NHL Playoff Format Proposals

Now we move on to looking at playoff formats: each format will be described and possibly followed by a set of example slideshows that demonstrate how it functions. Then, I will sum up the advantages and disadvantages of the format and compare to others.

Minimally Altered Formats

Bracket Re-Seeding

A simple format to understand for casual fans: it is identical to the current Wild Card Divisional format, except once the Wild Card teams are decided, and added to each bracket based on their record compared to the record of each Division winner, the bracket is re-seeded by record, so Wild Card teams that have a better record than other teams in the 1-3 spots in the division bracket will not be forced to draw the division winner.
Instead, if their record is the second or third best in the bracket, they become the #2 or #3 seed, and draw their opponent as if they were part of the Division. This prevents unfavourable matchups for Division winners from weak divisions: if the weakest or second-weakest team is one that finished in the top 3 in their division, the division winner can still draw them in the first round, rather than having to play a wild card team that finished higher.
It also lessens the tendency for Division winners in the Western conference to draw matchups with teams 2 time zones away, as the crossovers are frequently Pacific-Central.
Advantages
  • Relative simplicity for casual fans;
  • Better fairness compared to current “Wild Card” format.
Disadvantages
  • More time zone travel than most other formats;
  • Unfair advantage given to wild card teams from strong divisions crossing over to weaker divisions, which favours finishing in a lower spot (wild card instead of top 3).

Approximated Divisional

For fans that are used to the Conference format, this concept would be fairly easy to understand. The top 3 teams in each Division automatically earn playoff berths, just like in the current Wild Card format. If the number of teams from each Division in either Conference is even, the teams in the Division only draw each other, best record vs. worst record, rather than having the Wild Card format potentially create unnecessary (but potentially fairer) non-Divisional matchups.
If there is a 5-3 split, the matchups are determined by pooling all the playoff teams in the Conference together, like in the Conference format, and having the team with the best record draw the team with the worst record.
If that matchup is a crossover, then the remaining matchups are all Divisional, best-versus-worst. If it is a Divisional matchup, the next best team draws the next worst team, and so forth until that single crossover occurs, then any remaining teams match up within their Divisions.
This also prevents teams from crossing over and being locked into the opposite bracket: for Western teams, that can mean not being forced into matchups with teams 2 time zones away for the first 2 rounds. Teams that cross over, after winning, can instead end up drawing a Division rival in the second round, if it is appropriate relative to the standings.
Advantages
  • Relative simplicity for casual fans;
  • Fairer than current or Bracket Re-Seeding format;
  • Teams do not get forced into opposite division’s bracket and forced into extra time zone travel.
Disadvantages
  • Often restricts matchups to only Divisional (if teams are split 4-4 between divisions, or if 1-8 matchup is a crossover, locking all others as Divisional), resulting in potentially less fair matchups and strong divisions being punished with more difficult paths through playoffs.

Conference-Range

This format helps balance fan understanding of the format and fairness with prioritizing division rivalries and minimizing time zone travel. It modifies the Conference format so that each playoff seed can also draw an opponent that is one spot apart from their “standard” opponent (1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5) in the Conference format (ex: #1 seed can draw #7 as well as #8, #3 can draw #7, 6 or 5, etc…)
Doing so cuts the time zone travel approximately in half compared to the Conference format, and maintains a similar high level of fairness, in addition to bumping up the frequency with which Division rivals meet in each round:
Advantages
  • Likely more simple than most formats I have proposed for casual fans to understand;
  • Very good fairness;
  • Cuts time zone travel by about half compared to the Conference format;
  • No restrictions on matchups that cause unfairness;
  • Still puts a higher priority on Divisional matchups than the Conference format.
Disadvantages
  • Matchups not as fair as compared to some of the upcoming formats below;
  • Significantly greater time zone travel compared to the Time Zone Grouping formats described below.

