Realignment II: Well, why not, we've got another year to kill

[MoreOrr]

I think the problem with flex scheduling is that it may be beneficial to the East but it is completely unnecessary in the West. The two division alignment works perfectly in the west and there are no significant rivalries that would be split up by having a PTZ/MTZ division and a CTZ division with the possible exception of WIN and VAN/CAL/EDM.

Valid point, Bucky. I ran into that in my own experimenting with the idea. I really do like KevFu's idea of flex-scheduling, but it could ultimately be problematic in the West. Flex-Divisions, however, can work in both the East and West, and can fix at least some of the Divisional alignment imperfections that comes with whatever alignment one conceives of.

Unless you create a Division that's completely a 'circle', there are always Division outliers, and those teams can easily be linked to a neighboring Division. A team at the heart of the Division essentially has the Division as it would want, or at least the Division that can be reasonably justified for it to be in. Therefore, the team at the heart of the Division would not be part of the flex-arrangement. Flex-Divisions also pretty much depends on there being a secondary group of teams that have an intermediate level of games scheduled against them, with respect to the teams inside the Division (the opposite extreme In-Division opponent being one of those 4 or 5 teams)...
6 x 4
4 x 5 (or 4 if kept at 82 games)
2 x 20

Using the West as an example:
PACIFIC (Option 1)
Vancouver (4 games against Phoenix, 6 games against either Calgary or Edmonton)
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix (4 games against Vancouver, 6 games against Dallas)

Another version of the PACIFIC (Options 2) could be...
Edmonton (4 games against Anaheim, 6 games against Calgary)
Vancouver
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim (4 games against Edmonton, 6 games against Phoenix)

NORTHWEST (sticking with Option 1, for example)
Calgary (4 games against Minnesota, 6 games against Vancouver)
Edmonton
Winnipeg
Colorado
Minnesota (4 games against Calgary, 6 games against Detroit)

CENTRAL
Detroit (4 games against Dallas, 6 games against Minnesota)
Columbus
Chicago
St Louis
Dallas (4 games against Detroit, 6 games against Phoenix)

 

[KingsFan7824]

2 games against 17 teams
4 games against 12 teams

Then the battle becomes which 12 teams each team would face. Maybe you give each team a list of the 15 teams that would make the most sense for them to possibly play more often, and they pick 12. Then the pairings that match, an agreement can be easy. There would obviously be some that wouldn't match though, and then that's where there would be a negotiation of some sort.

No particular divisions. No particular conferences. I guess the playoffs would have to be the top 16 records in the league. Maybe some of the negotiation would be that a team wouldn't play another team in the playoffs any further than 1 time zone away, unless there was no other option.

 

[voyageur]

2 games against 17 teams
4 games against 12 teams

Then the battle becomes which 12 teams each team would face. Maybe you give each team a list of the 15 teams that would make the most sense for them to possibly play more often, and they pick 12. Then the pairings that match, an agreement can be easy. There would obviously be some that wouldn't match though, and then that's where there would be a negotiation of some sort.

No particular divisions. No particular conferences. I guess the playoffs would have to be the top 16 records in the league. Maybe some of the negotiation would be that a team wouldn't play another team in the playoffs any further than 1 time zone away, unless there was no other option.

That is way too complicated, and such a scenario would make your performance irrelevant. No one wants to see New York vs. Calgary in the 1st rd of the playoffs. Divisional playoffs are the way to go. East vs. West for the Stanley Cup, it has worked for many years now, Boston and New York should not play for the Cup, no more than the Knicks and Celtics should play for the NBA title, and the Red Sox and Yankees for the AL pennant. Flex scheduling makes absolutely no sense to me, it detracts from the divisional rivalry, which is what the NHL has lost since the Smythe, Norris, Patrick, Adams days. The 4 division scenario will work, it will establish and strengthen strong traditional rivalries, and create a few new ones, Minnesota-Dallas, San Jose-Vancouver, Tampa-Philly for example. Rivalries are built not just on geography, though geography is fundamental to most rivalries, but through repetition. Boston-Montreal became such a strong rivalry, stronger than Boston-New York, because they have played in the playoffs 33 times, Detroit-Colorado was a very strong Western rivalry in the late 90's & early 2000s because they were frequently opponents on route to Stanley Cup appearances. The divisional playoffs will foster rivalry-based hockey, and add excitement to the playoffs, while bringing more stability to the networks in terms of broadcasting...

 

[CBCnutcase]

Your explanation however is exactly why I really am behind the idea of returning to 4 divisions, with divisional playoffs.

Divisional playoff format is terrible.

 

[KingsFan7824]

That is way too complicated, and such a scenario would make your performance irrelevant. No one wants to see New York vs. Calgary in the 1st rd of the playoffs. Divisional playoffs are the way to go. East vs. West for the Stanley Cup, it has worked for many years now, Boston and New York should not play for the Cup, no more than the Knicks and Celtics should play for the NBA title, and the Red Sox and Yankees for the AL pennant. Flex scheduling makes absolutely no sense to me, it detracts from the divisional rivalry, which is what the NHL has lost since the Smythe, Norris, Patrick, Adams days. The 4 division scenario will work, it will establish and strengthen strong traditional rivalries, and create a few new ones, Minnesota-Dallas, San Jose-Vancouver, Tampa-Philly for example. Rivalries are built not just on geography, though geography is fundamental to most rivalries, but through repetition. Boston-Montreal became such a strong rivalry, stronger than Boston-New York, because they have played in the playoffs 33 times, Detroit-Colorado was a very strong Western rivalry in the late 90's & early 2000s because they were frequently opponents on route to Stanley Cup appearances. The divisional playoffs will foster rivalry-based hockey, and add excitement to the playoffs, while bringing more stability to the networks in terms of broadcasting...

I'm not disagreeing with the general idea(I like the divisional playoff setup), but nobody can agree on what the divisions should be either.

One idea I find odd though, that NY and Boston shouldn't play for the Cup. If they meet in the playoffs, they're already playing for the Cup, just a round or two before the winner of such a series gets the Cup. Would people particularly want to see NY and Calgary in the finals, as opposed to the 1st round? Would you have wanted to see Detroit and Colorado from the late 90's play in the finals? The Oilers and Flames back in the 80's? Those teams already played in second rounds and conference finals, so, like I said, they technically played for the Cup already. However, if they had played in the final, would it have diminished anything?

 

[CBCnutcase]

How about this idea with only minor tweaks to current division alignment?

3 conferences, but very similar division structure.


Western Conference

Winnipeg
Colorado
Edmonton
Dallas
Calgary

Vancouver
Phoenix
Los Angeles
Anaheim
San Jose

I like a lot of what you have said. Vancouver and Dallas have to be switched. For the Stars it would help for travel costs and eliminate the timezone problem. For the Canucks it would also help the timezone problem.

 

[MoreOrr]

I like a lot of what you have said. Vancouver and Dallas have to be switched. For the Stars it would help for travel costs and eliminate the timezone problem. For the Canucks it would also help the timezone problem.

No 3-Time Zone Divisions, unless all the members actually want it that way. And I'm sure Dallas doesn't! But then, why should the Division stretch from Edmonton to Dallas, when Winnipeg - Minnesota are so close to each other, in comparison?

 

[KingsFan7824]

Was, Phi, Pit, NYR, NJ, Clb, NYI

Bos, TB, Mtl, Buf, Car, Tor, Ott, Fla

Det, Nas, Chi, Dal, StL, Min, Wpg

Van, SJ, Ana, Phx, LA, Cal, Col, Edm

 

[CBCnutcase]

The 4 division scenario will work, it will establish and strengthen strong traditional rivalries, and create a few new ones, Minnesota-Dallas, San Jose-Vancouver, Tampa-Philly for example. Rivalries are built not just on geography, though geography is fundamental to most rivalries, but through repetition. Boston-Montreal became such a strong rivalry, stronger than Boston-New York, because they have played in the playoffs 33 times, Detroit-Colorado was a very strong Western rivalry in the late 90's & early 2000s because they were frequently opponents on route to Stanley Cup appearances. The divisional playoffs will foster rivalry-based hockey, and add excitement to the playoffs, while bringing more stability to the networks in terms of broadcasting...

