How the NHL Could Change up the Schedule with Expansion 

One thing is for sure, If you thought Shannon was busting his ass with 32 teams imagine 40

Admit it Shannon, the expansion videos are just excuses for wearing that gorgeous Kansas City Scouts jersey

I agree, don't extend the playoffs. Make the regular season more important!

83 teams you play each team once

Shannon was coming up with his own schedules for fun when he was a teenager. At last, I feel seen.

33 teams: - 3 divisions with 11 teams each - 4 games against own division is 40 games - 2 games against the rest is 44 games in total - 84 game season - equal home and away games between every team - also makes a lot of sense geographically if the expansion team is added West of Colorado Playoffs options: - 4 teams per division plus 4 wildcards - 5 teams per division plus 1 wildcard - 4 teams per division plus 8 play-in spots for the 4 remaining spots

The GOAT for referencing Taro Tsujimoto.

I have to wonder how many people from and employed by the NHL are actually watching this and saying, "here's what our expansion plans are cause The Hockey Guy just said so."

Thanks for being our RU-vid NHL friend. Here in Alabama I don’t know any hockey fans outside of the ones I created in my own household 😂 I grew up in MN, but moved away before the Wild came along so I’m a diehard Stars fan to this day. Love your content man. Edit to add: I’m hopeful for Atlanta to give me a closer place to see the stars play!

6:42. "You don't play against yourself." Have you seen the way the Penguins have been playing lately?:

Conference setup is the way to go. I miss the old style playoff bracket.

This also means that inevitably your gonna have to deal with an unholy 17 or 18 game night. I fear for your sanity

That's a whole lotta blackouts

36 teams. 6 divisions of 6 teams, still split in two conferences. 5x4=20 games in your conference and 30x2=60 games against the other teams. Winner from each division in the play-off plus 5 wild cards per conference (this provides the theoretical option that if one division is really strong, every team from that division can make the playoffs). Play-offs split in east west with a draft seeding. The highest seeded division winner picks their opponent for round one from the 5 wild cards, then the 2nd seeded division winner picks from the 4 remaining wild cards, etc. Round two, the highest seeded remaining team gets to pick their opponent and the other two teams face each other. The four new teams are, SLC, Atlanta, Milwauke and Houston. Having no special number of games within conferences, only division, allows the two "central" divisions to be a bit mixed between east and west and it would only have a slight impact on travel come play offs. Atlanta and Houston joins the East. SLC and MIlwauke joins the west. Dallas and Nashville swap with Detroit and Columbus. Divisions are: VAN, SEA, EDM, CGY, WPG, COL ARI, VGK, LAK, ANA, SLC, SJS MLW, STL, MIN, DET, CHI, CBJ FLA, TBL, ATL, NSH, HOU, DAL WSH, PIT, PHI, NJD, NYI, NYR TOR, OTT, MTL, BOS, BUF, CAR Four of theese divisions look insane but the other two needs the TX and FL rivalries to be real. Maybe a California vs not California rivalry in the "desert division".

The one issue I have with this set up is the Eastern Conference teams are all in the Eastern time zone, while the Western Conference covers the Central, Mountain and West Coast time zones.

I just want the Thrashers, the Nordiques and the Whalers back

i think soccer has a pretty good formula, in most leagues, you play each team twice, one home and away game, must make scheduling a lot easier tbf

“There are no solutions; there are only trade offs” -Thomas Sowell

love these dives thx brother for all you do

That's a cool freaking idea! Thanks again!!

36 teams is the perfect spot imo. Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Houston, Quebec City. Works almost perfectly for the divisions: - Move Arizona to Pacific - Add Atlanta to Metro - Add SLC to Central - Add Houston to Central - Add Quebec to Atlantic

Dude, I fucking love these discussions. Keep the great work coming

Luv the defunct team jerseys...do u have the 1970s..california golden seals? My favorite.

36 teams schedule: 2 conferences, 3 divisions each (6 team divisions). 4 games * 5 teams in your division + 2 games * 30 other teams = 80 games. Do whatever you want with the two remaining. Conference based playoffs (like it was before 2013)

I'm probabaly in the minority, but I like knowing every team plays in all 32 buildings every year. Lots of us moved away from our home teams' market and might only get 1 chance a year to see our team in-person. The division-only Covid year got mundane seeing the same teams over-and-over. There isn't a great scheduling option with 34 teams. 32 is almost perfect so naturally the league won't stay this way. I think the NHL will have 36 teams by the mid '30s, so maybe they move to 84 games a season by then. Good job laying out some realistic options, Shannon. I think we all should expect Salt Lake City and Atlanta soon.

We have an update on the Jagr bobblehead caper. The suspect crew appears to be 5 women, aged about 23, every one a 10 out of 10. Word is they're all upset they only got a piece of Jags and wanted to keep him for life. The day Jags retires he should walk into not only the Hockey HoF, but the Man HoF too. Jags is a living legend.

I do really enjoy your channel, you’re very detailed with your content and it makes you more credible. I like your idea of conferences if and when the NHL does expand (I do believe it’ll be 36 teams eventually). I think 36 evens out the conferences and possibly makes the scheduling easier. Not sure if they’ll add more games but if they do everyone will make more money and I’m sure the players wouldn’t mind. Keep up the good work and I’m looking forward to more good stuff from you.

All cool ideas I think. 2 conferences would be neat

This was a video I didn't know I needed this morning. I love it. I'd be interested to hear Shannon's thoughts on incorporating a Europe division. I know there a re a lot of travel issues but I'd be interested to see ideas.

The Hockey Math Guy. This stuff is fascinating, honestly.

9:11 While we're toying with the idea of a 40-team NHL, here's what I came up with for the division alignments, for anyone that's interested. I added Atlanta, Hamilton, Hartford, and Quebec City to the Eastern Conference, and Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, and Utah to the Western Conference, and then aligned the divisions as such: Atlantic: NJ, NYI, NYR, PHI, PIT Great Lakes: BUF, CBJ, DET, HAM, TOR Northeast: BOS, HFD, MTL, OTT, QC Southeast: ATL, CAR, FLA, TB, WSH I'm essentially bringing back the pre-2013 Atlantic and Southeast divisions, as well as most of the 1992-98 Northeast division here. Central: CHI, COL, MIL, MIN, WPG Northwest: CGY, EDM, SEA, UT, VAN Pacific: ANA, ARI, LA, SJ, VGK Southwest: DAL, HOU, KC, NSH, STL I know someone else had the same idea for the Pacific division (and probably many other people do as well), but that cluster of teams makes too much sense not to put them in the same division. Then for scheduling, a way that I think could work in an 82-game schedule would be playing 2 division opponents 6 times and the other 2 5 times (22 games), one division from your conference 4 times (20 games) on a rotating basis and the other 2 divisions twice (20 games, 10 per division), and the other conference once (20 games) with home and away games alternating every year. Not exactly a perfect setup, but you're at least playing everyone at least once a year. And it's also a relatively even setup in terms of total games against groups of teams. For the playoffs, I have a couple ideas for the format: - Start by having the Division Finals with the top 2 teams from each division, then reseed the winners for the Conference Semifinals, or - Use the 1v8 format, but with a twist. In each conference: - The top 2 division leaders get the top 2 seeds - The 3rd division leader is seeded according to their position among the playoff teams - The worst division leader is ranked according to their position in the conference

I love the jersey, Shannon! Kansas City Scouts had a great logo.

There's nothing wrong with you Shannon. I can feel your Kenergy!

With a 36 team league, keeping playing everyone twice (35x2=70), this would give you a swing whether you want to have 4 total vs your division (86 game total), or 3 vs your conference (87 game total). I do wish they would switch the current schedule to be play every other division twice, your division 4 times, and give you a swing of games for other opponents. As an avalanche fan I would love to play detroit more than twice

The problem I see is travel fatigue. If teams have problems now would they be able to play a four game road trip?

Nice Scouts jersey, Skanes...

I like the east/west idea. Makes sense!

With the setup that has no divisions and you play only in your conference 4 games each team, I see the Predators and Chicago having a huge disadvantage because they're basically in the eastern conference geographically but have to play in the west

I like your two conferences with 82 games, 3 in conference and 2 out of conference. I would add that the conferences need to have equal east and west coast teams in them, so that way all travel is equal. That I would be down for calling it equal then.

