Wild Card Playoff Format - worth it?

[Cornuck]

As a fan, has this new format made the playoff race more interesting to you?
Is it worth coming up with a (somewhat) convoluted system to determine the bottom seeds in each conference?

If the season ended yesterday, the same 16 teams would be the playoffs, but the first round would look a little different.

While we're at it, why a Regulation and OT wins more valuable than a Shootout win? Aren't we supposed to buy in to the league mentality that the shootout is part of the game now?

[Aaronp18]

What I like is that, at least for the first round, chances are your opponent will be geographically close cutting down on travel and early games for us westerners.

Not that it evens things out for every team but we won't have a Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis road to the Cup!

While we're at it, why a Regulation and OT wins more valuable than a Shootout win? Aren't we supposed to buy in to the league mentality that the shootout is part of the game now?

Well they should be more valuable because you should win/lose as a team not on individual skill of one aspect of the game, the shootout is a gimmick that has simply been instituted to keep games from ending in a tie.

I think the league has decidedly changed it's mentality, by possibly extending OT and going to a 3 on 3 format as well it seems they want to avoid shootout decisions as much as possible!

[Strangelove]

Well said Aaron.

Less traveling = Good.

Shootout = Gimmick.

[Lloyd Braun]

I like the idea that the first two rounds of playoff matchups will feature divisional rivals every year. Seems like it'll make things a bit more interesting.

There's a good chance I'd feel differently if we were staring down the central division murderers' row, but the benefits outweigh the imbalance, IMO.

That said, I'm not a fan of having a different number of teams in each conference with the same number of playoff spots available. We get the better of that too, but it seems unnecessary. I guess Detroit had the sway to get moved to the East and it wouldn't have made sense to move them but not Columbus.

The main complaint I have about the shootout is that it made every OT game a 3-point game. When the NHL first introduced the loser point, it was a couple of years or so before the shootout. The idea was to eliminate the downside of playing an offensive style in overtime. You'd be guaranteed no worse result than a tie if you opened up defensively and let in an easy one. And it worked... until they introduced the shootout. Then it was pointless. There's no downside to a goal-free overtime, and for teams with good shootout records, it created a strategic benefit to turtling up. I have no clue why 3-point games and shootouts exist in the same league. Makes no sense. Either eliminate the shootout or go back to every game being two points and stop giving an incentive for teams to play for a tie in the third period.

[BurningBeard]

I get what they're trying to do with the new playoff seeding, but the wildcard seems so... random and backwards. If the idea is less travel, that's great, but the top seed has to face the wildcard, and ultimately be put in a position where they could play an out of division team, while the 2nd and 3rd seeds are guaranteed to play each other within the division. That benefits the 2nd and 3rd seeds in terms of travel but might punish the top seed. So right now Anaheim could end up playing Winnipeg in the first round, while Vancouver and Calgary get to play each other. That doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. If they really want to reduce travel, just scrap the wild card, seed the top four teams in each division and have them play each other until you have two division champions that play each other in the conference finals. They did it that way throughout most of the 80s and into the early 90s up until the NHL did the East / West conference change. There are valid arguments against that format, but it just seems the direction they're headed in anyhow.

I'm not against the shootout in general, but I'm in favor of any change they can make that will reduce the likelihood of needing one. The three on three is a great idea in that regard - it's worked in other leagues.

[Hockey Widow]

The playoff format for the most part favours developing rivalries. While fun right now in five years it gets old, always drawing the same teams round one. I'd rather line em up 1-8.

[Cornuck]

I really doubt that travel was a concern when they planned this new format. Back east it doesn't matter, so why worry about a few teams out west?

[Zamboni Driver]

I get what they're trying to do with the new playoff seeding, but the wildcard seems so... random and backwards. If the idea is less travel, that's great, but the top seed has to face the wildcard, and ultimately be put in a position where they could play an out of division team, while the 2nd and 3rd seeds are guaranteed to play each other within the division. That benefits the 2nd and 3rd seeds in terms of travel but might punish the top seed. So right now Anaheim could end up playing Winnipeg in the first round, while Vancouver and Calgary get to play each other. That doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. If they really want to reduce travel, just scrap the wild card, seed the top four teams in each division and have them play each other until you have two division champions that play each other in the conference finals.

How would we feel about it if we were 5th in the West with 96 points and Winnipeg was 4th in the Central with 84 points, would we still be OK with it?

