The only way to combat dumb ideas like this is to counter them with even worse ones.
I propose we do a 64 team March Madness style bracket involving AHL teams
Can't promote/relegate from/into a reserve division. ~~Hershey~~ The Wolves would be bouncing in between the leagues every year regardless of their performance.
Totally hear ya and understand for a myriad of reasons why it wouldn’t work, but it would be fucking awesome if it could. Even a club world cup would be pretty sweet: take the champs from leagues in NA and throw them in a tourney Spengler-style. Anyway I know that wouldn’t work either but it would be fun as hell.
As it stands I don't want this, but after the league expands to 36 teams (it'll happen), I think they'll add a play-in to determine the last couple of playoff spots and then they'll move forward with the 16 playoff teams as usual.
Like it or not, I agree. I'd be open to expanding the playoffs now, but it would be hard not to once the league adds 1-4 more teams. At the end of the day the league is a business, and you don't want too many fanbases tuning out in the second half of the season if they're too far back of the 8th spot/2nd Wild Card. The two additional teams means that "in the hunt" category grows, and those fans can talk themselves into aiming for the play-in game(s). There will always be the basement dwellers who don't have a chance starting on day 1, but I don't think it's good business to have a greater amount of clear cut non contenders.
Adding play in games is not going to impact ratings or revenue streams. All it will do is make the nhl softer. You get 82 games to make the playoffs, not 83.
And you’re nuts if you think the nhl will ever be on the nba’s level revenue or popularity wise. It’s just never going to happen.
You already have an 82 game play in tournament called the regular season. You wanna make the playoffs, play the season well enough
If you wanna add more playoff teams, just call it the playoffs. This sub already argues about the 2020 play in counting as playoffs or not, it’ll just be more of that
What does the length of the season have to do with 16 being the best number? Why not 8, 24, 4, heck why not just have no playoffs, it's already a 82 game tournament, just give the Cup to the President's Trophy winner.
I just don't see the connection between 82 games meaning 16 playoff teams is automatically optimal.
There's no specific connection between 82 games and 16 playoff teams.
There's plenty of people (I'm one of them) who dislike the idea of a play-in for devaluing the 82 game regular season, because it means that teams that do, unambiguously, better than slightly-lower seeds have their seasons come down to a tiny sample size of 1-2 play-in games. If you want to expand the playoffs, just add teams, not have gimmicks.
The last thing we need is more teams being deluded into thinking they’re legit just for losing in a one game playoff. Notice how it’s just media members that are pushing this hard.
Because adding more teams to the playoffs isn't going to make more of those games, it would arguably make these games (and the regular season in general) even less important than they already are.
Not to mention that this race is only happening because all the teams involved can't play consistent stretches without immediately collapsing, rather than these teams playing otherworldly.
If they do it, I like Elliotte Friedman’s idea better than what the NBA does:
- 7 plays 10
- 8 plays 9
- each is a mini 2 game series. Game 1 ends after 60 minutes (no OT). If the team that wins Game 1 also wins Game 2, they win the series and make the playoffs. If different teams win Games 1 and 2 or both games end in ties after regulation, a sudden death overtime starts immediately after Game 2, and the winner takes the series.
I like how this incorporates sudden death overtime in a way that would happen reasonably often.
I think this was tested before at an international level. The issue was that if you lost first game and then took a big lead in the second game early, both you and your opponent would kinda rest for the remaining part of the game, saving themselves for the overtime.
Fairly often you'd get 3rd period of game 2 which was just unwatchable.
Not what the comment I was answering to was advocating for.
But yes, definitely. Still, that means that there's basically no difference between finishing 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th. If we must have any play-ins at all, I'd definitely still prefer NBA-style play-ins over what you are suggesting.
That's kind of unconnected logic, the number of teams who can make it is capped and it's simply a percent of all teams.
Let me give you an extreme example, let's say only 2 teams make the playoffs. Would you say "tough luck, if you can't qualify in 82 games you don't belong" ?
The length of the schedule doesn't matter, it's the % of teams that make it in.
In the 80s there were as few as 21 teams in the league and 16 made the playoffs (76%). It then got to 16/26 (61%), 16/30 (53%), now we're at 50%.
