Rupertslander
Registered User
- Feb 17, 2013
- 142
- 45
I'll get right to the point. Admitting Seattle to the NHL was a smart move by NHL owners. But keeping Quebec out is equally insane. It's insane because the stated premise behind keeping Quebec out, specifically, rigid adherence to a silly East-West "tradition" that dates all the way back to the early '80s (or, you could even argue, the early '90's) is even more insane.
Unlike the NFL, CFL and for all intents and purposes the NBA and MLB, the NHL is a bi-national league. 30 or 32 teams might sound like a nice, even number, and it certainly works for other leagues. But it's meaningless in hockey. From a business standpoint, it would make much more sense to try and come up with nice, even number of teams in each country rather than focus on what that might add up to in terms of a combined total in the league.
Once you get your head around the concept of blowing up the ridiculous albatross that is the NHL's current East-West format, then 25 U.S. teams, particularly with the 25th franchise in Seattle, actually makes alot of sense because as you will see below, it's no more difficult to group 25 U.S. teams into five divisions of five compared to trying to group the existing 24 into two groups of twelve, three groups of eight, four groups of six or six groups of four.
But of course, the arithmetic of having five divisions doesn't work too well... unless you have them all in one Conference, which might seem bizarre at first... until you realize it actually makes alot of business sense with no meaningful drawbacks that are not either more than offset by the benefits or easily mitigated.
And of course, the mathematics of a seven-team Canadian Hockey Conference do no work too well at all. So, to make the eminently reasonable alignment of 25 U.S. teams into five U.S. divisions in a single U.S. conference work, you have to add a team in Eastern Canada.
But before we get back to reviving that dormant franchise application from Quebec, I'll quickly rattle off the five division back-of-the-napkin U.S. alignment I came up with. Not that it took all that much more thinking than aligning a Canadian Conference...
American Hockey Conference
AHC East
Boston
Buffalo
New Jersey
NY Islanders
NY Rangers
AHC North
Columbus
Detroit
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
AHC South
Carolina
Dallas
Florida
Nashville
Tampa Bay
AHC Central
Arizona
Chicago
Colorado
Minnesota
St. Louis
AHC West
Anaheim
Los Angeles
San Jose
Seattle
Vegas
And, to state the obvious:
Canadian Hockey Conference
CHC East
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec
Toronto
CHC West
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Winnipeg
The basic scheduling formulas are quite obvious:
AHC Scheduling Formula (my personal preference):
6 intradivisional games x 4 opponents
2 interdivisional/interconference games x 28 opponents
= 80 games
Alternative AHC Scheduling Formula:
5 intradivisional games x 4 opponents
3 interdivisional-intraconference x 4 opponents (specifically, those teams that finsihed in same position in Division standings the previous season)
2 interdivisional/interconference games x 24 opponents
= 80 games
CHC Scheduling Formula:
6 intradivisional games x 3 opponents
3 interdivisional-intraconference games x 4 opponents
2 interconference games x 25 opponents
= 80 games
To which would be added Games 81 & 82, which presumably would scheduled at the discretion of the League between teams that would otherwise only play twice in order to maintain rivalries such as Bruins-Canadiens, etc.
As for the playoff format, particularly in the AHC it would make sense to emphasize Divisional matchups as much as possible so as to minimize travel obligations in the first round.
CHC Playoff Qualifcation (four teams):
- Division champions qualify plus two Wild Cards.
AHC Playoff Qualifcation (twelve teams):
- Division champions & runners-up qualify plus two Wild Cards.
Emphasizing Divisonal play while keeping the playoff format reasonably fair is not really feasible when you're trying to pair off only four teams as in the proposed CHC, but of course one could consider mitigating the issue by implementing the 2-3-2 format for the early interdivisional series that will inevitably occur...
CHC Playoff Format, Round 1 (suggested name: CHC Conference Series) & Round 2 (suggested name: CHC Championship Series):
- Division champion with most points plays second Wild Card, other Division champion plays first Wild Card;
- CHC Conference Series winners contest CHC Championship Series, winner declared CHC champions & awarded new CHC Championship Trophy (suggested name: Wayne Gretzky Trophy).
Emphasizing Divisional play in the first round of the AHC play makes the formula for determining matchups a bit more complicated, but not inarticulately so...
