The institutional framework governing the National Hockey League (NHL) standings and postseason qualification has come under increasing scrutiny. The sport is transitioning into a high-skill, data-driven era. A fundamental tension exists in this discourse. It lies between “artificial parity.” This is a commercial strategy designed to maintain fan engagement by keeping standings mathematically tight. Also, it lies between competitive meritocracy. This seeks to reward regulation dominance and organic excellence. Analysts, players, and executives increasingly view the current system as archaic. It is characterized by two-point wins and division-based playoff brackets. This structure distorts late-game strategy. It penalizes high-performing teams in strong divisions. It also produces repetitive postseason matchups that potentially saturate regional markets. These factors diminish national appeal.¹ Emerging leagues like the Professional Women’s Hockey League (PWHL) use more consistent scoring models. Established international bodies such as the International Hockey Federation (IIHF) also successfully use these models. Because of this, the NHL faces a critical urgency to modernize its competitive architecture.⁴

The historical genesis of standings incentives and the evolution of the overtime point

The current point system is not a static tradition. It results from decades of reactive policy adjustments. These adjustments aim at curing specific perceived ills in the game’s entertainment value. Historically, the NHL operated on a binary system: two points for a win and zero for a loss.¹ When games ended in a tie after 60 minutes, each team was awarded one point. This was a closed-loop economy. Every game, regardless of outcome, awarded a total of 2 points among the participants.¹

During the mid-20th century, the league briefly eliminated overtime due to wartime travel constraints. This rule persisted long after the conflict ended.⁷ In the 1983-84 season, a five-minute overtime period was reintroduced. The goal was to reduce the frequency of ties. Teams played with extreme caution during the extra frame because they received zero points for an overtime loss. They treated the guaranteed point from the regulation tie as more valuable. It was seen as more important than pursuing a risky second point.⁷ Former New York Islanders General Manager Bill Torrey famously described conservative overtime play as “15 seconds of sex.” He observed that after an initial burst of activity, teams became defensive to safeguard their point.⁷

The league addressed this in the 1999-2000 season. They introduced the “loser point,” which guaranteed each team one point for reaching a regulation tie.⁴ A second point was then awarded to the overtime winner. This fundamentally changed the game’s math. It shifted from a fixed two-point event into a variable system. In this new system, some games were worth two points. Others, specifically those that reached overtime, were worth three.⁴ This “magic point” created out of thin air was solidified in 2005. The league introduced the shootout to ensure every game had a definitive winner. This change guaranteed that every overtime game would award a total of three points.⁴

Era	Winning Mechanism	Points for Win (Reg/OT/SO)	Points for Loss (Reg/OT/SO)	Points for Tie	Total Points per Game
Pre-1983	Reg. Only	2 / N/A / N/A	0 / N/A / N/A	1	2
1983-1999	5v5 OT	2 / 2 / N/A	0 / 0 / N/A	1	2
1999-2005	4v4 OT	2 / 2 / N/A	0 / 1 / N/A	1	2 or 3
2005-Pres.	3v3 OT/SO	2 / 2 / 2	0 / 1 / 1	N/A	2 or 3

The mathematical distortion of game theory and strategic risk aversion

The three-point game has reshaped strategies. It often leads teams to halt efforts for a win in the final minutes of regulation. From a game-theoretic perspective, the current system presents a classic “Prisoner’s Dilemma” for coaches.¹² With five minutes left in the third period and the game tied, each team plays it safe. This strategy is rational. It minimizes risk. This ensures they “bank” at least one point.⁹

Statistical analysis by researchers like Phil Birnbaum demonstrates that the incentive to reach overtime is mathematically overwhelming.⁸ Under the current system, the expected point value (E) for a team that reaches overtime is 1.5 points, assuming a 50/50 chance of winning the extra frame. ¹³

^{Eot = 1.0 + (0.5 x 10) = 1.5}

To match an expected value of 1.5 points in regulation, a team would need a.750 winning percentage, a feat rarely achieved even by elite franchises.⁸ Consequently, taking an aggressive offensive risk late in regulation is a statistically unwise choice. For example, a defenseman pinching at the blue line can be risky. Such risks are statistically poor decisions. A risk with even a small chance of causing a regulation loss can lower the team’s expected point gain. Even a small chance can decrease expectations. The reduction moves it below the safety threshold for overtime’s 1.5.⁸

