Introduction
The Stanley Cup Playoffs are billed as the most grueling and demanding tournament in professional sports. It is a two-month gauntlet where heroes are forged. Legends are born there as well. Yet, for all its inherent drama, the path to hockey’s holy grail has become frustratingly predictable and fundamentally unfair. The 2024 postseason served as a stark and unavoidable exhibit of this systemic flaw. The Winnipeg Jets had a spectacular 110-point regular season. It earned them the second-best record in the Western Conference. They were “rewarded” with a first-round matchup against the 107-point Colorado Avalanche. This powerhouse team was widely considered a legitimate Stanley Cup contender. This situation was not a statistical anomaly. It was not a rare quirk. It was a feature, not a bug, of a broken system.
This report will argue that the National Hockey League’s (NHL) divisional playoff format was instituted ahead of the 2013-14 season. This change has been a failed experiment. Over the past decade, this structure has systematically devalued the 82-game regular season. It has punished elite teams for the sin of playing in a strong division and created stale, repetitive matchups. Ultimately, it has delivered an inferior entertainment product in the tournament’s most crucial later rounds. The solution requires a decisive, two-pronged approach. First, the league needs to immediately return to the more equitable 1-8 conference-based seeding system. This system properly rewards season-long excellence. Second, with league expansion on the horizon, the NHL must architect a new playoff structure. It must accommodate growth. The new structure should restore the competitive integrity befitting the chase for the Stanley Cup.
Section 1: The Anatomy of a Failed Experiment
To understand why the current system is so deeply flawed, one must first dissect its mechanics. It is essential to compare the league’s stated intentions with the on-ice reality it has produced. The format, while appearing straightforward on the surface, contains structural defects that create cascading competitive imbalances.
1.1 Deconstructing the Current Model
The NHL’s playoff qualification process involves 16 teams, eight from each of the Eastern and Western Conferences. The first 12 spots are awarded to the top three finishers in the league’s four divisions. These divisions are the Atlantic and Metropolitan in the East, and the Central and Pacific in the West. The final four spots are filled by two “wild card” teams in each conference. These are the two clubs with the next-highest regular-season point totals. Their divisional alignment is not considered.
The first-round matchups are where the system’s rigidity begins to cause problems. The format dictates the following pairings within each conference :
- The division winner with the better record plays the wild card team with the worse record.
- The other division winner plays the wild card team with the better record.
- The second-place team in each division is locked into a series against the third-place team from that same division.
The most critical and damaging feature of this format is the fixed bracket. There is also a complete absence of reseeding after the first round. Once the initial bracket is set, a team’s path through the first two rounds is locked within its divisional pod. The winner of the series between the second and third-place teams will advance. They will play against the winner of the series between their division winner and a wild card team. This system significantly differs from the league’s previous format. Previously, reseeding occurred after each round to ensure the highest-seeded surviving team always faced the lowest-seeded survivor. This change is the primary source of the system’s inequities.
1.2 The League’s Rationale vs. Reality
The NHL and its commissioner, Gary Bettman, have consistently defended the divisional format for two main reasons. They want to build and leverage intense divisional rivalries. Additionally, they aim to reduce travel costs and burdens in the early rounds of the playoffs. Bettman has repeatedly stated that he enjoys the format. He argues that it creates “great matchups” from the very beginning. To win the Stanley Cup, a team must eventually defeat the best opponents anyway.
A decade of data and overwhelming sentiment from fans, media, and even players suggests a different truth. These justifications are built on a flawed understanding of what creates compelling hockey. The league’s hypothesis was that repeated playoff exposure between divisional opponents would naturally cultivate heated rivalries. The reality is that it has more often led to fatigue and predictability. For instance, the Edmonton Oilers and Los Angeles Kings faced each other in a first-round series for four consecutive seasons. This repetition became tiresome rather than tantalizing. Fans of both teams, and the hockey world at large, grew weary of the mandated rematch.