Time Zone Oriented Formats

Time Zone Grouping

This concept is aimed at optimizing time zone travel and TV start times, and allowing for better overall fairness to the playoffs, much more so than optimal geography or catering to rivalries. The top 16 teams league-wide, with no exceptions, earn playoff spots in this format. To decide the matchups, teams are grouped by their time zones (Pacific, Mountain, Central, Eastern).
Since 16 is an even number, there are 8 possible scenarios for which of the time zone groups are odd, and which are even:

Odd groups will have one team cross over to an adjacent group, while even groups either have matchups only within themselves, or have one team cross over to each of the groups adjacent to them (only applicable to the Mountain and Central groups for that reason).
Matchups are determined by best-versus-worst record, as long as the teams involved are eligible to play each other (same group OR within groups that need a crossover to occur).
This is repeated every round of the playoffs, and allows many different inter-division and even inter-conference playoff matchups, as well as intra-conference and intra-division Stanley Cup Finals matchups.
Advantages
  • Playoffs are kept as competitive as possible, with the top 16 teams always earning a playoff berth.
  • Equal playoff odds for all teams in all situations, despite uneven conferences and divisions, since competition for playoff spots is league-wide;
  • Reduced travel and jet lag for players, optimized television start times for fans (playoff games almost always start no earlier than 6:00pm and no later than 8:00pm local time);
  • More variety in playoff matchups that are possible in each round due to possible inter-conference matchups in first 3 rounds;
  • Can have Stanley Cup Final series between heated rivals that would normally be restricted to within-conference series;
  • Relatively equal likelihood of very unique playoff match ups (through crossovers), and repeated rivalry match ups (within time zones), so it is possible for rivalries to be both created and sustained;
  • Playoff format can handle any relocation or expansion in the future. Once adopted, it would never need to be changed, since the cities each team occupies always have a pre-determined time zone, and respective spot in the time zone groupings.
Disadvantages
  • Very complex format, would be difficult for casual fans to understand;
  • Even for fans well versed in the format, it is difficult to gauge what playoff match ups are most likely or will occur at any given time, since you need to figure out the crossovers in order to do that, and one team moving one position can change many matchups;
  • Divisions and conferences are much less meaningful in regards to the playoffs, outside of superficial connections from the alignment that adheres more to time zones;
  • No reward at all for winning a division or conference, besides the position it earns a team in league wide standings;
  • Division or conference rivals do not necessarily compete directly for playoff spots, since the competition is league-wide, so this may diminish the importance of intra-division and intra-conference games compared to previous formats.

Best-Within-Range

To prioritize fairness, variety and limiting time zone travel, I designed this format, which mimics the top-16 format from the early 80s, but with limitations on which teams can play each other.
The top 16 teams, regardless of alignment, make the playoffs. Each team, starting from the #1 seed, is given an opponent based on simple criteria. I tested 3 different versions of this format:
  • Teams’ “range” is the 4 lowest remaining teams in the first round, lowest 3 in the second, and lowest 2 in the 3rd round;
  • “Range” is limited to the bottom 4 teams for the top 4, and seeds 9-12 for seeds 4-8 (the “middle” range);
  • “Range” is all 8 teams in the bottom half (#9-16) for all 8 teams in the top half of the playoff seeds (#1-8); call this the “half and half” version.
Each opponent is selected based on which one in the range is the lowest Divisional opponent, or the lowest of teams that are the fewest time zones apart. If there is no team in range that falls within either of these tiers, the opponent is simply the lowest (i.e. if all the remaining teams in the range are Eastern, the opponent is simply the lowest of these teams).
After each round, the range “resets”: remaining teams in the second round would be ranked 1-8, and the range would reduce to the 3 lowest teams remaining for each highest remaining team (or the bottom 4 remaining teams for the top 4 remaining teams for my “half and half” version). The same would occur in the 3rd round, but with a range of only 2.
Advantages
  • Relative simplicity for casual fans to understand in each different version;
  • Divisional nature of this format promotes rivalry matchups;
  • Significant advantage in matchup fairness, since most unfair matchup possibilities are completely impossible in this format;
  • Great variety in the possible matchups, which means that many new rivalries can be created, and many markets could get a marquee team as an opponent that would normally not be possible until the later rounds.
Disadvantages
  • Significant weakness in time zone travel, since the restrictions of such a “range” would frequently cause high time zone travel matchups because of the lack of an alternative;
  • Despite the adherence to Division rivalries, there is still such a great potential variety to possible matchups that long standing rivalries in the playoffs would be relatively unlikely.

