HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Realignment: Did the CBA address this?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2013, 09:44 PM
  #51
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
i dont get why everyone is crying imbalance; every year from 1980-1995 other than 1993 as well as 1998-2000 had an imbalance on divisions and conferences.
Balanced Divisions wasn't an option in those Seasons.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 10:18 PM
  #52
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,630
vCash: 500
I'm all for any realignment really. I loved the NHL's proposal last year. I hope they follow through with that plan. Divisional playoffs would be amazing!

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 10:38 PM
  #53
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I'm all for any realignment really. I loved the NHL's proposal last year. I hope they follow through with that plan. Divisional playoffs would be amazing!
Same opinion here.

Renbarg is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 11:56 PM
  #54
Bucky_Hoyt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
Country: Canada
Posts: 325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
That's the alignment that makes much more sense than the proposal last year.
San Jose?

Bucky_Hoyt is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 12:08 AM
  #55
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
So, what I see is that those teams either stayed in the original team's Division until Expansion, or they were immediately put in a more appropriate Division. Neither of which is the option planned for Winnipeg. No, in Winnipeg's case, the League has proposed new Divisions, without expansion. So, Winnipeg wasn't immediately put in a more appropriate, and isn't going to be resituated due to an expansion.
I'm just suggesting that the League acts when the League needs to act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
What does any of that have to do with making the simple swap?
Why does it have to be a simple swap? When the Nordiques were moved to Colorado, Colorado didn't swap with another team. Of course that was allowable as the divisions were slightly imbalanced.

It seems the basis for moving the Winnipeg Jets is to do so within the existing two conference, six division with five teams per division setup which many teams have an issue with...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
And again, the League doesn't have to be made up of children or pranksters. A simple and formal agreement could be made that other alignment issues will be tended to with expansion (if they can't agree on a different alignment arrangement for those teams now within the 6-Division format).
See? Keep this divisonal alignment with a swap of Winnipeg and a party to be named later, without allowing discourse amongst the many other problems.

Gary Bettman's stated goal was to move Winnipeg to the west, and it couldn't be done because the NHL, after going through about thirteen different proposals, finally worked something out, only to have the NHLPA kibosh it.

The NHL has hitched its wagon to a four-conference format. If it needs to be put in front of the Board of Governors again, it was already approved once before at 26-4, as this was the compromise for attempting to put the Winnipeg with like teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It's almost like you're suggesting that forcing the 4-Division alignment will then result in expansion. Isn't that like putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't it be expansion which forces the 4-Division alignment?

Oh, and apparently to have that expansion in the Northeast and Atlantic Divisions.
No, because expansion immediately requires another discussion about realignment. The expansion teams must be assigned a division/conference. The last expansion should have proven that, as all expansion teams were slotted within their new divisions, in some cases three years before they were supposed to start playing.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 02:56 AM
  #56
Mike Louis
Registered User
 
Mike Louis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky_Hoyt View Post
San Jose?
When I posted my preferred alignment earlier, I mistaken Seattle for San Jose. I just corrected it a minute ago.

Mike Louis is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 05:33 AM
  #57
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,847
vCash: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by rj View Post
I just feel sorry for Winnipeg this season.
Poor Jets; having to play so often in Miami and Tampa during the winter Actually, that is much better for them than being in "the west" and playing 2 timezones out versus westcoast teams, as opposed to 1 timezone out against Miami and Tampa. The NHL's December alignment at least makes sense time-zone wise, with more games against teams in their own timezone. The best solution time-zone wise is the 4-division "December alignment". Here's a look at teams by time-zone...

PACIFICMOUNTAINCENTRALEASTERN
AnaheimCalgaryChicagoBoston
Los AngelesColoradoDallasBuffalo
San JoseEdmontonMinnesotaCarolina
VancouverPhoenixNashvilleColumbus
  St LouisDetroit
  WinnipegFlorida
   Montreal
   New Jersey
   NY Islanders
   NY Rangers
   Ottawa
   Philadelphia
   Pittsburgh
   Tampa
   Toronto
   Washington

In order to maximize TV regional revenues, teams want to play no more than 1 time-zone out. Looking at the table, you see that there are
  • 8 teams in Pacific+Mountain timezones combined
  • 6 teams in Central
  • 16 teams in Eastern
The 4-division setup allows 7 or 8 teams per division. The Western division is "Phoenix-proof".
  • 8 teams if Phoenix stays
  • 8 teams if Phoenix relocates to Seattle or Portland
  • 7 teams if Phoenix relocates eastward

Central is also Phoenix-proof
8 teams (6 CT teams plus Columbus and Detroit)
Kick Detroit or Columbus east in the unlikely event of Phoenix relocating to any of Houston, KC, or Saskatoon (I did say unlikely )

That leaves 2 eastern divisions, with room for Phoenix to relocate to Quebec.

knorthern knight is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 06:24 AM
  #58
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,111
vCash: 500
The thing with the 4-division alignment thing... it works, as long as the league is prepared to keep one eastern time zone team in the western conference.

