How to fix current seeding issues for the Stanley Cup Playoffs

The current Stanley Cup Playoffs system has a ton of flaws and needs to be fixed. Let’s look at some options and find the best way to do it.

The Stanley Cup Playoffs are the most exciting postseason of any of the four major professional sports. While the NFL, NBA, and MLB playoffs are each entertaining, none of them can match the intensity, brutality, and excitement of the NHL postseason. Unfortunately, the NHL’s current seeding system for the postseason is broken and could be a lot better.

Currently, the three best teams for each division, plus two wild card teams from each conference, make the postseason. This means 16 teams out of 31 make the playoffs. However, those 16 teams aren’t necessarily the most deserving 16 teams. It’s fair to ask how great the Stanley Cup Playoffs are when the best 16 teams might not be playing in them.

There are several significant flaws with the current seeding system. Yes, there are far more flaws with the Stanley Cup Playoffs, but we’re just addressing seeding issues for now.

More from Puck Prose

The first flaw of the current format is it doesn’t get the best 16 teams into the postseason. Last season, the Montreal Canadiens finished with 96 points, but missed out because they had the ninth-most points in the Eastern Conference.

Meanwhile, in the Western Conference, the Dallas Stars (93 points), Vegas Golden Knights (93 points), and Colorado Avalanche (90 points). Each of those teams made the postseason despite having fewer points than Montreal. Canadiens fans were rightfully upset.

Secondly, the current playoff seeding format focuses too much on divisions. For example, the Toronto Maple Leafs and Carolina Hurricanes, as of Feb. 26, each have 74 points. By virtue of being in the Atlantic Division, the Leafs would make the playoffs over the Hurricanes.

Also, it’s worth pointing out the Metropolitan Division has six teams with as many, or more, points than the Leafs. That’s before factoring in the New York Rangers, who have 72 points with two fewer games played than the Leafs. If you want the best eight teams in each conference to get in, seeding by division isn’t going to accomplish that goal.

Thirdly, seeding by division also allows some odd home-ice advantage scenarios where a team with the worse record could have the home-ice advantage. For example, in 2017, the Ottawa Senators (98 points) had home-ice advantage over the New York Rangers (106 points) because the Senators were the second seed in the Atlantic while the Rangers were a wild-card team.

So how do we fix these problems? Well, there are two reasonable options I’ve seen (plus one extremely fun but unreasonable option). Like all things created by humans, they are each flawed. Neither option is going to be perfect. This is about going with the option that has the fewest flaws. Which will best address the issues I’ve discussed? Let’s take a look.

1 Through 16 Format

Description: In the 1979-80 to 1980-81 seasons, the NHL embraced chaos by seeding each team regardless of conference and division. The top 16 teams made it in. Back then, there were only 21 teams, so critics noted having 16 of the 21 teams make it in was a bit too much. However, with 31 teams now and a 32nd coming shortly, this format is far more feasible.

Strengths: Deep down, everybody loves chaos. This is an undeniably chaotic option. It’s also the most simple one, as it would put the 16 teams with the best record, regardless of conference or division, in the playoffs. You couldn’t find a simpler format.

Also, there would be some really fun matchups. Speaking of which, here’s how the Stanley Cup Playoffs would like right now using this format. I’ll be sorting teams by point percentage instead of points.

Boston vs. Toronto
Tampa vs. New York Rangers
Washington vs. Columbus
St. Louis vs. Edmonton
Pittsburgh vs. Vegas
Colorado vs. Carolina
Dallas vs. Vancouver
New York Islanders vs. Philadelphia

I don’t think anybody except for Toronto Maple Leafs fans and teams who this would boot out of the playoffs would have any meaningful objections to these matchups. There are only two non-conference matchups (Pittsburgh versus Vegas and Colorado versus Carolina), but both would have the potential to be fascinating series.

As far as addressing the flaws, both flaws are taken care of. The best 16 teams get in. However, some new flaws are created.

Weaknesses: On paper, this sounds awesome, right? But let’s change things around a bit. Let’s say the Lightning grab the first overall seed. Imagine if the Canucks or Oilers are the 16th seed. That’s a brutal travel schedule. This year’s would be fine, but eventually, there’s going to be a year when you have a bunch of teams flying all over the place and nobody’s going to be happy.

Secondly, everyone loves to see rivalries in the playoffs. Of those eight matchups I listed above, there’s only one real rivalry (Bruins vs. Maple Leafs). One of the few things the current postseason format gets right is that it forces division rivals to face each other.

1 Through 8 Format

Description: From 1994 to 2013, the seeding format was done by conference. There were eight seeds. The top eight seeds from each conference got in. However, at least one team in each division was guaranteed to make the postseason. Let’s remove that and say the top eight teams, regardless of division, get in.

Strengths: This makes the travel schedules much easier. We get four intra-conference matchups in each conference. There’s no threat of Tampa and Vancouver squaring off in the first round. That’s only happening in the Stanley Cup Final.

While it doesn’t encourage rivalries as much as the current system, it’s better than the 1 through 16 format. This is what the playoffs would look like under this format.

Boston versus Columbus
Tampa versus Carolina
Washington versus New York Islanders
Pittsburgh versus Philadelphia*
St. Louis versus Calgary
Colorado versus Nashville
Dallas versus Edmonton
Vegas versus Vancouver

*same matchup as 1 through 16

If you want rivalries, this one provides several fascinating first-round matchups, including the Battle For Pennsylvania, the Capitals versus the Islanders, and the Predators versus the Avalanche. This format also addresses the home-ice advantage issue because teams are seeded based on their conference and not their division.

Weaknesses: Let’s look at the matchups again, but this time I’m going to put their point percentage rank instead of the team name.

1 versus 14
2 versus 11
3 versus 9
5 versus 8
4 versus 19
6 versus 18
7 versus 13
10 versus 12

This highlights several issues. First of all, the 15th (Rangers), 16th (Maple Leafs), and 17th (Panthers) ranked teams wouldn’t get in. Yet the 18th (Predators) and 19th (Flames) ranked teams would get in over them because they play in the Western Conference instead of the Eastern Conference.

Secondly, the fifth-best team would have to play the ninth-best team. Yet the seventh-best team would get to play the 13th-best team and the 10th-best team would get to play the 12th-best team. If you’re trying to reward the best teams in the league, this isn’t the way to do it.

Verdict

Personally, I prefer the 1 through 8 format. The travel issues in the 1 through 16 format are too much for me.

I also like having rivalries in the postseason. They’re part of the reason the Stanley Cup Playoffs are so intense. Sure, it’s a tad bit annoying seeing the Capitals and Penguins play each other all the time. But do fans enjoy it? Absolutely. When they face each other, the games are compelling and the two teams bring out the best in each other.

Next. Trade Deadlines Grades For Each Team. dark

Both formats are flawed, but the 1 through 8 format is the least flawed. What do you think? Leave your thoughts and suggestions in the comments!

Home/Editorials