BOSTON - This morning, amid an exhausted press room at TD Banknorth Garden, rivalries were a hot topic. Last year, I suggested that playing the same team eight times a year was a bit overdrawn, so I was pretty pleased to see the league make the switch to six intra-divisional games with each team. Much to my surprise, I am in the minority amongst media here. Though I’m pretty sure most of them are biased due to their slightly less friendly travel schedules.

The most interesting point of the conversation came from Bruins PR wizard Heidi Holland, who noted that the best way to create and maintain rivalries was through an intra-divisional playoff format. The NHL used an intra-divisional playoff format from 1982 through the first wave of Sun Belt expansion in 1993. The top four teams in each division made the playoffs, everybody else went home. The league switched to its current six division format in 1998-99 and now the top eight teams regardless of division make the playoffs with the three division champions receiving the top seeds.

Under the old system, teams would travel down the same road on their journey for Lord Stanley’s Cup. During that 12 year intra-divisional playoff span, the Bruins and Canadiens met a staggering ten times, the Bruins also took on fellow Northeast Division rival Buffalo on five occasions. Other examples would include Toronto and Minnesota facing each other six times and the Islanders and Capitals meeting in five consecutive years from 1983-1987.

The Bruins-Canadiens rivalry is alive and well, thanks to three playoff meetings over the last six seasons. All of which were six and seven game first round tussles with a fair share of bad blood and memorable moments. And from 1996-2002, the Red Wings and Avalanche met in the playoffs five times, the product of a Cold War, free-spending, All Star for All Star mentality that sent the NHL into its current economic state. In three of those five series, the winner went on to win the Stanley Cup.

But with a 30 team league, these situations have become few and far between. On one hand, it would be terrific for the league to see the Bruins and the Canadiens meet in an Eastern Conference final, nor does the current system penalize a second superior team from the same division. Still, one would argue that an intra-divisional playoff format would breathe life into the first two rounds and ultimately boost television ratings. It would also fill buildings because the geographically friendly match-ups would be far more appealing to fans of the participating teams. After all, you’ll see more Rangers fans travel to Boston than they would to Atlanta.

So with this in mind I dug into the memory bank to recreate playoff match-ups using a modified intra-divisional format. For the purpose of this column, I have realigned the league into from six divisions to four.

My hypothetical divisional pairings were as follows:

NORTHEAST: Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Buffalo, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, New Jersey

SOUTHEAST: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Florida

WEST: San Jose, Phoenix, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton,

MIDWEST: Dallas, Colorado, Detroit, Chicago, Columbus, Nashville, St. Louis, Minnesota

Now here were the 2008 NHL Playoff Teams, ranked by finish, not seeding…..

EAST – Montreal, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Ottawa, Washington, Boston

WEST – Detroit, San Jose, Anaheim, Minnesota, Dallas, Colorado, Calgary, Nashville

If we use the new, modified system, a Carolina club eliminated from the playoffs on the final weekend of the season would have qualified as the fourth team in a weakened Southeast Division, leaving either Boston or Ottawa, who tied for seventh and eighth with 94 points, on the outside looking in. The same situation would exist out west as a competitive division would have pushed Nashville out of the playoff picture in favor of either Edmonton or Vancouver, who finished with 88 points each.

The match-ups would have been as follows:

NORTHEAST

Montreal (1) vs. Ottawa/Boston (4)
New Jersey (2) vs. New York Rangers (2)

SOUTHEAST

Pittsburgh (1) vs. Carolina (4)
Philadelphia (2) vs. Washington (3)

MIDWEST

Detroit (1) vs. Colorado (4)
Minnesota (2) vs. Dallas (3)

WEST

San Jose (1) vs. Edmonton/Vancouver (4)
Anaheim (2) vs. Calgary (3)

Here’s what that same format would have looked line in 2007.

In the East, under the old format, Buffalo, New Jersey, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, New York Rangers, Tampa Bay and the New York Islanders were your playoff teams, but because we can only take four teams from the Northeast, the Hurricanes once again are the beneficiary, defending their Stanley Cup title against the upstart Penguins in the first round. The top eight Western Conference finishers were Detroit, Anaheim, Nashville, San Jose, Dallas, Vancouver, Minnesota and Calgary, all of whom would have qualified with the modified system.

The match-ups would have been as follows:

NORTHEAST

Buffalo (1) vs. New York Rangers (4)
New Jersey (2) vs. Ottawa (3)

SOUTHEAST

Pittsburgh (1) vs. Carolina (4)
Atlanta (2) vs. Tampa Bay (3)

MIDWEST

Detroit (1) vs. Minnesota (4)
Nashville (2) vs. Dallas (3)

WEST

Anaheim (1) vs. Calgary (4)
San Jose (2) vs. Vancouver (3)

And in 2006?

Ottawa, Carolina, Buffalo, New Jersey, Philadelphia, New York Rangers, Montreal, Tampa Bay were the East playoff teams under the old format. Detroit, Dallas, Nashville, Calgary, San Jose, Colorado, Anaheim, Edmonton came out of the West. The Canadiens (93 points) and Thrashers (90 points) would have been two teams to swap.

The match-ups would have been as follows:

NORTHEAST

Ottawa (1) vs. New York Rangers (4)
Buffalo (2) vs. New Jersey (3)

SOUTHEAST

Carolina (1) vs. Atlanta (4)
Philadelphia (2) vs. Tampa Bay (3)

MIDWEST

Detroit (1) vs. Colorado (4)
Dallas (2) vs. Nashville (3)

WEST

Calgary (1) vs. Edmonton (4)
San Jose (2) vs. Anaheim (3)

What's the point? It’s hard to force-feed rivalries in a 30 team league, but over time, the intra-divisional system would create rivalries due to the same teams meeting in the playoffs consistently. And if you create rivalries in a first and second round best of seven, perhaps you wouldn’t see as many empty seats and the lackluster interest we’re all used to seeing with the odder, less compelling match-ups.

It’s at least worth the discussion. The latter two rounds pretty much sell themselves, rivalries not withstanding.