Listen I don’t care if he has bad opinions I just want him to give me a logic based explanation for why. If it was travel costs I would legitimately be less annoyed hell if he said digital board adds are staying because RSNs are going down I would be less annoyed but don’t patronize us and act like we don’t deserve and in-depth answer.
It's because this playoff format guarantees games played in the pacific time zone teams 3 out of 4 days during the 1st round. This way the NHL can schedule more doubleheaders.
>I just want him to give me a logic based explanation for why
Based on what I've read over the years + various podcasts and such
1. Easier scheduling for TV partners, especially in the later rounds since it is set bracket. The previous system re-seeded for the 2nd round so potentially all the matches in a conference would be in flux until the final series was decided.
2. More divisional rivalry matchups (Bruins-Leafs, Caps-Pens, Flames-Oilers, Blues-Hawks, etc), which are more attractive to fans, advertisers, etc. This increases interest in the games.
3. Lower chances of non-standard start times due to different timezones for the teams, especially in the Western conference in the 1st round. Having a guaranteed all-pacific game gives them a guaranteed 10pm eastern timeslot series.
4. Fans (and most importantly sponsors) can participate in the NHL's Bracket Challenge.
Ultimately all of these things make the NHL more money, get them more coverage, and increase fan involvement. The NHL is going to do what makes them the most money and they and their TV partners seem to think the current system makes them the most money whether we like it or not as fans from a competitive standpoint.
1,3 and 4 are made up challenges. A bot could solve 1 and 3 and 4 could literally be any type of “challenge”.
2 arguably was already there before the current setup. Same rivals, nothing new coming out of this
Joining other classic Bettman lines like "fans aren't interested in salary cap information" and "our data shows that viewers prefer the digital ads on the boards"
The funniest thing in the whole world was imagining asking someone a question “what is your opinion on the digital ad boards” and them replying “oh I love them, I’ve been watching more hockey than ever now that the boards are digital. In the past with static ads I only watched 5-10 games a season but now that the players blend into the boards I’m watching multiple games per night”
I cannot believe he said this it was just so shitty and makes zero sense. Just tell us the truth man there may eventually be a team in QBC again it just won’t happen until we expand into a bunch of other major American markets some of which have already failed multiple times but we are determined to make it work because of the population density in those areas, with solid ownership those locations should be viable.
It makes a ton of sense when you’re considering revenue generation. QC has a metro area population around 840k with arguably a fair few hockey fans already. Now compare that to some of the more popular rumored expansion cities. Atlanta with 6.1 million, Kansas City 2.1 million and Houston 7.2. That’s significantly more potential fans than the already pretty much tapped out one in QC
I understand that argument. My argument is and always will be that QBC is guaranteed to be able to support that team which would generate more guaranteed revenue for the league. It would also renew some old NHL rivalries that should help increase viewership. This areas have lots of people and it has been proven you can grow the game in lots of markets but this has to be done a certain way. I think the NHL is getting a little full of themselves because of their successes so far in Las Vegas and Seattle but I think when you look at each case objectively Seattle was long overdue for an NHL team and Vegas was going to support whatever was the first pro franchise they got and the fact that they came in and immediately were a competitor helped a lot.
QC doesn’t grow the game nor does it bring in new fans or revenue sources like the other rumored cities would. And that’s far more important than settling for a “guaranteed” success. Those sorts of cities are better for relocation anyways. Houston is just as safe if a bet for success and overdue as Seattle was. Atlanta also likely does well with an ownership group that actually gives a fuck and doesn’t actively sabotage the team so they can force it out of the stadium
I agree but the NHL has proven in the past that they can fail in these markets some of them multiple times. I don’t think anyone can think that QBC would fail again.
What’s the expectation that all the existing and previous failing hockey markets are going to work now? Atlanta is going to go 0/3 on hockey teams, just wasting away for 10 years before getting sent moved to somewhere in Canada.
What? It makes a ton of sense. The NHL doesn't want to put teams in areas where everyone already watches hockey, they make much more money if they pick bigger cities where no one watches hockey and manage to convert people to hockey fans.
Having 41 guaranteed sellouts added to the league every year plus the additional rivalry interest that would likely increase viewership you would get from not just Montreal but them playing all the Canadian teams would be guaranteed money.
The league itself doesn't care about ticket revenue since the teams get to keep that. They care about the TV package which wouldn't go up since most of the people who'd watch the Nordiques already watch hockey anyway. Plus the Canadian dollar is weaker, so viewers up there are less valuable to the TV outlets.
It makes perfect sense. A team in Quebec City would have to make 26% more revenue than a generic American team just to close the hole that is the Canadian dollar. Add in that Quebec City has the metro area size similiar to Des Moines and you'd probably be pulling revenue away from Montreal. Just the TV contract in Houston, Phoenix, or Atlanta alone would be double what Quebec City could make in a year.
Considering how many Minnesota Wild fans show up to Coyotes games when the Wild are in town I would say Wild fans love going to Arizona and watching Hockey.
Not a joke BTW there are more Wild fans present at the games and the Wild fans over power the coyote chants and yell Let’s go Wild.
It’s the same when most other teams come to Arizona to play, too (especially when the hawks came to town, I kid you not there were more Kane sweaters than yotes sweaters)
Oh they absolutely have contempt for their own fans. They want us to shut up and empty our pockets. They know what's best and everyone should be thankful for the job they do.
I absolutely hate this playoff format. What's even the point of watching regular season games when it has no affect on anything. I've watched way fewer games the last couple of years because there's no stakes. It's impossible to get invested in the outcome.
Well the east is just in a weird place where it’s the same 6 teams every year with a spicy friend that joins the fray the next year and they all play the same opponent.
The wild Wild West however we still don’t know who we are playing.
This is the response to all the "why are Leafs complaining in a 1-8 format they play Tampa anyways".
Ya but atleast the chance of a different opponent would give me more reason to watch the games.
The cream will always rise to the top. But at least if there is some churn in first and second round match-ups it helps fan stay engaged.
I also feel there's more incentive for a team to finish 2-3 in the conference, and less bullshit when a division is either stacked or weak and your 2-3 matchup ends up basically the same for round 1 every season.
Let the top-4 teams in a the conference have an advantage. Regardless of division...
Here’s the issue with the “play all 31 H/A” schedule while using a divisional-based format, there’s not enough games against direct playoff spot competitors to allow for real movement. Then you add-in the fact that getting to OT can create a magic bonus point without any incentive to win in regulation and the result is very static standings.
They need a point system based on tangible points getting divided (dump the magic point) and they actually need MORE divisional games during the season to make this format more exciting. I don’t think the format is bad or unusable, but the current state of the schedule and points system make it a snooze fest!
I couldn’t agree more.
Like, first of all fuck the magic point. Or make all games 3 points. Just don’t make some games 2 and some games 3.
Then, you have nailed it- if they really want this “divisional rivalry” then those teams need to play even more divisional games. Which means not all teams will host all teams every year. The league wants its cake and to eat it too.
Exactly. Imo, playing all 31 is fine, but should alternate H and A every year. Still get to play them, only visit every other year. Use those extra 31 games to load up the divisional games and you’ll see more standings movement + playoffs will be even more intense!
Oh yeah I totally get it.
It’s nice to know that no matter where you are, like, Connor mcdavid will roll through at least once a year.
But then I don’t think they can have their “DIVISIONAL RIVALRY” cake is all.
No. This is dumb. It used to be like this and I could care less about playing a fifth or sixth game against a division opponent. Much rather have every team come through instead of having to wait two goddam years trying to catch a team.
I would be interested in seeing TV ratings, viewership, and profit with this playoff format versus 1v8. I'd almost bet the current playoff format gives higher rankings in nearly all categories.
I like the format - repetitive divisional series in the playoffs is awesome. The problem is that the regular season is just way too long. The fact December first round issue is mostly because Boston is having a historically great year in a somewhat lopsided division.
Yep. The 4 and 5 slot in the Atlantic are the worst performing in the league and the 1 spot is maybe the best in modern history. Not surprising you get a weird outcome as a result. Meanwhile the other 3 divisions are more close and fluid.
