There’s been a lot going on in the sports world lately, and not unlike a million times previous I have seen something in another sport that has me thinking about an issue I have turned over in my head constantly with regard to hockey. The other sport? Football. The league? The NFL. The issue? The impact of divisional play on the playoffs. Let me elaborate:

The NFL holds a playoff seeding system not totally unlike that of the NHL. With 32 teams separated into two conferences containing four divisions of four teams each, the playoffs comprise of the winner of each division while the two next best records in each conference gain "wild card" entries. Six playoff teams per conference, 12 teams overall. Similarly, the NHL allows entry of the three division winners and five best remaining records from each conference into the Stanley Cup playoffs: Eight teams per conference, 16 overall.

The divisional format of both leagues exists in large part from the need to create team rivalries, a long term marketing tool for the leagues, while also adding consistent regular season match-ups for all teams from year to year. This not only simplifies league scheduling (with more individual games being played against division rivals than those outside), but also establishes an expectancy from fans as to who their main opponents are going to be each year in their hunt for a championship. If you know your teams playoff hopes are largely, albeit not completely, dependent on how they perform against their divisional rivals, you're going to learn not to like them, something the league hopes fans maintain year after year after year!

While the structure of divisional play has been debated on many levels, one of the most glaring and consistent points of argument has been the seeding of divisional winners. In both the NFL and NHL, division winners automatically make the playoffs and are awarded top seeding and home field/ice advantage in the conference. Now some would argue, and rightfully so, that in the NFL, if you are going to have divisions and have teams playing proportionally more games against teams within their division than other divisions or conferences (37.5% within division, 25% other division in conference, 25% other division other conference, 12.5% intra-conference) that you should be rewarded somehow. Similarly, while not proportionally more games, within the NHL teams play six games against each divisional rival versus four against other teams from their conference and 18 non conference games (at least one against each of the across conference teams plus three additional among those 15). Again, if you are going to make teams face another group of teams more often than others, should the best of that bunch not be rewarded? Many would say they most definitely should, and entry into the playoffs for being that team is justified.

Others, however, would argue that the way in which division winners are rewarded is not necessarily indicative of the teams placement among the others in the conference. For instance, in the NHL, a team seeded 4th through 8th could have a higher overall points total than the 2nd or 3rd seed who hold that placement only via winning their division. Does that not completely overlook the overall, league-wide performance of a team at the expense of a good team within what could be a weaker division? Likewise, in the NFL, a good team is “penalized” for being in a strong division by missing the playoffs or having to potentially win a wild card spot into the playoffs (and missing out on a bye week) when another team in a weak division, with a worse record, could waltz in. Is that weak team likely to gain the number two seed and have a bye during wild card weekend? Not at all. They do, however, gain home field advantage for the wild card game they’ve likely landed in, something that is not necessarily a game breaker, but does play a role. And how much would it suck to be a better team in the conference watching a team with a worse record play that week while they’re sitting at home? Should a team with a worse record be making the playoffs when a team with a better one is missing them? Yeah, I’m looking at you Giants and Bucs…

There are also those who would argue that divisional play needs to be thrown out all together and just have the best teams from each conference make the playoffs, seeded by their record. Perhaps the strongest argument for this comes from the NFL where as we speak, a team with a losing regular season record (Seattle Seahawks at 7-9) made the playoffs by winning a division where all teams posted losing records. Should a team with a losing record make the playoffs in conference where two other teams who missed the playoffs had better records (NY Giants & Tampa Bay Buccaneers)? Nevermind that: Should a team with a losing record EVER make the playoffs to begin with? Seems to undermine the concept of pitting the best against the best, no? And yes, I realize that Seattle beat New Orleans, but that’s not the point here! The point is that other teams seemed to have earned the opportunity more than Seattle did, irrespective of what the Seahawks did. The current system, however, rewards Seattle.

Now here's where we thank the NFL for their involvement in the discussion so far, but bid them adieu and devote our focus solely to the NHL. Specifically, while there's a lot to be said for each of the situations we've presented and what predicaments they have, or might, cause for hockey, what are the viable alternatives? Let's look at a few possible solutions:

1) Do nothing and leave things as is. Accept that some of the quirks we've laid out here are inherent in this type of system, but the pros of rewarding playoff entry and seeding based on divisional play (giving the divisional winners the top three seeds in the Stanley Cup playoffs) outweigh the cons.