Yes, the Colorado-Detroit rivalry was frequent and that built it up. It helped that it was a conference based playoff setup. These teams have played each other in 5 playoff series, 3 times in the 3rd round. This something that can't happen in a divisional playoff setup. The Montreal-Boston post season rivalry is still alive and well in the conference set up having played each other 3 out of the past 4 years. It would be epic if they played each other in the 3rd round, something that has not since 1979 but almost did last year. The other rivalries you mention, 2 of them have happened in the 3rd round. The repetition you mention was sure happening with the Oilers and Stars. It seemed like they were division rivals meeting each other so often in the opening round, 5 out of 7 years and 3 in a row. The Flyers and Bruins under the present format have now met each other in the 2nd round 2 years in a row. If the league decides to switch and they are not in the same division, it will be highly unlikely they will play each other.

 

[CBCnutcase]

No 3-Time Zone Divisions, unless all the members actually want it that way. And I'm sure Dallas doesn't! But then, why should the Division stretch from Edmonton to Dallas, when Winnipeg - Minnesota are so close to each other, in comparison?

I see what you're saying. The same could be said for Vancouver to Winnipeg, why should that division be stretched when Calgary and Edmonton are so close.

 

[CBCnutcase]

I would like to see:

WEST

Pacific
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Seattle (Phoenix)
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim

Portland instead of Seattle.

 

[voyageur]

I'm not disagreeing with the general idea(I like the divisional playoff setup), but nobody can agree on what the divisions should be either.

One idea I find odd though, that NY and Boston shouldn't play for the Cup. If they meet in the playoffs, they're already playing for the Cup, just a round or two before the winner of such a series gets the Cup. Would people particularly want to see NY and Calgary in the finals, as opposed to the 1st round? Would you have wanted to see Detroit and Colorado from the late 90's play in the finals? The Oilers and Flames back in the 80's? Those teams already played in second rounds and conference finals, so, like I said, they technically played for the Cup already. However, if they had played in the final, would it have diminished anything?

I personally think the networks have a huge influence on realignment, which I stated in the previous thread. The 1st rd of the NHL playoffs is arguably its best round, and certainly the one that garners the most exposure, by virtue of the number of teams competing in it, much like the 1st rd of the NCAA tourney. Last year was a huge letdown for the main networks, with Detroit playing Phoenix in the 1st rd, and Chicago playing Vancouver, both lacking national lustre in the US, the latter series a lot less, but if Detroit was playing Chicago, for instance, you have a better sell. Anaheim-Nashville was not a highly touted series either, perhaps because of the time differences between the two. Detroit-San Jose was a good series, but presented alot of scheduling difficulties for NBC. The East had by far the better matchups, but that was good fortune, and I think divisional playoffs help to rid the NHL of uncertainty in the 1st rd. It increases the chance of Boston-Montreal playing at some point, and same with New York, New Jersey, Philly, Pitt, Washington in some combination if the Atlantic is layed out in an expanded Patrick division form. NBC/Comcast want its moneys worth, and this gives it to them. And separating the Pacific division from the Central in the playoffs truly ensures that no Eastern/Central time zone team will play a Pacific/Mountain team in the first two rounds (so I rescind my Colorado in the Central statement). That helps the networks immensely in scheduling the playoffs, you are guaranteed an Eastern time zone game, a Central time zone game, and a Pacific/Mountain time zone game for the first two rounds. I would say that helps expose the NHL playoffs better. That is why I prefer the East-West divide. I really think the first two rounds of the playoffs become paramount with this realignment, the intensity of winning the division takes on a significant meaning. The Conference finals have always been a crapshoot, so it is nothing new, and the Stanley Cup, well it is the two best teams from East and West battling for the holy grail of hockey, that kind of markets itself. And you are correct, every playoff hockey game is a battle for the Cup, however I meant to imply that they (Boston and New York) should not be the principal combattants of the final. I take grammar seriously, so I stand corrected.

 

[Nashvols]

I would like to see:

WEST

Pacific
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Seattle (Phoenix)
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim

Central
Colorado
Dallas
St. Louis
Nashville
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
Winnipeg

EAST

Northeast
Toronto
Ottawa
Montreal
Boston
Buffalo
NY Rangers
NY Isles
New Jersey

Atlantic
Philly
Pitt
Washington
Columbus
Carolina
Tampa
Florida


I think geographically this is the best solution, however I don't expect it will play out like that. Detroit wants to be in the East, the big networks, Canadian too, want Detroit in the East. Snider and Comcast don't want to be in a division with just 3 strong U.S markets, when they can have access to New York too. I think the competition between the powerhouse franchises in the East may end up creating a bit of an unorthodox alignment, like the NFL ended up with. I am a big fan of the 4 division set-up and divisional playoffs, I think the fans will love it too when they realise how important divisional play becomes, and how the energy level will be amped up for divisional games because of the importance of each game. I just hope that the NHL does not expand the playoff format. 16 out of 30 (or 29 depending on Phoenix) teams is enough, no need to water down the playoffs to make it accessible for everyone. Especially since the playoffs already last 2 months, are a total war, the 1st rd of the NHL playoffs is highly entertaining, and by the end of it, most players can scarcely walk...

I like this alignment. I think it's the best case for the West (well, except for Coyote fans...and I don't think Seattle is first in line for relo). However, as you said, Detroit isn't going to want it that way, so no, I don't think it will happen.

I really like the West in that alignment.

 

[Bucky Katt]

Using the West as an example:
PACIFIC (Option 1)
Vancouver (4 games against Phoenix, 6 games against either Calgary or Edmonton)
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix (4 games against Vancouver, 6 games against Dallas)

Another version of the PACIFIC (Options 2) could be...
Edmonton (4 games against Anaheim, 6 games against Calgary)
Vancouver
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim (4 games against Edmonton, 6 games against Phoenix)

NORTHWEST (sticking with Option 1, for example)
Calgary (4 games against Minnesota, 6 games against Vancouver)
Edmonton
Winnipeg
Colorado
Minnesota (4 games against Calgary, 6 games against Detroit)

CENTRAL
Detroit (4 games against Dallas, 6 games against Minnesota)
Columbus
Chicago
St Louis
Dallas (4 games against Detroit, 6 games against Phoenix)

All those examples split up natural rivals (VAN/CAL/EDM) and/or give flex games to rivalries that don't exist (DET/MIN? DAL/PHX? ANA/PHX?) Trying to make 3 divisions of 5 and initiating flex scheduling does not help the west.

 

[MoreOrr]

All those examples split up natural rivals (VAN/CAL/EDM) and/or give flex games to rivalries that don't exist (DET/MIN? DAL/PHX? ANA/PHX?) Trying to make 3 divisions of 5 and initiating flex scheduling does not help the west.

RIVALRIES!!!

There are teams that have them and there are teams that don't. There are teams that have long-standings ones, and teams that have brief or short-term ones. There are teams that have had little success or little Playoff success and thus never really developed a strong rivalry with anyone.

Trying to put together Divisions based primarily on RIVALRIES is an exercise in futility.

Just put teams together in Divisions that make the most travel and TV broadcast sense for the League, give them a schedule that enables sufficient games against, especially Conference teams, that every team gets a chance to have a little animosity against its Conference opponents. And then just let the rival matchups happen as they may, in the Playoffs! We've seen a fair number of rivalries develop where opponents face each other a number of times in the Playoffs, and often they're opponents from different Divisions. We have to face it, with 30 teams, and only 16 making the Playoffs, which is only 8 in each Conference,... matchups that create strong rivalries aren't as likely to happen as in the past when there were fewer teams.

Can we Please just make Divisions that make travel and TV broadcast sense! And that don't isolate the most undesired teams in Divisions by themselves in Divisions that are disadvantageous to them.

 

[RandR]

I'm just as concerned that the "real alignment" will be determined by the NHL old-boys-club, and not be what's best for a wider majority.

There probably is some semblance of an all boys-club in the NHL, but at the end of the day each team gets an equal vote on realignment. Thus a cabal of a half-dozen owners can't dictate their way on voting matters with complete disregard and utter disdain for the rest of the league (the way Dubedo seems to expect ).

However, it is part of Western norms, at least, for some members of a working group to have more influence than others. If I had invested years of my life and millions of my own money into an organization and had been part of its growth through good years and bad, I think I only deserve to have more say in how decisions are made that affect my bottom line and the league's health compared to an owner who has relatively recently bought his way into the club. So I would assume that in BoG board meetings the owners who speak from experience and proven success get listened to a lot more than newer guys.

Winnipeg would be a good example now. They have been very successful with their arena and AHL team, but I believe that Chipman and Thomson are wise enough to know that they have some learning to do about the NHL. And when it comes to realignment, they are the new guys on the block. So even though they probably would want to be in the same division as the Canadian teams west of them, it's only fair that they have to wait their turn and possibly become the only Canadian team in their division. Just like how Detroit comes before Columbus when both of them want to move East and possibly only one can -- Illich has been an owner a lot longer and the Wings have been waiting much longer for redress.

Hopefully all 30 teams do actually have an equal vote, and that they're not forced into a bad compromise because most can't/won't agree on options that might be better. Not saying that I, or any of us here, know what's better, but sometimes compromise isn't actually the best thing, it's just the best that can be agreed on.

Good point. Sometimes a compromise actually ends up meaning that nobody is happy. I am optimistic though that most teams will be quite happy about whatever they eventually decide on for realignment, with a few teams (Detroit, Minnesota at least) being ecstatic.

 

[Bucky Katt]

Just put teams together in Divisions that make the most travel and TV broadcast sense for the League,

Is that your criteria? I have seen proposals from you that split Calgary and Edmonton and put Vancouver in the same conference as Washington.

 

[RandR]

I personally think the networks have a huge influence on realignment...

Network TV certainly has a huge influence on scheduling; and scheduling is hugely impacted by realignment, so you are probably right.

I don't expect the league would actually run any proposed realignments past NBC or CBC for any kind of "approval", but I'm sure they talk to those networks on a regular basis, and, when needed, the league likely does its job to remind the owners where a big chunk of their revenue is coming from if, for example, part of a proposed realignment was likely to be bad for network TV ratings. Doesn't mean that such a realignment wouldn't get approved anyway, but the impact on network TV is likely one of the factors that is considered.

 

[kdb209]

Network TV certainly has a huge influence on scheduling; and scheduling is hugely impacted by realignment, so you are probably right.

I don't expect the league would actually run any proposed realignments past NBC or CBC for any kind of "approval", but I'm sure they talk to those networks on a regular basis, and, when needed, the league likely does its job to remind the owners where a big chunk of their revenue is coming from if, for example, part of a proposed realignment was likely to be bad for network TV ratings. Doesn't mean that such a realignment wouldn't get approved anyway, but the impact on network TV is likely one of the factors that is considered.

I would guess that local RSNs would have more of an influence on realignment that the national networks. They are the ones who televise the bulk of the games, are most effected by games out of the home time zone, and provide the majority of broadcast revenues.

NBC showing a few Sunday afternoon games and CBC/HNIC are less affected by timezones than Fox Sports Detroit having to show a bunch of 10/10:30 PM EST road games from the west coast or Comcast SportsNet CA having to show 4/4:30 PST games from Detroit and Columbus.

 

[RandR]

I would guess that local RSNs would have more of an influence on realignment that the national networks. They are the ones who televise the bulk of the games, are most effected by games out of the home time zone, and provide the majority of broadcast revenues.

NBC showing a few Sunday afternoon games and CBC/HNIC are less affected by timezones than Fox Sports Detroit having to show a bunch of 10/10:30 PM EST road games from the west coast or Comcast SportsNet CA having to show 4/4:30 PST games from Detroit and Columbus.

