The current playoffs format is BROKEN

[Divine]

The easiest matchup for the Atlantic is always the Conference Finals

 

[Rebels57]

I'm quite convinced that most of the owners don't watch much hockey themselves.
It's an investment and they check the data, like shareholders of any company, and most of them only strictly focus on the business and how they think their margins can be at its best.

If they watched or cared about hockey, noodles like Ken Holland wouldn't still be getting GM jobs. Corporate pricks are ruining all of sports.

 

[Golden_Jet]

In order for the playoff format system to make sense, it requires a proper schedule matrix. The current system doesn't make any sense. If we go strictly divisional playoff bracket, we need to focus on the schedule matrix to 5-2 plus one extra game vs the division based on the final standing from the pervious year. 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, 7v8. - 84 total games. That would be requiring scrapping the conference system for there is not enough games to do two extra games within the conference so therefore we need to scrap the conference and go with conference final seeding 1-4, 2-3 match-up. 2021 semi-finals worked so well,

2021 was probably the worst, with the Canadian division, thankfully that won’t happen again, unless another pandemic.

 

[Captain97]

How would things look if the NHL went to straight seeding the 16 playoff teams?

For starters, Calgary would be in and Montreal out

#1 Winnipeg vs #16 New Jersey
#2 Washington vs #15 Calgary
#3 Vegas vs #14 St. Louis
#4 Toronto vs #13 Minnesota
#5 Dallas vs #12 Ottawa
#6 Los Angeles vs #11 Florida
#7 Tampa Bay vs #10 Carolina
#8 Colorado vs #9 Edmonton

That is not a bad Round 1 menu

I remember 50 years ago, the Bruins had to play Los Angeles in the first round. In those days, teams flew commercial. Now, everybody charters.

The NHL became a joke in 1980 when 16 of 21 teams qualified.

The NHL had that crazy bubble format in 2020 and there were shockers in Round 1

People need to stop asking for 1v16. It will never happen because of travel time + too many round 1 matchups would be inconvenient for people to watch.

If you have a LA Florida series it would be hard for fans to watch away games.

1v8 in each conference could definitely be brought back though.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I'm quite convinced that most of the owners don't watch much hockey themselves.
It's an investment and they check the data, like shareholders of any company, and most of them only strictly focus on the business and how they think their margins can be at its best.

There are also a lot of owners in the building watching. Like mentioned earlier, unless the players push for change, it’s likely a non issue.

 

[Summer Rose]

What I don't get is the contradiction in regular season versus playoff attitudes. After 13 pages, I'd be shocked if people hadn't mentioned this already, but I'll just throw it out there anyways.

Beyond simply the league expanding, those up top have made it a priority for every team to match-up against every other team in the league at least once, if not twice, every regular season. On the other hand, I believe the maximum now for divisional games is four matchups a year. I don't understand this. I'm happy for whichever cities can support them to have an NHL team. But it doesn't do anything for me as a Bruins fan to play Seattle or Dallas or Minnesota...blah, blah, blah. I am guessing there is some justification of "fairness" going on trying not to have one team in a weak division pad its season stats by simply beating lesser teams in their division. But there's plenty of other "unfair" variables at play too that can't be gotten rid of.

On the other hand, the playoffs seem to serve as trying to enhance rivalries. So it seems like the league tries to force rivalrieis for the vast majority of the season and then actually propagates the legitime ones for a couple months at the end. Is that actually good for business? Having to listen to some talking head tell me there is a "heated rivalry" between the Bruins and (insert team in which there is no actual rivalry) during the regular season is just grating. I've been a fan for 30 years. I know there is no "feud" between the Bruins and the modern-day Red Wings. Or Rangers.

I can understand playing every single team in the league home and home from the perspective that not every market is guaranteed to sell out games. This was particularly true during my time as a Coyotes season ticket holder, where the home game against many of the teams in the eastern conference (although not all of them) could be big draws. In terms of doing business from a financial perspective, it's a net positive in some markets, and in markets that are probably just going to sell out the game anyway regardless of opponent, it's net neutral.

I personally appreciate it, being a fan of an out-of-market team in the opposite conference. Utah (and previously the Coyotes) are guaranteed to come play in Tampa once a year (the 20-21 season with its divisional-only schedule necessitated by COVID notwithstanding), and I've made sure to go to the game each time since moving here.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I can understand playing every single team in the league home and home from the perspective that not every market is guaranteed to sell out games. This was particularly true during my time as a Coyotes season ticket holder, where the home game against many of the teams in the eastern conference (although not all of them) could be big draws. In terms of doing business from a financial perspective, it's a net positive in some markets, and in markets that are probably just going to sell out the game anyway regardless of opponent, it's net neutral.

