From the Rafters: The No. 3 Seed—an NHL Rule That SHOULD Be Re-Visited

Let me first go on record to say that, I am a No. 3 seed skeptic. Have always been, likely always will be. Unless they fix it.

My premise is simple. Why do we prop up a team with fewer points ahead of another team who has scored more points? Typing it feels wrong, repeating it in my head sounds wrong.

This article looks to discuss how we got here, what it all means, and what I think we should do about it. Then you can decide.

First, let’s look at how the regular season finished up.

East

1. Montreal 104
2. Pittsburgh 102
3. Washington 94
4. New Jersey 99
5. NY Rangers 97
6. Philadelphia 95
7. Ottawa 94
8. Boston 94

West

1. Detroit 115
2. San Jose 108
3. Minnesota 98
4. Anaheim 102
5. Dallas 97
6. Colorado 95
7. Calgary 94
8. Nashville 91

Result here is first round matchups in the East of

Montreal (1) vs Boston (8)
Pittsburgh (2) vs Ottawa (7)
Washington (3) vs Philadelphia (6)
New Jersey (4) vs NY Rangers (5)

And in the west, the first round is as follows:

Detroit (1) vs Nashville (8)
San Jose (2) vs Calgary (7)
Minnesota (3) vs Colorado (6)
Anaheim (4) vs Dallas (5)

Now without the No. 3 seed factor, here is how it previously WOULD have been played out before the changes were implemented

East

1. Montreal 104
2. Pittsburgh 102
3. New Jersey 99
4. NY Rangers 97
5. Philadelphia 95
6. Ottawa 94
7. Washington 94
8. Boston 94

West

1. Detroit 115
2. San Jose 108
3. Anaheim 102
4. Minnesota 98
5. Dallas 97
6. Colorado 95
7. Calgary 94
8. Nashville 91

This would have resulted in the following first round matchups in the East

Montreal (1) vs Boston (8)
Pittsburgh (2) vs Washington (7)
New Jersey (3) vs Ottawa (6)
NY Rangers (4) vs Philadelphia (5)

And in the West, it would have looked as follows

Detroit (1) vs Nashville (8)
San Jose (2) vs Calgary (7)
Anaheim (3) vs Colorado (6)
Minnesota (4) vs Dallas (5)

In an effort to reward a team for winning it’s division, the seeding rules changed such that at the very least, if your team won it’s division crown, you were guaranteed to at least be a No. 1, 2, or 3 seed, even if your point total was abysmal. So it is plausible, something like the following could indeed occur:

East

1. Montreal 100 pts
2. Pittsburgh 99 pts
3. Washington 70 pts
4. NY Islanders 88 pts
5. NY Rangers 87 pts
6. Buffalo 84 pts
7. New Jersey 82 pts
8. Ottawa 80 pts

And that ladies and gentlemen just should NOT be allowed to happen.

This years Eastern conference is a perfect example of what is wrong about the current arrangement. Washington, prior to the revised approach, would have finished in the seventh spot, a significant drop from the No. 3 seed they own now.

Not only do they get to begin the playoffs against a weaker team, they are the proud beneficiaries of home ice advantage. Make no mistake about it, home ice advantage is a statistical benefit.

A quick pass through the final standings this year shows that a mere four teams in the league this year had sub-.500 winning percentages at home. And due to the rules on how the seeding works, there is no re-seeding after each round. So Washington will stay as a No. 3 seed until their last game of the season.

Backtracking a bit, here’s a brief history lesson. One might ask, why did we go ahead with this change in seeding in the first place?

To answer that question, we start by thinking back to the '90s when we were in expansion mode and handing out teams to Ottawa, Florida, San Jose, Atlanta, Nashville, Tampa, and Anaheim. Given all of these additions along with the anticipated entry of Columbus and Minnesota in 2000, in 1998-99 the NHL decided to complete a re-alignment of the divisions to prepare for a league with 30 teams, it’s highest since inception.

Gone were the Adams, Smythe, Patrick, and Norris divisions. In their place stood the newly coined Northeast, Atlantic, Southeast, Central, Pacific, and Northwest divisions, each with five teams.

Reason one for the change in seeding? Location, location, location. The NHL has for years been concerned about ensuring the game is shoved down the throat of the average American, who seems lukewarm at best in terms of his love for hockey.

The last thing Gary Bettman wants to do is have teams like Florida, Tampa Bay, and Los Angeles go multiple years without participating in the playoffs and specifically, without being host to multiple home games.

Home games not only generate revenue to the local team, but it creates a buzz. That same buzz is what puts people in the seats, and what brings them back to the box office for more. The league wants to ensure the largest footprint possible and they belief that this is certainly one way to help achieve that goal.

The second major reason why this change occurred had to do with the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the league (pre-salary cap).

Before the cap, one could eyeball each of the six divisions and at least in one case (I am pointing squarely at the Southwest division), it’s highly possible that in any given year, none of those five teams would finish in the top eight. This would prevent anyone from that division being represented in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

The seeding arrangement ensures that at least one of those teams would make it every year. This resembles the handling of the NHL All Star game and their approach to ensuring one player from each NHL team participates.

Some speculate that a third input into the decision to allocate the No. 3 seed in such a fashion is to somehow compensate for some of the other divisions, such as the Atlantic and Northwest. These divisions have the notorious reputation of playing some real grueling and tough conference games throughout the year. Think of the NY Rangers vs New Jersey and Calgary vs Edmonton contests are prime examples.

The game between those two rivals are beyond intense and can often resemble a train wreck. At times the series often ends up being a split but the battle scars are deep. Split series equal lower total point totals at end of year, and as such, the No. 3 seed may help one of those teams to be artificially propped up a little.

In reality, the helping hand may simply be putting them exactly where they belong given the potential to win or lose against out of conference teams. I digress…

As much as I can understand what arguments may have been used to support this No. 3 seed concept, I just don’t buy it. Call me a capitalist or a purist, but I just think it’s yet another little voodoo tweak to the way the game was both scored and played for some 90 years without any tampering.

With the salary cap a thing of the present, the board is much more artificially level thus the argument once used here is a thing of the past. I think if you want to finish third, be the team that statistically has the third most points come game 82.

The only thing that’s good with the No. 3 seed rule is the drama comes game 80 through end of season. It makes for great flowcharts and “if this team beats this team, and the other team goes into OT, the 3 seed then belongs to team X…. BUT…”

I confess, it’s fun to watch all the variations and permutations that the poor moderately skilled labour on the sports shows have to plod through. Given the alternative, however, I'll take good old straight math and hard fought games from bell to bell. Whoever finishes in the third spot stays in third spot. Period.