Playoff Format Questions

[Philly06Cup]

The format for the first round is well understood. In each division #2 plays #3, with the higher #1 playing the lowest wildcard. One could argue that if 4 teams from each division make the playoffs (as opposed to a 5-3 split), the format should dictate #1 play #4 and #2 play #3 for each division, to increase divisional rivalries.

My question is about the second round. How are pairings set? NHL.com is silent on this subject. A recent CBC source states "In each conference, the highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seeds, and the other two teams meet." Other sources, like TSN, date back to last year, and mention a 'Divisional Champsionship' in the second round, implying a bracket format without reseeding.

Is there a consensus on second round pairings? Is it possible the NHL hasn't even decided how they want to do pairings, and will decide closer to the playoffs?

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

The format for the first round is well understood. In each division #2 plays #3, with the higher #1 playing the lowest wildcard. One could argue that if 4 teams from each division make the playoffs (as opposed to a 5-3 split), the format should dictate #1 play #4 and #2 play #3 for each division, to increase divisional rivalries.

My question is about the second round. How are pairings set? NHL.com is silent on this subject. A recent CBC source states "In each conference, the highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seeds, and the other two teams meet." Other sources, like TSN, date back to last year, and mention a 'Divisional Champsionship' in the second round, implying a bracket format without reseeding.

Is there a consensus on second round pairings? Is it possible the NHL hasn't even decided how they want to do pairings, and will decide closer to the playoffs?

You stay "in division" for the first two rounds regardless of the seeding of Rd. 1 winners. Then division "winners" play each other in the WCF/ECF and those winners play for the cup.

[Philly06Cup]

Source?

[PeteMoss]

It's in here http://grantland.com/the-triangle/th...ack-canadiens/

[Winsor_Pilates]

That source says you don't stay "in division" for the first 2 rounds.
If there's 5-3 team split, clearly staying in division doesn't happen.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

That source says you don't stay "in division" for the first 2 rounds.
If there's 5-3 team split, clearly staying in division doesn't happen.

The two wildcard teams can cross over even if they're in different Divisions (which is stupid, and will hopefully be fixed for next season once the BOG realizes what a stupid oversight it was), but once the Division match-ups are set, they stay the same in Round 2.

If the playoffs started today, Minnesota and Phoenix would double-crossover, so Phoenix could win the Central Division and Minnesota the Pacific: http://www.nhl.com/ice/stanleycup.htm

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

That source says you don't stay "in division" for the first 2 rounds.
If there's 5-3 team split, clearly staying in division doesn't happen.

People seem to make this very difficult on themselves.

You "stay in division" in the sense that the bottom seed (aka the team in the conference who qualifies with the fewest points) stays in the same division for the second round if they win round 1 against the conference's top seed. It doesn't matter if they are the fifth team from the other division, they stay in that division to play the second round and then (if they win that) would play whoever comes out of the division that they actually belong to in the regular season.

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by getbak

The two wildcard teams can cross over even if they're in different Divisions (which is stupid, and will hopefully be fixed for next season once the BOG realizes what a stupid oversight it was), but once the Division match-ups are set, they stay the same in Round 2.

If the playoffs started today, Minnesota and Phoenix would double-crossover, so Phoenix could win the Central Division and Minnesota the Pacific: http://www.nhl.com/ice/stanleycup.htm

Exactly. And if Dallas ends up with more points than Phoenix and the Central sends 5 teams to the playoffs then St. Louis (assuming they have the most points in the conference at the end of the season) would play the #5 team from the Central division and the #4 seed would move to the Pacific where they would remain for the rest of the playoffs.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by getbak

The two wildcard teams can cross over even if they're in different Divisions (which is stupid, and will hopefully be fixed for next season once the BOG realizes what a stupid oversight it was), but once the Division match-ups are set, they stay the same in Round 2.

I don't think it was an oversight. The conference leader will get to play the lower of the wild card, which makes sense. From there they went with a format that wasn't overly complicated but still allows for the potential to see many divisional rivalries be played out in a 7 game series.

From a regular season point of view, it's the whole point of having a wildcard.

[dying4acup]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't think it was an oversight. The conference leader will get to play the lower of the wild card, which makes sense. From there they went with a format that wasn't overly complicated but still allows for the potential to see many divisional rivalries be played out in a 7 game series.