I personally appreciate it, being a fan of an out-of-market team in the opposite conference. Utah (and previously the Coyotes) are guaranteed to come play in Tampa once a year (the 20-21 season with its divisional-only schedule necessitated by COVID notwithstanding), and I've made sure to go to the game each time since moving here.

On the balance sheet, it definitely helps. But there's limits to balance sheets, particularly when one focuses more on near-term than long-term gains from building the brand.

But perhaps you are right. The reality of an expansive league (in which the owners are effectively collaborating with one another to uphold their bottom line(s)) may just be that this is the way it's going to be done for the foreseeable future to keep as many franchises as possible solvent.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The divisions before the 2002 realignment were pretty funny. Two standout examples were that the Arizona Cardinals were in the NFC East (the old NFC East was the same as it is now, just with Arizona included) whereas the Atlanta Falcons were in the NFC West.

The Braves used to be in the NL West. As were the Reds.

That's the problem with the East/West split; it's not East/West. It's eastern time zone, and then whatever is left so that it makes mathematical sense. It makes some sense, since most people are in the eastern time zone, TV is based on the eastern time zone, etc. You want to maximize the eastern time zone. However, what works great for the eastern time zone, doesn't necessarily work for the afterthoughts.

East/West would be, ETZ and CTZ in one conference, and MTZ and PTZ in the other.

 

[Summer Rose]

On the balance sheet, it definitely helps. But there's limits to balance sheets, particularly when one focuses more on near-term than long-term gains from building the brand.

But perhaps you are right. The reality of an expansive league (in which the owners are effectively collaborating with one another to uphold their bottom line(s)) may just be that this is the way it's going to be done for the foreseeable future to keep as many franchises as possible solvent.

If we want to accuse the NHL of being short-sighted with favoring short-term gains over long-term growth, that's perfectly reasonable and I'd agree.

Although one example of them actually attempting to favor long-term growth over short-term gains, which was for the BOG to continually allow my team to exist, it ended up kind of burning them and they were forced to eventually pull the plug on the Arizona experiment.

 

[Summer Rose]

The Braves used to be in the NL West. As were the Reds.

That's the problem with the East/West split; it's not East/West. It's eastern time zone, and then whatever is left so that it makes mathematical sense. It makes some sense, since most people are in the eastern time zone, TV is based on the eastern time zone, etc. You want to maximize the eastern time zone. However, what works great for the eastern time zone, doesn't necessarily work for the afterthoughts.

East/West would be, ETZ and CTZ in one conference, and MTZ and PTZ in the other.

The NHL at least has the lucky advantage of having exactly half its teams in the eastern time zone, so it's easy enough to go from there. Although when creating the current alignment, it felt like they created the Metropolitan Division first, then the Atlantic Division was just "whatever, the rest of you." Then out west, it felt like they created the Pacific Division first, then the Central Division is just "er... well, I suppose it has to be the rest of you lot."

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

If we want to accuse the NHL of being short-sighted with favoring short-term gains over long-term growth, that's perfectly reasonable and I'd agree.

Although one example of them actually attempting to favor long-term growth over short-term gains, which was for the BOG to continually allow my team to exist, it ended up kind of burning them and they were forced to eventually pull the plug on the Arizona experiment.

I’d be the first to say that my angle on all of this is very biased. I miss the days of what seemed like a game against the hated Habs seemingly every other week. Now, months upon months will pass between Bruins-Canadiens games. Just not the persistent matchups needed to promote true rivalry IMO.

It will never happen, but I’d be curious how a 32-team league ultra confined to its own region would work. Have an in-season “tournament” of sorts where top teams from each region end up squaring off and then of course the playoffs.

I’m on board with your thinking, at least initially, that this would probably be a nonstarter due to the fact that smaller, less established markets would lose out on a ton of revenue from not having O6 teams and other big market fans roll into town. But long-term? It’s a risky experiment, but I’m not so sure it wouldn’t eventually pan out with a ton of persistent local rivalries.

Basically, it would be a reversion to the old days but just on a much larger (more total teams) scale. It’s a total fantasy but I like thinking about it.

And yes, I give anyone permission to come in and burst my bubble as to the reasons why this would never work.

 

[Son of Nogatco]

And the NFL still has the same east, central, west style conference setup. It doesn't need it though, since it could easily put Seattle in the same division as Miami, and not miss a beat.

In today’s NFL the rivalries are a much bigger deal than travel considerations

 

[Stuzchuk]

The players are saying it but it's Bettman decision. Maybe the PA should push for the old format (Conf. 1-8) to come back?

 

[Summer Rose]

I’d be the first to say that my angle on all of this is very biased. I miss the days of what seemed like a game against the hated Habs seemingly every other week. Now, months upon months will pass between Bruins-Canadiens games. Just not the persistent matchups needed to promote true rivalry IMO.

It will never happen, but I’d be curious how a 32-team league ultra confined to its own region would work. Have an in-season “tournament” of sorts where top teams from each region end up squaring off and then of course the playoffs.

I’m on board with your thinking, at least initially, that this would probably be a nonstarter due to the fact that smaller, less established markets would lose out on a ton of revenue from not having O6 teams and other big market fans roll into town. But long-term? It’s a risky experiment, but I’m not so sure it wouldn’t eventually pan out with a ton of persistent local rivalries.

Basically, it would be a reversion to the old days but just on a much larger (more total teams) scale. It’s a total fantasy but I like thinking about it.

And yes, I give anyone permission to come in and burst my bubble as to the reasons why this would never work.

Regarding the divisional matchups and rivalries, if they're going to insist on only having four games against divisional opponents, I feel like they could do a lot better with distributing them more evenly throughout the season. I get why they have some variances that look weird, such as an extreme example of having your four games against a divisional opponent all being in the span of two months, then you don't play them the other five months. What I've noticed is that with the current scheduling logic, the pattern seems to be that they like to knock out a bunch of interconference games to start off, and it trends towards being the western teams playing out east (one year the Coyotes came to town for an October 31 game) rather than the other way around. Late season games trend towards divisional opponents, probably in an effort to make the playoff races more exciting. The rest of it (eastern teams going west and intraconference games against the other division) kind of gets thrown in whatever's left over on the calendar. I do seem to remember some kind of clause like a team that crossed more than one time zone for a road trip meant that the road trip had to have a duration of a minimum of three away games, or something to that effect, although when I asked for clarification on it on the business board I was informed that such a clause does not exist in the current CBA. Either way, with insisting on their scheduling logic of a home and home against the opposite conference and only four divisional games, with 32 teams all across North America it turns into kind of a giant mess.

An ultra-confined league with enough teams is an interesting thought experiment. We don't really even need to think about it only hypothetically, since most leagues in any sport in other countries (that mostly have a much smaller geographical footprint) mostly just lack regional divisions entirely (a notable exception being the KHL). Very large countries such as the United States, Canada, and Russia historically have trended towards regional groupings followed by a postseason to determine the champion because of their sheer size. The format that's common in European soccer leagues with every team just playing a home and home against ever other team (then just awarding the championship to whoever finishes in first place, with no playoffs) would never work over here. With that kind of format being expected by fans in each country, I can imagine the reaction by each if they switched formats to the opposite.

North American fans: "But travel! Playoffs are traditional! Playoff games mean more money! Stupid!"

Non-North American fans: "What's the point of playoffs? The format's already fair. Regional groupings? Stupid!"

Anyway, I could ramble on for quite some time if I felt like it about this, but I think I'll stop here for now.

 

[Captain97]

Regarding the divisional matchups and rivalries, if they're going to insist on only having four games against divisional opponents, I feel like they could do a lot better with distributing them more evenly throughout the season. I get why they have some variances that look weird, such as an extreme example of having your four games against a divisional opponent all being in the span of two months, then you don't play them the other five months. What I've noticed is that with the current scheduling logic, the pattern seems to be that they like to knock out a bunch of interconference games to start off, and it trends towards being the western teams playing out east (one year the Coyotes came to town for an October 31 game) rather than the other way around. Late season games trend towards divisional opponents, probably in an effort to make the playoff races more exciting. The rest of it (eastern teams going west and intraconference games against the other division) kind of gets thrown in whatever's left over on the calendar. I do seem to remember some kind of clause like a team that crossed more than one time zone for a road trip meant that the road trip had to have a duration of a minimum of three away games, or something to that effect, although when I asked for clarification on it on the business board I was informed that such a clause does not exist in the current CBA. Either way, with insisting on their scheduling logic of a home and home against the opposite conference and only four divisional games, with 32 teams all across North America it turns into kind of a giant mess.

An ultra-confined league with enough teams is an interesting thought experiment. We don't really even need to think about it only hypothetically, since most leagues in any sport in other countries (that mostly have a much smaller geographical footprint) mostly just lack regional divisions entirely (a notable exception being the KHL). Very large countries such as the United States, Canada, and Russia historically have trended towards regional groupings followed by a postseason to determine the champion because of their sheer size. The format that's common in European soccer leagues with every team just playing a home and home against ever other team (then just awarding the championship to whoever finishes in first place, with no playoffs) would never work over here. With that kind of format being expected by fans in each country, I can imagine the reaction by each if they switched formats to the opposite.

