Should the NHL increase the number of teams making the playoffs?
- Thread starter Fenway
- Start date
KnightofBoston
Registered User
plemur
Meh.
I love this idea.
More pressure to perform during the season with serious consequences for ownership's pockets if they fail gives another level of interest to an NHL fan. It would also grow fan interest in AHL level teams as hope is a wonderful basis for emotional investment. Successful AHL level fan bases would fund runs at getting into the NHL which would self correct the NHL's short term solution motivated (but ultimately idiotic) team placement philosophy.
It will never happen, but it could be the best system for the product and the long-term health of the league.
No. Enough long as it is now. Teams and management need to do what is necessary to get in PO. Otherwise play golf don't deserve the spring dance.
Midship
Registered User
- Jan 7, 2016
- 3,095
- 2,515
Oates2Neely
Registered User
the Jacobs family approves.
Personally I don't. Intuitively about half the teams makes it seems right and the season is already really long.
Personally I don't. Intuitively about half the teams makes it seems right and the season is already really long.
Deedot
I'm your Huckelberry
No, leave it at 8 teams per conference but I would make sure that everyone receives a participation trophy! 
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
**** and no.
The NHL playoffs are the best in pro sports in North America already.
The regular season needs more help to be relevant, not less.
The NHL playoffs are the best in pro sports in North America already.
The regular season needs more help to be relevant, not less.
talkinaway
Registered User
I'm fine with 16 making it to the finals until we have over 32 teams. We're not a 6 team league anymore; it seems weird to have over half the teams make it to the playoffs. If we got to 34-36 teams, certainly expanding the playoffs seems reasonable, but my gut tells me the NHL needs to contract/relocate, not expand beyond 32.
Rather than expanding, I'd love play-in games, like MLB. If you're tied in points, you're tied in points. Ticky-tacky tie breakers only are used for seeding. If the worst team in and best team out of the playoffs have the same point total, make them play a 1 game showdown.
Too many teams making the playoffs seems like it would make the league "soft"...and I'm generally not one of those who constantly complain about participation trophies. A year or two out of the playoffs should be a good wake-up call to teams that are under-performing.
*jump cut to phone with a Bruins logo on it ringing repeatedly*
Rather than expanding, I'd love play-in games, like MLB. If you're tied in points, you're tied in points. Ticky-tacky tie breakers only are used for seeding. If the worst team in and best team out of the playoffs have the same point total, make them play a 1 game showdown.
Too many teams making the playoffs seems like it would make the league "soft"...and I'm generally not one of those who constantly complain about participation trophies. A year or two out of the playoffs should be a good wake-up call to teams that are under-performing.
*jump cut to phone with a Bruins logo on it ringing repeatedly*
Thank you.
I think before they expand the number of teams in the playoffs they need to do something to make the regular season individual game more meaningful / important.
Boston playing western conference is fun to watch but it doesn't hold the same significance as a divisional or even in conference. My feeling is every game needs to be important. When they accomplish that then expanding the playoffs would hold more credibility other than money.
I think most of us will agree that playing every team in the West 1 and 1 is fine.
I would prefer that we also only play the Metro 1 and 1 and see more games in the division but frankly I wish we could see the Rangers, Flyers, Pans and Caps more often and there is the dilemma.
When I was young we played the other O6 teams 14 times a year. I miss those days.
Mount Kramer Cameras
Registered User
- Jul 15, 2014
- 3,645
- 1,000
smithformeragent
Moderator
Just so it's clear what this would mean,
The New Jersey Devils at 16-18-8 would currrently be in under such a format with Buffalo, Detroit and the Islanders all in the hunt.
The New Jersey Devils at 16-18-8 would currrently be in under such a format with Buffalo, Detroit and the Islanders all in the hunt.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,297
- 24,196
I'd like to see the NHL toss out this whole "Conference" stuff and go to a strict divisional set-up.
