The AHL had a few years of 7v 10 and 8v9 playin series after the IHL teams joined, and Chicago actually won the Calder Cup from playing in the playin round as a 7 seed. So, you can have teams make Cinderella runs from the playin round. Plus, it makes every game mean something.
Playoff Seeding System
- Thread starter MNNumbers
- Start date
An easy start for the NHL would be best #5 vs. worst #4 in each conference at the home of the team with more points. Folks got excited at the prospect of Philly and Florida playing an 83rd game. St. Louis - Colorado already played their 82nd game against each other, but that was rather coincidental, and moving the play-in game to its own night would draw many more eyeballs.
Plus, making it best #5 vs. worst #4 removes the dreaded double crossover for wildcard teams. Playoffs would be "more" divisional, though it still may be odd for New Jersey to compete for an Atlantic Division playoff championship <<insert joke about the name of the other Eastern Conference division>>.
Plus, making it best #5 vs. worst #4 removes the dreaded double crossover for wildcard teams. Playoffs would be "more" divisional, though it still may be odd for New Jersey to compete for an Atlantic Division playoff championship <<insert joke about the name of the other Eastern Conference division>>.
Tom ServoMST3K
In search of a Steinbach Hero
that failed because not every team plays everyone, Nick, there's never been any scenario that is equitably fair, and that you're still seeing it with the convoluted Points percentage qualification addendum, the rule of the Pacific playing 68, AND ALL others 72, should be stricken from the bylaws... it doesn't matter why the Pacific is granted 68, it's unfair to those not playing 68. best 2 out of 3, against teams you've never seen, hurts the above generalities, too
True. I still dont get why the Pacific is only playing 68 vs the rest 76. Not sure whether that was a new rule this year or what, but every team needs to play the same number of games, or if you have Pacific play 8 games less, you extrapolate those 8 other games based on their winning percentage, ie if they are winning 66%, then you add 5 more wins and 3 more losses, and add 10 points to the point totals. that would put them in line with the other teams. the AHL will likely be tweaking their playoff rules again next year anyway, as they add another team, and go to 31.
Exactly.....great first round matchups!! I've never understood the people who bitchhed about the seeding, if you're a true cup contender it shouldn't matter when you play a team, first round or second round, you have to beat everyone, so what's the difference.
You have to balance great TV with "fairness" and future great TV.
A pity it would be if Nashville had to play Tampa Bay or Winnipeg in an early round. Those are the Top 3 teams! While "yes" any champion will beat any team (note: there is a tautology there), having those teams play deeper into the playoffs allows for future series to be exciting and fun.
Consider the proposal above of reseeding within both conferences after the first round. It keeps these opening divisional series (ignoring TB-NJ), but removes the possibility of the Top 4 teams all playing each other the second round, as is likely to happen this year.
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
No you don't. If Nashville and Winnipeg advance explain to me why the top two point getters in the league should have to play each other in the 2nd round? It's stupid. You play all year for home ice, to get the best matchups in the playoffs and assuming both advance one of the top two teams in the league gets bounced in the 2nd round because they had to play each other all because of a division format. Why should they be punished because they're both in the same geographic region?
coolboarder
Registered User
If it ever went to 32 teams, I prefer the NHL to scrap the conference and go with 8 divisions of 4 teams each and schedule matrix would be like this: divisional opponents: 8 games vs 3 teams for 24 games and non-divisional opponents: 2 games vs 28 teams for 56 games and total games: 80 games. I prefer this format for only one reason: the west coast teams would not have to travel very far and reduce the travel from going North to South and West to East and stays in the area for majority of the season that the eastern teams currently enjoy. It also reduce travels for Pacific teams to Central teams cities from twice a year to once a year. With this format, the Canucks, Seattle, LA, and so on would be on par with Eastern conference teams with under 40,000 miles on an annual basis.
