After much debate between the players and the league, the NHL is realigning the league. It probably about time to do so since the NHL is the last major sports league to get the geography right. To be fair other leagues have had geographical issues when it comes to the divisions. For example the Atlanta Braves played in the National League West from 1969 to 1993. The Falcons, also of Atlanta played in the NFC West (sense a pattern here with Atlanta yet?) from 1970 to 2001.
One of the reasons why the realignment issue came to light was because the Atlanta Thrashers (see what I mean), who played in the Southeast Division, moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba (to reclaim the Winnipeg Jets mantle, a team that moved to Arizona to become the Phoenix Coyotes in 1997 after coming into the NHL from the WHA in 1980) which is nowhere near the Southeastern portion of the United States. On a side note, the Thrashers were the 2nd NHL franchise to get awarded to Atlanta, the Flames started playing in 1973 then bolted for Calgary after the 1980 season. Twenty years later the NHL decided it was a good idea to give Atlanta another shot at the NHL because two decades had passed and it should work right? Not so much, the Thrashers lasted 11 underwhelming seasons and 1 playoff appearance before bolting to Western Canada (another pattern emerges). So the league had to do something about the ridiculous travel issues that having the Jets in the Southeastern Division held.
So this is what they came up with for realignment....
Basically, Columbus and Detroit get moved from the Western Conference into the Eastern. If you've noticed that the once symmetrical conferences are now a bit lopsided, then you're very astute. Instead of two 15 team conferences, we've got a 14 team and 16 team conference. This is nothing new as MLB had 16 National League teams for a few years before moving the Houston Astros to the American League West for the 2013 season.
Here's the geographical theory of the new realigned divisions...
As you can see, Detroit moving to the Eastern Conference tips the balance of power to the East. A tough pill for hockey fans to swallow was the loss of the Wings/Hawks rivalry. Instead of meeting six times a year, they will now only meet twice a year. Is Detroit/Chicago a great Original Six rivalry? Sure it is but let us allow history to be the judge. Chicago won their first Stanley Cup in 1934 by defeating the Red Wings. After 23 years of Cup futility, the Blackhawks beat Detroit in 1961 (Chicago wouldn't win another Cup until 2010 while Detroit would drink from Lord Stanley's chalice four times in those 49 years). From 1926 to 1967 the NHL was only six teams, in that time Chicago and Detroit played each other for the Stanley Cup a total of two times. Once in 1934 and again in 1961, both Chicago victories. During that time the Blackhawks went to the finals six times and were crowned champions three times (1938 being the other). Detroit on the other hand, played in 13 Stanley Cup finals with seven titles.
As history will show, the bulk of the championships were won by the Montreal Canadiens (the Habs more less dominated the NHL from 1926 to 1979). You can even go as far as saying that the top tier of the Original Six was Montreal, Toronto and Detroit with Chicago, New York and Boston being the also-rans. Make no mistake, Detroit and Chicago have a good rivalry but I wouldn't put it up there with the Yankees and the Red Sox (it should be noted that any rivalry is only as good as its participants, if both teams stink, is it still a rivalry?). Hawks fans had to watch the Wings be the "Yankees of the NHL" from 1996-2009 while the Hawks languished in mediocrity and by mediocrity I mean they made the playoffs once between 1998 and 2008. Both teams didn't do much during the time the NHL expanded between 1967-1996. The Hawks did manage to get to the Finals in 1971 and 1992, both losses but the Wings were just bad making the playoffs three times from 1967-1983. I'd like to note that the NHL was a 21 team league from 1981 to 1993 and they still sent 16 teams to the playoffs. It wasn't that hard. A lot of lousy teams got in.
The problems that I can see (as well as others) will come during the playoffs. In 1974 the NHL had enough teams to go to a four division format (here's its history below)...
As noted before from 1981-1991 the NHL had 21 teams and 16 of them made the playoffs, 4 teams per division. In the Wales Conference, the Adams Division playoff winner played the Patrick Division winner. In the Campbell Conference, the Norris and Smythe division winners faced off. The point is, the same teams played each other every year, that's why things were changed around when the next wave of expansion hit in the 1990's. Since I'm from Connecticut I can say that that in the Adams Division, the Bruins, Canadiens were always in the playoffs (they never missed it, look it up) with either the Sabres, Whalers or Nordiques rounding it out. So the Bruins and Canadiens usually met in the Adams Division finals (except of course in 1986 when the Whalers took the Canadiens to seven games in the conference final, the highlight of their existence from 1979-1997).
The new playoff format will consist of the top 3 finishers in each division followed by the next 2 teams with the most points. So you could have 5 teams from one division and 3 from another which does reward a better regular season (unlike the format format from '81-'91). But you have the possibility to see the same match ups year after year.
Make no mistake the realignment makes sense. However, all the big market team (except Chicago) are in the East. Los Angeles is not a great hockey area despite the Kings winning the Cup in 2012 and it didn't help that there were rumors that the team was going to move to Seattle. The rivalries are kind of there in the West but not too many people outside of the cities involved know about them (or care?). Things should be all right as long as there's no labor disputes to muck things up.
Thank you for your time and as always your thoughts & comments are welcome.
One of the reasons why the realignment issue came to light was because the Atlanta Thrashers (see what I mean), who played in the Southeast Division, moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba (to reclaim the Winnipeg Jets mantle, a team that moved to Arizona to become the Phoenix Coyotes in 1997 after coming into the NHL from the WHA in 1980) which is nowhere near the Southeastern portion of the United States. On a side note, the Thrashers were the 2nd NHL franchise to get awarded to Atlanta, the Flames started playing in 1973 then bolted for Calgary after the 1980 season. Twenty years later the NHL decided it was a good idea to give Atlanta another shot at the NHL because two decades had passed and it should work right? Not so much, the Thrashers lasted 11 underwhelming seasons and 1 playoff appearance before bolting to Western Canada (another pattern emerges). So the league had to do something about the ridiculous travel issues that having the Jets in the Southeastern Division held.
So this is what they came up with for realignment....
Basically, Columbus and Detroit get moved from the Western Conference into the Eastern. If you've noticed that the once symmetrical conferences are now a bit lopsided, then you're very astute. Instead of two 15 team conferences, we've got a 14 team and 16 team conference. This is nothing new as MLB had 16 National League teams for a few years before moving the Houston Astros to the American League West for the 2013 season.
Here's the geographical theory of the new realigned divisions...
As you can see, Detroit moving to the Eastern Conference tips the balance of power to the East. A tough pill for hockey fans to swallow was the loss of the Wings/Hawks rivalry. Instead of meeting six times a year, they will now only meet twice a year. Is Detroit/Chicago a great Original Six rivalry? Sure it is but let us allow history to be the judge. Chicago won their first Stanley Cup in 1934 by defeating the Red Wings. After 23 years of Cup futility, the Blackhawks beat Detroit in 1961 (Chicago wouldn't win another Cup until 2010 while Detroit would drink from Lord Stanley's chalice four times in those 49 years). From 1926 to 1967 the NHL was only six teams, in that time Chicago and Detroit played each other for the Stanley Cup a total of two times. Once in 1934 and again in 1961, both Chicago victories. During that time the Blackhawks went to the finals six times and were crowned champions three times (1938 being the other). Detroit on the other hand, played in 13 Stanley Cup finals with seven titles.
As history will show, the bulk of the championships were won by the Montreal Canadiens (the Habs more less dominated the NHL from 1926 to 1979). You can even go as far as saying that the top tier of the Original Six was Montreal, Toronto and Detroit with Chicago, New York and Boston being the also-rans. Make no mistake, Detroit and Chicago have a good rivalry but I wouldn't put it up there with the Yankees and the Red Sox (it should be noted that any rivalry is only as good as its participants, if both teams stink, is it still a rivalry?). Hawks fans had to watch the Wings be the "Yankees of the NHL" from 1996-2009 while the Hawks languished in mediocrity and by mediocrity I mean they made the playoffs once between 1998 and 2008. Both teams didn't do much during the time the NHL expanded between 1967-1996. The Hawks did manage to get to the Finals in 1971 and 1992, both losses but the Wings were just bad making the playoffs three times from 1967-1983. I'd like to note that the NHL was a 21 team league from 1981 to 1993 and they still sent 16 teams to the playoffs. It wasn't that hard. A lot of lousy teams got in.
The problems that I can see (as well as others) will come during the playoffs. In 1974 the NHL had enough teams to go to a four division format (here's its history below)...
As noted before from 1981-1991 the NHL had 21 teams and 16 of them made the playoffs, 4 teams per division. In the Wales Conference, the Adams Division playoff winner played the Patrick Division winner. In the Campbell Conference, the Norris and Smythe division winners faced off. The point is, the same teams played each other every year, that's why things were changed around when the next wave of expansion hit in the 1990's. Since I'm from Connecticut I can say that that in the Adams Division, the Bruins, Canadiens were always in the playoffs (they never missed it, look it up) with either the Sabres, Whalers or Nordiques rounding it out. So the Bruins and Canadiens usually met in the Adams Division finals (except of course in 1986 when the Whalers took the Canadiens to seven games in the conference final, the highlight of their existence from 1979-1997).
The new playoff format will consist of the top 3 finishers in each division followed by the next 2 teams with the most points. So you could have 5 teams from one division and 3 from another which does reward a better regular season (unlike the format format from '81-'91). But you have the possibility to see the same match ups year after year.
Make no mistake the realignment makes sense. However, all the big market team (except Chicago) are in the East. Los Angeles is not a great hockey area despite the Kings winning the Cup in 2012 and it didn't help that there were rumors that the team was going to move to Seattle. The rivalries are kind of there in the West but not too many people outside of the cities involved know about them (or care?). Things should be all right as long as there's no labor disputes to muck things up.
Thank you for your time and as always your thoughts & comments are welcome.
