1980's Playoff Format - any complaints?

[sonic92]

The playoff format the NHL has today as a lot of similarities to the divisional format used in the 1980's, yet while people loved the 80's format, it seems that all people want to do nowadays is whine about the current one even though they are very similar.

To those who were around in the 80's, were there any complaints about the playoff format from back in the day?

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Lets examine year by year

81-82 seemed fair
82-83 Blues qualify with 65 pts 4th in Norris, Kings have 66 pts but finish last in Smythe, not the worst thing.
83-84 fair
84-85 - Rangers qualify with 62 pts 4th in Patrick, Whalers finish last in Adams with 69 pts out
85-86 - fair
86-87 - fair
87-88 Rangers and Pens finish 5th and 6th in the Patrick with 82 and 81 pts while the Whalers finish in 4th in the Adams with 77pts and make it. Leafs finish in 4th in the Norris with 52 pts and make it, while the Canucks finish in 5th in the Smythe with 59 pts and miss.
88-89 fair
89-90 fair
90-91 - Whalers finish in 4th in the Adams with 73 pts and make it, Flyers finish 5th in the Patrick with 76 pts and miss.
End Of Balanced Schedule

91-92- Whalers finish in 4th in the Adams and make it, while the Flyers and Islanders finish in 5th and 6th in the Patrick with 79 and 75 pts and miss. North Stars finish in 4th in the Norris with 70 pts and make it, while the Flames finish 5th in the Smythe with 74 pts and miss.

92-93- fair

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'd be in favor of the 80s way over this. You're either pure divisional, or you're conference. Hybrid doesn't make sense to me. Just pick a lane. This Yogi Berra "when you see a fork in the road, you take it" stance isn't any good to me...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

what i appreciated about the 80s format—though tbh i mostly experienced this in the early 90s, up to 1993—is the divisions had identities.

the adams was defensive, the norris was a bloodbath, the smythe was run and gun and nobody played credible defence, and the patrick was the wildcard but honestly i kind of hated all the eastern seaboard teams for being a bunch of cakeeaters.

and if that were to come back today, in a league where it's not just the bottom team in each division that misses the playoffs, we would have much more interesting trade deadlines, imo. with some certainty about who, or at least what, you will face in the first two rounds, the arms race could be very different.

 

[Reality Check]

I know I would have preferred the divisional setup in the 90's with Detroit.

Those west coast playoff games weren't fun the next day at school

 

[decma]

Lets examine year by year

81-82 seemed fair
82-83 Blues qualify with 65 pts 4th in Norris, Kings have 66 pts but finish last in Smythe, not the worst thing.
83-84 fair
84-85 - Rangers qualify with 62 pts 4th in Patrick, Whalers finish last in Adams with 69 pts out
85-86 - fair
86-87 - fair
87-88 Rangers and Pens finish 5th and 6th in the Patrick with 82 and 81 pts while the Whalers finish in 4th in the Adams with 77pts and make it. Leafs finish in 4th in the Norris with 52 pts and make it, while the Canucks finish in 5th in the Smythe with 59 pts and miss.
88-89 fair
89-90 fair
90-91 - Whalers finish in 4th in the Adams with 73 pts and make it, Flyers finish 5th in the Patrick with 76 pts and miss.
End Of Balanced Schedule

91-92- Whalers finish in 4th in the Adams and make it, while the Flyers and Islanders finish in 5th and 6th in the Patrick with 79 and 75 pts and miss. North Stars finish in 4th in the Norris with 70 pts and make it, while the Flames finish 5th in the Smythe with 74 pts and miss.

92-93- fair

In 85/86 the Sabres missed with 80 points (everyone in the Adams was .500 or better) and the Penguins missed with 76, while the Leafs made it in the Norris with 57 pts and the Canucks and Jets made it in the Smythe with 59 pts.

I think there were definitely complaints in 85/86 and 87/88.

But I definitely prefer that format to today's. It was more feasible with 21 teams than 32, but divisions meant far more then than now.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'd be in favor of the 80s way over this. You're either pure divisional, or you're conference. Hybrid doesn't make sense to me. Just pick a lane. This Yogi Berra "when you see a fork in the road, you take it" stance isn't any good to me...