I've thought a lot about this. For 34 teams I like the 2 conference, 3x16 conference, 2x17 nonconference model. However, if they want to keep divisions, I think they'd go with an 8 and a 9 team division in each conference, where you would play division opponents 4 times in the 9 team divisions, 4-5 times (5x2, 4x5) in 8 team divisions, and everyone else 2 times, almost as if theres 4 conferences. For 36 teams there are 2 models I think they'd consider most strongly. The first is 4 divisions of 9 where you play 3-4 games against division opponents (3x4, 4x4 for 82 games, 3x2, 4x6 for 84 games, 4x8 for 82 games), and everyone else 2 games. The second goes to 3 6 team divisions per conference, with teams playing 4 games against division opponents, 3 games against the team in each of the other 2 divisions in your conference that finished in the same place as you in the standings the previous season (like the NFL does) and 2 games against everyone else for 82 games. Playoffs could work however you like in any of these, they each generally mirror historical alignments so they would probably look similar to a system thats been used before.

Quebec Hartford and 1-16. Sounds great 😃

36 - Salt Lake City, Houston, Atlanta & Quebec City

Good video! I personally think 3 games between rivals is too few, and that it causes too much travel (especially between time zones) to work well. What I would do is forget about having divisions with an even number of teams, and work out a schedule and playoff format that sets up solid rivalries and keeps playoff odds equal across the board. This would be how, with a 2-conference, 6-division setup, assuming Atlanta and Utah are given teams (and no one else moves): (W) Northwest Division: VAN, CGY, EDM, SEA, COL, UTH (6 teams) (W) Pacific Division: ARZ, VGK, LAK, SJS, ANA (5 teams) (W) Central Division: WPG, MIN, CHI, STL, NSH, DAL (6 teams) (E) Northeast Division: DET, CBJ, TOR, BUF, OTT (5 teams) (E) Atlantic Division: MTL, BOS, ATL, CAR, TBL, FLA (6 teams) (E) Metro Division: NJD, NYI, NYR, PHI, PIT, WSH (6 teams) Schedule would be: Division rivals (4 games) + Conference rivals (3 games) + Non-Conference teams (29 or 30 games total) ^This depends if it is a team in a 5 team or 6 team Division, translates to all but 4 or 5 teams in the other conference having a home and home, the others having just one game - this would rotate every year, so the gaps in seeing specific teams at home would be only once every 4 years or so) For a total of 80 games, which is for a reason. After 80 games, a quick playoff qualification round would be held, similar to the play-in tournament in the bubble year. The Division winners would play each of the 2nd place teams at home in a 3-game round robin, which would be under regular season rules and count as extra regular season games to jockey for standings positions. Meanwhile, the 4 teams outside the top 2 in each Division would be seeded 1-4, with #1 hosting #4 and #2 hosting #3 in best-of-3 series, all games at home for #1 and 2. Once this qualification is finished, the eight remaining teams in each Conference would be seeded 1-8, with all 3 Division winners seeding in the top 4 to give them home ice (but not the top 3 seeds specifically, like in the old 1-8 format). So, if a Division is weak, its winner would be the #4 seed, and their opponent would always be a team with a better record in 2nd place in their Division, seeded #5 (so the team that won their Division gets home ice, but not an unfair matchup vs. a team in their own Division). Regular 16 team playoff from there.

Kansas City Scouts! Got any California Seals jerseys?

The Dave Meltzer of the NHL.

Clever. And for the watering down argument, there's a world 'pool' of good to excellent players.

Shannon you should get an Utah Grizzlies jersey (current ECHL affiliate for The Avalanche) for the SLC placeholder!

Madness board. Love to see it.

I'd like to see the NHL have some in season tournaments that count towards your final standings

That would be gnarly

Shannon, love this classic Jersey you wearing it brought some memory in the past. With the Expansion teams, it getting too many now, I remember when I was a kid, it only twenty teams in the league nice and simple. Those were exciting times in the NHL. I hope the NHL do not go to MLB format games, cutting two different league, then you know the rest.

40-team matrix video. Yes I’d watch that. Maybe even make it a summer video series. Also I’d go with a 40-team format that sees us return to 10 road games in the other conference and 10 home games against the other conference. So 8-5 team conferences. Play 8 games against your division, so 8x4=32 games. 2 games against your conference so 2x15= 30 games. And of coarse the 10 home, 10 away for 20 games against the other conference for a total of 82 games.

Got to figure out a Nashville Atlanta rivalry

It"s a tough call but I do like the idea of seeing the other conference once at home and one away.

One issue I see with no divisions is teams can be out of the playoffs a lot sooner, thus lowering the competitive nature.

