Confirmed - 24-Team Playoffs Format Discussion Thread

[30ranfordfan]

My understanding is that if any of those spots goes 1, 2 or 3 in the first draft lottery, all 8 teams who lose their play in (best of 5) series will be entered into a second lotto with each having a 12.5% chance at that spot. This is where it seems stupid to me that the 9th best team in the league could have a 12.5% chance at a top 3 spot. In my opinion they should have done the draft as is with the slots and filled said slots once the play-in round is done (or better yet, just wait because whats another 2 weeks for the draft lottery. I'm assuming the draft now doesn't happen until the playoffs are done?

Correct, the Commissioner was talking about the draft yesterday and it may not happen until October now. The knock-on effect of this delay will be far-reaching to say the least.

Going back to all the draft lottery stuff...

These are the full odds, per nhl.com:

Team	P%	Odds
1. Detroit Red Wings	.275	18.5%
2. Ottawa Senators	.437	13.5%
3. Ottawa Senators*	.437	11.5%
4. Los Angeles Kings	.457	9.5%
5. Anaheim Ducks	.472	8.5%
6. New Jersey Devils	.493**	7.5%
7. Buffalo Sabres	.493**	6.5%
8. Team A	n/a	6.0%
9. Team B	n/a	5.0%
10. Team C	n/a	3.5%
11. Team D	n/a	3.0%
12. Team E	n/a	2.5%
13. Team F	n/a	2.0%
14. Team G	n/a	1.5%
15. Team H	n/a	1.0%

For the top 7 teams, nothing has changed. Those were their odds of getting the #1 overall pick before the re-jigged format.

This is where the fun begins.

If All Three Draws Are Won by Teams in #1-7 Group . . .
* The winning teams receive the respective top three selections in the 2020 NHL Draft. The remaining four teams in the #1-7 group not selected in the three draws are assigned NHL Draft positions 4 through 7 in inverse order of their points percentage at the time of the regular-season pause. The next eight Draft positions (8 through 15) will be assigned to the eight teams that do not advance from the Qualifying Round, in inverse order of their points percentage at the time of the regular-season pause. In these circumstances, Phase 2 of the Draft Lottery would not be necessary.

What I gather from this is that say Detroit-Ottawa-Buffalo ends up being 1-2-3. Great, easy. Ottawa's other pick is #4, then you get LA-Anaheim-NJ rounding out the top 7. 8-15 are based off who gets knocked out in the play-in round. Pittsburgh gets no advantage at all when if they get knocked out by Montreal--they don't "move up" to what would have been Montreal's #8 spot. It's all based on the points percentage so they're still going to be 15th because they had such a strong regular season record.

Now for the goofy stuff...

If the lotto ball for either 1-2-3 falls to a team in 8-15, the draw for that spot will take place after the qualifying round, and will be comprised of the 8 teams who don't advance. This is the ultimate wild card here:

* In each Phase 2 draw, all participants will have the same odds.

So if you're a fan of maximum chaos, let's continue with the notion of the Habs knocking off the Penguins. The 1st overall pick gets nabbed by a Phase 2 team. Any team that doesn't advance through the qualifying round has an equal 1-in-8 chance to win the lottery. Pittsburgh, despite being the highest-ranked regular season team that didn't get a bye into the first round, could jump all the way from 15th to 1st overall. They'd have to endure the humiliation of wasting a really strong regular season and the ignominy of losing to the Habs in a best-of-five series, but they'd have Alexis Lafreniere on their roster next season.

I'm following this now.... I do understand it, I guess.

They run the lottery like normal, with 15 teams.... but 8 are unknowns. One of those unknowns wins one of the top 3 picks. Once the 8 teams are known, they draw for who gets it... with the remaining teams staying in their spots.

I'm assuming this was the carrot they had to toss to teams that looked like locks to make the playoffs, and are now risking their seasons ending in a best of five play in.

The Penguins (the team who got the worst deal in this, IMO).... if they get knocked out by Montreal, will get a 12.5% shot at a top 3 pick, if one of the bottom 8 slots win. It's pretty unlikely to happen - but it could.


