NHL: Should Teams Be Rewarded for Playing in Weaker Divisions?

The Alexander Ovechkin bandwagon might be running at full force the moment he tied Luc Robitaille's NHL record for most goals by a left winger, but that doesn't mean Eric Staal's Carolina Hurricanes have been sidetracked in their quest for the Southeast Division title.

Perhaps playing for the most overlooked team out of the three Staal brothers currently in the NHL, Eric's Hurricanes have taken it upon themselves to secure their destiny with a strong rebounding 6-2 performance against the Tampa Bay Lightning. The victory came shortly after a disheartening defeat at the hands of the Washington Capitals, a team hot on Carolina's trail for the Southeast Division title.

However, maybe even more intriguing than the 'Canes heroics is the fact that there is still a very distinct possibility that they could drop all the way from third to ninth with only one loss, simply because of playing in a weakened Southeast Division.

With the Cup pursuits of Tampa Bay and Atlanta coming to a grinding halt after the departures of both Brad Richards and Marian Hossa, the division was always considered to be a two-way tossup between Washington and Carolina.

Of course, there was always a chance that Florida was going to make a run, but then again, the Panthers are well...the Panthers.

Which begs the question: Why should a team be rewarded for playing in a weaker division?

I mean, after all, the Hurricanes are sitting at third place with guaranteed home-ice advantage throughout the first round at only 92 points. If Washington, who have been virtual outsiders for almost the entire season, were to skyrocket all the way to third place, how would that be fair to the other seven teams that have higher point and win totals, but find themselves with lower seeds?

That's not mentioning the extra revenue that the Southeast Division Champions generate from that extra playoff game or two—provided they can make a prolonged run in the playoffs.

If Carolina were to play in a division like the Northeast, they would find themselves in the eighth and final playoff spot, sitting right behind the likes of Boston and Ottawa, tied with 92 points heading into Thursday night's action.

More importantly, the home-ice advantage, which we all know is crucial during the playoffs, would be vanquished throughout their entire run. 

It may perhaps be the most confusing thing since Swiss cheese or TSN's decision to appoint Mike Milbury as an analyst, but it is what it is. Sure, for hockey fanatics the playoff seeding system (three division leaders followed by the rest of the conference) may seem logical, but for any outsider you could definitely see why it makes as much sense as Chris Pronger's stomp on Ryan Kesler.

Why not employ a system that rewards based on just the total points allowed? New Jersey already has five more points than Carolina, yet still have a game in hand to play.

Why should New Jersey be punished for playing in the same division as the Pittsburgh Penguins? The same goes for the Boston Bruins and the Ottawa Senators—two teams still deadlocked at 92 points.

I'm sure the New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, Ottawa Senators, and Boston Bruins would like explanations as to why they aren't entitled to fair playoff seeding regulations. Last time I checked, those teams were all either tied or ahead of the projected Southeast Division Champions.

Maybe Gary Bettman could wrap his head around that instead of messing around with bigger nets or modifying how big Roberto Luongo's pads are allowed to be.