Wish they’d stop expanding, 32 is perfect

Shannon, if there’s something wrong with you, then there’s something wrong with all of us, because we keep watching. 😂

For the sake of near perfect balance, an idea I kinda dreamed up is a schedule that would have every team play every opponent twice. Once home and once away. As the NHL sits currently, that would be 62 games. At 34 that would give each team 66. So on and so forth. At the end of this first part of the season the whole NHL can be ranked. At this point it's perfectly balanced. Next, to finish the regular season you'd seperate the league in three groups based on the current standings and have each group compete in a round robin, each for its own reward. One group consists of the top 17 ranked teams. Another group consists of the bottom 9 ranked teams. The last group consists of the remaining middle ranked teams. The group of bottom 9 teams would be in one round robin playing 2 games against each team. 16 games total. They would fight for draft spots 1 to 9. Since the best team gets the 1st pick, this helps counter fears of the tank mentality. The teams in the middle would play their round robin to determine the rest of the draft order. Playing 16 games total. Teams can choose their eight home games starting with the top ranked team. Following teams choose from what's available till all teams have 8 home and 8 road games. This is where things can be unbalanced depending on how many teams are in the league. The round robin for your top 17 teams would be used to determine playoff ranking. You can use regular season standings to determine home ice. Higher teams choose who they want to face at home. Go down the list till no choices are left to be made. 8 home games, 8 road games each. Again 16 games. Now rank the teams 1 to 17. To make things interesting and to motivate the middle group, the two top teams from the middle round robin can play the bottom two teams from the top 17 round robin group in single elimination bracket to take the last playoff spot. The playoffs matches then go 1vs16 from there. This allows all kinds of matchups we may never otherwise get to see if we have normal conferences. The finals could happen against a geographical rival. You also start playoff style hockey much earlier due to the importance of these games. This would closely keep the number of games to that 80-90 range before the playoffs. Changing as the NHL expands. More games and more teams will be interesting to watch regardless where your team stands. This can work well as the NHL slowly expands keeping things balanced no matter how many teams are added throughout the years even or odd numbers work the geography doesn't matter that much since no divisions exist. Travel in the round robin and playoffs could be a potential turn off but I think for the sake of excitement this can be ok. If you actually read this, thanks so much. I know this is too complex for the NHL but I do like the idea or at least the ground works of this concept.

Bettman is taking notes on how to overload the schedule purely to inconvenience thg

I actually like the 4 games verse the conference. That would be pretty fun to watch. Helps with travel and builds rivalries

Bett-phone ringing....hi The Hockey Guy? Bettman calling....does this new schedule in any way help any Canadian team?.....lol

Can’t wait for NHL in Utah!!

What would it look like if every game was 3 points? 3 for a regulation win, 2 for a OT win, and 1 for a OT loss. It’s always bugged me that a Reg win and an OT win is the same number of points. Asking for a friend.

Love the KC Scouts jersey

The way I see it: 36 teams: Salt Lake City to Pacific, Houston to Central, Atlanta to Metro, Quebec City to Atlantic. (At that point you can swap Arizona and Salt Lake to put SLC and Colorado in the same division) -4 games against divisional opponents (4 x 8 = 32) -3 games against intra-conference opponents (3 x 9 = 27) -1 game against intra-conference opponents (1 x 18 = 18) - 5 games remain, to be assigned based on rivalry/ ratings potential.

Thanks for another interesting talk, Shannon. You always manage to come up with worthy subjects. Do enjoy Yvonne and the kitties and bunny occasionally popping in, but you come off as both a man of integrity as well as well-versed in your subject matter and there's always something interesting to be learned. Further, because you live near Vancouver, finally someone who realizes the West Coast does like hockey. I absolutely cannot stand the arrogance/ignorance of THN-after all these decades-to think the entire hockey world centers around Toronto...all I think about Toronto is them being home to that stinker-jkc-Kings' founder and his screwing up a generation for a hockey team, and their loss to Boston in playoffs. Some teams just can't buy their way to the Cup-do you hear that, Ballard. I'll toast to that!

IMO, there's always at least 2-4 teams that can largely be considered AHL caliber. So, even though they won't, the NHL should consider downsizing the number of teams.

Vancouver Edmonton, Calgary, were guaranteed Toronto every year at home even when they used to play less east west games. Except from 2005-2008

Think the best way to do it is to keep it at 32 teams and go to 84 games: 4 against division, 3 against intraconference and 2 against non-conference opponents. This is better for regional rivalries and travel than an expanded league or no divisions. The talent is already very diluted. More games against regional rivals are preferred. Shannon may not get it but the NY area teams rather play each other for an extra game than Ottawa or Columbus. The games against local opponents just mean more to the fan bases. Thats what a strong rivalry does. And that's a good thing. Plus, the broadcasters prefer rivalry games because more people watch them.

1v16 would be insanity! Could you imagine Florida Vegas being a potential first round matchup this year?

Are there fewer back-to-games scheduled now compared to 10-20 years ago? It’s hard to understand why a home game is followed by a medium distance game on the road on back to back nights.

I like divisions for playoff seeding and that’s it, I think you should see your division teams the same amount as your conference Divisions should be top 2 get their placements, with 4 wildcards in the conference Divisions are only based on location (I don’t mind the alignment we have now even if it’s a bit strange geographically)

The Saskatoon Gold or whatever colour

Tsaro Tsujimoto reference.

I'd love to see Chicago & Detroit back in the same conference some day.

I'm probably one of the few people who feel this way, but I actually liked the playoff play-in tournament during COVID, if they do end up expanding the playoffs.

I could definitely see the Playoff format drop to best-of-5 to shorten things.

I'm all for divisions being gone!

My sister and I came up with a thing a while back where permanent divisions/conferences didn't exist. You play every team twice, and then you hit the trade deadline, all star break/bye-week and division-draft in one. At the (obviously televised) division draft, teams are sorted into buckets by their place in the standings, so each division ends up pretty even in terms of good/bad teams. Depending on how many teams you've put in each division you then play within your division another 2-4 times to determine playoffs. (All star break is at the same time to allow the final scheduling and logistics to happen for the final chunk of the season - also allows traded players from the deadline a few days to move!). What can I say if I'm going to rework the schedule I'm going full on overhaul!

Thank you Shannon, I like that idea. As long as the NHL doesn’t bring back the “glowing “ puck. I’ll be happy 👍

I completely forgot that not even 20 years ago there was a lot of chatter about how it sucked that western conference teams only got to host Crosby and Ovechkin once every 2 seasons. Thanks for reminding me. I lived in Halifax at the time and I remember Crosby's face being on the front page of almost every newspaper almost every day. It was nauseating.

We all want to talk about scheduling, Shannon. We all do.

The 2005-08 matrix was even more extreme with few cross-confrence games. With five teams per division and three divisions per conference, teams played divisional opponents a whopping eight times, and other conference opponents four times. Do the math, and that leaves only ten games to play against the fifteen teams in the other conference. For these three seasons, they scheduled the cross-confrence games on a rotating basis by division. So each year, there was one division of the opposite conference where every team had one game visiting each building in your division, and one other division of the opposite conference where each team in your division played one road game in each of their buildings. The third division of the opposite conference: you would never see any of them unless there was a Stanley Cup Finals matchup between teams in the two divisions. Many fans complained that they only got to see each of the other conference's superstars in their own building once every three years, assuming that the star in question didn't miss that one game for any reason. It got to the point where there was a push to change it in the middle of the 2006-07 season, but it was decided to complete one three-year rotation and then go back to the previous scheduling matrix.

I would like a tiered system much like international play. Top 17 teams plays in one division, bottom 17 play in another in a 2 home and away season throughout the year. Sprinkle in some rivalry games with opposite tier teams (for example Toronto who would be in the top tier would play a home and away with both Montreal and Ottawa who are in the bottom tier) to fill out the rest of the games. Top 9 teams in the first tier make the playoffs, with the top team in the bottom tier. Teams 10-15 play a play-in round with 2-6 teams in the bottom tier. Playoff teams + the team with the highest record who missed the playoffs (regardless of tier) would be the top tier the next season. Rinse, repeat.

Time to call Gary back!

