The biggest flaw imo is that you just pulled Pittsburgh/Philadelphia away from rivals NY and NJ. It might make more sense to swap Detroit and Columbus into the Northeast and keep Pitt/Philly in the Atlantic.
Perhaps putting the Rangers, Islanders, and Devils in the Atlantic...
And the Red Wings, Blue Jackets, and...Capitals? in the Northeast?
Perhaps putting the Rangers, Islanders, and Devils in the Atlantic...
And the Red Wings, Blue Jackets, and...Capitals? in the Northeast?
Unless we expand to 32 franchises, using the models you provided I'm not sure geographically it would make sense to switch the Caps/Isles. I think given the uncertainty of the Isles franchise as a whole on where they will call home in the future and their relative neutral-stance in the Atlantic division would almost force them to be the odd man out.
Now if we expanded to 32 franchises, then we could have some fun with realignment and divisions.
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia need to be kept with Rangers, Devils and Islanders. That division shouldn't be touched without additions.
As always, the beginning of the end of any reasonable re-alignment is the introduction of restrictions with respect to what can't or shouldn't be done. In the end, it always brings the whole process back to square one.
From my experience, about 95% of the people who propose to bring back the old division names don't know the first names of all four people the divisions were named after
I've dined with the Prince of Wales and with killer whales, but only the latter knew to chew without humming.
You either know your history, or you've seen my posts griping about this in the past
Charles Adams is the one a lot of people don't know - they think it was named after Jack Adams.
learned that when they were named that way, not to sure about adams though.. from what I can remember thats what my friend told me. and I'm not 13 either
People seriously need to stop suggesting Detroit to the East. As much as it makes geographical sense, it makes little financial sense, which is why they wont move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg
From my experience, about 95% of the people who propose to bring back the old division names don't know the first names of all four people the divisions were named after
Eliminate all that top four from each division crap and just make it two conferences with 15/16 teams, with the top eight going to the playoffs.
Division teams play each other FIVE times per year, Conference teams play each other TWICE per year, Non-Conference play each other ONCE per year. Leaving about a handful of games for rivals. (So Detroit gets an extra game against Toronto, Chicago against Vancouver, Boston against Vancouver, etc.)
Last edited by Wingsfan2965: 11-27-2012 at 01:32 PM.
People seriously need to stop suggesting Detroit to the East. As much as it makes geographical sense, it makes little financial sense, which is why they wont move.
That logic is fine; but seriously, if you're going to use that logic then why shouldn't it extend further than just Detroit. That whole northeastern heart of the NHL should rightfully be split, putting about half in both Conferences, partly for the very economic reasons you're referring to.
That logic is fine; but seriously, if you're going to use that logic then why shouldn't it extend further than just Detroit. That whole northeastern heart of the NHL should rightfully be split, putting about half in both Conferences, partly for the very economic reasons you're referring to.
Moving more East teams West wouldn't make sense, but moving a team on the middle of the map East when they're one of two American teams that really holds the conference together financially would be foolish.
And I think they did use some of that logic considering they (The NHL in their proposal) had Florida and Tampa in a conference with the financial powerhouses. (TML/BOS/MON)
Moving more East teams West wouldn't make sense, but moving a team on the middle of the map East when they're one of two American teams that really holds the conference together financially would be foolish.
And I think they did use some of that logic considering they (The NHL in their proposal) had Florida and Tampa in a conference with the financial powerhouses. (TML/BOS/MON)
Not trying to be argumentative, but I still don't follow your logic that having one ETZ team in the West makes sense but having, let's say, a Division of ETZ teams in a 'so-called' West wouldn't make sense.
Detroit, Columbus, Toronto, Buffalo, (plus one of Ottawa, Pittsburgh, or potentially another southern Ontario team).
Seems like a Division that could strengthen the "West" financially.
I think given the uncertainty of the Isles franchise as a whole on where they will call home in the future and their relative neutral-stance in the Atlantic division would almost force them to be the odd man out.
Yeah, you don't need big time realignment. All I think you have to do is move Winnipeg to the West in favour of Nashville or Columbus. Also see what happens with Phoenix and were they end up.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
Yeah, you don't need big time realignment. All I think you have to do is move Winnipeg to the West in favour of Nashville or Columbus. Also see what happens with Phoenix and were they end up.
