NHL playoff expansion risks outweigh benefits despite league growth

The day the New York Islanders skated off with their first of four straight Stanley Cups, it happened in broad daylight on network television. It’s almost unimaginable now: an afternoon Game 6 overtime on CBS deciding hockey’s championship in front of a national audience. The NHL has changed in so many ways since that May afternoon in 1980, but one aspect has stubbornly stayed the same — the size of the playoff field.

As the league grew from 21 to 32 franchises, the postseason has remained a 16-team affair for decades except for the 2020 bubble, when a one-off 24-team format responded to extraordinary circumstances. That resistance to expanding the tournament sits at the center of a long-running debate about fairness, revenue, and the integrity of the regular season.

Why the NHL’s playoff field hasn’t grown with the league

The NHL’s steady 16-team playoff format looks increasingly anomalous compared with other major North American sports. Expansion in franchise numbers hasn’t translated into more playoff berths. Instead, the league has doubled down on making postseason access tougher—intentionally or not—because of factors like the salary cap and the rise of the three-point game, both of which have fostered parity and compressed standings.

Commissioner Gary Bettman has repeatedly signaled a reluctance to enlarge the postseason despite the league’s expansion and the tantalizing payroll boost owners could expect from additional playoff inventory. There are several reasons behind that stance:

• Preserving regular-season value: fewer playoff spots keep each game meaningful over a long schedule.
• Maintaining competitive standards: the league prizes the idea that earning a playoff ticket should be difficult.
• Television and scheduling considerations: more rounds crowd calendars and must balance national broadcasting partners.

How other leagues changed — and what the NHL could learn

Other major sports have adapted their postseason to new realities of expansion and television money. Since 1980:

• The NFL expanded its playoff field alongside franchise growth, now allowing 14 of 32 teams in.
• MLB grew from a tiny four-team postseason to a 12-team tournament out of 30 clubs.
• The NBA has kept a 16-team bracket officially but introduced a play-in layer that effectively gives more teams a shot at postseason play.

Those moves show a pattern: leagues often balance expanding access with new formats that preserve high-stakes consequences. A similar hybrid model — such as a play-in series — could theoretically give the NHL more postseason drama without fully diluting the regular season. Yet the league’s leadership remains cautious, and the reasons for that caution are both philosophical and practical.

Play-in tournaments: flirtation, feasibility, and flaws

A play-in would allow teams on the fringe to fight for final berths while keeping the 16-team bracket intact. Proponents argue it increases late-season interest and rewards teams that peak late. Critics counter that it cheapens the marathon of an 82-game schedule and could introduce randomness that undermines the playoff’s quality.

Potential benefits

• More meaningful late-season matchups in multiple markets.
• Increased broadcastable moments and ticket demand for high-stakes contests.
• Opportunity to include expansion markets without fully expanding the bracket.

Potential drawbacks

• Regular-season parity could be devalued if teams can rely on a brief play-in to reach the postseason.
• The West/East imbalance: some divisions or conferences might produce weaker or stronger pools, leading to uneven play-in matchups.
• Scheduling headaches and potential dilution of first-round matchups.

Context matters: in some seasons the Eastern Conference runs deeper, in others the West does. A play-in could amplify those swings rather than fix them.

Real-time playoff drama: this season’s tight races and late surges

Current standings underline why debates about format aren’t purely academic. Teams have staged dramatic recoveries and collapses that show how volatile a long season can be.

• One club erased a 15-point deficit from mid-January to secure a wild-card slot, turning a season around with a second-half tear.
• Another team climbed from the bottom of its conference in December to clinch a berth — a comeback that would have been impossible in a short tournament model.
• Conversely, teams that looked comfortable early on have faltered in the final weeks, underscoring the “six-month test” nature of the NHL schedule.

For example, a storied franchise that led its division by a comfortable margin at the Olympic break experienced a late-season collapse and watched its playoff hopes vanish with a loss as the calendar wound down. Locker-room disappointment was raw and immediate — an episode that demonstrates how much of a grind the campaign really is.

Why keeping the postseason small still has persuasive arguments

A lot of fans and some executives like the idea that the NHL’s playoffs are earned, not given. When only half the league qualifies, each win during the regular season carries more weight; clubs that build depth and consistency are rewarded. That perspective values the regular season as an important component of sport, not just a lead-up.

Television economics and competitive integrity also play roles. Networks and sponsors prize marquee series over a crowded, watered-down schedule, while owners and front offices stress that the best teams should face more predictable postseasons built around merit rather than short bursts of form.

Where expansion, money and fan interest collide

Expansion fees in the neighborhood of $2 billion per new franchise make adding clubs tempting for the league’s bottom line. New teams create fresh markets and local buzz, which in turn raises calls for more playoff access to reward those fanbases. Yet increasing the number of postseason slots might undercut the product that made fans fall in love with hockey’s postseason in the first place.

The tug-of-war between growing revenues and preserving a grueling, merit-based journey to the Stanley Cup is the central tension for the NHL today. Any change will require balancing competitive fairness, broadcast partners’ demands, and the fan appetite for drama across both the regular season and playoffs.

Snapshots of the current playoff picture and lingering questions

• Wild-card battles remain razor-thin in both conferences, with teams separated by just a handful of points as the schedule winds down.
• The presence of many three-point games (overtime/shootout) complicates standings and magnifies small differences across the table.
• Front-office strategy has shifted under the salary cap: parity makes every spot harder to lock down, which can favor playoff expansion or a play-in if the league chooses to pursue it.

The narrative of the season — surprising comebacks, heartbreaking collapses, and tight division races — argues that the NHL’s current system creates compelling stories. Whether that’s a reason to keep things as they are or to tinker with formats to include more clubs remains an open, hotly debated question that will shape the sport’s future.

You might also like:

• 2025 NBA Cup quarterfinals: teams, schedule, key matchups and how to watch
• SEC dynasty over in college football: Big Ten wins signal power shift
• Los Angeles Dodgers load management playoff rotation could reshape baseball’s future
• MLB wild card race: can Mariners and Mets hold on?
• NBA All-Star Game now a gimmick, losing fan interest and competitive edge

John Davis

John Davis is a sports journalist focused on the NBA, NFL, and major global championships. With seven years of live coverage, he breaks down performances and key strategies. His expertise gives you a clear view of every game and its impact.