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

Why complicate things. Top 8 of each conference make the playoffs end of story. This works because everyone in the East and West play the same amount of games against the same opponents the same amount of times in their conference.

Why complicate things. Top 8 of each conference make the playoffs end of story. This works because everyone in the East and West play the same amount of games against the same opponents the same amount of times in their conference.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

that only works if every team plays every other team the same amount of times.

if the schedule is "skewed" based on divisional alignment then the standings need to reflect that IMO.

Why complicate things. Top 8 of each conference make the playoffs end of story. This works because everyone in the East and West play the same amount of games against the same opponents the same amount of times in their conference.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Ehh, you know that won't happen though, the league needs divisions

that only works if every team plays every other team the same amount of times.

if the schedule is "skewed" based on divisional alignment then the standings need to reflect that IMO.
- sensarmy_11

They do. Every Eastern team plays each eastern team 4 times and each Western team plays each west team 4 times. That leaves 18 games between cross conference games. That is 15 games if you play each team once and then you play 3 more teams in the opposite conference an extra time.

I dont see a problem with 83 games. Why does it need to be an even number or rounded to the nearest 5. We are looking to fix something and i do like your proposal.

Something is definitely broken and we will look at this past year for example. The top 8 teams in the league were as follows:

Nashville
Winnipeg
Tampa Bay
Boston
Las Vegas
Washington
Toronto
Minnesota

In theory, none of these teams should have faced off in the first round. Instead we had Boston and Toronto, Winnipeg and Minnesota. Not only that, but the #1 and #2 overall in the league met in the second round, as did #3 and #4.

So two top 4 teams, guaranteed to not have a shot beyond second round. Sounds broken to me.

-Dan

Ehh, you know that won't happen though, the league needs divisions
- Trevor Shackles

Divisions are no good. You are just further unbalancing things. Divisions play each other more times than other teams which makes it unbalanced since not every division would be the same level.

Lets say you further split the conference into divisions. We will go back to 3 divisions per conference with last years standings. How fair does it look when the Leafs and Boston are playing Montreal Buffalo and Ottawa for the majority of the season. Back in the day I believe it was 8 times you played a division team. Flip it the other way. I cant remember what year it was but there was a season where the Southeast division was weak and the top team in that division was in a playoff spot because they were the best in that division but had less points than other Eastern teams that were outside of the playoffs.

Using the Top 8 method per conference is the closest you can get to fair. Only other option is to change the # games in a season. If you bump is to 96 with the addition of Seattle you can have every team play each other 3 times or 128 for 4 games each and use a top 16 format.

Divisions are no good. You are just further unbalancing things. Divisions play each other more times than other teams which makes it unbalanced since not every division would be the same level.

Lets say you further split the conference into divisions. We will go back to 3 divisions per conference with last years standings. How fair does it look when the Leafs and Boston are playing Montreal Buffalo and Ottawa for the majority of the season. Back in the day I believe it was 8 times you played a division team. Flip it the other way. I cant remember what year it was but there was a season where the Southeast division was weak and the top team in that division was in a playoff spot because they were the best in that division but had less points than other Eastern teams that were outside of the playoffs.

Using the Top 8 method per conference is the closest you can get to fair. Only other option is to change the # games in a season. If you bump is to 96 with the addition of Seattle you can have every team play each other 3 times or 128 for 4 games each and use a top 16 format.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Not saying I disagree with this, I'm just saying that for travel purposes and knowing the NHL, getting rid of divisions would never happen. In terms of fairness, I agree that no divisions would be better

Boston in the Metro makes zero sense, you're taking away Philly from the metro which has two of its top 3 rivals within the division (NYR NJD). Put Buffalo in the Atlantic, put Philly in the Metro and put Boston in the Northeast

Boston in the Metro makes zero sense, you're taking away Philly from the metro which has two of its top 3 rivals within the division (NYR NJD). Put Buffalo in the Atlantic, put Philly in the Metro and put Boston in the Northeast
- pjdevil

This is exactly what I was going to say

If we go with 4-team divisions here are two options I just cooked up off the top of my head that seem intriguing to me.

CONFERENCE-BASED SYSTEM

Season structure:

3 division opponents x 6 games each = 18 games
12 conference opponents x 4 games each = 48 games
2 out-of conference divisions (rotating) away = 8 games
2 out-of conference divisions (rotating) home = 8 games

This keeps season lengths at 82 games and keeps focus on divisional and conference matchups. You still play every team in the NHL at least once, and play in out-of-conference buildings once every two years.

I get that people like the idea of playing in every building every year, but if the playoffs continue to be rigorously conference-based I don't think it makes sense to play 40% of your schedule out of conference. At that point why even bother with conferences?

Playoff structure:

Winning your division guarantees a playoff spot, but not a top-four seeding. Four division winners, four wild cards, ranked 1-8 on total points. Do a bracket or re-seed every round, I don't care. I like re-seeding conceptually but tournament brackets are easier / more fun for your casual fan.

ANARCHY-BASED SYSTEM

Season structure:

3 division opponents x 6 games each = 18 games
1 other division (rotating) x 4 games each = 16 games
6 remaining divisions x 2 games each = 48 games

Season length still 82 games. Everybody plays in every building every year.

Playoff structure:

No conferences. The 16 teams with the best records make the playoffs and are seeded 1-16.

Keep it the same and do 1 vs 8 etc.

Like

It's not really an improvement over what they're currently doing. Any time you seed based on division winners, you run into the same problem if there are weaker divisions. What happens if Toronto and Ottawa are the two best teams in the league? They're still going to meet each other in the second round.

There isn't a perfect solution, but what they do now is fine. Why change it?

The most fair way? Do away with conferences and divisions, and go to a 32 team league.

Each team plays the other 31 twice, home and away. Then add another 20 games assigned randomly, no more than 1 with each team, 10 home, 10 road.

Top 16 make the playoffs, 1 plays 16, 2 v. 15, etc.

This also balances the travel, so that the teams in the northeast (NYR, NJ, NYI, etc.) don't play the majority of their road games within an hour or two of their home rink.

Plus, you are not forced to watch bad teams within your division over & over.

It's not really an improvement over what they're currently doing. Any time you seed based on division winners, you run into the same problem if there are weaker divisions. What happens if Toronto and Ottawa are the two best teams in the league? They're still going to meet each other in the second round.

There isn't a perfect solution, but what they do now is fine. Why change it?
- Hunkulese

Because its boring seeing the same playoff matchups every year. How many more years do we need to see PIT VS WSH in the second round?

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.

Too complicated. The simple facts are if we're trying to get the "Best Teams" deeper into the nhl playoffs each year, similar to the nba but without it being automatic like Golden State or Lebron. The best solution Ive heard is leave the divisions alone bc I enjoy the stacked Metro&Central being 2 heavyweights in the nhl w/ Caps,Pens,jackets etc and Central with Preds,Jets,Hawks etc. Last year was 1 of the best years ever for NHL so this debate is bad timing after an all time great OV gets his cup and NHL flourishes. But back to the point, the best solution Ive heard is, adding 2 extra WC spots like MLB which puts more value on division titles and prez Trophies which should happen. Imagine instead of facing a 8 seed you face a 10 seed who upsets the 8 seed in 1 gm playoff. The system should be set up to put more importance on winning the division and Prez Trophy, not limping into the playoffs and getting equal benefit as 125point 1st place team

I dont see a problem with 83 games. Why does it need to be an even number or rounded to the nearest 5. We are looking to fix something and i do like your proposal.

-Dan
- Dan42

The second you mess around with the number of games played in a season you lose historic single season record and stats nostalgia.

Using the Top 8 method per conference is the closest you can get to fair. Only other option is to change the # games in a season. If you bump is to 96 with the addition of Seattle you can have every team play each other 3 times or 128 for 4 games each and use a top 16 format.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

There is no way the league is going to go to 96 games. In a non-compressed schedule, you're talking playing every other night on average; throw in the mandatory 5 days off and the All-Star break, and you're pretty compressed already. Squeezing that into 180 days is just suicidal. (128 is beyond suicidal.)

If anything, the league needs to figure out how to better space out games to minimize 3-in-4 clumpings. (You would have thought the NHLPA would have maybe pushed for that in the last CBA negotiation, but Fehr was busy making sure they got high-quality bath towels instead.)

If we go with 4-team divisions here are two options I just cooked up off the top of my head that seem intriguing to me.

CONFERENCE-BASED SYSTEM

Season structure:

3 division opponents x 6 games each = 18 games
12 conference opponents x 4 games each = 48 games
2 out-of conference divisions (rotating) away = 8 games
2 out-of conference divisions (rotating) home = 8 games

This keeps season lengths at 82 games and keeps focus on divisional and conference matchups. You still play every team in the NHL at least once, and play in out-of-conference buildings once every two years.
- Sven22

I like this. I thought the league should have done something like this coming out of the 2005 lockout. If one wants to amend to make sure everyone plays everyone else at least once, "play each division in the other conference; 2 of those divisions you play at home, the other 2 are away. Flip home/away each year so you at least get to see everyone in the other conference in your arena every other year."