Furthermore, the system often manufactures “rivalries” that are geographically nonsensical. A recurring matchup between the Toronto Maple Leafs and a Florida-based team has no historical basis. It also has no regional basis beyond the number of Canadian tourists who visit the Sunshine State. Even in cases where a genuine geographic rivalry exists, the format has not guaranteed competitive drama. The “Battle of Florida” between the Tampa Bay Lightning and Florida Panthers has occurred four times in five seasons. However, only one of those series extended beyond five games. The matchups often feel one-sided. True rivalries are born from organic, high-stakes confrontations, not from the forced and predictable confines of a flawed bracket. The format’s primary justification has simply not been borne out by the on-ice product.
Section 2: The High Cost of Flawed Brackets: Punishing Excellence, Alienating Fans
The most significant and indefensible consequence of the current playoff format is the erosion of the 82-game regular season’s value. A grueling six-month campaign should serve as the primary mechanism for earning a tangible advantage in the postseason. The current system frequently breaks this fundamental contract of sporting competition. It punishes excellence and rewards mediocrity based on little more than a team’s divisional address.
2.1 The Devaluation of the 82-Game Grind
The argument that the regular season is being undermined is not just a complaint from disgruntled fans. It is a sentiment shared by the sport’s most respected figures. Pittsburgh Penguins captain Sidney Crosby is a three-time Stanley Cup champion. He has been a vocal proponent of returning to the previous system. Crosby stated, “I like 1-to-8 because I think the regular season is difficult. Teams should be rewarded.” “That’s probably the best way to be rewarded”. His view highlights the main issue. The current format fails to honor the effort required to excel over a full season. When a division’s strength determines a team’s playoff path more than its conference-wide standing, the entire season’s integrity is impacted.
2.2 Case Studies in Competitive Injustice
The flaws of the divisional format are not theoretical. They manifest every spring in the form of grossly imbalanced and unfair playoff matchups. This has led to the term “corridor of hell.” It describes powerhouse divisions that become a premature gauntlet. As a result, elite contenders are eliminated long before they should be.
Recent history is replete with examples:
- 2024 Playoffs: The aforementioned Winnipeg Jets (110 points) versus Colorado Avalanche (107 points) series stands as a prime example. The Jets, the #2 overall seed in the West, were forced to play the #4 seed in the first round. This happened while the Edmonton Oilers, the #5 seed in the West with 104 points, received a more favorable matchup. They played against the 99-point Los Angeles Kings, the #7 seed. The injustice continued into the second round. The Eastern Conference’s top two teams faced off. The New York Rangers had 114 points. The Carolina Hurricanes had 111 points. This was a blockbuster series that, under any logical system, should have been a Conference Final.
- 2023 Playoffs: The format created a bizarre bracket. The Eastern Conference Final between the Carolina Hurricanes and Florida Panthers would have been a first-round matchup. This would occur between the #4 and #5 seeds under a pure 1-8 conference seeding system. The Tampa Bay Lightning finished with the third-highest point total in the entire conference. However, they were eliminated in the opening round by a wild card team. This happened in a brutal divisional clash.
- 2017 Playoffs: Perhaps the most egregious example in the format’s history occurred in 2017. The Pittsburgh Penguins had the second-best record in the NHL. The Columbus Blue Jackets had the third-best record in the NHL. Despite their strong performance, they were forced to play each other in the first round. The winner of that heavyweight battle then had to face the Washington Capitals. The Capitals won the Presidents’ Trophy for having the best record in the NHL. This was in the second round. Because of the divisional bracket, two of the top three teams were bound to be eliminated. This happened before the Conference Finals started.
