The current playoffs format is BROKEN

[jackjohnson]

The NHL's primary consideration is always $.

Follow the $ and you'll find your answer.

Why 82 game season?
$
Why 4 rounds of best of 7?
$
Why conferences rather than a straight table?
$

Ok I never had problems with the number of games. I have a problem with how the current playoff seeding works. They should go with seeding mainly in terms of points rather than having divisional playoffs.

 

[PistolPete]

Ok I never had problems with the number of games. I have a problem with how the current playoff seeding works. They should go with seeding mainly in terms of points rather than having divisional playoffs.

As someone mentioned already though, the seeding 1 ton8 or even 1 to 16 won't necessarily reflect the teams true abilities, especially for a short tournament.

And then there's advantages and disadvantages ro any system used.

1 to 16: lack of familiarity and thus preexisting animosity; travel, time zone difference

1 to 8: same, existing shorter travel for both and less time zone difference for the west

It would almost make sense to have multiple systems and then rotate them from year to year. Some people will scream murder but the Stanley Cup never has ans never will be a true measure of the best team in any given year, it's always just been a tournament after the end of the 82 game season, a tournament created for.......

$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Summer Rose]

As someone mentioned already though, the seeding 1 ton8 or even 1 to 16 won't necessarily reflect the teams true abilities, especially for a short tournament.

And then there's advantages and disadvantages ro any system used.

1 to 16: lack of familiarity and thus preexisting animosity; travel, time zone difference

1 to 8: same, existing shorter travel for both and less time zone difference for the west

It would almost make sense to have multiple systems and then rotate them from year to year. Some people will scream murder but the Stanley Cup never has ans never will be a true measure of the best team in any given year, it's always just been a tournament after the end of the 82 game season, a tournament created for.......

$$$$$$$$$$$$

The way I consider it is that the playoffs have only one underlying purpose: to crown a champion. There is one winner and there are fifteen losers. You can make all kinds of arguments to split hairs on where the fifteen losers should rank against each other, and some of them would be fair things to say, but that's not the point of the playoffs.

Edit: for that reason, I don't necessarily like that they use a knockout format to award the silver and bronze medals at international tournaments, but whatever. It is what it is.

 

[PistolPete]

If the sports is all about determine the best team, the money should not be the factor and they implemented the salary cap in 2005 and that was the worst thing happened to the league, no longer we see a best rivalry of all sports, Detroit vs Colorado full of 3rd and 4th line that would have been the first liner in other team. That was the peak hockey the world has ever seen. Teams should be bidding for players' service, not the limiting factor of building a team. Right now, you have to hope that your own draft picks pan out to get some serious depth and it's challenging to do that.

This has always been the case anyway. Even signing good players isn't a guarantee to work out. They decline, a pir fit for the team, bad attitude etc. There's really no difference between the various systems when it comes to team building except teams have to get the most bang for their buck and $ mistakes cost a lot more than money

Exhibit A: NYR

This is the very reason why the playoffs has been boring. If the owner cannot afford it, perhaps, they shouldn't be getting involved with the business with the league.

If you're the NHL and you want to expand, it's in their own interest to ensure smaller markets can make a profit.

Because it's all relative, you'd end up with an 8 team league if you went full throttle on spending. Not that I have a problem with that. I'm down for a contraction.

 

[stealth1]

The real reason is because their teams keep losing lol come on now

I fully believe that is a reason. Look how many times you hear Leaf fans bitch cause they have to play Florida, Tampa or Boston each season. You have Kings whining cause they have to play Edmonton. That's just 2 examples.

 

[x Tame Impala]

The West would be more interesting too...

1) WPG vs 8) STL
2) VGK vs 7) MIN
3) DAL vs 6) EDM
4) COL vs 5) LAK

1) WPG vs 6) EDM
2) VGK vs 4) COL

4) COL vs 6) EDM

We're getting a 1st round matchup in the WCF. It's a dumb format change on the surface. I would have to see if revenues and viewership numbers are up compared to the old 1-8 format. This "rivalry" nonsense is a complete failure of understanding what makes rivalries in the playoffs.

 

[PistolPete]

The West would be more interesting too...

1) WPG vs 8) STL
2) VGK vs 7) MIN
3) DAL vs 6) EDM
4) COL vs 5) LAK

1) WPG vs 6) EDM
2) VGK vs 4) COL

4) COL vs 6) EDM

We're getting a 1st round matchup in the WCF. It's a dumb format change on the surface. I would have to see if revenues and viewership numbers are up compared to the old 1-8 format. This "rivalry" nonsense is a complete failure of understanding what makes rivalries in the playoffs.

There was a spread of 12 wins between St. Louis ans Winnipeg (44 to 56) with a median of 48.5 wins.

Dallas had 50 wins and Edmonton had 48 wins.

With a difference of two victories, you want to claim this is a first round match up?

 

[x Tame Impala]

There was a spread of 12 wins between St. Louis ans Winnipeg (44 to 56) with a median of 48.5 wins.

Dallas had 50 wins and Edmonton had 48 wins.

With a difference of two victories, you want to claim this is a first round match up?

Is Dallas vs Edmonton the most ideal WCF in your opinion?

 

[PistolPete]

Is Dallas vs Edmonton the most ideal WCF in your opinion?

I have no vision of an ideal. I just enjoy what is. A system ser up to ensure the ideal match ups would be a rigged system because no honest system can ensure only ideal match ups

 

[x Tame Impala]

I have no vision of an ideal. I just enjoy what is. A system ser up to ensure the ideal match ups would be a rigged system because no honest system can ensure only ideal match ups

Rigged is the wrong word. I think we're commonly not getting the best teams squaring off in the final four. The old format allowed for that more consistently.

 

[JaegerDice]

A quick reminder that the last time we had the 1-8 playoff format, the WCF was done in 5 games and the ECF was done in 4 games.

There is no perfect playoff format.

Give credit to the teams dominating, don't take away from their play by claiming some benefit of the system.

 

[x Tame Impala]

A quick reminder that the last time we had the 1-8 playoff format, the WCF was done in 5 games and the ECF was done in 4 games.

There is no perfect playoff format.

Give credit to the teams dominating, don't take away from their play by claiming some benefit of the system.

Yeah and to be fair, Colorado was up by a goal in the 3rd period and then got Rantanen-ed. We were close to a COL/EDM WCF anyway.

 

[T REX]

Rigged is the wrong word. I think we're commonly not getting the best teams squaring off in the final four. The old format allowed for that more consistently.

100% agree here. The current system is actually the "rigged" system. Again, look at the NFL...they don't need gimmicks. They do things the right way. The NHL is a second rate league and the ratings show it.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Is Dallas vs Edmonton the most ideal WCF in your opinion?

I’d say yes,
I had them in WCF in my bracket this year and last year.

 

[jackjohnson]

As someone mentioned already though, the seeding 1 ton8 or even 1 to 16 won't necessarily reflect the teams true abilities, especially for a short tournament.

And then there's advantages and disadvantages ro any system used.

1 to 16: lack of familiarity and thus preexisting animosity; travel, time zone difference

1 to 8: same, existing shorter travel for both and less time zone difference for the west

It would almost make sense to have multiple systems and then rotate them from year to year. Some people will scream murder but the Stanley Cup never has ans never will be a true measure of the best team in any given year, it's always just been a tournament after the end of the 82 game season, a tournament created for.......

$$$$$$$$$$$$

The recent change is terrible. What was wrong with what we had before 2020, where team matchup and seeding was based on points? It was a lot more fair and it made more sense. I don't buy this lack of familiarity thing when the matchup is within the conference and you have played against one of the teams 3 times in a year. Travel is also not a huge deal since it's still within the western Conference. Making changes due to not good enough reasons is the NHL motto I guess. Instead it has created the side effect of watching same matchups every playoffs. I guess LA loves facing Edmonton every year in the 1st round.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The recent change is terrible. What was wrong with what we had before 2020, where team matchup and seeding was based on points? It was a lot more fair and it made more sense. I don't buy this lack of familiarity thing when the matchup is within the conference and you have played against one of the teams 3 times in a year. Travel is also not a huge deal since it's still within the western Conference. Making changes due to not good enough reasons is the NHL motto I guess. Instead it has created the side effect of watching same matchups every playoffs. I guess LA loves facing Edmonton every year in the 1st round.

You got your years mixed up, the wild card came into affect in 2013/14. Top 3 in Each division and 2 wild cards on points.

98/99 to 2013/14 was 1 -8
But the top 3 were allocated to division winners, then 4-8 on points.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I don't know if I'd say broken but it is flawed for sure. The problem for me isn't the "Avs/Stars" in round 1. It's the 2015 Flames/Canucks where two teams that have no prayer of going deep match up only to get slaughtered in the second round, a complete formality of a series.

It certainly doesn't help right now that the Metro has been basically a non-factor the last few years, especially this year. At least the Isles/Rangers made some deep runs but were otherwise bested by the Florida teams.

 

[jackjohnson]

You got your years mixed up, the wild card came into affect in 2013/14. Top 3 in Each division and 2 wild cards on points.

98/99 to 2013/14 was 1 -8
But the top 3 were allocated to division winners, then 4-8 on points.

