Figuring Out a 32-Team NHL

When Seattle is approved as the NHL's 32nd franchise, realignment will be necessary.  The division missing a team is the Central, but Seattle won't go there.  Not when Vancouver is in the Pacific.  Obviously, what makes the most sense is to move Arizona to the Central Division, which is likely what they'll do. 

Although, the addition of a 32nd team would give the NHL ample opportunity to realign beyond that.  Instead of the difficult-to-manage eight-team divisions, why not break them in half and have eight divisions of four?  Which, frankly, would be pretty easy to do.  (Although, yes, that would screw up the All-Star Game.)

Let's start with the division that put all of its teams in the playoffs.  The all-Pacific Division side of the playoff bracket was part of the inspiration for this post, and a division of Vegas and the three California teams makes complete sense.  As would taking the other half of the Pacific Division--Seattle and the three teams in Western Canada.  And, as it turns out, this is the only division I'm creating that doesn't have a team currently in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  Calgary had the best record of the three, so I guess that means they'd be in and Colorado would be out.

Speaking of Colorado, that's where things get a little tricky.  They'd obviously be with Dallas and Arizona, but the fourth team in that division is tough.  Because you're putting Chicago, Minnesota and Winnipeg together, which leaves St. Louis and Nashville.  St. Louis is closer geographically to that group, but the NHL would likely want to keep the Blackhawks and Blues together.  So, the Predators end up getting stuck with the extra travel.

There's a similar problem in the East.  Boston and the three Canadian teams is easy, and the three New York teams obviously have to be together.  But there doesn't seem to be a way to avoid splitting up the Flyers and Penguins, which the NHL would obviously prefer to avoid.  However, you'd almost have to for these divisions to work.  So, the Flyers go with the Rangers, Devils and Islanders, while the Penguins get division opponents similar to what the Steelers have in the AFC West--Detroit, Columbus and Buffalo.  All of those cities, by the way, are closer to Pittsburgh than New York.

The remaining division is an old one that used to make sense before its teams were separated in the 2013 realignment.  You no longer have the two Florida teams in the same division as the three Canadian teams, which makes about as much sense as the pre-Vegas 16-14 conference breakdown.  So, I'm reuniting the old Southeast Division (minus Winnipeg, of course).

Here's what my division breakdown would look like:

EAST
Northeast: Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
Atlantic: New Jersey, Islanders, Rangers, Philadelphia
Metropolitan: Buffalo, Columbus, Detroit, Pittsburgh
Southeast: Carolina, Florida, Tampa Bay, Washington

WEST
Central: Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, Winnipeg
Southwest: Arizona, Colorado, Dallas, Nashville
Northwest: Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Vancouver
Pacific: Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Vegas

Really the other thing that got me thinking about this was the schedule.  Right now, Eastern Conference teams play their division four times, the other division three times and the West twice.  Adding two games against Seattle means you'd have to take away two games somewhere else, making the schedule imbalanced (I'm assuming going to an 84-game schedule would be off the table).

Under this format, though, they'd be able to easily keep it at 82 and also keep it somewhat balanced.  Interconference would remain at one home one away against everybody for a total of 32 games.  Likewise, the interdivision games would stay at three (with the extra home game alternating each season).  That's 36 games, bringing us to 68.  So, we've got 14 games left, which means you'd play two of your division teams five times and the other four.  The rotation would be set up so that you play seven home games against each of the other three over a three-year period.

This is how the schedule breaks down:

Division: 5 games vs. 2 teams, 4 games vs. 1 team (14 total)
Conference: 3 games vs. 12 teams (36 games/50 total)
Interconference: 2 games vs. 16 teams (32 games/82 total)

Now, here's the best part of my plan.  I'm revamping the Stanley Cup Playoffs, which I think everyone can agree are in need of an overhaul (seriously, it's not that hard, you just seed the non-division winners 3-8!).  Basically, I'm going back to the old way.  Division winners are seeded 1-4, with four additional teams from each conference qualifying, regardless of division. 

And, if a division winner happens to have fewer points than their first-round opponent, they don't get home ice!  It wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would help.  With the reseeding still in effect, it would still be possible for the best and second-best teams to end up meeting in the second round (the second-best team would either be seeded 2 or 5), but you wouldn't have first-round series between No. 6 and No. 7, so that's the trade-off.

Is this something that seems at all likely?  Of course not!  When Seattle joins the league, the NHL will just make the slight adjustment of adding a team to the Central (again, likely Arizona, which could be in Houston by then anyway). 

Frankly, as long as the Stanley Cup Playoffs are fixed, it really doesn't make any difference to me how they do the divisions.  But the additional team would give them the perfect opportunity to do that and realign at the same time.  So why can't we have both?