This strategic distortion manifests as “defensive mode” or a “neutral zone trap” in the waning minutes of tie games.¹⁴ Coaches are incentivized to slow the play, avoid stretch passes, and prioritize puck retention over scoring chances.⁸ This tactical shift produces a less exciting product for viewers. It rewards teams that lack the skill to win in regulation. These teams possess the defensive fortitude to drag games into the “skills competition” of a shootout.¹

Artificial parity and the economic drivers of the standings format

The NHL’s commitment to the current point structure is largely driven by the concept of “artificial parity.”¹⁶ The league awards points for overtime losses. This keeps the standings mathematically compact. It creates the illusion that more teams are in the playoff race for a longer portion of the season.⁹ This has significant commercial implications. It keeps regional fanbases engaged. It maintains television ratings in local markets through March and April. It also sustains gate receipts for franchises that might otherwise be mathematically eliminated.⁴

However, this “fake parity” comes at a cost to competitive integrity.¹⁶ It allows mediocre teams to stay relevant by “farming” overtime points rather than controlling games in regulation.¹⁷ In the 2025-26 season, for example, several teams remained in the playoff hunt. They won very few games in regulation. Instead, they relied on a high volume of three-point games to inflate their standing.¹⁷ This “empty-calorie” point accumulation punishes truly dominant teams and disincentivizes winning games tied late in regulation.¹⁷

Season	Impacted Team	Regulation Wins	OT/SO Losses	Total Points	Outcome
2011-12	Florida Panthers	38 (Total Wins)	18	94	Won Southeast Division 19
2011-12	L.A. Kings	40 (Total Wins)	15	95	Qualified as 8th Seed 11
2011-12	Dallas Stars	42 (Total Wins)	5	89	Missed Playoffs 11
2015-16	Boston Bruins	42 (Total Wins)	9	93	Missed Playoffs 11
2015-16	Philadelphia Flyers	41 (Total Wins)	14	96	Qualified for Playoffs 11

The 2011-12 season remains one of the most egregious examples of the current system’s failure. The Florida Panthers won their division primarily by playing not to lose, accumulating a league record 18 overtime losses.¹⁹ The Dallas Stars won 42 games in regulation and overtime. However, they missed the playoffs because they did not accumulate enough “loser points”.¹¹ Most significantly, the Los Angeles Kings were the eventual Stanley Cup champions. They would not have even qualified for the postseason under a pure win/loss system. They were beneficiaries of 15 overtime losses. These losses padded their point total, allowing them to leapfrog teams with more wins.¹¹

The Case for the 3-2-1-0 “Three-Point Win” Model

The most frequently proposed alternative is the 3-2-1-0 system, also known as the international or IIHF model.¹ This structure awards three points for a regulation win. It gives two points for an overtime/shootout win and one point for an overtime/shootout loss. A regulation loss earns zero points.⁴ The primary benefit of this system is its internal consistency. Every game is worth exactly three points. This eliminates the “inflation” of the standings that occurs when some games are worth more than others.⁴

Under this model, the “carrot” for a regulation win is significantly larger.¹⁶ A team tied late in a game would have a strong incentive to push for the third point. Achieving a regulation win would be worth 50% more than an overtime win.⁵ This change could restore the frantic nature of the final minutes of hockey games. The risk of losing one point is present. However, there is potential to gain two additional points for finishing in 60 minutes.¹²

Comparative point systems analysis

Result Type	Current NHL Points	3-2-1-0 Points	5-Point Model Points
Regulation Win	2	3	5
Overtime Win	2	2	4
Shootout Win	2	2	3
Shootout Loss	1	1	2
Overtime Loss	1	1	1
Regulation Loss	0	0	0

Analysts at Natural Stat Trick and other hockey media outlets have conducted simulations. These simulations show that a 3-2-1-0 system does not radically alter the playoff field. However, it significantly changes the seeding. It also rewards different styles of play.¹⁵ For instance, in a 3-2-1-0 simulation of the 2024-25 season, the New York Rangers would have benefited immensely. Their high volume of regulation wins was significant. It would allow them to move from a fringe wild-card position into the first wild-card. They could even reach a higher position.¹⁵ On the other hand, teams like the Islanders or Kraken struggle. They rely on securing points from three-point games in certain seasons.⁴