2.3 The Predictability Paradox and Watered-Down Later Rounds
The league is trying to manufacture early-round excitement. However, it has inadvertently created a system. This system often drains the drama from the end of the regular season. The second and third-place teams in a division must play each other. As a result, these matchups can become a foregone conclusion weeks, or even months, before the season concludes. This predictability removes the excitement of “scoreboard watching.” It also ends the fluid seeding races that engage a wider swath of fans in the season’s final stretch. As a result, many late-season games become meaningless beyond the battle for home-ice advantage.
The inevitable consequence of these top-heavy early-round clashes is a postseason that is often top-heavy in terms of quality. The most intense, competitive, and compelling series frequently occur in the first two rounds. This can lead to lopsided and anticlimactic Conference Finals. One division’s champion, having survived a brutal gauntlet, faces a comparatively weaker opponent from the other division. A team from the Atlantic Division has represented the Eastern Conference in the Stanley Cup Final for seven consecutive seasons. This fact highlights the profound and persistent imbalance between the two divisions. The playoff format exacerbates this problem rather than solves it.
The following table offers a stark, data-driven comparison. It contrasts the actual playoff matchups under the divisional format with the hypothetical matchups. These would have occurred under a 1-8 conference seeding for the 2023 and 2024 postseasons. It serves as irrefutable evidence of the system’s inherent inequity.
Table 1: The Tale of Two Brackets (2023 & 2024 Playoffs)
| 2024 Playoffs | ||||
| Eastern Conference | ||||
| Seed | Team | Points | Actual Matchup (Divisional) | Hypothetical Matchup (1-8 Conference) |
| 1 | New York Rangers | 114 | vs. Washington (WC2) | vs. Washington (8) |
| 2 | Carolina Hurricanes | 111 | vs. NY Islanders (M3) | vs. Tampa Bay (7) |
| 3 | Florida Panthers | 110 | vs. Tampa Bay (WC1) | vs. Toronto (6) |
| 4 | Boston Bruins | 109 | vs. Toronto (A3) | vs. NY Islanders (5) |
| 5 | New York Islanders | 94 | vs. Carolina (M2) | vs. Boston (4) |
| 6 | Toronto Maple Leafs | 102 | vs. Boston (A2) | vs. Florida (3) |
| 7 | Tampa Bay Lightning | 98 | vs. Florida (A1) | vs. Carolina (2) |
| 8 | Washington Capitals | 91 | vs. NY Rangers (M1) | vs. NY Rangers (1) |
| Western Conference | ||||
| Seed | Team | Points | Actual Matchup (Divisional) | Hypothetical Matchup (1-8 Conference) |
| 1 | Dallas Stars | 113 | vs. Vegas (WC2) | vs. Vegas (8) |
| 2 | Winnipeg Jets | 110 | vs. Colorado (C3) | vs. Los Angeles (7) |
| 3 | Vancouver Canucks | 109 | vs. Nashville (WC1) | vs. Nashville (6) |
| 4 | Colorado Avalanche | 107 | vs. Winnipeg (C2) | vs. Edmonton (5) |
| 5 | Edmonton Oilers | 104 | vs. Los Angeles (P3) | vs. Colorado (4) |
| 6 | Nashville Predators | 99 | vs. Vancouver (P1) | vs. Vancouver (3) |
| 7 | Los Angeles Kings | 99 | vs. Edmonton (P2) | vs. Winnipeg (2) |
| 8 | Vegas Golden Knights | 98 | vs. Dallas (C1) | vs. Dallas (1) |
| 2023 Playoffs | ||||
| Eastern Conference | ||||
| Seed | Team | Points | Actual Matchup (Divisional) | Hypothetical Matchup (1-8 Conference) |
| 1 | Boston Bruins | 135 | vs. Florida (WC2) | vs. Florida (8) |
| 2 | Carolina Hurricanes | 113 | vs. NY Islanders (WC1) | vs. NY Islanders (7) |
| 3 | New Jersey Devils | 112 | vs. NY Rangers (M3) | vs. Tampa Bay (6) |
| 4 | Toronto Maple Leafs | 111 | vs. Tampa Bay (A3) | vs. NY Rangers (5) |
| 5 | New York Rangers | 107 | vs. New Jersey (M2) | vs. Toronto (4) |
| 6 | Tampa Bay Lightning | 98 | vs. Toronto (A2) | vs. New Jersey (3) |
| 7 | New York Islanders | 93 | vs. Carolina (M1) | vs. Carolina (2) |
| 8 | Florida Panthers | 92 | vs. Boston (A1) | vs. Boston (1) |
| Western Conference | ||||
| Seed | Team | Points | Actual Matchup (Divisional) | Hypothetical Matchup (1-8 Conference) |
| 1 | Vegas Golden Knights | 111 | vs. Winnipeg (WC2) | vs. Winnipeg (8) |
| 2 | Colorado Avalanche | 109 | vs. Seattle (WC1) | vs. Seattle (7) |
| 3 | Dallas Stars | 108 | vs. Minnesota (C3) | vs. Los Angeles (6) |
| 4 | Edmonton Oilers | 109 | vs. Los Angeles (P3) | vs. Minnesota (5) |
| 5 | Minnesota Wild | 103 | vs. Dallas (C2) | vs. Edmonton (4) |
| 6 | Los Angeles Kings | 104 | vs. Edmonton (P2) | vs. Dallas (3) |
| 7 | Seattle Kraken | 100 | vs. Colorado (C1) | vs. Colorado (2) |
| 8 | Winnipeg Jets | 95 | vs. Vegas (P1) | vs. Vegas (1) |
Data compiled from. Note: 2024 West seeding for LA and Nashville determined by tiebreakers. 2023 West seeding for Colorado and Edmonton determined by tiebreakers (division winner status).
The following photo shows hos the 2025 NHL playoffs would have looked with a 1-8 seeding. In this instance, the Western Conference Finals (Edmonton vs Dallas) would have been a first-round matchup. Similarly, the Eastern Conference Finals (Florida vs Carolina) would have also been a first-round matchup. This is more evidence that the current system is weakening the later round matchups. I’m sure we could all agree. Both Conference Finals lacked any kind of intensity outside the 4 market cities involved.
Section 3: A Return to Sporting Integrity: The Case for the 1-8 Conference Model
The solution to the NHL’s self-inflicted competitive crisis is not a radical invention. It is a return to a proven, successful model. The 1-8 conference-based seeding system was used by the league for two decades from 1994 to 2013. It offers a clear and immediate path back to sporting fairness and integrity.
3.1 The Elegance of Simplicity and Fairness
The mechanics of the 1-8 format are refreshingly straightforward. The top eight teams in each conference qualify for the postseason based purely on their regular-season point totals. The first-round matchups are then determined by this conference-wide ranking. The #1 seed plays the #8 seed. The #2 seed plays the #7 seed. The #3 seed plays the #6 seed. The #4 seed plays the #5 seed.
The paramount virtue of this system is its inherent fairness. It directly and unambiguously rewards regular-season success. The teams that perform best during the 82-game marathon earn the most favorable playoff path. This is as it should be. There is no “corridor of hell,” no punishment for being the second- or third-best team in a strong division. A team’s playoff destiny is dictated by its performance against the entire conference, not just its immediate neighbors. This structure also fosters more organic and varied matchups from year to year. It prevents the stale repetition that currently plagues the postseason. It creates more intrigue for fans league-wide.
3.2 The Reseeding Debate: A Nuanced Discussion
The league would need to revisit the secondary debate. This debate on reseeding is important. A return to the 1-8 conference format would force this reconsideration. This is not merely a procedural tweak but a choice between two distinct and legitimate playoff philosophies.
The NHL used a format before 2014. This format was similar to the one currently employed by the National Football League (NFL). It included reseeding after each round. In this model, once the first round is complete, the bracket is re-ordered. The highest-seeded surviving team always plays the lowest-seeded surviving team. The philosophy here is to
continuously reward the best regular-season team throughout the playoffs. Grant them the most favorable matchup possible in every round they play.
Conversely, other major sports leagues use a fixed bracket. These include the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the NCAA with its “March Madness” basketball tournament. In this system, the path to the championship is set from day one. The winner of the 1-vs-8 series knows they will play the winner of the 4-vs-5 series. This is true regardless of any upsets that may occur elsewhere. The philosophy here focuses on the purity and predictability of the tournament bracket. It is easier for fans to follow and has immense marketing appeal for office pools and bracket challenges. This factor likely influenced the NHL’s current design.
The NHL’s current format represents a broken hybrid of these two ideas. It has a fixed bracket. However, it is not based on a true, conference-wide seeding. This gives it the predictability of the NBA model but lacks the inherent fairness. Returning to a 1-8 seeding system would be a massive improvement. This change, whether it includes reseeding or a fixed bracket, would represent a coherent and defensible philosophical choice. A fixed 1-8 bracket would be a major step forward. However, a system that includes reseeding after each round is the purest form of rewarding regular-season success. This should be the league’s ultimate goal.
Section 4: The Expansion Equation: Architecting a Playoff for the NHL of Tomorrow
The debate over the NHL’s playoff format is not happening in a vacuum. The process unfolds as the league inevitably grows. This makes a structural overhaul not just desirable, but absolutely essential. The league’s expansion is the perfect catalyst. It’s time to abandon its flawed system. They should build a new system fit for the future.
4.1 The Inevitable Growth
The NHL is now a 32-team league. It successfully added the Vegas Golden Knights and Seattle Kraken. The league also oversaw the relocation and rebranding of the Arizona Coyotes to become the Utah Mammoth. But the growth is unlikely to stop there. Commissioner Bettman has acknowledged significant interest from multiple prospective markets, including Atlanta, Houston, Kansas City, Austin, and Quebec City. Expansion fees are projected to be in the range of $2 billion per franchise. This provides immense financial incentive for current owners.
Expansion to 33, 34, or even 36 teams presents a fundamental structural problem. A 34-team league, for example, would almost certainly result in two 17-team conferences. This imbalance makes the current playoff format, with its reliance on divisional pods and wild cards, mathematically and logistically untenable. The league’s perfect symmetry would be broken, forcing a change. This necessity is an opportunity to design a better, fairer system from the ground up.
4.2 Blueprint for the Future: Three Potential Models
As the NHL charts its course for a 34- or 36-team future, several potential playoff models have emerged. Each offers a different vision for the league’s competitive structure.
Model A: The 18-Team Conference Play-In (for a 34-team league)
- Mechanics: In a 17-team conference, this model would expand the playoff race to 10 teams. The top six seeds would earn automatic playoff berths. Seeds 7 through 10 would enter a play-in tournament. This tournament determines the final two spots. This strategy mirrors the successful format adopted by the NBA. The structure would be:
- The #7 seed hosts the #8 seed. The winner secures the #7 playoff spot.
- The #9 seed hosts the #10 seed. The loser is eliminated.
- The loser of the 7-vs-8 game hosts the winner of the 9-vs-10 game. The winner of this final game secures the #8 playoff spot.
- Analysis: The primary benefit of this model is the creation of immense late-season drama. These high-stakes, winner-take-all games are incredibly valuable for television partners and fan engagement. It keeps more teams in the playoff hunt for longer. However, critics argue that it unfairly penalizes the 7th and 8th place teams. It forces them to re-qualify for a spot they earned over 82 games. Critics also claim it can feel like a gimmick. This gimmick allows less-deserving teams a path into the tournament.
Model B: The 36-Team, Six-Division Realignment
- Mechanics: This is arguably the most comprehensive and elegant solution for a larger league. It involves realigning the 36 teams into two conferences, each containing three divisions of six teams. This “6×6” structure is balanced and geographically logical.
