All 32 NHL teams should play playoffs

[You Mad Bro?]

5 minutes ago, Slegr said:

What’s so special about making the playoffs? Leafs have been doing it for years.

[erkayloomeh]

The top 18 teams should compete for the cup. 

The bottom 14 should have a playoffs for the draft position. 

[-AJ-]

1 hour ago, erkayloomeh said:

The top 18 teams should compete for the cup. 

The bottom 14 should have a playoffs for the draft position. 

The worst teams would likely stay bad for much longer this way. In this world, the Canucks would have a strong chance at the #1 overall pick, but other teams that desperately need the help far more than us would be stuck with a middle of the round pick every year and have to rely on expert scouting to find a gem at 15th or so.

[jatylo]

I wouldn't mind a 20 team format. Let the 4 wildcard teams in each conference battle it out for the last 2 spots in a best of 3 mini series. The higher ranked team hosts all 3 games as their advantage.

[iinatcc]

This is fun a 32 team playoffs would make an interesting format 

 

so all 16 teams in a conference go to the playoffs but in the 1st round it should be something like 

 

from 1 vs 16 to 4 vs 13 - Top seeded team only needs to win 1 game, while lower seeded team must win 3 

5 to 12, 6 to 11 - Top seeded team only needs to win 2 games, while lower seeded team must win 3 

7 vs 10, 8 vs. 9 - Regular best of 5 series   

 

[iinatcc]

11 hours ago, erkayloomeh said:

The top 18 teams should compete for the cup. 

The bottom 14 should have a playoffs for the draft position. 

I don't see the point of this. Wouldn't most team not even try then? 

Let's say if the top 3 spots are centers, why would let's say Bo Horvat even give an effort knowing he's playing so someone can replace him?

[lmm]

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

0Regular season overtime began in the early 80s, but they didn't actually reward any points for that loss until the 1999-00 season you mentioned.

 

That said, there are definitely both more points and wins in today's NHL. More wins begin existing in the early 80s, just by virtue of allowing teams an extra five minutes to resolve ties in sudden death. Even more wins enter the NHL in 2005-06 when shootouts eliminate all ties, forcing a winner of every game. It's likely that this particularly helped strong teams who were able to now force wins in OT or shootout when they may have previously settled for a tie. As a result, records like Tampa's in 2019-20 are less impressive than Detroit in 1995-96 or Montreal in 1976-77.

 

Points started increasing in 1999-00, with the advent of the three-point game, and this is very obvious to anyone who looks at how many points it took to be a contender in the older days. In 1991-92, with an 80-game season, the Canucks had 96 points and finished 4th in the NHL. Just this year, our Canucks had 92 points in 82 games and finished 18th. In 80 games, our season would've pro-rated to 90 points, but it still stands to show the drastic difference in total points accumulated on average.

AJ I quoted you for reference

1 hour ago, Whaleroad Train said:

If it isn't broke - don't fix it.

This is the NHL

If its broke...

add a lottery system

 

for those of you who have net been around as long as the OT system

the stated goal of OT was to stop teams from "locking down, and playing for a tie" with 10 minutes to go in the third period

it did not really work because teams still played for a tie through 65 minutes

so 4on4 was added, then 3on3 and loser points

now you hear John and John and other broadcasters talking about teams "locking down to make sures they get something out of this game"

So, we are now celebrating what was the original problem the NHL was trying to cure

 

When the loser point was added, there was a weak push to move to a 3-2-1 points format

Ironically, it was poopooed because moving to a 3-2-1 system would "ruin the record book" 

so, by NHL logic making all games worth 3 points was bad, but making some games, ( the games they were initially trying to solve) worth 3 points is good

 

Then because that made problems they needed to create new stats, ROW and then RW

But that is still not enough because a team that goes 40-40-0-2 is still not a .500  team because they lost 2 mor games than they won

So they create another skewed stat that is points %

points % is wrong because it does not factor points bled to other teams via the loser point

 

And all this because the NHL could not figure out how to deal with ties 

 

It is broke, but adding more teams to the playoffs won't fix it

[-AJ-]

1 hour ago, lmm said:

AJ I quoted you for reference

This is the NHL

If its broke...

add a lottery system

 

for those of you who have net been around as long as the OT system

the stated goal of OT was to stop teams from "locking down, and playing for a tie" with 10 minutes to go in the third period

it did not really work because teams still played for a tie through 65 minutes

so 4on4 was added, then 3on3 and loser points

now you hear John and John and other broadcasters talking about teams "locking down to make sures they get something out of this game"

So, we are now celebrating what was the original problem the NHL was trying to cure

 

When the loser point was added, there was a weak push to move to a 3-2-1 points format

Ironically, it was poopooed because moving to a 3-2-1 system would "ruin the record book" 

so, by NHL logic making all games worth 3 points was bad, but making some games, ( the games they were initially trying to solve) worth 3 points is good

 

Then because that made problems they needed to create new stats, ROW and then RW

But that is still not enough because a team that goes 40-40-0-2 is still not a .500  team because they lost 2 mor games than they won

So they create another skewed stat that is points %

points % is wrong because it does not factor points bled to other teams via the loser point

 

And all this because the NHL could not figure out how to deal with ties 

 

It is broke, but adding more teams to the playoffs won't fix it

Yeah, it's ironic because we already can't compare a 40-win season in today's game to a 40-win season from the late 70s, so we might as well add a 3-2-1 system. Would actually give real incentive to win in regulation. The current tie-breaking as regulation wins helps, but not enough to be significant, IMO.

[lmm]

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

Yeah, it's ironic because we already can't compare a 40-win season in today's game to a 40-win season from the late 70s, so we might as well add a 3-2-1 system. Would actually give real incentive to win in regulation. The current tie-breaking as regulation wins helps, but not enough to be significant, IMO.

I actually think the NHL has taken the long route to getting it backwards

they should have gone for a 3-1 points scheme

3 points for a win, 1 for a tie

that would have given teams the incentive to play for a win 25 years ago

the last 5 minutes of the game would be better than any 4v4-3v3 shootout that they have had since this began

it would also increase the ability for teams to "Win" into the playoffs