North American fans: "But travel! Playoffs are traditional! Playoff games mean more money! Stupid!"

Non-North American fans: "What's the point of playoffs? The format's already fair. Regional groupings? Stupid!"

Anyway, I could ramble on for quite some time if I felt like it about this, but I think I'll stop here for now.

I don't think none North American fans understand how big NA is. Last week I drove from Edmonton to Banff to Saskatoon to winnipeg to Toronto.

That drive is only 200kms less than Moscow to Madrid.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Who does 1vs16 benefit?

Not the players. Not the fans.

That format sounds like shit from a butt.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

3 goals on 10 shots. Freddy Andersen is back.

 

[12ozPapa]

Best sport. Worst league

 

[Chan790]

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 don't think it's broken and it's currently still way better than 1-8 would be...but if you wanted to do something different which would make the NHL playoffs stick out from other US and Can/Am sports leagues, would make the Playoffs more interesting and have more rivalry and grudge match feeling, why not do something crazy and unique that will give people something to talk about?

I suggest "pick your poison" conference-wide seeding in the first two rounds, through to the CFs. (aka. Division winners/"higher seed" pick their matchup in decending order of the standings.)

It would create discussion/debate for fans, give the talking heads something to talk about, bring a little strategy to the seeding ("Do we want to play X early in the playoffs or see if we can avoid them until the ECF/WCF?", "Y is a higher seeded team but we beat the hell out of them all season, so we want them first!"), create a little animosity ("They picked us because they don't respect us!"), create a little extra media spectacle early in the playoffs ("Who are they going to pick in round two?" Also, selection show TV events.)

 

[PainForShane]

If we want to accuse the NHL of being short-sighted with favoring short-term gains over long-term growth, that's perfectly reasonable and I'd agree.

Although one example of them actually attempting to favor long-term growth over short-term gains, which was for the BOG to continually allow my team to exist, it ended up kind of burning them and they were forced to eventually pull the plug on the Arizona experiment.

I don't think that's really true (except for the few years that the NHL actually owned the team).

Even though the team lost money most years in the Valley (all years?), for the most part it was able to attract 'businessmen' owners ie grifters, at least one of whom became an actual criminal at some point later. These owners subsidized the team for the most part and therefore imo are the ones who allowed our team to exist, not the BOG.

When we attracted Meruelo, he became tired of losing money in Glendale. But, instead of keeping his mouth shut and trying to sell the team like everyone else, he actually moved them to ASU (so that he didn't have to lose money), that's when the league stepped in because playing in a college arena indefinitely most likely damages the NHL brand. Before that though, the previous owners were the ones losing tens of millions annually and imo even though we shit on them all the time (for good reason), they're the reason the team didn't relocate sooner.

Put a different way, if any of the previous owners did what Meruelo did, the team would've been relocated soon after

 

[KingsFan7824]

The NHL at least has the lucky advantage of having exactly half its teams in the eastern time zone, so it's easy enough to go from there. Although when creating the current alignment, it felt like they created the Metropolitan Division first, then the Atlantic Division was just "whatever, the rest of you." Then out west, it felt like they created the Pacific Division first, then the Central Division is just "er... well, I suppose it has to be the rest of you lot."

The 5 teams in the previous Atlantic(the Caps used to be in the Patrick), and the 5 teams from the previous Northeast(honorary spot for Detroit) were kept together. Even if Boston probably should be with NY, and Pit moves over with Clb, Det, Buf. Then it was who gets the Clb/Car, or TB/Fla combo. Clb/Car in the Metro made the most sense of any scenario. The others require everyone to jump over everyone else geographically.

And yeah, the Central teams, like Dallas and Minnesota, were some of the louder critics of the previous division alignment/playoff format(and rightfully so). Nobody wants to travel to the west coast, so figure that out. Ana/LA/SJ/VGK/Sea/Van are obviously there. Then it's the Edm/Cal or Col/now Utah combo. They chose to keep Edm/Cal with Van.

Of course they could've done 4-team divisions. That could allow for the possibility of a massive shift to a MLB/NFL style continent wide conferences, but that's probably like a 1-16 playoff format; too much to ask for.

 

[KingsOfCali25]

The NHL should definitely go back to the 1v8 format with a reseeding in the 2nd round so the best regular season team gets the worst remaining playoff team. They also need to change the regular points format to 3-2-1-0 (like the Olympics and IIHF). I'd also like to see the NHL change the series format to 2-2-3 so the higher seed actually gets home ice. It will make the regular season still important as teams push for home ice with the 3 extra games of playoff revenue at risk and help cut down on travel costs if a series runs longer.