Do you like the present Play-Off format ?

[MikoTython]

3 per division, 2 WC per conference, or a straight seeding based upon the top 8 reg season performances in the conference w/o regard to division ranking ?

Personally, I think the latter is fairer - a weaker division already advantages the top teams in that division by playing a net weaker competition - giving them 3 guaranteed spots compounds that advantage.

What's your take ?

[Hooking]

So the NHL switched to this format so they could start doing bracket challenges. It's all about marketing and money.

I do prefer 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7... etc. and each round resets depending on what seed wins meaning highest seed always plays the lowest seed that still playing. The old way.

[Tony Palazzolo]

So the NHL switched to this format so they could start doing bracket challenges. It's all about marketing and money.

I do prefer 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7... etc. and each round resets depending on what seed wins meaning highest seed always plays the lowest seed that still playing. The old way.

This is like giving 3 points for a regulation win thing. There are a number of ways to do it and all of them have pros and cons. The thing that I don't like about this one is that it seems the best match-ups are in the first round. The last few years have had some incredible hockey in the first round. That seems to tail off in later rounds.

[dhsux]

I was thinking the main idea here is to build/maintain division rivalry?

I'd prefer more reg season division games to do that and then straight up seeding for play offs myself.

[Wattage]

3 per division, 2 WC per conference, or a straight seeding based upon the top 8 reg season performances in the conference w/o regard to division ranking ?

Personally, I think the latter is fairer - a weaker division already advantages the top teams in that division by playing a net weaker competition - giving them 3 guaranteed spots compounds that advantage.

What's your take ?

Um it doesnt anymore. At least not.by much. Theres hardly much "extra divsion games"

The nhl schedule goes like this. 2 games vs every team in other conference(eastern for blues) 2x 16 equals 32 games.

3 games vs every team in other division(for blues that is pacific division) 3x 8= 24 games. +32 from inter conference equals 56 games.

Then 3 games vs every other team in your division in the central. 3x7=21 games, + the previus 56 equals 77. Thats leaves us 5 games short. So blues then play a 4th division game vs 5 of the 7 other teams in their division.

So you end up playing 32 games vs other conference. 24 vs other division in your conference, and 26.in your division. 2 of the teams in your division you dont play any extra games at all vs the teams in the other conference division and the rest its just 1 extra game.

So "weaker divisions" is hardly much of a factor on final reckrd with these balanced schedules and really only affe ts sta dings. Which makes it all the more weirder to force division matchups in playoffs when division rivalries are hardly a focus during season in games played.

Before expansion and adding that we play every team in the other conference twice- divisions actually used to be a focus with many more games during regular season.

[Wattage]

I was thinking the main idea here is to build/maintain division rivalry?

I'd prefer more reg season division games to do that and then straight up seeding for play offs myself.

Especially cuz the 2 wildcards can end up in the opposite division bracket anyways its just a forced 2 vs 3 in same division.

Yeah, more division games in reg season

[rangergiff]

I like the current wild card format but would rather they go with the straight 1 vs 8 and so on for seeding. I also agree with the poster that would rather have more regular season divisional games. In my opinion, they should do one division each year in the other conference and switch them the next year. Add those games to your own divisional foes.

[Wattage]

I like the current wild card format but would rather they go with the straight 1 vs 8 and so on for seeding. I also agree with the poster that would rather have more regular season divisional games. In my opinion, they should do one division each year in the other conference and switch them the next year. Add those games to your own divisional foes.

Either 1 division in the other conference or just one game vs every team in the other conference instead of 2. They saidnthey wanted to give every fan a chance to watch an opposing player like mcdavid play in their building every year but this is getting ridiculous. When they inevitably expand to 36 teams, you will suddenly only play 2 games vs some teams in own conference to continue this making the schedule almost so equalized that you might as well not even have conferences anymore and go pure 1-16

[seattleblue]

If the league gets bigger than 32 teams IMO it does start making the idea of relegation more appealing, even if it's not workable for several decent reasons. Looks like they are probably going to 34 and that's en route to 36. 36 NHL teams? Could they break that into 28/8 or go up to 38/40 teams but make it 28/10 or 28/12?

It could force compelling hockey throughout the regular season. 28 NHL teams with 16 teams making it means about 20-22 teams will think they have a playoff chance and 6-8 teams will be fighting to avoid relegation. Let's say the bottom 2-4 teams are relegated every year and the top corresponding teams from the lower league are elevated.

It would be a major change and that's not what the NHL is known for. But since we're just playing with ideas. In general, as the league gets bigger/more watered down it means many more teams have no realistic shot unless they get a major impact player in the draft. What's the 12th worst team in a 36 team league going to do? Tread water endlessly until they get lucky with a player who they manage to keep and build around? I'd like to see everyone forced to play meaningful hockey as long as possible.

[Pink Freud]

I do prefer 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7... etc. and each round resets depending on what seed wins meaning highest seed always plays the lowest seed that still playing. The old way.

+1!

I still smart over the maddening best-of-three first round in the mid-70s when the inferior Penguins won two games...and the Blues were OUT.

I was in the Upper Circle near center-ice during a Blues' 3rd-period PP in Game Two when, directly beneath me, defenseman Colin Campbell burst out of the penalty box on a breakaway to tie the game, then a few minutes later Vic Hadfield shot a 50-foot fluttering knuckleball into the net for the lead with only a couple minutes left, followed by an ENG clincher.

The Blues were so enraged by rookie ref Andy Van Hellemond's 3rd period calls and missed calls that when the puck was cleared with seconds ticking down, Bob Plager skated back to retrieve it, detouring to slam Van Hellemond into the boards, earning both thundering cheers and a 5-game suspension to open the next season.

[STL fan in MN]

If the league gets bigger than 32 teams IMO it does start making the idea of relegation more appealing, even if it's not workable for several decent reasons. Looks like they are probably going to 34 and that's en route to 36. 36 NHL teams? Could they break that into 28/8 or go up to 38/40 teams but make it 28/10 or 28/12?

It could force compelling hockey throughout the regular season. 28 NHL teams with 16 teams making it means about 20-22 teams will think they have a playoff chance and 6-8 teams will be fighting to avoid relegation. Let's say the bottom 2-4 teams are relegated every year and the top corresponding teams from the lower league are elevated.

It would be a major change and that's not what the NHL is known for. But since we're just playing with ideas. In general, as the league gets bigger/more watered down it means many more teams have no realistic shot unless they get a major impact player in the draft. What's the 12th worst team in a 36 team league going to do? Tread water endlessly until they get lucky with a player who they manage to keep and build around? I'd like to see everyone forced to play meaningful hockey as long as possible.

I love the relegation format but I just don’t see that ever going over in N.A. sports leagues. The owners would never be for their team possibly being knocked down a level. Would cost them too much in the pocketbook.

What I see as more likely as they expand is to eventually increase the playoffs beyond 16 teams. Like maybe have a few 3-game play-in series to determine the final 16 teams. Something like 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9 in each conference get the last 2 playoff spots. Something like that.

That said, I prefer the conference 1-8 seeding over keeping it divisional the first 2 rounds. But I see why they do it the way they do. They like divisional rivalries and it helps with gambling…not that I necessarily agree that’s a good reason personally but I get it.

[Sweet Jones]

I do prefer 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7... etc. and each round resets depending on what seed wins meaning highest seed always plays the lowest seed that still playing. The old way.

+1!

I still smart over the maddening best-of-three first round in the mid-70s when the inferior Penguins won two games...and the Blues were OUT.

I was in the Upper Circle near center-ice during a Blues' 3rd-period PP in Game Two when, directly beneath me, defenseman Colin Campbell burst out of the penalty box on a breakaway to tie the game, then a few minutes later Vic Hadfield shot a 50-foot fluttering knuckleball into the net for the lead with only a couple minutes left, followed by an ENG clincher.

The Blues were so enraged by rookie ref Andy Van Hellemond's 3rd period calls and missed calls that when the puck was cleared with seconds ticking down, Bob Plager skated back to retrieve it, detouring to slam Van Hellemond into the boards, earning both thundering cheers and a 5-game suspension to open the next season.

Interesting story. When I was a kid, Van Hellemond was the most exulted ref in the league.

Thanks for sharing.

[rangergiff]

I do prefer 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7... etc. and each round resets depending on what seed wins meaning highest seed always plays the lowest seed that still playing. The old way.

+1!

I still smart over the maddening best-of-three first round in the mid-70s when the inferior Penguins won two games...and the Blues were OUT.

I was in the Upper Circle near center-ice during a Blues' 3rd-period PP in Game Two when, directly beneath me, defenseman Colin Campbell burst out of the penalty box on a breakaway to tie the game, then a few minutes later Vic Hadfield shot a 50-foot fluttering knuckleball into the net for the lead with only a couple minutes left, followed by an ENG clincher.

The Blues were so enraged by rookie ref Andy Van Hellemond's 3rd period calls and missed calls that when the puck was cleared with seconds ticking down, Bob Plager skated back to retrieve it, detouring to slam Van Hellemond into the boards, earning both thundering cheers and a 5-game suspension to open the next season.

Interesting story. When I was a kid, Van Hellemond was the most exulted ref in the league.

Thanks for sharing.

That's a bit of Blues lore I never hears. Good on Bobby. Thanks for sharing.

[rezero]

I like the format but would recommend one change that would make the playoffs even better. No professional league has done this, but what if after the field is set, you let the top team in each conference pick their opponent. Then the second team picks, etc… That would add so much to the rivalry factor as team who get picked will feel disrespected, teams could pick rivalry games, etc…

[TheJackBurton]

So the NHL switched to this format so they could start doing bracket challenges. It's all about marketing and money.

I do prefer 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7... etc. and each round resets depending on what seed wins meaning highest seed always plays the lowest seed that still playing. The old way.

The old way would be the top 4 in each division make the playoffs and 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3.

No wildcards.

[TheJackBurton]

I like the current wild card format but would rather they go with the straight 1 vs 8 and so on for seeding. I also agree with the poster that would rather have more regular season divisional games. In my opinion, they should do one division each year in the other conference and switch them the next year. Add those games to your own divisional foes.

Either 1 division in the other conference or just one game vs every team in the other conference instead of 2. They saidnthey wanted to give every fan a chance to watch an opposing player like mcdavid play in their building every year but this is getting ridiculous. When they inevitably expand to 36 teams, you will suddenly only play 2 games vs some teams in own conference to continue this making the schedule almost so equalized that you might as well not even have conferences anymore and go pure 1-16

They did something similar to that after the lockout and it benefited the eastern conference immensely.

I think one year Pitt played all of their away out of conference games in the first 6 weeks of the season, and never had to play another game out of the eastern time zone. At the same time you still had the western conference teams playing in all 4 time zones all year long.

It became a huge advantage for eastern conference teams, and a major disadvantage for western conference teams, so they went back to this format.

I think the best solution would be to switch back and forth every year with divisions. Yeah it's great you can see Sid the Kid once a year, but I'd rather be able to make up games against teams we are chasing in division then a game against an aging Pitt team.