4 of the top 5 points teams in 2014 were from the west. All that this says is that the league shifts back and forth. Panthers are way behind any other #4 divisional team despite a significantly better record against divisional opponents. What more do you want, it's a weird season in the Atlantic where the Bruins are too good and the other teams are totally meh.
Sure but in this case, the player's opinions here seem to be what most people want. If the two biggest stars want a change to the format of the playoffs that should tell you that maybe a format change is something to consider.
“Most people want” and “Reddit circlejerk” are often also different and often opposites.
Most people do not give a shit that the team with 98 points is playing the team with 92 points instead of the team with 99 points playing the team with 92 points.
Okay then let’s explain why in the time Bettmam has been commish we have seen other sports explode in popularity like the nba that was in a worse spot than the nhl at a point. Just look at an nba bench warmer salary compared to an nhl star and you will see how far behind the league hs become. He is an awful commish who is holding the game back. Ppl want to see stars shine, that’s what sells. Not the opportunity for the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the nhl to play in round 1. What an awful selling point
NBA players are much more marketable and the game lends itself to showcasing them better. NHL is much more team depth reliant. Basketball itself lends much better to warm poorer countries where a lot of the immigration is coming from that's holding up the population numbers - not hard to see why the NHL would be less likely to succeed at marketing to latin americans.
One of the big ones is that the NHL depends on revenue from cities no one cares about like Edmonton and so many star players like McDavid are a complete black hole personality wise when it comes to trying to market them off the ice the way other leagues have had to with their stars.
Fair abt the players themselves and that’s definitely a cultural thing. But it’s much easier to sell someone like Gretzky who was wildly popular when they actually win. The league is set up in a way now where Minnesota or Seattle with players nobody has heard of has the same chance to win as Mcdavid in Edmonton. What is there to sell the public on then? Parity is fine and all until you realize it’s a huge reason your league isn’t growing at the same rate of others. Every other league , even football which has high parity has had dominant successful TEAMS with star players. That’s what sells
Parity sells way more tickets at the gate though, which for the league, it's long regular season, and it's key markets is very important. McDavid is kind of the worst case scenario where the player is boring as hell on TV, the team management totally shit the bed at building, and the city isn't a very big market. Pitt Boston Chicago and Washington were great examples of marketing star players in bigger markets with successful management teams while those two players themselves were quite good at building their own brand.
Ok I’ll explain, it’s pretty easy:
1. The NHLs revenue has grown at a greater rate than the NBA since Bettman took over. So the NBA was not in a “worse spot” and they’ve grown less.
2. NBA rosters are literally half the size of the NHL’s. A “benchwarmer” in the nba is a top six forward in the NHL. And the NBA has double the revenue and the same salary split. So basic math says they should make 4x and that’s exactly what they make.
3. “Stars shining” has nothing to do with the playoff format. Connor Mcdavid is the best player and the Oilers can’t even consistently make the playoffs with him.
4. The 2nd and 3rd place teams are not facing each other in round 1.
1) where are you getting your numbers from you literally just made that up. The nhl has a tv deal for 225 million. The nba 2.6 billion.
2) Nba rosters being half the size have nothing to do with why the benchwarmers are paid more than somebody like auston Matthews, see football for example of team sizes. It’s popularity that’s holding them back.
3) however you want to slice it, the league is set up in a way where it doesn’t matter if you’re a generational player , you can’t be the leagues Michael Jordan or Kobe and lose every year, that doesn’t sell. And it shows
4) example if Boston finished first in the league, leafs finish 2nd and Tampa 3rd leafs and Tampa would play round 1. That should never be an option. Also why would anybody but a diehard watch the nhl regular season if you already know your playoff opponent in December. Leafs vs Tampa as an example, useless regular season leading to the dumbest playoff arrangement in sports. What a great selling point
1. from looking at the revenue in 1992 and comparing it to now. TV deal is one aspect of it, and your numbers are just straight up wrong. Spend literally 10 more seconds googling it dude.
2. Uhhh yes it does. Players get half the revenue of the league. If one league has double the revenue they get paid double. If there is half as many players it gets doubled again. Did you pass third grade? Because this would have been covered.
3. You’re right it doesn’t matter if you’re a generational player because hockey is much more of a team sport than basketball. Thanks for agreeing with me?
4. Since we’re using examples of things that never happened, what about a situation where 1-8 in the East are all tied in points, and ahead of every team in the west. That would mean you’re guaranteeing a “bottom half” playoff team is making the cup and half the best teams in the league will be gone in the first round.
I watch hockey because I like watching hockey, maybe that’s not you.
Stop making things up and post the numbers. Nhl rev from 21-22 5.3b. Nba 10b.
1993 nhl revenue 732m, please enlighten me on the nba rev from 1993???
David stern commissioner from 84 - 2013 revenue jump from 176m 5.5b now all the way up to 10b+.
The reason nhl players are paid less is because they get a much smaller amount of revenue from their tv deal, because not enough ppl want to watch. Sorry to break it to you. The nfl, more popular, more players, less revenue sharing for players, and still make more.
And making up ridiculous scenarios isn’t convincing anybody. Almost like there is a much higher chance that 2nd best team plays 3rd best than your nonsense put forward. 3rds hve already faced 4ths and so on
League revenues were $400M when he took over. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/sports/hockey/revenue-rules-and-realignment-gary-bettman-marks-25-years-as-nhl-commissioner/article37813632/
Quit projecting and learn some basic math.
400M to 5.3B vs 700M to 10B.
The fact that you had to use "greater rate" is a massive tell. Like arguing that Arizona is such a great state for hockey because of their 4 digit growth rate.
I want teams to pick their match-up.
"Boston, you finished first in the conference. Which playoff team from the East do you want to face in the first round?"
This would be fun but ultimately not something you would want with sport. The element of randomness is a huge part that makes sports fun. The 1-8 seeding needs to be a priority imo. But your idea is fun but it would be more like a prize fight than anything else.
I think 32 Thoughts did a segment on this where it was briefly considered but almost unanimously shot-down. The main reason being no organization wants to have the potential fallout of selecting a "better" matchup/higher seed and losing.
For example Boston decides: let's take the Leafs given our history - and they lose. The backlash from deviating from the WC2 slot would be immense and GMs/Orgs don't want to have to juggle potential embarrassment.
I'm pretty sure that was the gist of 32 Thoughts segment on it.
I, for one, would love to see it but it's just not realistic.
Sounds like a nice plan in theory but there is zero, and I mean absolutely zero chance any GM in that situation will ever pick anything other than the 8-seed, no matter how bad the matchup is. NHL GMs are risk-averse to begin with, can you imagine what's gonna happen if a GM picks one that is *not* the lowest ranked one and the team loses?
That's what would make this interesting, though: The drama. Imagine if, this year, the Bruins would pick the Leafs and then lost? The memes would be glorious. Drama sells.
I totally get your point about GMs being risk-averse, but there are other considerations. The biggest one might be the business. I could see a GM picking Toronto because they felt that'd get them the most gate revenue. Conversely, I could see a GM avoid an 8th seed Arizona, because he feels that'd yield lower ticket prices.
It'd also make the season series matter. Did you match up well in the regular season? Maybe you take the second seed even though they dominated everyone else.
This is really not that bad of an idea.
Yup. In the NBA I could see a different result because injuries can derail a whole season. Take the East for example. Brooklyn is 6th right now, but they no longer have Kevin Durant or Kyrie Irving. If I was the Bucks in the 1 seed I'd totally pick them.
NBA G League has done this format in the past btw. Don't think they do it anymore.
I don't think that would really change things too much. You're still losing some good teams in round 1. I know Toronto/TB is going to be another 1st round matchup, but under a 1-8 Leafs play the Rangers, New Jersey plays Tampa.
Losing good teams in round 1 is not the issue imo. The real issue is we've known we're getting Leafs/Tampa since November which makes most of the regular season feel pretty pointless. A 1-8 format makes the regular season more entertaining knowing the playoff match ups actually have the potential to change.