8 teams per division (well one division will have 7)
Top 3 teams in each division automatically get in and are seeded 1-3.
Teams 4 and 5 face in each division face each other in a 1-game winner-take-all game. NHL could make an event out of it and have all 4 play-in games on the same Saturday or Sunday.
But to not devalue the regular season, the play-in game between teams 4 and 5 only occurs if the points spread between 4 and 5 is five points or less. Anything above that and the 4th seed automatically gets in.
The division winner gets the winner of the play-in game.
2nd round is strictly within the division to determine a division champion.
Once the 3rd rd. begins, all four teams are reseeded 1-4, 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3. Which division at this point matters not. Perhaps then we can avoid having Conference Finals that are more entertaining than the Cup Finals (see. 2014 LA vs. Chicago, which was the pseudo-cup final that year). The goal here is to make the Cup final a competition of the the two best teams as often as possible. The cup final should be the marquee event here, not the 3rd round.
Me personally, I find the Stanley Cup playoffs under the current format the 1st and 3rd rds. are great, the 2nd and 4th are let-downs. This format should alleviate that with the 2nd rd. determining a division champion, and the cup final featuring more evenly matched teams more often.
8 teams per division (well one division will have 7)
Top 3 teams in each division automatically get in and are seeded 1-3.
Teams 4 and 5 face in each division face each other in a 1-game winner-take-all game. NHL could make an event out of it and have all 4 play-in games on the same Saturday or Sunday.
But to not devalue the regular season, the play-in game between teams 4 and 5 only occurs if the points spread between 4 and 5 is five points or less. Anything above that and the 4th seed automatically gets in.
The division winner gets the winner of the play-in game.
2nd round is strictly within the division to determine a division champion.
Once the 3rd rd. begins, all four teams are reseeded 1-4, 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3. Which division at this point matters not. Perhaps then we can avoid having Conference Finals that are more entertaining than the Cup Finals (see. 2014 LA vs. Chicago, which was the pseudo-cup final that year). The goal here is to make the Cup final a competition of the the two best teams as often as possible. The cup final should be the marquee event here, not the 3rd round.
Me personally, I find the Stanley Cup playoffs under the current format the 1st and 3rd rds. are great, the 2nd and 4th are let-downs. This format should alleviate that with the 2nd rd. determining a division champion, and the cup final featuring more evenly matched teams more often.
ODAAT
Registered User
Unfortunately this is a great post. I say unfortunately only because I specifically agree with your last line. In recent years, I`ve watched fewer and fewer games, Bruins and otherwise. So systems based and technical and less free flowing which has stifled the entertainment factor of the game.
It`s the one reason my love/passion has always remained at the Junior level, I`ll never get enough of the Junior game, up tempo, entertaining watching coaches allow their talented kids to be creative.
NO! Too long of a season already, this is just another Gary Bettman cash grab for him and the owners. Regular season is too long now, 70 to 72 games is enough and have the playoffs done by the end of May.
Even the setup now is not good, it should be the division winners in each conference seeded 1-2 and then the next 6 best records get in the playoffs, scrap this whole division 1-3 crap, it's not fair and also the other way gives more opportunities to see different playoff matches and it would mean a lot more for rivals to meet in the conference finals then say in round 1.
Even the setup now is not good, it should be the division winners in each conference seeded 1-2 and then the next 6 best records get in the playoffs, scrap this whole division 1-3 crap, it's not fair and also the other way gives more opportunities to see different playoff matches and it would mean a lot more for rivals to meet in the conference finals then say in round 1.
Therick67
Registered User
Agreed. This format has actually made the regular season somewhat relevant, so why go back to watering the product back down?
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Fading out, thanks for the times.
- Oct 31, 2008
- 11,347
- 6,720
I wouldn't be against shortening the season and adding more teams to the playoff mix, but adding another round.
Central Scrutinizer
Lord of Song
I would be on board if it would mean that the NHL reduces the preseason to maximum 5 games and the regular season to 74 games...