AHC Playoff Format, Round 1 (suggested name: AHC Division Series):
- If the Wild Cards are from different Divisions they always play the champions of their own Divisions;
- If the Wild Cards are from the same Division then the second Wild Card plays the champions of their own Division with the first Wild Card playing their own Division runner-up if that team has the best runner-up record in the AHC, otherwise the first Wild Card plays the champion of the Division containing the best runner-up record in the AHC and the same Division's runner-up plays the team with the best runner-up record;
- Runners-up of Divisions with no Wild Card qualifers play champions of own Division unless they have the best runner-up record in AHC, in which case should the two Wild Cards be in different divisions then from among the runners-up of the Divisions with Wild Cards the team with the best runner-up record in AHC plays the runner-up with the better record and the same Division's champion plays the runner-up with the worse record;
- If the team with the best runner-up record in AHC is in a Division with one Wild Card, it plays the runner-up of the other Division containing a Wild Card;
The format ensures that the Division champions and the best runner-up are always the teams that have home ice advantage in the AHC Division Series while also ensuring that the top two teams in the AHC will never meet in the first round, even if they are Division rivals and the only two teams in their Division to make the playoffs. Finally, it ensures that at least four of the six Division Series are intradivisional matchups.
For Round Two, all five Divisions would usually be represented, barring unusual circumstances including multiple upsets. In any case, at least four Divisions would always be represented, so attempting to emphasize Divisional play in the second round makes little sense.
AHC Playoff Format, Round 2 (suggested name: AHC Conference Series):
- AHC Division Series winners are matched up 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, 3 vs 4 according to regular season record and without regard to Division.
Now of course, that leaves a CHC Champion and three teams from the AHC to contest the third round. So, in order to crown a undisputed AHC champion at the conclusion of the third round and so that the focus of the final round can be squarely on the Stanley Cup, it is necessary for the top two of the three AHC third round teams to be the teams playing for the AHC Championship...
Playoff Format, Rounds 3 & 4:
- Top two AHC Conference Series winners contest the AHC Championship Series, winners declared AHC champions & awarded Prince of Wales Trophy;
- Remaining AHC Conference Series winner ineligible to win AHC Championship, instead plays CHC champion in Stanley Cup Semi-Final, winners awarded Clarence Campbell Bowl;
- Winners of AHC Championship Series and Stanley Cup Semi-Final play in Stanley Cup Final. The AHC champions remain recognized as such even if they lose to another AHC team in the Cup Final.
Benefits compared to current alignment:
- On the whole, the Divisions are far more "compact" geographically compared to the current Divisions;
- All seven Divisions have simple geographically-oriented names modeled on the overwhelmingly popular names used in the NFL, CFL and MLB;
- CHC Divisions are essentially modeled on CFL Divisions, while in all five AHC Divisions, the majority of the markets (or at least, in the case of Columbus & Carolina, their respective states or in the case of San Jose, the immediately-surrounding region) also have at least one team in a Division with the same name (i.e. Central/East/North/South/West) in the NFL and/or MLB;
- Whereas only half of the current Divisions are in a single time zone, four of these seven Divisions (including three of five AHC Divisions) are in a single time zone, while the AHC South spans only two time zones for the entire season and the AHC Central spans only two time zones for most of the regular season;
- Excluding possible "rivalry games" most U.S. ETZ teams would play the same number of regular season games outside their time zone as they do now - the only exceptions are ETZ teams in AHC South whose markets are linked geographically and culturally to Dallas & Nashville in the CTZ;
- Far fewer regular season games in the PTZ for U.S. CTZ teams, espcially Dallas and Nashville who would also have far fewer games in MTZ, and also to only a slightly lesser extent Chicago, Minnesota and St. Louis.
- The overwhelming majority of existing rivalries are maintained, in part due to the provision for extra "rivalry games" to help maintain traditional rivalries such as Boston-Montreal and forge new ones like Vancouver-Seattle;
- Three all-Canadian playoff series, the presentation of a unique Canadian Conference Championship trophy and a guaranteed Canadian team in third round will guarantee consistently strong playoff TV ratings in Canada;
- A guaranteed U.S. team in Final ensures zero chance of the U.S. TV ratings catastrophe that would result from an all-Canadian Final while a unique U.S. Conference Championship would provide at least a modest boost in the U.S.;
- The playoff format provides BOTH a legitimate U.S. Conference Champion AND the possibility of ANY two U.S. teams (including Division rivals) meeting in the Stanley Cup Final (imagine, for example, the Penguins and Capitals playing for the Cup);
- Opportunity to retire the existing, lame Conference logos and design new Conference logos that would presumably incorporate the unique national character of each Conference (I am not a graphics artist, so for now we will just have to use our imagination to think of, say, a primarily red CHC logo with two red maple leaves representing East and West and, say, a primarily blue AHC logo with five stars, perhaps even arranged in a pattern representing North, South, East, Central and West);
- $1.3 billion in new expansion fees instead of $650 million - fans might not care about that, but the folks who ultimately make these sort of decisions do.
