New Schedule/Playoff Format. No realignment necessary!

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Calad

Section 422
Jul 24, 2011
4,045
2,604
Long Island
Reports from the recent board of governers meetings suggested the league was looking into expanding the schedule to have more reg season and less preseason games, no doubt to drive up the gate revenue. The league realigned about 10 years ago back to a 4 division structure with a divisional playoff citing the desire to "reignite rivalries" and make division games matter. It's been lackluster, scheduling is weird (NYR vs NYI didnt have a game for the first 3 months of the season in 23-24), travel still sucks. Here's my idea to increase games and revenue, foster stronger rivalries, and decrease travel.

Each team plays their division opponents 5 times each. Assuming divisions stay the same (8 teams each), thats 7 teams x 5 games per (since you cant play yourself...) = 35 games.

You play 2 games (1 home 1 away) vs every other team in the league outside your division. Thats 24 teams x 2 games = 48 games.

This totals 83 games, so currently only 1 extra regular season game per team, totaling 16 extra games. However, this should also reduce travel a fair amount, especially for the western conference teams who will travel between the midwest and the west coast roughly half as much.

Playoffs:
Now then, since we're playing a fair amount more of divisional games this gives more weight to the divisional playoff format. Since playing (and winning) your division is a bigger slice of your schedule. This would help mitigate a situation where one division is far stronger than another. In doing this, we can also get rid of the awkward structure of the current wild card. No longer will we have the awkwardness of wildcard teams winning a division which they don't belong to.

For each division, the top 3 seeds are locked in, and seeds 4 and 5 are wild cards, which would play a best of 3 play-in series to advance to the playoffs vs the 1 seed.

This would add another 8-12 games, this time of playoff hockey, with that comes the extra gate/concessions, as well as an excellent opportunity for the league to get a bigger slice of that TV money, which has been responsible the uptick in league revenue with its recent ESPN/TNT deals, and also generally has been a big driver for the rest of the big 4 in recent times.


Hope you like it, have fun tearing it apart :thumbu:
 

Rob Brown

Way She Goes
Dec 17, 2009
17,399
14,456
83 games feels weird - not sure it matters but I feel like they'd want to have an even # of games for each team.

The wild card idea is fun.
 

notDatsyuk

Registered User
Jul 20, 2018
11,167
9,097
I'm not crazy about adding another round to the playoffs, but I would like to see the elimination of the wild cards.

Four teams from each division make the playoffs, and the first round is within the division (1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3).

Second round is cross-division (A1 vs M2 and M1 vs A2, C1 vs P2 and P1 vs C2).

Third round is cross-conference (E1 vs W2 and W1 vs E2).

Final is two best teams, regardless of where they come from.

I know the league won't like the idea, as they seem to think it has to be one Western team against one Eastern team in the final, but at least this way there is a chance of a Rangers/Isles or Leafs/Habs or Oilers/Flames, or Sharks/Kings final.
 

Coffees

blackhawk down
Nov 12, 2021
8,389
7,153
Massachusetts
I'm not crazy about adding another round to the playoffs, but I would like to see the elimination of the wild cards.

Four teams from each division make the playoffs, and the first round is within the division (1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3).

Second round is cross-division (A1 vs M2 and M1 vs A2, C1 vs P2 and P1 vs C2).

Third round is cross-conference (E1 vs W2 and W1 vs E2).

Final is two best teams, regardless of where they come from.

I know the league won't like the idea, as they seem to think it has to be one Western team against one Eastern team in the final, but at least this way there is a chance of a Rangers/Isles or Leafs/Habs or Oilers/Flames, or Sharks/Kings final.
lol , dude, yes you are.


I agree with this post though besides the opening line
 

HockeyVirus

Woll stan.
Nov 15, 2020
18,372
28,288
I don't want to expand the playoff format or change it. 4 rounds of best of 7 it should remain. It's the best hockey of the year, only the 16 best teams should be in it no matter how many teams they add.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,690
2,945
Division only playoffs for a few rounds is dumb and boring. NHL will never do that again nor would they do cross conference finals.
 

Calad

Section 422
Jul 24, 2011
4,045
2,604
Long Island
Division only playoffs for a few rounds is dumb and boring. NHL will never do that again nor would they do cross conference finals.

This is literally what they are currently doing??? I'd also MUCH rather 1-8 non-division seeding, but for whatever stupid reason the league doesn't want that. So instead im giving them what they want and really leaning into it.

I'm not crazy about adding another round to the playoffs, but I would like to see the elimination of the wild cards.

Four teams from each division make the playoffs, and the first round is within the division (1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3).

Second round is cross-division (A1 vs M2 and M1 vs A2, C1 vs P2 and P1 vs C2).

Third round is cross-conference (E1 vs W2 and W1 vs E2).

Final is two best teams, regardless of where they come from.

I know the league won't like the idea, as they seem to think it has to be one Western team against one Eastern team in the final, but at least this way there is a chance of a Rangers/Isles or Leafs/Habs or Oilers/Flames, or Sharks/Kings final.

I did not think about the "cross conference" capability of this format. I think they should just reseed the division winners and play them 1v4 & 2v3. With the way the league is setup under this structure the Eastern/Western conferences are a dead thing. And lets be real, the only thing that people care about with the Campbell/Wales trophies is whether or not the team touches it, they're pointless.
I would say preseason becomes 4-5 games, season 84 ( would like less)

2 x 16 other conference
3 x 8 other division within conference
4 x 7 within division

For 84 games

This works fine too, but it does nothing to change the current playoff format, which is an uninspiring halfway compromise of things.

84 vs 83 games meh don't care much about that, whatever makes a balanced an even structure. I too would prefer less (75ish) so we can get playoffs started a bit sooner and finish the playoffs before June comes.

The league is pushing for 84 games not 83 games...

Okay? Instead of giving an extra shitting reg season game this format gives them 8-12 more playoff games for them to make way more money from TV/advertising. I'm sure they wouldn't mind.
 

nturn06

Registered User
Nov 9, 2017
3,886
3,279
83 games feels weird - not sure it matters but I feel like they'd want to have an even # of games for each team.

The wild card idea is fun.
The reason why it feels weird is because it is unbalanced: some teams will play more home games than away and some will play more away games than home. This will affect income and can affect standings.
 

MikeyMike01

U.S.S. Wang
Jul 13, 2007
15,002
11,931
Hell
It’s insane that the NHL has division based playoffs, but a regular season where you rarely play your divisional opponents. You should play 6 games against your division rivals, minimum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Calad and BB79

kvladimir

Registered User
Dec 1, 2010
932
505
I've been pitching something like this for a while, but instead of increasing the schedule to 84 games, they should reduce it to 76 games by doing 4 games vs 7 division rivals (28 games) and 2 vs all other teams (48 games, totalling 76).

By doing this, you can hold a best of 5, or even 7 play-in between the #4/5 seeds in each division after game 76 to clinch the #4 playoff seed, while the top 3 clinch and play each other 3 extra games each, being treated as extra regular season games to jockey for the 1-3 seeds (by adding to regular season totals, so the regular season games are meaningful).

Max. 5-7 games there, and the regular 16-team playoffs begin right on schedule, despite technically having 20 teams participate!

It’s insane that the NHL has division based playoffs, but a regular season where you rarely play your divisional opponents. You should play 6 games against your division rivals, minimum.
Agreed, rivalries are a uniquely necessary and historical mechanic for the NHL, and they should really embrace it and tweak the schedule so it matches a rivalry-oriented format. It was extremely weird how division-game focused the schedule was throughout the entire 1-8 conference format existed, especially when it was 8 games per year vs division rivals!

For people worried about seeing the same teams too many times, that schedule I proposed above is still only 28/76 games vs the 7 division rivals...
 

Erik Alfredsson

Beast Mode Cowboy!
Jan 14, 2012
13,406
5,612
A Wild Card round is inevitable at this point. Especially if they continue with plans to expand to 34 teams. No chance they leave that revenue on the table. 18 teams missing the playoffs every year is bad for business and also growing markets.
 

BB79

Registered User
Apr 30, 2011
5,412
6,407
It’s insane that the NHL has division based playoffs, but a regular season where you rarely play your divisional opponents. You should play 6 games against your division rivals, minimum.
Agree and I've been saying this for a while now. It's ridiculous only playing your division rivals 3-4 times a season, to make room for more games against teams from 3,000 miles away that no one locally really knows much about or cares much to see. I'd much rather watch Bruins-Habs-Sabres-Leafs beat up each other 6-8 times a season than those teams play the Sharks and Ducks 2x each (no offense Sharks and Ducks)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeyMike01

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad