Thread by @BrooksDSimpson

When it comes to discussions about structuring the postseasons of professional sports, there's a tension between wanting to enlarge the field and giving better teams more significant advantages reflecting regular season achievements.

I think that if you enlarge the postseason, you might want to shorten the regular season, because you've devalued it. But I don't think you need to construct artificial advantages for better teams.

If you want better teams to win, restrict the postseason.

Take hockey. Say goodbye to the divisions. Construct balanced schedules (3 games versus each of 15 conference opponents, home/away versus each of the teams in the opposite conference [32 games]). That gets you to 77 games. That's enough.

You alternate who gets the extra home game within the conference contests every year.

Then you seed 1-8 within each conference for playoffs. Reseed each round. Home ice in finals goes to team with better record.

I well recall the days when 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs. I know that under an expanded NHL playoff system, the #Isles are in the playoffs.

But it is clear that the wonderful simplicity of this approach dooms it, right?

If you really want 84 games, then rotate over the years a fourth game with seven conference opponents. Recall that the NHL had an 84-game schedule. But I think we'd have better hockey in the regular season with a little more rest.

Each series is best-of-7.

If you want to jazz it up, use the time afforded by a reduced regular season playoff for a round-robin among the 7-10 seeds. Or a one-and-done preliminary playoff.

That will give the top two seeds a chance to rest knowing they'll face a tired team.

However, I like a field of 16. As for those who want to give the higher-seeded team additional advantages beyond home ice, one of the things that make the Stanley Cup playoffs what they are happens to be upsets.