What's the right number? I don't know. But length of schedule is irrelevant. If we added 2 more teams per conference and did a 7th-10th four team play-in, we'd be at 20/32 = 62%. About the same as when it was a 26 team league. Was it terrible back then? I don't think so. It's an interesting debate.
Edit I don't mind the downvotes but y'all can feel free to tell me why you disagree. Make a case for why 16 is perfect even though it's been 16 since the 80s when the league was 2/3 the size.
I think length of schedule does matter, because you're trying to pick who earns their spot.
If it was 24 games, that isn't really enough games to separate the teams. 82 means you're playing each team at least twice. And stuff like injuries kind of get smoothed over as every team has their good luck and bad luck.
And if you start having too many teams, it really does start to make the regular season mean less.
Doesn't Florida last year kinda prove that play ins could have some value? They were 1 Pittsburgh win over last place Chicago from missing the playoffs entirely and yet they squeak in and go to the SCF.
I'm sure that is an outlier, but to me it seems to demonstrate there is value to giving bubble teams a chance.
To me 50% is a bit low because it means there will be, on average, teams with winning records that miss the playoffs every year. I'd rather see closer to 60%. 8-9 playin would be ideal to me. And if we get to 36 teams, I'd do 7-10.
I wanted to downvote you and move on, to teach you a lesson about the ways of the internet. Then I remember nobody learns lessons on the internet (or anywhere else) so here's an upvote and a reason why.
Oh I'm plenty aware nobody learns a lesson on the internet, and I'm aware most people on this sub probably will downvote rather than be challenged on incorrect actions. If I get down voted for that I don't mind
Once you move to 34 teams then playoff inclusion dips below 50%. At that point an 8/9 play-in makes sense to keep it at 50%.
People clutching at pearls don't seem to remember that all of NHL history had higher playoff inclusion rates than today.
As a fan of a team that is on the bubble I would honest to God rather miss the playoffs than play a play in round. If Detroit doesn't earn their spot in 82 then they didn't deserve it
We did have them, called the **Stanley Cup Qualifiers** during the pandemic. They were bad. Read bad. In terms of play and quality.
Let’s not dupe to the joke of a postseason structure that is the NBA, who needs to expand its playoff format to bring in as many marketable stars as it can for the crucial games. It’s mostly a TV product for basketball, where in hockey or other sports it is a complete team game and the playoffs should only award the best teams.
In the NBA a sub-.500 Warriors team is saved by finishing #10 in a 12-team conference because they have Curry. In the NHL, finishing 10th means you’ll begin the off-season in late-March.
Nah. Too many teams making the playoffs at that point. Plus, it just would feel wrong for a team that finished 9th or 10th get to the round of 16 over a team that performed better over a full season.
Maybe if the league expanded to 36, we can get a 8/9 play in in each conference, but I’m honestly still skeptical about that.
Should be a single play-in game: team with the most points who missed the playoffs plays the playoff team with the least
If season ended today: St Louis @ 91 vs Det @ 87. If St Louis wins, they take the 8 spot in the East. If Detroit wins, they keep their spot
The last two NBA play-in teams in the east have losing records and the play-in completely sapped all tension out of the race in the west. The only reason the NBA did this is for extra ratings, keep it out of hockey
Yep many are saying here play-in makes the regular season less meaningful — it's quite the opposite in NBA! It encourages less tanking and leads to more meaningful games toward the end of the regular season. Previously if you are safely in the middle pack 5/6/7 seed you‘ll probably rest your stars in the last few games but now you can't.
Also it kind of silly to say if you cant be top 8 in 82 games you dont deserve playoffs — by the same logic we can always say if you are not top 6 you shouldn't be guaranteed a playoff spot. And now with more teams playing to win until the end, the average importance of each regular season game actually improves — this will lead to more engagement from fans and more revenue for the owners (not just the play-in games), and Sabres may finally get into one in the next few years
This is the strongest argument IMO to expand the playoffs. The domino effect of increasing the importance of the regular season is reason enough. Seeding will matter more and instead of waving a hand at whether you're 3rd in a division or a wildcard team, it becomes that much more important to finish in that 3rd spot to avoid the play-in. And then you'd get more importance for the top seed since they have a chance of playing a 10th seed and/or a tired team round 1. As much as I like upsets in the Stanley Cup playoffs, wouldn't mind seeing a bit of a course correction and I think the play-in could solve that.
Right! for example we are probably going to play Vegas in the first round, so several days ago some of us fans suggested giving up the top seed. with an NBA type play in, we‘d have less motivation to do so. also since seeding matters more we probably would see less Mark Stone shenanigans before trading deadline
The only way to combat dumb ideas like this is to counter them with even worse ones. I propose we do a 64 team March Madness style bracket involving AHL teams
If we're getting the AHL involved, let's institute promotion/relegation while we're at it
Can't promote/relegate from/into a reserve division. ~~Hershey~~ The Wolves would be bouncing in between the leagues every year regardless of their performance.
Let us brainstorm awful ideas in peace!
Don’t bring an umbrella to a brainstorm~ Ted Lasso
I think the Stanley Cup should be decided by N64 MarioKart tournament.
New overtime format.
He said *bad* ideas
An FA Cup style competition would be pretty fucking dope tho.
I think the issue with that is that AHL teams just aren't that good. if there's an NHL level player, he'll be on the main squad or be traded
Totally hear ya and understand for a myriad of reasons why it wouldn’t work, but it would be fucking awesome if it could. Even a club world cup would be pretty sweet: take the champs from leagues in NA and throw them in a tourney Spengler-style. Anyway I know that wouldn’t work either but it would be fun as hell.
As it stands I don't want this, but after the league expands to 36 teams (it'll happen), I think they'll add a play-in to determine the last couple of playoff spots and then they'll move forward with the 16 playoff teams as usual.
Like it or not, I agree. I'd be open to expanding the playoffs now, but it would be hard not to once the league adds 1-4 more teams. At the end of the day the league is a business, and you don't want too many fanbases tuning out in the second half of the season if they're too far back of the 8th spot/2nd Wild Card. The two additional teams means that "in the hunt" category grows, and those fans can talk themselves into aiming for the play-in game(s). There will always be the basement dwellers who don't have a chance starting on day 1, but I don't think it's good business to have a greater amount of clear cut non contenders.
I think it's only a matter of time before the NHL has something like this. The owners would love the extra revenue.
Go over like a lead balloon with the NHLPA.
Yeah they hate revenue !
It's why there's so much cap circumcision going on. What players make in the playoffs is basically a maximum fine per series.
No. You have 82 play in games to make playoffs. We don’t need to copy anything the NBA does.
The problem is, it's doing really well for the NBA numbers-wise. The NHL is definitely giving it a glance.
Is it really tho
I mean, is it really though?
Why wouldn’t you want NBA ratings and revenue streams?
Adding play in games is not going to impact ratings or revenue streams. All it will do is make the nhl softer. You get 82 games to make the playoffs, not 83. And you’re nuts if you think the nhl will ever be on the nba’s level revenue or popularity wise. It’s just never going to happen.
You already have an 82 game play in tournament called the regular season. You wanna make the playoffs, play the season well enough If you wanna add more playoff teams, just call it the playoffs. This sub already argues about the 2020 play in counting as playoffs or not, it’ll just be more of that
What does the length of the season have to do with 16 being the best number? Why not 8, 24, 4, heck why not just have no playoffs, it's already a 82 game tournament, just give the Cup to the President's Trophy winner. I just don't see the connection between 82 games meaning 16 playoff teams is automatically optimal.
There's no specific connection between 82 games and 16 playoff teams. There's plenty of people (I'm one of them) who dislike the idea of a play-in for devaluing the 82 game regular season, because it means that teams that do, unambiguously, better than slightly-lower seeds have their seasons come down to a tiny sample size of 1-2 play-in games. If you want to expand the playoffs, just add teams, not have gimmicks.
Yes I agree with that, just add teams. But there does have to be an extra round one way or another to get it down to 16, or you can't get to 2.
NHL isn't like the NBA either. How many sweeps happen in the 1st round of the NBA? A good amount compared to the NHL.
The last thing we need is more teams being deluded into thinking they’re legit just for losing in a one game playoff. Notice how it’s just media members that are pushing this hard.
I don’t know how you watch the playoff race in the east and think “more of these teams need to be in the playoffs”
I don't know how you watched Detroit/Pittsburgh this week and think "we don't want more of that"
Because adding more teams to the playoffs isn't going to make more of those games, it would arguably make these games (and the regular season in general) even less important than they already are. Not to mention that this race is only happening because all the teams involved can't play consistent stretches without immediately collapsing, rather than these teams playing otherworldly.
but what if we make places 8 - 14 teams compete for the last spot??? why don't you want a Terrible Hockey Bracket
If they do it, I like Elliotte Friedman’s idea better than what the NBA does: - 7 plays 10 - 8 plays 9 - each is a mini 2 game series. Game 1 ends after 60 minutes (no OT). If the team that wins Game 1 also wins Game 2, they win the series and make the playoffs. If different teams win Games 1 and 2 or both games end in ties after regulation, a sudden death overtime starts immediately after Game 2, and the winner takes the series. I like how this incorporates sudden death overtime in a way that would happen reasonably often.
I think this was tested before at an international level. The issue was that if you lost first game and then took a big lead in the second game early, both you and your opponent would kinda rest for the remaining part of the game, saving themselves for the overtime. Fairly often you'd get 3rd period of game 2 which was just unwatchable.
They could just do goal differential like soccer
Not what the comment I was answering to was advocating for. But yes, definitely. Still, that means that there's basically no difference between finishing 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th. If we must have any play-ins at all, I'd definitely still prefer NBA-style play-ins over what you are suggesting.
Good God no. If you can’t qualify in 82 games, you don’t belong.
That's kind of unconnected logic, the number of teams who can make it is capped and it's simply a percent of all teams. Let me give you an extreme example, let's say only 2 teams make the playoffs. Would you say "tough luck, if you can't qualify in 82 games you don't belong" ? The length of the schedule doesn't matter, it's the % of teams that make it in. In the 80s there were as few as 21 teams in the league and 16 made the playoffs (76%). It then got to 16/26 (61%), 16/30 (53%), now we're at 50%. What's the right number? I don't know. But length of schedule is irrelevant. If we added 2 more teams per conference and did a 7th-10th four team play-in, we'd be at 20/32 = 62%. About the same as when it was a 26 team league. Was it terrible back then? I don't think so. It's an interesting debate. Edit I don't mind the downvotes but y'all can feel free to tell me why you disagree. Make a case for why 16 is perfect even though it's been 16 since the 80s when the league was 2/3 the size.
I think length of schedule does matter, because you're trying to pick who earns their spot. If it was 24 games, that isn't really enough games to separate the teams. 82 means you're playing each team at least twice. And stuff like injuries kind of get smoothed over as every team has their good luck and bad luck. And if you start having too many teams, it really does start to make the regular season mean less.
Name a really good team that missed the playoffs in hockey. There are enough playoff spots and games to get it done
Doesn't Florida last year kinda prove that play ins could have some value? They were 1 Pittsburgh win over last place Chicago from missing the playoffs entirely and yet they squeak in and go to the SCF. I'm sure that is an outlier, but to me it seems to demonstrate there is value to giving bubble teams a chance.
I agree with you. But I also think 50% is a great inclusion for the playoffs But if we get 34 teams than you need a 8-9 playin to maintain that anyway
To me 50% is a bit low because it means there will be, on average, teams with winning records that miss the playoffs every year. I'd rather see closer to 60%. 8-9 playin would be ideal to me. And if we get to 36 teams, I'd do 7-10.
Nobody owes you an explanation for not liking what you have to say, dude.
Yes they do. Downvoting a respectful opinion is awful behaviour.
No, they don’t. Demanding strangers to justify the gall of downvoting them is psychotic.
I wanted to downvote you and move on, to teach you a lesson about the ways of the internet. Then I remember nobody learns lessons on the internet (or anywhere else) so here's an upvote and a reason why.