Acknowledged issues with this alignment:
- Slight mathematical advantage for Canadian teams in terms of playoff qualification percentages (50% vs. 48% for U.S. teams), but Canadian TV revenues coupled with the preclusion of an all-Canadian Stanley Cup Final easily justifies this modest advantage;
- As previously indicated, a legitimate American Hockey Conference Championship cannot be both reasonably defined and awarded at the appropriate stage in the playoffs (i.e. awarded at the conclusion of the penultimate round regardless of what happens in the Stanley Cup Semi-Final) UNLESS the playoff format ensures the top two of the three remaining third round AHC teams are always the teams playing for that Conference Championship, which in turn means the lowest surviving AHC third round team always has to be the one that forgoes an opportunity to play for its own Conference Championship and instead plays the CHC champion in the Stanley Cup Semi-Final. Of course, that means an AHC team could win the Stanley Cup without winning its Conference title, but that's not without precedent in North American sports - NCAA teams don't need to win their conferences to play for national championships. The other dilemma is determining whether the third AHC seed ought to be able to "earn" home ice advantage based on its record against the CHC champion (which would be perceived to be "unfairly" deny that advantage to the second AHC seed) or, alternatively guaranteeing the CHC champion home ice advantage for the Stanley Cup Semi-Final even when its record is the worst of the four third round teams. Again, Canadian TV revenues plus the preclusion of an all-Canadian Stanley Cup Final easily justifies all of this - up to and including a guarantee of home ice advantage in the Stanley Cup Semi-Final for the CHC champion.
- Not possible for the top two AHC teams to play in the Final, as they would be kept apart for the Division and Conference Series but invariably compelled to meet in the AHC Championship Series (assuming they both won their Division and Conference Series) under this format. Stanley Cup Final meetings any other two AHC seeds up to first and third could theoretically happen. Nevertheless, the overall possibility of any two U.S. teams meeting in the Final offsets this issue;
- "Breakup" of a few existing rivalries such as Boston-Montreal and Toronto-Detroit, but the provision for extra "rivalry games" would mitigate this issue and allow these rivalries to be maintained. If two extra "rivalry games" were deemed to be insufficient mitigation, the schedule could be expanded back to 84 games like it was in the early 1990's;
- CHC West spans three time zones with no CTZ Division rivals for Winnipeg & no PTZ rivals for Vancouver, but the benefits of having an all-Western Canadian Division far outweigh this issue;
- Not geographically and mathematically feasible to place the five U.S. CTZ teams in their own Division, but this issue is easily offset by the reduction of games these teams will have to play in the PTZ and the placement of Dallas and Nashville with culturally-linked Carolina, Florida and Tampa Bay;
- Possible overall increase in number and/or span of cross-time zone playoff series in the early playoff rounds, however the cumulative effect would be quite limited compared to the current system. The proposed format, like the current system, effectively guarantees four intradivisional first round matchups across the league, the main difference is that those four guaranteed intradivisional series are all AHC Division Series. So AHC playoff teams would actually be more likely to stay in their (more compact) Division for the first round compared to the current format. On balance, the effect of any net increase in playoff travel would be offset by the increased proportion of single time zone Divisions and reduction in cross-time zone games in the regular season;
- Possibility of an underqualified AHC runner-up of a weak Division making the playoffs - a "necessary evil" as without guaranteeing playoff berths to Division runners-up, four intradivisional AHC Divison Series could not be guaranteed. Also, there would be increased focus and clarity with respect to the Wild Card playoff race by keeping the number of Wild Card berths per Conference limited to two.
- Two more games in Western Canada for Eastern Canadian teams (and vice-versa) compared to the current format - mitigated by the large Leafs and Habs fanbases in Western Canada who would welcome these extra games;
- Arizona has to move to the Central - but that's where they're headed already and besides, Arizona is in the MTZ for most of the regular season.
Non-issues with this format:
- "Breakup" of the alleged East vs. West "tradition" - this is not a "tradition" worth caring about let alone keeping, especially in hockey.
- There's still plenty of time to get Quebec back in the League by 2020, one year prior to Seattle joining and thus avoiding the complications arising from stocking two expansion rosters at the same time.
Unlike the NFL, CFL and for all intents and purposes the NBA and MLB, the NHL is a bi-national league. 30 or 32 teams might sound like a nice, even number, and it certainly works for other leagues. But it's meaningless in hockey. From a business standpoint, it would make much more sense to try and come up with nice, even number of teams in each country rather than focus on what that might add up to in terms of a combined total in the league.
Once you get your head around the concept of blowing up the ridiculous albatross that is the NHL's current East-West format, then 25 U.S. teams, particularly with the 25th franchise in Seattle, actually makes alot of sense because as you will see below, it's no more difficult to group 25 U.S. teams into five divisions of five compared to trying to group the existing 24 into two groups of twelve, three groups of eight, four groups of six or six groups of four.
But of course, the arithmetic of having five divisions doesn't work too well... unless you have them all in one Conference, which might seem bizarre at first... until you realize it actually makes alot of business sense with no meaningful drawbacks that are not either more than offset by the benefits or easily mitigated.
And of course, the mathematics of a seven-team Canadian Hockey Conference do no work too well at all. So, to make the eminently reasonable alignment of 25 U.S. teams into five U.S. divisions in a single U.S. conference work, you have to add a team in Eastern Canada.
But before we get back to reviving that dormant franchise application from Quebec, I'll quickly rattle off the five division back-of-the-napkin U.S. alignment I came up with. Not that it took all that much more thinking than aligning a Canadian Conference...
American Hockey Conference
AHC East
Boston
Buffalo
New Jersey
NY Islanders
NY Rangers
AHC North
Columbus
Detroit
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
AHC South
Carolina
Dallas
Florida
Nashville
Tampa Bay
AHC Central
Arizona
Chicago
Colorado
Minnesota
St. Louis
AHC West
Anaheim
Los Angeles
San Jose
Seattle
Vegas
And, to state the obvious:
Canadian Hockey Conference
CHC East
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec
Toronto
CHC West
Calgary
Edmonton
Vancouver
Winnipeg
The basic scheduling formulas are quite obvious:
AHC Scheduling Formula (my personal preference):
6 intradivisional games x 4 opponents
2 interdivisional/interconference games x 28 opponents
= 80 games
Alternative AHC Scheduling Formula:
5 intradivisional games x 4 opponents
3 interdivisional-intraconference x 4 opponents (specifically, those teams that finsihed in same position in Division standings the previous season)
2 interdivisional/interconference games x 24 opponents
= 80 games
CHC Scheduling Formula:
6 intradivisional games x 3 opponents
3 interdivisional-intraconference games x 4 opponents
2 interconference games x 25 opponents
= 80 games
To which would be added Games 81 & 82, which presumably would scheduled at the discretion of the League between teams that would otherwise only play twice in order to maintain rivalries such as Bruins-Canadiens, etc.
As for the playoff format, particularly in the AHC it would make sense to emphasize Divisional matchups as much as possible so as to minimize travel obligations in the first round.
CHC Playoff Qualifcation (four teams):
- Division champions qualify plus two Wild Cards.
AHC Playoff Qualifcation (twelve teams):
- Division champions & runners-up qualify plus two Wild Cards.
Emphasizing Divisonal play while keeping the playoff format reasonably fair is not really feasible when you're trying to pair off only four teams as in the proposed CHC, but of course one could consider mitigating the issue by implementing the 2-3-2 format for the early interdivisional series that will inevitably occur...
CHC Playoff Format, Round 1 (suggested name: CHC Conference Series) & Round 2 (suggested name: CHC Championship Series):
- Division champion with most points plays second Wild Card, other Division champion plays first Wild Card;
- CHC Conference Series winners contest CHC Championship Series, winner declared CHC champions & awarded new CHC Championship Trophy (suggested name: Wayne Gretzky Trophy).
Emphasizing Divisional play in the first round of the AHC play makes the formula for determining matchups a bit more complicated, but not inarticulately so...