No conferences. The 16 teams with the best records make the playoffs and are seeded 1-16.
- Sven22

You can never use this format and have it be fair unless the schedule is perfectly balanced, which it was the two (2) years the NHL used this format.

4 divisions total
2 division winners 1&2
3-8 decided by points
Re-seed after each round

This 1,2,3 1,2,3 is garbage

There is no way the league is going to go to 96 games. In a non-compressed schedule, you're talking playing every other night on average; throw in the mandatory 5 days off and the All-Star break, and you're pretty compressed already. Squeezing that into 180 days is just suicidal. (128 is beyond suicidal.)

If anything, the league needs to figure out how to better space out games to minimize 3-in-4 clumpings. (You would have thought the NHLPA would have maybe pushed for that in the last CBA negotiation, but Fehr was busy making sure they got high-quality bath towels instead.)



I like this. I thought the league should have done something like this coming out of the 2005 lockout. If one wants to amend to make sure everyone plays everyone else at least once, "play each division in the other conference; 2 of those divisions you play at home, the other 2 are away. Flip home/away each year so you at least get to see everyone in the other conference in your arena every other year."


You can never use this format and have it be fair unless the schedule is perfectly balanced, which it was the two (2) years the NHL used this format.
- MichaelScarn

Who says you have to squeeze it in? Just Push playoffs back. Gives us way more to look forward to before the draft. 96 games is extra 3 weeks unless some games are squeezed in which it reasonably can given there are weeks were teams play only 2 games a week. Plus those dumb bye weeks

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

Too complicated. The simple facts are if we're trying to get the "Best Teams" deeper into the nhl playoffs each year, similar to the nba but without it being automatic like Golden State or Lebron.
- Hockey4Lyfe86

This presumes that the actual goal of the playoffs is to get the "Best Teams" deeper into the postseason. It's not, and hasn't been since 1981 in the NHL, 1967 in the NFL, 1949 in the NBA, and ever in MLB. It's to ensure that each conference is represented in the Finals, even if one is clearly dominant to the other. If "get the best teams to the Finals" were really the goal, then you'd want a postseason format something like this:

(1E) vs. (8W)
(4W) vs. (5E)
(3E) vs. (6W)
(2W) vs. (7E)
(2E) vs. (7W)
(3W) vs. (6E)
(4E) vs. (5W)
(1W) vs. (8E)

In this setup, you find out really, really quickly whether one conference is stronger than the other; if that's the case, then the stronger conference in theory advances more teams deeper into the postseason - and it potentially means semifinal matchups of teams from one conference because the other has been eliminated completely.

It means no deep familiarity with your 1st-round opponent (maybe you played them once, twice at most), which puts a premium on scouting and planning - something that you may have to do through the entire playoffs if you're playing teams from the other conference the entire way through. It also means that everyone would have to travel off the bat; Eastern Conference teams would scream about that. You also possibly "lose" the "traditional playoff rivalries" (which ignores that new ones potentially get created). But if "try to get the best teams to the Finals" is the goal, then cross-conference play right off the bat in the playoffs is how you would try to accomplish it.

Who says you have to squeeze it in? Just Push playoffs back. Gives us way more to look forward to before the draft. 96 games is extra 3 weeks unless some games are squeezed in which it reasonably can given there are weeks were teams play only 2 games a week. Plus those dumb bye weeks
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

3 extra weeks gets you to May 1. (14 extra games will probably be closer to 4 weeks, though.) That now pushes the Finals into mid-June at the very earliest, and you're almost certainly playing the Finals when the draft happens; depending how scheduling goes and how long the Finals take, you're playing the Finals right up to July 1. And that doesn't get into the impact this would have on player availability for the World Championships (which happens to be a big deal for European countries) or other stuff.

Or, I guess we could ask the players to play 96 games in 180 or so days and then do 4 games in 5 days a la 1980s playoff hockey and see how they respond. [sarcasm] I'm sure they'll be all for it. [/sarcasm]

Those "dumb bye weeks" were NHLPA-negotiated. If you're taking them away, what are you giving the union in exchange? (Hint: they were requested because of the wear-and-tear on players from having to play compressed schedules.)