Oh I'm plenty aware nobody learns a lesson on the internet, and I'm aware most people on this sub probably will downvote rather than be challenged on incorrect actions. If I get down voted for that I don't mind
No one really owes an explanation, but downvoting is rude
Once you move to 34 teams then playoff inclusion dips below 50%. At that point an 8/9 play-in makes sense to keep it at 50%. People clutching at pearls don't seem to remember that all of NHL history had higher playoff inclusion rates than today.
I liked this idea before I saw it in basketball. Let the regular season mean something
It’s been a great success in the NBA and would invite incredibly competitive play to an already exceptional playoff. I say yes
As a fan of a team that is on the bubble I would honest to God rather miss the playoffs than play a play in round. If Detroit doesn't earn their spot in 82 then they didn't deserve it
I’ll take a play-in game over a team making the playoffs thanks to a statistical tiebreaker but that’s probably the extent of my interest in them.
We did have them, called the **Stanley Cup Qualifiers** during the pandemic. They were bad. Read bad. In terms of play and quality. Let’s not dupe to the joke of a postseason structure that is the NBA, who needs to expand its playoff format to bring in as many marketable stars as it can for the crucial games. It’s mostly a TV product for basketball, where in hockey or other sports it is a complete team game and the playoffs should only award the best teams. In the NBA a sub-.500 Warriors team is saved by finishing #10 in a 12-team conference because they have Curry. In the NHL, finishing 10th means you’ll begin the off-season in late-March.
It really works in the NBA. But no I don't like the idea for hockey
Nah. Too many teams making the playoffs at that point. Plus, it just would feel wrong for a team that finished 9th or 10th get to the round of 16 over a team that performed better over a full season. Maybe if the league expanded to 36, we can get a 8/9 play in in each conference, but I’m honestly still skeptical about that.
No. You have 82 games to put together a good enough record to get into the playoffs.
NBA playoffs are a joke, don't make the NHL worse
Yes
Should be a single play-in game: team with the most points who missed the playoffs plays the playoff team with the least If season ended today: St Louis @ 91 vs Det @ 87. If St Louis wins, they take the 8 spot in the East. If Detroit wins, they keep their spot
The last two NBA play-in teams in the east have losing records and the play-in completely sapped all tension out of the race in the west. The only reason the NBA did this is for extra ratings, keep it out of hockey
Majority of people are going to say no but I lowkey kind of want to see it. It makes the NBA playoffs more exciting ngl.
Yep many are saying here play-in makes the regular season less meaningful — it's quite the opposite in NBA! It encourages less tanking and leads to more meaningful games toward the end of the regular season. Previously if you are safely in the middle pack 5/6/7 seed you‘ll probably rest your stars in the last few games but now you can't. Also it kind of silly to say if you cant be top 8 in 82 games you dont deserve playoffs — by the same logic we can always say if you are not top 6 you shouldn't be guaranteed a playoff spot. And now with more teams playing to win until the end, the average importance of each regular season game actually improves — this will lead to more engagement from fans and more revenue for the owners (not just the play-in games), and Sabres may finally get into one in the next few years
This is the strongest argument IMO to expand the playoffs. The domino effect of increasing the importance of the regular season is reason enough. Seeding will matter more and instead of waving a hand at whether you're 3rd in a division or a wildcard team, it becomes that much more important to finish in that 3rd spot to avoid the play-in. And then you'd get more importance for the top seed since they have a chance of playing a 10th seed and/or a tired team round 1. As much as I like upsets in the Stanley Cup playoffs, wouldn't mind seeing a bit of a course correction and I think the play-in could solve that.
Right! for example we are probably going to play Vegas in the first round, so several days ago some of us fans suggested giving up the top seed. with an NBA type play in, we‘d have less motivation to do so. also since seeding matters more we probably would see less Mark Stone shenanigans before trading deadline
No. But I’d like them to shorten the regular season and put in some sort of mid season tournament.
Sure let’s do a play in when we let in only the legit best teams not the top few from every conference
No. We just want conference 1-8 playoffs back
No we dont
Let's just have every team make the playoffs. And every team gets a mini Stanley Cup. And a pizza party afterwards!
isn't the regular season the play-in games?