NHL Playoff Format: Is It Fair to the Best Teams?
The NHL’s general managers meetings concluded this week with a familiar outcome: Commissioner Gary Bettman defending the status quo, even in the face of growing criticism regarding the current playoff format. While discussions around goalie interference and headshots predictably surfaced, it was Bettman’s staunch defense of the playoff structure that drew significant attention, particularly as the regular season nears its conclusion and potential imbalances become increasingly apparent.
The core of the debate centers on the divisional playoff format, which doesn’t seed teams one through eight based on overall standings, as is common in leagues like the NBA. Instead, the top three teams from each division automatically qualify, with two Wild Card spots awarded regardless of division affiliation. This system often leads to divisional rivals facing off in the early rounds, potentially eliminating strong teams before they have a chance to compete against the best in the conference.
This year’s Central Division exemplifies the issue. As of , three teams – the Colorado Avalanche, Dallas Stars, and Minnesota Wild – are poised to finish with impressive records. However, the format guarantees that at least two of these contenders will be eliminated by the end of the second round, facing each other in the early stages of the playoffs. This scenario raises questions about whether the system truly rewards regular-season success.
Bettman, however, remains “more than comfortable” with the current setup. “It gives us a sensational first round. Probably the best playoff first round in any sport,” he stated, as reported by both The Athletic and Yahoo Sports. “We receive more games and longer series as a result of the format. And you can always pick at certain situations in any given year and say, ‘Well, I’d like it to be different that year.’ But if you look at the body of work that our playoffs represent over time, what we have now works extraordinarily well.”
This perspective, however, doesn’t resonate with everyone. The argument that the format prioritizes entertainment value over competitive fairness is gaining traction. For teams like the Minnesota Wild, who have invested heavily in building a contender, the prospect of a challenging first-round matchup – and a potentially early exit – despite a strong regular season is a significant concern. As one observer noted, the reward for building a successful team isn’t necessarily a fairer path through the playoffs, but rather “more games and longer series” against equally formidable opponents.
The issue isn’t new. The Toronto Maple Leafs, despite consistently accumulating points over the past nine seasons (nearly 900, third-most in the league over that span), frequently found themselves facing tough divisional opponents like the Tampa Bay Lightning and Boston Bruins in the first round, often resulting in premature playoff exits. This pattern highlights a recurring problem: strong teams being forced to eliminate each other before reaching the later stages of the postseason.
Beyond the playoff format itself, concerns were also raised about the NHL’s current standings system. The league awards three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime/shootout win, and one for an overtime/shootout loss. While the intention is to encourage more competitive games and prevent teams from simply playing for the overtime point, the system may inadvertently disincentivize aggressive play in the final minutes of tied games. Teams, particularly when playing out-of-conference opponents, may prioritize securing at least one point through overtime, leading to a more conservative style of play and fewer scoring chances.
The Professional Women’s Hockey League (PHWL) offers a potential solution: awarding three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime/shootout win, and one for an overtime/shootout loss. This system incentivizes teams to push for a regulation win, fostering a more dynamic and exciting game. Switching to this model in the NHL could encourage more aggressive play and reward teams for consistently winning in regulation time.
Bettman’s primary objective, as he acknowledged, is to ensure the league’s continued financial health. He believes the current playoff format achieves this by keeping more teams and fan bases engaged for a longer period. However, critics argue that prioritizing entertainment value at the expense of competitive integrity is a short-sighted approach. A system that genuinely rewards regular-season success and provides the best teams with a fair chance to compete for the Stanley Cup is crucial for maintaining the league’s credibility and long-term appeal.
The current format often creates situations where divisional matchups become predetermined, diminishing the importance of late-season games. The question, as one analyst put it, is simple: “Why do you not seek your best teams to have the best chance to win the Stanley Cup?” If the league cannot convincingly defend the current format’s ability to achieve this, then it’s time for a change. Fans deserve to believe that every point matters and that building a great team will be rewarded with a legitimate opportunity to contend for the championship. Anything less risks turning the playoffs into an exhibition series rather than a true competition, undermining the integrity of the sport.
As the NHL season progresses, the potential for a top team like the Colorado Avalanche to be forced into a challenging first-round matchup serves as a stark reminder of the flaws in the current system. A reevaluation of the playoff format, and the standings system, is necessary to ensure that the league prioritizes competitive fairness and rewards the teams that consistently perform at the highest level.