The Changing Look of the NHL

PEBBLE BEACH, Calif.--Maybe the NHL Players Association will shoot down the entire new realignment scheme, making the four conference discussion moot.

It could happen. Once you get this close to another round of collective bargaining, anything is possible between employer and employee.

But let's assume the proposed realignment will be in place for next season, which of course also pre-supposes there will be a next season and not a lockout or strike.

And let's assume the league comes up with some good names for the new conferences. The Orr Conference? The Howe? The Pat Burns Conference? The Mario Lemieux?

All kinds of possiblities there, and the league hasn't even started to think of possible names, or how they'll be decided.

One thing for sure. It will make some happy, and some not so happy. If you super-impose the new alignment on the current NHL standings - less than meaningful because you're dealing with very different schedules - you'd have two teams (Washington, San Jose) that as of today would be in the playoffs but out under the new scheme, and two teams (Ottawa, St. Louis) that are in under the current alignment but would miss under the four-conference plan.

That's starting an argument right there. As is the fact its a little easier to make the playoffs in a seven-team division than an eight-team group. As is the possibility that a team might be in the top four in one conference while a team with a better record wouldn't be in the top four of another.

All kinds of squabbles, then, lie in the offing.

And of course there's also the debate about what should happen after the first two rounds when the conference winners are left standing. Re-seed? Bracket?

What's clear, meanwhile, is that realignment will alter how you think about your favourite team, and probably how that team thinks as well.

Look at the Leafs. They'd be in third place in their new seven-team conference as of today, with Boston in first, Florida in second, Buffalo in fourth and Ottawa, Montreal and Tampa Bay on the outside looking in.

But really, their mindset, and that of five other teams in that conference, would become finding a way to beat Boston, and they'd start designing their team and making moves with the aim of beating Boston. No longer would they have to worry about Pittdsburgh, the Rangers, the Devils, the Capitals, the Islanders, the Flyers or the Hurricanes, at least not as rivals for a playoff berth or a division title.

Instead of worrying about 15 teams, you're now worried about six, or seven, depending on the conference.

That should heat up rivalries significantly. Theoretically, the Leafs would look to muscle up for the Bruins, and much less about matching Pittsburgh's skill.

It'll be a subtle new way of thinking. Assuming it happens. . . .  

 

Comments

[Andrew]

If they want to heat up rivalries, it should be possible to square off for the cup. Reseed after the FIRST round. Kind of like the Olympics. Conference A winner plays Conference C runner up. etc. What would be more excting, a Toronto vs Montreal second round playoff series, or a Toronto vs Montreal series for the cup.

[David]

(There's a typo in the fourth last paragraph: Pittsburgh)

I've read some commentary from media, bloggers and fans on message boards. No one mentioned the concept of designing a team to beat a specific team within their division, as you have astutely mentioned here. I like that wrinkle, that dynamic. I remember when the mid-80s Flames began to fashion a team designed to beat the Oilers, so there is precedence for this team building scenario.

Another facet that doesn't get touted often is the logic behind the playoff structure. All teams play 46 common games in the home and away schedule. Of the remaining 36 games, they are broken down into blocks of four, inside the conferences. Within these conferences is the only fair way to evaluate a playoff seed, by comparing a handful of teams playing a completely identical schedule. It is far more balanced than it appears to be at first glance, in my mind.

I'm very intrigued by the reseeding of the final four, that would be a fresh wrinkled indeed, since all these teams would have 46 common games as a starting point. The conference the Leafs are in is the toughest one-through-seven based on points accumulated thus far, so their final four seed might be lower compared to a conference with a doormat team, so I am very keen to see what comes of it.

[John Carss]

It's a good idea that everybody plays everybody more often during the regular season, but the playoffs should be 1st place vs 16th place & so on. Anybody could become a bitter rival, anybody could face anybody for the Stanley Cup. Forget divisions & conferences, who cares?

[Tasos]

I think they are just trying to manage a different form and system in order to make League more interesting and appealing to marketers. NHL is desperate for revenues and interest in population.

[nugentmania]

Damien....the two examples you give (Washington/San Jose and Ottawa/St. Louis) say the same thing. In as of today, out with the new format. You're only half correct.

[J Scott]

Could also try seeding all the teams overall, with 1 playing 16, 2 playing 15, etc.
That would make the playoffs interesting, and lose the issue of good teams playing in very competitive conferences missing the playoffs, while worse teams in worse conferences making them. Would do nothing for rivalry building though.

[Wade]

Great analysis and useful speculation, Damien.

On the other side of the coin, I wonder if there's going to be a problem with more meaningless games. Now if you lose to a non-conference team, expecially in a shootout or overtime, it's not as damaging to your playoff hopes as losing to a conference rival. If you need only to finish in the top 4 of a seven team conference, sure your team needs points but those conference games are really the crucial ones. Last night's loss to NJ would be less significant under the proposed new format than the current one -- that NJ becomes more like one against, say, Phoenix, with the same kind of energy -- that might not hurt the Leafs but it must be a concern for more gate-driven teams like Tampa, Florida etc.

This might be especially noticeable if one or two teams dominate a conference. If there was this set-up this season, Boston could afford to lose a few against non-conference games from now until the end of the season. While they need the points, dominance of the Leafs and Buffalo would go even further to getting them into the playoffs than it does now.

What buzz you gain in rivalry games you might lose in non-conference games...not a good thing if you plan for more of them.

[Scott Protomanni]

Only the top three in each division/conference should get guarantees into the playoffs with the last 4 spots given to the best teams not in the playoffs (like a wildcard). This should help insure that the best teams make the playoffs most of the time.
In the first round of the playoffs the 2nd place team in each division plays the 3rd place team and the 4 conference champions are seeded 1 through 4 and the wildcard teams are seeded 13 through 16. The best team in the NHL (1st seed) plays the worst of the wildcard teams (16th seed) and 2 plays 15, 3 vs 14 and 4 vs 13.
In the second round the winner of 2 vs 3 in every conference plays the winner of conference champ vs wildcard.
For the Stanley Cup semi finals remaining teams are reseeded based on regular season points and winners play in the Stanley Cup finals

[Stef Caron]

What amazes me with all of this talk of re-alignment is the unbalanced conferences and schedules that will result from this move. Yes, I can understand the need to lessen travel for teams and for the sake of their budgets in these austere times, but these athletes are very well paid for what they do. Being a professional hockey player doesn't begin when you hit the ice during a game and end when the buzzer goes off. You are a professional hockey player the moment you start drawing that paycheque, and the travel is part of the deal's package. The managers and coaches should keep this in mind.

For the last twelve years, the NHL has been a 30-team league with six divisions of five teams. For various reasons, Gary Bettman and his cohorts want to realign to four conferences, two of seven teams and two of eight teams, making the playoffs conference-confined for the first two rounds. This is just a bad idea. As a former Winnipegger, I can tell you how bad of an idea it is. Winnipeg continuously lost to either Edmonton, Vancouver or Calgary, and it wasn't until the Jets' last year before moving to Phoenix that the team faced another foe in the first round that wasn't from the same division (it was the Detroit Red Wings, before the Avalanche's Claude Lemieux rearranged Kris Draper's face).

The change in playoff format from a 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 to 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc., was a breath of fresh air when it took place, and it allowed for new dynamic that resulted in some pretty intense rivalries between Dallas, Detroit, San José and Colorado in the west, and between New Jersey and everyone else during the mid-90s to early 2000s. That format, however, did not allow for the possibility of a real, die-hard hockey fan's wet dream of a Stanley Cup final: Edmonton vs. Calgary. Calgary vs. Vancouver. Vancouver vs. St. Louis. St. Louis vs. Detroit. Montréal vs. Toronto. Toronto vs. Ottawa. Ottawa vs. Buffalo. Buffalo vs. Québec City (I can dream, can't I?). Québec City vs. Boston (I'm still dreaming). Boston vs. New York or New Jersey (take your pick, NYC-area hockey fans). Or Montréal vs. Québec City (okay, I am definitely in la-la land, so I'll say Boston or Philadelphia instead). For hockey fans in the Sunshine State, if both teams can survive long enough and become solvent, a Lightning-Panthers final would ensure hockey stays there, hopefully.

I, like many hockey fans, have my own vision of realignment and a playoff format to go with it. And, being an obnoxious French Canadian who thinks he knows too much about hockey, my vision is probably the best option for the NHL. I just have to convince everyone else.
The realigned league is simple. We currently have six divisions of five teams, but has anyone thought of reversing that to five divisions of six teams?
Those six teams would face each other six times per season, for a total of 30 games. The other 24 teams would be played against twice a season, for a total of 48 more games, bringing our grand total to 78 games. For the remaining four games, to bring the grand total to 82 games, the previous season's first place team would play the last place team, the second overall team would play the 29th place team, so on and so forth, for an extra four games, regardless of whether that team is a divisional rival or not. That means there is a potential that a first place Vancouver Canucks could play a last place Edmonton Oilers ten times in one season if those two teams are in the same division. Imagine what that would do for rivalries.
The playoff format I propose would be the greatest departure from the current format. Each division leader would be assured of home-ice advantage through the first round by being seeded 1-5, and these teams would remain seeded 1-5 for as long as they can survive in the playoffs. The remaining playoff positions would be filled out by the teams that finished in second and third place in the five divisions, seeded by their points total. If you're following my math, you'll notice that this gives us 15 teams in the playoffs. The clincher for my playoff format scheme is this: the best fourth-place team gets the last seed, and remains the last seed, for the entire playoff run, until it is eliminated or wins the Stanley Cup.