San Diego

I came up with a potential schedule for 92 games. I know this won't happen due to adding 10 games being ridiculous. But I thought I would have fun: - The regular season would be from Early October to Late April - Teams would be split to 4 Conferences of 10 and split those conferences to 5 team divisions Here is the schedule idea: - 4 games vs 4 division opponents = 16 games - 3 games vs 5 non-divisional conference, plus one team from another conference (e.g. Vancouver vs Chicago) opponents = 18 games - 2 games vs Everyone else = 58 games The playoffs would work as followed: - Top 3 of each conference would automatically make the playoffs - 4 vs 5 seeds in each conference would be a wild card game similar to baseball - Winner plays the first seed with the 2nd and 3rd seed playing against each other - The Stanley Cup qualifiers would be the four conference final winners who are seeded by point totals from the regular season (e.g. the seeding would be as of now - I've used the No.1 seeds as example: Florida would play Colorado and the Rangers would play Vancouver)

If they expand again, they would need to expand by either 4 or 8. That way, the number of teams would be a multiple of 4. The reason is that 4 is a perfect square, as is 36. It makes figuring out a scheduling formula easier. They would also likely have to expand the regular season. The thing it's whether or not there are enough markets for that many teams.

What I would like to see. (Also THG glad to see a fellow scheduling nerd) - No divisions within conferences - Play each team in conference 3 times and out of 2 times. I think as Ranger fans it was annoying to play the Isles 3 times in a year yes but that was when we were playing the Jackets, for example, four times. If 3 times is the max you face an opponent in the Reg Season then I have less of a problem with it. I also would like to see every team visit every other team each season because lets face it, its fun to play big games against the other conference and it gets boring sometimes playing the same teams over and over like they did in the late 00's. - 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc in the playoffs. Prevents repetitive matchups. Its fine if you get rematches from recent playoffs but not if they are forced because of the current division format. - Ideally we'd contract reg season games instead of expand. It will NEVER happen because money, but i think it would be better for the overall product. - More balance on the days most games are played, and more spread out throughout the day on weekends. I get conflicts with the NFL and such, but its fun to have wall-to-wall days and not have everything packed in the evening.

Shannon, you volunteered to (help) draw up the NHL schedule?!? You can expect another call from Gary/Bill any day now.

The theoretical schedules for 34, 36, 40 are fantastic imaginings (that I enjoy). I would want to verify if these criteria ALL hold before moving forward; 1 - How many viable markets remain untapped in North America? 2 - At what point does expanding outstrip talent? (Something that was debated before the European influx made it moot)

If 40 works than I think 80 works even better

No matter what happens, I just want to see everybody face each other twice, NBA style.

Used to be a fan of divisions, I'm not anymore in combination with how the playoff brackets work nowadays. Would much rather get rid of the divisions and go back to top 8 in each conference. Easier to follow for new fans from expansion cities too

My initial reaction was 36 teams 2 conferences 3 divisions per conference but trying to divide the league into 6 divisions of 6 teams doesn't work. Vancouver, Seattle, Edmonton, Calgary, and who else? Even if one of the 4 expansion teams is Portland it still doesn't work. You can't split the California teams. Winnipeg is too far east. Vegas, Arizona, and Colorado are too far south. Maybe it could work if you added Portland and Utah but I find that unlikely. The east would be tricky as well since even if you created a "southern" division with Florida, Tampa, Carolina, and Atlanta you'd probably need to move the Capitals into that division as well and maybe another team depending on where the last expansion team is. 40 team league 5 team divisions is almost easier, but it also requires making a lot of expansion assumptions. Gonna try for fun tho. Cascade: Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, Edmonton, Calgary Sierra: San Jose, LA, Anaheim, San Diego, Vegas Rocky: Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Dallas, Houston Plains: Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee Southern: Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida, Tampa Canadian: Toronto, Toronto 2, Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa Appalachian: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, Columbus, Detroit Atlantic: Boston, New York, New York 2, New Jersey, Buffalo Probably awful eastern divisions but I'm from the west so it doesn't matter to me.

What does 36 6 divisions with 6 teams options look like?

I would like it if instead of automatically qualifying the best two additional teams in each conference as 7th and 8th seed, there could be an extra game before the playoffs where the 4 teams have to fight for 2 spots. It would only add 4 games to the league total and one 1 for the teams competing. This could really kick off the playoffs with a bang as it would be the equivalent of a game 7 right at the start. It would also reduce the incentive to tank.

For a while, divisions meant almost nothing in the NBA. The division champion got a first-round series at home but was not guaranteed a top-2 seed in the conference (just a top-4).

Summer league, and a Winter league, and one championship between them.

The owners probably won't allow this but could they do 2 20 team leagues with a relegation system similar to European soccer?