Why not have 20 teams make playoffs?
Mix of three-game, seven-game series could be done without lengthening NHL season
With the expectation the National Hockey League will expand to 32 teams by adding the Seattle Totems (I loved that name in the old Western Hockey League with the Edmonton Flyers, the Portland Buckaroos, etc.), there’s talk of expanding the Stanley Cup playoffs. The idea of 16 teams in and 16 teams out isn’t exciting general managers when it comes to job security. But who wants five rounds of playoffs ending in July or seasons starting on Labour Day? I doubt many would want to depart from the basic concept of best-of-seven series formats. Some of us remember best-ofthree and best-of-five first round series after the World Hockey Association merger.
To have a top team put together a 100-point regular season and then get eliminated by a hot goalie in two or three games (with only a couple of home gates) just doesn’t fly.
So how would you do it? First, you’d want to decide how many teams should qualify for the playoffs.
My number would be 20 of 32. Twenty-four would only leave eight teams out and half the teams would have their playoff positions clinched by Valentine’s Day.
But 20 does work in a bracketstyle playoff format.
There have been suggestions such as a play-in game like the one introduced in major league baseball or even two play-in games on the Tuesday after the season ends with the winners proceeding onto normal sevengame series against the first-and second-place teams.
But with that format, there would be no home playoff game for half those teams.
While there’s plenty of potential for a Bobby Thompson/ Ralph Branca memory-maker in there, playing 82 games to make the playoffs and then being bounced out in one game on the road isn’t much like being in the playoffs for a fan or the team.
My solution would put the top six teams East and West in traditional best-of-seven first-round series.
You’d need to play first vs. sixth, second vs. fifth and third vs. fourth.
You’d put the next four East and West, in best-of-three series with the first game at the home of the lowest-finishing team and Games 2 and 3 (if necessary) at the team finishing higher.
It would mean seventh vs. 10th and eighth vs. ninth.
The two winners of the best-ofthree series would then meet in another best-of-three series with the same format while the top six are in mid-series of their best-ofseven series.
You’d end up with three winners of the best-of-seven series and the one survivor of the bestof-threes to proceed to the second-round best-of-seven series, the traditional best-of-seven Eastern and Western Conference finals and the Stanley Cup Final.
Like the teams in the best-ofseven first-round series, the team emerging out of the best-of-threes would need to win four games to do that. So that’s fair.
The number of flights would be the same as a six-game series. So that’s fair.
You could argue that it would be more advantageous to finish seventh than sixth because the sixth-place team would have to beat the first-place finisher, and the seventh-place team would have to beat the 10th place team and the eighth- or ninth-place team. That’s a flaw. But the seventh-place team’s post-season could be over in two games (one at home) so you’d still probably prefer to finish sixth.
So, there you go Gary Bettman. Your new playoff format. What’s that Mr. Commissioner? Bettman recently dealt with the idea of more teams in the playoffs.
“Not from my standpoint and not from most of the governors I’ve talked to,” he said recently on his tour through Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary.
“We think what we have right now is pretty terrific. The regular season is compelling, exciting unpredictable and we have great races.
“We’re going to have teams that make the playoffs by a point or two. I think what we’ve got now is pretty good. And I believe most of our clubs feel the same way. The feedback we get from fans from the research we do is similar. I don’t foresee a change.”
But Gary, they haven’t read the Jones Plan yet.