x
Does the NHL have a playoff format problem?
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. Rob Gray-Imagn Images

Does the NHL have a playoff format problem?

The NHL's Eastern Conference Final ended in five games with the Carolina Hurricanes steamrolling over the Montreal Canadiens

The Western Conference ended in four games with the Vegas Golden Knights shocking the Colorado Avalanche in a clean sweep. 

It was a rather anti-climactic end to the conference portion of the playoffs, and continued what has been a recent trend of the conference finals ending quickly and without long, back-and-forth series.

The NHL's current playoff format is taking a lot of the blame for that.

But is it really a problem? Or is there something else happening?

Does the NHL have a problem with its playoff format?

Starting with the 2013-14 season, the NHL switched its divisional and conference alignment, going from three, five-team divisions in each conference to two divisions in each conference.

Along with that, they swapped the 1 vs. 8 playoff format (that saw the teams re-seed after each round) to a divisional format that focused more on generating rivalries than getting fair matchups.

It has not been wildly popular. 

Players do not like it.

Fans hate it.

The media has increasingly started pointing out how top teams have to play other top teams in the first or second round instead of later in the playoffs. This year, for example, the Central Division bracket put the Dallas Stars and Minnesota Wild against one another in the first round. Both teams were among the top-six teams in the NHL during the regular season and had the second-and third-best records in the West. 

One of them was guaranteed to lose in the first round. In comparison to the Pacific Division bracket, where at least one lesser team was guaranteed to advance, it seemed problematic.

But while the format has greatly improved the quality of the first round, it has been blamed on the suddenly uninteresting and quick conference finals. 

That does look like a problem for the later round, especially when that is when you normally want the best series being highlighted with the best teams.

Here's the problem with that argument: If you go back to the final five years of the old 1 vs. 8 playoff format, nearly the same thing was happening.

Between the 2009 and 2013 playoffs, the first round saw 27.5% of its series go six games, and 32.7% go seven games. 

The conference finals? Only two of the 20 matchups went beyond five games, and only one went seven games. 

The same thing was unfolding. 

The bigger issue might be what we saw play out with this year's Montreal-Carolina series, and that is the reality that after two best-of-seven series, at least one team is going to be beaten up, worn down, or too injured to seriously compete at the same level. 

Carolina played six fewer games than Montreal in the first two rounds. That is a massive advantage, and it eventually started to show itself as the series progressed, and Montreal was unable to put together a full 60-minute performance against Carolina. 

If there is a playoff format, the NHL might need to reconsider changing to improve the quality of play and competitiveness late in the postseason; it is not the seeding situation. It might be shortening the first round back to something like a best-of-five.

Or, if the NHL insists on keeping four best-of-seven series as its playoff format, it might need to consider shortening the regular season (although it is doing the exact opposite and increasing the season to 84 games). That many regular-season games, and that many playoff games, is a massive grind. It will inevitably tire teams out. 

Adam Gretz

Adam Gretz is a freelance writer based in Pittsburgh. He covers the NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA. Baseball is his favorite sport -- he is nearly halfway through his goal of seeing a game in every MLB ballpark. Catch him on X @AGretz

More must-reads:

Customize Your Newsletter

Yardbarker +

Get the latest news and rumors, customized to your favorite sports and teams. Emailed daily. Always free!