Playoff seeding and the crisis of the divisional bracket

Beyond the point system itself, the method of seeding teams for the postseason draws criticism. It has become a flashpoint. Since the 2013-14 realignment, the NHL has utilized a divisional bracket format.² In this system, the top three teams in each division qualify, plus two wild cards per conference.²¹ The first two rounds are largely intra-divisional, designed to foster regional rivalries and minimize travel.²

The primary criticism of this format is its tendency to force the league’s best teams to meet early. This often happens in the initial rounds. This setup effectively punishes regular-season success.² The brackets are rigid. A division containing three of the top five teams in the league will see two of those contenders eliminated early. Meanwhile, a weaker division may see a mediocre team reach the Conference Finals.²

The talent imbalance problem

The Western Conference’s Central Division has frequently been cited as the “worst case scenario” for the current format.²⁶ In several seasons, the Colorado Avalanche, Dallas Stars, and Minnesota Wild have all finished as top-tier teams by merit. However, they were forced into a first-round “collision course.”²⁶ This “spoils” the later rounds of the tournament, as the highest-quality hockey often occurs in April rather than June.²

Issue	Current Divisional Format	1-8 Conference Seeding
Matchup Variety	Low (Same teams meet annually)	High (Dynamic pairings)
Reward for Regular Season	Mixed (Depends on division strength)	High (Best plays worst)
Travel Logistics	Optimized for early rounds	Increased travel potentially
TV Ratings Focus	Regional rivalries	National interest in top seeds
Reseeding	None	After each round

The Los Angeles Kings and Edmonton Oilers met in the first round for four consecutive years between 2022 and 2025.28 This creates a specific regional storyline. However, players like Cale Makar and Sidney Crosby have noted that it makes the regular season feel less significant. Teams are “doomed” to face the same opponent regardless of their conference finish.²² Crosby has explicitly voiced support for a return to the 1-8 seeding format. In this format, the regular-season champion is rewarded with a matchup against the lowest-seeded team. This ensures a more meritocratic path to the Stanley Cup. ²²

Tactical edge cases: Rule 84.2 and the Sergei Fedorov strategy

A fascinating tactical development occurred in the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL). It has highlighted the strategic constraints of the NHL’s current point system. Hall of Famer Sergei Fedorov, coaching CSKA Moscow, began a trend. He pulled his goaltender during 3-on-3 overtime. This was done to create a 4-on-3 man advantage.³¹ Fedorov noted that maintaining possession at 3-on-3 is significantly easier than at 5-on-5. He explained that a 4-on-3 advantage is almost impossible to defend against if executed correctly.³³

Fedorov’s strategy was highly successful in Russia, but it is effectively banned in the NHL by Rule 84.2.^32. This rule states if a team pulls its goalie during overtime and the opponent scores into the empty net. The team that pulled the goalie loses the “loser point.” They initially earned this point for reaching a regulation tie. ³¹

This rule exists specifically to prevent teams from using the “loser point” as a safety net.³² Without Rule 84.2, every NHL coach would pull their goalie in overtime. There would be nothing to lose. They already have one point. They would be gambling only for a second.³² The creation of a specific rule by the league exposes an inherent issue. It shows that the “loser point” generates an artificial environment. In this environment, natural hockey strategy must be legislated against. This legislation is necessary to maintain a specific competitive balance.³²

The impact of the shootout and the devaluation of 60-minute hockey

Since its introduction in 2005, the shootout has been one of the most controversial elements of the NHL standings.¹ Initially, it was popular as a way to “clean up” the standings and provide a definitive winner. Now, it is increasingly viewed as a “skills competition” that has no bearing on actual hockey performance.¹

The fundamental problem is that a shootout win is worth the same two points as a dominant regulation win.⁴ This devalues the 60-minute team effort. It allows teams with high-end individual talent (or simply lucky goaltending) to inflate their point totals.⁹ Edmonton Oilers superstar Connor McDavid has called the shootout a “crappy way to finish a game.” Other players have suggested extending overtime to 10 minutes. Some propose eliminating the shootout entirely in favour of ties.⁹

