It's due to come up with the talk of expansion and possible relocation dominating the NHL landscape over the next few seasons. The league is likely to be at 31 if not 32 teams in relatively short order, and it begs the question that some have already pondered: is 16 teams enough for the NHL playoffs?

The easy answer is yes. It was hard to argue this past season that a team was in the playoffs that didn't deserve to be. The same in reverse can be said for a team on the outside looking in - Colorado missed the postseason by 5 points, while Boston in the East missed the cut by 3 points. It's been closer in years past.

Adding further clubs into the mix only dilutes the waters and could make for some 'non-traditional' situations with 18 or 20 teams; notably, a "play-in game" or a 3-game series with the winners moving into the 'real' playoffs. It works to an extent in the NCAA, but this is professional hockey. No need to gimmick the game even further, right?

The hard answer, though, is no. The NHL is a business first, meaning the more revenue they can generate, they'd probably argue, the better for all concerned. Having 2 to 4 more teams earning playoff revenues, having more playoff hockey on prime time, and having more NHL markets engaged in the playoffs would be ideal, in most circles of thought.

The NHL expanded the playoffs in 1979 with the WHA merger. 16 of 21 teams qualified for the playoffs then, and it's been that way ever since. Now, with the league almost surely going to 31 teams for the 2017-18 season and likely to 32 within a few years, 50% of NHL clubs would be missing out.

Is it really a bad idea to have more teams in the playoffs? Well, technically, you could still have a true 16 team playoff with a divisional play-in format. If and when the NHL gets to 32 teams, presumably there will be some realignment or possible adjustment to get 8 teams in every division. Putting the top 3 teams in each division into the actual playoffs, with the 4th and 5th seeds taking part in a 3-game "mini-playoff", isn't the craziest solution.

This would add a week or so to the entire playoff process, but the benefits are obvious. Travel could be a bit of an issue - in a 3-game series, going home/away/home inside a week would be trying just to make it into the field of 16. Having the 4-seeds play two at home, with a possible 'game 3' hosted by 5-seeds, is another possibility that could answer that issue.

It also has the added benefit (or negative depending on your point of view) of giving the top 3 teams in each division a week longer to rest and get ready for the playoffs. And once the 'mini-playoff' is complete, it's back to the usual 16-team race. Perhaps a true divisional system would emerge then, with 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 matchups with one team coming away from each division.

There are plenty of other ideas, and all have their pros and cons. And plenty will argue there's nothing wrong with the way things are now. But in this day in age, it's all about the bottom line. And having 12 more potential 'post-season' games, with 4 additional markets involved, could be too enticing a notion to pass up.

Follow @TomGidlow

Join the Discussion: » 38 Comments » Post New Comment

» Happy trails, James...we hardly knew ya

» Carolina takes advantage again in acquiring Teravainen & Bickell via Hawks

» The next chapter in "As The Karmanos Clan Turns"

» Reimer, Johnson, Ward? Carolina Hurricanes Offseason Outlook (2 of 4)

» Trade Targets: Carolina Hurricanes Offseason Outlook (Part 1 of 4)