Should the NHL do away with the divisional playoff format?

[dash]

The NHL adopted this format four years ago, in which the top three teams in each division make it to the playoffs, as well as two wild cards from each conference. It's a throwback to 1981-82 to 1992-93 seasons, when the playoffs included four teams from each division needing to go through each other to advance.

From 1993-94 through 2013, the Eastern and Western Conference teams were ranked 1 to 8 and reseeded after each round to reward regular-season success.

The purpose of the change was to put more emphasis on intradivision rivalries, and it has -- such as the Capitals and Penguins meeting in the second round last spring. But that series and others also generate criticism and questions, including: Why should the Presidents' Trophy winners face the team with the second-most points in the East before the conference final?

Div. playoff format again drawing criticism

 

[esls79]

Should go back to seeding conferences.

But I want new conferences. North and South. Canadian teams plus Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York Rangers and Arizona in the north conference. The rest in the south. Top 8 in each make the playoffs.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Should go back to seeding conferences.

But I want new conferences. North and South. Canadian teams plus Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York Rangers and Arizona in the north conference. The rest in the south. Top 8 in each make the playoffs.

I'm not of the opinion that increased travel times and crazy game start times shared by all teams make more sense than the current alignment which generally limits that as much as possible.

I'm good with the old format with these divisions. They aren't perfect but NHL divisions never will be.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

I personally hate the current format. The idea that Pitt and Columbus will cannibalize one another while Ottawa Boston draw one another just doesn't add up for me. Go back to seeding the conference.

 

[dash]

Poll has been added.

 

[Duke of Douchington]

This playoff format is the dumbest sack of shit ever.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Poll has been added.

Is it possible to get a "keep it with some tweaking" option?

I generally like it personally, but I don't like the crossover thing and the fact that there's actually a disincentive to win the Atlantic this year, since the winner gets the Rangers who will likely finish with more points, but 2nd and 3rd get to play each other.

If they add another team and can properly re-align to four equal sized divisions I'd prefer to see it as the top 4 from each division, dropping the wildcards entirely.

Each division has its ups and downs. The Metro is up right now and the Atlantic is down. That's gonna flip at some point and we're gonna hear the exact same arguments.

 

[dash]

3rd poll option has now been added

 

[RP-29]

Do we really need divisions at all? Axing them would make playoff seeding a non-issue.

 

[Darkstone42]

Division winners get the top two seeds, everyone else gets seeded on record, and that's that.

I like rewarding a division winner, even if it's not always fair to really good runners-up in stronger divisions, but a division winner shouldn't be punished with a tougher draw, and this format allows that to happen. It wouldn't be the case if the division winners were guaranteed one of the bottom two records of the playoff teams.

(Is that what it was before? I don't remember. But it seems like that's what it was before.)

 

[Darkstone42]

Do we really need divisions at all? Axing them would make playoff seeding a non-issue.

Divisions are more about making scheduling easier and travel lighter than they are about playoff seeding, I think.

 

[RP-29]

Divisions are more about making scheduling easier and travel lighter than they are about playoff seeding, I think.

All scheduling needs is a formula. Would be just as easy as relying on divisions to determine matchups.

The Florida teams are in the same division as the Canadian teams in the Eastern Conference. Inner-conference travel isn't much of a concern - particularly given the fact that pretty much every team that visits the state of Florida hits both teams back-to-back anyway, regardless of current division or conference. The NHL has it figured out already and doesn't need divisions for that.

Rivalries are built in the playoffs. The last great rivalry was the Wings/Avs - who were not in the same division. The Wings & Pens had a bit of a rivalry going in the late '00s and they weren't even in the same conference then.

 

[Center Ice]

Do away with the shoot out, it's bush league. You don't decide a hockey game by not playing hockey.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Rivalries are built in the playoffs. The last great rivalry was the Wings/Avs - who were not in the same division. The Wings & Pens had a bit of a rivalry going in the late '00s and they weren't even in the same conference then.

This just doesn't work in the modern game. There are more teams (5 more than in 1996 and 10 more than in the 80's when there were usually 4 or 5 rivalries going on at once) in the league today and thanks to the cap and "parity" it's less likely that the same teams will make the post-season over and over and over to facilitate such rivalries.

 

[dash]

I remember back in the 80s when Edmonton and Calgary were two of the top teams in the league and they locked horns early in the Smythe Division playoffs and often thought man, it's a shame that one of these two teams will have their season end this early.

/Of course, the score ended up being 4-1 in favo(u)r of Edmonton which is why I loathe those no-good-niks to this day

 

[RP-29]

This just doesn't work in the modern game. There are more teams (5 more than in 1996 and 10 more than in the 80's when there were usually 4 or 5 rivalries going on at once) in the league today and thanks to the cap and "parity" it's less likely that the same teams will make the post-season over and over and over to facilitate such rivalries.

Fair point, but it's also silly for the league to try to force rivalries. They happen organically.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Fair point, but it's also silly for the league to try to force rivalries. They happen organically.

True.

It's also not like we've been bereft of them in the cap era - Philly-Pens was hot for a while, Caps-Pens is always good even though the forced publicity courtesy of the league is annoying as hell, Chicago-Vancouver had a couple years of drama, Habs-B's was hot again for a while. It just seems kinda quiet at the moment but it'll change. Leafs-Sens meeting in the playoffs would likely get things going again.

 

[puckhead]

True.

It's also not like we've been bereft of them in the cap era - Philly-Pens was hot for a while, Caps-Pens is always good even though the forced publicity courtesy of the league is annoying as hell, Chicago-Vancouver had a couple years of drama, Habs-B's was hot again for a while. It just seems kinda quiet at the moment but it'll change. Leafs-Sens meeting in the playoffs would likely get things going again.

good times

 

[sbb122]

No conferences, go back to 21 teams and seed them 1 through 16. And bring back ties. And real division names.

 

[dash]

No conferences, go back to 21 teams and seed them 1 through 16. And bring back ties. And real division names.

I for one miss the Snorris division.