Expand the playoff tournament?

[digitaljohn88 4]

Interesting article on Yahoo! Sports:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AnMw...o&type=lgns

It has to do with expanding the amount of teams that make the playoffs. When the NHL had 21 teams, 16 made it. Now that the NHL has 30 teams, still only 16 make it.

Is it best for professional hockey to exclude teams like Washington, which has been one of the better teams in the NHL? (33-17-7 since a coaching change) They may miss by as little as 1-2 points, which in my opinion is a shame. It seems to me that every year there is a team or two that would have a very good chance to do well in the playoffs, but miss by a point or two because of a rocky start to the season.

On the flip side, the current playoff system in my opinion, is PERFECT. I don't like the ideas suggested in the article. Trying to fit in a couple more teams would probably not work without some kind of overhaul or added rule changes. Simplicity is the best thing about the current format. Really good teams may miss the playoffs, but it also adds to the parity at the end of the regular season. These last six season games turn out to be "playoff" games for some teams.

I definitely do NOT like the idea of a bye system. Two weeks off in hockey can put a team in a major funk, and better seeded teams should not get a disadvantage like that.

The seven game series needs to stay. Forever.

If I had my way, the NHL would just be capped at 26 teams But that obviously won't happen. What do you guys think about finding a way to add a couple of playoff teams to the mix?

[Reds4Life 51]

It's good as it is, no reason to change anything really.

[TTownBigMan1980 0]

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!

[lfd250 1]

Summer is for Baseball and travel, not hockey. You would see a lot of guys us the NeidImanass play, hold out till Dec.

[Reilly 24]

Seriously, why do you need 3 teams in California?

Because more people live there than anywhere else in North America? Just for reference, more people live in California than in all of Canada.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Reilly

[toby91_ca 620]

Because more people live there than anywhere else in North America? Just for reference, more people live in California than in all of Canada.

Yet, Ontario alone probably has 10 times as many people interested in hockey.

[McCartyFanForLife 17]

I like the playoffs just fine the way they are. If a team would play well better in the beginning of the season, they wouldn't have to be making this argument with 4 or 5 games to go.

However, if the NHL does decide to allow more teams in, I hope they go to a best of 5 series for the first round. Otherwise the playoffs would take forever.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Interesting article on Yahoo! Sports:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AnMw...o&type=lgns

It has to do with expanding the amount of teams that make the playoffs. When the NHL had 21 teams, 16 made it. Now that the NHL has 30 teams, still only 16 make it.

Is it best for professional hockey to exclude teams like Washington, which has been one of the better teams in the NHL? (33-17-7 since a coaching change) They may miss by as little as 1-2 points, which in my opinion is a shame. It seems to me that every year there is a team or two that would have a very good chance to do well in the playoffs, but miss by a point or two because of a rocky start to the season.

On the flip side, the current playoff system in my opinion, is PERFECT. I don't like the ideas suggested in the article. Trying to fit in a couple more teams would probably not work without some kind of overhaul or added rule changes. Simplicity is the best thing about the current format. Really good teams may miss the playoffs, but it also adds to the parity at the end of the regular season. These last six season games turn out to be "playoff" games for some teams.

I definitely do NOT like the idea of a bye system. Two weeks off in hockey can put a team in a major funk, and better seeded teams should not get a disadvantage like that.

The seven game series needs to stay. Forever.

If I had my way, the NHL would just be capped at 26 teams But that obviously won't happen. What do you guys think about finding a way to add a couple of playoff teams to the mix?

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with the bolded statement any more. While the Capitals have played great hockey the past couple months that doesn't mean that they deserve to make the playoffs. Simply put, they were not a good team the first 4 months of the season and to say they deserve to make the playoffs simply because they've been great the past couple months isn't right. The fact of that matter is that 8 teams from each conference make the playoffs and that's plenty as it is. If Washington wanted to make/guarantee the playoffs they should've played better throughout the season, not just the tail end of it.

I'd love to see the Caps make the playoffs and it would be a blast to see how AO plays in the postseason, but I'm not going to be heartbroken if they don't make it because if they don't they have no one to blame but themselves. It's not the leagues fault, too many teams already make it.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Never Forget Mac #25

[betterREDthandead 58]

Is it best for professional hockey to exclude teams like Washington, which has been one of the better teams in the NHL? (33-17-7 since a coaching change) They may miss by as little as 1-2 points, which in my opinion is a shame. It seems to me that every year there is a team or two that would have a very good chance to do well in the playoffs, but miss by a point or two because of a rocky start to the season.

