for the most part I like it, but playing every team in the league at least twice is kind of stupid. The NBA does that and the NBA has basically 0 actual rivalries between teams. Just between players.
I don't think it is that stupid, but it does curb the amount of off-division rivalries. We have one major off-division rival: Philadelphia!
How many teams have rivals from outside the division?
Seems confusing in reguards to the playoffs. So 4 teams from the NE & Atlantic make it and 5 from the other two? Who plays who?
Pretty sure it's 4 teams from each conference that make the playoffs. First and second rounds are played inside your own conference and then the winners from each of the 4 conferences play each other.
I assume conference A and B play each other and C and D play each other (if you go by the conferences from the tsn link in the OP) and then the winners from those series play for the cup.
Pretty sure it's 4 teams from each conference that make the playoffs. First and second rounds are played inside your own conference and then the winners from each of the 4 conferences play each other.
I assume conference A and B play each other and C and D play each other (if you go by the conferences from the tsn link in the OP) and then the winners from those series play for the cup.
Wouldn't that be unfair to the 8 team conference? You now have an extra team competing for the same amount of positions.
They sure pushed this through fast but still have their heads up their ass on the no touch icing? WTF is up with these guys?
Well...i tried to do some work to see what would have happened, very theoretically, of course, with such an alignement and format.
I have modified the schedule of each time according to the new alignement, using the last year's one as a basis.
For the 8-team conferences, the teams have to face three differents 6 times and the four others 5.
Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Colorado are together, just like the Californian teams plus Phoenix, its obvious.
For the Central conference, its tougher. I've followed the annoucement of the NHL, who did talk about the conference and put the teams in this order : Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, St. Louis, Chicago, Minnesota, Dallas and Winnipeg
So, the first four together, the last four together.
(If its not clear enough, CHI will face MIN, DAL and WPG x6, DET, CBJ, NSH and STL x5).
Obviously, some results are missing. I've just done some extrapolation (is it correct in english ?) with the known results of the season series.
For instance, Detroit was 3-0-1 vs Anaheim. I've changed that to 2-0-0.
Anaheim was 1-3-0, they're now 0-2-0.
More difficult, Anaheim was 2-1-1 vs Vancouver. I've changed that to 2-1-2, simply because of their respective position and the gap in points at the end of the regular season. I know, its not perfect at all, but thats the way it is.
I've just tried to make it as believable as possible.
So, the latest teams alive, are supposedly Vancouver, Chicago, Boston and Washington.
Vancouver facing Chicago and Washington playing against Boston. And the SC final may have been...exactly the same one, in fact.
Well, lets stop with the fun and theoretical, lets look at the facts :
-The gaps are much bigger. With more than 120 intra-conferences games (we're currently at 60), it was obviously going to be that way.
-The season of most of the teams will be done when we're at the trade deadline. Less excitement during the final month. And possibly during the last trimester, actually.
-More action at the deadline day, though. There will be more sellers, and i also think that the rebuilds are going to be done much more often, since a lot of franchises are going to be stucked in the 5th or 6th spot and too far away from a PO spot.
-Not sure its really great from a marketing point of view to have several teams under 60 points in 82 games.
To find a team with a worse record than the Avalanche, you have to move back in 2002 with the Thrashers. Its fine to have bigger markets within the division of small ones, but if they're out of contention in January, whats the point ?
-Phoenix would have missed the PO, LA making it mostly because their average record against the other Western divisions is not that important anymore.
-Dallas is 3rd, and not 4th in the Central, because of their solid record against them in the current format.
-Winnipeg is losing a lot of points, they now have to play with 4 100-points team instead of 2, and without a weaker team to help them.
-The race to avoid the Penguins would have been exciting, and its probably going to be the same way next year.
-With so many rich teams in their conference, Carolina and the Islanders are screwed. The same is probably going to applies for each of the small market teams in the future at one point, to a lesser extent, since the number of rich teams is not going to be as important as in the Atlantic conference.
For us, as long as we're in a 7-team division, its obviously better.
Anyway, we're not stucked with several high-spenders in our conference, thats a positive.
We're also absolutely able to defeat any of the teams in our conference in PO, as it is right now, of course, so that change, for us, is not that bad. For the league, im not that sure at all.
damn.. we play teams in our division 6 times a year, then play them se7en times again in the playoff.. i'll be bored to death seeing us play florida and ottawa 13 times a year EACH
Last edited by la25ecoupe: 12-06-2011 at 07:29 PM.
But when you think about it sometimes the 9th/10th seeds in the West are better than the 8th in the East. It comes back to the same thing.
Yes, but adding another margin of error to an existing one doesn't justify anything. Fact of the matter is we're stuck most likely facing a rotation of 7 teams in first 2 rounds forever. Boring. Add to the fact that we may never get to see crosby or ovechkin in playoffs again unless we make round 3 and they do too. Again, add to my previous post that the best team may not even get in. Only when crosby's team fails to make the playoffs will the NHL freak out and rearrange it. I'll stick to my previous proposal:
First 2 seeds of each division are top 4, the last 4 should be whoever is 4-8 in entire conference.
Boston (2nd)
Florida (3rd)
Toronto (6th)
Buffalo (7th)
------
Ottawa (8th)
Montreal (10th)
So, this early in the year, Ottawa, in the playoffs picture is kicked out for a team they beat in standings...washington. From our perspective, montreal needs to surpass two teams in our division but washington(not in a playoff spot in current format) next competition is below two teams in our division. I realize years not over but I find this somewhat moronic. Say winnipeg and washington continue to play badly and the current northeast keeps their pace, washington or winnipeg would make it despite being lower than people in their conference.
Add to the fact that now there's 14 eastern conference teams, and 16 western conference teams. Unless they anticipate Pheonix moving east to ontario or QC city it's just moronic. We're stuck facing same teams over and over and not having any new playoff rivals.
I'm 100% sure they'll eventually change it because IMO it's just a crappy way to force rivalries by forcing same division playoff matchups. It will get old eventually.
I don't get how the Philly-Pittsburgh division is so favoured compared to the other sections. Even our section has to now go to TBay and Florida....What does the New York section does?
And going back to the Adams division for playoffs is dumb. I mean, we'll have seeing the same freakin teams over and over and over again.
I don't get how the Philly-Pittsburgh division is so favoured compared to the other sections. Even our section has to now go to TBay and Florida....What does the New York section does?
And going back to the Adams division for playoffs is dumb. I mean, we'll have seeing the same freakin teams over and over and over again.
Florida and TB can probably use the constant northeast division appearance tbh. I believe northeast, consisting of 2 of the biggest franchises in toronto and montreal and 3 original 6, another canadian team and buffalo would help attendance in florida. Other than that, I can't see any particular reason unless they consider TB/florida a rival of our division or something
Too many games against between the same Conference opponents, especially with the play off format which can brought us back to 13 games against Boston , for example, in the same season, or even worse, Buffalo or Florida !
Lots of good temas won't make the playoffs, while some weak tema sin a weak Conference are gonna make them.
So we're going to play Philly, Pitts, NYR etc.. only 2 times a season now ? That kinda sucks.
Also playing the same teams in the same division can be a drag. It was a welcome change when the changes were made to the system we have now, because people were tired of seeing the same teams from the Adams Division. You also had underserving teams getting by because all you had to do was beat your division, come out of it and it was sure you were going in the Conference Final.
Doesnt matter if there is 7 teams or 8 teams. The top 4 go to the playoffs in each conference.
The Conference with 7 teams will have 3 that do not make it and the one with 8 teams will have 4 that do not make it.
After all of that, the top 4 go.
In MLB the NL central had 6 teams and the AL west had 4 teams... the winner of a division clinches a playoff spot. It's obviously much easier to make the playoffs in the 4 team division than the 6 team one. Common sense. And that's why as of next year they sent a team form the central (Houston) to the AL west to make it fair.
Same rules applies for Hockey, teams in a 7 team division have a slight advantage over teams in a 8 team division... But the NHL is not that stupid they have a plan to eventually have four 8 team division in the near future IMO
In MLB the NL central had 6 teams and the AL west had 4 teams... the winner of a division clinches a playoff spot. It's obviously much easier to make the playoffs in the 4 team division than the 6 team one. Common sense. And that's why as of next year they sent a team form the central (Houston) to the AL west to make it fair.
Same rules applies for Hockey, teams in a 7 team division have a slight advantage over teams in a 8 team division... But the NHL is not that stupid they have a plan to eventually have four 8 team division in the near future IMO
Bettman said otherwise and you don't reconstruct with the intent of perhaps adding 2 teams 5 years from now. As I said earlier, I feel top 2 in each division should be 1-4 and last 4 can be from any division, whoever is best.
Bettman said otherwise and you don't reconstruct with the intent of perhaps adding 2 teams 5 years from now. As I said earlier, I feel top 2 in each division should be 1-4 and last 4 can be from any division, whoever is best.
How does this make it more fair?
Imagine that the playoffs spots are determined at the end of the season by taking the 16 best teams, no matter what division. Do you really think that this eliminates the fact that some divisions will be weaker than others? It doesn't... If a division has 3 of the bottom 5 teams in the league, then all other 4-5 teams within the division will rack up the points against them while you only play twice against each of those teams. This gives them an edge over you and it's not like there is something you can do about it. Conversely, there IS something you can do about making the playoffs when 4 of 7/8 teams make it per division. Why? Because you fricking play half your games against these teams!
With this schedule, the less teams you insure a playoff spot per division, the less fair it gets (the same way it gets less fair the more you cut the league in divisions). Also with this schedule, the only fair thing to do is to consider each of the divisions separately, because each division has essentially the same exact schedule. And I emphasize that. Why do you think that Dallas didn't make it over the Rangers last year?
What the NHL did is exactly the same as what we have now, but with 4 conferences instead of 2. If you say that the 4 conference system is not fair, well the only solution is to go back to the 2 conference system. Otherwise there is nothing better you can do (considering that the schedule is a non-changeable factor to reduce travel).
Imagine that the playoffs spots are determined at the end of the season by taking the 16 best teams, no matter what division. Do you really think that this eliminates the fact that some divisions will be weaker than others? It doesn't... If a division has 3 of the bottom 5 teams in the league, then all other 4-5 teams within the division will rack up the points against them while you only play twice against each of those teams. This gives them an edge over you and it's not like there is something you can do about it. Conversely, there IS something you can do about making the playoffs when 4 of 7/8 teams make it per division. Why? Because you fricking play half your games against these teams!
With this schedule, the less teams you insure a playoff spot per division, the less fair it gets (the same way it gets less fair the more you cut the league in divisions). Also with this schedule, the only fair thing to do is to consider each of the divisions separately, because each division has essentially the same exact schedule. And I emphasize that. Why do you think that Dallas didn't make it over the Rangers last year?
What the NHL did is exactly the same as what we have now, but with 4 conferences instead of 2. If you say that the 4 conference system is not fair, well the only solution is to go back to the 2 conference system. Otherwise there is nothing better you can do (considering that the schedule is a non-changeable factor to reduce travel).
At same time, while you face half the games within the division the argument can be made that if you're really a good team and play well the other half the games vs non-division opponents you'll be fine. The problem however is that you can be 5th best team in the league and not make it. That doesn't make sense to me. If a team is gaining from a weak division when they face other teams they will likely lose.
At same time, while you face half the games within the division the argument can be made that if you're really a good team and play well the other half the games vs non-division opponents you'll be fine. The problem however is that you can be 5th best team in the league and not make it. That doesn't make sense to me. If a team is gaining from a weak division when they face other teams they will likely lose.
It is highly unlikely that one division has the 5 best teams in the league, but I get your point. However I still see it as a competition between teams who play the exact same games relative to each other. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it unfolds.
I still think that the best scenario would be to play 87 games instead of 82, 3 against each team. Or make the season shorter and play 58 games, 2 against each team. With 24 games less than the current system, you can't really complain about travel. And for playoffs, best 16 make the playoffs, 1vs16, 2vs15, etc.. or whatever.