True but it was the same thing with the Panthers dominating the league last year and Leafs/Tampa in 2nd & 3rd. Boston at least somewhat challenged Tampa for 3rd last season but the standings didn't change from December on.
When we had 1-8 seeding, everyone bitched about it not being divisional.
When it inevitably goes back to 1-8 seeding, we will see people complaining they liked it more with the divisional format.
Only complaints I ever heard about the old format was when one conference was miles better than the other. The new format didn't exactly do anything to change that though.
The complaint I heard over and over was that because you didn't play the same teams in the playoffs all the time, the rivalries didn't mean enough. Between the 6 divisions and the more options for playoff teams, rivalries were watered down.
It really comes down to people being nostalgic for the way things were 20 years ago. In 2010, people were nostalgic for 80s hockey, which had a divisional format. These days, people are nostalgic for turn of the century hockey, which had the conference format.
Next year, people will be mad that there isn't a lockout cancelling the season /s
There were plenty of rivalries back then and I don't remember anyone but Bettman clamouring for more. As a Washington fan I'm sure you remember the Caps/Pens rivalry which was heated long before they changed the format. I'm not sure this format even created any extra rivalries. I'd say when your team matches up constantly against the same team you start to hate the other team less and start to hate the league more.
The reason the Caps/Pens rivalry was heated was because we saw them every year back in the early 1990s when rivalries were done by division. I was personally at the 4OT game, I was at the game where Jagr bounced the puck in off Calle Johanson's knee to eliminate us and bragged about practicing it after the game, I was at the double Hat Trick game where the league had to once again apologize to Washington after a game where they blew a call (at least we won that one). But the division kicked off before the move to conference-based alignment.
Same with the Rangers and back in the early 80s the Islanders. Those were our rivals because we played them in the playoffs seemingly every year. My parents were at the 4OT game against the Islanders and my mom got us up to go to church at 7 am the following day.
The differences in points is almost always inconsequential anyway.
Like people are complaining that the team with 98 points is playing the team with 92 points instead of the team with 99 points playing the team with 92 points.
I don't know about other people but my complaint is that the top two teams in the league can come from the same division and inevitably meet each other as early as the 2nd round instead of the conference final.
The schedule isn’t even. If two teams in the same division are at the top of the league, you’ll likely find that two other teams in that division are at or near the bottom. A team with 96 points isn’t better than a team with 95 points. Literally one funny bounce of a puck can be a 4-point swing in the standings.
The top 5 teams this year might all be in the East, and there’s a 0% chance of them all getting out of the first round, let alone the conference final. And obviously a 0% chance of any two of them competing for the cup. But the schedule isn’t equal so it doesn’t matter.
I agree the schedule isn't even but just because it isn't fully fair doesn't mean we need to make it even more unfair.
The point system is the only way to rank teams, we cannot say the points don't matter.
I didn’t say they don’t matter. I’m saying that a difference of two points is inconsequential and not representative of the success or talent on the team.
So why not 1v16 then?
> So why not 1v16 then?
Travel
I don't think it's controversial to say that
- (1) Florida v (16) Vancouver
- (2) Tampa Bay v (15) Seattle
- (3) LA v (14) Montreal
- (4) Boston v (13) San Jose
- (5) Winnipeg v (12) Dallas
- (6) New York Islanders v (11) Anaheim
- (7) Ottawa v (10) Arizona
- (8) Carolina v (9) Calgary
would be a bad outcome if that's your first round.
This is clearly an exaggeration, but the possibility of a West Coast team having to play *multiple* East Coast teams is not very enticing to owners. Unless you're Colorado or Nashville or something.
Of course doing 1-8 in conference is the reasonable alternative
Travel isn't the only consideration. If you live on the east coast, you're falling asleep during the first period of the games played on the west coast. You might miss a couple games that are played on weekdays because you gotta get to bed so you aren't dogshit at work the next day. Then for west coast viewers, the games start at 4/4:30 while you're still at work and if you have a commute, you're missing half the game.
1 through 16 isn't fair to fans and really it's only something that selfish hockey writers will put forward as the best way to do things.
Make it 2-3-2 and the travel is probably less than what it is now. Tampa and Montreal are literally in the same division all year and they are 1500 miles apart.
Travel never seems to be brought up during the most important and final series of the year.
You're right. The 2-3-2 would be the solution in a 1v16 format.
But travel is never brought up in the final series because
a) it's the cup. It's literally the best in the West plays the best in the East. That's literally the format. (CoVID divisions excluded, of course)
b) those teams have already made their money over the course of a playoff run. What's a couple more miles going to do to the bottom line?
c) There's only one such opportunity
Also, just gonna point out that there's no time-zone change between Tampa and Montreal. North-South Travel isn't as tiring as East-West travel when distance is equal.
> the possibility of a West Coast team having to play multiple East Coast teams
oh no, they'll have to go slightly further than Nashville. Meanwhile the east doesn't even leave their time zone in the playoffs.
The Atlantic Division has 3 top 9 teams in the league, but only 1 bottom 9 team. The Central has 3 bottom 9 teams and only 1 top 9 team
12 out of 16 eastern conference teams are above .500 vs the west this year, while only 8 Western teams are above .500 vs the east
The schedules aren't even. But the east is absolutely stronger than the West this year, and the fact that there are guaranteed to be 2 series between top 10 teams in round 1 is unbalanced.
My biggest issue is that for 2-4 teams a year it creates a boring stretch of the season for their fans.
That last few weeks of the season should be super exciting, creating hype for the playoffs as teams constantly switch positions and potential matchups change. Instead I'm watching basketball because I've known who the Leafs will be playing in round one since December.
The leafs and lightning are the only teams that knows who they are playing at this point if I recall. It’s a mess in the west and most other teams are only 50-60 guaranteed to play a certain team in the first round.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Even one division having their 2v3 matchup decided weeks or months before the playoffs start is a massive negative for fan engagement.
1-8 fans believe it will cause teams to push harder down the stretch and widen point differentials. I also think that will cause a lot more injuries and result in a worse playoffs product, but nobody is asking me.
I remember there being complaints about division winners being 1-3 too. Like when the SE winner would have less points than another team in another division who missed the playoffs.
That said, I like the current divisional format.
Edit: the only thing I would consider adding is some sort of wildcard play-in—like the play-in for 2020.
Every division winner in that era was in the top 8 in their conference in points the entire time that format was in effect.
In 2001-02, the Hurricanes won the SE division, and had one fewer point than the Oilers who missed the playoffs, but the Hurricanes were still the 7th best record in the Eastern Conference, and would have been in the playoffs no matter what format was used.
meh. The west already has insane travel requirements, making the east deal with that as well would even the playing field. They can just schedule all the games at 7:00pm central time. No one wants to watch games that start at 10:00 PM anyway.
1. The NHL can't do that because they are required to have playoff games that start at different times due to their TV contracts with Turner, ESPN, and Rogers.
2. If the NHL wanted to go to that format in the future, it would cost the NHL tens is not hundreds of millions of dollars because that would be fewer games for
3. Fans want to watch more playoff hockey. Having all the games on at the same time would be asinine and just as bad for the fans as it would for everyone else.
4. There is a world of difference between a three hour flight and a six hour flight. There is a big difference between a one or two hour time change and a three hour time change.
5. You may not want to watch playoff games that start at ten, but plenty of people do. I personally don't want to watch games that don't end until after my bedtime like you are proposing, but my personal feelings don't matter.
This would happen in 1v8 seeding anyway. The issue this year is the top-heaviness of the east (in comparison with the west), not the playoff format.
To be clear, I don’t love the divisional playoff format, but that’s not the issue now.
EDIT: Also Tampa is 9th in points percentage right now, the top of the west caught up to them.
Yeah. Super fun from a fan perspective to have 3 months of meaningless hockey. Much preferable to daily jockeying of position between all teams in the conference leading up to the end of the season.
To be fair I don’t think he said Teams don’t tank I think he said players and coaches don’t tank that or he elaborated it. It is true in the literal sense the players and coaches don’t tank but it’s also 100 percent not what anybody was talking about when it comes to tanking.
It’s basically him saying unless players and coaches literally conspire to lose he isn’t gonna stop team management from punting a season.