Playoff would be like this: 1 v 2, the winner is a divisional champ and reseed from 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc. This will ensure best teams in the league meeting in the Cup final. The odd of having the best team in the league in same division on a given year is so low with 4 teams divisions. With the current format, the odd of having two best teams in same division is higher because of 8 teams. Perhaps we should shift our focus to divisional and see how it goes. It is difficult to determine a best team within a conference format with schedule matrix is skewed 4, 3, 2 in a current format due to skewered travel miles between Western and Eastern conference. If we slant the schedule toward divisional with greater emphasis on divisional then it's more easier to determine a best team in the league at the end of the season with a 8-2 schedule matrix ratio using the playoff system, with first round a divisional then 3 rounds of 8 divisional winners to determine the best teams. President Trophy would be overrated in this format and does not determine a best team in the league.
To determine match-up and home-ice for the series from round 2 and on should be based on points won from 56 games vs non-divisional opponents. 24 divisional games is omission from the formula when determining a match-up and home-ice for the series from round 2 to the Cup Final. The omission from the record is because divisional opponents' season is over at this point and it has no special bearing for the rest of the playoffs. That's how you determine Stanley Cup winner with this format, in my opinion because there's simply too many teams to actually weed out who is the very best from the pretender.
Playoff would be like this: 1 v 2, the winner is a divisional champ and reseed from 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc. This will ensure best teams in the league meeting in the Cup final. The odd of having the best team in the league in same division on a given year is so low with 4 teams divisions. With the current format, the odd of having two best teams in same division is higher because of 8 teams. Perhaps we should shift our focus to divisional and see how it goes. It is difficult to determine a best team within a conference format with schedule matrix is skewed 4, 3, 2 in a current format due to skewered travel miles between Western and Eastern conference. If we slant the schedule toward divisional with greater emphasis on divisional then it's more easier to determine a best team in the league at the end of the season with a 8-2 schedule matrix ratio using the playoff system, with first round a divisional then 3 rounds of 8 divisional winners to determine the best teams. President Trophy would be overrated in this format and does not determine a best team in the league.
To determine match-up and home-ice for the series from round 2 and on should be based on points won from 56 games vs non-divisional opponents. 24 divisional games is omission from the formula when determining a match-up and home-ice for the series from round 2 to the Cup Final. The omission from the record is because divisional opponents' season is over at this point and it has no special bearing for the rest of the playoffs. That's how you determine Stanley Cup winner with this format, in my opinion because there's simply too many teams to actually weed out who is the very best from the pretender.
KevFu
Registered User
The seeds for the playoffs should be separated by who plays the same schedule.
Wild Card crossovers for divisions is "fine" (to the NHL) because there's "only" seven different games on the schedule between say, the Adams and the Patrick. You play everyone in your conference 3 times each, and one an extra game vs seven division teams.
(To me, that is crazy. That could be a 14-point swing if one division: say, the Patrick, was dominant compared to the Adams. And it was close. The 12 best Eastern teams were BOS, TB, TOR, the entire Patrick and FLA. If the entire East schedule was just a balanced five-game series vs everyone, seeded 1-8, THAT is fair).
Again, the biggest culprit is H/A vs the other conference. Because it’s wasting 30 or 32 games of the schedule for events which count HALF as much in the playoff seeding.
The whole “We have to promote every player in the league visiting once per year” is stupid. You can make your marketing points, but it’s absolutely stupid. FORGET for one second all the attendance data I’ve presented over the year s showing that out of the 448 East vs West games, there’s WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more unattractive games fans stay away from than “Crosby is in town!” tickets sold.
There were SEVENTY NINE games where a team made their ONLY TRIP somewhere… AFTER the trade deadline. As late as April 5.
The Rangers played five games out west after running up the white flag. The Red Wings VISITED HALF THE WEST after the trade deadline (Hope no one in STL, WIN, MIN, COL, ANA, SJ or LA, bought tickets just to see Tatar!).
The NHL knows damned well they can’t build their schedule around guaranteeing every star. They don’t try to schedule the pre-trade deadline guarantee in. I don’t know if it’s mathematically impossible or JUST ridiculously impractical to work around that AND the venue booking.
“Home and Away with everyone” is something that SEEMS like a good idea, makes logical sense at first glance. But it is a massive waste of inventory for something that "sounds good" but there's no actual business purpose that actually makes anyone more money at all, period.
Wild Card crossovers for divisions is "fine" (to the NHL) because there's "only" seven different games on the schedule between say, the Adams and the Patrick. You play everyone in your conference 3 times each, and one an extra game vs seven division teams.
(To me, that is crazy. That could be a 14-point swing if one division: say, the Patrick, was dominant compared to the Adams. And it was close. The 12 best Eastern teams were BOS, TB, TOR, the entire Patrick and FLA. If the entire East schedule was just a balanced five-game series vs everyone, seeded 1-8, THAT is fair).
Again, the biggest culprit is H/A vs the other conference. Because it’s wasting 30 or 32 games of the schedule for events which count HALF as much in the playoff seeding.
The whole “We have to promote every player in the league visiting once per year” is stupid. You can make your marketing points, but it’s absolutely stupid. FORGET for one second all the attendance data I’ve presented over the year s showing that out of the 448 East vs West games, there’s WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more unattractive games fans stay away from than “Crosby is in town!” tickets sold.
There were SEVENTY NINE games where a team made their ONLY TRIP somewhere… AFTER the trade deadline. As late as April 5.
The Rangers played five games out west after running up the white flag. The Red Wings VISITED HALF THE WEST after the trade deadline (Hope no one in STL, WIN, MIN, COL, ANA, SJ or LA, bought tickets just to see Tatar!).
The NHL knows damned well they can’t build their schedule around guaranteeing every star. They don’t try to schedule the pre-trade deadline guarantee in. I don’t know if it’s mathematically impossible or JUST ridiculously impractical to work around that AND the venue booking.
“Home and Away with everyone” is something that SEEMS like a good idea, makes logical sense at first glance. But it is a massive waste of inventory for something that "sounds good" but there's no actual business purpose that actually makes anyone more money at all, period.
KevFu
Registered User
It’s stupid. If you’re buying 41 tickets at once, you obviously care more about your team that most other things. Whether or not you USE all 41 tickets is going to depend on your wife & kids, job and obligations, what day/time the game is, and not based on opponent.
I’ve posted attendance data on this topic plenty of times, and it’s still valid and holds true.
#1 - 13 teams sold every single ticker. They don’t need to attendance boost. Their fans are coming no matter who the opponent is.
#2 - 10 more teams are in the 95% to 99.9% range. They really don’t need it either.
One of them is Buffalo, who’s the prime example of why this “Conventional wisdom” is non-sense.
Buffalo uses tiered pricing to maximize revenue/attendance: Value, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum
The day of the week dictates their tiers more than opponent does. Boston on a Saturday is “Gold” and Boston on a Tuesday is “Silver.” Toronto is always a Silver, Gold or Platinum opponent. Because the fans care more about seeing the Sabres than the opponent, a game like Florida (April 4) will outdraw Toronto (March 5).
Buffalo’s average attendance was 18,563 (507 unsold tickets per game).
vs CHI, DAL, EDM, VGK = Sellouts (sold 2028 total tickets more than average)
vs STL, SJS, LAK = Above Average (sold 612 total tickets than average)
VAN, CAL, COL, MIN, WIN, ARZ, ANA = Below average (7839 unsold total tickets compared to average)
-5199 tickets than season average against the West (-371 per game)
#3 - The other 8 teams in the league had bad attendance. THOSE are the teams who need the attendance boost by having star players come to visit, right? Team sucks, but hey, Crosby’s coming to town!
Carolina: 9 of the 14 Western visitors drew BELOW AVERAGE in Carolina (And average is 13,320).
Five of their eight lowest attended games this season were against Dallas, St. Louis, Anaheim, Arizona and EDMONTON — We can all agree that McDavid is the posterboy for electric Western Conference players you HAVE to see in person, right?
Arizona. 13,040 average attendance.
Only 5 of 16 Eastern Conference opponents drew more than that.
Grand total, their EC opponents had 6,682 fewer tickets sold than their season average
Their Western conference opponents…. 686 more tickets sold per game than the Eastern opponets.
