2014 Playoff format and matchups

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

With realignment, we have a new playoff system. While it is straight forward to figure out rounds 1, (2 wildcards in each conference, wc with fewest points plays division winner with most points, team #2 in one division plays team #3 in other division (I think) 3 (2 remaining teams in each conference play each other) and SCF,  how does one figure out who plays in round two? 
 
Do teams 1-6 in each conference just get seeded on points and highest seed play lowest or is there some kind of intra-division requirement?

 

[RedOctober3829]

With realignment, we have a new playoff system. While it is straight forward to figure out rounds 1, (2 wildcards in each conference, wc with fewest points plays division winner with most points, team #2 in one division plays team #3 in other division (I think) 3 (2 remaining teams in each conference play each other) and SCF,  how does one figure out who plays in round two? 
 
Do teams 1-6 in each conference just get seeded on points and highest seed play lowest or is there some kind of intra-division requirement?

It's bracketed.  Say Boston, Montreal and TB finish 1-3 in the division and Philly gets the 2nd wild card.  Boston plays Philly and Montreal plays TB. The winners play each other in the 2nd round.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

So the wild cards are free agents, but the 1-3 finishers stay together? Thank you RO.

 

[ForceAtHome]

So the wild cards are free agents, but the 1-3 finishers stay together? Thank you RO.

 
Correct. In each division, the 2-3 teams play each other. The better division winner plays the worse wild card and vice versa.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm confused (not surprisingly).  There are two divisions in each conference.  If there are just 2 wildcard teams in each conference, that's just 4 teams making the playoffs from each conference.  That can't be right.  
 
EDIT:  Ok, I just read how it works.  Top 3 from each division are automatically in, which makes 6 teams.  Then the two best remaining teams, regardless of division.  So you could have 5 from one division and 3 from the other, or 4-4, whatever.

 

[cshea]

The top 3 teams from each division are in, so that's 6. The final 2 spots in each conference are "wild cards" in that they can come out of either division.

 

[SidelineCameras]

The top 3 teams from each division are in, so that's 6. The final 2 spots in each conference are "wild cards" in that they can come out of either division.

 
IIRC, the original plan was straight-up top 4 from each division, and not meeting anyone outside of your division until the Conference Finals. I liked this idea for the potential insanity of the rivalries. Potentially having to go through, say, Montreal and Detroit three times in a four year period would be great from a drama point of view.
 
But I like the direction they ultimately decided to go, even if it means the Bruins play a team with whom there is very little history, like the Bluejackets for example, in Round One. The NHL was probably looking to avoid an NFL-type situation, like in 2008 where a 8-8 Chargers team gets in the playoffs ahead of the 11-5 Patriots. This way a team from a weaker division isn't "rewarded" while one from a strong division isn't "punished" quite as badly as they might be with no wildcard.
 
Edit: Grammar issues.

 

[Saints Rest]

 
IIRC, the original plan was straight-up top 4 from each division, and not meeting anyone outside of your division until the Conference Finals. I liked this idea for the potential insanity of the rivalries. Potentially having to go through, say, Montreal and Detroit three times in a four year period would be great from a drama point of view.
 
But I like the direction they ultimately decided to go, even if it means the Bruins play a team with whom there is very little history, like the Bluejackets for example, in Round One. The NHL was probably looking to avoid an NFL-type situation, like in 2008 where a 8-8 Chargers team gets in the playoffs ahead of the 11-5 Patriots. This way a team from a weaker division isn't "rewarded" while one from a strong division isn't "punished" quite as badly as they might be with no wildcard.
 
Edit: Grammar issues.

Top 4 from each division is the way it was back in the 80's. I for one, got sick of seeing the Sabres in round one every year

 

[MoGator71]

The only minor tweak I'd make is if you end up with one wild card from each division I'd rather see them play the first place team in their own division. Let's say the Jackets and Leafs are the 2 wild cards, I'd match up the Leafs and Bruins, and the Jackets and Pens, regardless which one is the "2nd" wild card. Only cross a team over if it's the 5th place team in one division getting in.

 

[Boston Brawler]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/24/video-explaining-the-new-nhl-playoff-format/
 
This video explains it pretty well, but at the 1:08 mark they explain that "the brackets are set and the wildcards placed in the division in which they are assigned". Are they talking about where they are assigned for the bracket, or where they are assigned for their regular season division? Because if both wildcards come out of the same division, a wildcard could win the division they are not in during the regular season.
 
Or am I missing something here?

 

[McDrew]

They're wrong on that point.
 
Seeds 1-3 in the Atlantic and Metropolitan playoffs go to the 1-3 finishers in that division.  The #1 seed with the best overall record plays the 2nd wild card team.  The #1 seed with the worst record plays the 1st wild card team. 
 
This mean, for example: 
Boston finishes 2 points ahead of PIT for #1 overall.  TB/MON get the #2 and #3 seeds.  PIT, NYR, PHI get the Metropolitan #1-#3 seeds.  Detroit grabs WC#1, Washington grabs WC #2.
The winner of BOS-WAS would play the winner of TB-MON and the winner of PIT-DET would play the winner of NYR-PHI
 
Theoretically, Washington could win the Atlantic Playoffs, and Detroit could win the Metropolitan playoffs in that scenario, and face off in the ECF.