NHL Realignment Good, Conference Playoffs Bad

Ed. note:  @DaveLozo touched on this subject two weeks ago on NHL.com, but I’ve looked at it in greater depth and drawn different conclusions.

If the NHL playoffs began today, the first round matchups would look like this:


Fast-forward one year, to the newly-realigned NHL.  If the playoffs began (one year from) today, the first round would be dramatically different:

  • A:  VAN v LAK, SJS v PHX
  • B:  CHI v STL, MIN v DET
  • C:  BOS v OTT, FLA v TOR
  • D:  PHI v NJD, NYR v PIT

Two playoff pairings are unchanged:  Bruins-Senators and Rangers-Penguins.  The changes, though, are cause for concern.  The Stars (39 pts., 5th in Conf. B) and Predators (38 pts., 6th in Conf. B) are out, while the Coyotes (37 pts., 3rd in Conf. A) and Kings (34 pts., 4th in Conf. A) are in.

Some (including Mr. Lozo) argue these changes are irrelevant, as inferior teams sneak into the playoffs while superior teams hit the links every April under the current system.  In reality, the “divisional” playoff format only magnifies the flaws of the current system.  Applying the NHL’s realignment for 2012-2013 to the six completed post-lockout seasons illustrates the point.

  • 2010-2011:  Kings (98 pts.) out, Stars (95 pts.) in.
  • 2009-2010:  Avalanche (95 pts.) out, Blues (90 pts.) in.
  • 2008-2009:  Hurricanes (97 pts.) & Rangers (95 pts.) out, Panthers (93 pts.) & Sabres (91 pts.) in.
  • 2007-2008:  Flyers (95 pts.) out, Sabres (90 pts.) in.
  • 2006-2007:  Thrashers/Jets (97 pts.) out, Maple Leafs (91 pts.) in.
  • 2005-2006:  Oilers (95 pts.) out, Wild (84 pts.) in.

Isn’t the raison d’etre for the regular season to determine which teams are worthy of advancement to the Stanley Cup Playoffs?  In what parallel universe is an 84-point team more playoff-worthy than a 95-point team?

It’s true that the same thing happens every season under the current system, albeit not in such dramatic fashion.  The contrast is largely muted by the fact that the teams are divided into large, impersonal, fifteen-team Eastern and Western conferences, with the top eight in each making the playoffs.  No matter how many points a team has, it’s hard to argue they deserve a playoff seed when finishing ninth in the conference.

On the other hand, making the conferences much smaller (and more intimate) invites close comparison.  Inequities (such as the 05-06 Oilers-Wild example) stand out.  Today, the ninth-place GM might offer up a weak, “We’d be in the playoffs, if only we were in the other conference”, but even that GM knows it’s a ridiculous argument.  Tomorrow, however, GMs will state with conviction, “Under the old alignment, we’d be in the playoffs”.  The new “divisional” playoff system will breed frustration and discontent, from fans to players to coaches to General Managers, and it’s only a matter of time before a 100-point team misses the playoffs.

The most equitable playoff system would be one in which the four conference champions claim the top four seeds, then the remaining twelve slots are filled with the next best twelve teams, period.  Seed them one through sixteen and go.

Naysayers will complain about the potential travel “nightmares” of first round matchups between, say, Boston and Vancouver.  That five-hour flight is not much worse than the (potential) real-life first round matchups between Chicago and San Jose (3:41) or Dallas and Vancouver (3:32).  Besides, I’ve seen 24/7.  I’ve seen Ryan Callahan get his shoulder iced while eating a chicken parmigiana sandwich on the New York Rangers’ charter flight.  NHL players don’t exactly squeeze into a Coach-class seat with a little bag of peanuts, next to a crying baby (insert lame Sidney Crosby joke here, if you must).  Travel in the NHL today isn’t a problem; time-zone changes are.  Since 1967, however, the league has stretched across North America.  Deal with it.

The NHL realignment is a bold, forward-thinking move.  The new playoff system is a big step backward.




About Matt Pryor

Freelance writer of hockey, history and travel. Born and raised in Texas. Saw first hockey game 22 FEB 1980 (USA 4, USSR 3), was instantly hooked. Attended first NHL game 26 DEC 1981 (Colorado Rockies 6, Calgary Flames 3). Semi-retired beer league player. Shoots left.


One thought on “NHL Realignment Good, Conference Playoffs Bad

  1. I completely agree with you on this. I feel that the worst part of the new plan is the way in which the playoffs will be handled. I really like your proposition to have the top four teams automatically make it and then the rest of the spots to filled by the next best twelve teams regardless of their conference.

    Posted by Carly Dressen (@carlaylay11) | February 19, 2012, 11:22

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Twitter Updates

  • ...This suggests that the LAK will defeat CHI in Game 6 to play the NYR for the Stanley Cup 3 years ago
  • Since 2005/6, when a Round 3 team wins Game 5, they lose Game 6 66.7% of the time; also, Western series are determined by Game 5.889... 3 years ago
  • ...So those stats point to the NYR claiming victory tonight and playing the winner from the Western Conference in the Finals 3 years ago
  • Since 2005/6, when a Round 3 team wins Game 5, they lose Game 6 60% of the time; also, Eastern series are determined by Game 5.778... 3 years ago
  • 4. Top 4 in each DIV play 2 rounds seeded within the DIV, 1 round versus other DIV champ and then the Finals between the Conference champs. 3 years ago

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 27 other followers

%d bloggers like this: