Report: NHL To Propose 4 Division Realignment

According to reports on Saturday night, the NHL will present a four-division realignment scenario at the Board of Governors meeting next week.

And the Blackhawks-Red Wings rivalry would remain.

According to Elliotte Friedman of CBC, here are the proposed Western Conference divisions:

I II
Vancouver Canucks Chicago Blackhawks
Calgary Flames Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers Winnipeg Jets
Los Angeles Kings St. Louis Blues
San Jose Sharks Columbus Blue Jackets
Anaheim Ducks Nashville Predators
Colorado Avalanche Minnesota Wild
Phoenix Coyotes* Dallas Stars

The wild card in the scenario is the Coyotes, who are broke and don’t have many/any prospects of ownership keeping them in the desert. Depending on where that franchise ends up, they could be part of one of the two¬†Eastern Conference divisions.

Here are the proposed Eastern Conference divisions:

I II
Toronto Maple Leafs Philadelphia Flyers
Ottawa Senators Pittsburgh Penguins
Montreal Canadiens NY Rangers
Boston Bruins NY Islanders
Buffalo Sabres New Jersey Devils
Florida Panthers Washington Capitals
Tampa Bay Lightning Carolina Hurricanes

Again, the Coyotes could factor into either of those divisions if they move into a situation that would place them in the Eastern Conference.

Under this plan, most of the strong rivalries that currently exist in the NHL wouldn’t be hurt, and some older rivalries (like Chicago and Minnesota) would be reborn.

This entry was posted in 2011-12 Blackhawks and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Report: NHL To Propose 4 Division Realignment

  1. Kevin Ba says:

    The only thing I don’t like is losing out on some of the western conference rivals we have now. Losing two games with Vancouver sucks. I know it was a total longshot, but the 3-conferences of 10 teams [each with two 5-team divisions] had a pretty cool layout to it. Chicago would stay in the middle conference, get MIN, DET, STL and most eastern teams would keep their rivalries intact.

    It’ll be interesting to see how this all works out. there’s certainly a lot of options, but I don’t want to lose out on some of the 2-and-2 series that we have now.

  2. robinson says:

    whatever they do, they have to make it that each team plays a homw&away against every team in the other conference. The east is so much weaker than the campbell. Were still in the hardest division in this 4 division thing.

    at least w this vancouver & washington play in a real division.

    The only thing good about the 4 division vs 6 is that the 3rd seed division winner will get what they deserve and be seeded behind the 4th & 5th. Half of the time the 3rd seed is worse/worse record than the 4 &/or 5.

  3. Anthony says:

    I really enjoy seeing this proposal, I hope it gets pushed through.

  4. robinson says:

    2 games 1home&1away against every team in other conference
    15×2=30

    4 against own conference 2home&2away
    14×4=56

    30/56=86 only 4 more than now and a somewhat equal/fair making those east teams play a little bit tougher sch., but still not as tough.

    Im against it, no division winners or automatic seeds, just top 8 records on each side…

  5. Dave Bonnema says:

    Actually, you could see a double rivalry with the Hawks: both the former AND current Minnesota franchises.

  6. Dave Bonnema says:

    @robinson: do it the old way, where you play most of your games within the division, then the rest are spread equally among the other 3 divisions. That’s how it was when there were 4 divisions previously. the Hawks would face their old Norris rivals (Detroit, St. Louis, Minnesota, Toronto) 8 times each, and the rest of the league 3. (The Patrick met 7 times/team). Now, there couldn’t be 8 games against each divisional opponent, but you get the idea.

  7. jeff says:

    Whats the point of having divisions if you don’t get any benefit from winning it? I don’t mind a realignment but have it mean something…..Play mostly in division, but keep old rivalries, and have division winners be top seeds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>