Really, the changes for any of those 8 getting a top 3 pick aren't bad at all. Unless my understanding how the lottery works is wrong.....

Let's say that The Red Wings get the #1 pick (they win the first draw) and the Senators, with their Sharks pick, get the #2 pick on the second draw. Those are the 1st and 3rd most likely teams to win these draws, so I'm not suggesting something crazy. The have a combined 30% of the balls.

Let's also pretend that the bingo machine uses 200 balls (since there are half-percents used):

This would mean that Detroit has 37 of the 200, and the Senators (via the Sharks pick ONLY) have 23 of the 200. For the 3rd drawing, 60 of the 200 balls have either been drawn, or are now worthless.

So I'll jump down the Buffalo, and their 6.5% chance of winning. That means they've got 13 balls, out of 140, for the third draw. Their 6.5% chance of winning is more like 9.25% now.

Then there's the 8 unknown teams. One of them winning (Team A, Team E, whatever...) is the same thing. While they all have their own allotment, it's effectively one big pool. They had a combined 24.5% chance of winning, so 49 of the 200 balls. Collectively, they now have a 35% chance of winning the 3rd draw.

Let's pretend like Team C wins.....

If all eliminated teams have an equal shot at claiming that 3rd pick, as has already been mentioned: That's a 12.5% chance of winning that draw..... so in that last scenario: Before the draw which Team C won, there was a 4.375% chance of any particular eliminated team winning.

I'm only mentioning these numbers.... because they're likely giving a couple of very good teams, roughly half the chances of Buffalo, to win a high pick.


There's so many other ways to look at these numbers. Detroit has more balls than anyone - but that doesn't mean they have the best chance of winning.... it's much more likely that "not Detroit" wins the first draw, than it is Detroit winning the draw.

That those 8 teams are effectively all the same...... the unnamed teams (when combined into one) will be the most likely winner in each draw. Their combined 24.5% is greater than Detroit's 18.5%.

If Team A (6%) wins the first draw, then the combined Team B through Team H will still have an equal-to-Detroit- change of winning the 2nd draw. If Team B wins the 2nd draw (so the two biggest numbers from the pool are gone) then the combined 13.5% of the remaining unnamed teams is still equal to the #2 slot, Ottawa.



I'll stop ranting about this. I'm likely just going in circles.... but yeah, this was the bone that the NHL gave to the Pittsburghs of the league. In theory they get eliminated, and would end up with a 1% chance of winning the #1 pick. Doing it this way: They've got (roughly) a 3% chance. Tripled the odds, in their favor.

[30ranfordfan]

Love the every year crying about everything threads. The wild card is trash, the playoff format is trash, draft lottery is a sham. And now it's the "this cup won't count".

I enjoy the conversation, for the most part. This thread, IMO, has been pretty good. I have given up on FB comments when it comes to sports. Too many trolls.

I think one very point to make: There are a lot of people out there that don't like things changing. If the moment anything is modified, fans race to their keyboards to yell "YOU'RE RUINING THE GAME!!!!!!!!1"

Baseball is a really easy one to flip over to for a moment, because they're the ones who have made the most drastic changes to their playoff format in the last 30 years.

When they realigned in 1994, and brought in the wild card: The idea was hated by a lot of folks. Too many teams in the playoffs. Some team that doesn't even win their own division will make it.

When they added an extra wild card, creating a 1-game playoff, in 2012, people screamed it was too gimmicky, and unfair that an entire season comes down to 1 game.

Guess what? Fans loved both changes. It makes for great games.

I don't think those changes did anything to change how great teams were in the past, and they didn't make any of the modern day winners any less legitimate. You don't hear people talk about "winning the pennant" nearly as much as you once did (because it's not as big of a deal as it once was) but so what?

The record books, of course, got demolished. Not sure how big of baseball fans all of you would be.... but here's the Top 10 alltime MLB post season hit leaders:

1. Derek Jeter 200 734 PA
2. Bernie Williams 128 545 PA
3. Manny Ramirez 117 493 PA
4. Jorge Posada 103 492 PA
5. Kenny Lofton 97 438 PA
Chipper Jones 97 417 PA
7. Yadier Molina 95 380 PA
8. Albert Pujols 90 334 PA
9. David Justice 89 471 PA
10. David Ortiz 88 369 PA

If you're not familiar with those names. The oldest player on the list (I'm pretty sure) is Kenny Lofton. He debuted in 1991. If you think about all the great teams form the last 30 years of baseball.... Jeter, Williams, Posada were all on the Yankees. Ramirez & Ortiz were Red Sox, Molina & Pujols were Cardinals (Molina still is), and Lofton, Justice, and and Jones were all Atlanta Braves.

Some of those names are considered all-time Greats..... but most are not "Mount Rushmore" types, that are names that will never be forgotten. They don't have those all-time spots because they're necessarily the greatest post-season hitters of all time..... they have those spots because they played on teams that made the playoffs consistently, after the post season expanded.

Baseball is probably going to add more teams to the playoffs soon.... and (of course) many fans think it will "ruin" it. It won't ruin it, but it will mean Jeter's days on the top of that list are numbered - Since "good" teams (rather than great ones) will be able to make consistent multi-year playoff runs.... and players will be playing in more games.

For sure everyone this year has a similarly fair shot, I'm just saying that personally I wouldn't equate this season's difficulty level with that of other seasons. Much of the reason for that is that any sports season is a long grind, so to have the strength and endurance and consistency to persevere is impressive. A good example would be last year's Blues team that was in last place in January but ended up winning the Cup. I don't think it would be nearly as impressive if they had a big 4 month break in between. It's practically a new season.

I do see where you're coming from on that. Hockey in particular, the grind that players go through to win a Cup is something that's celebrated. Many players are playing banged up by the end of it. Overcoming that is huge.

I've always had mixed feelings on it though.... as the finals are typically played by two teams that may be playing their most intense hockey of the season, but very rarely their best. Too many player are hurt (to varying degrees) to actually play their their best. While we'll applaud Joe Thornton for playing on one knee, all the way into the finals: Wouldn't we all have rather seen him play on two knees? Would that not have made the games better?

This year is going to be really unique (if it actually happens). Players have had a chance to heal. Everyone will be fresh. That may not be a good thing for everyone..... I suspect we're going to see a lot of the groin pulls that happen in September & October, but I think for most players: It will be a good thing, physically.

If McDavid leads the Oilers to a Cup victory over the Penguins (I can dream?) I'd rather see McDavid & Draisaitl, at their best, beating Crosby & Malkin at their best - than I would seeing the Oilers beat a banged up Penguins squad.

I see many well thought out posts discussing the merits of both sides, and this post appears to be the only one crying about anything.

I'm with you hear.... I don't really see the tears, and ridiculous rants, that Facebook always seems to bring out. Not once have I seen anyone suggest that Betman is (once again) trying to screw Canada with this deal!

When will the next year season begin? Award the Cup and play a regular season game the next day! lol Talk about a Cup hangover. I assume it will be pushed back?

Training camp in mid-July, games start August 1st (ish). 10 days for the play-in Round, and 14 days for each of the 4 rounds (I'm expecting teams to play every-other-day). The whole thing will take about 2 & a half months.... which would mean the Cup is being handed out in October. Since this is a hockey card forum.... can I mention how cool it will be that all of the 2019-20 releases might actually be out, before the season ends? (Or at least before the 20-21 season starts).

I'm assuming they'll have a 4-6 week off season... so a mid-October draft, followed by Free Agency. They'll start training camps in December, and the "2020-21" season will end up being the "2021" season, with a shortened schedule, and a normal playoff bracket.




One other thing that I suspect will come from this, when the next CBA is up: Playoffs are going to expand. Maybe not to 24 teams, but this won't be the last we've seen of "play-in" games. Once Seattle joins, and there's 4 divisions of 8, I can easily see the league getting rid of the Wild Cards, and going to a format where the top 3 teams in each division make it, and then the 4th & 5th place teams have a 1 game (or 3 game series?) play-in, for the 4th seed in each division.

[sparty07]

Training camp in mid-July, games start August 1st (ish). 10 days for the play-in Round, and 14 days for each of the 4 rounds (I'm expecting teams to play every-other-day). The whole thing will take about 2 & a half months.... which would mean the Cup is being handed out in October. Since this is a hockey card forum.... can I mention how cool it will be that all of the 2019-20 releases might actually be out, before the season ends? (Or at least before the 20-21 season starts).

I'm assuming they'll have a 4-6 week off season... so a mid-October draft, followed by Free Agency. They'll start training camps in December, and the "2020-21" season will end up being the "2021" season, with a shortened schedule, and a normal playoff bracket.

One other thing that I suspect will come from this, when the next CBA is up: Playoffs are going to expand. Maybe not to 24 teams, but this won't be the last we've seen of "play-in" games. Once Seattle joins, and there's 4 divisions of 8, I can easily see the league getting rid of the Wild Cards, and going to a format where the top 3 teams in each division make it, and then the 4th & 5th place teams have a 1 game (or 3 game series?) play-in, for the 4th seed in each division.

Two things here that nobody has brought up.

First, nobody has brought up what how this will affect the OPC, Artifacts, Series 1 etc cards for 20/21. If games don't start until December, you won't have any rookies available for Series 1. How does UD replace that product as Young Guns will not be produced. Redemptions for young guns, so your product is completely worthless in 2 years?

Second, I personally think expanding beyond 16 teams is a joke. Having teams in the bottom half of the standings making the playoffs is and has been odd, and I've always felt that way. It's the same problem college football has had the last decade plus. Add a bunch of new Bowls and you now have teams who were 5-7 getting a bowl game because they don't have enough 6-6 teams to fill their contractual number of teams. Does a team who finished in the bottom 16 (post Seattle) really deserve a playoff berth? (may be a controversial statement)

[Leafsman]

Nobody has brought up what how this will affect the OPC, Artifacts, Series 1 etc cards for 20/21. If games don't start until December, you won't have any rookies available for Series 1. How does UD replace that product as Young Guns will not be produced. Redemptions for young guns, so your product is completely worthless in 2 years?

I quoted this because cards are completely irrelevant without the sport. Nobody brought it up because this thread is about the proposed playoff format. I will humor you though...

Suppose COVID-19 rages on and the season is canceled? It has been reported that medical professionals expect a second wave. If that happens, Upper Deck will likely do the double rookie crop like it did in 2005-06.

[cygnusx1]

I do see where you're coming from on that. Hockey in particular, the grind that players go through to win a Cup is something that's celebrated. Many players are playing banged up by the end of it. Overcoming that is huge.

I've always had mixed feelings on it though.... as the finals are typically played by two teams that may be playing their most intense hockey of the season, but very rarely their best. Too many player are hurt (to varying degrees) to actually play their their best. While we'll applaud Joe Thornton for playing on one knee, all the way into the finals: Wouldn't we all have rather seen him play on two knees? Would that not have made the games better?

This year is going to be really unique (if it actually happens). Players have had a chance to heal. Everyone will be fresh. That may not be a good thing for everyone..... I suspect we're going to see a lot of the groin pulls that happen in September & October, but I think for most players: It will be a good thing, physically.

If McDavid leads the Oilers to a Cup victory over the Penguins (I can dream?) I'd rather see McDavid & Draisaitl, at their best, beating Crosby & Malkin at their best - than I would seeing the Oilers beat a banged up Penguins squad.

I think the best point I can make on this subject might actually be about your Oilers (though if I recall, you may not have been around or old enough during their 80s glory years; neither was I).

I'd say there was no doubt that those early 80's Oiler teams out-talented every team every night. But being beaten by the Islanders was their wake up call. They realized that to truly have what it takes to win the Cup, it takes more than talent. It takes some serious guts and determination to play through what these guys play through. I think it was in Gretzky's autobio where he mentions passing by the Isles locker room after they had won the Cup, and the guys were on IVs and just completely gassed.

If the league were to one year hold a preseason round robin, then go straight to playoffs, and then the hottest team out of the gate won the Cup.... I don't see how that's any different than the current configuration. And (as an Ottawa resident) we've seen enough Brandon Bochenski's and Andrew Hammond's to know that anyone can get hot at any time. That's why I feel the whole season + playoffs if more meaningful

[30ranfordfan]

I quoted this because cards are completely irrelevant without the sport. Nobody brought it up because this thread is about the proposed playoff format. I will humor you though...

Suppose COVID-19 rages on and the season is canceled? It has been reported that medical professionals expect a second wave. If that happens, Upper Deck will likely do the double rookie crop like it did in 2005-06.

Two things here that nobody has brought up.

First, nobody has brought up what how this will affect the OPC, Artifacts, Series 1 etc cards for 20/21. If games don't start until December, you won't have any rookies available for Series 1. How does UD replace that product as Young Guns will not be produced. Redemptions for young guns, so your product is completely worthless in 2 years?

The card discussion is also a fun one, and probably merits its own thread.... but I'll keep this going here (for now). Maybe I'll kick off a new thread soon.

I think OPC & Artifacts could be released on schedule, assuming production & distribution can happen like normal. If the season is delayed in starting (which is almost certainly will be) then I would expect Series 1 to be pushed back. No way they do a 50-card redemption for YGs.

The other thing they could do is release it on time.... but make the set look more like 2004-05. Have a few holdovers (the same RCs that would have been live in OPC & Artifacts) and fill out the rest with "retro YGs" (i.e. use the 20-21 design, but old photos of retired players from their rookie seasons). Then when Series 2 drops, it will be the most stacked Series 2 in 15 years.

Let's say the extreme scenario happens. We don't see an end to the 19-20 season, and the 20-21 never happens. It would mean double the rookies for 21-22 (much like 05-06, and 12-13). We'd see the holdovers get into 20-21 products... but that would be it.

Second, I personally think expanding beyond 16 teams is a joke. Having teams in the bottom half of the standings making the playoffs is and has been odd, and I've always felt that way. It's the same problem college football has had the last decade plus. Add a bunch of new Bowls and you now have teams who were 5-7 getting a bowl game because they don't have enough 6-6 teams to fill their contractual number of teams. Does a team who finished in the bottom 16 (post Seattle) really deserve a playoff berth? (may be a controversial statement)

I do respect that stance. What's the point of a regular season, if it only eliminates 12 of 32 teams?

I'll just point out a couple of things from the NHL's history (I'm only go as far back as the Original 6 era):

From 42-43, through 66-67: 4/6 Teams made the playoffs (66%)
In 67-68, after the NHL expanded to 12 teams, 8/12 made the playoffs (66%)
70-71 saw the league grow to 14 teams, 8 made the playoffs (57%)
72-73 saw the league grow to 16 teams, 8 made the playoffs (50%)
74-75, the league went to 18 teams, and 12 made the playoffs (66%)
77-78, the league contracted to 17 teams. Still 12 made the playoffs (70%)
79-80, a 21 team league. Now has 16/21 making it (76%) That lasted until 1991, when San Jose came in.
91-92 it was 16/22 (72%)
92-93 was 16/24 (66%)
94-94 through 97-98 has 16/26 make it. (61.5%)
98-99 was 16/27 (59%)
99-00 was 16/28 (57%)
00-01 through 16-17 had 16/30 (53%)
And most recently, it's been 16/31. (51.5%)

Now, I don't think we should be hung up on the past. Because things were done a particular way - that doesn't mean that they need to be continued....

But if we see 16/32 teams make the playoffs (50%) that will be lowest percentage of teams making it, in NHL history - Equaling the low mark of 50% that was used in 72-73 & 73-74.

I'm just bringing this up, to illustrate that the league has (historically) had well over half the teams make the playoffs. Again, that doesn't mean it's the best thing to do - but it's what the NHL has mostly done, other than the last 20 years. If 20/32 made it (62.5%) that's much more in line with the historical average....

I'll also use last year's standings to illustrate another couple of points:

The East saw Carolina 99 pts (46-29-7) & Columbus 98 pts (47-31-4) get the Wild Card spots. Under what I suggested, they would have played each other in a "play in" to get the 4th slot in the Metro. Montreal 96 pts (44-30-8) & Florida 86 pts (36-32-14) would have been added as play-in teams for the Atlantic.

The West saw Dallas 93 pts (43-32-7) & Colorado 90 pts (38-30-14) get the wild cards.... they'd now face each other in a play-in, and Arizona 86 pts (39-35-8) and Vancouver 81 pts (35-36-11) would have been added.

Anyway, I wanted to make these points:
1. Based on the NHL's lingo.... only Vancouver would be a "sub-500" team, as they ignore OTLs when talking about a team's record vs .500
2. Just based on points, it's easy for me to point out that Montreal was nearly as good as Carolina & Columbus. The drop from Colorado to Arizona wasn't much either. I don't think that 5th place teams are going to be significantly worse than the 4th place teams.
3. Two more west teams (Ducks, Oilers) were within 2 points of taking the last spot (this is only relevant, because it means there were games right up until the last weekend that were important)


Expanding the playoffs (even if it's just 4 play-in games, or 4 best-of-three series) puts a few more teams in, and keeps even more teams in the race longer. It keeps fans more engaged down the stretch. While I think plenty of people tune into the playoffs regardless, lots of people tune out regular season game #68, if their team is out of it. More relevant games means more ticket sales, more TV eyeballs, and a more valuable product for the league. It's why baseball is going to expand there's again. It's why the NFL is going to add more.

The NHL & NBA are kind of maxed out at 16. To make another full round, you'd have to double it to 32 - so you can't really do that (I mean, you could - but I can't see anyone actually proposing that). Creating "play in" games, and sneaking a few more teams into the playoff conversation that way is the one way they could do it.

I'm not saying they will do it, but depending on how things go with this season, and the play-in round: I can see the NHL making it a permanent thing.

[30ranfordfan]

I think the best point I can make on this subject might actually be about your Oilers (though if I recall, you may not have been around or old enough during their 80s glory years; neither was I).

I'd say there was no doubt that those early 80's Oiler teams out-talented every team every night. But being beaten by the Islanders was their wake up call. They realized that to truly have what it takes to win the Cup, it takes more than talent. It takes some serious guts and determination to play through what these guys play through. I think it was in Gretzky's autobio where he mentions passing by the Isles locker room after they had won the Cup, and the guys were on IVs and just completely gassed.

If the league were to one year hold a preseason round robin, then go straight to playoffs, and then the hottest team out of the gate won the Cup.... I don't see how that's any different than the current configuration. And (as an Ottawa resident) we've seen enough Brandon Bochenski's and Andrew Hammond's to know that anyone can get hot at any time. That's why I feel the whole season + playoffs if more meaningful

Yeah, I would just point out that whomever wins the 2020 Stanley Cup is going to be gassed at the end of it too.... as gassed as other seasons (without a 4 month break?) Maybe not, but I don't think this diminishes the work they'll have done.

You're right, anyone can get hot at anytime, but I'd suggest that teams did well over their 68-71 games played are more likely to get hot. Montreal & Chicago... neither of which had any hope of making the post season.... could they do some damage? I mean, anyone who claims that Carey Price standing on his head, and Montreal beating the Penguins..... or Patrick Kane & a vet-laden Blackhawks team beating a young, reasonably inexperienced Oilers.... would SHOCK them, I think they're lying. Those things are easy to see happening. Probably the Oilers & Penguins will win those series, but maybe not.

[cygnusx1]

Yeah, I would just point out that whomever wins the 2020 Stanley Cup is going to be gassed at the end of it too.... as gassed as other seasons (without a 4 month break?) Maybe not, but I don't think this diminishes the work they'll have done.

You're right, anyone can get hot at anytime, but I'd suggest that teams did well over their 68-71 games played are more likely to get hot. Montreal & Chicago... neither of which had any hope of making the post season.... could they do some damage? I mean, anyone who claims that Carey Price standing on his head, and Montreal beating the Penguins..... or Patrick Kane & a vet-laden Blackhawks team beating a young, reasonably inexperienced Oilers.... would SHOCK them, I think they're lying. Those things are easy to see happening. Probably the Oilers & Penguins will win those series, but maybe not.

We may end up agreeing to disagree, but I do think that playing through 82 + a minimum of 16 games is more strenuous than playing 70, taking 4 months off, and playing 30(?) games. Sure they're both difficult, but for different reasons.

With this year's playoffs, I don't think seeding will have much of an impact. No fans, no travel, huge rest in between season and playoffs. In any other year, an 8th seed likely has to scratch and claw their way through the final month or so of the season. IIRC the 2012 Kings are the only 8th seed to win a Cup. I think this year it would be substantially easier for an 8th seed to win. Which kind of defeats the purpose IMO

[30ranfordfan]

We may end up agreeing to disagree, but I do think that playing through 82 + a minimum of 16 games is more strenuous than playing 70, taking 4 months off, and playing 30(?) games. Sure they're both difficult, but for different reasons.

With this year's playoffs, I don't think seeding will have much of an impact. No fans, no travel, huge rest in between season and playoffs. In any other year, an 8th seed likely has to scratch and claw their way through the final month or so of the season. IIRC the 2012 Kings are the only 8th seed to win a Cup. I think this year it would be substantially easier for an 8th seed to win. Which kind of defeats the purpose IMO

Yeah, and I'm happy to agree to disagree :)

I think specific seeding, in any particular year, doesn't matter that much. There are some cases where a particular team matches up poorly against another one... but that's really about it. What I mean by this: Usually there isn't a whole of separation between 1st place & 2nd place, nor is there much difference between 7th and 8th. That's not always true... but I'm generalizing.

I don't think the reason that 8th place teams have rarely won a Cup has anything to do with how grueling the last month of the season likely was, both physically & mentally. They don't win Cups because while not a whole lot separates them them from the 7th seed, they're almost always inferior to everyone in the top half of the bracket. Tampa Bay (last season) was one of the best regular season teams I can remember in a LONG time.... and Columbus swept them.... but Columbus wasn't as good as them, and they wern't as good as Boston, Washington, or Pittsburgh.

So Columbus, of course, has a chance to win any game they play. They had a goalie capable of stealing a game. They had players who can score, and coach that knows what he's doing. They were simply not good enough to go on a long run, even if they did upset the Lightning.

The Kings team in 2012, they were 8th place.. but they would have probably been higher if they added Jeff Carter before the season started. It was a long time ago, but I also seem to recall they were sort of like St. Louis... they were slow out the gate, but got better as the season rolled on.

The 2006 Edmonton Oilers were another one. They were an 8th seed that got to the finals (and lost). I'm pretty sure they were the first 8th seed to play for the Cup. I think everyone forgets two things about that miracle though:
- The team was rebuilt at the deadline (and the weeks leading up to it). Oilers turned over a third their defense core (Spacek & Tarnstrom), got a new starting goalie (Rolson), and added scoring depth (Samsonov). If that team had been together all season (particularly Rollie) they would not have finsihed 8th.
- The 8 over 1 upset was not the only one in the first round of the Western Conference playoffs. The 2, 3, and 4 seeds all lost too. It was madness.

I'm very much onboard with agreeing that what the NHL is doing is not perfect, and I'm sure it will have some un-quantifiable impact on who wins, and who loses.... but I do think that teams played enough games that we know who the good teams are, and we know who the bad ones are. If Chicago knocks out Edmonton, nobody should be shocked... but if Chicago goes on a run where they wind up in the finals: I will come back to this thread and readily admit that I must not have a clue what I'm talking about.... because I'm saying it right now: The Hawks, as currently constructed, are a terrible team, with no chance of winning more than 5 games this summer. It doesn't matter how much they've rested: They simply don't have the talent to compete against the top teams in the West, consistently. Any given night? Sure...... but over the medium term? No way.

The seeding does still matter, because the teams with the better records are the more talented ones - and even if they don't have their fans cheering for them, the good teams should still eliminate the bad ones. I don't think 4 months off will magically transform the Coyotes into a serious contender, nor do I think it will erode the skill in St. Louis.

[RGM81]

LOL One of Canada's finest members of the goalie community weighs in: