Proposed Divisions & Playoff Format

[MarkT]

Hi everyone. I was just musing about different ways the playoffs could work given everyone talking about wanting to go back to 1-8. I'm not opposed to that, but I know the NHL doesn't like that idea due to travel considerations and things like divisional play. So, please don't respond to this by just saying you prefer a 1-8 system.

Anyway, I've come up with a divisional setup that's probably not entirely original, but at least different than what we have now, and a playoff format to go with it.

First, we break up the league into eight 4-team divisions (the names are just placeholders for now - feel free to suggest new ones).

*wild card teams​

The idea here is to increase in-division play and reduce travel time.

IN DIVISION PLAY

Currently, the NHL schedule works like this:
Within division: 4 games × 5 opponents + 3 games × 2 opponents (26 total games)
Within conference, non-divisional: 3 games × 8 opponents (24 games)
Inter-conference: 2 games × 16 opponents (32 games)
Total: 82 games

In this system, it would work like this:
Within division: 5 games x 3 opponents (15 games)
Within conference, non-divisional: 3 games × 12 opponents (36 games)
Inter-conference: 2 games × 16 opponents (32 games)
Total: 83 games

TRAVEL TIME

Smaller divisions with more divisional games means less overall travel time. To demonstrate this, I looked at the average distance between three teams (Dallas, Florida, Anaheim) and their division rivals. Here are the average travel miles for each of those teams within their division (current vs this system):
Dallas: 939 vs 771
Florida: 1326 vs 710
Anaheim: 907 vs 233

This will put much less stress on the players and make back-to-backs less of a burden.

PLAYOFFS

Ideally, we could just go with a 1-8 system that re-seeds every round. Unfortunately, the NHL likes to have a predictable bracket and wants divisions to mean something. To achieve this, the divisions would each be paired to create a region that forms a corner of the bracket (Southeast vs Northeast, Metro vs East, Northwest vs Southwest, North vs Central). The winner of each division automatically hosts the first round game for their division. There are then 4 wild card teams for each conference, which match up against the division winners in reverse points order, regardless of division. This gets as close to 1-8 as possible while still maintaining division-based brackets to some degree. A big advantage of this system over the current one is the playoff matchups would be difficult to predict right until the end of the season. The four division winners would be jockeying for position, and teams would be moving up and down among the four wild card spots. if I made this same bracket next week, there might be significantly different matchups.

Let me know what you think. Is this better than the current system? Worse? The same?

Spoiler: The 2023-24 Season

If anyone is curious, here is what things would have looked like last season with this system:

 

[boredmale]

I like the 8 divisions thing but I would do it this way

Play each team in your division 8X = 24 games

Play each team in other Divisions 2X = 56 games

Top 2 teams in each division face eachother winner moves on.

Once we get to the final 8 seat teams based on there records against every team in the other divisions + the last home and away game you play in your own division.

 

[MarkT]

I like the 8 divisions thing but I would do it this way

Play each team in your division 8X = 24 games

Play each team in other Divisions 2X = 56 games

Top 2 teams in each division face eachother winner moves on.

Once we get to the final 8 seat teams based on there records against every team in the other divisions + the last home and away game you play in your own division.

I was originally going to do the top 2 make it thing but then I looked at the standings. it would mean both Florida and Tampa miss the playoffs despite having as much or more points than the other division winners. Imagine if Florida and Tampa missed, but Columbus and Detroit were in. People would hate that a lot more than anything the current system produces.

I also feel like 8 times is too many for division play if each division is just four teams - that would get very repetitive. Since my system has a conference-based bracket, it also makes sense for teams within the conference to get a bit more familiar with each other than they are with teams in the opposing conference.

 

[Duffy13]

Not a fan of giving out playoff spots like they're all star game appearances. Just because the division exists doesn't mean they shouldn't have to be good enough to qualify. If the leader of a division is not in the top 8 of the conference, then too bad, the teams they are replacing would be playing in a tougher division anyways, and that doesn't sit well with me.

 

[MarkT]

Not a fan of giving out playoff spots like they're all star game appearances. Just because the division exists doesn't mean they shouldn't have to be good enough to qualify. If the leader of a division is not in the top 8 of the conference, then too bad, the teams they are replacing would be playing in a tougher division anyways, and that doesn't sit well with me.