I agree with you... local TV is affected much more by start times and thus realignment.

For CBC/HNIC I think it isn't so much the timezone that matters but which and how many Canadian teams play at home each Saturday and how often Canadian teams play each other on Saturdays. In the upcoming season and at least the past 2 seasons, the Habs and Leafs both open and close their regular seasons against each other (great way for HNIC to kick off and close the regular season) and all their other games are on Saturday nights (to maximize HNIC ratings of course). CBC wouldn't be happy if, for example, the upcoming realignment had Montreal and Toronto split from each other and put into different divisions where they would only play each other twice a year.

 

[wildthing202]

Revised 16/14 split
NE - Bos, Mtl, Tor, Ott, NYR, Buf, Pit, Det
SE - NYI, NJ, Clb, Phil, Wash, Car, TB, Fla
C - Col, Dal, Chi, St.L, Wpg, Min, Nsh
P - SJ, Ana, Pho, LA, Van, Edm, Cgy

Went with a split of NYC team since no other major sport until the Nets move the Brooklyn puts two NYC teams in the same division.

 

[Retail1LO*]

Divisional playoff format is terrible.

Why's that? If you're going to [disagree with] someone's opinion, at least [mod del] back it up with your own take on things.

I like the divisional format because it helps build and foster rivalries. Your divisional opponents represent the teams you play the most during the regular season, and more often than not, the teams that are geographically closer to you. Those are typically key components in a rivalry. Conference opponents are only played a fraction of the times division opponents are, and geography at that point is a non-issue. Opening up with at least one round of divisional play in the playoffs is better than taking two teams separated by a thousand miles and little hisotrical friction between one another, isn't very riveting.

Would rather see Toronto-Boston, Toronto-Montreal, Toronto-Buffalo....than Toronto-Carolina, Toronto-Tampa Bay, Toronto-New Jersey. Most people who aren't a fan of divisional playoffs, probably don't even REMEMBER them. Read that again. I said MOST.

 

[KingsFan7824]

I personally think the networks have a huge influence on realignment

They might like a potential Boston/NY final then. Although, as long as teams outside of the northeastern part of the NHL world exist, that potential cup series would be unlikely to happen in a different playoff format, even if it were possible that it could happen.

 

[MoreOrr]

Is that your criteria? I have seen proposals from you that split Calgary and Edmonton and put Vancouver in the same conference as Washington.

My first response to your post below was primarily out of frustration, not with you but just with the whole argument of trying to make an alignment that fits around rivalries that nobody wants to touch. I came here now with intention to make a more reasoned response, and then I see your post that I quoted above. I have two responses to your laughing comment above:
1) Part of my reasoning regarding "travel" has always been that it should be shared roughly equally between both Conferences. So yes, in a mixed east-west, north-south two Conference alignment there is increased travel for some, and also more impractical TV broadcast times... But with a more balanced schedule as has been proposed, that result is going to be the same regardless. In fact, with a more balanced schedule there's even more reason to go with a mixed Conference format... For one, it solves completely which teams get to go East, because there is No East, nor West, nor North, nor South.
2) Those very rare instances in which I may have separated Calgary and Edmonton, as you're suggesting,... those were never my goal, only wild attempts to come up with some alignment that might be more acceptable to more people.

Nevertheless, I'm happy I made you laugh.

All those examples split up natural rivals (VAN/CAL/EDM) and/or give flex games to rivalries that don't exist (DET/MIN? DAL/PHX? ANA/PHX?) Trying to make 3 divisions of 5 and initiating flex scheduling does not help the west.