"Only" 16 teams make the playoffs? That's more than half. If Washington misses the playoffs, that makes them a below-average team, not "one of the better teams in the NHL."

Expanding the playoffs would be the worst thing ever. And that article is dumb. It asks, should a Maple Leafs team that went 41-33-8 miss the playoffs? You mean, should a team that went 41-41 miss the playoffs? Yes. Playoff-missing records appear inflated because some games are worth two points and others three.

Expanding the playoffs would push the Stanley Cup Finals into July. Hockey in July? They'd have less than two months off and then right back to hockey. This when people are already complaining that the Olympic break extends the season too long. Oh, and there's this Victoria Cup or whatever it's called that is going to send an NHL team to Europe over the summer for another series.

It's not as if a whole bunch of truly deserving teams are left out of the chance to get the Stanley Cup. If they expand to 20 teams as suggested, they might as well go for 24 or 26 or 28, each are just easily done as 20 and they wouldn't exclude so many wonderfully "deserving" teams. Expanding the playoffs is ludicrous.

[Yzerfan75 0]

No, no, no... Contract, don't expand. It's already way too big. The regular season has essentially become (almost...not entirely) null and void.

[stevie for president 42]

i did like the idea of reseeding the top 4 teams. i hate how the finals are best from the east vs best from the west. that works in baseball and football but not hockey. the stanley cup should be decided by the best two teams. imagine detroit vs colorado in the finals last decade. or detroit vs anaheim last year. or maybe in future something like montreal vs boston or toronto or something. those would be far and away better than san jose montreal or edmonton tampa bay

[WingFanInOilCountry 0]

I really wouldn't want to see more teams making the playoffs. But if it did happen, one possibility could be a play-in series, much like the 64/65 game the tuesday before the NCAA tournement gets going. At the end of the regular season, seeds 8 and 9 in the conference could play a series, with the winner playing the first seed. It would probably have to be 3 games, as any more would give too much time off for the other teams.

[VM1138 1,921]

Expanding the playoffs is ridiculous. It's supposed to be for the best of the best. Once you expand it by letting in crappier teams, what does that do to the excitement? Keep it at 16, it's a nice enough balance. As it stands half the league still makes it in.

[toby91_ca 620]

No, no, no... Contract, don't expand. It's already way too big. The regular season has essentially become (almost...not entirely) null and void.

Ummm, I think you are WAY OFF. I think this may be a common misconception. Maybe it is because of the salary cap, but recently, there has been a lot of parity in the league and the regular season seems to mean quite a bit to the vast majority of teams.

If you have a look at the standings right now, you'll see the following:

- Number of teams that are more than 10 pts out of a playoff position - 5

- Number of teams that have more than 10 pts more than the last playoff position team - 2

In 1995/96, the first place team in the league had 90 more points than the worst, this year, that difference will probably be less than 40 pts. I know I took a year where the Wings had 131 pts, but still, that's a whopping difference.

[csdan 0]

I think if they did decide to add more teams to the playoffs they should definitely shorten the regular season so that the Cup finals would still end by early june.

[McCartyFanForLife 17]

Let's say the playoff format changed and the top 10 teams from each conference. That would leave teams like Buffalo, Toronto, Nashville, Edmonton, and Columbus would be on the fringe off the playoffs by just a few points. Then the argument would be brought up again. There is always going to be somebody on the outside looking in.

[toby91_ca 620]

Expanding the playoffs = bad idea.

Me thinks it should stay @ 16, but the 'top 16' regardless of which conference the team is in...In theory we could see 10/12, or more teams from 1 conference, & only a handful from the other - which is fine by me...Add to this the 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, 3 vs 14 etc, etc format

I totally disagree with taking the top 16 regardless of conference. In that case, it woudl be pointless to have conferences, which are needed for scheduling (travel, etc.). The reason it doesn't make sense, isn't fair, is because teams from different conferences play the majority of their games against other teams in their conference.

However, it probably wouldn't really make much of a difference anyway. If you look at the standings now and apply your suggested method, the same 16 teams would have playoff spots I believe.

[auxlepli 17]

Expanding the playoffs is an extremely bad idea in my opinion.

[Z and D for the C 712]

Seriously, why do you need 3 teams in California?

Because a much higher percentage of the californian teams than the canadian teams are serious cup contendors.