How about the divisional playoffs? Was that also in 2013?? I thought the seeding for matchups was a recent change. In 2013/14 the top 3 of each division made the finals but the playoff matchups was determined based on points rather than strictly based on division. Correct me if am wrong.

 

[Golden_Jet]

How about the divisional playoffs? Was that also in 2013?? I thought the seeding for matchups was a recent change. In 2013/14 the top 3 of each division made the finals but the playoff matchups was determined based on points rather than strictly based on division. Correct me if am wrong.

All-Time Playoff Formats | NHL Records

Explore the various postseason formats from the NHL’s more than 100 years of competition.

records.nhl.com

 

[acor]

Just in the East, here's how round 1 would have played out if it was 1 to 8 instead of this long in the tooth division rivalry crap:


- WSH (1) vs MTL (8) : Unchanged, WSH wins.

- TOR (2) vs NJD (7) : Fresh matchup, TOR likely wins.

- TBL (3) vs OTT (6) : Fresh matchup, TBL likely wins.

- CAR (4) vs FLA (5) : Fresh matchup, the eternal pretenders are exposed much sooner and likely out in round one.


Instead:

- We had the lopsided EDM vs LAK matchup for the thirteenth time in a row.
- Two legit contenders facing off in round 1 (x2) in TBL vs FLA and DAL vs COL.
- A brutal team like the Canes sneaking into the conference finals.
Etc. Etc.

Why is the league hell bent on this terrible format? And why is there not more noise about it among execs, media and fans?

I actually agree with a lot of things here, but... different format means a different schedule and standings might not look the same... Also Im not sure is repeat from 2023 "a fresh matchup"

 

[Oryxo]

The problem is not "my team getting eliminated early", the problem is that this format often leads to boring conference finals because the divisions are rarely evenly matched. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think having a round that more often than not ends up being a dud just before the final is the best way to make people keep watching the games all the way to the end.

 

[PistolPete]

The recent change is terrible. What was wrong with what we had before 2020, where team matchup and seeding was based on points? It was a lot more fair and it made more sense. I don't buy this lack of familiarity thing when the matchup is within the conference and you have played against one of the teams 3 times in a year. Travel is also not a huge deal since it's still within the western Conference. Making changes due to not good enough reasons is the NHL motto I guess. Instead it has created the side effect of watching same matchups every playoffs. I guess LA loves facing Edmonton every year in the 1st round.

I know they have their reasons but honestly, I'm stumped. Best I can think is travel and time zone.

I know it's about $, but I have no guesses as to how this helps truly make or save money. If this was the 80s I'd say Wirtz or.Jacobs is behind it but best I know Bettman wields the biggest bat.

 

[PistolPete]

The problem is not "my team getting eliminated early", the problem is that this format often leads to boring conference finals because the divisions are rarely evenly matched. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think having a round that more often than not ends up being a dud just before the final is the best way to make people keep watching the games all the way to the end.

Can you provide a historical proof of this claim? This would also entail coming up with standards to categorize the various series. Is 6 games a dud if one team was up 3-1 after 4?

I ask because of recency bias. I have formed impressions that upon further investigation turned out to be wrong.

 

[JaegerDice]

I know they have their reasons but honestly, I'm stumped. Best I can think is travel and time zone.

I know it's about $, but I have no guesses as to how this helps truly make or save money. If this was the 80s I'd say Wirtz or.Jacobs is behind it but best I know Bettman wields the biggest bat.

It really isn't that complicated.

Existing rivalry matchups like TOR/BOS make the highest gate (and get high ratings, usually).

The current system makes those matchups more likely (even if it's earlier in the playoffs than fans might like) and is trying to make it so that FLA/TBL for example becomes the same kind of money-making rivalry after enough time.

That's it. That's the whole reason.

The NHL would rather get big money in the 1st round, than risk not getting that matchup in the 3rd round cause of an injury or a hot goalie or whatever.

 

[Summer Rose]

I know they have their reasons but honestly, I'm stumped. Best I can think is travel and time zone.

I know it's about $, but I have no guesses as to how this helps truly make or save money. If this was the 80s I'd say Wirtz or.Jacobs is behind it but best I know Bettman wields the biggest bat.

A thought is that by creating some more interesting matchups in the first and second round (which is sort of being accomplished in practice; whether or not they intended this is up for debate) draws the viewers in, and then in the conference finals and the finals themselves, with the stakes being inherently higher, they can keep viewership up. By doing this, the overall viewership across the four rounds is higher.

I'm not saying that's their intention, whether it's working (or not), or whether I agree with this approach, it's just a thought.