From a regular season point of view, it's the whole point of having a wildcard.

It might not be an oversight, but it's dumb, and should be fixed. If Anaheim was leading the conference (because it affects west coast the most) imagine having to travel to Winnipeg(for instance) instead of Phoenix, while LA and San Jose are playing eachother.

Come round 2, Anaheim could be at a disadvantage against either of the others!

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't think it was an oversight.

Oversight might be the wrong word, but it goes against the whole reason for returning to Divisional playoffs.


When they decided to reconfigure the playoffs to return to Divisional alignments, they did it for two main reasons:

1. They wanted a return to the heated Divisional rivalries that get even more intense when the teams meet in the playoffs.

There hasn't been a Battle of Alberta playoff series since 1991. The Leafs and Habs haven't met since 1979. Tampa and Florida have never met in the playoffs. LA and Anaheim have never met in the playoffs. Even Vancouver and Edmonton have only ever met once in the playoffs (and that was with Divisional playoffs for over a decade).

Returning to Divisional playoffs is supposed to lead us to see more of these rivalry match-ups in the playoffs.


2. They wanted to get rid of long distance first and second round series that span two or three time zones.

Anaheim has played Detroit six times in the playoffs (they've only made the playoffs nine times). They have met in the first round three times. In those match-ups, the games in Detroit would start at 4 or 4:30 in Anaheim; and the games in Anaheim would start at 10 or 10:30 in Detroit. Those sorts of the schedules aren't great for fans of either team.

Detroit and Columbus moving to the East has ensured there won't be any three-hour differences anymore, but there could still be two-hour differences.


If the playoffs started today, we'd have: St Louis-Phoenix (2 hour difference); Chicago-Colorado (1 hour difference); San Jose-Minnesota (2 hour difference); and Anaheim-LA (same time zone). If preserving the Divisional alignments was the first priority, Chicago-Colorado would be the only match-up with a time difference, and it is only one hour.


If the goal was to have the best teams play the lowest teams, they wouldn't have changed the playoff format in the first place.

It looks like it won't happen, but earlier in the season, when the Metro Division teams were doing so poorly, it looked like a real possibility that the Penguins second-round opponent was going to have a worse record than their first-round opponent. Even now, the third-place team in the Atlantic has more points than the second-place team in the Metro.

The rule, as it's written now, is the worst of all possible solutions. They should have either stuck with the 1-8 Conference alignment, or gone to a straight Divisional alignment, with crossovers only as necessary.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by getbak

It looks like it won't happen, but earlier in the season, when the Metro Division teams were doing so poorly, it looked like a real possibility that the Penguins second-round opponent was going to have a worse record than their first-round opponent. Even now, the third-place team in the Atlantic has more points than the second-place team in the Metro.

A division leader is going to either play a 4th or 5th place team of a division. A wildcard team will always play a division leader. Hardly seems unfair. It's a far better system then the old one. Remember there was a legitimate chance that the Southeast division winner, and therefore 3rd seed, would not have qualified for the playoffs if not for being a division leader under the old system a couple times. Even the Northwest division leader wasn't that high on points.

Of course that may be because the divisions are not equal. Was the Metro division doing poorly on their own merit or were the Atlantic teams getting that extra boost from getting to play Buffalo and Florida 2 extra times?

I don't really see an issue with the format. Unless they come up with an even schedule, in which case divisions would be no more, there's going to be some 'unfairness.' Would Anaheim deserve to be ahead of Chicago and even Colorado in a 1-8 ranking? They are 11-7-0 against Central teams but against the Pacific they 16-3-2. They've only lost a single game to one of the bottom 4 teams in the division which include the by far worst team in the conference. It could easily be argued that the only reason they are beating Chicago in points is the division they play in. And in a reverse situation St. Louis is amazing against their own division but not good against the Pacific. So who knows how teams would match up if the schedules or divisions were even.

With the wild card there's again some room for the potential of uneven divisions to play a large part in which teams make it. However, the only way the 5th place team in a division makes it is if 5 teams in that division have more points than the 4th place team in the other. For that to occur it's pretty unlikely that that 5th place team is playing in a significantly weaker division, most of the time it would mean they are in the better division and more deserving to make the playoffs.

