NHL divisional alignment: Which format is best?

Eight divisions, five divisions, four divisions, two conferences, one big soccer-style table?

Welcome to the AZ Coyotes Insider newsletter. My plan is to publish stories four to six times per week. By subscribing, you’ll be supporting independent, accountable journalism. Subscribe now so you won’t miss a story.

The NHL map. (Illustration by Clay Collins)

---

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman threw a bucket of cold water on the idea of sticking with the league’s current division alignment for another season. In an online media availability last week that also included deputy commissioner Bill Daly, Bettman cited a league survey that found that while two-thirds of fans love what the NHL did this season with alignment, about two-thirds of fans want a return to the way things were.

I’ll admit that I’m a little skeptical of that survey. Without seeing the actual questions, I don’t know the scope of that survey. Did the league offer fans multiple alternatives to the traditional alignment? What exactly was asked? There is a science to public opinion polling, but the aftermath is clear. The status quo will remain. Canadian fans won’t get an all-Canadian division after this season, unless COVID prolongs the current border issues.

“I know that there are fans in the United States that would like to see the Leafs and Auston Matthews, Edmonton and Connor McDavid,” Bettman said. “Fans in Canada would like to see Sidney Crosby and Pittsburgh and the list can go on and on.

“I think our traditional alignment makes more sense and is more widely accepted.”

I have written a fair amount about the NHL’s divisional alignment ever since the league announced that the Coyotes would be moving to the Central Division next season. I agree with Bettman that every fan base should get to see every team. The players want this, franchises want it, and past research showed that the fans want it, too, but I still think it should take a back seat to travel concerns, which are also very real to players.

I also like the idea of fomenting division rivalries, although I would note that eight-team divisions makes this less likely to occur because there are too many intra-division matchups and not enough games. The NFL has genuinely succeeded in creating divisional rivalries because it has kept its divisions small and regional in scope. NHL division rivalries are mostly a concept, rarely a reality.

I also don’t think that moving the Coyotes to the Central Division makes sense. I don’t think that any team should have to play division games in three different time zones, but if it is unavoidable due to the vastness of the West, that team should not have to fly three-plus hours to an intra-division city, and it sure as hell should not have to go through customs in another country to do so. It’s a major competitive disadvantage, produced by a poor alignment. Players and coaches will tell you that, and their opinions should carry more weight than fans or journalists. They’re the ones who have to do it.

It is important to remember the myriad factors involved in making a schedule. The broadcast rights holders want games between big-draw teams on certain nights of the week, which adds a difficult variable. Arenas aren't always available for hockey, either. Some teams share venues with NBA teams. Most venues host concerts or other shows that bring in important revenue. All of that and more must be considered, making the production of 32 schedules (Seattle will join the league next season) a monumental task.

That said, I still think there are alternatives or potential tweaks so I reached out to a bunch of writers and colleagues for their opinions. One thing surprised me. Most of the journalists with whom I spoke favor four divisions of eight teams when given the choice between that and eight divisions of four teams. I do not, as I have written before, but rather than promote my own preference, I decided to look at some of the pros and cons of five options (even if they aren’t options in the league’s eyes):

• Eight divisions of four teams each (the NFL model)

• Five divisions of either six or seven teams (I’m calling this The Masisak Model and you’ll find out why below)

• Four divisions of eight teams (the NHL model)

• Two conferences (basically the NBA model)

• One giant league standing, a la Premier League.

I also offered some potential alignments within those formats.

Before I begin, many thanks to the journalists who participated. Some wanted to remain anonymous. Others lent their name. The latter are: ESPN’s Greg Wyshynski; The Associated Press’ Stephen Whyno; The Athletic’s Corey Masisak; Chris Peters, who just started his own Substack site; and Arizona’s own Cat Silverman.

The anonymous journalists who influenced my thought also totaled five.

My proposed Southwest Division. (Illustration by Clay Collins)

---

Eight, four-team divisions

As I mentioned above, this is my preferred model. It uber regionalizes the divisions and limits travel. You can play around with the mix of teams if you don’t like the specifics. There are some options, for instance, if you’re willing to split up the Alberta teams (they split up The Blackhawks and Red Wings after all).

Here’s how it could look.

Western Conference

Canadian Division

Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Vancouver Canucks
Winnipeg Jets

Pacific Division

Anaheim Ducks
Los Angeles Kings
San Jose Sharks
Seattle Kraken

Southwest Division

Arizona Coyotes
Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Vegas Golden Knights

Central Division

Chicago Blackhawks
Nashville Predators
Minnesota Wild
St. Louis Blues

Eastern Conference

Metropolitan Division

New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers

Southeast Division

Carolina Hurricanes
Florida Panthers
Columbus Blue Jackets
Tampa Bay Lightning

Mideast Division

Buffalo Sabres
Detroit Red Wings
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitals

Northeast Division

Boston Bruins
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs

Specifics

Intradivision games: 16 total: (three home, three away vs. each of the three division opponents, two of the three games played in each city would be played in two-game series to reduce travel.)

Intraconference games: 48 total (two home, two away vs. each of the remaining 12 teams in a team’s conference, all games played as part of two-game series to limit travel)

Interconference games: 16 total (eight home and eight away vs. the 16 teams in the other conference, playing each team once). Eight of those games would be at home. Eight would be on the road. The schedule would rotate on an annual basis between home and away sites. Example: If the Coyotes played the Penguins in Pittsburgh in 2021-22, they would meet in Arizona in 2022-2023. If the Coyotes played the Boston Bruins in Arizona in 2021-22, they would meet in Boston in 2022-2023. When playing the other conference, road trips should be at least four games long to ensure that teams only have to make two road trips to the other conference.

Playoffs: Each conference’s four division winners earn automatic postseason spots, seeded 1-4 by record. The next four best records in each conference earn the remaining spots, seeded 5-8 by record.

Or, to avoid a subpar division winner earning a top-four seed, division winners could earn automatic playoff berths, but the eight playoff teams would still be seeded according to record.

Pros:

• It cuts down significantly on travel for all teams.

• It does a better job of grouping teams by geographical location than the current format.

• It may forge new or stronger rivalries, as the NFL has learned.

• There would be more division races, creating more, late-season intrigue.

• It creates a balanced schedule against division opponents and conference opponents, which is important for playoff seeding.

Cons:

• The Canadian Division and Southwest Division encompass three time zones, but hey, I didn’t want to look like a homer so I still punished the Coyotes a bit because it appears to be en vogue.

• Hypothetically, a team known as the Washington Hockey Team could win a division, not have one of the conference’s best eight records, and still make the playoffs. Ya feel me, Arizona Cardinals fans?

• Eight teams from the other conference won’t visit eight cities in the other conference; it will happen every other year.

Five divisions, no conferences: The Masisak Model

In this proposal, each division has either six or seven teams. And yes, this is all Corey Masisak’s doing (thus the name), so I am giving him the floor. When you hear all of the specifics, you might think Corey has solved realignment, especially if Canada wants to play the isolationist game. After reading this proposal, I might agree.

“Everyone who sees this and immediately thinks that five divisions is too weird or the 1-16 playoff model will include too much travel will quickly realize the benefits from retaining the North (Canadian) Division,” Masisak wrote. “And how neatly every American team slots into a geographical pod in this plan easily outweighs those concerns.”

Pacific Division

Anaheim Ducks
Arizona Coyotes
Los Angeles Kings
Seattle Kraken
San Jose Sharks
Vegas Golden Knights

Central Division

Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Minnesota Wild
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues

Canadian or North Division

Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs
Vancouver Canucks
Winnipeg Jets

Southeast Division

Carolina Hurricanes
Detroit Red Wings
Florida Panthers
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Tampa Bay Lightning
Washington Capitals

Northeast Division

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Columbus Blue Jackets
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers

Specifics

Intradivision games: Everyone starts with 30 division games (five each for the seven-team divisions, six each for the six-team divisions). This format would also include multi-game series against division teams.

Intra/interconference games: The six-team divisions play the other 26 teams twice each, and there’s your 82. The seven-team divisions play the other 25 teams twice each, and have two extra games to fill in. Those could be just be two more division games or they could be rivalry games out of the division.

Playoffs: Without conferences, the playoffs would have to be seeded 1-16.

Pros:

• It offers a neat geographic grouping of division opponents that avoids multiple time zones except for the Canadian Division, where they seem to like playing one another.

• The forcing of a 1-16 playoff seeding means the top teams are more likely to meet in the later rounds.

Cons:

• With two games each against either 25 or 26 other teams in the league, teams would be facing a lot of travel, and most of it would be lengthy without the option of playing two games in any city.

• Playoff travel. Imagine if the Panthers and Canucks were scheduled to meet in the first round. That would create a major disadvantage compared with a Devils-Rangers series. As Masisak noted, this could be mitigated if the NHL went to a 2-3-2 playoff format for each series.

Four, eight-team divisions

This is the current plan.

Pacific Division

Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
San Jose Sharks
Seattle Kraken
Vancouver Canucks
Vegas Golden Knights

Central Division

Arizona Coyotes
Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Minnesota Wild
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Winnipeg Jets

Metropolitan Division

Carolina Hurricanes
Columbus Blue Jackets
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitals

Atlantic Division

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Detroit Red Wings
Florida Panthers
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Tampa Bay Lightning
Toronto Maple Leafs

Specifics

Intradivision games: With Seattle joining the league, each team would presumably play each division opponent four times, two at home, two on the road for a total of 28 games.

Intra/interconference games: Each team plays non-divisional teams in their own conference three times (24 games), and each team in the other conference twice (30 games). Because that adds up to 84 games (the season is 82 games), two intraconference games could be cut.

Playoffs: The top three teams in each division earn automatic berths (six teams per conference) and the two teams with the two next best records in the conference earn wild-card spots. In the first round, the top-ranked team in the conference plays the lower ranked wild card and the other division winner plays the higher ranked wild card. The second and third place teams in each division play each other.

Pros:

• There is a far lesser chance of a weak division winners earning a playoff spot.

Cons:

• The Central Division spans three time zones and two countries. I can’t stress enough what a competitive disadvantage that creates.

Two conferences

Western Conference

Anaheim Ducks
Arizona Coyotes
Calgary Flames
Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Minnesota Wild
Nashville Predators
Seattle Kraken
San Jose Sharks
St. Louis Blues
Vancouver Canucks
Vegas Golden Knights
Winnipeg Jets

Eastern Conference

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Carolina Hurricanes
Columbus Blue Jackets
Detroit Red Wings
Florida Panthers
Montreal Canadiens
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Ottawa Senators
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Tampa Bay Lightning
Toronto Maple Leafs
Washington Capitals

Specifics

Intradivision/Intraconference games: It’s unclear how this would look. The NBA uses conferences for playoff seeding, but still structures its regular season based on division play. If you want to play every team in the other conference twice (32 games), that leaves 50 games to split between the 15 intraconference teams. Those could be structured by geography, and they could include multi-game series in cities to mitigate travel.

Playoffs: Teams would be seeded 1-8 in each conference.

Pros:

• Theoretically, you could achieve greater competitive balance with less focus on intradivision games.

• The playoff format affords a better chance of the best teams playing one another later in the playoffs.

Cons:

• By awarding playoff seeding by regular-season record alone and eliminating divisions, there is less intrigue to the regular season race. While there is jostling for seeding, that isn’t nearly as intriguing to fans as the chase for division titles or those divisons’ remaining playoff spots.

Euro style

Imagine this insanity. No divisions, no conferences, just one giant table like the Premier League. Because it has not been tried on this large of a scale, the regular-season logistics would have to be worked out. Travel could clearly become an impediment unless the league structured it by geography. But if you do that and don’t ensure competitive balance, what’s the point of one big table?

As for the playoffs, the No. 1 seed would play the No. 16 seed in the first round of the playoffs and so on, giving the top teams the best chance at advancing.

Source: ESPN

---

Anonymous contributor: “As someone who has grown up watching European football, this would be bad ass. This would also send everything into complete calamity. Or, rather, it has the chance.”

More journalists’ thoughts

Cat Silverman (who favors the four-division format: “I think as long as the Central Division is as spaced out as it is — which, given the geographics of the prairie provinces and middle America, seems like a permanent reality — there’s always going to be a handful of teams that have to do more traveling legwork than the others, and I’d rather see a higher mix of regular opponents than a constant replaying against the same three opponents.”

Chris Peters (whose website is worth a subscription): “I prefer the four divisions of eight. I think that creates some intrigue in playoff races and makes the end of the regular season a bit more interesting. However, I'd much prefer the league go back to 1-8 playoff seeding as opposed to divisional playoffs. I love the rivalries that builds, but hate the way it creates imbalance in competitiveness among various divisions. We're losing too many good teams too early that would enhance the playoff drama.”

Stephen Whyno (who trashed my eight-division proposal… politely): “There has to be a balance of rivalries and getting to face every opponent. The multi-game series in the same city have some benefits but also don't feel natural yet. I would like to see that for another year just to get a feel for it.”

Greg Wyshynski: “Four divisions of eight teams each, but revise the playoff format to a conference-based one with play-in rounds. The wild card system is played out and it’s time for a change.”

Craig Morgan @CraigSMorgan

Poll: Which NHL division alignment format do you like best? You can read more about these formats in the story pinned at the top of my timeline.

Follow Craig Morgan on Twitter: @CraigSMorgan