2) Allow teams to qualify for the playoffs by winning their division but seed based on overall performance of all qualifying teams. This will ensure that winners from weaker divisions will not receive more favourable playoff matchups than non-division winners with better overall records.

3) Although the occurrence would be exceptionally rare, should the NHL consider a rule that would prevent a team with a losing record qualifying for the playoffs even if they did win the division?

4) Lose divisional play. Weight the schedule to include more games within conference and have the playoff seeding reflect the top eight teams from each.


5) Other. Is there another scenario to be considered not mentioned here?


I’m interested to hear your thoughts around this! Not saying that there is ultimately any 100% correct answer here, but when in life or sports is there? The potential for a good debate here is entirely possible, so share your opinions and counter-arguments to others.


_________________________________________________________________________

Shawn Gates
[email protected]
Twitter: ShawnHockeybuzz
Facebook: Shawn Gates
Facebook Group: Hockeybuzz Collectibles
_________________________________________________________________________


Previous “WHAT IF…?” Articles

#1 What If The NHL Contracted To 24 Teams?

#2 What If Quebec Traded Lindros To The Rangers Instead Of The Flyers?

#3 What If Calgary Drafted Martin Brodeur Instead Of Trevor Kidd?

#3a What If Calgary Drafted Martin Brodeur Instead Of Trevor Kidd?: A RESPONSE

#4 What If The WHA Never Existed?

#5 What If The Position Of Rover Had Not Been Eliminated?

#6 What If Pittsburgh Had Not Been Awarded A Team In 1967?

#7 What If Steve Smith Had Not Scored In His Own Net In Game 7?

#8 What If The NHL Had a Cross-Conference Playoff Structure?

#9 What If The NHL Asked For Fan Ideas For Improving The Game??

#10 What If Henderson Had Missed The Net In Game 8?

#11 What If You Could Sneak Into A Stanley Cup Celebration?

#12 What If The NHL Returned To Quebec City?

#13 What if Toronto and Edmonton Had Traded Teams in 1981?

#14 What if You Could Create Your Own Hockey Dream Team?

#15 What if An Active Player in the NHL “Came Out” as Gay?

#16 You Could Assemble Your Own Fantasy Pick-up Hockey Team?

#17 Hockey Had A Champions League Tournament?

#18 Team "X" Did NOT Make Trade "Y" At The Deadline?

#19 Gretzky Had Been Called For he High Stick?

#20 Star Players Hadn't Had Their Careers Cut Short?

#21 Mark Cuban Owned An NHL Team?


Previous “Who Knew?” Articles
#1: Gordie Howe

#2: The Zamboni

#3: Maurice “The Rocket” Richard

#4: Ron Hextall

#5: Stanley Cup Abuse, Neglect and Versatility

#6: The Puck

#7: Don Cherry

#8: Cam Neely

#9: The Early Years of Les Canadiens

#10: Hockey Superstitions!

#11: Olympic Hockey Pt1

#12: Jarome Iginla


Previous “Hockey Videos”

Pain for Pleasure

National Anthems

Dion Phaneuf

Hockey Fans

Hockey Christmas

Nature Versus Sports


Previous Product Previews & Reviews

2010-11 Donruss Hockey
2010-11 Panini Score Hockey
2010-11 Panini Certified Hockey
2010-11 ITG Ultimate Memorabilia, 10th Edition
2010-11 ITG Heroes & Prospects
2010-11 Panini Pinnacle Hockey


Previous “Who Am I?” Articles

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7


Previous “Points To Ponder” Articles

East vs West: Which Conference is Best?


Previous “Display Case” Articles

#1: The “Frankenstick!”
#2: Your desk has the right to remain collectable!
#3: Have Pads, Will Travel
#4: Pick a Pekka (Rinne) Autographed Mask
#5: Ted Lindsay Gets Kronwalled?



Previous "Devil's In The Details" Articles

#1: Beware the "Factory Sealed Box"!

#2: The Price Guide"

#3: What IS A Rookie Card?

#4: Beware the Money Order!

#5: The Counterfeit Gretzky RC




Ultimate Set Build

INDEX



Previous Box Breaks

2010-11 Score Hockey



Previous “Devil's Advocate” Articles

Gary Bettman and the Phoenix Coyotes



Previous “According to Twitter” Articles

Olympic Gold Medal Game

Olympic Hockey

Kovalchuk Trade



Previous “Town Without A Team” Articles

Booger Hollow, Arkansas

Hell, Michigan



Previous “Hockey Psychology” Articles

State Dependent Learning

Arousal and Performance

Depression