I think the top 8 in each conference, regardless of division, which could mean all or none of a division make it. As far as playoff format, in each conference, #1 would play #8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs. 5.

Second round would be the top team remaining vs. #4 2nd team against 3 with home ice advantage obviously going to the team with the most regular season points remaining.

I love the fact top teams are playing in the early rounds... makes them more relevant and fun to watch

Someone wanting to bring back the Southleast conference! No thanks.
- thomasp520

Lol, the good ol' Southleast division.
Nowadays...with TB, current Cup champ Caps, up&coming Panthers, and Carolina also improving...the "L" would be dropped from the division's name. The "L" may even be replaced by a "B".

We need less games not more by going to 96.

Out of conference H&H -- 32 games
In conference H&H -- 24 games
In division -- 6 games -- 18 games

74 game schedule push the start of the season back to Nov 1

Non-conference opponents home and away - 32 games (16x2)
Conference opponents - (regard less of division) 45 games (15x3) (77 total games)
Top 6 point totals in each conference auto qualify
Teams with point totals 7-10 play best of three at higher seeded team's home arena (or rotating neutral sites - like NCAA tournament)
Revenues of play-in games split between all teams qualifying for playoffs
Teams with 4 highest regular season point totals host first round games after play-in games (even if not division winner since schedules will be even)

Teams get rewarded with rest (1-6) and more teams fight in out to the end (7-10)
May also help with tanking issue since more teams involved all the way to the end
Eliminates teams making playoffs from a division that is awful (proposed EDM, CAL, VAN, SEA now) but that can change
Could also reward teams that lose play-in games with increased lottery odds further lessening tanking issue

How did Bettman feel about this proposal?

The second you mess around with the number of games played in a season you lose historic single season record and stats nostalgia.
- RuutuRock’emLikeU2#37

That already happens with seasons in the past being different lengths, team stats are skewed, team records are a mess with overtimes, shootouts and such. When you add more teams, you have to make changes, simple as that. As the game evolves, so should the league formats and details.

82 games all worth either 2 or 3 points. No more of these extra point games. Playoffs 1-8 by conference.

Get rid of conferences and divisions. 1vs32, 2vs31 etc... shorten season. Everyone plays everyone twice. 62 games. Then add 10 games (whatever random format you want) for 72. Playoffs are one extra round.
Might see more “hockey” trades this way.

This is just a thought. Not to be taken too seriously.

This is a decent idea. As a Leafs fan I would enjoy the annual divisional title that we would have for the next decade - unless Buffalo comes around and steals one or two.

I disagree that the Atlantic division was horrendous.
Tampa(3rd overall)(1st in East)
Boston(4th overall)(2nd in East)
Toronto(7th overall)(4th in East FU washington and your ROW tiebreaker)

Your solution doesn't solve the problem(that I don't believe in) anyways. The fourth divisional winner could easily be the 4th or 5th or 6th best team and they would play the first wild card who could potentially finish even higher.

Pittsburgh and Washington could finish 1, 2 in the East. You could end up with the 2nd seeded Eastern team being seeded 5th and playing against another top team in the first round.

The main reason I see no problem with the current system is that league parity is at an all time high. You have to beat 4 good teams to win a cup and I would say you have to beat 3 GREAT teams to win a cup.

By the time you get to round 2 there are only elite teams and the occasional upset left anyways.

It sucked for the Leafs to finish 7th overall and face the 4th overall Bruins in round 1 but I don't see a problem. You gotta beat good teams to win.

Nashville and Winnipeg finished 1,2 in league standings and they played each other in round 2? Well there's only 8 teams in round 2 so you are bound to have the top teams playing against each other.

I love the fact top teams are playing in the early rounds... makes them more relevant and fun to watch
- ChrisMS

For sure! And....by round 2 there are only 8 teams left in it so.... good teams

Nice to banter around ideas....but....a futile exercise.

1. NHL hates change
2. Any extra travel makes it an automatic "No"
3. NHL hung up on "Division Rivalries"

Number 1 alone means we are years away from any real playoff format change....

You mention that the playoff structure didnt work because the Atlantic had crappy teams.... when it actually screwed the Atlantic teams over. 3 of the top 4 teams in the east were in the Atlantic and they all had to battle it out.

Bruins and leafs would have been the 3 and 4 seed and they had to play each other.