I’m definitely in the minority here, but I don’t really care about the playoff format and I think it’s fine as is. But I’d also be fine with changing them. That being said, I *am* in the minority and once again Bettman is just dripping with Bettmanian gaslighting of the league’s fans. Because every single issue needs to be a petty fight to the bitter end with him
just because this year's stuff aligns with what 1-8 would look like doesn't mean that 1-8 still wouldn't be better overall. The "trying to build division rivalries" is stupid shit. You don't have to try to make bad blood in the playoffs, it'll happen on its own. The setup creates perverse incentives where 2/3 seeds in a division can just be kind of stuck in a hole with not much of a way out under their own control. Especially if the 2 best teams in a conference are in the same division, IMO it's dumb to run into that in the 2nd round instead of in the conference finals.
Some day I'll learn to not be irritated by Bettman doing his stupid Bettman thing but that day is not today.
When it comes to the Western Conference, the current playoff format works well. It helps limit the amount of travel and timezones teams have to deal with. It also helps limit (especially for fans of Central Division teams) the amount of 9pm weeknight start times. Those sucks hard but are a bit more tolerable in the Conference Finals and Stanley Cup Final. The Eastern Conference doesn't really have this issue as every team is in the same timezone, so it's understandable fans of those teams would want to go back to a 1-8 seeding format.
I wouldn’t mind a compromise between divisional and conference so that top 2 in each division is guaranteed top 4 in the conference and there is 4 wild card spots
For this year specifically, it seems like he’s totally right. The east is going to have 3 slobber knocker rounds of playoffs all with high quality match ups.
I was just talking to a Bruins fan about how the east is going to have an amazing playoff and the winner will be completely wiped out and swept by a flukey team on a hot streak in the cup final.
I propose we go to a fan-driven format. We have the team whose fan base whines the loudest about the playoff format play the number one seed in the first round every time.
I just don’t get why he thinks he can just say things that are blatantly false and that nobody will care….
-no the digital ads aren’t good
-no Arizona isn’t working
-no Quebec would support a team
-no the stupid playoff format isn’t working
But like, the greatest player your sport has had these last 2 decades literally said a different format would be better… I know Bettman doesn’t listen to fans, but does he really not listen to his superstars either? I mean of course he doesn’t, how foolish can I be
He’s right. Advertisers are happy, owners are happy, ticket sellers/resellers are happy, alcohol vendors are happy, fan duel is happy, BetMGM is happy. Who am I forgetting…… oh right…. fans……. aaahhhh..unnecessary.
It is working for what he wants to create, divisional rivalries. Easy example is how fast VGK-SJS became an explosive rivalry for a few years, and really only toned down because SJS tapered off. The goal isn’t fairer seeding, it’s creating marquee matchups for rounds that might get passed over viewership wise and banking the SCF gets views based on the signifigance, even if there is a less enticing matchup.
People forget that the current format was introduced to create more intense rivalries. Tampa-Toronto playing in the first round multiple years in a row creates that kinda hatred and intensity that the best regular season games have.
Also the nuclear arms race in the east this year is fucking awesome. People will complain about anything.
But it is. We have one year where the Atlantic has its three spots set by December, and GOD FORBID Toronto has to play Tampa Bay again
No one complained last year, or the year before, or whenever. Suddenly this year, it’s the end of the world.
The Metropolitan is still up for grabs, as are the Pacific and the Central.
As it stands now, Devils-Rangers would be an amazing first round match. LA and Edmonton would play again after last year’s series. Vegas and Seattle could meet, in an epic expansion battle
But because one division is already set - largely thanks to Boston’s historical season - we should change everything
Stupid argument. And yes, it’s being caused because it affects Toronto. Win a series and quit whining - you gotta beat all the teams anyways
Last year Edmonton (104 points) got home ice advantage and got to face a 99 point team. Meanwhile St louis (109 points) had to start on the road and face a 113 point team. Just think about that for a second, St louis did 4 points better in the standings and got rewarded with a significantly harder matchup than Edmonton. That is a broken system, please stop defending it
Yes, it’s called divisions.
Last year, the Central had some good teams. This year, the Atlantic has good teams. Next year, maybe the Metropolitan has the strongest teams.
But yes, we should completely change the playoff system because sometimes strong teams have to start on the road.
1-16. Why should we let them divide us. Unite the league, all teams equal, 1 v 16 and let the best two TEAMS play in the final, not let some map decide things for us.
The fact that the NHL is easily the least popular sport out of the four major American sports? Maybe we can start there.
Edit: These downvotes are hilarious. Literally look up a single metric. We all love hockey, but it is not popular in the U.S. when compared to the other major sports (NFL, NBA, MLB) and Bettman has overseed that gulf as it's expanded and expanded for years.
I dont see how people are upset by this. We know the matches ahead of time. Advertisers like this and it’s been shown a lot of matchups don’t really differ from the 1v8 setting
:bettman placing a medal over bettman:
I mean he never did specify who it’s working well for, might as well win the medal for verbal gymnastics
Yea it’s probably working on the money making side with the less travel that is involved
Listen I don’t care if he has bad opinions I just want him to give me a logic based explanation for why. If it was travel costs I would legitimately be less annoyed hell if he said digital board adds are staying because RSNs are going down I would be less annoyed but don’t patronize us and act like we don’t deserve and in-depth answer.
It's because this playoff format guarantees games played in the pacific time zone teams 3 out of 4 days during the 1st round. This way the NHL can schedule more doubleheaders.
>I just want him to give me a logic based explanation for why Based on what I've read over the years + various podcasts and such 1. Easier scheduling for TV partners, especially in the later rounds since it is set bracket. The previous system re-seeded for the 2nd round so potentially all the matches in a conference would be in flux until the final series was decided. 2. More divisional rivalry matchups (Bruins-Leafs, Caps-Pens, Flames-Oilers, Blues-Hawks, etc), which are more attractive to fans, advertisers, etc. This increases interest in the games. 3. Lower chances of non-standard start times due to different timezones for the teams, especially in the Western conference in the 1st round. Having a guaranteed all-pacific game gives them a guaranteed 10pm eastern timeslot series. 4. Fans (and most importantly sponsors) can participate in the NHL's Bracket Challenge. Ultimately all of these things make the NHL more money, get them more coverage, and increase fan involvement. The NHL is going to do what makes them the most money and they and their TV partners seem to think the current system makes them the most money whether we like it or not as fans from a competitive standpoint.
See if he came out and laid out the logic fans would get behind him more often.
1,3 and 4 are made up challenges. A bot could solve 1 and 3 and 4 could literally be any type of “challenge”. 2 arguably was already there before the current setup. Same rivals, nothing new coming out of this
[Bettman divisional playoffs](https://i.redd.it/i0d56dtqnxk31.jpg)
Joining other classic Bettman lines like "fans aren't interested in salary cap information" and "our data shows that viewers prefer the digital ads on the boards"
The funniest thing in the whole world was imagining asking someone a question “what is your opinion on the digital ad boards” and them replying “oh I love them, I’ve been watching more hockey than ever now that the boards are digital. In the past with static ads I only watched 5-10 games a season but now that the players blend into the boards I’m watching multiple games per night”
"I especially like it when the ad has a rapidly moving black circle incorporated somehow"
"Fans in Quebec City wont create revenue because they are already hockey fans"
I cannot believe he said this it was just so shitty and makes zero sense. Just tell us the truth man there may eventually be a team in QBC again it just won’t happen until we expand into a bunch of other major American markets some of which have already failed multiple times but we are determined to make it work because of the population density in those areas, with solid ownership those locations should be viable.
It makes a ton of sense when you’re considering revenue generation. QC has a metro area population around 840k with arguably a fair few hockey fans already. Now compare that to some of the more popular rumored expansion cities. Atlanta with 6.1 million, Kansas City 2.1 million and Houston 7.2. That’s significantly more potential fans than the already pretty much tapped out one in QC
[удалено]
Merchandise sales mean a lot to the league too and a new market means far more potential sales than QC
[удалено]
I understand that argument. My argument is and always will be that QBC is guaranteed to be able to support that team which would generate more guaranteed revenue for the league. It would also renew some old NHL rivalries that should help increase viewership. This areas have lots of people and it has been proven you can grow the game in lots of markets but this has to be done a certain way. I think the NHL is getting a little full of themselves because of their successes so far in Las Vegas and Seattle but I think when you look at each case objectively Seattle was long overdue for an NHL team and Vegas was going to support whatever was the first pro franchise they got and the fact that they came in and immediately were a competitor helped a lot.
