Which playoff format do you prefer in NHL history?

What NHL playoff format was the best in your opinion?

  • Original 6 1942-'67

  • 1967-'70

  • 1970-'71

  • 1971-'74

  • 1974-'79

  • 1979-'81

  • 1981-'93

  • 1993-'13

  • 2013-present


Results are only viewable after voting.

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I am going to start in the Original 6 era because the pre-Original 6 era in the 1930s and before had formats that would have broken the internet, such as the top two teams in each division playing each other in the semis.

Original 6 1942-'67 - 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 4. Winners play in the final.

1967-70 - Much stronger original 6 division and expansion division have 4 teams get into the playoffs each, but it left superior teams in the Original 6 division missing the playoffs when even the top team in the expansion division had less points.

1970-'71 - Good move with Chicago changing divisions and balancing things out but the format in each division was 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 4 again. Hence, why Boston played Montreal first round.

1971-'74 - Three playoff rounds, each division was 1 vs. 4 2 vs. 3 and then re-seeded and the top two teams met in the final.

1974-'79 - First round bye for division winners, the others played a best 2 of 3. Remaining 12 teams competed in the quarters, semis and Cup final.

1979-'81 - 1 vs. 16 format, then re-seeding after the next round. Best always played the lowest seed (first time 4 rounds came in)

1981-'93 - Divisions play 1 vs. 4 2 vs. 3 then winners play each other, conference finalists play each other and then Cup finalists

1993-'13 - Each conference 1 vs. 8 etc. Division winner was always no worst than 3rd seed.

2013 - present
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Typo, just an accident. Mods, can you please delete the other identical thread?
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
I think I'm going with 1981-1993, where it was just the top-4 in each division.

Partly I say this due to childhood nostalgia, but also because it engendered such awesome rivalries.

The problem with the 1 vs. 8 or the 1 vs. 16 is that -- even though it's theoretically more fair -- it randomizes the teams that playoff teams play against each year. While this does create more variety, it kills rivalries. How often in recent memory have the Oilers played the Flames? The Islanders the Rangers?

The only reason the top-4 thing was changed back in 1993-94 was (as far as I know) the disparity between teams like the 1988 Maple Leafs making the playoffs (28 games below .500) while the plus.500 Rangers missed. I agree that that became kind of stupid and needed to be changed.... when there were 24 teams.

But now there are 32 teams and I just don't see the possibility of a terrible team making the playoffs anymore. It won't happen.

For example, this season (2018-19), if the old top-4 divisional format were in place, the following 1st round match-ups would have occurred:

Atlantic
Tampa vs. Montreal
Boston vs. Toronto

Metro
Washington vs. Carolina
NY Islanders vs. Penguins

Central
Nashville vs. Dallas
Winnipeg vs. St.Louis

Pacific
Calgary vs. Arizona
San Jose vs. Vegas

The bolded are the two teams that didn't actually make it in this season (the two 'losers' then are Columbus and Colorado, which wouldn't have made it in).

Montreal had only 2 fewer points than Columbus, so I don't see that as some big outrage. And Colorado had 4 more points than Arizona, so again it's not a huge difference.

(Last season, the same teams would have made the playoffs as actually did, with the exception of Florida 'in', Columbus 'out'.)


So, I don't see any reason not to go back to this format, which made regular-season rivalry games a lot more meaningful, and guaranteed some regular playoffs rivalries.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,133
6,428
Pre-NHL challenge era:

Winner of the top league faces 1-3 challenges by great teams from other leagues. Perhaps even have years with zero challenges. The Stanley Cup trustees choose the opponent.

The champion of the AHL in the 1970's would've had a chance.

The WHA champion and one or two Soviet teams (eg., Red Army), a Czechoslovakian team.

But, alas, the excitement of that format doesn't suit this era where multimillionaires play in one league and others have at best a couple of big money players.

LOVED the use of "ringer" in the early Stanley Cup era where a team could sign a free agent just prior to the home-away challenge series.

Unfortunately, the NHL has effectively hijacked the cup, ignored the trustees, and made it i to an NHL cup, against the rules. Eventually, the trustees relented and the "O6" era is the earliest time referred to, the past ignored and treated like it didn't exist.
 

PurpleMouse

Registered User
Apr 27, 2014
393
171
So, I don't see any reason not to go back to this format, which made regular-season rivalry games a lot more meaningful, and guaranteed some regular playoffs rivalries.

How are games more meaningful under this format?

I agree the divisional format is the best for rivalries, but I don't think fairness is the only thing keeping that format back- it's also entertainment value in the regular season. Conference wide playoffs, or wildcards, increasing possibilities, which puts more teams in the race and is more interesting. Look at this East this year: in a divisional scenario, Montreal has the fourth seed in a very ho-hum race while in what actually happened saw them battling down the stretch with multiple teams. The odds of a team being in fourth in their division with no realistic challenger are much more likely than a team being eighth in the conference with no realistic challenger.

I don't like the "clunkiness" of the current format, but I do see where the NHL is coming from in that they're trying to appease both the arguments we're making here... be having it be MOSTLY division based, you have a better chance of creating rivalries (see Toronto/Boston) but with the wildcards you make regular season races more interesting.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,587
I think I'm going with 1981-1993, where it was just the top-4 in each division.

Partly I say this due to childhood nostalgia, but also because it engendered such awesome rivalries.

The problem with the 1 vs. 8 or the 1 vs. 16 is that -- even though it's theoretically more fair -- it randomizes the teams that playoff teams play against each year. While this does create more variety, it kills rivalries. How often in recent memory have the Oilers played the Flames? The Islanders the Rangers?

The only reason the top-4 thing was changed back in 1993-94 was (as far as I know) the disparity between teams like the 1988 Maple Leafs making the playoffs (28 games below .500) while the plus.500 Rangers missed. I agree that that became kind of stupid and needed to be changed.... when there were 24 teams.

But now there are 32 teams and I just don't see the possibility of a terrible team making the playoffs anymore. It won't happen.

For example, this season (2018-19), if the old top-4 divisional format were in place, the following 1st round match-ups would have occurred:

Atlantic
Tampa vs. Montreal
Boston vs. Toronto

Metro
Washington vs. Carolina
NY Islanders vs. Penguins

Central
Nashville vs. Dallas
Winnipeg vs. St.Louis

Pacific
Calgary vs. Arizona
San Jose vs. Vegas

The bolded are the two teams that didn't actually make it in this season (the two 'losers' then are Columbus and Colorado, which wouldn't have made it in).

Montreal had only 2 fewer points than Columbus, so I don't see that as some big outrage. And Colorado had 4 more points than Arizona, so again it's not a huge difference.

(Last season, the same teams would have made the playoffs as actually did, with the exception of Florida 'in', Columbus 'out'.)


So, I don't see any reason not to go back to this format, which made regular-season rivalry games a lot more meaningful, and guaranteed some regular playoffs rivalries.

So im a habs fan. Have really only started following hockey in 93. That means that in my life i havent seen a tor/mtl playoff series yet even though weve been in the same division for about 20 years now.

Habs have actually made the playoffs often too. In the past 10-15 years we've had heated matchups with Ottawa, Tampa, Boston.....never Toronto. And outside of Boston (which is always special) - id say none of those matchups feel like rivalries today.

I guess my point is this. In a 32 team league with so much parity and so much fluctuation in standings year to year - the idea of recreating divisional rivalries come playoff time seems impossible. So if thats not an option - we may as well go for variety/unpredictability as thats always fun. Id LOVE a 1-16 system. Alternatively id be ok with a 1-8 conference system
 

Tarantula

Hanging around the web
Aug 31, 2017
4,451
2,863
GTA
Scrap the divisions, 2 conferences: East and West and have balanced schedule within the conference. Straight 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 round one and reseed every round.
Fairest for travel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brachyrynchos

ICM1970

Registered User
Jan 29, 2012
607
129
Ottawa, ON
I did not mind the 1979 to 1981 format (probably because that was the first while that I seriously paid attention to the NHL, lol). The divisional system adopted later might have featured the rivalries, but allowed the Leafs (during the Ballard and Brophy and McNamara era) in the Norris division to qualify for the playoffs with records that most assuredly must have been the worst to do so in any of the big 4 sports leagues in North America. Mind you, that travesty may have likely been avoided had Pittsburgh's request to move to the Norris division (which would have made sense geographically as well) been heeded.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
The divisional system adopted later might have featured the rivalries, but allowed the Leafs (during the Ballard and Brophy and McNamara era) in the Norris division to qualify for the playoffs with records that most assuredly must have been the worst to do so in any of the big 4 sports leagues in North America.
Right, but again, this will never happen nowadays in the Cap era. Don't worry about it.
 

Sadekuuro

Registered User
Aug 23, 2005
6,763
1,170
Cascadia
'79-'81, and not out of any nostalgia for watching during this period (in which I was born), but how exciting would that be, a 1-16 free-for-all with re-seeding instead of this bracket crap?

The historical looks cool too--Philly and Edmonton in the first round, Los Angeles playing both the Islanders and Rangers, Montreal and the North Stars...
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
This is probably one of those things that really depends on what happened to your team recently. If you've seen your club play the same team a lot recently, you might feel a 1 vs. 16 randomization is ideal. On the other hand, if, like me, you haven't seen your team face its natural rival in the playoffs for 28 years, you might prefer a divisional format.
 

c9777666

Registered User
Aug 31, 2016
19,892
5,875
1994-2013

It meant we could have all-divisional conference finals (NJD-NYR, CHI-DET, NJD-PHI) and the reseeding meant if there were multiple game 7's, you had no idea what the 2nd round would be until every game went final.

With all due respect to the 1981-1993 era...... too much Norris Division meh was rewarded. Like, would you rather see EDM/WPG in the Campbell Finals than whatever Norris tomato can showed up?
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
With all due respect to the 1981-1993 era...... too much Norris Division meh was rewarded. Like, would you rather see EDM/WPG in the Campbell Finals than whatever Norris tomato can showed up?
Right, but -- again -- my point is that this would never happen nowadays. As long as there's a Cap system, we're never going to see more than one or two horrible teams in each division at a time, and those teams are never going to make the playoffs. So while this was an issue in 1985 or whatever, it's not an issue today.

For example, if the strictly divisional format had been used this season, the worst team to make the playoffs would have been Arizona, at .524, followed by Vegas at .567. Last season, the worst team would have been at .579.
 

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
Right, but -- again -- my point is that this would never happen nowadays. As long as there's a Cap system, we're never going to see more than one or two horrible teams in each division at a time, and those teams are never going to make the playoffs. So while this was an issue in 1985 or whatever, it's not an issue today.

For example, if the strictly divisional format had been used this season, the worst team to make the playoffs would have been Arizona, at .524, followed by Vegas at .567. Last season, the worst team would have been at .579.
The cap helps, but the main reason we don't see teams that lose most of their games in the playoffs is because 15 teams get eliminated every year. You'd have to have an extremely lopsided distribution of wins and losses (like the Western Conference in 1996, where Detroit won everything and only two other teams managed to make it over .500; or like 1993, when almost everybody had a .500 record because Ottawa, San Jose and Tampa were sucking up all the losses), to get a team with a truly bad record that somehow still beats out 15 other teams.
Also, those winning percentages are artificially inflated by the OT point. Vegas won 43 out of their 82 games, and Arizona won 39 - that's .524 and .475 respectively. Of course, the NHL has decided that taking a higher proportion of your losses in OT is something to be rewarded, and I can't really take that away from the teams, coaches and players that strategize with that in mind to a certain extent, but a team that gets 80 points under such a system is definitely not a good or even average team, and shouldn't be treated as such.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tarantula

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->