Not sure it matters so much in the NHL, but I like the idea of just taking the top 16 teams and seeding the playoffs like that for both the NHL and the NBA. The idea of conferences in 2017, with travel being as easy as it is, just no longer makes sense to me. I know hockey has the tradition aspect of winning the conference - but couldn't you do that by virtue of having the best regular season record?
Travel is actually not *that* easy in actuality. It's easier than it was, but it's still expensive. it's not just the players but all of the gear which has to be shipped to and from different places, as well.
Using VAN, FLA, MTL, or ANA as the extreme examples, I believe them seeing opposite conference teams once more per season is more expensive than the the way it is now--the added games for the closer division teams makes it less expensive, and like any business it's all about money, making more of it and spending less of it. Plus, you also have to figure teams that don't have solid fanbases in a given period are going to benefit from fans traveling to catch games. There's a lot more ticket sales to be had from, say, 'hawk fans willing to drive up to Minny or down to STL (and vice-versa), than there is for 'hawk fans to travel to Vancouver, Montreal, and even LA or FLA in the dead of winter.
Thus, conference-less play, and even division-less play would take more money out of HRR and less for the league and players--assuming a balanced schedule. If the schedule is unbalanced (teams play different teams far more than other teams), then there's the chance of an easier path to the playoffs.
Thus, if you're going to schedule games based on geography (i.e. closer teams play each other more often), it, IMHO, makes more sense to have them battle it out in the vein of a "king of the region" (division) and have the top-of-the-division battle against each other. With the top-3 divisional teams getting a seed and then the next-2 in the conference getting a seed, it also ensures that the weaker division also-rans don't make it.
Otherwise it's like it was before 2014: Divisions don't matter and the divisional rivalries don't get built. The league is a better place when you have the divisional rivalries.
So you're saying they should kick out all the shitty teams and have some playoffs to see who gets in the playoffs?
EDIT: this is a joke before anyone's panties get twisted.
LOL! Seriously though it's backwards. Rivalries are built in the playoffs--especially knock-down-drag-out series like the CHI-VAN series. Right now for the 'hawks there's not that much animosity for Dallas, Colorado, or Winnipeg. Why? We haven't met them in the playoffs recently. Minny, StL, and Nashville? yep--we hate those guys. Before the 2014 shift, the biggest rivalry was Vancouver. In the 2009-2012 years we hated Vancouver and Vancouver hated us--but we only saw each other 3 times a year. Contrast to StL since where we got 5-6 free-for-alls per year. The potential for cash/marketing for the league is so much greater when two terms that put on great playoff series against each other see each other during the regular season--and being bloodthirsty fans don't tire of it.
While there is potential for extradivisional rivalries or extraconference rivalries (i.e. LA/CHI or DET/CHI--the latter for history mostly), it still doesn't have that draw that, say, CHI-STL has.
Consider this: Tonight we play STL and you'll need to reverse the lobotomy you unknowingly got if you think fans aren't looking forward to tonight's tilt.
What's the next big match? Edmonton? Not quite after they started the season with a whimper. AZ? Sure, they jobbed us in 2012 but they suck. The Knights? That's novelty. Rematch against Nashville? Now you're talking!
At least that's how I see it.
