[sureLoss]

http://www.tsn.ca/how-about-a-single...ay-in-1.432597

So the question I posed to the thoughtful 30 over the last 48 hours was as follows:

Yes or No to a "Play In" single-game elimination to determine the final wild card spot in each conference‎?

That is, the team holding down the final wild card spot after 82 games would have to play host to a single-game elimination ‎against the next closest team in the standings. Winner claims the final playoff spot; loser goes home.

If you want to better visualize it, two years ago the Detroit Red Wings in the East and Dallas Stars in the West would have had to host a single-game elimination against the Washington Capitals (three points behind Detroit) and Arizona Coyotes (two points behind Dallas), respectively, for the right to play their way into the playoffs on the day or two after the end of the regular season.

Last year, for example, Pittsburgh would have had to play Boston (two points behind Pittsburgh) in the "Play In" game and Winnipeg would have had to play Los Angeles (four points behind Winnipeg).
So, gentlemen, what say you?

The results were fascinating, for two reasons.

One, because it’s clear there is some real support for the concept of a "Play In" game‎.

Of the 28 GMs who responded, 16 answered Yes.

Eleven GMs answered No.

One was caught in that area between undecided and apathetic.
Two, merely asking this question triggered a torrential response‎ that was quite jarring and revealing.

It turns out that five of the ‎11 GMs who voted No to a single elimination "Play In" game did so not because they're opposed to potentially broadening the playoff spectrum.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Five GMs said the single-game elimination for the final wild card spot didn't go nearly far enough, that we actually need to make the "Play In" a best-of-three series and not limit it to just the final wild card spot in each conference.

One GM proposed the following:

Top three teams in each division are guaranteed a playoff spot. Fourth and fifth-place teams in each division would meet in a best-of-three ‎series with the winner becoming the fourth seed within the standard best of seven divisional playoffs. Recognizing there may be time/scheduling constraints, the GM said these "Play In" series may have to be three games in three days but there's the added incentive to finish top three in the division.

Another GM offered up the following proposal:

Top three teams in each division are guaranteed playoff berths but the top four wild card teams in each conference would have to play a best-of-three "Play In" series (WC1 vs. WC4 and WC2 vs. WC3‎) with the two winners claiming the final two playoff spots in each conference. In order to accommodate these best-of-three series, this GM also proposed that the first round of the playoffs be best-of-five instead of best of seven.

Quite aside from whether you like these concepts or whatever logistical concerns they may raise, the takeaway for me was how passionate so many of the GMs are about expanding the playoff pool in some fashion.

Think about it: 21 of 28 GMs are in favor of some type of "Play In" concept, either single elimination games for one wild card spot in each conference or as many as four best-of-three‎ series for all the available wild card positions.
The passion was unmistakable.