I don't see the NHL splitting up traditional rivals like that. MLB didn't do it even when it sent Milwaukee to the NL and Houston to the AL, the NFL hasn't done it since flipping Pittsburgh, Baltimore [now Indianapolis] and Cleveland [now Baltimore ... or, Cleveland] to the AFC in the 1970 merger. Both leagues have tried like hell to preserve traditional rivals whenever possible.
The easiest way to accomplish what you want is to cross-match the conference teams for the playoffs at some point, and then it's a question of when you do that. IMO, the best shot to make it happen is to do it right off the bat; I don't think it makes much sense to do it after the 2nd round, and by the semis you've likely wiped out at least one of the teams if the first two rounds are still divisional play.
I don't see them doing it, but it's the smartest way to maximize the inventory of the schedule.
Baseball gets it (although, for some stupid reason they want to move away from it).
The most important games in the standings are: Division, League, and non-league games are the least important. The significance of the game (usually down the stretch run) is a significant factor in ticket sales. As the pennant race heats up, and you're facing your biggest rival for a division title, you're going to sell more tickets.
Some interleague games have a massive significance that transcends that:
I don't see the NHL splitting up traditional rivals like that. MLB didn't do it even when it sent Milwaukee to the NL and Houston to the AL, the NFL hasn't done it since flipping Pittsburgh, Baltimore [now Indianapolis] and Cleveland [now Baltimore ... or, Cleveland] to the AFC in the 1970 merger. Both leagues have tried like hell to preserve traditional rivals whenever possible.
The easiest way to accomplish what you want is to cross-match the conference teams for the playoffs at some point, and then it's a question of when you do that. IMO, the best shot to make it happen is to do it right off the bat; I don't think it makes much sense to do it after the 2nd round, and by the semis you've likely wiped out at least one of the teams if the first two rounds are still divisional play.
I don't see them doing it, but it's the smartest way to maximize the inventory of the schedule. Baseball gets it (although, for some stupid reason they want to move away from it).
The most important games in the standings are: Division, League, and non-league games are the least important. The significance of the game (usually down the stretch run) is a significant factor in ticket sales. As the pennant race heats up, and you're facing your biggest rival for a division title, you're going to sell more tickets.
Some interleague games have a massive significance that transcends that: New York Mets vs New York Yankees, Dodgers vs Angels, As vs Giants, Cubs vs White Sox; and before Houston switched leagues, Astros vs Rangers.
Most interleague matchups that aren't geographically based are basically lame, low-interest games (unless they have novelty implications. NL teams visiting Fenway Park for the first time, or old World Series matchups).
Compare the 6-division NHL to 6-division MLB.
MLB: NYY-BAL-BOS-TOR-TB and NYM-PHI-WAS-ATL-MIA
NHL: NYR-NYI-NJD-PHI-PIT and WAS-CAR-ATL-TB-FLA
Baseball (divided by 2) had 39 Division/Regional Rival Interleague games
Hockey had at most 26 Division/Regional Rival (only WAS vs the NE teams; CAR/ATL/TB/FLA aren't regional with anyone in the NE).
So the baseball way of doing it is the maximum amount of significance you can have when you add up the importance of all the games.
The idea that what I listed "Splits up" rivals is based only on visuals, not a reality. Schedule wise, it's exactly the same: You're playing your rivals 4x each, even though four of them are no longer in your conference. That schedule basically fakes a a 12-team division/20 team league, with six games against 12 teams you rarely see.
EDM/CAL would still be playing the same amount and their fans still view each other as rivals and that's never going to change unless we move one of them out of Alberta. But now they have a new division opponent who ALSO becomes a rival.
As for meeting in the playoffs, who cares? Just being in a playoff series against someone brings the animosity and sell out crowds. You think Islanders fans said "Well, we're not really 'Rivals' with Carolina, I'm not going to watch the Second Round?" It's the playoffs. It's sold out, it's intense and it doesn't matter who you play. And long-time regional rivalries in the playoffs are not that common at all.
Calgary and Edmonton haven't faced each other since 1991. Edmonton has faced the DALLAS STARS (since their move to Texas) six times, and Calgary five times ever.
Essentially, people are making business decisions about alignment/schedule matrix that SOUND logical, but the data of these things actually supports the opposite:
Scheduling everyone home/away so you get Crosby/Ovechkin coming to town sells tickets!
Well, no. You 500 more fans for PIT/WAS (+1000), but -400 PER GAME for OTT, NYI, CAR, FLA, CBJ and NJD (-2400), you're selling less.
Putting local rivals in the same division = more sellout games!
Well, no. Astros-Rangers averaged 10,000 more fans per game over six games when they were interleague opponents (while Houston was LOSING 100 games a year), but as AL West rivals, even when they were in a pennant race together, the average attendance was 8,000 lower. Because interleague games fans circled the calendar for the ONLY VISIT, but in the same division, they said "I can go anytime since we play 19 times."