Should the NHL Reseed the Playoffs 1–16?

The Current Format Forces Elite Teams to Meet Early

The first argument for 1-16 reseed is simple: best teams should have the best paths. The second is entertainment: it would produce novel matchups and reduce the frequency of "why are the two best teams in the league meeting in Round 1 or Round 2?" complaints.

Under the current format, elite teams can meet in Round 1 or Round 2 because of divisional seeding. A 55-win team in a stacked division could face a 50-win team in Round 1, while a 45-win team in a weak division gets a cakewalk.

Why the current format is broken:

• Best teams forced to eliminate each other early
• Weak teams get easy paths because of divisional structure
• Fans complain when elite matchups happen in Round 1 or Round 2
• Championship legitimacy questioned when best team loses early

A 1-16 reseed fixes this. The best team plays the worst team. The second-best plays the 15th-best. No more elite teams meeting in Round 1.

Hockey moves fast. So do our picks. The Content Lab has the angles you actually need.

Three Real-World Constraints

But there are three real-world constraints, and each has direct futures-market consequences.

1. Travel and scheduling strain: The NHL is uniquely sensitive to travel because series can be heavy, physical, and logistically demanding, and a 1-16 format could produce frequent coast-to-coast first-round series. That's not just fan complaining. It's a performance variable: travel can change rest, practice time, and recovery, and therefore series outcomes. This constraint is why the NHL has historically leaned on conference structures.

2. Loss of rivalry-rich early rounds: The current divisional structure intentionally produces repeat rivalries in Round 1 and Round 2. A pure 1-16 might give you "better vs worse" but fewer local blood-feuds early.

3. Market and broadcast considerations: Regional matchups can be easier to market and schedule. A coast-to-coast first round can be a ratings headache.

These constraints are why 1-16 reseed hasn't happened yet. The NHL protects divisional rivalries and regional matchups for TV ratings and fan engagement.

Think you can predict the chaos? Try Gridzy and prove it. Build your grid. Call your shots. It's free.

How 1-16 Would Nuke Betting Markets

Now, how would this "nuke" betting, specifically futures?

A. Conference and division futures would either disappear or become less meaningful: Right now, "Win the East or West" and "Win the division" are coherent because the playoff bracket is built around those partitions. Under 1-16, "conference winner" might not exist as a meaningful market, which would shift handle into (i) Cup winner, (ii) make playoffs or top-16 props, and (iii) "reach semifinals or finals" style ladder props.

B. "Make playoffs" becomes "finish top 16," and bubble-team pricing changes: In today's format, a mediocre team in a weaker division can sneak in, while a stronger team in a stacked division can miss. A 1-16 format removes that structural protection and forces books to price playoff probability more purely on team strength. That would increase the volatility of bubble teams in stacked divisions and reduce the "easy path" premium some markets enjoy.

C. Seeding becomes more valuable than "just getting in": Because 1 vs 16 would be a massive advantage in most years, regular-season incentive to chase top seeds increases. That changes late-season moneylines and totals because contenders have more reason to push. It also changes the Presidents' Trophy conversation: the league's best team would be more clearly rewarded with the weakest opponent, which could reduce the "top seed got punished with a brutal Round 1" complaint.

Before puck drop, check the Content Lab for the sharp side.

The NHL Has Already Experimented With Reseeding

A practical note: the NHL has already experimented with reseeding concepts in special circumstances. NBC Sports' explainer of the 2020 playoff plan noted reseeding after the qualifying round and reseeding after rounds, explicitly to reward higher seeds with more favorable matchups.

ESPN's 2020 format coverage similarly described reseeding mechanics around byes and play-in outcomes. CBS Sports criticized aspects of reseeding logic in that bubble context but still framed reseeding as a way to reward top seeds via more favorable matchups.

Those 2020 discussions matter because they show reseeding isn't a fantasy concept. It's been operationally used when the league wanted its bracket to reflect seed value.

Why 2020 reseeding matters:

• NHL already tested reseeding in bubble playoffs
• Reseeding rewarded top seeds with easier matchups
• Format worked operationally (travel wasn't an issue in bubble)
• Proof of concept that NHL can reseed if they want

If the NHL ever adopts 1-16 reseed permanently, it won't be unprecedented. They've already done it in limited form.

If you're betting goalies and totals, start in the Content Lab.

Path Dependency Becomes Unpredictable

My betting-market verdict: a 1-16 reseed would make the NHL postseason fairer in the "best teams get easier paths" sense, but it would also make futures pricing more complex because "path dependency" becomes less predictable if reseeding happens every round.

Under a fixed bracket, bettors can evaluate path. You know if the 1-seed makes the conference finals, they're facing the winner of a specific series.

Under reseeding, your opponent set is a function of other series results, which increases second-order uncertainty, and uncertainty is exactly where books widen margins.

How reseeding increases uncertainty:

• Can't predict opponent in advance (depends on other series results)
• Matchup analysis becomes harder (too many possible paths)
• Books widen futures margins (more uncertainty equals more juice)
• Sharp bettors lose edge (can't model paths as easily)

If the NHL adopts 1-16 reseed with reseeding every round, futures markets become harder to bet. Books protect themselves by widening margins. Sharp bettors who rely on path analysis lose edge.

If you're feeling confident about tonight's slate, Gridzy is waiting.

The Bottom Line on 1-16 Reseed

A 1-16 reseed would make NHL playoffs fairer. Best teams get easiest paths. No more elite teams forced to meet in Round 1.

Three real-world constraints: travel and scheduling strain, loss of rivalry-rich early rounds, market and broadcast considerations.

How it would nuke betting: conference and division futures disappear, "make playoffs" becomes "finish top 16," seeding becomes more valuable than "just getting in."

The NHL has already experimented with reseeding in 2020 bubble playoffs. It's not a fantasy concept.

Path dependency becomes unpredictable if reseeding happens every round. Books widen margins. Sharp bettors lose edge.

Don't expect 1-16 reseed soon. But if it happens, futures markets explode with uncertainty. Be ready.

No puck tonight? Piggy Arcade's top casino picks are live.