The good old, bad old days are back. And not a moment too soon.

	The Leafs-Devils rivalry may be new, but it's got its share of ill will.

"I think it's great!" blurts Nashville color commentator Terry Crisp. "I've been moaning and groaning about this for years now ... 'What happened to the rivalries? What happened to the rivalries?'

"When I coached in Calgary, we could be on a seven-game losing streak, have everybody in town at our throats, but if we beat the Oilers to end it, everything was okay again. We were suddenly heroes, gods. Like that. One game.

"With more of an emphasis on conference games now, old rivalries are heating up again and new ones are developing. That doesn't mean all-game fighting. Just hard, intense, do-whatever-it-takes emotion on the part of both teams. Rivalries mean bad blood.

"But bad blood makes for good hockey."

Absence does make the heart grow fonder (or at least more tolerant). And familiarity does breed contempt. Particularly in the high-stakes, high-intensity world of professional sports. And most especially in a game as fast and physical as hockey. Yes, ill will is on the boil in the NHL. And, luckily enough, the paying public can't help but be the primary beneficiary. There are a select few rivalries -- Montreal-Toronto, Boston-Montreal -- which traditionally draw interest no matter what. Others, however, ebb and flow, depending on circumstance.

The Islanders-Rangers debate has taken on substantially more bite with both franchises picking themselves up off the canvas in the opening third of this season. Kerosene was poured on the fire in their last meeting, of course, by that artful, antagonistic arsonist Theo Fleury -- bless his diabolical little heart -- doing a chicken dance of derision at Islander defenseman Eric Cairns, seated in the penalty box (Fleury's ire had undoubtedly been stoked by Islander fans chanting somewhat unfeelingly about his substance-abuse problem).

The Isles-Rangers-Devils dynamics are unique, and intriguing. The Rangers have always looked down their midtown noses at the Islanders, regarding them as little more than riff-raff; poor relations, but got sick and tired of answering questions about a winless streak against the Devils that lasted 23 regular-season games. The Isles and Devils, meanwhile, can't stand the smug, attitude of the Rangers, the Broadway Darlings who command the lion's share of attention in the area, win or lose, good or bad.

The Devils-Leafs, thanks to consecutive playoff confrontations and the unspeakable Tie Domi elbow on Scott Niedermayer, are a confirmed item now, while the Avs and Wings -- even given that Claude Lemieux now resides in the Arizona desert -- haven't warmed much to each other.

The Oilers and Flames, once the most unsparing of hockey feuds, have met only once so far, the season opener at the Saddledome. But with the traditional arch-rivals vying for the Northwest Division lead, the drums are already being beaten for an upcoming home-and-home set, as fortune would have it, Boxing Day and New Year's Eve.

New animosities, such as Vancouver-Colorado, Minnesota-Dallas have begun to show signs of heating up, while old favorites, such as Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-St. Louis, are being resurrected mainly due to the improved play of the Hawks.

"I was just talking to Dick Irvin about that when we were in Montreal, about how the rivalries were coming back," says Hawks' coach Brian Sutter. "It's wonderful for the sport. I know as a player those were the games you had no trouble getting up for.

"Games like the ones we (St. Louis) used to have against Chicago or Detroit are what make sports special. All the hype leading up to them, the back-and-forth quotes in the paper.

	“	You talk to the old timers about playing Saturday-Sunday against the same team and how grudges were held over, feuds developed, and how memorable the hockey was. I think the NHL has done a good job these last few years heading back in that direction, to revive the old rivalries. ”
		— Brian Sutter, Blackhawks coach

"Rivalries get the blood flowing, the adrenaline pumping. The fans', the media's and the players'. It's funny but I watched a program on ESPN about the old NFL rivalries ... the Packers and Cowboys, Giants and Redskins. And it got you excited just watching on TV!

"We just finished back-to-back games against Toronto and they were both tremendous, emotion-packed games. You talk to the old timers about playing Saturday-Sunday against the same team and how grudges were held over, feuds developed, and how memorable the hockey was.

"I think the NHL has done a good job these last few years heading back in that direction, to revive the old rivalries."

The league, in the eyes of some, could go even further.

"Now that the number of teams seems to be set at 30, I think maybe they should look at concentrating even more on conference games," says CTV SportsNet's John Garrett. "The cost would be cheaper and you'd intensify natural rivalries to an even greater degree.

"There's always the argument in the West that 'Oh, we won't get to see Mario or Lindros' or out East that Detroit wouldn't visit Toronto. But in the end, big games, important games against conference rivals, teams fighting for playoff spots, are far more compelling.

"If you want to go the baseball route with a certain amount of interlocking games, I guess that'd be okay. But in my opinion, you really can't get enough games that highlight rivalries."

He's right there.

Rivalries are built, of course, on many foundations. Geographical proximity (i.e. Flames-Oilers, Isles-Rangers) is one reason; as is a single cataclysmic incident or game (i.e. Domi's elbow on Niedermayer or Lemieux's face-altering hit from behind on Kris Draper) to ignite, then feed, the hatred; or a string of playoff run-ins (ie. Devils-Leafs, or Stars-Oilers); or jockeying over position in the standings.

"Rivalries are all about fans," says Crisp. "They mean full arenas, build-up publicity to games. I chalk a lot of the renewal of rivalries up to parity within the league. Let's face, it's tough to build a meaningful rivalry against any team, no matter how many times you play them, if the games are basically meaningless. There has to be something on the line.

"With more and more teams in the mix for playoff spots or positioning in the standings, there's more on the line on a night-to-night basis than there has been in a while. And you can't sit there and tell me that isn't in the best interest of the game."

There's certainly nothing wrong with fans and players developing a serious dislike for certain teams. In fact, it's healthy. As Crisp pointed out earlier, there's a lot of bad blood out there now.

"And," he adds happily, "as I said before, bad blood makes for good hockey."

George Johnson of the Calgary Herald is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.