Saturday 24 December 2011

NHL Realignment, Part 4: To Wildcard or not to Wildcard

In the previous posts we've explored what the actual BOG approved plan will mean for each team in terms of their playoff chances.

In this instalment we'll have a look at one particular aspect of the approved plan, namely the re-seeding of teams for the semifinals. Now, I think that's a great idea, as it will create an added incentive to make it to the playoffs in a high a spot as possible (league wide).

However, in order to make that re-seeding "legit" there is an important admission that is made by the NHL. That admission is that the regular season is "good enough" to rank teams across the whole league. After all, any given two teams in the semifinals will share at least 58 games out of the 82 each season (2 games against each of the other 28 teams, plus the home and away against each other), or even 60, depending on how the chips fall.

So what does that have to do with wildcards? Well, if the regular season is "good enough" to seed the semifinalists then surely that would also apply to all the teams across the league, regardless of where they ended up. After all, that is how draft picks will be decided. So, given that we have re-seeding during the third round of the playoffs, I think the case could be made for 3 playoff spots per conference, plus 4 wildcards based on the regular season.

What would that mean for the playoff chances of each team? Such a move would first of all eliminate playoff bleed entirely. Strong 5th placed teams would make the playoffs in place of weaker 4th placed teams. It would also ensure that strong conferences are properly represented in the playoffs.

What would it mean for the playoff structure though? Well, we would no longer have the clean "in-conference" first and second rounds. We could still have the 2nd and 3rd placed teams face off in a kind of conference semifinal, but the 1st placed team could end up playing a team outside it's conference. If I had my way, I'd give the President's Trophy winners the privilege of choosing their opponent in the first round from the wildcards, the second best conference winner would get second pick, and so on.

The implication would be that a conference winners could face really long travel in the first round of the playoffs, depending on the choices those conference winners make. It might even be a benefit to finish second in your conference (if you know you'll finish as the worst placed conference winner) simply because you will probably have shorter travel that way, and the worst conference winner will likely be left with the best placed wildcard, which will be the best 4th placed team from one of the conferences, rather than the 4th placed team in your own conference.

Another implication is that we could potentially see conference rivals meeting in the Stanley Cup Final, since they might end up on different sides of the draw. Penguins vs Flyers in the final? Devils vs Rangers? Canucks vs Sharks?

In short, a wildcard system would mean that any two teams could face off for the Cup. It would give the President's Trophy winners a tool to influence the path of themselves and the other teams towards the final. It would likely be a pain for the worst placed conference winner, depending on how the wildcards fall in a given year. On the other hand, it would all but ensure that the 16 best teams (based on the regular season) make it to the playoffs.

So what do we want? The 16 best teams, or true conference showdowns in the first and second rounds?

To wildcard or not to wildcard?

No comments:

Post a Comment