Patrick, Adams, Norris and Smythe

They might as well just go back to the '80s division names.  That's the only possible silver lining in this stupid four conference plan the NHL unveiled the other day.  NHL, who you kidding?  They're divisions.  Not conferences.  I've had a few days to think about whether or not I like this thing.  As you can probably tell, I don't.

For starters, the current conference names are as dumb as the Big Ten "Legends" and "Leaders" divisions.  "Conference A" is the hypothetical name that you use when coming up with hypothetical divisions in a hypothetical league.  I know it's only temporary, but you can't name an actual professional sports conference "Conference A."  There was nothing wrong with Patrick, Adams, Norris or Smythe, which is what the NHL called its four divisions before renaming the conferences "Eastern" and "Western" in 1993-94.  In fact, the division names honored some of the NHL's most important founding fathers: Lester Patrick, Charles Adams, James Norris (for whom the Norris Trophy for Best Defenseman is also named) and Conn Smythe (also the namesake of the trophy for playoff MVP).

Of course, realignment was made necessary because of the Atlanta Thrashers' move to Winnipeg.  There were a couple of very easy ways to put Winnipeg in the Western Conference.  My solution would've been to put Nashville (which is actually, you know IN the Southeast) in Atlanta/Winnipeg's place in the Southeast Division and Winnipeg in the Northwest Division with the other Western Canadian teams, then moving Dallas into Nashville's vacated place in the Central Division and moving Colorado from the Northwest to the Pacific.  Giving us divisions that look like this:

Atlantic-New Jersey, N.Y. Islanders, N.Y. Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
Northeast-Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
Southeast-Carolina, Florida, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Washington
Central-Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Detroit, St. Louis
Northwest-Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Winnipeg, Vancouver
Pacific-Anaheim, Colorado, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose

Instead, the NHL gave in to certain teams that didn't like the division they were in.  Evidently the Red Wings whined enough about being in the Western Conference that the NHL decided to make them happy.  (I'm not sure what their problem was when they were in the same division as the rival Blackhawks).  Dallas being in the Pacific Division didn't make that much sense, but keeping the Western Canadian teams together did.  And, until this season, there were 17 teams in the Eastern time zone.  That means two of them had to be in the Western Conference, and the Red Wings and Blue Jackets are the westernmost of those teams.  One of the solutions tossed around was simply moving one of them to the East (instead of Nashville, which, again, is actually in the Southeast).  But pissing off 14 teams just to make Detroit happy wasn't going to fly.

The Red Wings' main issue was with the schedule.  Specifically the amount of travel they have to do.  But the schedule easily could've been adjusted without blowing up the whole two-conference, six-division structure.  This season, teams play six games against their division rivals, four games against the other 10 teams in their conference and 18 interconference games.  It would've been easy to set up a home-and-home with everybody else in the league and maintain the current structure (five division games, three or four conference games, two interconference games each).

So why don't I like the new alignment?  Well, there are a couple of reasons.  For starters, let's stay on the schedule issue.  Now everybody will play a home-and-home with every other team in the league, but the only teams they'll see more than twice are those in their "conference."  Not enough variety.  Yes, it increases travel for most teams, but that's not even really what makes this an issue.  Take a team like the Rangers.  They haven't been in the same division as Boston or Montreal for years, yet still face the Bruins and Canadiens regularly.  Now you're telling them that Boston and Montreal are both only coming to the Garden once a year.  And, seriously, how many times can you play the Devils and Islanders in one season?

But here's my biggest problem (other than the fact the four divisions are called "conferences"): the playoff structure.  Making the playoffs just got a whole lot tougher.  Part of what made the rivalries of the '80s so great was that the first two rounds of the playoffs were division semifinals and finals, with the four division winners moving on to the conference finals.  But that was also the biggest problem with the NHL's playoff structure in the '80s.  For the better part of that decade, Edmonton and Calgary were the two best teams in the Campbell Conference, if not the entire NHL.  But since they were both in the Smythe Division, it was impossible for the Oilers and Flames to meet in the conference finals.  Same thing for the Bruins and Canadiens.  Now it's possible to run into that same problem again.  In fact, neither one of last season's conference finals would've happened if this alignment had been in place.  The Lightning and Bruins are now in the same "conference."  So are the Sharks and Canucks.

Likewise, limiting the playoffs to four teams per division is going to keep some very good teams out of the playoffs at the expense of others that might not be as deserving.  Case in point: of the top eight teams in current Eastern Conference standings, five are in the new "Conference C," while only three (the Penguins, Rangers and Flyers) are in the new "Conference D."  It's also a 5-3 split favoring "Conference B" in the Western Conference. 

And what are you going to call the semifinal round?  Who's going to play who in that round?  There's talk about re-seeding after the "conference" finals or having the matchups rotate each year.  For the fans (and probably the players, too), that's way too confusing.  The matchups need to be predetermined.  Since qualifying for the playoffs would be based on your division finish rather than your conference finish, it wouldn't matter that the two Eastern "conferences" have seven teams each and the two Western "conferences" have eight teams each.  Have the Eastern teams meet and the Western teams meet, just like they currently do.  Or, why not go back even further and just seed the top 16 teams in the league 1-16 for the playoffs, completely disregarding divisions or conferences entirely?

Besides, all of this might be moot anyway.  The Coyotes might not be in Phoenix that much longer.  My predicition is that they move to Quebec and are moved to "Conference C."  Conferences C and D are then renamed "divisions" (which is what they are) within the Eastern Conference (or whatever you want to call it).  The Norris and Smythe Divisions are then combined into the Western Conference.  And once you have the Red Wings and Blackhawks finish with the two best records in the league, but it's impossible for them to meet in the conference finals, for a few years in a row, the playoff structure is fixed so that the division winners are the top two seeds and the other six playoff spots per conference are based on points, regardless of division.

The NHL might've solved some of its "problems," but I think a lot more might've just been created.  Either way, I highly doubt this four conference structure lasts very long.  Fans will like getting to see every team in the league, but they'll hate not being able to see some as often as they used to, and they'll get bored of seeing the same teams over and over.  Even more significantly, until more than two teams can play in the finals, having more than two conferences simply doesn't make any sense.