The NHL playoff seeding and matchups are dumb

[LGR4GM]

1-8 is good... everything after that is stupid and Gary is a moron with this seeding. It devalues the regular season games even more and it makes it so really good teams might have really hard paths regardless while crap teams have easy paths. The Pacific is a joke and that's apparently fine because it will be super easy for those teams to move on in the playoffs because they get to play eachother. 

The system is dumb and Bettman doubling down on it is dumb. I just wanted to say that. 

Edited April 9 by LGR4GM

[Eleven]

I love it.  It creates more intra-division tension.  It might come back to hurt the Sabres this year, but I still love it.

[tom webster]

I personally like the system. It was designed to enhance rivalries and it has. Every year there is a little quirk where one or two divisions have three strong teams. So what? The ultimate result is one strong team gets eliminated early. I have a yet to see someone point out a season where the first round wasn’t great and some team advanced to the the finals because of their seeding. There are usually one or two series that would be different because of format. This year I think there are two.

[dudacek]

It’s not great for fair competition, but it sure creates compelling 1st-round matchups.

Business interests will always come first for Gary.

[quill]

What Eleven said. They're doing it to promote more first round action that's between rivals within the divisions. More arch rivals playing each other relates to more viewer interest which results in more money in the pockets of the higher ups in the industry.

Problem is that it's so unfair when a team in one of the stronger divisions doesn't make it to the playoffs even though they might have more points than another team that makes it. 

[GoPuckYourself]

It's what's best for business. 

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It’s not great for fair competition, but it sure creates compelling 1st-round matchups.

Business interests will always come first for Gary.

But it does promote competition.  When you have 3 teams all garbled up together there's added incentive to beat out the other 2 as those other 2 have to kick the snot out of each other while the top team in theory has an easier opponent to start things off.

Said elsewhere, would tweak the format to top 4 in each division make the dance with 1 playing 4 and 2 playing 3 (so that would more or less hold with the current system (WCs being able to flip divisions being the exception) so that desire to get to the top seed wouldn't go away.  But would have the 2nd round have the top remaining seed from a division play it's intraconference's division's lower seed and then for the 3rd round would have the interconference higher seed play the other side's lower seed, with the 2 survivors meeting in the Final.

You force the cream to the top that way and there is tremendous incentive to finish higher in your division as you'd get the lowest seed remaining to be your opponent in the next round.  You also let a division like the Central or Atlantic winner feast on the lower seeded team from the other division in the next round and that 2nd or 3rd place team has to play the tougher of the 2 remaining in the next round.

And if the Avs and the Atlantic or Metro division champs are the 2 best teams, it'll work out that they meet in the final; but if they're both from the Central or the Atlantic, well those 2 can meet in the Final also rather than in the 2nd round.

[dudacek]

Just meant unfair in the sense Minny has to beat Dallas to get to the 2nd round while Edmonton only has to beat Anaheim or Vegas.

[shrader]

There’s only one change I would make. When there is one wild card from each division, the matchups should automatically be within the division. 

[Alaska John]

I don't get how the current system is better for business.  What fan would choose not to watch a game with their team between 1-8 or 2-7 or 3-6 or 4-5, who WOULD watch in the current system?  It's playoff hockey, people!  You can't get better sports entertainment!

As for other fans, many people love winners.  They'll watch the top teams no matter whom they're playing.  Some others will want to see if a lower seed can scrap itself past a higher seed.

I'm just saying there's no business advantage to this system, and it fails to reward teams fully for their regular season success.

Edited April 9 by Alaska John

[Drag0nDan]

I think from an outsiders perspective, it makes sure there are 4 divisional matchups in the first round.  These teams play each other 4x each season, know each other well, and probably don't like each other.  It most certainly is dumb from a seeding perspective, but it does create a slate of matchups that are on paper going to be more exciting for the average fan watching a 1st round playoff game.  You also guarantee that one of the teams in each division makes it into the quarterfinals.    

[msw2112]

I don't buy the notion that the current system generates more viewership than a straight 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 5-4.  The NHL is NOT the NFL.  It's not the NCAA Basketball Tournament.  It's not a one-and-done.  Sabres fans will be watching whether they play the Habs, the Bruins, the Isles, the Blue Jackets, etc.  Same goes for the opponents' fans.  Other people who are not fans of either team will watch if they love playoff hockey.  The NHL doesn't have a lot of "causal" fans who will watch for the event as it is with the NFL.  At least not in the US.  Maybe in Canada.  The average US sports fan isn't going to tune in because it's McDavid's Oilers versus McKinnon's Avs.  If they're a fan of one of those teams, they'll watch, or if they're a die-hard hockey fan, they'll watch, otherwise, they won't.  If it's on, a casual fan might watch, but they're not going to tune in based on matchups.  Much different story if Josh Allen's Bills are playing Patrick Mahomes' Chiefs in a one-and-done playoff game.  Casual fans will watch that game based on the teams and players involved.

The highest seeded team in each conference should play the lowest seeded team in the conference and so on down the line and should not be forced into an intra-division matchup if the seeding doesn't prescribe it.  It decreases the likelihood of advancing to the 2nd round for a team that has earned the easier matchup.  If the Sabres are 2nd in the division and 3rd in the conference, they should play the 6 seed, whether or not that team is in the Sabres' division.  Instead, they might draw the 4 seed (most likely Habs or Lightning).

Edited April 9 by msw2112

[Eleven]

Fine Liger, you want to play thumbsy?  I'll play.

[NAF]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

1-8 is good... everything after that is stupid and Gary is a moron with this seeding. It devalues the regular season games even more and it makes it so really good teams might have really hard paths regardless while crap teams have easy paths. The Pacific is a joke and that's apparently fine because it will be super easy for those teams to move on in the playoffs because they get to play eachother. 

The system is dumb and Bettman doubling down on it is dumb. I just wanted to say that. 

I agree the system is fundamentally unfair/dumb, but I think from a business perspective it's probably the correct decision as it creates inter-division rivalries. 

Separately, I think the NHL should institute a best-of-three play in series like the NBA does. I can't stand the NBA but I think they do a good job of instituting rules each year or two that make the league more exciting from a fan perspective. Wish the NHL would do more of that. 

[quill]

3 minutes ago, NAF said:

I agree the system is fundamentally unfair/dumb, but I think from a business perspective it's probably the correct decision as it creates inter-division rivalries. 

Separately, I think the NHL should institute a best-of-three play in series like the NBA does. I can't stand the NBA but I think they do a good job of instituting rules each year or two that make the league more exciting from a fan perspective. Wish the NHL would do more of that. 

I think at one time the NHL did have a best of 3 format I think just in the first round. 

[Big Guava]

In what universe should you have 2 first round series matchups between 4, 100+ point teams??

It's absurd...no other sport does this and it makes no sense.

 

[Eleven]

1 minute ago, quill said:

I think at one time the NHL did have a best of 3 format I think just in the first round. 

Very definitely in the early 80s.  Maybe late 70s, but definitely early 80s. Then best of 5.  Now this.

[Archie Lee]

The flaw in the system is that there is a divisional playoff format (with one wildcard being the exception) following a balanced 82 game schedule. NHL teams play 26 divisional games, 24 games against the other division in their conference, and 32 games against the other conference. So, in a league with a divisional playoff format the teams play 56 of 82 games, nearly 70%, against non-divisional teams.  Year to year there is no control over which teams are strong, so the inevitable result is a year like this one. The answers, if one is inclined to “fix” the problem, is to either change the playoffs to a 1-8 conference format or to change the schedule to include more divisional games. I prefer the 2nd option. I would like to see the Sabres play 50 games v Atlantic foes, 16 against the other Eastern Conference teams (home and away) and 16 against the West (home and away rotation year to year). Top 4 in each division make it.  Winning a division would be as significant an accomplishment as winning a Stanley Cup in the original 6 era and would be truly banner worthy. 

[K012010]

It’s so dumb.

It really is ridiculous that you could be the second seed and have to face the third seed in the first round. It just makes an entire 82 game season somewhat pointless. 

