NHL Realignment: 5 Burning Questions About Hockey in 2012-13

If any league is familiar with transition or comfortable with adjustments, it is the NHL; and the 2012-13 season may see important changes.  Realignment would be an obvious improvement, and Gary Bettman confirmed it is on the horizon.  Naturally, we ask:  how radical could the changes be?

For a league that is not afraid to go topsy-turvy, we can expect almost anything.

Fans have always debated certain elements of the game.

To ice or not to ice?

To shootout or to tie?  To shootout at all?

To enlarge the net?  To reduce goalie padding? 

Make no mistake, the NHL embraces change with the same gusto that MLB resists it.  It listens to the fans, and the league respects the thoughts of its stars.

Out of the strike, the league's attempt to increase the speed of the game came largely with rules changes implemented to diminish the impact of the zone trap, which reached its crescendo as a successful—nay—game-changing defensive strategy in the New Jersey vs. Anaheim Stanley Cup Finals of 2003. 

With scoring down, the NHL recognized the importance of marketing its offensive talent.  Adjustments to the blue line allowed offenses to move through zones with more ease, allowing teams to establish themselves for longer durations in the offensive zone.

The league met its goals, and scoring increased league-wide.  While it was not the radical improvement that some hockey enthusiasts desired, the goals per game average increased from 5 goals to just over 6 per contest in the two consecutive seasons that fell before and after the strike.

Additional changes included the dimensions of the ice, including a reduction in the area in which goalies could play the puck behind the net.  

Is it any wonder how impressive the Devils were in the early century, successfully implementing their strategy so well that the league neutralized their defensive prowess and handicapped an all-star goalie's ability to control the puck?  For the frustration of fans who desired more action, I predict the discipline of New Jersey during the "zone trap" era will be historically under-apprecaited.

In addition to game play itself, the National Hockey League sought to enhance the fan experience, and the shootout provides a unique, compelling element to contests that formerly would have ended in ties. 

Yet, some elements of the game remained questionable.

Some fans felt icing should be called automatically.  Others argued that goaltenders had a supreme advantage over their predecessors, with enormous padding that should be chiseled down.

For all of the arguing, one change was obviously needed.

RE—A—LIGN—MENT.

Most fans agree that the league's alignment is structurally flawed.   With two specifically designated conferences, East and West, teams such as Detroit and Columbus have significant travel in playing their western opponents.  The problem is simple: NHL franchise locations are slightly skewed to the East, creating the imbalance.

Beginning in 2012, the league is proposing realignment.  Before nay-sayers denounce the idea, it's important to remember that the NHL was not always divided into the two current conferences.

As teams move and expansion brings hockey to new communities, the gallery of teams is a dynamic that flows in waves, not a straight line.  Change is simply inevitable. 

Naturally, questions loom, and this foray into the inquisitive won't even scratch the icy surface of our iceberg-sized curiosities. 

Undaunted, I present five questions fans will likely be asking before the details are unveiled by the NHL.

Question 1: Who Is Going Where?

The obvious question for any passionate fan should be: who are my division opponents?

Rivalries can spark from a number of catalysts, but competing for the championship of a division is the type of personal, intimate animosity that makes the game entertaining.

Simply put, divisions incubate natural rivalries.

While we cannot be sure who will end up where, the notion of a league with no conferences, only six divisions, has been discussed.

Rumors about the Blue Jackets and Red Wings coming to the Eastern Conference seem premature, but what couldn't happen? 

I've heard rumblings of an alignment based on time zone, though I'd be against it.  Division opponents should be proximate, but the largest time zone gap would be an hour.  If athletes can't overcome that disparity- pffft!

One thing we can count on is that the league is going to adopt an alignment that is economically favorable.  Therefore, I think that any minor adjustments made to account for time zones are out, and regional proximity is in.

I'd suspect an alignment similar to one outlined below, but one thing is certain: nobody is sure.

                                          *-denotes a division change

Northeast:
Boston
Montreal
Toronto
Buffalo
Ottawa

Atlantic:
Philadelphia
New Jersey
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Pittsburgh

Southeast:
Washington
Nashville *        
Florida
Tampa Bay
Carolina

Central:
Detroit
Chicago
Columbus
St. Louis
Dallas *     

Northwest:
Minnesota
Vancouver
Winnipeg *
Calgary
Edmonton

Pacific:
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix
Colorado *

Question 2: How Will the Changes Affect the Schedule?

One gripe from fans and concern of the NHL is that not every market is afforded the opportunity to see other teams with any annual regularity. 

Before a scheduling adjustment added additional inter-conference games, it was not uncommon for an Eastern Conference team to avoid play in a Western Conference city for multiple seasons.

The Florida Panthers fan base wants to see Roberto Luongo tending the net.

San Jose's shark tank wants to circle around Sidney Crosby.

The Flyers want to "Broadstreet Bully" the Blues.

The Red Wings want to have star-laden affairs with the Washington Capitals.

If the league expands to an 84-game schedule with no distinct conferences, this allows the liberty of having division play solely distinguished for additional games during the regular season.  

Assuming a similar format to that which is referenced, playing your four division opponents six times (three home, three away) would leave 50 games for the remaining 25 NHL teams to be scheduled.

Simply, this means every team goes to every city.....every year!

Question 3: What New Rivalries Will Emerge?

While displaying every team in every city is a crucial step in the right direction for the NHL, no games demonstrate the passion of the puck like division rivalries.

Flyers vs. Penguins in the PA bloodbath.

Canadiens vs. Bruins in the most classic rivalry in the NHL.

Avalanche vs. Red Wings....  wait, not a divisional match-up.  (Sure felt like one in the late 90's!)

It's difficult to gage which new, modern rivalry would eclipse others.  That is largely based on circumstance.  Are the teams successful?  Do they warrant respect? 

Is there a playoff history?  Do they field superstars who are naturally competitive with each other?

Yet, I do think the NHL should consider their realignment with potential rivalries in mind.

Additionally, I think a key to the change will be in keeping a number of the great rivalries intact. 

As an example, the notion of Detroit (or Chicago, for that matter) "coming to the East" in an NHL that maintains conferences seems silly.  The notion of taking the Wings and Hawks away from their rivalry in the division for the sake of geographic sensibility is pedestrian.

Nevertheless, some change is inevitable.  A few rivalries will be tempered.  Unlike real life, absence does make the heart grow fonder in sports.  Sports' credo is "familiarity breeds contempt."

My pick for a great rivalry would be.... Nashville vs. Washington. 

Geographically, the Predators' move into that division makes perfect sense.   Both teams are ready to win now.  The Predators are a hungry group who got their first taste of playoff success in 2010.  The Capitals are a proven commodity that desperately seek postseason glory to vindicate their accomplishments.

Question 4: Who Will Qualify for the Playoffs—and How?

Bruises.  Stitches.  Missing teeth.  Broken bones.  Contusions.  Lacerations. 

Guzzled beers, lots of cheers, plenty of jeers. 

And a ton of emotion.

The NHL regular season requires a lot of sacrifice, all for the sake of making the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  The coveted prize is the ultimate goal. 

In the years ahead, the natural question becomes—who makes the tournament?

Will there be 16 teams? 

Will there be a traditional seeding format?

Assuming six divisions, which has been the strong inclination since realignment came to the forefront of NHL discussion, is it obvious that all six champions will be in the playoffs?

Having two additional teams from every division would create an uneven bracket of 18 teams.  A lone extra team would do the same with 12 teams..

Naturally, the 16-team format will stay in place, though it's uncertain how seeding would occur.  Would the weakest division winner really obtain the sixth seed?  Keep in mind:  this would be home-ice in the first-round, as the sixth seed would no longer be based on the conference tournament's eight teams.

Clearly, the 16 teams with the greatest point totals (keeping current tie-breakers) should qualify for the playoffs, with additional consideration that every division winner should be guaranteed a spot.

Whether that spot propels them to the top half of the conference seeding or only qualifies the team will be one of many new playoff revelations.

Question 5: Can Any Two Teams Potentially Play in the Stanley Cup Finals?

It may not be the most burning question, but I feel it's the most interesting. 

Taking away the conferences lends its hand to an open-field tournament, with the entire NHL in a single bracket.

In the past, prior to the current Eastern and Western Conference format, divisions would have a formal playoff.  The winner of that playoff proceeded into the Conference Final.

On one hand, division playoff rivalries as a guarantee make for an intriguing first-round. 

I'm against it.

First, it guarantees that at least two teams from every division qualify for the playoffs.  With six divisions, the format would be crude at best.  Beyond the division winners, the best should qualify, even if it means every team from a division makes the playoffs.

Secondly, it creates an element of double jeopardy.  If you win your division, you should qualify for the playoffs against other elite teams based on seeding in the conference, as you've already won your division! 

Pitting division rivals against each other immediately creates the element of sudden jeopardy, where the loser can knock out the winner immediately.  Unless the seeding dictates such a match-up, I think the division loser should have to work their way into a match-up against their rival.

Lastly, by seeding teams into the tournament based on their record (opposed to their division), you create endless possibilities for match-ups in any round of the playoffs. 

And, most importantly, this means the Stanley Cup Finals.

Imagine a championship that could pit any two teams against each other. 

Conference rivals, such as the Red Wings and Avalanche, could square off for Lord Stanley's coveted prize.

Division rivals, such as the Keystone State rivals, could square off!  Penguins vs. Flyers for the Stanley Cup?  Pennsylvania would burn hot enough to melt ice!

I would urge the NHL to consider a playoff format that is not confined by conference structure or division layout.  Naturally, there are risks.  After all, what would viewership be for an all Florida finals, such as Panthers vs. Lightning?  Yet, as any success requires, with great risk comes great reward. 

I realize their are some cons to the strategy, namely the cost of teams traveling from distance making multiple trips during long playoff series.   I've never been a fan of the 2-3-2 home playoff format, as it creates the opportunity for an underdog to win a series with a greater number of home games, though I'd be open to the option if it meant limitless playoff match-ups.

The notion that on any given year, ANY two teams could meet in the championship series would create another unique dynamic, allowing the NHL to stand out amongst its peers.   

Bruins vs. Habs

Rangers vs. Devils

Red Wings vs. Blackhawks

Or........

Maple Leafs vs. Canucks, current non-conference opponents in a battle for Canada!

Wait, wait...I got it!  Maple Leafs vs. Canadiens!!  Like a kid in a candy store....

The Stanley Cup Finals would have endless possibilities!