Building artificial rivalry is like a staged fight

Continued from B5

Yeah, we know, it’s dumb. And what’s the point in all of this?

Obviously, the NHL decided on this format after realigning the league in 201314. Travel was a motivator, as was keeping teams within the same time zone for the first couple of rounds. If the NHL wanted to make things fair and make winning the Presidents’ Trophy more important, it would seed every team regardless of division or conference. Instead of Washington playing the eighthranked team in the East, they would play the 16th-ranked team in the NHL.

But the bigger reason the NHL did this was to play up divisional rivalries, which everyone likes except for Minnesota Wild fans.

Within the last three years, the following has happened: the Penguins have played the Rangers in either the first or second round; Tampa Bay has played Montreal twice, St. Louis has played Chicago twice and there have been two battles of California between the Sharks and Kings.

Familiarity supposedly creates hatred, which can be a great thing for opposing cities. It’s what makes any regular season game between Montreal and Boston interesting. But it cannot be forced. It has to be organic.

Lumping together two teams for the sake of building up a rivalry is sort of like a staged fight. You get the end result, but without the buildup.

What’s better: having Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby play in the first or even second round, or having them meet in the conference final? It would build momentum. There’s a payoff there that comes from watching both players battle through the playoffs to get to that point.

That it might not happen only adds intrigue for when it actually does.

Instead, fans will have a post-season where two of the top three teams will be gone after the second round. That’s just dumb.