theathleticuk
The NHL has experienced a period of significant change, driven largely by increased player influence and the effects of a rising salary cap. Among the recent developments is the league's plan to expand into Texas, with a new team in either Austin or Houston expected to begin play as early as the 2029-30 season. This expansion, which carries a $2 billion fee, will further elevate the salary cap. Moreover, the league is already actively exploring the addition of a 34th franchise.
Beyond the financial and market implications, expansion raises critical questions about division realignment and the playoff format—issues that could enhance competition and generate additional revenue. From the 2000-01 season until the Atlanta Thrashers relocated to Winnipeg in 2011, the NHL operated with 30 teams divided into six divisions across two conferences. In 2013-14, the league transitioned to a four-division setup, with the Eastern Conference comprising 16 teams in two eight-team divisions and the Western Conference having 14 teams in two seven-team divisions until the Vegas Golden Knights (2016) and Seattle Kraken (2021) joined.
The two-division format has clear benefits. It has intensified rivalries within conferences, such as the Tampa Bay Lightning and Montreal Canadiens in the Atlantic Division, the Florida Panthers and Toronto Maple Leafs, and the Dallas Stars, Colorado Avalanche, and Minnesota Wild in the Central Division. These rivalries produce more compelling playoff matchups and more intense regular-season play. Therefore, the NHL should build on its current alignment rather than overhaul it.
A new Texas franchise would naturally fit into the Central Division. The placement of a 34th team is more complex, as any addition will create imbalance. If the league returns to Phoenix, the West would have 18 teams to the East's 16. If the 34th team goes to Atlanta or another Eastern city, the conferences would be split 17-17, with one division in each conference having an extra team. This imbalance is inherent in a 34-team league, which isn't evenly divisible by four or six divisions. That's why expanding to 33 teams could be the first step toward a 36-team league, where a six-division format might make sense, with six teams competing for first place instead of a nine-team field. However, that discussion is for another time.
For now, the focus must be on the impending 34-team league, and that doesn't require a drastic overhaul—provided the playoff format is changed. The current system is flawed even in a 32-team league. The NHL attempted to generate excitement by pitting divisional rivals against each other in the early rounds, but this has created problems. The hype often fizzles as the playoffs progress because the potential for late-round rivalries diminishes. Additionally, the system doesn't adequately reward regular-season success. Last spring, the Stars and Wild were the second- and third-best teams in the Western Conference but faced each other in the first round. In the East, the Boston Bruins and Ottawa Senators were relegated to wild-card seeds, forcing them to face the top teams in each division despite having better records than the second- and third-place teams in the Metropolitan Division.
Expansion should compel the NHL to address these issues, as they would only worsen with two more clubs, especially with uneven divisions. In an eight-team division, teams have a 37.5% chance of finishing in the top three; that drops to 33.3% in a nine-team division. This difference in competitive balance is significant, even with two wild-card seeds for the next-best teams in each conference.
Instead, expansion should prompt a return to a 1-8 playoff system, where only division winners are guaranteed the top two seeds, and the next six seeds are open to the other 15 or 16 teams in the conference. This would make in-conference games more meaningful and add drama down the stretch, as the current stringent format has limited jostling in recent years. It could also create more frenzy days in April, similar to the Premier League's season finale. In a 1-8 format, top teams are rewarded with matchups against the lowest seeds, building tension and increasing the likelihood of best-on-best conference finals. Upsets would be more dramatic, as the current No. 7 and No. 8 seeds aren't always the weakest qualifiers.
Expansion brings another twist: as long as a 16-team playoff system has been in place (since 1979-80), at least half of the league has qualified for the playoffs. That would change once Team No. 33 arrives under the current structure. Deputy commissioner Bill Daly has said the league would likely address this to avoid more teams missing the playoffs than qualifying. The NHL must balance maintaining the integrity of the playoff system and regular-season action. It doesn't need to expand the field to two-thirds of the league, reintroduce byes (last used in 1978), or change the four-round structure.
The best way to involve half of a 34-team league (or a potential 36-team league) is to build on the current wild-card format. Four teams should compete for the final two wild-card seeds in a play-in: No. 7 vs. No. 10 and No. 8 vs. No. 9, similar to the NBA's play-in. While a one-game play-in would be intense, an 84-game season shouldn't hinge on one loss. Instead, the NHL should adopt MLB's best-of-three wild-card series, which expands the field without diluting it and boosts revenue.
To illustrate, here is how last spring's playoff field would have looked under this format. While dispersing talent to a 33rd (and eventually 34th) team will promote parity, expansion gives the league a chance to recharge competitive balance. With the right playoff format changes, the NHL can enhance the product and boost revenue without watering down an elite playoff experience.
Originally reported by theathleticuk.