UPDATE: NHLPA votes for further negotiations on 24-team return to play format

[DeluxeMoustache]

Here is what I would prefer to see
Cutoff for a bye, and cutoff for qualifying

I initially thought about 7 games above .500 was reasonable for a qualifying cutoff. But that adds 3 teams in the east, and 2 in the west, and there is a huge logjam

East: it actually works really well, as there is a clear drop off after Pittsburgh in the standings
Bye cutoff: ~.587
Cutoff for qualifying: ~4 games above .500, or around .528
5 teams get byes, 6 teams are involved in 3 qualifying rounds

West: Similar. Only Arizona gets in at 4 games above .500

It is tough to go to .550 in the West and exclude Arizona because of the logjam of teams in the 78-80 point range with 69-71 GP

This approach, while not perfect, doesn’t introduce .500 teams like Montreal just to satisfy a count of teams that provides symmetry.

Teams like Toronto still had work to do to secure a spot, but Montreal is not a real threat.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

NHL would have 100% done this too if that gaps were enough between 8-9.

If it weren't for the Metro and Central being so close, it could have set up the old 80s format with 1vs4 and 2vs3 in each division.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

1. The mall
2. The river valley
3. The mall
4. The river valley
5. The mall
6. The river valley
7. ......

Did I miss anything?

Reenacting of the Titanic on their river ferry boat, IN the river valley?

[powderjunkie]

I wonder if there is any considering of trying to sell some tickets, even if not until the final 8.

Arenas may not have sufficient BOH space to manage 8 teams at their venue (some concourse areas may need to be repurposed). I also imagine there is a certain threshold of ticket sales where it would even make sense to operationalize the building to the public, but I don't think it's inconceivable to house 1000-4000 people per game.

Seats could be allocated in a staggered fashion. Perhaps masks are required on the concourse. Strictly manage capacity in the washrooms, strongly encouraging people to use them during periods, not just at intermissions, etc.

Only certain markets would have fans interested in watching "hockey" that doesn't necessarily involve their own team (ie. Canadian markets). Vegas might even be dumb enough to desire travellers from each fanbase, though...

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Gaps don't matter at the end of the season as a team can miss the playoffs by a single point after 82 games or even after being tied with the 8th place team and having less regulation wins so why should gaps matter now? The league didn't have control over when the season ended so I don't see the issue in drawing the line where things ended. Take the top 16 teams by winning percentage and call it a day as there's nothing fair about how the season ended but what's fair is taking the teams that had the best winning percentage of the season to it's date of closure. This current 24 team format isn't remotely close to fair for the teams that were the best over the regular season.

Unbalanced, uneven schedule. The 82 game schedule may not be perfectly balanced, but it's closer than this 68-71 game cluster####.

Drawing a line at 16 right now has potential to drive awaya customers. Not sure it's a test you really want to try when people are being given a 'free' test-drive of what life is like without watching hockey. Most STH's will already be reconsidering their personal budgets - I think there's a good chance you'd see a higher lapse rate among the teams who got excluded by a few thousands of a percent.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

They're picking 24 because the 23/24 placed teams are Montreal and Chicago who essentially had zero chance to make the playoffs but because their both top 5 markets the league wants them in.

This playoff has nothing to do with sport or the Stanley Cup, it's all money baby

Every playoff is all about the money then...cause this one is no different. It will still take at least 16 wins to secure it.

And no, they took 24 because its the only way to get to 16 fairly without screwing over some teams that hadn't played the same amount of games as those above them in the standings.

Its actually going to cost the league way more money to house/feed/transport those extra 8 teams than it would have otherwise.

This exercise isn't going to make an extra dime for the league, it is only going to recoup about 50% of what they would have received had their not been a pandemic. Estimates have them coming out 600 MILLION dollars behind where it should have been.

These conspiracy theories are obnoxious.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Every playoff is all about the money then...cause this one is no different. It will still take at least 16 wins to secure it.

And no, they took 24 because its the only way to get to 16 fairly without screwing over some teams that hadn't played the same amount of games as those above them in the standings.

Its actually going to cost the league way more money to house/feed/transport those extra 8 teams than it would have otherwise.

This exercise isn't going to make an extra dime for the league, it is only going to recoup about 50% of what they would have received had their not been a pandemic. Estimates have them coming out 600 MILLION dollars behind where it should have been.

These conspiracy theories are obnoxious.

They certainly could have done 9 byes and played 14 down into 7 spots. Or there are any number of round robin scenarios that would preserve more competitive integrity.

3 hubs x 7 teams: excludes the longest shots of ARI, CHI, MTL

But, these ideas are more complicated and don't make it any easier to manage risk. Understandably, they are taking the simplest, most lucrative path.

[troutman]

It's not a conspiracy theory that the NHL is trying to maximize their revenues. And they absolutely should do that - the NHL owes that to the owners, in partnership with the players.

That's why CHI, NYR and MTL are invited, and BUFF is not. The Sabres had a similar record to the Habs with two games in hand (and more ROW), and they were scheduled to play their next game with each other.

I'm actually ok with it being about the $. It should be. The fairness or legacy of this tournament is a separate topic.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

They certainly could have done 9 byes and played 14 down into 7 spots. Or there are any number of round robin scenarios that would preserve more competitive integrity.

3 hubs x 7 teams: excludes the longest shots of ARI, CHI, MTL

But, these ideas are more complicated and don't make it any easier to manage risk. Understandably, they are taking the simplest, most lucrative path.

Byes were really not a thing they could do...it would then have been an advantage to those that played already as they would be at game speed and shape when taking on the higher seed. So the "competitive integrity" thing is even worse than in that convoluted scenario.

Again...how is it "more lucrative"? It will cost the leagues oodles more money for that first two weeks than it would have otherwise. They aren't "making" a dime more than they would have.

[monkeyman]

Quite frankly, I think you're naive if you don't believe the NHL, NHLPA and owners are looking at every possible avenue to reduce that 600 million dollar loss.
Thats' not a conspiracy, that's business and I'd do the exact same thing if I were an owner.

[Envitro]

Yeaah, the players are on the hook for $300 million of that, and I'm sure they're not wanting to have their wages "escrowed" any more than they already are

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Quite frankly, I think you're naive if you don't believe the NHL, NHLPA and owners are looking at every possible avenue to reduce that 600 million dollar loss.
Thats' not a conspiracy, that's business and I'd do the exact same thing if I were an owner.

Of course they are...its actually a 1.2B loss as it sits and they do nothing more this season.

Its a conspiracy to say they are going with 24 just to get the Canadiens and Hawks in....not that they are trying to finish the season.

[Vinny01]

NBA is talking about going right into a playoff where they play the series 1-16, 2-15 etc because travel will be an non issue. It works out that there are still 8 teams from each conference. Just checking the NHL standings the Flames would fall out of the playoffs in this scenario

1. Boston vs 16. Nashville
2. St.Louis vs 15. Florida
3. Tampa vs 14. Columbus
4. Colorado vs 13. Toronto
5. Washington vs 12. Edmonton
6. Philadelphia vs 11. New York Islanders
7. Pittsburgh vs 10. Dallas
8. Vegas vs 9. Carolina

Vancouver and the Rangers still ahead of Calgary in the points % standings

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Byes were really not a thing they could do...it would then have been an advantage to those that played already as they would be at game speed and shape when taking on the higher seed. So the "competitive integrity" thing is even worse than in that convoluted scenario.

Again...how is it "more lucrative"? It will cost the leagues oodles more money for that first two weeks than it would have otherwise. They aren't "making" a dime more than they would have.

There are already 8 "byes" (and 16 down to 8)...byes may play some games, but they will be pre-season intensity.

Lucrative = negotiations with rights holders. Habs and Hawks regional deals are certainly worth more than the Sabres or Coyotes. It's about reducing losses, and that's fine. The NHL balance sheet will look better, not worse, but having the Habs and Hawks play these series.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by troutman

It's not a conspiracy theory that the NHL is trying to maximize their revenues. And they absolutely should do that - the NHL owes that to the owners, in partnership with the players.

