The setup of the NHL playoffs is ridiculous.
Why does every team leading their division get a top three playoff spot in their conference?
The NHL should outright get rid of this rule. Every team should have an equal bid at the playoffs instead of all this crap about winning your division.
If the playoffs began at this point in the season, the Washington Capitals would grab the third seed in the Eastern Conference. Meanwhile the Montreal Canadiens, New Jersey Devils, Philadelphia Flyers, Buffalo Sabres, and Boston Bruins all have more points than the Caps—but sit lower in the playoff position because they didn't have the luck of being in the Southeast Division.
In the West, the Minnesota Wild lead the Northwest Division putting them in third place while the fourth and fifth place teams, the Anaheim Mighty Ducks and San Jose Sharks, have 71 and 70 points apiece.
Last year the Colorado Avalanche missed the playoffs in the West with 95 points while the New York Rangers, Tampa Bay Lightning, and New York Islanders clinched sixth, seventh, and eighth place seeds in the East with 94, 93, and 92 points respectively. What a joke.
The NHL needs to have the best teams in the playoffs. To do this they need to set up a few new rules.
First, the three division leaders in each conference should no longer get the top three seeds in the playoffs. Instead, these teams get a certain amount of cash to acknowledge that they won their division and nothing more, while the top eight teams in each conference make it to the playoffs.
The following scenario could really spice up the NHL season if it came into play. If a team that isn't going to make the playoffs (such as Colorado last year) has more points than a team in the other conference that is going to make it to the playoffs, the two teams battle head to head to decide who moves on.
If the team that is the "challenger" wins they would take the seed of the team they defeated.
These are my ideas on what the NHL should do to make the playoffs more about the best teams, instead of who got lucky and made it into the weak division and conference.
7 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Travis Loftis about 1 year ago
The problem with these ideas is that they completely do away with any tradition hockey has left - and any significance of winning your division.
If each team in the NHL played an identical schedule, I'd have no argument to taking the top 16 teams. However, Colorado's schedule was not New York's - and just because points tend to be harder to come by in the East. Now there is a tight race in the Southeast division. Who will win? Whoever wins gets the third eastern conference seed. There's nothing wrong with that. Each team has more than a one in two chance of earning a playoff spot. Considering that only one team in five will be a division leader, complaining about that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Your argument is valid - but for your scenario to work, each team would have to play each other team twice. That makes 58 games. 29 more doesn't make sense. Not a bad idea, but if you're into the traditions of hockey - this eliminates it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bryan Thiel about 1 year ago
So wait...offer them cash but nothing else? You mean to say that there could potentially be an unrepresented division in the playoffs? Come on. Each and every league has the division winners make the playoffs. The winner of all three AL and all three NL divisions in baseball make it because they had to win their divisions. Basketball's division winners make it, but are seeded according to points. Footballs division winners make it too. You're trying to outlaw a system that's implemented in EVERY SINGLE SPORT. It's just not logical in my mind. Maybe adopt the NBA system and have the division winners make the playoffs, but ranked according to points, but you have unfair representation. Why shouldn't division winners be in the playoffs? Were their divisional games any less important? Is their division any less important? No. And as for the "interconference games" so that a West opponent can take on an East opponent and make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference? What's the point of even having conferences then? Why not just rank the top 16 teams and let them get in? You'd have to eliminate conferences and divisions and then reschedule the entire NHL to accomplish this. There are two other issues with the cross-over game:
1) If there are three other teams with more points than the eight seed (or even a tie) then that creates unecessary games to be played. So if Colorado, St. Louis, and Columbus each have 95 points, but a team like Atlanta is in 8th in the East with 94, you have to have a four team playoff because how is that fair otherwise? Yes you can have tiebreakers with interconference wins and goals and such, but you're creating a lot of confusion that isn't needed at all.
2) The NHL has more than enough quality teams to compensate. The only league that I can identify as using the cross-over is the CFL, and even there I don't necessarily agree with it, but they've got nine teams, meaning for an uneven balance. The NHL doesn't have that problem. Leave it the way it is. The game is exciting, the races are enticing, and there are some new fans starting to trickle in and just changing the rules will confuse them and scare them (and any other prospective fans) off.
Edit Comment Cancel
paul mason about 1 year ago
I semi agree with you... cash is good idea, I think division leaders should get a guaranteed playoff spot though. Just not top three seeds automatically it has been an issue since the current playoff format and hopefully will be changed soon
Maybe take top 8 point leaders 1-8 in each conference and make format simple as that, division leaders should be in top eight though this year the Southeast division leader may have less pts than the real 8th seed so if you just took top eight seeds Southeast would miss playoffs oh well
Edit Comment Cancel
Jacob Dearlove about 1 year ago
I get what you're saying Brian and I understand what you're saying. I do think that every division should be represented in the playoffs but they shouldn't be guaranteed a top three spot. Quite possibly this year the team that wins the Southeast Division might have lower points than the 8th place team.
Edit Comment Cancel
Mark Marino about 1 year ago
I agree with the best teams making it. 100% CO got screwed. I disagree 100% with the cash considerations though. Isn't the NHL in enough financial trouble? All-in-all, nice work, and I like your broad ideas. Definitely an interesting read!
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Back in the day (1962?) there wasn't divisons, there was 12 teams. The Original Six were in the Eastern Conference and then the Western Conference had 6 teams like the Pittsburgh Penguins, St. Louis Blues and some others too. The top 4 of each CONFERENCE would play down and then the conference winners would play for the cup.
That is Hockey Tradition...Divisions are garbage, do away with schedules amongst divison rivals. It's all a bunch of crap to make more money because Vancouver coming all the way to Buffalo isn't going to attract a lot of Vancouver fans and make them any money...etc etc etc.
Modern hockey sucks, face it...we need to go back to just 2 conferences where everyone sees the other teams the same amount of times, that is a true test of how good you are, not playing Tampa or San Jose 12 times and the Red Wings twice.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
There should be no "Divisions" at all. Just the Eastern and Western Conferences. Period. The "Divisions" area an absurdity and are there simply because other sports have them. They are nonsense.
Every NHL team should play every other NHL team twice, home and away = 60 games. In addition every team should play teams in their own conference twice, home and away = 30 games, for a total of 90 league games.
Eliminate all exhibition games and the ultra stupid all-star game.
Fred
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.