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.
Boston to the NE
Philly to the Atlantic
Nashville/Colombus to the SE
Detroit to the Central
Also, I want Montreal to play teams like Boston pr Toronto in our division more than other teams in our conference that we have no history with like Carolina or Florida.
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.
It's not making the travel any easier for the east. But they already enjoy that advantage and appear to be against re-alignment because they don't want to give up that advantage. In particular Philly, NYR, NYI, NJD, Boston all enjoy an amazing advantage in travel cost.
a 14-16 conference split preserves that advantage for the east (plus 1 current west team), and it finally gives the west some type of advantage.
It's not making the travel any easier for the east. But they already enjoy that advantage and appear to be against re-alignment because they don't want to give up that advantage. In particular Philly, NYR, NYI, NJD, Boston all enjoy an amazing advantage in travel cost.
a 14-16 conference split preserves that advantage for the east (plus 1 current west team), and it finally gives the west some type of advantage.
I don't think you understand that it isn't East vs West in terms of strength of schedule. Travel is an issue all Western teams face so there is no advantage anywhere. If they were competing with Eastern teams for a playoff spot then you would have a point.
If there was a 16/14 split though than Western teams would have a clear advantage as they would be competing with less teams for a playoff spot.
If the only thing you care about is the travel cost itself the whatever. Have a new clause in the CBA where all travel expenses are pooled and divided evenly among the 30 teams. Giving one conference an advantage in making the playoffs isn't the answer to resolving travel expenses.
Good post by OP. Not a flawless proposal, but not bad either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper
...Pittsburgh and Philadelphia need to be kept with Rangers, Devils and Islanders. That division shouldn't be touched without additions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead
...I don't like the Atlantic being split up...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonewolfe2015
...The biggest flaw imo is that you just pulled Pittsburgh/Philadelphia away from rivals NY and NJ...
This a big reason is why we will never get a realignment that actually makes logistical sense. To much consideration is put into preserving rivalries.
I can respect wanting to keep rivalries intact, but it most certainly an obstacle when doing realignment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965
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)
There was very little logic used in that proposal.
It's not like normal home games only draw 10,000 people, but when one of those 3 teams come to town it's suddenly a sellout. Tampa averaged >96% attendance for home games last season. 1 more home game per team per season isn't going to make much difference.
I should mention that I didn't hate the proposed division, I just thought it was a little silly how they tried to claim it would help the Florida teams financially.
My take on realignment:
- The biggest issue when considering how to pair teams is weather or not they are in the same time zone. (not actual distance from one another).
- Currently, there are more than half the teams in the Eastern time zone. This creates a problem for a 2 conference league because no matter what, you are going to have teams in the "wrong" division based on their time zone OR you are going to have unbalanced conferences.
- Expanding to two more teams in the west would certainly make realignment a lot easier, but that might not make sense financially.
- Relocation/Contraction is not an option IMO. Realistically speaking, most teams are firmly planted where they are right now. The only team that might be relocated is in the West anyways.
Conclusion: Regardless of how you try to divided the current NHL into two conferences, it will never make complete sense. At this point, getting rid of the two conference system might make the most sense logistically. I have no comment as to how a new alignment would work, how playoff seeding would be determined, or what would happen to the Wales Trophy/Cambell Bowl though.*
*I really don't want to put that much thought into realignment, I just want to watch hockey
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.
Very opposed to naming the divisions after the Big 4. They spent their entire careers dominating the teams in their division; why would Calgary want to play in a division named after a player who is largely responsible for eliminating them almost every year in the playoffs in the 1980s? Why would Montreal want to represent the best player of their most hated rival? If you're going to name the divisions after people, they should be named after builders of the game
i like the idea just hate uneven divisions we just need two more teams. quebec city + GTA/seattle. then again there is contraction, but only phoenix could really be contracted, +2 seems like the better route
Very opposed to naming the divisions after the Big 4. They spent their entire careers dominating the teams in their division; why would Calgary want to play in a division named after a player who is largely responsible for eliminating them almost every year in the playoffs in the 1980s? Why would Montreal want to represent the best player of their most hated rival? If you're going to name the divisions after people, they should be named after builders of the game
non of the big four are hated players and they will far more celebrated than hated, even by there biggest rivals. maybe its to soon for some people but sometime in the future the idea of people dominating the game like the big 4 will be legendary.
I don't think you understand that it isn't East vs West in terms of strength of schedule. Travel is an issue all Western teams face so there is no advantage anywhere. If they were competing with Eastern teams for a playoff spot then you would have a point.
If there was a 16/14 split though than Western teams would have a clear advantage as they would be competing with less teams for a playoff spot.
But the teams in the East and West aren't competing for the same playoff spots, as you said. Plus, if the NHL ever gets going again, and they go with the proposed realignment, unless all 4 conferences were independent of each other, then the East has not only the travel advantage, but they also have only 14 teams.
Here's something somewhat fair, not perfect though.
Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Min, Wpg
NYR, NYI, NJ, Car, TB, Fla, Nas, Dal
Phi, Was, Pit, Clb, Det, Chi, StL
Van, Edm, Cal, SJ, LA, Ana, Col, Phx
You could maybe move a few teams here and there, but at least every conference spans two time zones. A little bit of extra travel in there for everyone.
I don't think you understand that it isn't East vs West in terms of strength of schedule. Travel is an issue all Western teams face so there is no advantage anywhere. If they were competing with Eastern teams for a playoff spot then you would have a point.
If there was a 16/14 split though than Western teams would have a clear advantage as they would be competing with less teams for a playoff spot.
If the only thing you care about is the travel cost itself the whatever. Have a new clause in the CBA where all travel expenses are pooled and divided evenly among the 30 teams. Giving one conference an advantage in making the playoffs isn't the answer to resolving travel expenses.
But it is. In a 14/16 split East spends less on travel during the season, West makes more playoff revenue to offset travel costs.
I really like the OP's version. Actually I'm for anything that gets the Stars playing in their time zone. Having a lot of important division games starting at 9:30 on a Wednesday sucks. I don't think it's fair for the Stars to play in a division that has them traveling 2 time zones (1 for the Coyotes) to play their "rivals." The Stars got screwed when they switched from the Central to the Pacific in 97-98.
But the teams in the East and West aren't competing for the same playoff spots, as you said. Plus, if the NHL ever gets going again, and they go with the proposed realignment, unless all 4 conferences were independent of each other, then the East has not only the travel advantage, but they also have only 14 teams.
Here's something somewhat fair, not perfect though.
Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Min, Wpg
NYR, NYI, NJ, Car, TB, Fla, Nas, Dal
Phi, Was, Pit, Clb, Det, Chi, StL
Van, Edm, Cal, SJ, LA, Ana, Col, Phx
You could maybe move a few teams here and there, but at least every conference spans two time zones. A little bit of extra travel in there for everyone.
I doubt the league would intentionally increase travel to try and balance things out. But hey, if that finally makes the Western fans stop whining then go for it.
I actually like this because Montreal would play in Winnipeg 3 times a year and that is way closer to Saskatoon than any of Montreal's current division rivals.
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.
Because they aren't gonna add on all those teams and make them travel more too.
And speaking in terms of voting it's highly unlikely the board of governors would ever allow that to pass.
I doubt the league would intentionally increase travel to try and balance things out. But hey, if that finally makes the Western fans stop whining then go for it.
I actually like this because Montreal would play in Winnipeg 3 times a year and that is way closer to Saskatoon than any of Montreal's current division rivals.
It's not even "western" fans whining, it's Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, Dallas, and Minnesota fans that have the biggest issues. It's actually eastern and central time zone fans that whine, and rightfully so. They have a bad alignment.
Only because your team is in the East, or you just really don't understand it.
Okay, new idea. The league totals up how much more the Western teams spend on travel on average and the Eastern teams have to spend that much more on players. That way both teams are spending the same amount of money which, as we all know, is more important than rules regarding competitive advantage.
It's not even "western" fans whining, it's Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, Dallas, and Minnesota fans that have the biggest issues. It's actually eastern and central time zone fans that whine, and rightfully so. They have a bad alignment.
I agree the people writing the checks do have a legitimate reason to complain. Its the fans who are so concerned about the owner of their teams finances that puzzle me.
I prefer the 6 division alignment, but I'm not too sure how Van city would like being excluded from the other Canadian teams
Then they wouldn't get to breeze through the regular season beating up on Calgary and Edmonton 12 times a year
The OP seems like a fair proposal...I dont think you can set rivalries that MUST remain, because where would it end? Have every team play every other team home and away at least once, and you get a couple very special games a year.
Okay, new idea. The league totals up how much more the Western teams spend on travel on average and the Eastern teams have to spend that much more on players. That way both teams are spending the same amount of money which, as we all know, is more important than rules regarding competitive advantage.
How about every year, a different big time eastern team gets put in the Central division in place of Detroit? One year Philly, the next the Rangers, then the Bruins, then the Leafs, then the Habs, then Detroit again, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Habs
I agree the people writing the checks do have a legitimate reason to complain. Its the fans who are so concerned about the owner of their teams finances that puzzle me.
I think fans are more concerned about the times that road games start.
About the travel, for fans it's probably more to do with travel possibly playing a part in the performance of a team than the money it takes to get from one place to another.
I don't know where the whole money on travel argument came from. I know these guys fly on luxury airplanes and stuff, but the constant changing of time zones for a team like Dallas is crazy and probably does affect the players (especially on back-to-backs).
As a fan of the Stars, my biggest complaint is the late start times on week nights. I'm totally cool with having an occasional 9:30 PM start. That's fine. I don't think it's right for the NHL to ask me to stay up till midnight multiple times a week to watch my team play it's divisional opponents. This does happen. When the Stars make their trips to play SJ/LA/ANA it's quite common for the games to go past midnight.
