Like every professional sports league, the NHL has rules and formats that differ from what fans may believe are best. 

Over time, fans have formed strong opinions about certain rules that may not showcase the best competition or create the most exciting product.

While these changes have little chance of being implemented anytime soon, they could potentially improve the league.

Despite ongoing pressure from players and fans, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has repeatedly stated that the league is satisfied with the current divisional playoff format and has no plans to change it.

But what would the NHL look like if they did change it?

The current format automatically qualifies the top three teams from each division, with two wild card teams from each conference filling the remaining playoff spots regardless of division.

Under a 1-through-8 playoff format, there would be no divisional brackets. Instead, the top eight teams in each conference would be seeded by regular-season points, with the highest seed facing the lowest.

For example, using the final standings from the 2025–26 season, the first round would have looked dramatically different. In the Eastern Conference, the No. 1 seed Carolina Hurricanes would have faced the No. 8 seed Pittsburgh Penguins, while the No. 2 seed Buffalo Sabres would have played the No. 7 seed Philadelphia Flyers instead of the Flyers and Penguins facing each other.

Although viewership numbers for individual playoff series are not publicly released, it is well known that early-round ratings often decline when smaller-market teams or less compelling matchups are involved.

One could argue that a 1-through-8 format would create more balanced and rewarding playoff matchups, with higher seeds earning a clearer advantage. It could also build anticipation throughout the playoffs as stronger teams advance and potential Cinderella stories emerge. Under the current format, elite teams often face one another in the opening rounds, leading to contenders being eliminated before the later stages of the post-season.

Another change that appears unlikely to be adopted is the 3-2-1-0 points system for regular-season games.

The current NHL system (2-1-0) awards two points for any win—whether it comes in regulation, overtime, or a shootout—one point for an overtime or shootout loss, and zero points for a regulation loss.

The proposed system, which the PWHL has used since its inaugural season, awards three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime or shootout win, one point for an overtime or shootout loss, and zero points for a regulation loss.

Although a similar system was used during the 4 Nations Face-Off, the NHL continues to favor the traditional 2-1-0 structure. Supporters of the current format argue that it keeps the standings tighter and preserves playoff-race drama deeper into the season. The league’s goal is to maintain competitive balance and keep more teams in contention for longer.

However, advocates of the 3-2-1-0 system believe it better rewards teams for winning in regulation and encourages a more aggressive style of play, particularly late in tied games.

One of the NHL’s most controversial rules involves goalie interference reviews.

If a coach challenges a goal for goalie interference and the review upholds the original call, that team receives a two-minute minor penalty for delay of game.

The controversy stems from the fact that goalie interference is one of the most subjective rules in hockey. Nearly every situation looks different, making consistency difficult to achieve.

During the playoffs and in certain late-game situations—such as the final minute of regulation or throughout overtime—these reviews are handled automatically by the NHL situation room rather than through a coach’s challenge, protecting teams from being penalized in critical moments.

The league’s GMs have continued to support the penalty because it discourages coaches from challenging every close play and helps maintain game flow.

The difference, however, is that goalie interference is a subjective judgment call, unlike offside reviews, which are largely black-and-white and can be determined through video evidence. Goalie interference often comes down to interpretation by the officials on the ice and in the situation room.

Many fans argue that the threat of a penalty discourages coaches from challenging potentially incorrect calls, allowing questionable goals to stand.

Before the minor penalty was introduced, coaches frequently challenged goals in hopes that officials would find enough evidence to overturn the ruling. The current rule has significantly reduced frivolous challenges.

Like many rules in professional sports, the penalty also serves to reinforce the authority of officials, using video review as a tool to correct obvious mistakes rather than re-officiate every play.

Whether any of these changes will ever happen remains unlikely. However, each proposal continues to spark debate among fans and could have a meaningful impact on competition, playoff excitement, and the overall viewing experience if the NHL ever chose to revisit them.

See more of The Hockey News on Google and save us as a preferred source. Get the latest news and trending stories by subscribing to our newsletter here. And share your thoughts by commenting below the article on THN.com or creating your own post in our community forum.