There are no other fans quite like the fans of the NHL. You guys love hockey in a way, I think, other fans of other sports don't love their sport. And you'd love hockey more if only the NHL would play it the way you want them to play it.

Yes, no fan-base wants to tinker with its league and rules more than hockey fans want to tinker with the NHL. I kind of knew this going into this call for comments regarding the NHL's playoff format. I'm part of the culture as well, always wanting to tinker to make it better.

There seem to be two camps when it comes to playoff reform:

1. Ensure the two best teams play each other in the final.

2. You gotta beat four teams to win the Cup. Who cares what order you see them.

I did a Twitter poll. Overwhelmingly, you'd rather see conference-based (1-vs-8) than any other.

Still, you folks had a lot to say about the playoff format. And I mean a lot.

The current format riles up some of you so much you even swore. You guys never swear. (And, hey, keep it clean next time. You know the rules.)

As always, send your questions to askkevinmcgran@gmail.com for Friday's mailbag. If you want to keep this conversation going, feel free. I can always run more responses later.

Here's a sampling of what you had to say, with a smattering of responses. (Even a friend, Ben Raby, chimed in. A fellow journalist, covers the Capitals. You get his stuff ALL THE WAY at the bottom of this VERY VERY LONG read.

COMMENT: Hi Kevin,

Here’s something that will never see the light of day, but what about a playoff draft? Teams are ranked 1 – 16 based on total points and the highest ranked team gets to pick their opponent. Team 2 goes next, etc, until Team 8 gets whoever is left. Imagine all the ‘they disrespected us’ buttons coaches could push!

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Allan H

RESPONSE: Personally I love this idea. Would be great television. Analysts would have hot-takes ready to go. ... GMs of course would hate this. Very un-hockey.

COMMENT: Hi, Kevin:

I totally agree with your playoff format suggestions. I've thought the same way for years. It's ridiculous that this season two of Tampa Bay, Boston and Toronto won't make the conference final. I know the league wants to create rivalries and tries to achieve that with an unbalanced schedule, hence divisions and conferences, but I don't think it's needed. Variety is the spice of life, and sports.

If the NHL insists on keeping conferences, then go to a No. 1 versus 8, vs. 7 etc. playoff format in each conference with a balanced schedule within each conference.

Ideally, for me, there is just one league/conference, a balanced schedule (as best as can be achieved from year to year) and it's 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15 etc. in the opening round of the playoffs. That gives the higher finishing teams the presumptive advantage they have earned by having a better regular season. This way you can have any combination of playoff opponents and potentially have Toronto vs. Montreal, Montreal/Boston in the Stanley Cup final or even an all-California final.

Tim W

COMMENT: I would love to see the N.H.L. have a format where 1 plays 16 and 2 plays 15 and so on. Teams play 82 games a season so it makes no sense to eliminate the best teams in the first 2 rounds. It would be nice to see Toronto play Montreal for Cup or Montreal play Boston which can’t happen under the current format.

Daniel B.

COMMENT: It's a no-win situation rivalries create a motivating element for the committed follower yet obstructing the best versus the best takes away from the superiority of the champions.

1 versus 8 is the best option limiting the effects of travel on the play of the players.

If it's 1 versus 16 then in the West Coast-East Coast situation you need to break down the series to 2-3-2 sections not 2-2, 1-1-1.

Dovid R

COMMENT: Hi Kev,

I also think this current set up for the playoffs are the Pitts. Of course being a true blue Leaf fan

there has been a lot of lean years. I had my great Leaf days when I was just 30 and they had

been a Cup winner for a few years when I was growing up. I remember my Dad used to let my

brother and I stay up on Saturday night and listen to Foster call the game and that for me was

my introduction to the Leafs in 1942 and lo and behold as I found out later it was the game that

Toronto game back from down three and beat the Red Wings.

This new current time they are getting close alright and I just hope that Matthews does not turn

out to be a injury prone super star. For me if they make him team captain they are going to

have to inject in him some of Wendel Clark who in my mind was the best captain since the

Chief.

John M

COMMENT: Kevin, I've been tracking the standings in a backwards way since the beginning of the season.

The number in each box indicates the maximum amount of points a team can earn if they win the rest of their games.

With 95 points being the threshold for making the playoffs:

Out of playoffs:

Arizona

Buffalo

Chicago

Detroit Edmonton

Montreal

New York Rangers

Ottawa

Vancouver

Teetering:

Carolina

New York Islanders

Treading water (will reach 95 maximum point level if they lose {see below} games the rest of the way):

Calgary (4.5 losses to 95 points)

Columbus (4 losses to 95 points)

New Jersey (4.5 losses to 95 points)

St. Louis (5 loses to 95 points)

Enjoy reading your work.....

Kevin V

RESPONSE: Interesting take. Can't always be sure 95 is the cutoff. But I like it.



COMMENT: Hi Kevin, with the current playoff system you focused on the Eastern Divisions but there is also a case in the Central - Winnipeg (Canada's top team), Nashville (who may come out of the West), and Minnesota. However, it is highly unlikely the NHL will change the present format.

Jack P.

COMMENT: Hi Kevin. One Versus Sixteen would be optimal but with travel restraints and geographical issues, the best scenario should be 1 VS 8, 2 VS 7, 3 VS 6 and 4 VS 5 within your own conference, The NHL should want the best teams to get to the Conference Finals but we all know that is not what the NHL wants, if they did, this is how the playoffs would be set.

One question for you for the Mailbag, Do you think that the NHL would ever allow each team to have one player on their roster of 23 that would be exempt from the Cap, if a Player signed for 5 Years at no more than 20% of the Cap Hit annually as the CBA currently stipulates and if that Players was designated as Exempt from the Cap, he would be the only player that team could designate as Cap Exempt for the 5 year duration of the Contract, I believe that this would allow some teams who may have spent money badly to kind of get out from under some of those bad contract. I know that is I was at the NHLPA, I would have that in my proposal when this CBA expires, it allows teams that have done a good job of drafting and developing a better chance to keep their players and not have to trade players because they will put them over the cap. I am sure that Rocky Wirtz would like this rule as he would not of had to trade all those players in the past.

RESPONSE: Sneaking a question in, eh? Clever. The answer is No. At least not while Gary Bettman is commissioner. He will never allow any way around that cap. It's 50 per cent to players, 50 per cent to owners. It'll never tilt toward the players again.

COMMENT: Hey Kevin, I could not agree with you more! Some of the best possible series are happening in the second round of playoff action. The physical grind of the Western games really takes its toll on these teams. Would love to see a Pitts or Wash face Ana or La first round. Not saying anyone is weak, but 1st vs 16 and so on would be a much, much better format!!!

Don (Jets fan, and Bruins fan)

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

COMMENT: I agree. The current format just doesn’t seem right, but in defence of the NHL, they have no idea of where any team will finish at the end of the season.

But there may be a much easier way to ensure the best teams have a chance to play deeper into the post season.

A simple crossover.

For instance, first place in the east would play eighth place in the west. 2nd vs 7th, and so on.

Just think of the possibilities. First. It is the only way the league could possibly see the best two teams in the final. Second. It could have two teams from not only the same conference, but the same division play for the Stanley Cup.

Many people have made mention of the extremely entertaining game played between the Jets and Preds. Wouldn’t it be great to see a seven game series between these two teams for the Cup?

Or The Pens vs the Lightning?

With a crossover, any team could get into the final, and the chances of some of the top clubs being ousted after 4 – 7 games in the first round would be greatly reduced.

Cor

COMMENT: Thank you for your writing on this matter.

I also think the NHL must take a hard look at eliminating the Divisions and just go with #1 vs #8, 2 vs 7, etc. in 2 conferences: East & West

Currently, the teams who are aligned in the weaker divisions have a much better chance of advancing further in the playoffs = ridiculous!

Scott

COMMENT: Hi Kevin,

The reason this playoff format sucks for example is with 30 games remaining you already know who your matchup are. Example Leafs vs Bruins we knew this is happening since February. Boring!

Go back to what we had previous to this one NHL please!!

Sasha

COMMENT: Definitely 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15 etc

Only way. Good teams should be in the playoffs as long as possible.

It is Mickey mouse the way it is now.

Les M

COMMENT: Hey Kevin,

Lengthy email. But stay with it if you like.

I started tossing around this playoff format last season.

First off, you return to the conference seeding with the highest seed playing lowest.

I still give the division winners 1/2 seeds regardless of point totals.

I'm not married to that, but that's how I did it.

If you play more games within your division, you reward division champion with a top-2 seed.

The biggest element to my pitch is piggybacking off Ken Holland, who suggested last year that an 8-9 'play-in-game' may not be a bad idea. Given the success of MLB's best-of-one wild-card, I took it a step further.

In my pitch... There are two 'Must-Win Games' in each conference.

7 vs. 10 and 8 vs. 9. You play them as nationally televised doubleheaders on the first two nights of the playoffs.

Tuesday: East 7 vs.10 followed by West 7 vs.10.

Wednesday: East 8 vs.9 followed by West 8 vs.9.

If the 7-seed wins on the first night, they would face the No.2 seed in the conference quarterfinals.

If the 10-seed wins on the first night, they would face the No.1 seed in the conference quarterfinals.

We go with the old structure where the highest seed faces the lowest seed in every matchup.

There are five key components to why I think this is an improvement:

This may seem obvious, but you keep more teams and fan bases engaged in a playoff race down the stretch. If your team is in 11th or 12th place in the final few weeks of the season, there is still a chance to earn a berth in the Must-Win Game. More teams are therefore playing meaningful hockey down the stretch.

2. You increase the value of finishing in the top six within the conference, because that guarantees a berth in the best-of-seven conference quarterfinals.

The biggest critique for expanding the playoffs or adding more teams is that you devalue the 82-game regular season. Under this format, the regular season is actually given greater value, with an added reward for finishing in the top six of your conference. Suddenly, finishing in the top eight isn’t worth the same as finishing in the top six and guaranteeing your spot in the conference quarterfinals.

This will also create additional races down the stretch. Not only will there be a race to finish in the top 10 in the conference, but now there will also be a race to finish within the top six. This could be critical during the final week of the season for the teams that are potentially in the 5,6,7,8 positions. It essentially creates a race within a race.

There is a potentially greater reward for winning the division and finishing with the No. 1 or No. 2 seed in the conference. Say for example, the No. 10 beats the No. 7 in the Must-Win Game. This would mean that the No. 1 seed would face the No. 10 in the conference quarterfinals, as opposed to facing the No. 8 seed under the old format.

While a 10th-seeded team could still upset a top-seed in a best-of-seven series, the thought here is that the top seed in the conference should have an easier time with a No. 10 as opposed to a No. 8. They’ll also have the benefit of added rest that the team that advances will not.

Again, upsets can still happen and any NHL team can take out another NHL team in a best-of-seven. But again, going based on the standings, there should be a greater likelihood for a No. 1 seed to defeat a No. 9 or No. 10. In my opinion, parity in the NHL is great, but there needs to be more of a reward or more of an advantage for finishing atop your division in the 82-game season. The potential for playing a slightly “weaker” opponent now exists.

There is also the potential for more teams to earn home playoff gates. The No. 7 and No. 8 seeds would host the do-or-die Must Win Game. That means that those teams are guaranteed at least one home playoff game.

Should the No. 7 or No. 8 fall in the MWG, that means that the No. 9 and/or No. 10 seed will move on and eventually host a minimum of two playoff games (Games 3 and 4 in the conference quarterfinals). This could be a selling point for owners. More owners could potentially reap the benefits of home playoff dates.

Nationally televised doubleheaders on Tuesday-Wednesday:

Play the 7 vs. 10 games on Tuesday (Eastern Conference followed by Western Conference).

Play the 8 vs. 9 games on Wednesday (Eastern Conference followed by Western Conference).

Playing the 7-10 first determines one of the conference quarterfinal matchups right off the bat. Either the 7 wins and sets up a matchup with the No. 2. Or the 10 wins and sets up a series vs. the No. 1.

Not unlike what MLB has discovered, having these elimination games right off the bat makes for terrific drama to start the postseason.

The proposed playoff format is not perfect and there are tweaks that would still need to be worked out (for example, there is no guarantee that arena availability would cooperate for the scheduled doubleheaders for the MWG), but it is a different playoff format that could create more drama down the stretch and keep more teams and fan bases engaged longer.

Ben Raby, Capitals Radio Network Host

RESPONSE: Thanks Ben. I like the 7-10, 8-9 play-in idea. I also don't mind the idea of a 17-31(32 with Seattle) playoff for draft order. One gamer's, higher seed has home ice. Gets rid of tanking. GMs/coaches would want to ice their best teams.