And the only change in the playoffs I would not hate is if the two conferences were seeded 1-16. But I would still want the two conferences to battle for a playoff spot independently though. Like instead of seeding 1-16 throughout the whole leage (so there might be an uneven amount for each conference), it would still be 1-8 for each conference and then those 8 teams in each conference would all get mixed and re-seeded.

[csdan 0]

The other bad part about adding teams would be that you'd have to add too many teams in order to get the mathmatics to work so you wouldn't have an odd number of teams at the end of any round. For example you'd have to add 8 teams if you gave the top four seeds in each conference a 1st round bye, just so you could have 16 teams left for the second round. And for every one less team getting a bye you'd have to add 2 more teams.

*read the article after I posted this, so didn't realize he had an idea for only adding a couple of teams, even though I think his idea is stupid because if any teams should get byes it should only be a few top seeds not the top six in each conference.

Edited March 28, 2008 by csdan

[pjgj13 30]

Expanding the playoffs = bad idea.

Me thinks it should stay @ 16, but the 'top 16' regardless of which conference the team is in...In theory we could see 10/12, or more teams from 1 conference, & only a handful from the other - which is fine by me...Add to this the 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, 3 vs 14 etc, etc format

I agree with you on this.

If they do expand to include 2 teams from each conference, then make the bottom 4 teams in each play a "play in game". It would be a 1 game playoff to decide the 7th & 8th seeds.

I would prefer to get rid of the conference affiliations once the playoffs start and seed the TOP 16 teams and do 1-16, 2-15 and so on.

if season ended last night the 1st round would be:

DET/VAN

SJ/BOS

PIT/PHI

MON/COL

ANA/CAR

OTT/CAL

NJ/DAL

MIN/NYR

It actually worked out and 8 teams from each conf made it in. Do the playoffs like the NCAA Basketball tourney. So the winner of 1/16 plays the winner of 8/9.

[csdan 0]

I agree with you on this.

If they do expand to include 2 teams from each conference, then make the bottom 4 teams in each play a "play in game". It would be a 1 game playoff to decide the 7th & 8th seeds.

I would prefer to get rid of the conference affiliations once the playoffs start and seed the TOP 16 teams and do 1-16, 2-15 and so on.

if season ended last night the 1st round would be:

DET/VAN

SJ/BOS

PIT/PHI

MON/COL

ANA/CAR

OTT/CAL

NJ/DAL

MIN/NYR

It actually worked out and 8 teams from each conf made it in. Do the playoffs like the NCAA Basketball tourney. So the winner of 1/16 plays the winner of 8/9.

I agree, just look at the past when the Wings and Avs played in the conference finals they should have been playing for the cup and not to get to the cup finals. Clearly they were the 2 best teams in the league those years.

[joshy207 156]

1-16 format can potentially create a TON of travel and it negates the point of having conferences. As it is, the 6 divisions are useless.

The only change to the playoffs should be a return to Divisional series. The league needs to revert to 4 divisions, each conference having 1 division of 7 teams and 1 of 8 teams. Maintain a heavy intra-division schedule, because now those games would actually mean something. 1st plays 4th, 2nd plays 3rd, winners meet in the division final. Talk about rivalries! The old Norris days, the Battle of Alberta, the Battle of Quebec, the always-competitive Patrick division... that's when playoff hockey was truly special. Now it's just random... Detroit vs Phoenix, Nashville vs San Jose, Montreal vs Tampa... doesn't mean s*** to anybody. Put some meaning back in the season and the playoffs.

[pjgj13 30]

1-16 format can potentially create a TON of travel and it negates the point of having conferences. As it is, the 6 divisions are useless.

The only change to the playoffs should be a return to Divisional series. The league needs to revert to 4 divisions, each conference having 1 division of 7 teams and 1 of 8 teams. Maintain a heavy intra-division schedule, because now those games would actually mean something. 1st plays 4th, 2nd plays 3rd, winners meet in the division final. Talk about rivalries! The old Norris days, the Battle of Alberta, the Battle of Quebec, the always-competitive Patrick division... that's when playoff hockey was truly special. Now it's just random... Detroit vs Phoenix, Nashville vs San Jose, Montreal vs Tampa... doesn't mean s*** to anybody. Put some meaning back in the season and the playoffs.

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.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I think the teams that Gary Bettman wants to see in the playoffs are the only ones that should be allowed in.

Another proposal could be that the team with the best record in the West each year gets an automatic bye into the finals. This way only 9 teams would make the playoffs every year. I've been proposing that for a while now.