Last Sunday, the Dallas Stars and Colorado Avalanche played in a playoff atmosphere. Most fans would have circled the game on their calendars, considering what a showdown it projected to be between two of the best in the West.
It lived up to the hype, as the Stars completely changed the game’s tone in 20 seconds to tie the score in the third period. That forced overtime, during which Cale Makar scored the game-winning goal.
Advertisement
It was just a taste of what another postseason matchup between these star-studded teams could be. Who doesn’t want seven games of that?
But does meeting in Round 1 spoil some of the fun?
These two teams are on track for that despite being the second- and fourth-place teams in the West. This highlights exactly what is wrong with the current NHL playoff format.
The format isn’t all bad. It prioritizes divisional matchups in the early rounds, which can help fuel existing rivalries. That has led to bangers in Round 1 in recently, like the Battle of Florida, Lightning-Maple Leafs, Jets-Avalanche, Devils-Rangers, and three straight matchups between the Oilers and Kings. Early meetings usually mean division rivals meet at their healthiest (relatively speaking, in terms of playoff health). And when teams in opposing divisions meet in the Conference Final, it can spark new rivalries — take the Stars and Golden Knights, who built up some heat after meeting in the Western Conference final twice in three years.
The big problem is that most teams are not adequately rewarded for their regular-season success outside the top seed in each conference.
Sometimes, the playoff picture would shake out the same regardless of format. But oftentimes, this system leads to imbalanced opening rounds. Take the 2023-24 Jets. Winnipeg finished second place in the West with 110 points. Because the Jets trailed the Stars and not a Pacific Division team, they were not slated to match up against the seventh seed. As the second seed in the Central, Winnipeg had to face off against the 107-point Avalanche, who finished fourth in the West, and were ousted in five games in Round 1. There is no guarantee the result would have been any different against the seventh-place Predators, but the deck would at least be stacked more in the Jets’ favor.
Advertisement
If the current Central Division standings hold, it will be a similar situation this year for the Stars and Avalanche. It will guarantee that one of the two strongest contenders will not make it past Round 1. Not only can that storyline detract from the postseason, but when the best teams are eliminated early due to the restrictions of the format, some of the excitement fizzles out earlier than it should in the postseason.
It’s not the only time excitement can fizzle in hockey. The last month of the season should build momentum toward the playoffs. However, as constructed, there isn’t as much room to jostle for position within the bracket, which can limit drama down the stretch.
What if the league could smooth out some of the kinks to improve the product?
Commissioner Gary Bettman may not have the appetite for it, but it is time for a change in the NHL.
I asked Gary Bettman whether he envisioned talking to the NHLPA about changing the playoff format in upcoming CBA talks, going back to the old 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc format. An empathic No from the commissioner. He likes the format the way it is now.
— Pierre LeBrun (@PierreVLeBrun) March 19, 2025
1 vs. 8 format
Sometimes, the simplest approach is best. There is no need for wild-card seeds or ensuring that a certain number of teams from each division make the playoffs because some years, one division is outright weaker. The first-place team should match up to the eighth-place team; two should play seven, three versus six, and four versus five. That ensures the best teams in each conference make the playoffs and have the fairest path forward.
There are details to work out within that system. Like the last playoff format from 1999 to 2013, division winners should be rewarded with top seeding. Having only two seeds dedicated to that, instead of three, can help maintain competitive balance.
Advertisement
So that would make Washington the number one team in the East right now and Florida the second seed. In the West, Winnipeg and Vegas would lead the way. And the playoff matchups would be more fitting based on each team’s regular season record.
Instead of Dallas-Colorado Round 1, the Stars would face the sixth-seed Wild, and the Avs would take on the fifth-seed Oilers. Neither path is easy, but on paper, it’s more beneficial to the higher seeds because their regular-season accomplishments are more meaningful to open the postseason. And in that particular example, both Dallas and Colorado would get home-ice advantage. The Eastern Conference, on the other hand, would remain unchanged from the current projected matchups.
The big decisions in this playoff format come after Round 1.
From 1999 to 2013, the top-seeded team played the lowest-seeded team left after opening-round eliminations. This helped top teams maintain more of an edge after Round 1, but it was trickier to plan around from a logistics perspective. The preference could be having a firmer bracket in place. To ensure that first place doesn’t have to match up against second or third until the conference final, the winner of 1 vs. 8 would meet the winner of 4 vs. 5 in Round 1. The winner of 2 vs. 7 would face the winner of 3 vs. 6.
In the West, the earliest the first-place Jets and second-place Golden Knights could meet would be the conference final. The Stars couldn’t face off against the Jets or Avalanche until Round 3, either. So, while there is less of a guarantee of a split-division conference final, it would only amp up existing rivalries striving to be named best in the West.
Last year’s playoff picture would have looked slightly different within this system. The Lightning would have met Carolina in Round 1, while the second-seed Panthers would have matched up with the Islanders. That could have set up a second-round meeting between the Canes and Panthers, or a Round 2 Battle of Florida. If the Rangers and Bruins still won their Round 1 matchups, the Original Six teams would have gone head-to-head in Round 2.
In the West, the Avalanche and Oilers would have met early. The Jets would have avoided Colorado in Round 1, while the Kings would have escaped their usual fate of an early matchup against the Oilers.
3-2-1 point system
Maybe the playoff formatting isn’t the biggest problem — the standings are.
The NHL tested out a 3-2-1 point system at the 4 Nations, and it gained a lot of traction in that tournament setting. Every single point mattered more, and teams had to play the game differently. Getting to overtime wasn’t necessarily enough because all wins were no longer equal; that regulation win became all the more meaningful with a third point. That can lead to more drama and risk-taking late in games — it did for Finland against Canada, with an early goalie pull in an attempt to rally. That format is also working well in the first two seasons of the PWHL.
In a 3-2-1 system, there wouldn’t be any dramatic shifts right now. But those subtle changes would still be meaningful. The Rangers would jump into the second wild-card seed thanks to their 30 regulation wins over Montreal’s 24. The Blue Jackets’ 23 regulation wins would hurt their playoff chances, too. But with this system in practice, the games would likely be played differently, which can’t be accounted for in theory.
If the NHL wanted to get weird and make drastic changes, the 3-2-1 point system could be implemented with a 1 vs. 8 playoff format. That may be too big of a leap at once, but it is worth considering in phases.
Again, without accounting for how team strategy would change in a 3-2-1 point world, last year’s playoff picture would have opened with two slight differences. The Jets’ 46 regulation wins would have pushed them ahead of the first-place Stars, so Winnipeg would have started the postseason with a matchup against Vegas. The now second-place Stars would have subsequently matched up with Colorado earlier.
Play-in tournament
One other way to shake up the playoff picture? Expand the postseason.
A play-in tournament would bolster interest around the NHL. With more teams involved, more fan bases would be engaged. And the drama of a few extra high-stakes games would excite fans on a national level, too. Any playoff expansion is an obvious money-maker, but the risk is watering down the postseason too much and making a lengthy 82-game season less meaningful.
Advertisement
The NHL is more likely to increase the regular season to 84 games than shorten it, which would cause more wear and tear on players. So, there is a fine line to walk here.
Again, a simple approach can be best with an expansion of the wild-card. To qualify for the playoffs, the seventh-place team could face off against the 10th seed, and eight could battle nine in a condensed three-game series.
Last year that would have meant a series between the Capitals and Red Wings, who tied in points but sat on opposite sides of the playoff picture due to differences in regulation wins. On the other hand, the Lightning would have had to play Pittsburgh for that top wild-card seed despite a 10-point difference in the standings. Maybe the Penguins would have made a stronger push down the stretch, knowing there was still a chance at the postseason as the 10th seed. But that gap makes this scenario more unfair for Tampa Bay. There would have been a 12-point gap between the seventh-seed Predators and 10th-place Wild in a wild-card play-in, too.
A play-in tournament could make sense if or when the league expands to 34 teams. But expanding the postseason will not fix what is fundamentally flawed with the current system. Instead of adding to the current issues, the NHL has to first fix what is broken with the playoff format.
(Top photo of the Jets and Avalanche during 2024 playoffs: David Lipnowski / Getty Images)
Shayna Goldman is a staff writer for The Athletic who focuses on blending data-driven analysis and video to dive deeper into hockey. She covers fantasy hockey and national stories that affect the entire NHL. She is the co-creator of BehindtheBenches.com and 1/3 of the Too Many Men podcast. Her work has also appeared at Sportsnet, HockeyGraphs and McKeen’s Hockey. She has a Master of Science in sports business from New York University. Follow Shayna on Twitter @hayyyshayyy