Couldn't disagree more the current scheduling is horrible.
84 game schedule
24 games vs divison teams (6 per team)
40 games vs other conference teams (4 per team)
30 games vs teams in the other conference (2 per team, 1 home 1 away)
This is something I'd like to see. What are 2 more games gonna do?
That's 94 games, not 84... No chance that happens.
Moving venues, not one of the big four, geographically in the North for the OP's divisions. Would make less sense to put Washington in the Northeast than the NYI after pushing CBJ/DET there in favor of maintaining some of the current rivalries and location factors.
As I mentioned before, I'm more in favor of 32 teams though and figure one of them would be in that Quebec/Hamilton area, which would help push the Isles back down into the OP's Atlantic division.
Yeah, you don't need big time realignment. All I think you have to do is move Winnipeg to the West in favour of Nashville or Columbus. Also see what happens with Phoenix and were they end up.
This is the problem. In the East, everything is fine. Travel is great. Rivalries out the wazoo. The SE division is even nicely hidden, away from the center of the hockey universe in the northeast corridor. The big teams pay for that when the Panthers get the 3rd seed, but, tough, can't have everything.
In the West however, the conference spans all 4 time zones. The West has 2 divisions that span 3 time zones. At least a third of the conference, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, Minnesota, and Dallas, want significant changes. Plus if you throw in Chicago, StLouis, and maybe even a Winnipeg, all of whom probably don't have a great desire to play so many games on the west coast either, you're talking half the conference wanting something different.
Personally, I don't see why the East and West have to be aligned exactly the same, since they're not playing for the same playoff spots. Throw Columbus into the spot vacated by Winnipeg in the SE, and go with the proposed realignment in the West, minus the Jackets. Everything in the East stays the same.
NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Pit
Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf
Was, Car, TB, Fla, Clb
Det, Chi, Nas, StL, Wpg, Min, Dal
Van, Edm, Cal, SJ, LA, Ana, Col, Phx
The East is still conference based playoffs, 1-8. In the West, it's divisional. Top 4 in each conference play each other, and then the winners meet up in the conference final. I know the problems with it, but, just beat the teams that you're in the playoff race with, and stop crying.
Two different conferences, two different sets of problems. In the East, it's about rivalries. In the West, it's about travel and time zones.
I actually like the 14 in the west vs 16 in the east, and as a fan of a western conference team you should too...
East: Easier Travel Schedule - they spend less on travel expenses and less travel fatigue for the players.
West: Easier Road to Playoffs - higher percentage likelihood of being in the top 8 out of 14, more gate revenue from increased playoff appearances.
makes a TON of sense!
How does adding an extra team make for an easier schedule? Instead of playing that team once + 3 extra random western teams we play that team four times. Because one of those games would stay the same and two are home games that means that we would have either 1 or maybe 2 games that are a little closer to home. Considering the advantage you are giving to the West I don't think a single eastern team would be for that.
I've posted this before but this would be my re-alignment. It would be fair and the best geographically.
4 Division:
Pacific Division - Vancouver, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Phoenix (or Seattle), and San Jose
Mid-North Division - Colorado, Minnesota, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton
Central - Dallas, Chicago, Nashville, St. Louis, and Columbus.
Northeast - Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, Buffalo and Ottawa
Southeast - Philadelphia, Washington, Carolina, Florida, and Tampa Bay
Atlantic - Boston, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, New York I, and New York R
You would face everyone in your division/conference four times (two home/two away) and everyone in the opposing conference twice (one home/one away). Which of course means the season would last 86 games instead of 82, but if they had less pre-season games and started earlier then it would work out.
The Playoff format would basically remain the same. I know it may not be popular because Chicago/Detroit, Pittsburgh/Philadelphia aren't in the same division but if your playing everyone in your conference the same number of times, who cares? Rivalries are intensified in the Playoff's more anyways. It's also good because now every team will see Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago and the more profitable teams at least once a year.
Unless we expand to 32 franchises, using the models you provided I'm not sure geographically it would make sense to switch the Caps/Isles. I think given the uncertainty of the Isles franchise as a whole on where they will call home in the future and their relative neutral-stance in the Atlantic division would almost force them to be the odd man out.
Now if we expanded to 32 franchises, then we could have some fun with realignment and divisions.
The Islanders have a home for at least the next 25 years..
I guess you didn't hear the news.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
