The NHL playoff picture hasn’t always looked like this. Before 2013, the playoff bracket was simple. Clean. Brutal in the best way. First played eighth. Second played seventh. The conference sorted itself out the way standings are supposed to.
Then the league changed the blueprint.
Starting with the 2013–14 season, the NHL tried to mimic the successful NFL format and introduced the divisional playoff format still in place today. Sixteen teams make the postseason, but the bracket runs through the divisions first. The top three teams in each division qualify automatically. Two wild cards per conference fill out the field.
And the matchups? They’re locked in early. No conference-wide seeding. No reshuffling after the first round. Just divisional paths that often force contenders to collide before the bracket even has time to breathe. It was designed to spark rivalries. And in many cases, it has. But it also created a debate that refuses to disappear.
A few days ago, Pierre LeBrun asked the obvious question that has been lingering for years: when the next Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations arrive, could the league revisit the playoff format?
Could the NHL return to 1 vs. 8 conference seeding? Gary Bettman didn’t hesitate.
No... Not maybe... Not “we’ll review it.” An emphatic no. The commissioner likes the system exactly the way it is. The divisional bracket stays. It’s his sandbox, and the NHL players need to play in it... his way. And just like that, a debate the league keeps trying to close... stays wide open.
A lot of the people inside the sport don’t love the current format.
Players have been increasingly vocal about wanting the old structure back. The logic is simple: if you finish first in the conference, you should play the eighth seed. Reward the regular season. Let the bracket sort itself out.
Cale Makar said the quiet part out loud last fall. “I feel like all the players want back to 1 to 8,” Makar told ESPN’s Greg Wyshynski. “I think that’s a thing we’d like.”
That’s not a fringe opinion. Around the league, the sentiment is similar. Sidney Crosby supported the idea. Plenty of players have echoed it privately. The reasoning stays consistent: the regular season should matter.
Right now, the structure doesn’t always reward it. A contender can grind through 82 games, finish near the top of the conference... and still run straight into another heavyweight in Round 1 because of divisional alignment. Meanwhile, a weaker club from a softer division gets a cleaner path. That’s not drama. That’s math.
Then there’s the fatigue factor. The current bracket loves familiarity. Maybe a little too much.
Fans have watched the same matchups loop every spring. Think Oilers vs. Kings, trading punches in the first-round year after year. Great rivalry, sure.
But eventually even great rivalries start to feel scheduled. The old 1–8 system solved that naturally. Different opponents. Different paths. More unpredictability. Which, by the way, is what playoff hockey thrives on. Bettman’s argument is different.
From the league’s perspective, the divisional format creates instant tension. Geographic grudges. Teams that already hate each other colliding immediately. In Bettman’s mind, nothing is broken. So nothing needs fixing. But pressure in the NHL rarely disappears. It lingers.
General managers have quietly warmed up to the idea of returning to conference seeding. Fans bring it up constantly. Players keep nudging the conversation whenever microphones appear.
And eventually, every road leads back to the same place. The next CBA. Because if the playoff format ever changes, that’s where the door opens.
Until then, the commissioner’s position is clear. The system isn’t changing. But judging by how often the question keeps coming up, the conversation isn’t going anywhere either.