- Playoff Proposal: A 16-team playoff field could be formed. This would grant automatic berths to the top two teams in each of the six divisions. There would be 12 total qualifiers. The remaining four spots would be filled by two wild card teams from each conference. These teams would be chosen based on the next-best regular-season records. Eight teams per conference would be seeded 1 through 8. The seeding would be based on their point totals. The playoffs would then proceed with the classic 1-vs-8 format.
- Analysis: This model solves multiple problems at once. It creates a balanced league structure and a schedule that can enhance the importance of divisional games and rivalries. Crucially, it makes winning a division extremely meaningful while restoring the overall fairness of a conference-wide playoff seeding. It is the most robust and forward-thinking of the proposed solutions.
Model C: The 20-Team Expanded Field (for a 34 or 36-team league)
- Mechanics: This proposal has been discussed for over a decade. It would expand the total playoff field to 20 teams—10 from each conference. In this scenario, the top six seeds in each conference would receive automatic berths. The final two spots would be determined by a play-in round. This round would feature the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th seeds. The format would likely have #7 play #10. Meanwhile, #8 would play #9. The games could be a single-elimination game or a best-of-three series.
- Analysis: The primary driver behind this idea is revenue. More playoff games mean more ticket sales and more broadcast inventory, engaging four additional markets in the postseason chase. The significant drawback, however, is the dilution of the regular season. If 20 of 34 teams (59%) make the playoffs, the achievement of qualifying is greatly reduced. If 20 of 36 teams (56%) make it, qualifying becomes less impressive. The 82-game regular season becomes less of a meaningful test. It turns into more of a lengthy preamble.
Ultimately, the impending expansion forces the NHL to confront a fundamental philosophical choice about its own structure. A 36-team league creates mathematical challenges in the current scheduling matrix. Every team playing in every opposing city at least once per season may be competitively unwise. The league must decide whether to prioritize inter-conference play. This will showcase star players like Connor McDavid in every market. Alternatively, they may emphasize intra-conference and divisional play to build rivalries and reduce travel. The 6×6 realignment model (Model B) strongly favors intra-conference and divisional play. This choice renders the current divisional playoff format completely redundant. Expansion is therefore the perfect catalyst to force the league to shed its broken system. Adopting a 6×6 realignment naturally pairs with a return to the 1-8 conference playoff. This creates a single, elegant solution. It fixes the league’s structural problems for the foreseeable future.
Conclusion: Forging a New Path for the Stanley Cup
The evidence presented is clear and overwhelming. The National Hockey League’s current divisional playoff format is a failed experiment. It has actively damaged the competitive integrity of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. For over a decade, it has punished excellence. It has devalued the 82-game regular season. It failed to deliver on its central promise of creating compelling rivalries. Instead, it produced stale, repetitive, and often lopsided postseason matchups.
The league has an opportunity and an obligation to correct its course. The immediate imperative is to abandon the divisional brackets. The league should revert to the 1-8 conference-based seeding system. This change could happen as early as the 2026-27 season. This is a simple, proven, and fair solution. It enjoys widespread support from the players, who are the most important stakeholders in the game. The solution is also supported by its most dedicated fans and its most insightful media analysts.
Looking to the future, the inevitability of expansion should be viewed as an opportunity, not a problem. It is the perfect moment for the league to shed its flawed system. The league can architect a new structure for a new era of hockey. A 36-team league is the most logical and fair path forward. The league should be realigned into six balanced divisions. It should culminate in a 16-team, conference-based playoff seeded 1 through 8. This format promises to be exciting.
The Stanley Cup is revered as the hardest trophy to win in professional sports. The path to hoisting it should be a fair and honorable challenge. It should reward a full season of excellence. It should not be a broken bracket determined by the arbitrary luck of divisional geography. It is time for the NHL to fix its playoffs and restore the integrity of the chase for the Cup.
ScortonBoy17.ca 
Leave a comment