I agree it's not ideal, but if divisions are going to exist, they need to matter somehow, and I'm starting from the assumption that the NHL is unwilling to get rid of divisions. With the current system you can have a team that's in a wild card position with more points than a division leader if it just happens that one division in a conference is stacked and the other is terrible. This system at least limits the damage to one team per division, and if you look, the most outrageous injustice is Columbus making it with 71 points over Montreal at 74.

I'd also point out that if you look at the divisions there, a lot more fans have something to cheer for. This year, the Pittsburgh and Detroit would still have a legit shot at winning the division. This would be combined with the race of Montreal and the two New York teams to try to catch Ottawa for the last wild card. It's also easier to imagine a team turning it around next season, since you only have to do better than 3 other teams to make the playoffs, rather than the current system where you need to compete with basically the whole conference.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

I agree it's not ideal, but if divisions are going to exist, they need to matter somehow, and I'm starting from the assumption that the NHL is unwilling to get rid of divisions. With the current system you can have a team that's in a wild card position with more points than a division leader if it just happens that one division in a conference is stacked and the other is terrible. This system at least limits the damage to one team per division, and if you look, the most outrageous injustice is Columbus making it with 71 points over Montreal at 74.

I'd also point out that if you look at the divisions there, a lot more fans have something to cheer for. This year, the Pittsburgh and Detroit would still have a legit shot at winning the division. This would be combined with the race of Montreal and the two New York teams to try to catch Ottawa for the last wild card. It's also easier to imagine a team turning it around next season, since you only have to do better than 3 other teams to make the playoffs, rather than the current system where you need to compete with basically the whole conference.

I don’t hate it. It’s essentially the old system where the division leaders were guaranteed spots 1-3 but with 4 divisions. It’ll feel weird this year because how unbalanced the divisions feel, but those of us who remember the old “south-least” division (how times change) know this is nothing new.

Ultimately I think there aren’t enough teams to justify 8 divisions, maybe in the future if the league adds another 8 teams (not necessarily advocating this).

 

[MarkT]

I don’t hate it. It’s essentially the old system where the division leaders were guaranteed spots 1-3 but with 4 divisions. It’ll feel weird this year because how unbalanced the divisions feel, but those of us who remember the old “south-least” division (how times change) know this is nothing new.

Ultimately I think there aren’t enough teams to justify 8 divisions, maybe in the future if the league adds another 8 teams (not necessarily advocating this).

I actually prefer the the size. 4 teams is ideal because people can more easily keep 4 things in their head than 7 or 8. With only three other teams in the division, it will give those guys a really special feel. With the current format I feel like the division games don't really mean much unless the teams are in direct competition for the same spot, but that would be true whether they are in the same division or not. I just think it's easier to build hatred and rivalries with just three other teams than with 6 or 7 other teams.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Too many games in own division, they’ve tried that, and STH didn’t like it.

 

[Drake1588]

The Southeast Division can blow me. Had it as a STH in the early 2000s, hated it, happy with anything else. Back then it was crappy hockey, now it's too high end.

When you go too granular with division quantity, you really punish top-heavy divisions because every division only gets one team in the dance.

The current Patrick alignment and Florida to the Atlantic ended up working surprisingly well.

 

[MarkT]

Too many games in own division, they’ve tried that, and STH didn’t like it.

15 is too many? The current system has 26. Or do you mean 5 is too many? The current one is mostly 4. Is one extra game really too many?

The Southeast Division can blow me. Had it as a STH in the early 2000s, hated it, happy with anything else. Back then it was crappy hockey, now it's too high end.

When you go too granular with division quantity, you really punish top-heavy divisions because every division only gets one team in the dance.

The current Patrick alignment and Florida to the Atlantic ended up working surprisingly well.

I don't think you read the post. It's not one team in the dance. There are four wild card teams per conference specificially to help with situations where one or more divisions are stacked like the Southeast would be this season. If you look at the playoff bracket in my post, every team in the Southest is in the playoffs in this system.

 

[kvladimir]

Hi everyone. I was just musing about different ways the playoffs could work given everyone talking about wanting to go back to 1-8. I'm not opposed to that, but I know the NHL doesn't like that idea due to travel considerations and things like divisional play. So, please don't respond to this by just saying you prefer a 1-8 system.

