I've been promising this post for a couple days, and with the Western Conference Final set to begin, I figure now's as good a time as any. The NHL is in the third year of its current playoff format, and I've gone on record as not being a fan. Because it's not set up the right way. The best teams shouldn't meet until the conference finals. Your division shouldn't matter.
For about 15 years in the 1980s, the Stanley Cup Playoffs were 100 percent division-based. You had Division Semifinals and Division Finals before the Conference Finals. In a 21-team league with 16 teams making the playoffs, you were essentially guaranteed to make it no matter what. It was the top four in each division, so as long as you didn't finish last, you were in.
But there were some significant problems with this format. In the Campbell Conference (which became the West), the Smythe Division, which featured the Oilers and Flames, was much stronger than the Norris Division. Yet a Norris Division team was guaranteed to be in the Conference Finals, where they would inevitably lose to either Edmonton or Calgary (whichever team survived the other), each season. It was the same in the Wales (East), but the disparity between the Adams and Patrick Divisions was much less drastic.
The NHL finally realized that this method was stupid in 1993-94, when they renamed the conferences "East" and "West" and went from division-based to conference-based playoffs. The division winners got the top two seeds, but the remaining six teams would determined solely on points and could come from either division. And, since it was reseeded after each round, the No. 1 seed was guaranteed to play the "weakest" team that advanced in the second round. So, if the 7 beat the 2, it would be 1 vs. 7 in the second round instead of 3 vs. 7. When they split each conference into three divisions, the only change was that the division winners would be seeded 1-3.
That format worked incredibly well. Yet, for some reason, the NHL decided to change it as a part of the Winnipeg Jets realignment in 2013-14. And they must've been feeling nostalgic for those division playoff days. Because, instead of the perfectly fine 1-8 in the conference system they'd been using for 20 years, they essentially went back to the division-based system with a few minor tweaks. (They also aren't good at math, seeing as there are 16 teams in the East and 14 in the West, but one thing at a time.)
If you finish among the top three in your division, you're guaranteed a playoff spot, with two wild cards going to the two teams with the next highest point totals. So, in theory, there can be five teams from one division and only three from the other (both the Metropolitan and Central Divisions had five playoff teams this year). And that only came about after the Union objected to the originally-proposed method of just the top four in each division, using that exact situation as their main point. (Last year, in fact, both wild cards in the West came out of the Central Division, and they both had more points than Calgary, which got in by finishing third in the Pacific.) So, the NHL tweaked it, came up with the wild cards, and the Union agreed to the revised format.
Here's the problem with the current format: the bracket is division-based. The second- and third-place teams in the same division play each other in the first round, and the winner of that series plays the winner of the series involving the first-place team in their division. But what if one division is significantly stronger than the other? What if the third-place team in one division was the third-best team in the conference during the regular season? Not only are they not guaranteed home ice, you're also guaranteeing that either the second- or third-best team won't get out of the first round. And, since one of the better teams will definitely be knocked out, you're also guaranteeing that a weaker team has to advance.
What's worse, there's no protection for the top team. Washington and Dallas finished 1-2 in the race for the President's Trophy, and, as such, had home ice in their respective conferences. But they both had to face the team with the second-highest point in the conference in the second round of the playoffs! Why? Because Pittsburgh and Washington are in the same division, and so are Dallas and St. Louis.
Think I'm overreacting to a one-year anamoly? Well, I'm not. The NHL has used this format for three years. Of the six Conference Finals since then, three of them, including both series this year, would've been first-round series if the teams were seeded straight 1-8 regardless of division. In fact, with the exception of the Eastern Conference last year, the first round would've been totally different:
2014: EAST: Boston-Detroit, Pittsburgh-Columbus, Tampa Bay-Philadelphia, Montreal-Rangers; WEST: Anaheim-Dallas, Colorado-Minnesota, St. Louis-Los Angeles, San Jose-Chicago
2015: WEST: Anaheim-Calgary, St. Louis-Winnipeg, Nashville-Minnesota, Chicago-Vancouver
2016: EAST: Washington-Detroit, Florida-Philadelphia, Pittsburgh-Tampa Bay, Rangers-Islanders; WEST: Dallas-Minnesota, Anaheim-Nashville, St. Louis-San Jose, Chicago-Los Angeles
As you can see, setting up the playoffs based on where you finished in the division instead of the conference has had a major impact...and not necessarily in a good way. The best teams shouldn't meet until the later rounds. I don't care if they're in the same division. If they're the two best teams, they're the two best teams. And don't you want the best teams to be the ones playing for the Cup?
My solution is incredibly simple. All the NHL needs to do is change it from division-based to conference-based. The two division winners get the top two seeds, but the remaining teams are seeded 3-8 based on their regular-season point totals, NOT where they finished in their division. Because, as this season proved, sometimes the best team and second-best team come from the same division. And if that's the case, they should meet in the Conference Finals. Not the semifinals.
No comments:
Post a Comment