If the league were to adopt the 3-2-1-0 system, the shootout would naturally become less influential.⁴ A team that wins in a shootout would receive two points. In contrast, a team that won in regulation would receive three points. This creates a clear hierarchy of victory.⁴ This change would ease the concerns of “hockey purists.” They believe that a team sport should not be decided by a series of penalty shots. It still provides the league with the definitive result it desires for television purposes.¹

Administrative resistance and the logic of Commissioner Gary Bettman

Commissioner Gary Bettman remains staunchly opposed to altering the point system. This is despite the calls for change from players, fans, and media. He is also against changing the playoff format.²² Bettman’s arguments are primarily based on the league’s current revenue growth. He also emphasizes the perceived intensity of divisional rivalries.³

Bettman argues that the current system is “working well.” He believes that the divisional matchups in the first round are “terrific” rather than problematic.³ From the league’s perspective, the “best teams have to play the best teams eventually.” Therefore, there is no harm in those matchups occurring in the first round.² Furthermore, the commissioner has dismissed the idea of a play-in tournament. He also dismissed extended overtime. The primary concerns are player health and ice conditions.²²

Bettman’s Defense	Critic’s Rebuttal
“Artificial parity” keeps all fans engaged until April.	It rewards mediocrity and punishes regulatory dominance.
Divisional brackets create intense rivalries.	Repetitive matchups lead to viewer fatigue and saturated markets.
The champion has to beat everyone anyway.	Top teams are eliminated early, devaluing the Conference Finals.
1-8 seeding increases travel costs.	Modern travel and the importance of merit should take precedence over logistics.

The league’s stance is also supported by many owners and governors, particularly those in the Western Conference who fear the return of cross-continental first-round series (e.g., Vancouver vs. Nashville or Dallas vs. Edmonton).²³ The PWHL and the 4 Nations Face-Off have experienced success. Both have experimented with or adopted the 3-2-1-0 system. This success suggests that the NHL’s administrative resistance may eventually be overcome. The resistance could be outweighed by competitive necessity.⁵

The PWHL as a laboratory for NHL innovation

The PWHL acts as a modern laboratory for hockey rules. The NHL has been slow to adopt these rules. The PWHL has introduced the “Jailbreak Rule.” In this rule, a short-handed goal by a team serving a minor penalty immediately ends that penalty. ⁵

In an NHLPA poll, 29.7% of NHL players cited the Jailbreak Rule as the PWHL innovation they would most like to see in the NHL.³⁸ These innovations may seem unrelated to the point system. They reflect a broader philosophy of rewarding aggressive play and offensive creativity. In contrast, the NHL’s point system is a “punishment avoidance” system. The primary goal of many teams is to avoid the zero-point regulation loss. They focus on this instead of pursuing the three-point regulation win.¹

The “magic point” and its impact on the goaltender and skater workload

One of the secondary effects of the current point system is the increased physical toll on star players.¹⁷ The standings are kept artificially tight by the loser point. As a result, teams are rarely able to “clinch” a playoff spot early.¹⁷ This forces star players like Connor McDavid or Nathan MacKinnon to play high-intensity minutes deep into April.¹⁷

In the 2025-26 season, the Edmonton Oilers were on pace to play 33 overtime games.¹⁷ This volume of extra-time hockey means their top players are playing significantly more minutes per night. McDavid averaged over 23 minutes. This schedule increases the risk of injury and fatigue heading into the postseason.¹⁷ A 3-2-1-0 system would likely separate the top teams from the pack more quickly. It could allow for more strategic rest for elite players. This system could improve the Stanley Cup Playoffs. It would ensure the game’s stars are healthy and rested.¹⁷

Conclusion: The imperative for a merit-based competitive framework

The National Hockey League’s current point structure is increasingly at odds with the competitive reality of modern professional sports. The playoff seeding format also fails to align with this reality. The “loser point” and divisional brackets have served their purpose as commercial tools to maintain parity. They foster regional rivalries. However, they have introduced systemic distortions. These distortions undermine the integrity of the 82-game regular season.¹