The current system is OK, the only change sould be to specify that if 4 teams finish in each division (in each conference) that they all play divisional opponents.

What I mean is, if Minnesota and LA are the two wild cards, they should automatically play the top seeds in their own division, so the crossover is only possible if there are 5 teams from one division in the playoffs.
As it is now, we could have Ducks vs Wild and Preds vs LA in the first rould, which is screwy for travel and punishes the tops seed. It should instead be automatically Ducks vs LA and Preds vs Wild, regardless of which order the teams finish 1st & 2nd, and 7th & 8th.

[BingoTough]

[
As it is now, we could have Ducks vs Wild and Preds vs LA in the first rould, which is screwy for travel and punishes the tops seed.

That sounds about perfect. I say keep this in place until it hurts the Canucks, then we complain about it.

[Topper]

I would rather them seat 1-8 in the playoffs. If only so we don't have Metropolitan rounds.

[dbr]

While we're at it, why a Regulation and OT wins more valuable than a Shootout win? Aren't we supposed to buy in to the league mentality that the shootout is part of the game now?

You mean the mentality the league had when they made ROW the first tiebreaker, or fielded suggestions as to how to have fewer games result in shootouts?

[Topper]

I don't like the gimmick of the shootout deciding hockey games. hell, I was very happy with games ending in a tie.

That said, it is an exciting play and probably even more so to the young fans. Young fans grow the fan base. We were all glued to our sets watching last night and cheered when Higgins and Lack won the game for Vancouver. If the result had gone the other way we'd be grumbling about gimmicks.

I prefer RW and OW being separated for the tie breaker.

While doing some research through the season I have changed my mind on the 3 point game. A universal 3 point game means a 6 point swing in division games decided in regulation time. That is too much onus on division games especially when parity gaps exist between and within divisions.

For example, under the current point system, last nights game could have been a 4 point swing for a regulation win, 2 point swing for an OT/SO win. Universal 3 point games would have made a 6 point swing for a regulation win and a 2 point swing for an OT/SO win.

[ESQ]

How would we feel about it if we were 5th in the West with 96 points and Winnipeg was 4th in the Central with 84 points, would we still be OK with it?

That's a fair point - it happened in the old Eastern Conference when the shabby SE teams would get 3rd seed when they were the 9th place team in the conference. Your example is pretty extreme - the biggest points swing of the Cap Era that I could find was 2010, where the East's cutoff was 88 points, and the West's was 95 points.

This year, there is so much parity across the Divisions that all of the 4th place teams in each Division are between 93 and 96 points.

What I mean is, if Minnesota and LA are the two wild cards, they should automatically play the top seeds in their own division, so the crossover is only possible if there are 5 teams from one division in the playoffs.

This makes a lot of sense to me, and gives a proper travel advantage for the Division champ.

We'll see how the Wild Card fares over the next couple of seasons, but last year only 1 wild card team advanced out of the first. This year, the wild cards could be Detroit, Pittsburgh, and LA - who collectively have won four of the last 6 cups.

If 3 of 4 wild cards advance this year, the League would be very inclined to re-evaluate the seeding.

[vic]

I think the wild card format is there because there aren't equal teams in the East/West

Once expansion happens (Seattle - Las Vegas) the league will have 8 teams in each division and they should rid themselves of the wildcard where the top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs.

First two rounds will feature pure divisional match-ups, how it used to be back in the day with Smythe/Norris/Patick/Adams divisions.

If teams are forced to play division rivals the most during the season, they should be forced to go through each other to make it to the Conference Final.

They can't do that now, as it would make it easier for the Western teams to make the playoffs - only need to beat out 3 other teams, whereas in the East you'd have to beat out 4 teams - hence the wildcard to even things out.

[5thhorseman]

Would love it if they went back to naming them Smythe/Norris/Patick/Adams after expansion. Sorry if that makes me an oldie but the current division/conference names are just bland.

I think the wild card format is there because there aren't equal teams in the East/West ...

They can't do that now, as it would make it easier for the Western teams to make the playoffs - only need to beat out 3 other teams, whereas in the East you'd have to beat out 4 teams - hence the wildcard to even things out.

Unless wild card teams from the West get matched up against eastern opponents, and vice versa, I don't understand how they are providing some sort of equalisation between the conferences.