I agree. To me there's nothing at all wrong with divisional playoffs. Just commit to it and move on.

"But what if one division is way stronger and the other is way weaker?" Well, people will whine about it. Or they'll whine about something else. Who cares.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Right...and also, as Chief noted above, it's not a big deal, it's mostly a few points separating under .500 teams...who cares...

 

[reckoning]

I hated it:

A team should not be getting in the playoffs when they finished over 20 points behind a team that missed. The Norris Division was a joke, but the teams had no incentive to try and improve themselves since they could suck and still have a good chance of getting in.

Also hate that it brought the conference vs conference final format that still exists today. There were too many years in the 80s and 90s when the Stanley Cup Final was an anticlimactic mismatch because the two best teams happened to be in the same conference and therefore couldn't play each other in the Final.

 

[Michael Farkas]

A team should not be getting in the playoffs when they finished over 20 points behind a team that missed.

Did that happen more than once...? Would it have happened during this weird hybrid time...? Not a loaded question, it's genuine.

 

[Stephen]

There were plenty of roadkill teams and unfair matchups and undeserving playoff qualifiers from those division formats that people probably don't think about much.

Quebec lost to Montreal and Boston a number of times and really didn't get over the hump. Calgary Flames lost to the Oilers a number of times. Jets lost to the Oilers a number of times.

Meanwhile the Toronto Maple Leafs could make the playoffs with a .356 and .325 record some years.

The only lesson to be taken is, win. Nothing else really matters.

 

[reckoning]

Did that happen more than once...? Would it have happened during this weird hybrid time...? Not a loaded question, it's genuine.

Happened to Buffalo in '86, as well as Pittsburgh and the Rangers in '88. There were many other times when a team with less points got in, but the difference was less than 20 points.

The disparity of the divisions led to odd opening round matchups. In '86 and '90 they had two of the top five teams playing each other in the first round, meanwhile in '87 and '89 the Norris Division had no teams over .500, yet one of them was guaranteed a spot in the Final Four.

 

[Jets4Life]

The playoff format the NHL has today as a lot of similarities to the divisional format used in the 1980's, yet while people loved the 80's format, it seems that all people want to do nowadays is whine about the current one even though they are very similar.

To those who were around in the 80's, were there any complaints about the playoff format from back in the day?

I hated the 80s playoff format. Keep in mind, I was a Jets fan in the 80s, so even if we had a good team, it would mean getting through either Edmonton or Calgary to reach the Conference Finals. Compare that to the Norris Division, where most of the playoff teams were horrible, and there were seasons where a record over .500 would be enough for 1st place.

Personally, I don't care for the current format. I liked the format with 3 divisions in each conference, where each Division winner would make the playoffs, followed by the top 5 teams in the conference.

 

[Buffalowing1988]

I don't have a problem, per se, with the 80s era but I also think the divisional thing gets old and the novelty wears off after awhile.

I will always support the 1-8 seeding in the conference with divisional leaders up top format because it offers new matchups and interesting dynamics but I'm probably biased since that was the format for the years I was most invested in the league.

 

[The Panther]

I'd be in favor of the 80s way over this. You're either pure divisional, or you're conference. Hybrid doesn't make sense to me. Just pick a lane. This Yogi Berra "when you see a fork in the road, you take it" stance isn't any good to me...

I think I agree with you. Everything in the NHL now is too complicated. The 3 point vs. 2 point games, the losses that aren't losses, points percentages, playoff format . . .

 

[McGarnagle]

There were less teams and a more balanced schedule, but you see weird things like in 1986 when the Sabres missed the playoffs because they finished 5th in the Adams with a record of 37-37-6, while three teams in the Campbell Conference made the playoffs with 59 points or under. You hear other complaints about how there was a window when the Winnipeg Jets were probably the third or fourth best team in hockey but because they're in the same division as the Oilers and Flames they couldn't even get out of the first round.

I just had a thought come to mind - I don't think the switch from divisional brackets to 1 through 8 or the current wild card system has to do with the quality of the playoffs, it's more to make the end of the regular season more meaningful - if more teams are alive with a shot to make the playoffs into the last week of the season, those games will be sold out, people will be watching, etc. Divisional brackets tend to be locked up earlier while wild cards go down to the end. More paths to the playoffs make more exciting ends to the season. Right now for example it's giving Florida and Pittsburgh something to play for - in a pure divisional format the Panthers would probably be coasting down the stretch with the 4 seed locked up and people wouldn't be as invested in going to games in a market that needs some buzz to get people to the stadium. It also gives Pittsburgh and Islanders fans more scoreboard watching to do which increases engagement. So it's not really about the playoffs in the end, it's about maximizing regular season ratings.

 

[The Panther]

I was a just a young kid, but I remember there being a lot of talk about the limitations of the strict divisional format at the end of the 1987-88 season, mainly because (as noted above) Toronto made the playoffs while a club like the Rangers didn't.

 

[JianYang]

I find this issue similar to the tanking epidemic.

It sucks but I can't think of an alternative without is own pitfalls.

 

[Jets4Life]

There were less teams and a more balanced schedule, but you see weird things like in 1986 when the Sabres missed the playoffs because they finished 5th in the Adams with a record of 37-37-6, while three teams in the Campbell Conference made the playoffs with 59 points or under. You hear other complaints about how there was a window when the Winnipeg Jets were probably the third or fourth best team in hockey but because they're in the same division as the Oilers and Flames they couldn't even get out of the first round.

In the 80s people would jokingly say that the battle of Alberta was the real Stanley Cup, since Alberta teams made it to the finals 8 years in a row, and won 6 Stanley Cups from 1983-90.

 

[The Panther]

In the 80s people would jokingly say that the battle of Alberta was the real Stanley Cup, since Alberta teams made it to the finals 8 years in a row, and won 6 Stanley Cups from 1983-90.

I don't think the battle of Alberta was the real Cup Final (with the exception of 1988).

But I would say the Smythe championship (2nd round) series was the real Conference championship.

As I kid, I remember Edmonton winning the Smythe (and Calgary in '86; '89) and me thinking, "Okay, they made the Final!" Like, it never even entered the realm of possibility that the Smythe winner would lose to the Norris champ.

 

[Jets4Life]

I don't think the battle of Alberta was the real Cup Final (with the exception of 1988).

But I would say the Smythe championship (2nd round) series was the real Conference championship.

As I kid, I remember Edmonton winning the Smythe (and Calgary in '86; '89) and me thinking, "Okay, they made the Final!" Like, it never even entered the realm of possibility that the Smythe winner would lose to the Norris champ.

During the Divisional playoff format (1981-93), the Smythe Division went a perfect 13-0 against the Norris winner. For the last three years, the Norris Division had caught up to the Smythe in terms of competitiveness, but in the 80s, the Smythe was a far better division.

I often thought that if the Jets were in the Norris, they probably could have made the Conference Final 2 or 3 times, considering we played 16 games against the two powerhouse Alberta teams. In 1985 and 87, I have no doubt the Jets would have emerged as the division champs, and possibly 1990 as well.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

During the Divisional playoff format (1981-93), the Smythe Division went a perfect 13-0 against the Norris winner.

What about 1991 (North Stars over Oilers) and 1992 (Blackhawks over Oilers)?

 

[Hynh]

The 80s format was better designed. The playoff format was purely divisional so the schedule had a heavy division bias (20 extra games against your division). The percentage of teams that made the playoffs was so high that in 3 of 4 divisions there were no excuses if you missed. The biggest mistake was not re-seeding after the divisional playoffs finished.

The modern format is for try hards that think lots of teams missing the playoffs is a good thing but at the same time are worried about teams missing the playoffs so they gum up the works with the wild cards. They're probably the same people overly worried about tanking, not realizing that the easiest way to kill tanking (in non-Crosby/McDavid years) is to make the playoff money too alluring to owners.