HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Four Conference Realignment Proposal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-13-2012, 08:40 PM
  #26
dan1el
Registered User
 
dan1el's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,581
vCash: 500
I hate it. Why do Canadian teams have to travel across the second biggest country in the world 16 times a year to play teams in their own conference?

The Scheduling is great.

Playoffs are okay; I say scrap the divisions and do four 1 vs. 4 match-ups, for the conferences.

Conferences like this would be better.

Western
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Los Angeles
San Jose
Anaheim
Phoenix
Seattle

Central
Winnipeg
Nashville
Columbus
Colorado
Minnesota
Chicago
Dallas
St. Louis

Northeast
Ottawa
Boston
Buffalo
Toronto
Montreal
Detroit
New Jersey
Quebec City

Southeast
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Washington
Carolina
Florida
Tampa Bay

If this is the format, the playoffs this year would have looked like:
Western:
1-Vancouver vs. 4-Los Angeles
2-Phoenix vs. 3-San Jose

Central:
1-St. Louis vs. 4-Dallas
2-Nashville vs. 3-Chicago

Northeast:
1-Boston vs. 4-Ottawa
2-Detroit vs. 3-New Jersey

Southeast:
1-New York vs. 4-Florida
2-Pittsburgh vs. 3-Philly

So Dallas gets boosted and Washington gets axed.

dan1el is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 08:41 PM
  #27
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,113
vCash: 772
St. Louis is west of Chicago. Why are the Hawks in the Western and the Blues in the central?

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 08:58 PM
  #28
startainfection
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 5,907
vCash: 500
how about just east and west and no divisions

30 games against the other conference and 60 inner conference

startainfection is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 09:44 PM
  #29
Kirikanoir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
While Seattle and Vancouver would pine to be with one another in a division, do you think Seattle would be OK with being in an otherwise completely Canadian conference?
The Colorado Avalanche have spent most of their history in Divisions where the majority of the teams were Canadian. Does not seem like they have suffered for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
Do you think that may hurt their marketability?.
Whats easier to market a heated rivalry between 2 teams just over a hundred miles apart that share a lot in common both geographically as well as culturally. Or teams that you share nothing in common with that are well over a thousand miles away.

How successful the franchise is in that market depends on how quickly the team becomes competitive, that is true of any team in any market, which division they are in won`t change that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
Would Seattle rather play host to the likes of Colorado, Chicago, Minnesota, San Jose, LA, Phoenix and Anaheim or the Canadian teams?

I think for an expansion franchise to be stuck in a full-fledged Canadian conference may be painful.
Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton Seattle all in the same Division where the farthermost Division rival is just over 500 miles away and 1 team is in your timezone, and the other 2 are only one timezone difference.

Or play in a Division where your rivals are one to two timezones and over a thousand miles away.

Which situation is in the franchises best interest. Obviously the first one.

Just imagine if both Vancouver, and Seattle are competitive at the same time battling for Division titles and meeting in the playoffs, the rivalry would take off and could become their version of the Battle of Alberta. You simply can not have Seattle and Vancouver both have teams and not be in the same Division.

Best part of this the cities are close enough together that Fans can easily travel between all four cities on road trips.

Kirikanoir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 10:08 PM
  #30
Prussian_Blue
Registered User
 
Prussian_Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landeskog View Post
Seattle also must be named the Totems...
This.




Prussian_Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 10:18 PM
  #31
Prussian_Blue
Registered User
 
Prussian_Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Germany
Posts: 7,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
Why do you assume that Seattle will get a team? Houston is just as likely, or at least that's what I thought.
Seattle is a much better hockey market than Houston, with a much longer and richer hockey tradition. Also, Seattle is not significantly smaller than Houston in terms of metro area population.

Houston has found it's proper hockey level with the AHL Aeros, IMO.

The NHL needs fewer teams in the Sun Belt, not more. Again, my opinion.