So, let's make some comparisons....
You rightfully question the existance of rivalries between Min-Det and Dal-Pho (forget Ana-Pho, that scenario doesn't work anyway). But in a 4-Division alignment, Minnesota and Detroit are going to be in the same Division regardless and playing each other 6 times regardless.
With these "flex-Divisions:
PACIFIC
Vancouver (4 games against Phoenix, 6 games against either Calgary)
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix (4 games against Vancouver, 6 games against Dallas)

NORTHWEST
Calgary (4 games against Minnesota, 6 games against Vancouver)
Edmonton
Winnipeg
Colorado
Minnesota (4 games against Calgary, 6 games against Detroit)

CENTRAL
Detroit (4 games against Dallas, 6 games against Minnesota)
Columbus
Chicago
St Louis
Dallas (4 games against Detroit, 6 games against Phoenix)

I'm fairly sure that Minnesota would rather have 6 games against Detroit than 6 games against Calgary.
And you at least agree that Vancouver would prefer 6 games Calgary rather than against Phoenix.
And even though Dallas might prefer 6 games against Detroit over 6 games against Phoenix, well what team in the League that isn't in the PTZ or MTZ wouldn't prefer to have more games against Detroit... Nevertheless, having to play 6 games against only one of its current Pacific Division opponents is a great improvement over Dallas' current alignment.

Now, the other side of the comparison:
In a 4-Division setup (assuming without flex-Divisions), Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton are all forced to play 6 games against Los Angeles, Anaheim, and Phoenix. To use your argument: Rivalries don't exist between those teams! Why have larger Divisions with even more teams that don't have rivalries, and force 6 games against them all?

And then in the 4-Division Central... Winnipeg without any Canadian rivals, but forced to play 6 times against Dallas, Nashville, St. Louis, and perhaps Columbus. Minnesota forced to play 6 times against Nashville and Columbus (or Detroit which you say has no rivalry with Minnesota). Sure, the Wild gets Chicago and St Louis, no doubt, and that's why Leipold is certainly one owner who wants the 4-Division setup. And then Dallas, happy to be in the Central, but forced to play 6 times against Winnipeg and possibly Columbus.

No matter how the alignment breaks, there are likely to be teams in the same Division which people will say they don't have rivalries with. Or teams that aren't in the same Division but that people say should be.

 

[voyageur]

They might like a potential Boston/NY final then. Although, as long as teams outside of the northeastern part of the NHL world exist, that potential cup series would be unlikely to happen in a different playoff format, even if it were possible that it could happen.

Agreed, Boston-Montreal made for a great Stanley Cup. But my belief is that the playoffs are similar to the NFL in that the preliminary games are usually better than the actual championship, and I think given the fragility of hockey in some markets, you want to ensure that you get some good TV matchups before the Stanley Cup. Thus expanding and concentrating the Patrick division so that Crosby vs. Ovechkin, or the Rangers vs. Philly or New Jersey is a probable matchup in the 1st 2 rounds. Boston-Montreal is also probable, and maybe Detroit-Toronto down the road. Which is sensible, anyone that knows history knows that Detroit, Buffalo, and Boston all have strong ties to Canada in terms of migration. Keeping the West Coast teams together ensures that their fans will get to see all the games broadcast at regular times for 2 rounds. And the Central division, even without Detroit, promises to be a good division. St. Louis maybe comes out from under the shadow of Detroit, and becomes a good rival for Chicago, as in baseball. If Phoenix were to move to Houston, you could have a Texas rivalry, and Nashville might be happier to have some other southern team to compete against. Minnesota will be much happier playing regularly against St. Louis and Chicago, Dallas, too, for nostalgic reasons. And Minnesota-Winnipeg will be one of the best cross-border rivalries in the game, probably behind only Boston-Montreal, and Detroit-Toronto. Winnipeg has been successful in minor league baseball playing against central US teams, I think professional hockey should be no different. I think Columbus is the only team that loses out in realignment, and by losing Detroit, they may gain a playoff birth, so I hope that is all it takes to make hockey work in Ohio, it would be a shame for the state to lose a second hockey team...

The only problem I can see right now is trying to split the Atlantic and South with the 9 teams, excluding Winnipeg. The NY Isles, if the people of Nassau vote against the arena, should maybe be the ones to move to the Northeast. One I really don't think New York is a strong market for 3 teams, as they have never had 3 sold out rinks in the metropolis at any time. If they turn down the arena, I think they can be realistically prepared for a move towards Quebec, Hartford, or a 2nd team in the GTA, who could build a 25, 000 seat arena and fill it.