Realignment: Did the CBA address this?
View Single Post
01-27-2013, 04:21 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Originally Posted by
More - I like this scheduling format. A couple of questions:
1) What if no expansion? Then?
4 x 14 = 56 (leaves 26 games for an 82 game schedule)
2 x 7 = 14
1 x 8 = 8 (4 extra games left. I guess you could take half of the teams this time, and half in 2 years. That's ok.)
Or, 2 x 8 = 16
1 x 7 = 7 (3 extra games left. What do you with these? I would suggest pick them up with the 7 team division on a rotating scale.)
2) And, probably a bigger question. What happens when Detroit's owner stands up in the BoG meeting and says, "The reason we like the 4 divisions is less travel to the west coast. You haven't changed that at all." Now, personally, I would like a way to answer that. I just don't see a good way.
I'm not worried about there being no expansion; as you said, the scheduling format could be adjusted to fit 30 teams.
The key point for me is this: 2 games against all other Conference teams means too many games against teams that any particular team isn't directly competing with in the Standings; and that goes doubly if you have a 4-Conference (rather than Division) setup. So ok, under that scenario Detroit, in its Central Division, only has to play 2 games against all Western Division (which includes PTZ) teams; but again, that means 46 to 48 games (more than 1/2), in an 82-84 game schedule, played outside of the Conference/Division in which a team is competing to gain a Playoff position. That's far too many, no matter how appealing it might sound to have a Home-and-home against all teams in the League. MLB can do it, but look at the number of games they play in a Season. The schedule format I suggested means only slightly more than 1/4 of a Season's games is played outside the Conference.
That Detroit fix scheduling format couldn't possibly last; scheduling formats get changed quite regularly, and many teams in the League would eventually complain about so many games against teams they don't directly compete with; and the fans will eventually complain as well,... fan preferences change with the wind.
Originally Posted by
I'm seeing it on two levels too. I think people will regret the NHL's proposed divisional format after 3 or 4 seasons for reasons I stated in previous posts.
There will be a lot of uneven play in the regular season
and team deserving to make the playoffs won't make it because they finished 5th in a tougher division/conference. Do you think Tampa Bay and Florida want to play with Northeastern teams? Do you think the New York Rangers like being the only original six team in their conference? There's more than one side to your argument.
That uneven play will eventually go away (with expansion), though there is no real reason why it should be to begin with. No, again, as I responded to MNN above, fans and teams alike will get tried of having so many games against teams which their team doesn't directly compete with in the Standings. That's be the big issue sooner rather than later. On top of that, if the League sticks with the idea of a strick top-4 making the Playoffs, then again many fans will ultimately not like an increase in the number of teams with better records not making the Playoffs. But I think the first issue is really the primary one.
Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-27-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by MoreOrr