That's why CHI, NYR and MTL are invited, and BUFF is not. The Sabres had a similar record to the Habs with two games in hand (and more ROW), and they were scheduled to play their next game with each other.

I'm actually ok with it being about the $. It should be. The fairness or legacy of this tournament is a separate topic.

Not sure I follow.

They literally picked the top 12 teams in each conference by winning %. They didn't just pick and choose near the bottom.

Buffalo has a .493 win percentage, Montreal .500, NYR .504

The Ducks are well back of Chicago in the West.

Apologies if I missed sarcasm etc.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

He's saying that that's why they chose that cut-off rather than lowering it to include other teams. They just cut off the number of teams at a point where the big markets happened to be, standings wise. If they'd been doing it in a manner that wasn't deliberately aimed at getting the Blackhawks et al. into the postseason, they would actually probably have cut it off at 16 or 20.

[heep223]

It’s never going to be completely fair. Do your best, keep everyone as safe as they can and drop the puck as soon as possible.

[Strange Brew]

Well if it was me I’d have a play in tournament for the 5th through 12th teams in each conference.

It’s a 7 game round robin. Play each team once. No ties, no loser points, every game that is tied through 60 minutes plays 3 on 3 until someone scores.

12th place team starts with zero points. Every other team is awarded starting points based on projected points over 70 games in excess of the 12th place team.

You’d be talking about 2 extra games over the current projected set up.

So yeah some of the bottom teams could be mathematically eliminated early on. They’d only have to hang around and play a weeks worth of games or so. Then the top 4 teams from that move on to the real playoffs.

[getbak]

The problem with 16 or even 20 teams is that the teams in the 15-20 range are all effectively tied (and those on either side of that range aren't too far ahead or behind).

The teams that would be in or out of a 16 team cutoff would change based on what formula you used to do the rankings. That becomes a major sticking point as each team is going advocate for the formula that works best for themselves.

The best cutoff point would be at 21 teams, with Minnesota in and Arizona out, but they won't do that because it's uneven.

When they were planning on using 4 hub cities, having the number of teams be divisible by 4 was needed, but now that they're talking about 2 hubs, there's no reason they couldn't have 11 teams in each conference, with the top-5 getting byes and the rest doing a play-in round for the final 3 playoff spots.

If I was Edmonton or Pittsburgh, that's what I'd be in favour of (especially the Oilers). Since I hate the Oilers, I don't mind giving the Hawks a chance to steal a 5 game series.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not sure I follow.

They literally picked the top 12 teams in each conference by winning %. They didn't just pick and choose near the bottom.

Buffalo has a .493 win percentage, Montreal .500, NYR .504

The Ducks are well back of Chicago in the West.

Apologies if I missed sarcasm etc.

Aren't the Rangers .564 (ie. identical to Flames)? CHI .514. NJD is also .493

MIN .558 to ARI .529 is a 0.29 gap

Aside from 1st to 2nd, there aren't two sequential teams separated by a 0.29 gap from 2nd to 21st in the league standings. It's a no-brainer location to draw the line if you're seeking to resolve teams who were in contention, but didn't have equal/fair opportunities to conclude their pt%.

There are 10 teams from 0.558-0.587 (and NYI at 0.588).


What they are trying to do is fine. But, I seriously doubt we'd be talking about a 24 team format if NAS and CAR had the .514 and .500 records.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Gaps don't matter at the end of the season as a team can miss the playoffs by a single point after 82 games or even after being tied with the 8th place team and having less regulation wins so why should gaps matter now? The league didn't have control over when the season ended so I don't see the issue in drawing the line where things ended. Take the top 16 teams by winning percentage and call it a day as there's nothing fair about how the season ended but what's fair is taking the teams that had the best winning percentage of the season to it's date of closure. This current 24 team format isn't remotely close to fair for the teams that were the best over the regular season.

Teams haven’t played equal competition with the season cut short so some teams have played more games against tougher opponents and some less.

I haven’t gone through team schedules but there could be a team two points out who’s remaining games were against Detroit, Ottawa and Edmonton, while 8th plays Tampa, Boston and Colorado.