NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has called the first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs “the most exciting first round in sports.” For many NHL fans, it’s just another example of how out of touch he is with the game.
With the regular season wrapping up Thursday, the league’s playoff format is once again exposing a major flaw. In the Western Conference, the three strongest teams by record are Colorado, Dallas, and Minnesota. All three are in the Central Division. That guarantees at least two will be eliminated before the Conference Finals. Dallas and Minnesota open against each other, with the winner likely facing Colorado next.
Meanwhile, Utah, the fourth-place team in the Central, has a significantly easier path. The Mammoth will open against either Vegas or Edmonton and entered the final day just one point behind the Golden Knights, despite trailing Minnesota by 12 points. In effect, finishing third has given the Wild the toughest road in the West, while Utah could face lower-seeded teams in each of its first two series.
The Eastern Conference isn’t much better. Ottawa, the final team in, draws a brutal first-round matchup against Presidents’ Trophy winner Carolina. But if the Senators pull the upset, their path could ease quickly, with a second-round opponent in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, both of whom could finish with fewer points than Ottawa.
That’s not how a championship path should be structured. The NHL’s current format creates unnecessary imbalances, and it’s time for a serious adjustment. Here are a few ideas.
Option 1: Seeding 1 Through 8
If the Senators win their final game against Toronto, the East could end up with a bizarre scenario: a first-round matchup between the No. 7 and No. 8 seeds. With all four series set, an Ottawa win would produce 1-6 (Carolina-Ottawa), 2-5 (Buffalo-Boston), 3-4 (Tampa Bay-Montreal), and 7-8 (Pittsburgh-Philadelphia).
The Western Conference isn’t much better. It does manage a true 1-8 matchup, with Colorado facing either Los Angeles or Anaheim, but the rest of the bracket is uneven: 2-3 (Dallas–Minnesota), 4-5 (Vegas or Edmonton vs. Utah), and 6-7 featuring two of Vegas, Edmonton, Anaheim, and Los Angeles.
A traditional seeding format would have made a significant difference. In the East, an Ottawa win would pair the Senators with Tampa Bay, while Carolina would face Philadelphia, Buffalo would draw Pittsburgh, and Montreal and Boston would renew their longstanding rivalry.
The West would still have one quirk, with the Pacific Division winner likely landing the No. 2 seed, but Dallas and Minnesota would at least avoid facing each other immediately. Instead, the Stars would draw a lower-seeded Pacific team, while the Wild would face Utah.
The NHL used this format from 1994 to 2013, and it worked. It may be time to bring it back.
Option 2: Three Points for a Regulation Win
If you look at the standings, one result stands out. Pittsburgh finished second in the Metropolitan, yet the fourth-place Washington won two more games and missed the playoffs entirely.
The reason comes down to overtime. Pittsburgh played 23 overtime games, going 7-16, while Washington played 15 and went 6-9. Those extra overtime losses still produced points, allowing the Penguins to overcome the Capitals’ edge in actual wins. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia both qualified with 98 points, while Washington missed at 95.
That’s a severely flawed outcome. The system rewards getting close almost as much as winning.
A 3-2-1 point system would change that. Teams would earn three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime win, and one for an overtime loss. Under that format, Washington would have made the playoffs ahead of Philadelphia, which played even more overtime than Pittsburgh, going 16-12 in extra time.
By those rules, Pittsburgh would sit at 132 points, Washington at 129, and Philadelphia would fall out of the postseason at 120. In the West, the system would also shift the field, bringing the Nashville Predators in while exposing how much the LA Kings benefited from overtime, going 13-20 in extra time and reaching it in 20 of their 46 losses.
A 3-2-1 system rewards winning and encourages more aggressive play. It’s a sensible adjustment.
Option 3: Do Both
There’s no reason the NHL can’t combine two good ideas to create a better playoff format, while still preserving the rivalries that make the postseason so fun and compelling. Carolina vs. Washington has quietly developed into a simmering feud since Carolina’s 2019 upset, and Montreal vs. Ottawa has long delivered its own storylines.
The NHL doesn’t need to manufacture rivalries. The playoffs create them naturally, and that’s one of the league’s biggest strengths.
But there’s no reason not to improve the structure around them. The priority should be rewarding teams for what they accomplish in the regular season, and the best way to do that is with a fair, logic-driven bracket.
If this was your kind of read, you’ll like what’s next. Get The Sandman Ticket, our free, weekly newsletter with picks, insights, and a little bit of everything we love about sports.
