The current NHL playoff Format is absurd. The previous system of eight teams per Conference was not great either, but I am not sure there is any playoff system in professional sports more flawed than what the NHL currently does.
Under the current NHL format there are four divisions; Pacific, Central, Atlantic and the uniquely named Metropolitan. Three teams from each conference are guaranteed a playoff spot, plus two wild card teams from each conference. The divisions are then divided into four brackets and teams are forced to play their division rivals in rounds one and two. For example, Washington, Pittsburgh, Columbus and a wild card team makeup the Metropolitan bracket. After rounds one and two are over, the winner of the Metro bracket plays the winner of the Atlantic bracket in the conference final to determine who will play for the Stanley Cup. Simple enough, pretty easy to follow.
The big positive from this format, and why the NHL chose it, is they guaranteed rivalry matchups that fans care about in the first and second rounds. Fans are almost guaranteed to get Los Angeles vs. San Jose or Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia or Chicago vs. St. Louis, which is great for the fringe fans and getting non-traditional NHL fans more excited for the playoffs. It goes to the big push of the NHL for the past five seasons; rivalries are everything. That is why NBC Sports has to do "Rivalry Wednesday" every week. The NHL's entire strategy for attracting fans is over-hyping these rivalries. It is a solid strategy, but we will get more into that during my summer series on fixing the NHL. Sadly, rivalries are the only positive to this format.
The negatives may not be obvious to the casual fan, and maybe the NHL does not care about the downside. However, serious hockey fans and historians should and do care. There are two significant problems that are being especially highlighted this year. First, you will never have a great traditional rivalry matchup in the Conference Finals, let alone the Stanley Cup. The NHL created divisions so that almost all traditional rivals are in the same division. So hockey fans do not have the chance to see Montreal play Boston in the most important series, or Pittsburgh against Philadelphia. This is a crime against hockey fans. As someone who grew up in Pittsburgh, I can tell you there was nothing more exciting than when the Penguins and Flyers met in the 2008 Eastern Conference Finals. It was the pinnacle of the rivalry. The second and more serious issue arises when one division is vastly superior to the other division in it's conference. This year the four best teams in the Eastern Conference are all in the Metropolitan Division. There are four Metro teams with clinched playoff spots this season and three of the four teams over 100 points currently are in the Metro division. No Atlantic Division team has 100 points, let alone clinched a playoff spot. So the winner of the Metro will get the privilege of playing the worst team to make the playoffs (the second wild card) while the second and third best teams in the Metro face-off in the first round. Making it even worse, the fourth best team in the Metro will get a wild card spot and move to the far weaker Atlantic Division bracket. So they will actually benefit from from finishing fourth. In what world does this make sense? The NHL is penalizing teams for playing in a great division and rewarding teams for finishing in a lower seed.
This needs fixed. The NHL is cheating itself and the fans by forcing great teams out in the first round. What is the answer? I do not recommend going back to the eight teams per conference format. It was a better format, but too bland for the modern NHL. I have heard people suggest shrinking the number of playoff teams to four per conference, much like Major League Baseball. It makes it so reaching the playoffs is a more significant accomplishment, but you also lose most casual hockey fans from caring about the NHL because their team has no hope to make the playoffs. So I am not a supporter of this format. Another option would be allowing six teams per conference and instituting a first round bye for the top teams. The problem here is it gives far too large of an advantage to the teams with a bye. I personally think 16 teams in the playoffs is a good number. It gives every team hope to make it and creates a tournament with enough chaos that the regular season champion usually does not win the Stanley Cup.
The best solution is not an original idea, the NCAA currently uses it and I have heard a few in the media mention it as a possible solution for the NHL and NBA. However, it is definitely a unique answer for professional sports and would cause a stir amongst fans. The NHL should eliminate seeding based on conferences or divisions and simply go to a "Sweet Sixteen" format. It is certainly an apt suggestion for the month of March.
So how would this work, you ask? Simple, the top sixteen teams, based on points, earn a playoff spot and are seeded by their point totals exclusively. So it would breakdown #1 vs. #16, #2 vs. #15, #3 vs. #14, etc... The tie breakers for seeding would be head-to-head record, followed by who has more regulation wins, followed by conference record, and so on as necessary. I would also incorporate two unique wrinkles to make things a little more interesting. First, the first round would be a best-of-five instead of a best-of-seven. This would increase the chance for upsets or lessen the potential embarrassment of the 15 and 16 seeds being blown away by the top seeds. Second, I would eliminate reseeding after each round. Currently the best remaining seed after round one plays the lowest remaining seed. We would do away with this. The winner of #1 vs. #16 would play the winner of #8 vs. #9. So the round two matchup could be #9 vs #16, creating possible cinderella runs by the lower seeds. This format would continue through to the Stanley Cup finals where the two best (surviving) teams would meet.
I am in love with this format. It gives you the best sixteen teams every year, no snubs and no advantageous matchups for happening to be in a weak division. If the NHL kept divisions it would simply be to help determine the regular season schedules or potentially the top four seeds could be the division winners, but I would prefer that not be the case. This also gives us the ultra important dream playoff matchups that we would otherwise never see. In a single playoff season you could get to see Washington vs. Chicago for Ovechkin vs. Kane, Montreal vs Toronto for the traditional rivalry and Edmonton vs. Winnipeg for the battle of young superstars. Every playoff scenario that NHL fans dream of would now be possible to see. Not to mention you gain the added excitement brought on by upsets that throw off the bracket.
I really have not found a reasonable argument against this format. The only true argument against from a hockey purist standpoint is you may diminish the value of the traditional rivalry. Without conference and division based matchups you are less likely to see Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia or Anaheim vs. San Jose. I would say that these matchups are still very possible in this format, especially if the rivals are actually good enough to advance. How amazing would it be to see Chicago against St. Louis in the Stanley Cup Finals, one of the greatest rivalries in league history at the pinnacle of the sport.
There is no question to me, this is a must fix problem for the NHL. The current playoff format is all wrong for the NHL. The proposed sweet sixteen format gives the NHL a boost of much needed entertainment and drama. It engages fans across the league and creates storylines media members could only dream of. Maybe someday we will actually get to see the best matchups the NHL has to offer.
Under the current NHL format there are four divisions; Pacific, Central, Atlantic and the uniquely named Metropolitan. Three teams from each conference are guaranteed a playoff spot, plus two wild card teams from each conference. The divisions are then divided into four brackets and teams are forced to play their division rivals in rounds one and two. For example, Washington, Pittsburgh, Columbus and a wild card team makeup the Metropolitan bracket. After rounds one and two are over, the winner of the Metro bracket plays the winner of the Atlantic bracket in the conference final to determine who will play for the Stanley Cup. Simple enough, pretty easy to follow.
The big positive from this format, and why the NHL chose it, is they guaranteed rivalry matchups that fans care about in the first and second rounds. Fans are almost guaranteed to get Los Angeles vs. San Jose or Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia or Chicago vs. St. Louis, which is great for the fringe fans and getting non-traditional NHL fans more excited for the playoffs. It goes to the big push of the NHL for the past five seasons; rivalries are everything. That is why NBC Sports has to do "Rivalry Wednesday" every week. The NHL's entire strategy for attracting fans is over-hyping these rivalries. It is a solid strategy, but we will get more into that during my summer series on fixing the NHL. Sadly, rivalries are the only positive to this format.
The negatives may not be obvious to the casual fan, and maybe the NHL does not care about the downside. However, serious hockey fans and historians should and do care. There are two significant problems that are being especially highlighted this year. First, you will never have a great traditional rivalry matchup in the Conference Finals, let alone the Stanley Cup. The NHL created divisions so that almost all traditional rivals are in the same division. So hockey fans do not have the chance to see Montreal play Boston in the most important series, or Pittsburgh against Philadelphia. This is a crime against hockey fans. As someone who grew up in Pittsburgh, I can tell you there was nothing more exciting than when the Penguins and Flyers met in the 2008 Eastern Conference Finals. It was the pinnacle of the rivalry. The second and more serious issue arises when one division is vastly superior to the other division in it's conference. This year the four best teams in the Eastern Conference are all in the Metropolitan Division. There are four Metro teams with clinched playoff spots this season and three of the four teams over 100 points currently are in the Metro division. No Atlantic Division team has 100 points, let alone clinched a playoff spot. So the winner of the Metro will get the privilege of playing the worst team to make the playoffs (the second wild card) while the second and third best teams in the Metro face-off in the first round. Making it even worse, the fourth best team in the Metro will get a wild card spot and move to the far weaker Atlantic Division bracket. So they will actually benefit from from finishing fourth. In what world does this make sense? The NHL is penalizing teams for playing in a great division and rewarding teams for finishing in a lower seed.
This needs fixed. The NHL is cheating itself and the fans by forcing great teams out in the first round. What is the answer? I do not recommend going back to the eight teams per conference format. It was a better format, but too bland for the modern NHL. I have heard people suggest shrinking the number of playoff teams to four per conference, much like Major League Baseball. It makes it so reaching the playoffs is a more significant accomplishment, but you also lose most casual hockey fans from caring about the NHL because their team has no hope to make the playoffs. So I am not a supporter of this format. Another option would be allowing six teams per conference and instituting a first round bye for the top teams. The problem here is it gives far too large of an advantage to the teams with a bye. I personally think 16 teams in the playoffs is a good number. It gives every team hope to make it and creates a tournament with enough chaos that the regular season champion usually does not win the Stanley Cup.
The best solution is not an original idea, the NCAA currently uses it and I have heard a few in the media mention it as a possible solution for the NHL and NBA. However, it is definitely a unique answer for professional sports and would cause a stir amongst fans. The NHL should eliminate seeding based on conferences or divisions and simply go to a "Sweet Sixteen" format. It is certainly an apt suggestion for the month of March.
So how would this work, you ask? Simple, the top sixteen teams, based on points, earn a playoff spot and are seeded by their point totals exclusively. So it would breakdown #1 vs. #16, #2 vs. #15, #3 vs. #14, etc... The tie breakers for seeding would be head-to-head record, followed by who has more regulation wins, followed by conference record, and so on as necessary. I would also incorporate two unique wrinkles to make things a little more interesting. First, the first round would be a best-of-five instead of a best-of-seven. This would increase the chance for upsets or lessen the potential embarrassment of the 15 and 16 seeds being blown away by the top seeds. Second, I would eliminate reseeding after each round. Currently the best remaining seed after round one plays the lowest remaining seed. We would do away with this. The winner of #1 vs. #16 would play the winner of #8 vs. #9. So the round two matchup could be #9 vs #16, creating possible cinderella runs by the lower seeds. This format would continue through to the Stanley Cup finals where the two best (surviving) teams would meet.
I am in love with this format. It gives you the best sixteen teams every year, no snubs and no advantageous matchups for happening to be in a weak division. If the NHL kept divisions it would simply be to help determine the regular season schedules or potentially the top four seeds could be the division winners, but I would prefer that not be the case. This also gives us the ultra important dream playoff matchups that we would otherwise never see. In a single playoff season you could get to see Washington vs. Chicago for Ovechkin vs. Kane, Montreal vs Toronto for the traditional rivalry and Edmonton vs. Winnipeg for the battle of young superstars. Every playoff scenario that NHL fans dream of would now be possible to see. Not to mention you gain the added excitement brought on by upsets that throw off the bracket.
I really have not found a reasonable argument against this format. The only true argument against from a hockey purist standpoint is you may diminish the value of the traditional rivalry. Without conference and division based matchups you are less likely to see Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia or Anaheim vs. San Jose. I would say that these matchups are still very possible in this format, especially if the rivals are actually good enough to advance. How amazing would it be to see Chicago against St. Louis in the Stanley Cup Finals, one of the greatest rivalries in league history at the pinnacle of the sport.
There is no question to me, this is a must fix problem for the NHL. The current playoff format is all wrong for the NHL. The proposed sweet sixteen format gives the NHL a boost of much needed entertainment and drama. It engages fans across the league and creates storylines media members could only dream of. Maybe someday we will actually get to see the best matchups the NHL has to offer.