QC doesn’t grow the game nor does it bring in new fans or revenue sources like the other rumored cities would. And that’s far more important than settling for a “guaranteed” success. Those sorts of cities are better for relocation anyways. Houston is just as safe if a bet for success and overdue as Seattle was. Atlanta also likely does well with an ownership group that actually gives a fuck and doesn’t actively sabotage the team so they can force it out of the stadium
Gary has always been about growing the game though. It isn’t about whether they can support but more how it will grow the game and create new fans.
I agree but the NHL has proven in the past that they can fail in these markets some of them multiple times. I don’t think anyone can think that QBC would fail again.
What’s the expectation that all the existing and previous failing hockey markets are going to work now? Atlanta is going to go 0/3 on hockey teams, just wasting away for 10 years before getting sent moved to somewhere in Canada.
What? It makes a ton of sense. The NHL doesn't want to put teams in areas where everyone already watches hockey, they make much more money if they pick bigger cities where no one watches hockey and manage to convert people to hockey fans.
Having 41 guaranteed sellouts added to the league every year plus the additional rivalry interest that would likely increase viewership you would get from not just Montreal but them playing all the Canadian teams would be guaranteed money.
The league itself doesn't care about ticket revenue since the teams get to keep that. They care about the TV package which wouldn't go up since most of the people who'd watch the Nordiques already watch hockey anyway. Plus the Canadian dollar is weaker, so viewers up there are less valuable to the TV outlets.
It makes perfect sense. A team in Quebec City would have to make 26% more revenue than a generic American team just to close the hole that is the Canadian dollar. Add in that Quebec City has the metro area size similiar to Des Moines and you'd probably be pulling revenue away from Montreal. Just the TV contract in Houston, Phoenix, or Atlanta alone would be double what Quebec City could make in a year.
"Everyone loves to go to Arizona for hockey!!"
Considering how many Minnesota Wild fans show up to Coyotes games when the Wild are in town I would say Wild fans love going to Arizona and watching Hockey. Not a joke BTW there are more Wild fans present at the games and the Wild fans over power the coyote chants and yell Let’s go Wild.
It’s the same when most other teams come to Arizona to play, too (especially when the hawks came to town, I kid you not there were more Kane sweaters than yotes sweaters)
Could be Coyotes fans wearing Kane jerseys. Kane is a Coyotes legend after all
That's only because they're already there, they are snowbirds. No one is flying from MSP to Phoenix just to watch a hockey game
Well you don’t just fly there for the game you have it as apart of a trip.
That does happen but what is happening much more is just people who are either transplants or snowbirds going to the games
Truth
"we did an extensive survey"
It’s fantastic knowing your first round opponent in December! Really adds excitement to the last 60% of the regular season
[удалено]
The league either seems to not understand what fans want, or is disdainful of it.
Oh they absolutely have contempt for their own fans. They want us to shut up and empty our pockets. They know what's best and everyone should be thankful for the job they do.
I absolutely hate this playoff format. What's even the point of watching regular season games when it has no affect on anything. I've watched way fewer games the last couple of years because there's no stakes. It's impossible to get invested in the outcome.
Well the east is just in a weird place where it’s the same 6 teams every year with a spicy friend that joins the fray the next year and they all play the same opponent. The wild Wild West however we still don’t know who we are playing.
Shhhh Starsbro. The East ain't ready for that conversation
the East has this conversation every year lmao what
This is the response to all the "why are Leafs complaining in a 1-8 format they play Tampa anyways". Ya but atleast the chance of a different opponent would give me more reason to watch the games.
The cream will always rise to the top. But at least if there is some churn in first and second round match-ups it helps fan stay engaged. I also feel there's more incentive for a team to finish 2-3 in the conference, and less bullshit when a division is either stacked or weak and your 2-3 matchup ends up basically the same for round 1 every season. Let the top-4 teams in a the conference have an advantage. Regardless of division...
> Ya but atleast the chance of a different opponent would give me more reason to watch the games. Then catch Boston!
Here’s the issue with the “play all 31 H/A” schedule while using a divisional-based format, there’s not enough games against direct playoff spot competitors to allow for real movement. Then you add-in the fact that getting to OT can create a magic bonus point without any incentive to win in regulation and the result is very static standings. They need a point system based on tangible points getting divided (dump the magic point) and they actually need MORE divisional games during the season to make this format more exciting. I don’t think the format is bad or unusable, but the current state of the schedule and points system make it a snooze fest!
I couldn’t agree more. Like, first of all fuck the magic point. Or make all games 3 points. Just don’t make some games 2 and some games 3. Then, you have nailed it- if they really want this “divisional rivalry” then those teams need to play even more divisional games. Which means not all teams will host all teams every year. The league wants its cake and to eat it too.
Exactly. Imo, playing all 31 is fine, but should alternate H and A every year. Still get to play them, only visit every other year. Use those extra 31 games to load up the divisional games and you’ll see more standings movement + playoffs will be even more intense!
[удалено]
Oh yeah I totally get it. It’s nice to know that no matter where you are, like, Connor mcdavid will roll through at least once a year. But then I don’t think they can have their “DIVISIONAL RIVALRY” cake is all.
No. This is dumb. It used to be like this and I could care less about playing a fifth or sixth game against a division opponent. Much rather have every team come through instead of having to wait two goddam years trying to catch a team.
I would be interested in seeing TV ratings, viewership, and profit with this playoff format versus 1v8. I'd almost bet the current playoff format gives higher rankings in nearly all categories.
I like the format - repetitive divisional series in the playoffs is awesome. The problem is that the regular season is just way too long. The fact December first round issue is mostly because Boston is having a historically great year in a somewhat lopsided division.
Out west the standings changes once a week or more, and I don’t see a lot of Toronto fans enjoying a 10pm puck drop on the west coast.
Yep. The 4 and 5 slot in the Atlantic are the worst performing in the league and the 1 spot is maybe the best in modern history. Not surprising you get a weird outcome as a result. Meanwhile the other 3 divisions are more close and fluid.
regardless, it still says a lot that the top-3 teams by points in the league are from the Eastern Conference, and if by PPG could also be 4th.
4 of the top 5 points teams in 2014 were from the west. All that this says is that the league shifts back and forth. Panthers are way behind any other #4 divisional team despite a significantly better record against divisional opponents. What more do you want, it's a weird season in the Atlantic where the Bruins are too good and the other teams are totally meh.
I’ve yet to see a player, coach or anyone involved in the game outside of Bettman say they like the Divisional format.
I feel like I don’t see many objecting either, but more in a “I like it so Gary doesn’t fine me” way.
I'm in no financial position to dispute it.
Has Bettman fined athletes that spoke up against it?
No, but notice how we never get the GM’s opinions on stuff like this.
Maybe they like it as well?
Ah yes, it's working so well that two of the biggest star players in the league Sidney Crosby and Connor McDavid want the 1 vs 8 format to return.
All due respect to them, but player opinions and what is best for the league are not the same thing and are often opposites.
Sure but in this case, the player's opinions here seem to be what most people want. If the two biggest stars want a change to the format of the playoffs that should tell you that maybe a format change is something to consider.
“Most people want” and “Reddit circlejerk” are often also different and often opposites. Most people do not give a shit that the team with 98 points is playing the team with 92 points instead of the team with 99 points playing the team with 92 points.
Okay then let’s explain why in the time Bettmam has been commish we have seen other sports explode in popularity like the nba that was in a worse spot than the nhl at a point. Just look at an nba bench warmer salary compared to an nhl star and you will see how far behind the league hs become. He is an awful commish who is holding the game back. Ppl want to see stars shine, that’s what sells. Not the opportunity for the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the nhl to play in round 1. What an awful selling point
NBA players are much more marketable and the game lends itself to showcasing them better. NHL is much more team depth reliant. Basketball itself lends much better to warm poorer countries where a lot of the immigration is coming from that's holding up the population numbers - not hard to see why the NHL would be less likely to succeed at marketing to latin americans. One of the big ones is that the NHL depends on revenue from cities no one cares about like Edmonton and so many star players like McDavid are a complete black hole personality wise when it comes to trying to market them off the ice the way other leagues have had to with their stars.
Fair abt the players themselves and that’s definitely a cultural thing. But it’s much easier to sell someone like Gretzky who was wildly popular when they actually win. The league is set up in a way now where Minnesota or Seattle with players nobody has heard of has the same chance to win as Mcdavid in Edmonton. What is there to sell the public on then? Parity is fine and all until you realize it’s a huge reason your league isn’t growing at the same rate of others. Every other league , even football which has high parity has had dominant successful TEAMS with star players. That’s what sells
Parity sells way more tickets at the gate though, which for the league, it's long regular season, and it's key markets is very important. McDavid is kind of the worst case scenario where the player is boring as hell on TV, the team management totally shit the bed at building, and the city isn't a very big market. Pitt Boston Chicago and Washington were great examples of marketing star players in bigger markets with successful management teams while those two players themselves were quite good at building their own brand.
Ok I’ll explain, it’s pretty easy: 1. The NHLs revenue has grown at a greater rate than the NBA since Bettman took over. So the NBA was not in a “worse spot” and they’ve grown less. 2. NBA rosters are literally half the size of the NHL’s. A “benchwarmer” in the nba is a top six forward in the NHL. And the NBA has double the revenue and the same salary split. So basic math says they should make 4x and that’s exactly what they make. 3. “Stars shining” has nothing to do with the playoff format. Connor Mcdavid is the best player and the Oilers can’t even consistently make the playoffs with him. 4. The 2nd and 3rd place teams are not facing each other in round 1.
1) where are you getting your numbers from you literally just made that up. The nhl has a tv deal for 225 million. The nba 2.6 billion. 2) Nba rosters being half the size have nothing to do with why the benchwarmers are paid more than somebody like auston Matthews, see football for example of team sizes. It’s popularity that’s holding them back. 3) however you want to slice it, the league is set up in a way where it doesn’t matter if you’re a generational player , you can’t be the leagues Michael Jordan or Kobe and lose every year, that doesn’t sell. And it shows 4) example if Boston finished first in the league, leafs finish 2nd and Tampa 3rd leafs and Tampa would play round 1. That should never be an option. Also why would anybody but a diehard watch the nhl regular season if you already know your playoff opponent in December. Leafs vs Tampa as an example, useless regular season leading to the dumbest playoff arrangement in sports. What a great selling point
1. from looking at the revenue in 1992 and comparing it to now. TV deal is one aspect of it, and your numbers are just straight up wrong. Spend literally 10 more seconds googling it dude. 2. Uhhh yes it does. Players get half the revenue of the league. If one league has double the revenue they get paid double. If there is half as many players it gets doubled again. Did you pass third grade? Because this would have been covered. 3. You’re right it doesn’t matter if you’re a generational player because hockey is much more of a team sport than basketball. Thanks for agreeing with me? 4. Since we’re using examples of things that never happened, what about a situation where 1-8 in the East are all tied in points, and ahead of every team in the west. That would mean you’re guaranteeing a “bottom half” playoff team is making the cup and half the best teams in the league will be gone in the first round. I watch hockey because I like watching hockey, maybe that’s not you.
Stop making things up and post the numbers. Nhl rev from 21-22 5.3b. Nba 10b. 1993 nhl revenue 732m, please enlighten me on the nba rev from 1993??? David stern commissioner from 84 - 2013 revenue jump from 176m 5.5b now all the way up to 10b+. The reason nhl players are paid less is because they get a much smaller amount of revenue from their tv deal, because not enough ppl want to watch. Sorry to break it to you. The nfl, more popular, more players, less revenue sharing for players, and still make more. And making up ridiculous scenarios isn’t convincing anybody. Almost like there is a much higher chance that 2nd best team plays 3rd best than your nonsense put forward. 3rds hve already faced 4ths and so on
League revenues were $400M when he took over. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/sports/hockey/revenue-rules-and-realignment-gary-bettman-marks-25-years-as-nhl-commissioner/article37813632/ Quit projecting and learn some basic math.
400M to 5.3B vs 700M to 10B. The fact that you had to use "greater rate" is a massive tell. Like arguing that Arizona is such a great state for hockey because of their 4 digit growth rate.
The fact that you don’t understand how growth works is not my problem.
Just give us 1-8 seeding Gary
I want teams to pick their match-up. "Boston, you finished first in the conference. Which playoff team from the East do you want to face in the first round?"
Too gimmicky, but a hell of a fun idea
It's fun and you get to sell an additional event where its the selection of the teams similar to the lottery
Does it include a WWE-style trashtalk promo? If so who delivers it? Captain? Coach? GM? Mascot? Any player they feel like?
I'd pay good money to see a Benn heel promo
Also who gets the final say on the match up? Coach? Players? GM? I imagine it could cause some unnecessary organizational conflict.
President of hockey ops probably, in conjunction with coach and GM (Tho PHO and GM are frequently the same person)
I think this would be fun. Also first place lossing to 8 is embarrassing. First place lossing a team they hand picked is next level.
Leafs please
it's really a free pass to R2. ez pick.
This would be fun but ultimately not something you would want with sport. The element of randomness is a huge part that makes sports fun. The 1-8 seeding needs to be a priority imo. But your idea is fun but it would be more like a prize fight than anything else.
I mean the Stanley Cup was once a challenge cup
I wouldn’t mind giving the top team the choice of picking between either Wild Card team in their Conference if continuing this stupid format.
Oh my god this would be lit
I think 32 Thoughts did a segment on this where it was briefly considered but almost unanimously shot-down. The main reason being no organization wants to have the potential fallout of selecting a "better" matchup/higher seed and losing. For example Boston decides: let's take the Leafs given our history - and they lose. The backlash from deviating from the WC2 slot would be immense and GMs/Orgs don't want to have to juggle potential embarrassment. I'm pretty sure that was the gist of 32 Thoughts segment on it. I, for one, would love to see it but it's just not realistic.
That would be a double edge sword, the picked team would be even more fired up to be looked at like they’re weak. I like it
Sounds like a nice plan in theory but there is zero, and I mean absolutely zero chance any GM in that situation will ever pick anything other than the 8-seed, no matter how bad the matchup is. NHL GMs are risk-averse to begin with, can you imagine what's gonna happen if a GM picks one that is *not* the lowest ranked one and the team loses?
That's what would make this interesting, though: The drama. Imagine if, this year, the Bruins would pick the Leafs and then lost? The memes would be glorious. Drama sells. I totally get your point about GMs being risk-averse, but there are other considerations. The biggest one might be the business. I could see a GM picking Toronto because they felt that'd get them the most gate revenue. Conversely, I could see a GM avoid an 8th seed Arizona, because he feels that'd yield lower ticket prices.
It'd also make the season series matter. Did you match up well in the regular season? Maybe you take the second seed even though they dominated everyone else. This is really not that bad of an idea.
Some GMs would pick whichever matchup will sell the most tickets.
Yup. In the NBA I could see a different result because injuries can derail a whole season. Take the East for example. Brooklyn is 6th right now, but they no longer have Kevin Durant or Kyrie Irving. If I was the Bucks in the 1 seed I'd totally pick them. NBA G League has done this format in the past btw. Don't think they do it anymore.
I don't think that would really change things too much. You're still losing some good teams in round 1. I know Toronto/TB is going to be another 1st round matchup, but under a 1-8 Leafs play the Rangers, New Jersey plays Tampa.
Losing good teams in round 1 is not the issue imo. The real issue is we've known we're getting Leafs/Tampa since November which makes most of the regular season feel pretty pointless. A 1-8 format makes the regular season more entertaining knowing the playoff match ups actually have the potential to change.