This season, it basically resulted in 135,000 unsold tickets to NHL games this season. Which isn’t THAT much. It’s financially not a huge deal that the NHL teams are LOSING MONEY on this policy.
Except, that’s not really the point of this thread! This thread is about “How to make a fair playoff seeding system” and a FAIR SYSTEM is to have the SAME SCHEDULE for teams competing for the same prize (a playoff seed.
If we were sacrificing a fair playoff model to MAKE MONEY, I’d understand. But makes no sense to sacrifice a fair playoff system in order to LOSE MONEY just so fans are guaranteed to see ALL the terrible road draws of the NHL instead of half of them.
As adults, we accept that there’s too much money to be had with 82 games and local TV start times for the NHL to say “Perfect Fairness is playing everyone home and away (62 games) and seed the playoffs 1-16.”
So the solution is to find the line of “acceptable” unfainess.
32 teams with Seattle would make a nice, neat:
6 vs 3 division teams (18)
4 vs 12 conference teams (48)
1 vs 16 non-conference teams (16; 8 at home, 8 away. See the whole league once every two years)
There’s fewer schedule differences, and the only six are THE MASSIVE RIVALRY GAMES like LA-ANA, EDM-CAL, NYR-NYI that SELL TICKETS.
Isn’t that better than having 7 schedule differences AND selling fewer tickets?
Last edited:
Well, KevFu.....
Let me ask this, since you have the numbers at hand....
If I am Carolina, which gets me more seats sold?
Having every team except the Metro division in my barn once, and the other Metro teams all twice, with 3 of them 3 times? Or.....
Having, let's say....VGK, CGY, EDM, ARZ, MIN, WPG, STL, CHI in my barn once, plus....
FLO, TOR, OTT, BOS twice and, CMB, NJD, NYR 3 times?
In other words, since I can't just pick the high-value games every year, which of these does better for Carolina?
A) A 5/4 - 2 schedule (H/A with everyone, and the rest in the Metro) which would beLAK, SJS, ANA, SEA(obviously a guess), COL, DAL, NAS, CHI (I would have picked HOU, but that's obviously also a guess).....plus a random 3 of the Metro, so let's say NYR, WAS, CMB (Here I am picking half of the West which your sched misses, and 3 random games with the Metro) or....
B) All of the ATL: BUF, OTT, TOR, DET, BOS, MTL, TBL, FLO (which your sched gets twice) and also 3 from the Metro, for your 6x3?
You have the numbers.....Which comes out better? I don't know, I'm just asking...
Let me ask this, since you have the numbers at hand....
If I am Carolina, which gets me more seats sold?
Having every team except the Metro division in my barn once, and the other Metro teams all twice, with 3 of them 3 times? Or.....
Having, let's say....VGK, CGY, EDM, ARZ, MIN, WPG, STL, CHI in my barn once, plus....
FLO, TOR, OTT, BOS twice and, CMB, NJD, NYR 3 times?
In other words, since I can't just pick the high-value games every year, which of these does better for Carolina?
A) A 5/4 - 2 schedule (H/A with everyone, and the rest in the Metro) which would beLAK, SJS, ANA, SEA(obviously a guess), COL, DAL, NAS, CHI (I would have picked HOU, but that's obviously also a guess).....plus a random 3 of the Metro, so let's say NYR, WAS, CMB (Here I am picking half of the West which your sched misses, and 3 random games with the Metro) or....
B) All of the ATL: BUF, OTT, TOR, DET, BOS, MTL, TBL, FLO (which your sched gets twice) and also 3 from the Metro, for your 6x3?
You have the numbers.....Which comes out better? I don't know, I'm just asking...
saskriders
Can't Hold Leads
Do this plus quit calling so many penalties. Let the teams fight it out for The Cup. We'd be back to the days of Wings vs Avs types of series, which were awesome. Less penalties results in more flow to the game due to less stoppages and less emphasis on special teams play, there is just more action up and down the ice. What playoff game was it last season, or maybe two years ago? There was non-stop up and down the ice action for 10 straight minutes. The game got a lot of buzz and was all over social media and the sports channels as being so much fun to watch. Get back to hard, fast, physical, up and down the ice matchups with great flow.
cheswick
Non-registered User
The complaints are emanating from Toronto cause they for a change had a half decent season but don't get home ice. I mean its a huge travesty, they finished 4th in the conference
KevFu
Registered User
Well, I could excel that out for you using this past season's numbers. But it doesn't necessarily "mean anything." What day of the week the game is, if there's a promotional giveaway or a jersey retirement... there's all kinds of factors. The most constant, consistent trend is "nostalgia" or "history." People don't really LIKE the "new teams/brands" (aside from a brand new team the first time). OTT, TB, FLA, CAR, CBJ, MIN, DAL, ARZ, NASH, SJ, ANA, COL don't draw as well as the brands that existed in the NHL94 video game.
This past season A: 13,479 per game for Carolina
This Past Season B: 13,627 per game for Carolina
ChompChomp
Can't wait for Sharks hockey to return someday
It's funny how people forget when we had 1-8 seeding, we also had three divisions, and you could easily have this NSH/WPG scenario, except in 1-8 seeding, Division Champion and President's Trophy winner would be a #1 seed, and Divison Runner up, who is also second in the league in points a #4 seed as non division winner with the most points, because the three division winners get the top seeds.
And if the top seeds advance, guess what matchup you end up with in Round 2?
KevFu
Registered User
saskriders
Can't Hold Leads
I agree totally that the "new" brands are not nearly the draw that the O6 teams are. Especially, that's probably true in the East. You mentioned 12 that particularly are NOT good road draws. 6 years from now, I think that SEA and VGK would be added to that list. That's 14 out of 32 teams. Which is half the league, just about. That means that the real problem is that, whatever you make the schedule, all of those teams have to play 82 games, and 41 of those are on the road. You can't make that go away - you have 14*41 road games league wide every year in which the road team is NOT the major draw. And, you can't just have them play disproportionately at the places that are always full, because, with tiered pricing, those places will make more money hosting Montreal than they will Carolina, too.
The comparison I gave you was:
A: My preferred schedule, which is H/H against everyone, and the rest within your 8-team group. Playoffs are 2 rounds within that group. In such a matrix, everyone competing for the same playoff spots plays the same schedule, except for potentially 1 game.
B: The schedule you posted, which has 3 extra pairs of games against "rivals". Who wants to be Carolina's rival? Columbus? And, because your schedule maintains the WC and goes 1-8, then the schedule difference is 6 games. Also, that schedule and playoff system could be tremendously unkind to Western Conference teams. I think it's hard for people in the East to really take that in.
And, with all of that, the difference for a very needy team was 150 fans/game for about 10 games. That's 1500 seats. It's very little change - chump change really. As you said, it's close enough that the days of the week for the games matter more....
I agree with the idea that the fairest system is that the teams competing for playoffs play as close a schedule as possible. That's why I like the 5/4: 2 with 2 rounds of playoffs in division.
But, you know something? I did a full up Bradley-Terry with home ice included after about 60 games this year. That's a ranking system that mathematically accounts for scheduling differences. After 60 games, the results were basically the same as the standings. That tells me that the empirical truth is that the schedule is balanced enough right now that it doesn't make the difference. WHO you play WHEN probably makes a bigger difference..... For Example, say what you want, but Winnipeg playing Minnesota when Minnesota is without Suter AND Parise is a much different game. Not to claim that the Jets aren't worthy winners. But, compare, say, in the Reg Season, 2 games between those 2 teams in a week in Nov with in March, when injury situations are completely different, and that's probably a bigger difference than playing an extra game vs Carolina as opposed to Tampa.
16-17: In the east, double crossover because of the WC seeding.
15-16: In both conferences, BOTH WCs were from the same division, so there was a mandatory cross-over
14-15: West - both WCs from the Central
13-14: West - both WCs from the Central
12-13: Old system
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Preliminary Final Brisbane Lions vs Geelong Cats - MCG, MelbourneWagers: 5Staked: $1,759.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-