a vote goes up in december that would change the nhl into 2 division per conference. the flyers would have a home and home with ever team not in the division and split the rest of the games amongst division rivals. playoffs would be the top 4 teams from each division playing the first two rounds and then a conference final between both division champs.
I hadn't heard that. The last I heard the plan was to swap Winnipeg into the west and just stick Detroit in the southeast.
I like going back to 4 divisions, but I definitely DON'T like divisional playoff seeding. I know they're doing it to revitalize old divisional rivalries by having teams meet regularly in the playoffs, but I'm not sure the tradeoff of having 4 teams from a lousy division make the playoffs is worth it. I'm thinking back to the old Norris division, when 4 of 5 teams were often under .500 and 3 of them made the playoffs...despite being worse than the 5th place Adams team and 5th AND 6th place Patrick team.
it was in yesterdays daily news(or times i can't remember) notice that the pens are not in our division so we'd only play a home and home during the regular season and then only in the conference finals if at all in the playoffs. also we'd have to get through detroit in a conference final to make it to the cup finals
I can't see how a vote will be legitimate since no one knows where the Coyotes are playing next year.
i said the same thing but aparently for te most part the league is happy with the divisions and would change them accordingly. i don't know how i feel about inter division playoffs for the first two rounds, having to watch the same teams play each other every year until the conference finals would get old after a while. plus what if a division 4th place has a below 500 record? they make it in over a team that deserves it.
I don't particularly like the 4 division set up because the playoffs will become boring. Why change for the sake of change? There are only teams complaining because they know a decision will have to be made and want to take as much advantage of that as possible.
Switch Winnipeg over and move one team from the West to the east (Columbus/Detroit). If they want to move Dallas, go for it, but screw this 4 division bs. 2 Games against one of our greatest rivals in the Pens, and no playoff meeting until the ECF IF they both get that far? Thats lame.
Why would they have to change the playoff format in Plan G, exactly? The NFL has 37.5% of each team's games intradivision, but the divisions mean nothing once the playoffs start. I love this plan, but not the top-4-per-division gimmick.
Why would they have to change the playoff format in Plan G, exactly? The NFL has 37.5% of each team's games intradivision, but the divisions mean nothing once the playoffs start. I love this plan, but not the top-4-per-division gimmick.
If Playoffs remained as a conference instead of divisional I would like it. From what I understood from Mackenzie's article, the reason they couldnt do conference playoffs is because the number of inter divisional games would be 38, but spread over 7 other teams.
I don't particularly understand that argument considering as it stands now, teams play 24 interdivisional games anyways but spread over 4 other teams = 6 games per divisional rival, where the proposed plan G would be 38/7 = 5.42 games per divisional rival.
I dont see how the 4 division set up and conference playoffs is NOT an option, and is not the most logical option now that it is broken down like that.
Out of division games = 2x22 (other three proposed divisions) = 44 Games
Inner division games = 82-44 = 38. 38/7 interconference teams = 5.42 games per team, LESS then the current standard of 6 by only a hair. Obviously you can;t play .42 of a game so some you play 5 times, other 6 times and you either base that on rivaly or a rotating basis yearly.
If Playoffs remained as a conference instead of divisional I would like it. From what I understood from Mackenzie's article, the reason they couldnt do conference playoffs is because the number of inter divisional games would be 38, but spread over 7 other teams.
I don't particularly understand that argument considering as it stands now, teams play 24 interdivisional games anyways but spread over 4 other teams = 6 games per divisional rival, where the proposed plan G would be 38/7 = 5.42 games per divisional rival.
I dont see how the 4 division set up and conference playoffs is NOT an option, and is not the most logical option now that it is broken down like that.
Out of division games = 2x22 (other three proposed divisions) = 44 Games
Inner division games = 82-44 = 38. 38/7 interconference teams = 5.42 games per team, LESS then the current standard of 6 by only a hair. Obviously you can;t play .42 of a game so some you play 5 times, other 6 times and you either base that on rivaly or a rotating basis yearly.
Well, two of the four new superdivisions only have 7 teams, so they would have 6.33 games per team, so it averages back out. Is that a little unfair? Perhaps, but certainly less so than it was pre-salary cap, when some divisions turned out practically no Cup winners (or even contenders) for years.
I hadn't heard that. The last I heard the plan was to swap Winnipeg into the west and just stick Detroit in the southeast.
I like going back to 4 divisions, but I definitely DON'T like divisional playoff seeding. I know they're doing it to revitalize old divisional rivalries by having teams meet regularly in the playoffs, but I'm not sure the tradeoff of having 4 teams from a lousy division make the playoffs is worth it. I'm thinking back to the old Norris division, when 4 of 5 teams were often under .500 and 3 of them made the playoffs...despite being worse than the 5th place Adams team and 5th AND 6th place Patrick team.
FWIW, I'm quite a new hockey fan, and the divisions mean little to me. It's all about the conference, as that's what counts come the playoffs.
Then again, I do live in England, so don't have the 'rivalries' with geographically close teams like you guys might
And then one of Detroit or Columbus moves to the Northeast. But which? They are almost exactly aligned on the map, with Columbus almost due south, just slightly south-by-southeast. Detroit says they have this handshake agreement, but it's unenforceable and the other WC teams will hate it. I think we do need realignment, though. Dallas in the Pacific is ridiculous. Winnipeg playing a season in the Southeast may have been necessary, but it makes the league look silly. And, to be honest, Pittsburgh is how many miles from the Atlantic Ocean? 400? A five-team "Atlantic" Division (meaning, to me, the Mid-Atlantic) would be NYR, NYI, NJ, PHI, and WAS. A 7- or 8-team Atlantic or Eastern would include Carolina and the Florida teams. Boston is "Atlantic," as well, but the culture and ties to the Northeast are strong, and all of those teams are Eastern time zone, anyway. And can we get Phoenix in Quebec or Hamilton and be done with it already?
If the format was kept the way it is now, just with switching teams, a pretty simple switch could be Winnipeg to Northwest (East. Conf. to West. Conf.), Minnesota to Cenral (West. Conf to West. Conf.), and Nashville to Southeast (West. Conf. to East. Conf.). That would work out pretty well geographically by my estimations using Google Maps. Guess there is more at stake here with money and time zones and crap, but at east geographically I think that system works best (if we are keeping the same format of six divisions).
Why can't they just pretty much do a Nasvhille for Atlanta swap? Dallas can then move to central, and than the Pacific is left with LA, San Jose, Anaheim .. Oh Wait .. How can we solve that haha
If the format was kept the way it is now, just with switching teams, a pretty simple switch could be Winnipeg to Northwest (East. Conf. to West. Conf.), Minnesota to Cenral (West. Conf to West. Conf.), and Nashville to Southeast (West. Conf. to East. Conf.). That would work out pretty well geographically by my estimations using Google Maps. Guess there is more at stake here with money and time zones and crap, but at east geographically I think that system works best (if we are keeping the same format of six divisions).
Elegant, but Winnipeg is two time zones over from Vancouver still. Better than now, but still suboptimal.
Elegant, but Winnipeg is two time zones over from Vancouver still. Better than now, but still suboptimal.
But that's the thing, it's better than it is now without having to revamp everything. All teams involved are better off as far as I can tell. Some are more better off now than others, but Vancouver going to Winnipeg is not that much different than going to Minnesota. Plus you get a division with three Canadian teams in it which I'm sure they (Canadians) would love.
I'm all for a simple Winnipeg/Nashville swap, but the problem is politics. Detroit has been carping to get into the east for years (and frankly they DO have a legit gripe), so if somebody comes east it's going to be Detroit, not Nashville (or Columbus; nobody cares about the poor BJ's).
I can live with no Pitt actually. Flyers/Caps has been a more consistent rivalry than Flyers/Pens anyway...but if something happens with the Isles, like NYI to Quebec, then you stick them in the other division and then you've got the other 5 old Patrick teams plus Carolina and the Florida teams together.