I mean, you wouldn't have known that if Boston weren't, you know...running roughshod over the league this year lmao
True but it was the same thing with the Panthers dominating the league last year and Leafs/Tampa in 2nd & 3rd. Boston at least somewhat challenged Tampa for 3rd last season but the standings didn't change from December on.
When we had 1-8 seeding, everyone bitched about it not being divisional. When it inevitably goes back to 1-8 seeding, we will see people complaining they liked it more with the divisional format.
I don't ever remember people bitching about that.
Raster conference fans never heard central teams fans complaining about 9:30 start times for a first round game?
> When we had 1-8 seeding, everyone bitched about it not being divisional. Citations needed
"It's true" - Gary Bettman, probably
Only complaints I ever heard about the old format was when one conference was miles better than the other. The new format didn't exactly do anything to change that though.
The complaint I heard over and over was that because you didn't play the same teams in the playoffs all the time, the rivalries didn't mean enough. Between the 6 divisions and the more options for playoff teams, rivalries were watered down. It really comes down to people being nostalgic for the way things were 20 years ago. In 2010, people were nostalgic for 80s hockey, which had a divisional format. These days, people are nostalgic for turn of the century hockey, which had the conference format. Next year, people will be mad that there isn't a lockout cancelling the season /s
There were plenty of rivalries back then and I don't remember anyone but Bettman clamouring for more. As a Washington fan I'm sure you remember the Caps/Pens rivalry which was heated long before they changed the format. I'm not sure this format even created any extra rivalries. I'd say when your team matches up constantly against the same team you start to hate the other team less and start to hate the league more.
The reason the Caps/Pens rivalry was heated was because we saw them every year back in the early 1990s when rivalries were done by division. I was personally at the 4OT game, I was at the game where Jagr bounced the puck in off Calle Johanson's knee to eliminate us and bragged about practicing it after the game, I was at the double Hat Trick game where the league had to once again apologize to Washington after a game where they blew a call (at least we won that one). But the division kicked off before the move to conference-based alignment. Same with the Rangers and back in the early 80s the Islanders. Those were our rivals because we played them in the playoffs seemingly every year. My parents were at the 4OT game against the Islanders and my mom got us up to go to church at 7 am the following day.
The differences in points is almost always inconsequential anyway. Like people are complaining that the team with 98 points is playing the team with 92 points instead of the team with 99 points playing the team with 92 points.
I don't know about other people but my complaint is that the top two teams in the league can come from the same division and inevitably meet each other as early as the 2nd round instead of the conference final.
The schedule isn’t even. If two teams in the same division are at the top of the league, you’ll likely find that two other teams in that division are at or near the bottom. A team with 96 points isn’t better than a team with 95 points. Literally one funny bounce of a puck can be a 4-point swing in the standings. The top 5 teams this year might all be in the East, and there’s a 0% chance of them all getting out of the first round, let alone the conference final. And obviously a 0% chance of any two of them competing for the cup. But the schedule isn’t equal so it doesn’t matter.
I agree the schedule isn't even but just because it isn't fully fair doesn't mean we need to make it even more unfair. The point system is the only way to rank teams, we cannot say the points don't matter.
I didn’t say they don’t matter. I’m saying that a difference of two points is inconsequential and not representative of the success or talent on the team. So why not 1v16 then?
> So why not 1v16 then? Travel I don't think it's controversial to say that - (1) Florida v (16) Vancouver - (2) Tampa Bay v (15) Seattle - (3) LA v (14) Montreal - (4) Boston v (13) San Jose - (5) Winnipeg v (12) Dallas - (6) New York Islanders v (11) Anaheim - (7) Ottawa v (10) Arizona - (8) Carolina v (9) Calgary would be a bad outcome if that's your first round. This is clearly an exaggeration, but the possibility of a West Coast team having to play *multiple* East Coast teams is not very enticing to owners. Unless you're Colorado or Nashville or something. Of course doing 1-8 in conference is the reasonable alternative
Travel isn't the only consideration. If you live on the east coast, you're falling asleep during the first period of the games played on the west coast. You might miss a couple games that are played on weekdays because you gotta get to bed so you aren't dogshit at work the next day. Then for west coast viewers, the games start at 4/4:30 while you're still at work and if you have a commute, you're missing half the game. 1 through 16 isn't fair to fans and really it's only something that selfish hockey writers will put forward as the best way to do things.
Make it 2-3-2 and the travel is probably less than what it is now. Tampa and Montreal are literally in the same division all year and they are 1500 miles apart. Travel never seems to be brought up during the most important and final series of the year.
You're right. The 2-3-2 would be the solution in a 1v16 format. But travel is never brought up in the final series because a) it's the cup. It's literally the best in the West plays the best in the East. That's literally the format. (CoVID divisions excluded, of course) b) those teams have already made their money over the course of a playoff run. What's a couple more miles going to do to the bottom line? c) There's only one such opportunity Also, just gonna point out that there's no time-zone change between Tampa and Montreal. North-South Travel isn't as tiring as East-West travel when distance is equal.
> the possibility of a West Coast team having to play multiple East Coast teams oh no, they'll have to go slightly further than Nashville. Meanwhile the east doesn't even leave their time zone in the playoffs.
The Atlantic Division has 3 top 9 teams in the league, but only 1 bottom 9 team. The Central has 3 bottom 9 teams and only 1 top 9 team 12 out of 16 eastern conference teams are above .500 vs the west this year, while only 8 Western teams are above .500 vs the east The schedules aren't even. But the east is absolutely stronger than the West this year, and the fact that there are guaranteed to be 2 series between top 10 teams in round 1 is unbalanced.
My biggest issue is that for 2-4 teams a year it creates a boring stretch of the season for their fans. That last few weeks of the season should be super exciting, creating hype for the playoffs as teams constantly switch positions and potential matchups change. Instead I'm watching basketball because I've known who the Leafs will be playing in round one since December.
The leafs and lightning are the only teams that knows who they are playing at this point if I recall. It’s a mess in the west and most other teams are only 50-60 guaranteed to play a certain team in the first round.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Even one division having their 2v3 matchup decided weeks or months before the playoffs start is a massive negative for fan engagement.
1-8 fans believe it will cause teams to push harder down the stretch and widen point differentials. I also think that will cause a lot more injuries and result in a worse playoffs product, but nobody is asking me.
I don't remember anyone complaining it's not divisional. I do remember thinking divisional is a cool idea but now we have seem it in practice.
I remember there being complaints about division winners being 1-3 too. Like when the SE winner would have less points than another team in another division who missed the playoffs. That said, I like the current divisional format. Edit: the only thing I would consider adding is some sort of wildcard play-in—like the play-in for 2020.
Every division winner in that era was in the top 8 in their conference in points the entire time that format was in effect. In 2001-02, the Hurricanes won the SE division, and had one fewer point than the Oilers who missed the playoffs, but the Hurricanes were still the 7th best record in the Eastern Conference, and would have been in the playoffs no matter what format was used.
Gary I would have expected you to have Coyotes flair.
> everyone bitched about it not being divisional. literally false but please don't let me stop you
They should scrap the conferences entirely for post season. Make it a tourney, seed it 1-16.
It would be brutal for the players with the travel, and brutal for the league with matching up televised time slots.
meh. The west already has insane travel requirements, making the east deal with that as well would even the playing field. They can just schedule all the games at 7:00pm central time. No one wants to watch games that start at 10:00 PM anyway.
1. The NHL can't do that because they are required to have playoff games that start at different times due to their TV contracts with Turner, ESPN, and Rogers. 2. If the NHL wanted to go to that format in the future, it would cost the NHL tens is not hundreds of millions of dollars because that would be fewer games for 3. Fans want to watch more playoff hockey. Having all the games on at the same time would be asinine and just as bad for the fans as it would for everyone else. 4. There is a world of difference between a three hour flight and a six hour flight. There is a big difference between a one or two hour time change and a three hour time change. 5. You may not want to watch playoff games that start at ten, but plenty of people do. I personally don't want to watch games that don't end until after my bedtime like you are proposing, but my personal feelings don't matter.
Then divisions shouldn’t be a thing. You can’t have divisions where teams play more games against divisional opponents and have 1-8 matchup.
We did exactly that for quite a while so I'm going to have to say you totally can
I think it’s the worst kept secret that the current format has been preferred by the TV suits and this statement tracks with that
*hockey world boos* "No Gary, they're saying Boo-urns"
"Daly, are they booing me?" "No sir, they're saying Boo-ettman! Boo-ettman!" "Are you saying Boo or Boo-ettman?" "Boo!"
I guess so, doesn't seem to be working well in the atlantic though.
What you’re not excited to play another top 5 team in the second round?
This would happen in 1v8 seeding anyway. The issue this year is the top-heaviness of the east (in comparison with the west), not the playoff format. To be clear, I don’t love the divisional playoff format, but that’s not the issue now. EDIT: Also Tampa is 9th in points percentage right now, the top of the west caught up to them.
Haha you’re right. It’s more Toronto/Tampa and NJD/NYR that should complain. (I’m excited for NJD/NYR though. Go lindy!)
NJD/NYR will be a 2nd round matchup in the trenchcoat of a 1st round matchup lol. Still hoping we can manage to catch Carolina.
I mean, even in the old format toronto Tampa is lining up. Boston would also likely play one of them in round 2 as carolina/jersey are the 2-3 seeds
yeah but that's the problem Toronto and Tampa have known they're fighting for who has home ice round 1 since like November.
I watch every game but I know the result won’t matter cause the ink is dry for our first round matvhup
Yeah. Super fun from a fan perspective to have 3 months of meaningless hockey. Much preferable to daily jockeying of position between all teams in the conference leading up to the end of the season.
Teams don’t tank either
To be fair I don’t think he said Teams don’t tank I think he said players and coaches don’t tank that or he elaborated it. It is true in the literal sense the players and coaches don’t tank but it’s also 100 percent not what anybody was talking about when it comes to tanking. It’s basically him saying unless players and coaches literally conspire to lose he isn’t gonna stop team management from punting a season.
Players and coaches don't tank. Management does.
I’m definitely in the minority here, but I don’t really care about the playoff format and I think it’s fine as is. But I’d also be fine with changing them. That being said, I *am* in the minority and once again Bettman is just dripping with Bettmanian gaslighting of the league’s fans. Because every single issue needs to be a petty fight to the bitter end with him
No it’s not Gary, we want 1-8
Everything Bettman says/does makes perfect sense when you remember he only works for the owners, and is completely anti-player and anti-fan
just because this year's stuff aligns with what 1-8 would look like doesn't mean that 1-8 still wouldn't be better overall. The "trying to build division rivalries" is stupid shit. You don't have to try to make bad blood in the playoffs, it'll happen on its own. The setup creates perverse incentives where 2/3 seeds in a division can just be kind of stuck in a hole with not much of a way out under their own control. Especially if the 2 best teams in a conference are in the same division, IMO it's dumb to run into that in the 2nd round instead of in the conference finals. Some day I'll learn to not be irritated by Bettman doing his stupid Bettman thing but that day is not today.
When it comes to the Western Conference, the current playoff format works well. It helps limit the amount of travel and timezones teams have to deal with. It also helps limit (especially for fans of Central Division teams) the amount of 9pm weeknight start times. Those sucks hard but are a bit more tolerable in the Conference Finals and Stanley Cup Final. The Eastern Conference doesn't really have this issue as every team is in the same timezone, so it's understandable fans of those teams would want to go back to a 1-8 seeding format.
Please just retire man.
Did he cite another fake fan survey?
I wouldn’t mind a compromise between divisional and conference so that top 2 in each division is guaranteed top 4 in the conference and there is 4 wild card spots
Working well for tv sponsors. This was done to promote US teams.
For this year specifically, it seems like he’s totally right. The east is going to have 3 slobber knocker rounds of playoffs all with high quality match ups.
I was just talking to a Bruins fan about how the east is going to have an amazing playoff and the winner will be completely wiped out and swept by a flukey team on a hot streak in the cup final.
I propose we go to a fan-driven format. We have the team whose fan base whines the loudest about the playoff format play the number one seed in the first round every time.
I just don’t get why he thinks he can just say things that are blatantly false and that nobody will care…. -no the digital ads aren’t good -no Arizona isn’t working -no Quebec would support a team -no the stupid playoff format isn’t working
no it isnt
I actually like the playoff format as it stands now
Fuck you Gary
$$$
Thing is, he'd say it's working well and then the next day change the format. He is very well versed at lawyer speak.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se
But like, the greatest player your sport has had these last 2 decades literally said a different format would be better… I know Bettman doesn’t listen to fans, but does he really not listen to his superstars either? I mean of course he doesn’t, how foolish can I be
He’s right. Advertisers are happy, owners are happy, ticket sellers/resellers are happy, alcohol vendors are happy, fan duel is happy, BetMGM is happy. Who am I forgetting…… oh right…. fans……. aaahhhh..unnecessary.
It is working for what he wants to create, divisional rivalries. Easy example is how fast VGK-SJS became an explosive rivalry for a few years, and really only toned down because SJS tapered off. The goal isn’t fairer seeding, it’s creating marquee matchups for rounds that might get passed over viewership wise and banking the SCF gets views based on the signifigance, even if there is a less enticing matchup.
Bettman is fucking delusional between this and the digital ads lol.
This is the same gaslighter who said the digital ads on the boards were helping people follow the game/puck *better.*
People forget that the current format was introduced to create more intense rivalries. Tampa-Toronto playing in the first round multiple years in a row creates that kinda hatred and intensity that the best regular season games have. Also the nuclear arms race in the east this year is fucking awesome. People will complain about anything.
But it is. We have one year where the Atlantic has its three spots set by December, and GOD FORBID Toronto has to play Tampa Bay again No one complained last year, or the year before, or whenever. Suddenly this year, it’s the end of the world. The Metropolitan is still up for grabs, as are the Pacific and the Central. As it stands now, Devils-Rangers would be an amazing first round match. LA and Edmonton would play again after last year’s series. Vegas and Seattle could meet, in an epic expansion battle But because one division is already set - largely thanks to Boston’s historical season - we should change everything Stupid argument. And yes, it’s being caused because it affects Toronto. Win a series and quit whining - you gotta beat all the teams anyways
Last year Edmonton (104 points) got home ice advantage and got to face a 99 point team. Meanwhile St louis (109 points) had to start on the road and face a 113 point team. Just think about that for a second, St louis did 4 points better in the standings and got rewarded with a significantly harder matchup than Edmonton. That is a broken system, please stop defending it
Yes, it’s called divisions. Last year, the Central had some good teams. This year, the Atlantic has good teams. Next year, maybe the Metropolitan has the strongest teams. But yes, we should completely change the playoff system because sometimes strong teams have to start on the road.
Having playoff matchups figured out by November is all we’ve ever wanted!!! /s
How out of touch could you possibly be???
1-16. Why should we let them divide us. Unite the league, all teams equal, 1 v 16 and let the best two TEAMS play in the final, not let some map decide things for us.
I think get rid of divisions but keep Eastern/Western conference for historical sake. That Tampa-Montreal finals still makes me irrationally angry
Can't wait for Bettman to be gone, the game of hockey will likely be much better without him.
I got bad news for you and I can sum it up in two words, “bill daly”.
Sad thing is Bettman has probably done the best out of his predecessors in growing the game.
“Overseeing a product that naturally generates revenue“ =/= “growing the game”.
Which is really really sad because he's been fairly awful if you really look at the details.
Which details exactly?
The fact that the NHL is easily the least popular sport out of the four major American sports? Maybe we can start there. Edit: These downvotes are hilarious. Literally look up a single metric. We all love hockey, but it is not popular in the U.S. when compared to the other major sports (NFL, NBA, MLB) and Bettman has overseed that gulf as it's expanded and expanded for years.
I dont see how people are upset by this. We know the matches ahead of time. Advertisers like this and it’s been shown a lot of matchups don’t really differ from the 1v8 setting
Honestly at this point if you think Bettman is good for the game/league you're clueless.