The evidence for change is multifaceted. There is mathematical certainty that teams play conservatively in tie games to protect the “loser point.” There are historical anomalies. Teams with more wins are sometimes excluded from the playoffs. This is done in favour of teams with more overtime losses.⁸ Divisional playoff matchups are repetitive. Teams in strong divisions are unfairly punished. These factors suggest a return to the conference-based 1-8 model is needed for the bracket system. ²

Adopting a 3-2-1-0 scoring model would align the NHL with international standards and emerging professional leagues. This model restores the value of the 60-minute win. It incentivizes the aggressive, high-skill hockey that the league’s fans and players clearly desire.⁴ By prioritizing merit, the NHL can ensure a true test of dominance in its regular season. It avoids artificial closeness. This approach guarantees that its postseason features the organic, varied matchups that define the “best playoffs in sports”.² The current administrative inertia may provide short-term stability. However, the long-term health of the sport requires a structural evolution. This evolution rewards winning and preserves the fundamental competitive spirit of hockey.

Works cited

1. NHL’s Overtime Point Ruins Hockey – The Hockey Writers – Commentary – NHL News, Analysis & More, accessed February 6, 2026, https://thehockeywriters.com/nhls-overtime-point-ruins-hockey/
2. NHL’s divisional playoff format stinks – and it’s time to move on – Daily Faceoff, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/nhl-should-change-divisional-stanley-cup-playoff-format-1-vs-8
3. [Johnston] Gary Bettman on the NHL’s divisional playoff format: “This is working well.” : r/hockey – Reddit, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/11ryn18/johnston_gary_bettman_on_the_nhls_divisional/
4. NHL standings point model and alternatives – Sound Of Hockey, accessed February 6, 2026, https://soundofhockey.com/2025/01/09/nhl-standings-point-model-and-alternatives/
5. How are PWHL rules different from the NHL? – FanSided, accessed February 6, 2026, https://fansided.com/posts/pwhl-rules-nhl-explained
6. PWHL tweaks penalty, short-handed goal, shootout in rule book | CBC Sports, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/pwhl/pwhl-rule-book-tweaks-1.7072145
7. Examining the Cases For and Against the NHL’s ‘Loser Point’ – The Hockey News, accessed February 6, 2026, https://thehockeynews.com/news/news/examining-the-cases-for-and-against-the-nhls-loser-point
8. Has the extra point for the “regulation tie” increased … – Phil Birnbaum, accessed February 6, 2026, http://www.philbirnbaum.com/overtime.pdf
9. Mark Madden’s Hot Take: NHL’s 3-on-3 overtime has become too tactical, boring, accessed February 6, 2026, https://triblive.com/sports/mark-maddens-hot-take-nhls-3-on-3-overtime-has-become-too-tactical-boring/
10. List of all-time NHL standings – Wikipedia, accessed February 6, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all-time_NHL_standings
11. Opinion: Nine Times the NHL ‘Loser Point’ Skewed the Standings, accessed February 6, 2026, https://thehockeynews.com/news/news/opinion-nine-times-the-nhl-loser-point-skewed-the-standings
12. Comparing current standings VS using a 3-2-1-0 point award format : r/nhl – Reddit, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/comments/1phrbql/comparing_current_standings_vs_using_a_3210_point/
13. Using Game Theory to Solve NHL Overtime | by Caleb Smith – Medium, accessed February 6, 2026, https://calebrsmith95.medium.com/using-game-theory-to-solve-nhl-overtime-9ff1ce4b13ec
14. NHL’s 3–2–1 Point System, a Programmer’s Perspective | by Nick | Medium, accessed February 6, 2026, https://medium.com/@nicklikestech_/nhls-3-2-1-point-system-a-programmer-s-perspective-610428f47600
15. If The NHL Adopted The 3-2-1 Point System, The Rangers Would …, accessed February 6, 2026, https://thehockeynews.com/news/latest-news/if-the-nhl-adopted-the-3-2-1-point-system-the-rangers-would-get-a-big-boost
16. What is the argument for a 3-2-1 point system vs just a point for winning and no loser points? : r/rangers – Reddit, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/rangers/comments/1pfqq4z/what_is_the_argument_for_a_321_point_system_vs/
