NHL May Abandon Divisions: What Could Change in the 2025/26 Season

The NHL has never been afraid of structural experiments. Conference realignments, divisional reshuffles, playoff format tweaks — all of these have shaped the league over the last three decades. As the 2025/26 season approaches, a new discussion is gaining traction inside the hockey world: the possible removal of traditional divisions. While nothing is officially confirmed, league executives, analysts, and team strategists are increasingly open to the idea. Such a move would represent one of the most significant structural changes in modern NHL history, affecting scheduling, playoff qualification, rivalries, and even long-term team-building philosophies.

This article explores what abandoning divisions could realistically mean for the NHL in the 2025/26 season, how the league might replace the current system, and why this discussion has become relevant right now.

Why the NHL Is Considering a Divisional Format Change

The current NHL structure is built around two conferences — Eastern and Western — each divided into two divisions. While this setup has provided clarity and tradition, it has also created competitive imbalances that have become more obvious with time. Strong divisions often eliminate high-quality teams early, while weaker divisions can allow average teams easier access to the playoffs.

One of the main criticisms centers on fairness. Under the divisional system, teams play a disproportionate number of games against divisional rivals, which can skew standings. A strong division may cannibalize itself, suppressing point totals and playoff positioning, while a weaker division inflates records. As advanced analytics and parity-focused league management become more influential, this imbalance is harder to justify.

Another factor is travel and scheduling optimization. Expansion, evolving broadcast needs, and player workload concerns have all pushed the league toward more flexible scheduling models. Removing divisions could allow the NHL to design a schedule that prioritizes rest, reduces unnecessary travel, and creates more high-profile matchups across the league.

Finally, fan engagement plays a role. The NHL is increasingly focused on global viewership, digital platforms, and star-driven marketing. A structure that allows top teams and elite players to face each other more often — regardless of divisional alignment — fits that strategy far better than rigid geographic groupings.

How a Division-Free NHL Regular Season Could Work

If the NHL eliminates divisions, the most logical alternative is a conference-only format. Teams would still be grouped into the Eastern and Western Conferences, but without subdivisions. Standings would be determined purely by points within each conference, with a balanced or semi-balanced schedule.

In this model, teams would likely play a more even distribution of opponents within their conference, while still maintaining interconference games. The league could also increase the number of cross-conference matchups to improve variety and exposure.

From a competitive standpoint, this system simplifies the regular season race. Teams would know exactly where they stand relative to every other conference opponent, without the artificial separation of divisional rankings. This clarity could increase late-season drama, as playoff races would be determined by pure point totals rather than divisional placement.

Scheduling flexibility is another major benefit. Without divisions, the NHL could more easily adjust game frequency, back-to-back scenarios, and travel clusters. This would be especially valuable as the league continues to emphasize player health, recovery, and overall on-ice product quality.

Playoff Qualification Without Divisions

Perhaps the most impactful change would come in playoff qualification. Under the current system, divisional standings heavily influence who makes the playoffs and how teams are seeded. Removing divisions opens the door to a simpler, arguably fairer approach.

The most commonly discussed model is a “top eight per conference” format. In this scenario, the eight teams with the highest point totals in each conference qualify for the playoffs, regardless of geography or traditional rivalries. Seeding would be based purely on points, eliminating wildcard complexity.

This approach ensures that the best teams advance, not just the best teams within a specific division. It also reduces the likelihood of elite teams meeting in the first round simply because they share a division. From a competitive integrity perspective, this is difficult to argue against.

To understand the contrast, consider the difference between the current and potential systems.

This shift would likely be welcomed by analysts and fans who value merit-based competition. It would also reduce controversy surrounding “unfair” playoff matchups that arise due to divisional constraints.

Impact on Rivalries and Traditional Matchups

One of the strongest arguments against removing divisions is the potential loss of traditional rivalries. Divisions have historically reinforced frequent matchups between regional opponents, creating familiarity, animosity, and long-term narratives that fans cherish.

However, rivalries are not solely dependent on divisions. Many of the NHL’s most intense rivalries have survived multiple realignments. What truly fuels rivalry is meaningful games, playoff encounters, and star-driven storylines.

In a division-free system, the NHL could still preserve rivalry frequency through scheduling priorities. The league already customizes schedules to highlight marquee matchups and regional clashes. Without rigid divisions, it could do so even more deliberately.

Mid-season stretches could be designed to cluster rivalry games, enhancing intensity and narrative continuity. Playoff rematches would still occur naturally, especially among top-performing teams. In some cases, removing divisional barriers could even strengthen rivalries by allowing them to develop deeper playoff histories rather than being confined to early-round clashes.

At the midpoint of the season, one structural adjustment could become especially noticeable for fans and teams alike. The absence of divisional races would shift attention toward broader conference standings, changing how success and failure are measured.

• Teams would no longer focus on “winning the division” as a milestone

• Media narratives would emphasize conference positioning and point margins

• Rivalry games would carry weight based on standings, not division labels

• Late-season matchups between top conference teams would gain importance

This shift would require an adjustment period, but it aligns well with modern sports consumption, where fans track league-wide storylines rather than narrow regional hierarchies.

Strategic Consequences for Teams and Management

Removing divisions would have deeper implications beyond standings and schedules. Team-building strategies, trade deadlines, and even coaching decisions could be affected.

Under the current system, teams often evaluate success relative to their division. A general manager may push for a playoff spot if the division appears weak, even if the team is mediocre in a conference-wide context. Without divisions, that calculation changes. Teams would need to assess themselves against the entire conference, leading to more honest evaluations.

This could influence trade deadline behavior. Bubble teams might be less likely to overpay for short-term upgrades if the conference race is clearly out of reach. Conversely, strong teams would have clearer incentives to reinforce their rosters, knowing that higher seeding offers tangible playoff advantages.

Player development strategies could also evolve. Young players might be integrated more gradually, as teams focus on long-term competitiveness rather than exploiting divisional weaknesses. Coaching systems may prioritize consistency and point accumulation over matchup-specific tactics designed primarily for divisional opponents.

In the long run, a division-free NHL could promote a healthier competitive ecosystem, where success is measured by sustained performance rather than structural advantages.

What This Means for Fans, Media, and the NHL Brand

From a fan perspective, the removal of divisions would initially feel unfamiliar. Division banners, rivalries, and long-standing habits are deeply ingrained in hockey culture. However, the potential benefits are significant.

Standings would become easier to understand, especially for casual fans. Playoff races would feel more logical and less arbitrary. High-stakes games between top teams would occur more frequently, improving the overall entertainment value of the regular season.

For media and broadcasters, a simplified structure offers cleaner storytelling. Conference-wide races, MVP debates, and playoff projections become more compelling when they are not constrained by divisional quirks. This clarity also translates well to digital platforms, betting markets, and international audiences.

From a branding standpoint, the NHL would position itself as a modern, adaptive league willing to evolve for fairness and quality. In an era where data-driven decisions and global expansion matter more than ever, this message carries weight.

Conclusion

The possibility of the NHL abandoning divisions for the 2025/26 season represents more than a structural tweak. It reflects a broader philosophical shift toward competitive fairness, scheduling efficiency, and modern fan engagement. While challenges remain — particularly around preserving rivalries and tradition — the benefits of a division-free system are increasingly difficult to ignore.

If implemented thoughtfully, this change could enhance playoff integrity, improve regular-season drama, and align the league more closely with how today’s fans consume sports. Whether or not the NHL ultimately takes this step, the discussion itself signals a league that is actively rethinking how best to shape its future.