As for divisional games. The 2nd and 3rd teams of each division will play one another. That's 4 divisional rivals in the first round alone. There's about a 50/50 chance that the conference leaders will also play a division rival and barring an upset with a conference leader losing in the first round they will go on to play a divisional rival. That's a huge potential for divisional games. Of course divisional rival series now include teams like say the Kings and Flames who aren't exactly conventional rivals but that's a bit of the purpose in that with so many divisional playoff series new rivals will hopefully be created.

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

As for divisional games. The 2nd and 3rd teams of each division will play one another. That's 4 divisional rivals in the first round alone. There's about a 50/50 chance that the conference leaders will also play a division rival and barring an upset with a conference leader losing in the first round they will go on to play a divisional rival. That's a huge potential for divisional games. Of course divisional rival series now include teams like say the Kings and Flames who aren't exactly conventional rivals but that's a bit of the purpose in that with so many divisional playoff series new rivals will hopefully be created.

Divisional playoff series can be boring as they can happen over and over. Sure conference playoff series can happen that way too but less likely. Conference rivals are being pushed out such as Canucks-Bhawks and Kings-Avs with this inferior format. In the east, Bruins-Penguins, Habs-Flyers, or Bruins-Rangers. It is now more difficult to have those pairings in the first 2 rounds and to have div rivals play each other in the 3rd round.

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by getbak

The Leafs and Habs haven't met since 1979. Even Vancouver and Edmonton have only ever met once in the playoffs (and that was with Divisional playoffs for over a decade).

A big reason for the Leafs and Habs not playing each other was that the Leafs were in the western conf from 1981 to 1998. The Canucks and Oilers have met twice in the playoffs in 1986 and 1992, both won by the Oilers.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

Divisional playoff series can be boring as they can happen over and over. Sure conference playoff series can happen that way too but less likely. Conference rivals are being pushed out such as Canucks-Bhawks and Kings-Avs with this inferior format. In the east, Bruins-Penguins, Habs-Flyers, or Bruins-Rangers. It is now more difficult to have those pairings in the first 2 rounds and to have div rivals play each other in the 3rd round.

You build rivalries by having heated playoff series. The only reason the Canucks/Chicago is a rivalry is because they played in the playoffs a couple of times. (No idea why you say Avs/Kings is a rivalry though).

San Jose/LA/Anaheim will be able to build up rivalries by meeting up in the playoffs for the next couple of years (St.Louis and Chicago will get going again as well). You'll get some potential classic series like Rangers/Philly, Boston/Montreal, Montreal/Toronto out east.

San Jose has been in the league for a long time now and who's their biggest rival? Same with Anaheim. If you get these teams going against each other for two or three years you'll get a good hate going.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

A big reason for the Leafs and Habs not playing each other was that the Leafs were in the western conf from 1981 to 1998. The Canucks and Oilers have met twice in the playoffs in 1986 and 1992, both won by the Oilers.

The Canucks/Oilers thing is because the Canucks were no good back then (a tradition that is coming back strong).

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You build rivalries by having heated playoff series. The only reason the Canucks/Chicago is a rivalry is because they played in the playoffs a couple of times. (No idea why you say Avs/Kings is a rivalry though).

San Jose/LA/Anaheim will be able to build up rivalries by meeting up in the playoffs for the next couple of years (St.Louis and Chicago will get going again as well). You'll get some potential classic series like Rangers/Philly, Boston/Montreal, Montreal/Toronto out east.

San Jose has been in the league for a long time now and who's their biggest rival? Same with Anaheim. If you get these teams going against each other for two or three years you'll get a good hate going.

The bold sentences are exactly what made the conference playoff format better. The Kings/Avs played each other 2 years in a row (2001 & 2002) and they were thrilling 7 game series both won by the Avs and the rivalry did grow for a while. The Canucks/Bhawks is strong but will fade now due to the division playoff format. Classic series like the Habs/Bruins and Devils/Rangers have been happening because of the conference playoff system. It has also resurrected old division battles such as Capitals/Rangers. The Sharks big rival is the Kings and they met in the 2011 and 2013 playoffs. All these rivalries have a good hate going thanks to the previous playoff format. Why fix something that isn't broken?