Winner playing the 1 seed....

it was the same for the Metro the year before. The current format stinks.
- Mahewman

Ya but they were able to beat up on OTT, BUF, MTL, and DET. Bottom of the division was a tire fire

Nice to banter around ideas....but....a futile exercise.

1. NHL hates change
2. Any extra travel makes it an automatic "No"
3. NHL hung up on "Division Rivalries"

Number 1 alone means we are years away from any real playoff format change....
- hawk35

1 and 3 I agree with, but this would mean less travel actually. All the divisions are pretty close in distance.

i would not mine your set up at all

I don't see a problem with strong teams meeting in the first or second round. There is so much parity that there are no real easy opponents anyway. The regional rivalries and more potential playoff rematches are worth it. I think the playoff brackets have been great under the current format.

Minimize travel?

Stay in school geez

Playoff format wouldn't of mattered. The issue with the last format we had was magnified by a team with less points getting into the top 3. Using your example, based off of last years results.

Also, the parity in the league is gonna continue and no matter what, we're gonna get great teams facing each other in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

WEST:

NSH
WIN
VGK
CGY-Had 84 points, 14 LESS than LA
MIN
ANA
SJ
LA

NSH/LA
WIN/SJ
VGK/ANA
CGY/MIN

NSH
WIN
VGK
MIN

NSH/MIN
WIN/VGK

NSH/VGK


EAST:

TB
BOS
TOR
PIT-Had 100 points, 5 LESS points than WSH
WSH
PHI
CBJ
NJ

TB/NJ
BOS/CBJ
TOR/PHI
PIT/WSH

TB
BOS
TOR
WSH

TB/WSH
BOS/TOR

BOS/WSH(I'd say WSH because they got over the hump this year)

STANLEY CUP FINAL:
VGK/WSH

Thst's the 3rd seed in the WEST and the 5th seed in the EAST.

I don't think there's enough advantage given to teams that finish higher in the standings. Yes I realise they get the final change & games at home to start & finish, but really is that an advantage for playing so well for 82 games?

The playoffs is a lottery, basically most teams that are contenders can win from anywhere regardless of who they play. What is a joke is the teams that miss out but have better records than teams in other divisions but still miss the playoffs due to the conference. Having the top 16 teams should be the playoffs formulae no matter which division or conference. The lowest qualifiers become the WC & get on the planes - I would stack the best of 7 with the first 3 games being the higher seeds home games followed by 2 for the WC at home & finish with simple home & away. That gives the higher seeds more advantage if home games are considered that. Then if the WC teams win, they then take the lower seed round 2 unless another WC team below them plays them. A WC team won't get any advantage no matter if they're beat higher seeds.

That may force teams to play for a better finish in the regular season standings rather than just plod along & just get in.

As with most similar plans, yours fails to address what happens when the "Wild Card" teams--must we ALWAYS copy the NFL??-- have BETTER records than the division winners? Division winners should be guaranteed nothing more than a playoff spot. Divisions winners who finish with lower point totals than the other playoff teams should NOT be guaranteed a higher seed or home ice. In the old playoff system, Washington used to do this on a yearly basis, winning the very weak southeastern division and getting a 3 seed, always taking home ice over 4-5-6 and sometimes 7 seeds who had higher point totals. That needs to be fixed.

Trevor Shackles: How to Fix the NHL Playoff Structure
Looking at a way to improve the NHL playoffs
- Trevor Shackles

terrible imo

The Bruins and Habs should be in the same division for eternity.

Why not just do 16 in East and 16 in West and top 8 from each go to playoffs?

1v8
4v5
3v6
2v7

no reseeding

I think the top 8 in each conference, regardless of division, which could mean all or none of a division make it. As far as playoff format, in each conference, #1 would play #8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs. 5.

Second round would be the top team remaining vs. #4 2nd team against 3 with home ice advantage obviously going to the team with the most regular season points remaining.
- weener1958

That's how it was before the change, and how it should still be. It's the fairest way by a mile.

Top 8 in both conferences are seeded 1-8.
Both conferences re-seed 1-4 after round 1.

Each conference is left with 2 teams.
Combine all 4 teams, seeded 1-4. 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3. Could be a conference opponent or not, in this format. Could even be a divisional foe.

2 winners play each other for the Cup. Again, could be even be 2 teams from the same division, or conference, or not.

To me, this is the easiest and most fair way to find a true champion without super crazy travel schedules.