Anyway, I've come up with a divisional setup that's probably not entirely original, but at least different than what we have now, and a playoff format to go with it.

First, we break up the league into eight 4-team divisions (the names are just placeholders for now - feel free to suggest new ones).

View attachment 997219
View attachment 997220
*wild card team​

[/SPOILER]

I do like the idea of an alignment with 8 divisions of 4 team per, and a more division-heavy schedule with a matching playoff format that prioritizes division play (but not too much). However:

Those divisions aren't any good, especially when they are bracketed in pairs. BOS with the NY teams means they either don't get MTL/BUF, or the NY teams lose PHI and WSH. DET's division wouldn't appeal to them at all, they don't have a rivalry with PIT or PHI, and they don't get TOR. The West divisions look fine to me...

The playoff format you suggested makes sense to a degree. The cool thing with 4 division winners getting the top 4 seeds is that it works even if the divisions are vastly different strengths, because you would always get the weakest division winner and strongest 2nd place team playing as the 4th/5th seed matchup, but with home ice going to the weaker team who finished higher in their division.

But, the problem is, without any other changes the usual 1-8 system (besides the 4 division winners thing), in the West you would get lots and lots of division winners being "rewarded" with high time zone travel in the 1st round. Bracketing pairs of divisions together would help fix that, but then you'd have the usual problems with fairness (weaker teams making the playoffs because they are in weaker divisions).

I'd support a bracketed format with pairs of 4-team divisions, but only if the regular season gets shorted by a few games to accommodate a divisional play-in round that would help more teams get a chance to make it if they don't earn one of the higher seeds that get a bye. Something like this (using this year as an example):

Pacific bracket:

1. VGK*
2. EDM*
3. LAK
4. VAN
5. CGY
6. ANA

Play-in (best of 5):

LAK-ANA | VAN-CGY

Central bracket:

1. WPG*
2. DAL*
3. COL
4. MIN
5. STL
6. UTH

Play-in:

COL-UTH | MIN-STL

Altantic bracket:

1. FLA*
2. TOR*
3. TBL
4. OTT
5. MTL
6. DET

Play-in:

TBL-DET | OTT-MTL

Metro bracket:

1. WSH*
2. CAR*
3. NJD
4. NYR
5. NYI
6. CBJ

Play-in:

NJD-CBJ | NYR-NYI

*Division winner

 

[MarkT]

@kvladimir Thanks for the long reply.

You do seem to have a bit of an obsession with Montreal and Boston playing each other. They haven't met in the playoffs since 2014. If you insist on historic rivalries staying intact, then it's really going to cause headaches for forming divisions. I mean, shouldn't Colorado and Detroit always be in the same division then?
I simply didn't prioritize existing rivalries with these divisions - I prioritized travel time.

My priorities were different for the playoffs though. Yes, in the west there might be some epic travel in the first round, but long travel is always a thing in the playoffs, and if you look at the brackets the last two seasons I posted, there actually isn't much tough travel. It's also set up so if the home teams win in round 1, round 2 has very reasonable travel.

And yeah, I loved how that worked out where the top wild card doesn't get home ice, but is still rewarded with a weak opponent.

As far as play-in ideas go, that's okay, but I don't like the idea of play-ins. The regular season is more than good enough to determine who belongs in the playoffs. The only reason I can see for doing a play in would be for more TV revenue. The other issue with a best of 5 play in is the division winners are sitting around not playing for a week or more, while the play-in team has to now win 5 straight series to win the cup. The playoffs are exhausting and taxing enough as in. Lastly, it makes no sense that 85 point Tampa has to play 70 point Detroit to prove they belong in the playoff - the 15 point difference proves that nicely. If the league insists on adding a play-in, I'd suggest just the last wildcard and the top runner-up play 2 games back-to-back in the wildcard team's arena. Combine the scores for both games and the winner moves on.

In any case, I don't think a play-in is at all necessary for the system I'm proposing here. There are already two different ways to get to the playoffs - win your division or be one of the top 8 teams in the conference - I don't think a third way is needed.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Bettman: We are absolutely not changing the playoff structure.

HFBoards: Offers dozens of suggestions to change the playoff structure.