Wild Card Formats

League-Wide Wild Card

A “league-wide wild card” format means that each pool of teams (division or conference) has a range for the number of teams allowed to make the playoffs. For example, if the NHL has 32 teams, and 16 teams make the playoffs, then the playoff odds should be 50%. So, a 7-team division in this format would need an “average” of 3.5 teams to make the playoffs per year. To achieve this, 3 teams would automatically earn playoff spots, and a 4th could earn a wild card spot, but no more than 4. This way, the average number of teams that make the playoffs is 3.5 (range of 3-4, out of 7 teams).
Now, if the Divisions are set up to have 8, 7, 9 and 8 teams, as per my uneven 8/7/9/8 alignment, this format would have 13 playoff spots be automatically earned within each division (3/8, 3/7, 4/9, and 3/8 teams per division). The final 3 spots would be wild card spots, with only 2, 1, 1, and 2 teams from each of the divisions able to claim one of these 3 spots, making the playoff odds even across the board (3-5/8, 3-4/7, 4-5/9, 3-5/8).
To place each wild card team in the proper bracket, there are several options:
  • Pair any two Divisions that have an odd number of playoff teams in a single bracket, and establish 1 crossover using the “Approximated Divisional” method;
  • Have odd numbered teams cross over to “adjacent” division brackets, forcing a team from that division out into another adjacent division bracket if necessary (ex: Eastern team crosses over to Central division bracket, bumps lowest Central team out, and into Pacific bracket, to ensure time zone travel is minimized);
  • Use the “Middle Crossover” method, where Division brackets with an odd number of teams still have the #1 seed face the lowest (#3 or #5) seed, and #2 vs #4 if it is a division of 5 playoff teams. The result would be 2 or 4 teams left as the “middle” teams in each bracket (#2 in 3-team brackets, #3 in 5-team brackets), who would then cross over with each other based on their location, or based on their places in the standings.
Advantages
  • Near-limitless flexibility to accommodate alignment formats that have uneven divisions and conferences, which in and of themselves are more flexible alignment formats, since teams can be placed in whichever division is most suitable in any scenario;
  • Divisional nature of this format promotes rivalry matchups;
  • Frequent crossover matchups create variety in each round, possibilities for rivals to meet in later rounds;
  • Limited time zone travel, since only crossover matchups would ever cause teams to draw an opponent separated by more than one time zone;
  • Equal playoff odds are possible no matter the alignment or number of teams in the league.
Disadvantages
  • The “middle crossover” method has a clear weakness, since it can sometimes lead to a team drawing an opponent that is lower in the standings by finishing with a worse record, if divisions with an odd number of teams happen to be strong or weak overall. For example, in a division with 3 playoff teams, the #3 team could have a better record than the #3 team in a weak division that has 5 teams in the playoffs, so the #1 team in the former division would face an opponent with a worse record by falling to #2 (facing the crossover opponent rather than the strong #3 team in their own division);
  • The “adjacent division” method would increase complexity, creating scenarios that would create two or three crossover series in one round, much like the Time Zone Grouping format;
  • Pairing any two odd numbered divisions in crossovers would increase the amount of time zone travel while creating more variety in matchups, which is not necessarily desirable.

Three-Conference Format:

Paired with my three-conference alignment, this format spreads out the potential for rivalries slightly more than typical 4 Division/Conference formats, but has a significant advantage in fairness and time zone travel.
Like other League-Wide Wild Card formats, each group has a range of teams that can make the playoffs that equal out the playoff odds: the Western Conference, if it includes Seattle and thus has 10 teams, would have a minimum of 3 and maximum of 7 teams able to qualify, while a 9-team conference without Seattle would only be able to qualify 3-6 teams.
Both 11-team Conferences qualify 4 teams automatically, with the possibility of 7. Thus, the ranges show how the playoff odds are evened in this format: each Conference’s range averages to 50% of the number of teams it contains (Western: 3-7/10 or 3-6/9, Central and Eastern: 4-7/11, so all average to 50%).
In order to minimize the time zone travel, since frequent crossovers will need to occur in the playoffs (whenever Conferences have an odd number of teams left), the Central Conference teams have an automatic preference for which of the other Conferences they cross over to, based on which time zone they are in. Central time zone teams cross over with the Western Conference, and Eastern time zone teams cross over with the Eastern Conference, unless all of the teams left in the Central Conference are from only 1 time zone, in which case, they are all treated equally.
Once the teams who qualify for the playoffs are determined, one of the following crossover scenarios will occur, depending on which (if any) Conferences have an odd number of teams:

Evidently, since the Central Conference must participate in a crossover with each of the other Conferences if they have an odd number of teams and the Central has an even number, and the time zone of the teams in the Central Conference predispose teams to meeting teams with less time zone difference between them, this is how the time zone travel is avoided.Here are four examples that show various different scenarios for how this format functions:
Advantages:
  • Near-universally appropriate geographic alignment
  • Extremely fair format, among the best in this regard
  • Extremely minimal time zone travel, competitive with the best of my other formats in this regard
  • Greater variety of potential playoff matchups, with enough restrictions that rivalries created in this format can be sustained
Disadvantages:
  • Moderate complexity, due to frequently occurring crossover matchups, comparable to current Wild Card Divisional format in this regard
  • Relatively high in travel, at least compared to formats that break the league into larger numbers of smaller groups (mainly true only in the Central Conference, however)
  • Debatable if format helps build rivalries more than other formats with a smaller, more concentrated pool of rivals for each team, and greater number of games against said rivals

5 Division League-Wide Wild Card

The purpose of a league-wide wild card format with 5 divisions would be to break up the Western conference into 3 Divisions, and use a “range” style format, limiting which teams can play each other even further, since the Pacific division and Central division would not normally be allowed to cross over with each other (depending on the number of teams from each Division that make the playoffs), nor would any Pacific or Mountain team be able to cross over with an Eastern team.
For crossovers, to limit time zone travel, it could be done using the “adjacent division” rule:
The playoffs in the West would work the same as the Conference (or Conference-Range) format, except Pacific and Central teams would not be allowed to draw one another, unless a team from each of these Divisions are the only 2 teams left to match up:
For example, if Los Angeles is the #1 seed, and Minnesota is #8, Los Angeles would not face Minnesota, they would face the next highest team from the Northwest or Pacific divisions. However, if Los Angeles is #4, and Minnesota is #6, and all other teams have been matched up already, then these 2 will play each other.
To prevent weak Divisions from sending too many teams to the playoffs automatically, playoff berths can be determined as follows:
  • Pacific: 1 automatic playoff berth, up to 3 wild card spots (1-4/5, instead of 2-3/5);
  • Northwest: same as above;
  • Central: 1 automatic berth, up to 4 wild card spots (1-5/6, instead of 3/6)
So, for each Western division, a wider range of the number of teams that can make the playoffs makes it less likely that weaker teams will earn automatic playoff berths. In the East, the numbers would be the same as in the current format (3-5/8).
Advantages
  • Reduces time zone travel compared to Conference, Wild Card Divisional and Best in Range formats;
  • More variety of matchups compared to those formats, without sacrificing the frequency of Divisional playoff series;
Disadvantages
  • There would be  a tendency for random matchups with significant time zone travel to occur in the “middle” matchups, which may not be desirable considering the alternatives;
  • Greater complexity compared to Best in Range format, since there would be an extra layer of eligibility for matchups to consider (an extra division).

35 Team League-Wide Wild Card

The idea of a “league-wide Wild Card” format is a good one to implement with the 35-team 5 Division and 7 Division alignment I described earlier.
For either format, since there are now 35 NHL teams, an expanded playoff bracket would be necessary. I chose to allow 24 teams to make the playoffs in this format, roughly two thirds of the league, so that most teams have a chance to make the playoffs every year, but it is still far from certain.
To allow 24 teams to make the playoffs, I chose to have the cutoff for playoff participation be:
  • For the 5 Division league, a team must be either in the top 4 in their Division, or avoid being the 5th place team with the worst record, as the lowest #5 Division seed is the cutoff (i.e. the lowest #5 team, and all teams #6 or lower, miss the playoffs.
  • For the 7 Division league, only the top 2 teams in each Division clinch an automatic playoff spot, and the remaining 10 spots are Wild Cards. Each Division can only have a maximum of 5 playoff teams.
For both formats, the Division pools are decided by arranging the Divisions in a linear sequence, by geographical and/or rivalry factors:
Each pool that has an odd number of teams crosses over with another odd pool, with priority given to pools that are “closer” as per the above arrangement. This repeats each round.
Every team draws an opponent in the first, second and third rounds, since there will be an even number of teams (24 -> 12 -> 6). In the fourth round, there will be 3 teams remaining, so the team with the best regular season record at this point gets a bye to the Stanley Cup Finals. This way, only one team ever needs to play five rounds (the winner of the semi-final series), and the bye is given at a time of greater need for the team that gets it (after three rounds of playoffs, when there are likely injuries to heal, and at a time of greater energy spent. This also prevents the bye from getting teams “off their game” by giving them a break before playing any playoff hockey).
Advantages
  • Comparing specifically to a scenario where there are 35 teams, but only 16 make the playoffs, more teams making the playoffs means more fan interest across the league;
  • Similarly, having an extra playoff round will also be more profitable for the league;
  • Having a bye occur in this fashion makes it so that any team benefits from finishing higher in the standings, since it could be them that ends up the best team left after 3 rounds.
  • As mentioned, a bye later in the playoffs avoids teams getting out of practice playing no meaningful games for a few weeks, and gives them a break at a time when they will be more worn down/injured.
Disadvantages
  • As mentioned, one team will play 5 rounds, which is extremely strenuous, and the season will be extended, when it is already considered by many to be too long;
  • The “middle crossover” style of matching teams up carries the same risk of teams getting more favourable matchups by finishing lower in the standings and being part of the crossovers, rather than staying within their own (strong) division;
  • Using a different method of matching teams in this alignment, such as the Approximated Divisional method, would create other layers of complexity that other formats (Conference, Divisional, Best Within Range, etc…) do not have.

Rivalry-Focused Format:

A playoff format meant specifically for my “9 Rival” and “A/B-Rival” Alignments; playoff positions are determined by having each team that finished in 1st place amongst their Rivals (for the 9-Rival format) or A-Rivals (in the A/B Rival format) clinch a spot automatically (it is mathematically impossible for more than 16 teams to be in 1st place amongst any Rival grouping in either format).
Next, each team in 2nd place in their Rival grouping clinches a spot in order of overall record. If any team in 3rd place amongst their Rival group has a 2nd place team with a worse record clinch a spot, they clinch a spot as well, if there is one available. These 3rd place teams can only clinch in pairs with 2nd place teams that have worse records, to prioritize the certainty of finishing higher in one’s Rival group (for instance, if a 2nd place team clinches the last playoff spot, a 3rd place team with a better record would end up missing the playoffs if they had not already clinched).
If after all 2nd place teams have clinched a playoff spot, there are still fewer than 16 teams who have earned a spot, then the 3rd place teams with the best records remaining clinch a spot in succession, and much like the former rule (but only in the 9-Rival format), a 4th place team with a better record than a clinched 3rd place team will clinch as well (in pairs) so long as there is at least one playoff spot still available.
This rule does not span more than one position in a team’s Rival grouping, so if a 4th place team has a better record than a 2nd place team that clinches, that team does not clinch, because the 4th place teams rely on 3rd place teams clinching in order to earn a spot. This is another rule in place to prioritize the relative certainty of finishing higher in one’s Rival grouping (2nd place is much more likely to make the playoffs than 4th place, even if a 4th place team has a better record than a 2nd place team).
In order to heavily prioritize Rival matchups in the playoffs, but not overly at the expense of fairness, the matchups are determined by having every pair of teams that are mutually each others’ Rival with the most separation in the standings draw each other.
Any remaining teams who are not Rivals with any other team remaining will draw each other: the team with the best record draws the team with the worst record, then successively again until every other team has drawn an opponent.
This repeats in each round, with teams primarily drawing their Rivals that remain, with a chance of drawing any other team in the league at an approximately 80%/20% ratio.
Advantages:
  • Easily the most supportive format for rivalry building and sustaining, as well as supporting markets in the NHL, because of the extremely relevant schedule for each team, and adherence to Rival matchups in the playoffs. Each team in the league has a good variety of relevant Rival teams;
  • Very good fairness, as a result of the priority for fair matchups within the constraints of prioritizing Rival series: most Rival series adhere roughly to the fairest matchups possible.
Disadvantages:
  • This format is likely the most complex of all my proposals, since teams will often be in positions where their opponent is not obvious without working out all of the other matchups, and fans would often need to know other teams’ Rivals as well as their own to follow what the playoff picture looks like;
  • Although the fairness of this format is very good overall (comparable to the Conference format), the variation on the fairness of each matchup and even between playoff years is bound to be high, and unfair matchups can certainly occur, though the odds of this are low, and become lower the more unfair a potential matchup is.
All logos © National Hockey League or respective owners, used for purpose of graphic aid only
Ice background © Artsfon wallpapers