Expand the playoff tournament?

[joshy207 156]

Maybe for teh eastern conference. There would be less for the west due to the fact they would possibly be playing a west team. It would balance the travel over 16 teams instead of the 8. Last year the Wings played all 3 series on the west coast. Is the really fair to them? While a team like Philly could possibly play PIT, NJ and the NYR and travel via BUS.

You could have every matchup in every round of the 1-16 format be an East team vs. a West team. That would mean more travel, not less, for Western teams as well as Eastern teams.

In theory, yes, mixing conferences will balance the travel. But travel is expensive and it wears on the players. It isn't necessary to do this.

Is it fair for Detroit to have to go to the west coast in all 3 rounds? No, not really, but that's the way the league is set up right now. 1-16 might lead to the same scenario... or it could be Boston going to the west coast 3 times. The best way to eliminate that possibility is divisional playoffs. Under my plan, the farthest Detroit would have to travel in round 1 or 2 would be Dallas or maybe Denver.

[betterREDthandead 58]

I have my own thoughts on an "ideal" playoff format that involves getting rid of the notion of conferences and focusing on divisions, but until the NHL sees things my way and implements it, it makes sense to leave the conferences and the playoff format exactly as is. Getting rid of the conference affiliations in the playoffs is a solution without a problem.

[pjgj13 30]

You could have every matchup in every round of the 1-16 format be an East team vs. a West team. That would mean more travel, not less, for Western teams as well as Eastern teams.

In theory, yes, mixing conferences will balance the travel. But travel is expensive and it wears on the players. It isn't necessary to do this.

Is it fair for Detroit to have to go to the west coast in all 3 rounds? No, not really, but that's the way the league is set up right now. 1-16 might lead to the same scenario... or it could be Boston going to the west coast 3 times. The best way to eliminate that possibility is divisional playoffs. Under my plan, the farthest Detroit would have to travel in round 1 or 2 would be Dallas or maybe Denver.

If it wasn't for the Wings playing west coast series every year, they could have had another cup or 2.

[joshy207 156]

If it wasn't for the Wings playing west coast series every year, they could have had another cup or 2.

And if "if" was a fifth, I'd be drunk. What is your point?

[Barrie 900]

16 is to many in my opinion, please no more.

I'd rather see them lower it to 12 teams, like the NFL. The 3-6 seeds in the Conference could play a best of 3 series as a play in.

Example if the season ended today:

East

Bye: Pittsburgh and Montreal bye

Carolina vs. NYR

Ottawa vs. NJ

West

Bye: Detroit and SJ

Minnesota vs. Calgary

Anaheim vs. Dallas

Pittsburgh, Montreal, Detroit, and SJ would only have a week off. They could nurse some injuries. The NFL gives their top seeds a week off in the playoffs, so it wouldn't hurt the NHL.

Boston, Philly, Colorado, and Vancouver don't have a hope to win the Cup anyway.

I know it's a pipe dream, but I just think the finals would be more exciting and have a higher national interest if the better teams actually played for the Championship. If the NHL had better ratings, the games wouldn't be on networks like Versus.

[betterREDthandead 58]

I wouldn't want to see the playoffs reduced, either. Any team that has to win the Cup has to get through four series to do it, and that's part of what makes the NHL playoffs one of the greatest events in sports. 16 is the perfect number.

[Majsheppard 203]

I say why mess with perfection.

Although I would like to see a test run of not reseeding the teams after every round.

It may make no difference in the grand scheme, but definately could open the league up to being an office pool type thing. That would be great for bringing in new fans, get them to jump into an office pool. All honesty, that is why college basketball is so popular. The viewership explodes for the tourny.

With reseeding it is nearly impossible to have brackets. Plus it doesnt seem to be a great benifit to us, we tend to get beat by hot teams who upset someone and reseeding puts them on us.

Beyond that, no more teams, no change in games played or format or anything.

[digitaljohn88 4]

I do think expanding the playoffs would be a bad idea -- i just thought the article was interesting.

Personally, I think 26 teams would be perfection. Goodbye Nashville, Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay. Convert into an NBA team or something. Phoenix and Carolina, you guys can move back to Winnipeg and Hartford, where people actually liked you, and/or knew hockey existed.

Edited March 28, 2008 by digitaljohn88

[vangvace 12]

The way I see it is that the scheduling would change accordingly - less # of games against Western Conference rivals, & many more games against the Eastern Conference opponents.

For me - I'm not a fan of the current format which in some cases rewards some teams for doing less.

Could I interest you in an older format?

Return to having four divsions. 4 teams make it per division. First two rounds are in division, then conference, then cup. Ideally to make it balanced you would have to add/contract two teams.

[imisssergei 0]

I haven't read most of the posts, so sorry if this has been said.

At first I thought about shortening the regular season to expand playoffs, but if you do that then you might not be able to fit every team into each others schedules.

Then I thought about maybe adding one more round. Add one more team from each division, bottom two teams play first, a min 3 game series. Playoffs would then resume as normal.

Then I though. Hmm, the playoffs are something the NHL has got right, so please please please do not change anything.

[umredwing11 2]

I know somebody brought this up earlier, but if the league decided to allow more teams to make the playoffs I'd have the format where 10 get in per conference, and the bottom 4 seeds battle in out in the first round in a best of 5 series. So the top 6 seeds get rewarded with a short resting period to get healthy and watch other teams beat up on each other, and we are assured that the best teams get through.

Just a side note: I am perfectly content with the system now, it adds some excitement and competition--without it, the end of the season would involve 6 teams being on cruise control for the last 2 weeks.

Edited March 29, 2008 by umredwing11

[betterREDthandead 58]

Could I interest you in an older format?

Return to having four divsions. 4 teams make it per division. First two rounds are in division, then conference, then cup. Ideally to make it balanced you would have to add/contract two teams.

That's similar to what I'd "ideally" like to see, only there'd be 8 divisions of 4 teams each, and the first round of the playoffs involves the top two teams from each division playing each other. Then re-seed after each round.

[vangvace 12]

That's similar to what I'd "ideally" like to see, only there'd be 8 divisions of 4 teams each, and the first round of the playoffs involves the top two teams from each division playing each other. Then re-seed after each round.

After the initial shock of 8 divisions I started imagining the hatred that would develop in each division in this format.

[stevie for president 42]

one thing i think everyone is missing is this.

if you reward the 9th and 10th seeds, who do you punish? and that would be the 7th and 8th seeds. why should they have to suffer another round of the playoffs? they played better for 82 games than the other two teams, yet they are forced to play another playoff series.

Like what others said earlier, the 1 vs 16 seeding would make it necessary to abolish conferences and divisions. Reseeding the conference championship series could still put the best 2 teams against each other and have the divisions mean something.

one proposition i do like is 4 divisions of 7 or 8 teams. i say forget about conferences all together. if the league expands to 32 teams (4 divisions of 8) you could play your division 4 times (28 games) and the other 3 twice (48 games) for a grand total of 76 games. owners might not like that but it takes about 2 weeks out of the regular season meaning hockey ends in may. i think hockey in june is bad for the ice and the ratings.

if you contract 2 teams (4 divisions of 7) you could play your division 4 times (24 games) and the other divisions 2 times (42 games) and play 2 of the other 3 divisions one more time (one division at home and one away, similar to the current east vs west schedule for 14 games) for a total of 82 games. the same as right now.

Playoffs could be 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 in each division, 1st two rounds vs division and then reseed the division winners according to regular season points and again play 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.

[joshy207 156]

No conferences at all, that could work too... check out my divisions:

Smythe (West)

Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix, Colorado

Norris (Great Lakes)

Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Toronto, Buffalo, Pittsburgh

Patrick (Northeast)

Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, NY Rangers, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Washington

Adams (South)

Carolina, Florida, Tampa, Atlanta, Nashville, St Louis, Dallas

The only 80's division that's really split up is the old Adams; most of the others are intact. The new Adams would be the all Southern teams.

1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 in each division in the first round, winners in the second round, then take stevie for president's idea and seed the division winners.

[betterREDthandead 58]

After the initial shock of 8 divisions I started imagining the hatred that would develop in each division in this format.

Exactly, wouldn't it make things really interesting? Bettman wants to get regional rivalries going, and he's onto something, but in the end I think this way unbalanced schedule hasn't done the trick, and won't. But if you ensure these division rivals will also meet in the playoffs, then you have something that's almost guaranteed to spill over into the regular season, especially when those regular season games have more of a direct impact on who makes the playoffs in the first place.

Preds fans and Blues fans hate the Wings because we've stood in their way every year they've tried to make something of themselves. Imagine the hatred and intensity of the rivalry if the schedule forced them to get past us or never contend.

32 teams is a nice round number, so move the Panthers to Houston and expand to some places like Seattle and Kansas City, split up into eight divisions....hell, I've even worked out a schedule that still has 82 games.

[cirov19 1]

No, keep it the way it is. Expanding it would be stupid.

16 teams means you need to play well to make the post season. Any more than 16 and it's a huge joke.

If you can't make the first eight then you don't deserve a chance. It's as simple as that.

Expanding the league, on the other hand, I would not mind so much. Of course there aren't that many large cities left to support professional sports teams.

Edited March 30, 2008 by cirov19

[betterREDthandead 58]

No, keep it the way it is. Expanding it would be stupid.

16 teams means you need to play well to make the post season. Any more than 16 and it's a huge joke.

If you can't make the first eight then you don't deserve a chance. It's as simple as that.

Expanding the league, on the other hand, I would not mind so much. Of course there aren't that many large cities left to support professional sports teams.

Sure there are. I count 15 American cities that have at least one major professional sports team but no NHL team, and 10 that have at least two.

Of course, I wouldn't want to see that damn much expansion, either. Two more teams and that's it - permanently. 32 is a really nice round number that works out great.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

The only thing that needs to be changed is the stupid "the leader of each division makes the playoffs" bulls***. You should be ranked based on points. Nothing else. Too bad if your entire division sucks *%&.

[betterREDthandead 58]

The only thing that needs to be changed is the stupid "the leader of each division makes the playoffs" bulls***. You should be ranked based on points. Nothing else. Too bad if your entire division sucks *%&.

May as well eliminate the entire idea of divisions then.

[miller76 463]

No more teams in the playoffs, thank you. And If I had my way the league would have quite a few less teams than it does now. Seriously, why do you need 3 teams in California? And 2 in Florida? And any team south of the Mason-Dixon line? Come on!

Another Draftee looking to stir up s***. First of all I live in southern California. Second of all I live in the Ducks/Kings market. Thirdly the amount of people that are interested in it go to the games. They dont sit around and watch hockey on TV. If I drive to Honda Center and catch a game, it takes me a half an hour just to get out of the parking lot. The arena is full, and everyone is wearing all their Ducks crap. As much as I hate the Ducks/Kings, they have a huge cash flow with these organizations. LA Kings are the same. Worst team in the league, but glass seats are 405 dollars! Anything down low near the ice is a hundred bucks or more. These franchises are making a killing on tickets. memerobilia, tv, radio, hell even parking. And from what I have seen and/or read, San Jose is similar.

I travelled to Detroit back in January and bought a glass seat for 80$ plus fees. I just about s*** myself at how cheap it was. Dont ask why in the hell do we need 3 teams in California? Mason Dixon line? This isn't the Civil War in 1865 man.

Hockey I think is the greatest game on earth, what better than to expose the game to more people geographically. Live in the now.

[Cern 0]

His only real argument seems to be "If we had 20-team playoffs, the Capitals would get in", which is not only an asinine argument but probably a moot point seeing as how Washington is poised to take over top spot in the Southeast.

As for this talk of reducing the league itself, I got into a bit of a discussion about this in another forum. Basically the thought was to remove Atlanta, Carolina, Tampa Bay, and Florida in the East, and LA, Phoenix, Nashville, and Columbus in the West. Moving one franchise in each conference would allow for a grand total of 24 teams. The way we had it organized was to have four six-team divisions (although these could obviously be split up different ways):

PACIFIC

-Vancouver

-Calgary

-Edmonton

-Anaheim

-San Jose

-Colorado

CENTRAL

-Detroit

-Chicago

-St. Louis

-Minnesota

-Dallas

-Winnipeg?/Wisconsin?/Kansas City?

NORTHEAST

-Toronto

-Montreal

-Ottawa

-Boston

-Buffalo

-Quebec?/Hartford?

Atlantic

-NY Rangers

-NY Islanders

-New Jersey

-Pittsburgh

-Philadelphia

-Washington

[Cern 0]

what better than to expose the game to more people geographically. Live in the now.

My dad and my brother (who are from Calgary) went to Phoenix for a couple days last month. They went to a Coyotes game on a whim, they picked up the cheapest tickets available. They estimated there were about 5000 people in attendance and were able to move from far-end nosebleeds seats to lower-bowl tickets near center ice without the ushers caring in the slightest. I've heard similar stories, albeit with numbers not quite that low, from a friend who works as an usher at Honda Center. A team that just won the Stanley Cup, and they can't even eke out anything close to a sellout crowd.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. 'The now' is over a decade of 'non-traditional market' hockey, and people aren't giving any more of a damn than they did before.

[miller76 463]

My dad and my brother (who are from Calgary) went to Phoenix for a couple days last month. They went to a Coyotes game on a whim, they picked up the cheapest tickets available. They estimated there were about 5000 people in attendance and were able to move from far-end nosebleeds seats to lower-bowl tickets near center ice without the ushers caring in the slightest. I've heard similar stories, albeit with numbers not quite that low, from a friend who works as an usher at Honda Center. A team that just won the Stanley Cup, and they can't even eke out anything close to a sellout crowd.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. 'The now' is over a decade of 'non-traditional market' hockey, and people aren't giving any more of a damn than they did before.

I have to say that I disagree with most of what you said. I attend a couple of games here in there in Phoenix. Their ticket prices are high as well. Their arena is always full when the Wings come to town. I cant speak accurately about other games. But as for the Honda center bringing in people to the seats. I hate the Ducks, but I love hockey period. If Anaheim is playing a team that I have never seen, I try and go. I tried to buy a ticket when they played Montreal not long ago, and their were none left days in advance, not even cheap ones. Everytime I have been to the Honda Center and Staples Center the arenas are full, parking, and traffic is a joke. One thing maybe your usher friend is seeing, is what has been going on for some time now, is that Anaheim is completely sold out all of their season tickets this year. I think there may have been a few small packages up high. But anyway that is whats going on in Detroit as well. The lower bowl is half empty a lot of the time. But the seats are already sold.

I am having a hard time understanding why people believe that just because they live in a cold environment or Canada they are automatically more entitled to hockey or a team. Granted the sport is more widely marketed and is a staple in many homes. But as much as I disagree with Bettman and his policies, I think expanding and exposing more markets to hockey is a good thing. Some markets I scratch my head at. Like Phoenix, Carolina, Dallas, TB, Florida, Atlanta, and Nashville. Who would have thought. But look at the sucesses they have generated in those areas? Carolina, Dallas, Anaheim, TB have all won the cup. Gretzky is taking a extremely young hockey team and will eventually make them a viable threat.

[Cern 0]

But that's my point. These are teams that have won the Cup, yet their organizations can't even give enough tickets away to kid themselves into thinking they'll ever get a sellout crowd for their games. With maybe the exception of Dallas, their playoff accomplishments (almost always followed after by mediocre/poor performances, BTW) make the large-scale regional apathy towards the teams in question all the more glaringly obvious. Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa didn't even need to win the Cup for their respective cities to go absolutely bazonkers during their respective deep playoff runs. Vancouver and Minnesota haven't gotten anywhere close to winning a cup in ages, yet have had sellout streaks lasting years. The Ducks actually win the be-all-and-end-all of hockey and can't even get the newspapers to care about it more than Paris Hilton's drug problems, much less any kind of tradititional celebration like a parade. It just feels like a waste of the game.