17. Overtime, loser points unleashing chaos in NHL’s Season of Parity – Daily Faceoff, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/nhl-season-of-parity-loser-points-overtime-shootouts-trending-up-2025-26-standings
18. Analysis: Does the 2-point system keep the standings “closer” than a 3-point system would? : r/hockey – Reddit, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1i7gzuq/analysis_does_the_2point_system_keep_the/
19. Loser Points: NHL Needs to Focus on Winning | The Hockey Writers, accessed February 6, 2026, https://thehockeywriters.com/loser-points-nhl-needs-to-focus-on-winning/
20. The NHL should adopt a 3-2-1 points system – Heavy Hockey Network, accessed February 6, 2026, https://heavyhockey.com/2025/03/26/the-nhl-should-adopt-a-3-2-1-pts-system/
21. I Fixed the NHL Play-Off Format – Medium, accessed February 6, 2026, https://medium.com/@parkersm359/i-fixed-the-nhl-play-off-format-1811fe31186b
22. Bettman: No plans to change playoff format or extend overtime – theScore.com, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/3246253
23. The current playoff format is bad; it would be better if teams could pick their opponents : r/hockey – Reddit, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1pp9xic/the_current_playoff_format_is_bad_it_would_be/
24. [Yost] It’s time to give the NHL’s playoff format a serious rethink : r/hockey – Reddit, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1qb4ph3/yost_its_time_to_give_the_nhls_playoff_format_a/
25. The NHL needs to go back to 1-8 conference seeding : r/hockey – Reddit, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1kv61bf/the_nhl_needs_to_go_back_to_18_conference_seeding/
26. It’s time to give the NHL’s playoff format a serious rethink – TSN, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/article/its-time-to-give-the-nhls-playoff-format-a-serious-rethink/
27. NHL has no plans to change current playoff format or revert to classic 1-8 matchups, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/nhl-has-no-plans-to-change-current-playoff-format-or-revert-to-classic-1-8-matchups
28. NHL Commissioner Prefers Current Postseason Format – Sports Illustrated, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.si.com/onsi/breakaway/news-feed-page/nhl-gary-bettman-prefers-current-postseason-format
29. Makar: All players want 1 vs. 8 playoff format back – theScore.com, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/3346530
30. Bettman says tweaking NHL playoff format not as simple as it sounds | CBC Sports, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-gary-bettman-playoff-format-feb-4-1.6737566
31. The NHL rule that NO ONE knows… – YouTube, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8qtiGmT9Z5Y
32. [KHL] 1st OT of the season and Sergei Fedorov pulls goalie… : r/hockey – Reddit, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/x5mhze/khl_1st_ot_of_the_season_and_sergei_fedorov_pulls/
33. Should a team pull their goalie in overtime? – Davy Jones’ Locker Room, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.davyjoneslockerroom.com/should-nhl-teams-pull-their-goalie-in-overtime-sergei-fedorov-khl/
34. Sergei Fedorov wins 2 consecutive games for CSKA after pulling his goaltender during 3-on-3 overtime: ‘I am not a fan of shootouts’, accessed February 6, 2026, https://russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2021/12/09/sergei-fedorov-wins-2-consecutive-games-for-cska-after-pulling-his-goaltender-during-3-on-3-overtime-i-am-not-a-fan-of-shootouts/
35. NHL Notebook: Recapping the three days at the NHL GMs meeting – Canucks Army, accessed February 6, 2026, https://canucksarmy.com/news/nhl-notebook-recapping-three-days-nhl-gms-meeting
36. 1 vs 8 playoff seeding VS Divisional Playoff seeding : r/nhl – Reddit, accessed February 6, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/comments/1jscrz6/1_vs_8_playoff_seeding_vs_divisional_playoff/
37. What are the differences between NHL, PWHL, and Olympic hockey rules? – Team Canada, accessed February 6, 2026, https://olympic.ca/2025/05/01/what-are-the-differences-between-nhl-pwhl-and-olympic-hockey-rules/
38. Differences Between Two Professional Leagues: The PWHL and NHL, accessed February 6, 2026, https://area51sportsnet.com/differences-between-the-pwhl-and-nhl/