Prussian_Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 11:22 PM
  #32
PALE PWNR
Registered User
 
PALE PWNR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,764
vCash: 1050
I personally hate any reformat that has every team play every team twice. What's the point? As a fan what would I like to pay to see Flyers San Jose that has no intensity or Flyers Bruins which is almost if not moreso heated then some divisional games? Boohoo some teams have to travel more then others, Sorry god didn't make North America a perfect circle and mankind didn't put every city right next to each other. This is not an issue in Baseball, Football or Basketball so why is it here. Playing the same teams fuels rivalries, makes for more intense better games, and the bottom line is more people are willing to put up more dough to watch them.

PALE PWNR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 11:46 PM
  #33
Mory Schneideur*
Mory's Better!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Today & The Future
Posts: 5,261
vCash: 500
I like the NHL proposed realignment + 2 expansion teams. Also I want to see "Wild Cards".

NHL Wild Card System: Top 3 teams in each of 4 conferences make it in. Final spot in each conference is open to teams with highest points, but there's a twist: the 4th seeded team within a conference can defend its playoff berth against a team from another conference with higher points in *a 1 game elimination playoff game*. Winner takes all & gets the final seed, loser goes home and is done.

Having the Wild Card Elimination game would bring excitement to start the playoffs, extra revenue & great exposure to the game. Imagine 1 game wild card eliminations on TV! Casual fans would love it!

Great by product of Wild Cards? You can see a team from one conference come up through another & possibly play a team within its very conference in the "Final 4" or the SCF!

You could see this in the SCF: DET/CHI, MON/BOS, NY/PHI, LA/SJS, EDM/VAN, TOR/MON etc.

Mory Schneideur* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2012, 11:51 PM
  #34
Mory Schneideur*
Mory's Better!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Today & The Future
Posts: 5,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan1el View Post
I hate it. Why do Canadian teams have to travel across the second biggest country in the world 16 times a year to play teams in their own conference?

The Scheduling is great.

Playoffs are okay; I say scrap the divisions and do four 1 vs. 4 match-ups, for the conferences.

Conferences like this would be better.

Western
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Los Angeles
San Jose
Anaheim
Phoenix
Seattle

Central
Winnipeg
Nashville
Columbus
Colorado
Minnesota
Chicago
Dallas
St. Louis

Northeast
Ottawa
Boston
Buffalo
Toronto
Montreal
Detroit
New Jersey
Quebec City

Southeast
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Washington
Carolina
Florida
Tampa Bay

If this is the format, the playoffs this year would have looked like:
Western:
1-Vancouver vs. 4-Los Angeles
2-Phoenix vs. 3-San Jose

Central:
1-St. Louis vs. 4-Dallas
2-Nashville vs. 3-Chicago

Northeast:
1-Boston vs. 4-Ottawa
2-Detroit vs. 3-New Jersey

Southeast:
1-New York vs. 4-Florida
2-Pittsburgh vs. 3-Philly

So Dallas gets boosted and Washington gets axed.
I like what you did but... NJ/NYR are 8 miles apart and one of the best rivalries in hockey... Why would you split them up? NYI/NYR/NJ/PHI are too close to each other to be split in any way/

Mory Schneideur* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 12:58 AM
  #35
TTOMO
Registered User
 
TTOMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Port Moody, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PALE PWNR View Post
I personally hate any reformat that has every team play every team twice. What's the point? As a fan what would I like to pay to see Flyers San Jose that has no intensity or Flyers Bruins which is almost if not moreso heated then some divisional games? Boohoo some teams have to travel more then others, Sorry god didn't make North America a perfect circle and mankind didn't put every city right next to each other. This is not an issue in Baseball, Football or Basketball so why is it here. Playing the same teams fuels rivalries, makes for more intense better games, and the bottom line is more people are willing to put up more dough to watch them.
Of course it's not an issue in basketball, because in the NBA every team plays every team twice. Of course it's not an issue in football, because there are only 16 games. Of course it's not an issue in baseball, because if they made those guys travel too much, their roid rage would flare up.

TTOMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 01:50 AM
  #36
PhillyBluesFan
Registered User
 
PhillyBluesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
Seattle has no business being in a division with Chicago and Minnesota. If Seattle gets a team they should be in a division with Vancouver.

PhillyBluesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 02:39 AM
  #37
saffronleaf
Registered User
 
saffronleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country:
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PALE PWNR View Post
I personally hate any reformat that has every team play every team twice. What's the point? As a fan what would I like to pay to see Flyers San Jose that has no intensity or Flyers Bruins which is almost if not moreso heated then some divisional games? Boohoo some teams have to travel more then others, Sorry god didn't make North America a perfect circle and mankind didn't put every city right next to each other. This is not an issue in Baseball, Football or Basketball so why is it here. Playing the same teams fuels rivalries, makes for more intense better games, and the bottom line is more people are willing to put up more dough to watch them.
Because a lot of people, especially those that have season tix and attend games, want to see every star player play in their arena.

Everyone wants to witness Crosby, Ovechkin, Datsyuk, P. Kane, etc. etc. play in their building.

You get that opportunity by everyone playing a home-and-home with everyone.

It really sucks if you never get to even play a certain division for an entire season and one of your favorite players are in that division.

Well, for some people anyway. I enjoy watching games where my team (Leafs) isn't even playing. But most casual fans aren't like that.

saffronleaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 03:44 AM
  #38
mercury
Registered User
 
mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Philly/SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 11,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnyrocket View Post
I like what you did but... NJ/NYR are 8 miles apart and one of the best rivalries in hockey... Why would you split them up? NYI/NYR/NJ/PHI are too close to each other to be split in any way/
Thank you. I keep seeing people put Philadelphia in a division without NYI/NYR/NJ for some reason, and it's insane. Pittsburgh is always in there, but it's really far away compared to the NY metro teams and even Washington. I think a lot of people are geographically challenged around here. Why on Earth would the Bruins be in a divison with the Rangers, Islanders, and Devils, but no Flyers?

mercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 08:31 AM
  #39
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,230
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTOMO View Post
Of course it's not an issue in basketball, because in the NBA every team plays every team twice. Of course it's not an issue in football, because there are only 16 games. Of course it's not an issue in baseball, because if they made those guys travel too much, their roid rage would flare up.
Wanted to post something similar last night but when it came to basketball my mind went blank on me lol. On a serious note about baseball, the one aspect about their scheduling are the series of games. With the current schedule format, I wish we could play all away games for a city or division in one swing. Either 2 games in 2 nights or 2 games in 3 nights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
Because a lot of people, especially those that have season tix and attend games, want to see every star player play in their arena.

Everyone wants to witness Crosby, Ovechkin, Datsyuk, P. Kane, etc. etc. play in their building.

You get that opportunity by everyone playing a home-and-home with everyone.

It really sucks if you never get to even play a certain division for an entire season and one of your favorite players are in that division.

Well, for some people anyway. I enjoy watching games where my team (Leafs) isn't even playing. But most casual fans aren't like that.
Exactly! Again, another point my tired mind couldn't put into coherant sentences last night. If the league wants to put so much focus into hyping players like Crosby and Ovechkin, then they should be playing every building at least once.

garry1221 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 09:18 AM
  #40
Skip Bayless
Kristers God-levskis
 
Skip Bayless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,563
vCash: 629
Honestly, I completely agree with this if Winnipeg and Seattle change places. It's the best possible scenario travel-wise.

Skip Bayless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 11:01 AM
  #41
Yaremchuk
Registered User
 
Yaremchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 156
vCash: 500
Going off the 32 team, 8 division concept, I think the best I can do with divisions is this:

Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec

Buffalo
New York R
New York I
New Jersey

Carolina
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

Dallas
Florida
Nashville
Tampa Bay

Colorado
Minnesota
St. Louis
Winnipeg

Chicago
Columbus
Detroit
Toronto

Calgary
Edmonton
Seattle
Vancouver

Anaheim
Los Angeles
Phoenix
San Jose

Yaremchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 11:13 AM
  #42
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
My realignment proposal for 32 teams league: add two teams: Seattle and Kansas City. The reason I pick KC is purely regional strategies rather than economic state of the game if I use Quebec City. It will give opportunities to gain rivalry and give Dallas and Colorado a break in term of travel-wise with K.C. nearby.

Smythe Conference Norris ConferencePatrick Conference Adams Conference
Northwest Division Central DivisionNew York DivisionNortheast Division
VancouverWinnipegBuffaloToronto
SeattleMinnesotaNY RangersOttawa
CalgaryChicagoNY IslandersMontreal
EdmontonDetroitNew JerseyBoston
Pacific DivisionMidwest DivisionSoutheast DivisionAppalachian Division
San JoseDallasNashvilleColumbus
L.A.Kansas CityCarolinaPittsburgh
AnaheimSt. LouisTampa BayPhiladelphia
PhoenixColoradoFloridaWashington

Notice I created all New York divisions, it is a easy naming division because it is fitting since Buffalo is in the state of NY. Also I put NJ in the NY division because NJ is a part of the NYC area. So I thought of new graphically division name to Appalachian because two teams, Pittsburgh and Columbus is on west side of Appalachian Mountain and Philadelphia, and Washington is on east side of Appalachian Mountain. You will notice that I did not put NY division and Appalachian division together as one conference is because I don't want NY teams to be too close in term of travel and I wanted them to spread the travel more and to create a parity in travel-wise. It also retain the key rivalries, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and Washington as a part of former Patrick Division in 1980's, early 90's. While NY teams get to keep their NYC area rivalry with Buffalo joining them.

Divisonal games: 6 games, 3 teams = 18 games
Conference games: 4 games, 4 teams = 16 games
Games against rest of the league: 2 games, 24 teams = 48 games
Total Games played: 82 games

Playoffs format: Divisional winner is automatically seeded #1 and #2. The next 2 best conference records make the playoffs.

I will use most recent season record as an example for playoff format:
Round 1
Smythe Conference: #1 Vancouver vs #4 LA,#2 Phoenix vs # San Jose
Norris Conference: #1 St. Louis vs #4 Dallas, #2 Detroit vs #3Chicago
Patrick Conference: #1 NY Rangers vs #4Buffalo, #2 Nashville vs #3New Jersey
Adams Conference: #1 Boston vs #4 Washington, #2 Pittsburgh vs #3 Philadephia

Round 2
Smythe Conference: Phoenix vs LA
Norris Conference: St. Louis vs Detroit
Patrick Conference: NY Rangers vs Nashville
Adams Conference: Philadelphia vs Washington

Reseeded Conference winners to 1v4, 2v3
Conference Finals: #1 NY Rangers vs #4 LA, #2 St. Louis vs #3 Philadelphia

Stanley Cup Finals: NY Rangers vs St. Louis


Last edited by coolboarder: 05-14-2012 at 11:29 AM.
coolboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 01:34 PM
  #43
Avder
Global Moderator
Sleep? What's that?
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The ANGRY DOME
Country: United States
Posts: 31,273
vCash: 50
Allright so, I'm gonna throw my hat into this ring and try my hand at a 4 conference, 32 team, no relocation alignment assuming Seattle and Quebec City expansion teams.

I'm going with something a little different here. I'm trying to make 3 of the 4 conferences national audience relevant by splitting the central time zone north and south and making two of the three conferences a combination of eastern and central teams. I'm also trying to even travel out a bit more league wide which results in conferences with long distances between the two most extreme teams geographically.

I'm also going to have to put Colorado into one of those two Eastern/Central time zone conferences because there are now 9 mountain and pacific time zone teams. I'm doing so with the assumption that Colorado would make starting time concessions when they host an opponent based in the Eastern Time Zone in order to accommodate that team's TV schedule concerns.

So with that in mind, here are my Conferences:
Atlantic:
Quebec City
Montreal
Boston
NYI
NYR
New Jersey
Florida
Tampa Bay

North:
Colorado
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Chicago
Detroit
Toronto
Buffalo
Ottawa

South:
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Washington
Columbus
St. Louis
Carolina
Nashville
Dallas

Pacific:
Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
Seattle
San Jose
Phoenix
Los Angeles
Anaheim

And here is a handy little map:

Avder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 01:47 PM
  #44
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaremchuk View Post
Going off the 32 team, 8 division concept, I think the best I can do with divisions is this:

Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec

Buffalo
New York R
New York I
New Jersey

Carolina
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

Dallas
Florida
Nashville
Tampa Bay

Colorado
Minnesota
St. Louis
Winnipeg

Chicago
Columbus
Detroit
Toronto

Calgary
Edmonton
Seattle
Vancouver

Anaheim
Los Angeles
Phoenix
San Jose
Assuming Seattle and Quebec City, those Divisions look fairly good. But one could question Divisions that only have 1 Canadian team or only 1 US team. One could also question why Ontario is the only province/state that has its teams separated.

Now, someone else could come along, like coolboarder for instance, and solve at least one of those issues, just mentioned above, by assuming expansion in another location and thus Toronto and Ottawa at least stay together. Not suggesting that coolboarder slotted Kansas City into the picture for that reason, but slotting in specific cities just to make a "perfect" alignment likely won't be the reality.


So, if we just go with Seattle and Quebec City, for example, as possible locations, could Yaremchuk's alignment be made better? The same goes for whatever cities one truly believes could be expansion locations. I certainly would try not to have Toronto and Ottawa be the only two provincial/state teams that are separated.

As to the other issue of a solo Canadian or US city in an otherwise all-opposing nation Division... I don't think border cities such as Buffalo and Detroit would be a big issue in an otherwise all Canadian Division (of course there would still be the border crossing issue, but...). Seattle also, because if it being significantly closer to Vancouver than any US-based NHL city, probably also wouldn't be a real issue. But for other cities though, this factor should seriously be taken into account.


Haven't proposed an alternative alignment here, just mentioned some issues that I think should be considered.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 01:53 PM
  #45
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,222
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avder View Post
And here is a handy little map:
Personally I'd rather throw Philly/Washington or maybe 2 of Ottawa/Toronto/Buffalo in the Atlantic and put the 2 Florida teams in the South where they should be

__________________
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 02:12 PM
  #46
Avder
Global Moderator
Sleep? What's that?
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The ANGRY DOME
Country: United States
Posts: 31,273
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
Personally I'd rather throw Philly/Washington or maybe 2 of Ottawa/Toronto/Buffalo in the Atlantic and put the 2 Florida teams in the South where they should be
Well two of my objectives were to make it so that three of the four conferences were national draws, and to even out the travel.

Putting 2 of Philly/Pit/Wsh back into the Atlantic leaves the Southern conference as a dead conference as far as NBC is concerned. This way that conference is relevant and all teams will thusly grow in relevance as time goes on and new rivalries are formed.

And putting Fla/TB into the southern conference gives the Atlantic a HUGE travel advantage over the other three conferences. They have one now in that 6 of them are all clustered together in the Northeast like that. Fla/TB stretches them out a little bit and it also gives Fla/TB better draws for their conference home games. This arrangement is similar to one of the official realignment conferences so I do not see the big issue with it.

Avder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 02:42 PM
  #47
nanuuq
HFBoards Sponsor
 
nanuuq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Estonia
Posts: 4,283
vCash: 500
My Kick at the Cat:

1. New teams in Markham and Quebec City

So with that in mind, here are my Conferences:

Atlantic:
Quebec City
Montreal
Boston
NYI
NYR
New Jersey
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia

North:
Markham
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Chicago
Detroit
Toronto
Buffalo
Ottawa

South:
Washington
Columbus
St. Louis
Carolina
Nashville
Dallas
Florida
Tampa Bay

Pacific:
Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
Colorado
San Jose
Phoenix
Los Angeles
Anaheim

__________________
Hrundi Bakshi (Peter Sellers) in the movie The PartyWisdom is the province of the aged, BUT the heart of a child is pure!!
nanuuq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 02:50 PM
  #48
Mory Schneideur*
Mory's Better!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Today & The Future
Posts: 5,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury View Post
Thank you. I keep seeing people put Philadelphia in a division without NYI/NYR/NJ for some reason, and it's insane. Pittsburgh is always in there, but it's really far away compared to the NY metro teams and even Washington. I think a lot of people are geographically challenged around here. Why on Earth would the Bruins be in a divison with the Rangers, Islanders, and Devils, but no Flyers?
My thoughts exactly. The NHL's proposed 4 conferences are perfect. Just add 2 expansion teams

Mory Schneideur* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 03:07 PM
  #49
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury View Post
Thank you. I keep seeing people put Philadelphia in a division without NYI/NYR/NJ for some reason, and it's insane. Pittsburgh is always in there, but it's really far away compared to the NY metro teams and even Washington. I think a lot of people are geographically challenged around here. Why on Earth would the Bruins be in a divison with the Rangers, Islanders, and Devils, but no Flyers?
What do you expect, if we expand up to 32 teams, we naturally will expect 4 teams division throughout the league and who do we expect to split up Atlantic division teams? Who do we drop, Pittsburgh or Philadelphia so that they stay with NYI, NYR and NJ as their division opponents?

Atlantic division travel is a biggest pet peeve in term of travel because its mileage throughout the year is always that low, top 5 every year for this division so I split them up but gets to keep their key rivalry, NYI, NYR and NJ is so close that it is ridiculously and I split them up to force them to travel a little bit more to Florida to get their mileage up to the average throughout the league and Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Washington joining the Northeast to travel a bit farther north with Northeast teams. So I figure why not split up the 5-team division to 4-team division and Pittsburgh/Philadephia will stay intact while 3 NYC area teams keeps theirs. It is a win-win situation.

coolboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2012, 03:14 PM
  #50
Mory Schneideur*
Mory's Better!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Today & The Future
Posts: 5,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolboarder View Post
What do you expect, if we expand up to 32 teams, we naturally will expect 4 teams division throughout the league and who do we expect to split up Atlantic division teams? Who do we drop, Pittsburgh or Philadelphia so that they stay with NYI, NYR and NJ as their division opponents?

Atlantic division travel is a biggest pet peeve in term of travel because its mileage throughout the year is always that low, top 5 every year for this division so I split them up but gets to keep their key rivalry, NYI, NYR and NJ is so close that it is ridiculously and I split them up to force them to travel a little bit more to Florida to get their mileage up to the average throughout the league and Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Washington joining the Northeast to travel a bit farther north with Northeast teams. So I figure why not split up the 5-team division to 4-team division and Pittsburgh/Philadephia will stay intact while 3 NYC area teams keeps theirs. It is a win-win situation.
I see what you're saying... But why increase the travel of a group of teams that are within 100 miles of each other when the goal is to reduce travel. Not all teams will get the benefit, but that's life. We can't move mountains and cities.

Also, how would making Philly travel to St. Louis or Florida be fair? I understand they might have an advantage to have 4 teams within an hours drive, but there isn't much that can be done about those teams.

I don't think smaller divisions are the solution, I think larger groups/conferences are. I think the NHL got it right with their proposal.

Mory Schneideur* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.