AHC Playoff Format, Round 1 (suggested name: AHC Division Series):
- If the Wild Cards are from different Divisions they always play the champions of their own Divisions;
- If the Wild Cards are from the same Division then the second Wild Card plays the champions of their own Division with the first Wild Card playing their own Division runner-up if that team has the best runner-up record in the AHC, otherwise the first Wild Card plays the champion of the Division containing the best runner-up record in the AHC and the same Division's runner-up plays the team with the best runner-up record;
- Runners-up of Divisions with no Wild Card qualifers play champions of own Division unless they have the best runner-up record in AHC, in which case should the two Wild Cards be in different divisions then from among the runners-up of the Divisions with Wild Cards the team with the best runner-up record in AHC plays the runner-up with the better record and the same Division's champion plays the runner-up with the worse record;
- If the team with the best runner-up record in AHC is in a Division with one Wild Card, it plays the runner-up of the other Division containing a Wild Card;
The format ensures that the Division champions and the best runner-up are always the teams that have home ice advantage in the AHC Division Series while also ensuring that the top two teams in the AHC will never meet in the first round, even if they are Division rivals and the only two teams in their Division to make the playoffs. Finally, it ensures that at least four of the six Division Series are intradivisional matchups.
For Round Two, all five Divisions would usually be represented, barring unusual circumstances including multiple upsets. In any case, at least four Divisions would always be represented, so attempting to emphasize Divisional play in the second round makes little sense.
AHC Playoff Format, Round 2 (suggested name: AHC Conference Series):
- AHC Division Series winners are matched up 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, 3 vs 4 according to regular season record and without regard to Division.
Now of course, that leaves a CHC Champion and three teams from the AHC to contest the third round. So, in order to crown a undisputed AHC champion at the conclusion of the third round and so that the focus of the final round can be squarely on the Stanley Cup, it is necessary for the top two of the three AHC third round teams to be the teams playing for the AHC Championship...
Playoff Format, Rounds 3 & 4:
- Top two AHC Conference Series winners contest the AHC Championship Series, winners declared AHC champions & awarded Prince of Wales Trophy;
- Remaining AHC Conference Series winner ineligible to win AHC Championship, instead plays CHC champion in Stanley Cup Semi-Final, winners awarded Clarence Campbell Bowl;
- Winners of AHC Championship Series and Stanley Cup Semi-Final play in Stanley Cup Final. The AHC champions remain recognized as such even if they lose to another AHC team in the Cup Final.
Benefits compared to current alignment:
- On the whole, the Divisions are far more "compact" geographically compared to the current Divisions;
- All seven Divisions have simple geographically-oriented names modeled on the overwhelmingly popular names used in the NFL, CFL and MLB;
- CHC Divisions are essentially modeled on CFL Divisions, while in all five AHC Divisions, the majority of the markets (or at least, in the case of Columbus & Carolina, their respective states or in the case of San Jose, the immediately-surrounding region) also have at least one team in a Division with the same name (i.e. Central/East/North/South/West) in the NFL and/or MLB;
- Whereas only half of the current Divisions are in a single time zone, four of these seven Divisions (including three of five AHC Divisions) are in a single time zone, while the AHC South spans only two time zones for the entire season and the AHC Central spans only two time zones for most of the regular season;
- Excluding possible "rivalry games" most U.S. ETZ teams would play the same number of regular season games outside their time zone as they do now - the only exceptions are ETZ teams in AHC South whose markets are linked geographically and culturally to Dallas & Nashville in the CTZ;
- Far fewer regular season games in the PTZ for U.S. CTZ teams, espcially Dallas and Nashville who would also have far fewer games in MTZ, and also to only a slightly lesser extent Chicago, Minnesota and St. Louis.
- The overwhelming majority of existing rivalries are maintained, in part due to the provision for extra "rivalry games" to help maintain traditional rivalries such as Boston-Montreal and forge new ones like Vancouver-Seattle;
- Three all-Canadian playoff series, the presentation of a unique Canadian Conference Championship trophy and a guaranteed Canadian team in third round will guarantee consistently strong playoff TV ratings in Canada;
- A guaranteed U.S. team in Final ensures zero chance of the U.S. TV ratings catastrophe that would result from an all-Canadian Final while a unique U.S. Conference Championship would provide at least a modest boost in the U.S.;
- The playoff format provides BOTH a legitimate U.S. Conference Champion AND the possibility of ANY two U.S. teams (including Division rivals) meeting in the Stanley Cup Final (imagine, for example, the Penguins and Capitals playing for the Cup);
- Opportunity to retire the existing, lame Conference logos and design new Conference logos that would presumably incorporate the unique national character of each Conference (I am not a graphics artist, so for now we will just have to use our imagination to think of, say, a primarily red CHC logo with two red maple leaves representing East and West and, say, a primarily blue AHC logo with five stars, perhaps even arranged in a pattern representing North, South, East, Central and West);
- $1.3 billion in new expansion fees instead of $650 million - fans might not care about that, but the folks who ultimately make these sort of decisions do.
Acknowledged issues with this alignment:
- Slight mathematical advantage for Canadian teams in terms of playoff qualification percentages (50% vs. 48% for U.S. teams), but Canadian TV revenues coupled with the preclusion of an all-Canadian Stanley Cup Final easily justifies this modest advantage;
- As previously indicated, a legitimate American Hockey Conference Championship cannot be both reasonably defined and awarded at the appropriate stage in the playoffs (i.e. awarded at the conclusion of the penultimate round regardless of what happens in the Stanley Cup Semi-Final) UNLESS the playoff format ensures the top two of the three remaining third round AHC teams are always the teams playing for that Conference Championship, which in turn means the lowest surviving AHC third round team always has to be the one that forgoes an opportunity to play for its own Conference Championship and instead plays the CHC champion in the Stanley Cup Semi-Final. Of course, that means an AHC team could win the Stanley Cup without winning its Conference title, but that's not without precedent in North American sports - NCAA teams don't need to win their conferences to play for national championships. The other dilemma is determining whether the third AHC seed ought to be able to "earn" home ice advantage based on its record against the CHC champion (which would be perceived to be "unfairly" deny that advantage to the second AHC seed) or, alternatively guaranteeing the CHC champion home ice advantage for the Stanley Cup Semi-Final even when its record is the worst of the four third round teams. Again, Canadian TV revenues plus the preclusion of an all-Canadian Stanley Cup Final easily justifies all of this - up to and including a guarantee of home ice advantage in the Stanley Cup Semi-Final for the CHC champion.
- Not possible for the top two AHC teams to play in the Final, as they would be kept apart for the Division and Conference Series but invariably compelled to meet in the AHC Championship Series (assuming they both won their Division and Conference Series) under this format. Stanley Cup Final meetings any other two AHC seeds up to first and third could theoretically happen. Nevertheless, the overall possibility of any two U.S. teams meeting in the Final offsets this issue;
- "Breakup" of a few existing rivalries such as Boston-Montreal and Toronto-Detroit, but the provision for extra "rivalry games" would mitigate this issue and allow these rivalries to be maintained. If two extra "rivalry games" were deemed to be insufficient mitigation, the schedule could be expanded back to 84 games like it was in the early 1990's;
- CHC West spans three time zones with no CTZ Division rivals for Winnipeg & no PTZ rivals for Vancouver, but the benefits of having an all-Western Canadian Division far outweigh this issue;
- Not geographically and mathematically feasible to place the five U.S. CTZ teams in their own Division, but this issue is easily offset by the reduction of games these teams will have to play in the PTZ and the placement of Dallas and Nashville with culturally-linked Carolina, Florida and Tampa Bay;
- Possible overall increase in number and/or span of cross-time zone playoff series in the early playoff rounds, however the cumulative effect would be quite limited compared to the current system. The proposed format, like the current system, effectively guarantees four intradivisional first round matchups across the league, the main difference is that those four guaranteed intradivisional series are all AHC Division Series. So AHC playoff teams would actually be more likely to stay in their (more compact) Division for the first round compared to the current format. On balance, the effect of any net increase in playoff travel would be offset by the increased proportion of single time zone Divisions and reduction in cross-time zone games in the regular season;
- Possibility of an underqualified AHC runner-up of a weak Division making the playoffs - a "necessary evil" as without guaranteeing playoff berths to Division runners-up, four intradivisional AHC Divison Series could not be guaranteed. Also, there would be increased focus and clarity with respect to the Wild Card playoff race by keeping the number of Wild Card berths per Conference limited to two.
- Two more games in Western Canada for Eastern Canadian teams (and vice-versa) compared to the current format - mitigated by the large Leafs and Habs fanbases in Western Canada who would welcome these extra games;
- Arizona has to move to the Central - but that's where they're headed already and besides, Arizona is in the MTZ for most of the regular season.
Non-issues with this format:
- "Breakup" of the alleged East vs. West "tradition" - this is not a "tradition" worth caring about let alone keeping, especially in hockey.
- There's still plenty of time to get Quebec back in the League by 2020, one year prior to Seattle joining and thus avoiding the complications arising from stocking two expansion rosters at the same time.
Last edited:
