I can't completely disagree with them. Minnesota and Columbus aren't what I would consider to be exciting teams.
Sure they aren't very skill heavy, but hockey at this level should be considered exciting by legit fans. I don't know if I've ever considered a game boring. Just my 2 cents.
Sure they aren't very skill heavy, but hockey at this level should be considered exciting by legit fans. I don't know if I've ever considered a game boring. Just my 2 cents.
Just because hockey is played at a high level doesn't automatically make it exciting. Games at the NHL level can be very technical, and while it's impressive and I can appreciate the work that goes into that, that does not automatically make it an exciting game. I've seen CHL games that while less technical/precise were more fun to watch than some NHL games.
Last edited by Fly Like a C5: 12-06-2011 at 11:10 PM.
Reason: For clarity
Just because hockey is played at a high level doesn't automatically make it exciting. Games at the NHL level can be very technical, and while it's impressive and I can appreciate the work that goes into that, that does not automatically make it an exciting game. I've seen CHL games that while less technical/precise were more fun to watch than some NHL games.
Sure, maybe every once an awhile a boring game will come along, but I can't stand it when people on these boards call other teams "boring", or state that an entire new conference will be "boring". I just love the game, and I am very rarely boredom induced by it. This game is just so fast and competitive now, I just can't see how people get bored with it, that's all.
Sure, maybe every once an awhile a boring game will come along, but I can't stand it when people on these boards call other teams "boring", or state that an entire new conference will be "boring". I just love the game, and I am very rarely boredom induced by it. This game is just so fast and competitive now, I just can't see how people get bored with it, that's all.
"Boring" might not be the best way to describe those teams. Do you disagree that some teams tend to be less exciting/entertaining to watch than other teams? When I flip through the Center Ice channels I'm probably not stopping on Minnesota vs. Columbus.
Interesting article on DS.com (Link) that puts all the stats out there.
The biggest fact that stood out for me...
"The Stars are closer to six other NHL teams than its closest divisional rival (Phoenix), with three of those teams residing in the Central Division. Anaheim and LA are the 17th and 18th teams closest to Dallas, respectfully, while only five NHL teams are further away than San Jose."
That's just unreal. Next season can't get here fast enough!
"Boring" might not be the best way to describe those teams. Do you disagree that some teams tend to be less exciting/entertaining to watch than other teams? When I flip through the Center Ice channels I'm probably not stopping on Minnesota vs. Columbus.
Sure I could agree with that. i just don't like the term boring in this context. There are certainly some matchups that are better suited for excitement than others, but outright calling a team boring in this league is ludicrous IMO.
"Boring" might not be the best way to describe those teams. Do you disagree that some teams tend to be less exciting/entertaining to watch than other teams? When I flip through the Center Ice channels I'm probably not stopping on Minnesota vs. Columbus.
I agree with what you're saying here but let's call a spade a spade. Talented star players make for more entertaining games. I'm sure if Minnesota had Crosby I'd be all over that.
Realignment could be done in the next two or three weeks.
Quote:
If all goes well between the NHLPA and NHL -- the two sides are slated to meet again next week -- the NHL could have a realignment framework for the 30 owners to vote on the week of Feb. 25. Similarly, the NHLPA would run the realignment plan past its executive board (30 player reps) for approval.
Hopefully they learned their lesson from last time and make the odds of qualifying for the playoffs the same no matter what division a team is in.
Division winners get the top 2 seeds, the other 6 go to the teams with the best records. Simple. They need to keep the Western and Eastern conferences obviously for this to work.
Hopefully they learned their lesson from last time and make the odds of qualifying for the playoffs the same no matter what division a team is in.
Division winners get the top 2 seeds, the other 6 go to the teams with the best records. Simple. They need to keep the Western and Eastern conferences obviously for this to work.
Or they could keep the two conference system until they expand to 32, which by all accounts is almost a lock to happen. I really like the four conference system, personally. It's really the only thing that makes sense, too, to get us out of the Pacific.
Whether you call them "conferences" or "divisions" doesn't matter. There need to be 4 basic building blocks that teams are put in.
The problem is that if the 4 blocks are called "conferences", then you don't mix the playoff seeding and you have a fundamentally unfair system since they can't be numerically balanced.
If you call them divisions though, and still keep the overarching framework of conferences then you solve that problem easily.
Creating a bad system with the intent of fixing it later doesn't seem like a good idea. A lot of things can happen, or not happen. Who ever thought the Jets would still be in the Southeast now? They can make changes that better suit a 32 team league if and when that happens. (Such as division-only playoffs)
