing 2nd if you're making the playoffs.

Aside from not guaranteeing a Division winner at Top-3 spot but instead a Top-4 spot (Home-ice advantage), which is the only change I'd like to see, I think you could have an approximated Divisional Playoff.

You just match up first the highest and lowest seeds from each Division (where at least 2 teams from a Division have made the Playoffs), and the remaining teams face each other.

I mean, if you're going to do a true Divisional Playoff (even with 7 or 8-team Divisions), you're still going to be very much changing up the Playoff matchups as they exist now, so why not take it as it is now and make Divisional 1st Round matchups where it's possible to do so.

For example, this year would've had:

In the West
San Jose vs Los Angeles
Detroit vs Chicago
Anaheim vs Phoenix
with
Vancouver vs Nashville

(Now, as the Conference Top Seed, Vancouver could be offered the option of facing Chicago, which could then mean):

San Jose vs Los Angeles
Detroit vs Nashville
Anaheim vs Phoenix
with
Vancouver vs Chicago

In the East
Washington vs Tampa Bay
Philadelphia vs Rangers
Boston vs Buffalo
with
Pittsburgh vs Montreal

(And again, as the Conference Top Seed, Washington could be offered the option of facing Rangers, which could then mean:

In the East
Washington vs Rangers
Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh
Boston vs Buffalo
with
Tampa Bay vs Montreal

It's an approximation, but it could work.

 

[barneyg]

You just match up first the highest and lowest seeds from each Division (where at least 2 teams from a Division have made the Playoffs), and the remaining teams face each other.

I mean, if you're going to do a true Divisional Playoff (even with 7 or 8-team Divisions), you're still going to be very much changing up the Playoff matchups as they exist now, so why not take it as it is now and make Divisional 1st Round matchups where it's possible to do so.

I think you have the East wrong --

WAS-TB
PHI-NYR
BOS-BUF
then PIT-MTL

Regardless, I think the problem is still that the top 2 teams can be facing each other in the 1st round. If somehow the NHL changed to a 4-division format (7 or 8 teams per division, top 4 making it) the worst that could happen (from the top seed's point of view) would be 1 vs 4, in the very unlikely case that the same division has the conference's top 4 teams.

 

[MoreOrr]

I think you have the East wrong --

WAS-TB
PHI-NYR
BOS-BUF
then PIT-MTL

Regardless, I think the problem is still that the top 2 teams can be facing each other in the 1st round. If somehow the NHL changed to a 4-division format (7 or 8 teams per division, top 4 making it) the worst that could happen (from the top seed's point of view) would be 1 vs 4, in the very unlikely case that the same division has the conference's top 4 teams.

Haha.... An old Patrick Division relapse... Thanks for the correction. I'll do a little editing.

 

[Shawa666]

I think you have the East wrong --

WAS-TB
PHI-NYR
BOS-BUF
then PIT-MTL

Regardless, I think the problem is still that the top 2 teams can be facing each other in the 1st round. If somehow the NHL changed to a 4-division format (7 or 8 teams per division, top 4 making it) the worst that could happen (from the top seed's point of view) would be 1 vs 4, in the very unlikely case that the same division has the conference's top 4 teams.

I'd agree with you if the NHL ran a completely balanced schedule. As it is now, the league runs a division heavy schedule (meaning that a team will play it's division rivals more often than the other teams in it's conference)

 

[barneyg]

I'd agree with you if the NHL ran a completely balanced schedule. As it is now, the league runs a division heavy schedule (meaning that a team will play it's division rivals more often than the other teams in it's conference)

Not sure I get your point, I don't see how having a division-heavy schedule changes much in that respect. Using 2006-07 as an example, your suggestion would have Buffalo (1st in the East) facing Ottawa (3rd best record in the East) in the 1st round, then if I understand your proposal correctly, NJ 2nd vs PIT 5th (4th best record), ATL 3rd (5th best record) vs TB (7th), and NYR (6th) vs NYI (8th). The BUF-OTT (teams too good) and NYR-NYI (teams not good enough) matchups shouldn't happen.

Using MoreOrr's adjustment to your proposal we still have BUF-OTT, then NJ-NYI, ATL-TB and PIT-NYR. It's better because the weaker teams' matchup has disappeared but there's still BUF-OTT.