It does place huge emphasis on getting the one seed though similar to the NFL after changing to seven teams. But I think the majority of sporting fans want to see a team rewarded for regular season success, ESPECIALLY in a sport that has such a long season like hockey.

The way it’s set up there’s just a huge risk of what’s gonna happen this year— you get teams in that get punished for having an amazing season and you get teams that get a huge break that they didn’t earn while ones that did have a conference final level match up in round one. 

It’s a bad joke. Bettman should be ashamed for what he did with this, but obviously he’s not capable of that. 

At least we’ll have an exciting all important first round

Edited April 9 by K012010

[K012010]

23 minutes ago, Big Guava said:

In what universe should you have 2 first round series matchups between 4, 100+ point teams??

It's absurd...no other sport does this and it makes no sense.

 

Even though the Patriots were in my opinion and in a lot of people’s opinion not that great it would be like the Broncos playing the Patriots in round one in the playoffs this year. Just ridiculous.

This is honestly embarrassing for the NHL

[K012010]

1 hour ago, Drag0nDan said:

I think from an outsiders perspective, it makes sure there are 4 divisional matchups in the first round.  These teams play each other 4x each season, know each other well, and probably don't like each other.  It most certainly is dumb from a seeding perspective, but it does create a slate of matchups that are on paper going to be more exciting for the average fan watching a 1st round playoff game.  You also guarantee that one of the teams in each division makes it into the quarterfinals.    

It’s just a fatal mistake to care more about the average fan than the people who carry your league. How much evidence does the NHL need that they’re not going to sway a casual fan to come to their sport?

People don’t just suddenly fall in love with hockey, at least not at a rate that would change anything ever. You take care of your real fans, and this is a slap in the face to them. 

[K012010]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

I love it.  It creates more intra-division tension.  It might come back to hurt the Sabres this year, but I still love it.

It genuinely might be the stupidest thing ever done in a professional sport. Who wants to see more divisional matchups in round one we’ve seen it all year I don’t wanna see up to seven more games against somebody we’ve seen plenty of during the regular season.

It would actually be exciting if that divisional matchup occurred in the second round or third round or naturally in the first round would be fine. To force it is just stupid.

But these are just opinions on that aspect. The real issue is that there’s a very real risk of what happens in the west this year. None of this really affects the east because everybody’s great one through eight. It’s going to be a tough matchup so it doesn’t matter for us. But imagine being the Minnesota Wild or the Dallas Stars. So Edmonton is going to get the benefit while the two aforementioned teams had an excellent regular season and the reward is to face each other round one?

if that is possible in the system, you’ve set up you’ve made an egregious error. There’s no argument to this. You can talk all you want about your interdivisional match up desire in round one but if this is possible you ***** up royally.

[shrader]

37 minutes ago, Big Guava said:

In what universe should you have 2 first round series matchups between 4, 100+ point teams??

It's absurd...no other sport does this and it makes no sense.

 

There could very easily be 6 teams with 100 points in the east this year. That would guarantee at least two matchups in any system. Outlier season happen. 

[K012010]

3 minutes ago, shrader said:

There could very easily be 6 teams with 100 points in the east this year. That would guarantee at least two matchups in any system. Outlier season happen. 

Yeah, well this system creates an absolute ***** show in the west and an anomaly season where there are a ton of awesome teams on one side doesn’t really affect it but the flip side like you can see in the west is absolutely a fatal flaw of the system.

And if that’s a possibility in the system you’ve created it’s a ***** ***** system, and it should not ever have been okayed

[Drag0nDan]

8 minutes ago, K012010 said:

It’s just a fatal mistake to care more about the average fan than the people who carry your league. How much evidence does the NHL need that they’re not going to sway a casual fan to come to their sport?

People don’t just suddenly fall in love with hockey, at least not at a rate that would change anything ever. You take care of your real fans, and this is a slap in the face to them. 

Eh, it's more interesting 1st round hockey for me too though.  I will watch all of the sabres games, but it might make for a more entertaining product on the other games that i might normally not be as interested in.  Like if there's a brawl or a crazy game between divisional opponents, i might want to watch the next game.  

To be clear, i agree that its stupid.  I just think there's a bright side to it if you look hard enough.