Don't mess with the playoffs, keep it east vs. west. Yes, the schedule ends up being slightly unbalanced and not as straightforward as the current alignment, but that's really immaterial as long as it doesn't affect playoff chances. Give the winner of each division one of the top 2 seeds in each conference.

seanlinden is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 08:42 AM
  #59
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
Poor Jets; having to play so often in Miami and Tampa during the winter Actually, that is much better for them than being in "the west" and playing 2 timezones out versus westcoast teams, as opposed to 1 timezone out against Miami and Tampa. The NHL's December alignment at least makes sense time-zone wise, with more games against teams in their own timezone. The best solution time-zone wise is the 4-division "December alignment". Here's a look at teams by time-zone...
It was the time-zone and TV factor that was the push for the "December alignment".

People forget how bad it was for the Winnipeg Jets during their days in the Smythe Division. The League paid them a couple million dollars a year for in travel money for being in a division with two Mountain Time Zone teams and two Pacific Time Zone teams.

Back then, the Jets played 40 home games, eight two timezones away at the Kings and Canucks, eight one timezone behind at the Flames and the Oilers, and 24 games in the Central and Eastern Time Zones. By being placed in the current Western Conference, the Jets would be back to almost that exact scenario, and more if they were placed in the Northwest Division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
The thing with the 4-division alignment thing... it works, as long as the league is prepared to keep one eastern time zone team in the western conference.

Don't mess with the playoffs, keep it east vs. west. Yes, the schedule ends up being slightly unbalanced and not as straightforward as the current alignment, but that's really immaterial as long as it doesn't affect playoff chances. Give the winner of each division one of the top 2 seeds in each conference.
And that would be an exact reason why the NHLPA put a kibosh on the realignment. The entire realignment was complete, but the NHL never did put the playoff structure to paper with a final vote; the playoff structure was incomplete.

The proposed playoff structure was a four-conference alignment, with the top four teams in each conference to qualify for the playoffs and battle it out against each other in the playoffs. The playoff champions from each of the four conferences would then somehow faceoff against each other to determine the Stanley Cup champion. This is problematic, as:

1) two conferences would have four teams that didn't make the playoffs, while another two conferences would have three teams, creating an artificial imbalance to qualify for the playoffs simply because of the number of teams in a conference.
2) the third round of the playoffs weren't set in stone.

Personally, I think the League is making a huge mistake by only allowing the top four from each conference to qualify for the playoffs. The last two weeks of the season currently showcases the jockeying for position to qualify as the eighth seed in the conference, and that will go away with a strict four team per conference qualification.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 09:10 AM
  #60
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
It was the time-zone and TV factor that was the push for the "December alignment".

People forget how bad it was for the Winnipeg Jets during their days in the Smythe Division. The League paid them a couple million dollars a year for in travel money for being in a division with two Mountain Time Zone teams and two Pacific Time Zone teams.

Back then, the Jets played 40 home games, eight two timezones away at the Kings and Canucks, eight one timezone behind at the Flames and the Oilers, and 24 games in the Central and Eastern Time Zones. By being placed in the current Western Conference, the Jets would be back to almost that exact scenario, and more if they were placed in the Northwest Division.And that would be an exact reason why the NHLPA put a kibosh on the realignment. The entire realignment was complete, but the NHL never did put the playoff structure to paper with a final vote; the playoff structure was incomplete.

The proposed playoff structure was a four-conference alignment, with the top four teams in each conference to qualify for the playoffs and battle it out against each other in the playoffs. The playoff champions from each of the four conferences would then somehow faceoff against each other to determine the Stanley Cup champion. This is problematic, as:

1) two conferences would have four teams that didn't make the playoffs, while another two conferences would have three teams, creating an artificial imbalance to qualify for the playoffs simply because of the number of teams in a conference.
2) the third round of the playoffs weren't set in stone.

Personally, I think the League is making a huge mistake by only allowing the top four from each conference to qualify for the playoffs. The last two weeks of the season currently showcases the jockeying for position to qualify as the eighth seed in the conference, and that will go away with a strict four team per conference qualification.
That's why the whole realignment was about Detroit(and Columbus). Detroit doesn't want to go to the west coast more than other eastern teams, which makes complete sense. None of the other CTZ teams are eager to go to the west coast either, as you pointed out with what Winnipeg had to do back in the day. Dallas hates it. Minnesota isn't a fan of it.

Get the 8 teams in the PTZ and MTZ, and put them together in a conference. 4 of the 8 make the playoffs, and they play each other until the 3rd round. The other 22 teams in the league make up the other conference. Keep it at 22, or divide it up into two 11 team divisions, or 5/5/6/6, or whatever you want to do. 12 of the 22 teams make the playoffs. Seed it 1-12, 1 plays 12, 2 plays 11, etc.

Nobody wants to be affiliated with the west coast, and everyone wants into the cool eastern club, with all the history, tradition, and travel. Both conferences span two time zones, and any one team in the eastern half actually has a better chance to make the playoffs.

KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
01-23-2013, 04:21 PM
  #61
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
It was the time-zone and TV factor that was the push for the "December alignment".

People forget how bad it was for the Winnipeg Jets during their days in the Smythe Division. The League paid them a couple million dollars a year for in travel money for being in a division with two Mountain Time Zone teams and two Pacific Time Zone teams.

Back then, the Jets played 40 home games, eight two timezones away at the Kings and Canucks, eight one timezone behind at the Flames and the Oilers, and 24 games in the Central and Eastern Time Zones. By being placed in the current Western Conference, the Jets would be back to almost that exact scenario, and more if they were placed in the Northwest Division.And that would be an exact reason why the NHLPA put a kibosh on the realignment. The entire realignment was complete, but the NHL never did put the playoff structure to paper with a final vote; the playoff structure was incomplete.

The proposed playoff structure was a four-conference alignment, with the top four teams in each conference to qualify for the playoffs and battle it out against each other in the playoffs. The playoff champions from each of the four conferences would then somehow faceoff against each other to determine the Stanley Cup champion. This is problematic, as:

1) two conferences would have four teams that didn't make the playoffs, while another two conferences would have three teams, creating an artificial imbalance to qualify for the playoffs simply because of the number of teams in a conference.
2) the third round of the playoffs weren't set in stone.

Personally, I think the League is making a huge mistake by only allowing the top four from each conference to qualify for the playoffs. The last two weeks of the season currently showcases the jockeying for position to qualify as the eighth seed in the conference, and that will go away with a strict four team per conference qualification.
THE Whole realignment discussion threads actually revolves around 2 things or more:

When the NHL went to the 2 conference, 3 division, format it created the imbalance:

why was Vancouver so arrogant in wanting to be in the Northwest, Rather than the Pacific, which, geographically makes sense, but bc of their arrogance, it pushed Dallas into that position, once the Stars arrived in Dallas, by TZ, why are the Stars in a division w/ a SW Team (Glendale), AND THE 3 CA teams, (ANA/SJ/LA)?

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 07:58 PM
  #62
Mike Louis
Registered User
 
Mike Louis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
The thing with the 4-division alignment thing... it works, as long as the league is prepared to keep one eastern time zone team in the western conference.

Don't mess with the playoffs, keep it east vs. west. Yes, the schedule ends up being slightly unbalanced and not as straightforward as the current alignment, but that's really immaterial as long as it doesn't affect playoff chances. Give the winner of each division one of the top 2 seeds in each conference.
It's the four conference alignment the league is going to, not business as usual with the six divisions.

As I posted before, the reasons for the four conference alignment is as follows:

Jamison has I believe until the end the month to close the deal with Glendale for the Coyotes. If the deal falls through, the team is headed for QC and becomes the Nordiques.

If the league does decide to stay with six divisions, moving the Coyotes to QC may not have the votes, due to possible opposition by Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, Minnesota, Vancouver, Columbus, Nashville, and possibly St. Loius in the West. Meanwhile Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Washington in the East will most likely vote no. These no votes are from the resulting alignment in the six division format and remember the BOG requires a two-thirds majority to get anything passed.

In the four conference format, the proposed Smythe (Pacific) Conference isn't linked to the proposed Norris (Central) Conference. That alone will appease Detroit, Columbus, and the CTZ teams. QC can easily be added to the proposed Adams (Northeast) Conference without alienating and or paying off a ton of teams.

Concerning the playoffs, the first and second rounds would as stated be within conference. As for the third round, I think it should 1v4 2v3 seeding with the pairing involving the Smythe (Pacific) champion playing for the Campbell trophy while the pairing involving the Adams (Northeast) champion play for the Wales trophy. The Stanley Cup finals will be Campbell trophy winner vs. Wales trophy winner.

Mike Louis is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 11:09 PM
  #63
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Louis View Post
• In the four conference format, the proposed Smythe (Pacific) Conference isn't linked to the proposed Norris (Central) Conference. That alone will appease Detroit, Columbus, and the CTZ teams. QC can easily be added to the proposed Adams (Northeast) Conference without alienating and or paying off a ton of teams.
If they truly go ahead with a "4-Conference" format, then it really doesn't matter about East-West or anything like that, other than trying to eliminating 3-TZ Divisions (which can still be done in a 6-Division format) and trying to keep together those 'sacred groupings'.

Now what are those "sacred" groupings? You might sense my sarcasm, but sarcasm or not it's obviously a reality. We can pretty much break them down within the Divisions that currently exist...
1) The intact Atlantic Division
2) The intact Northeast Division
3) The Alberta-Vancouver connection
4) The California teams
5) The Florida teams
6) *Hypothetically, Chicago, St Louis, Nashville... Central Division/CTZ trio

Some might say that Washington should be added into the Atlantic Division group, but then if that was so sacred then Washington would never have been separated from that group.
Some might also say that Detroit-Chicago is sacred, but it seems fairly clear that Detroit would abandon that connection in a flash if it could get an Eastern slot.

So, that leaves Phoenix, Colorado, Dallas, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Detroit, Columbus, Carolina, and Washington to be slotted in somewhere.
It also means, in a 4-Division/Conference format, that some of the 6 sacred groups will be combined.

 
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
New Jersey
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Columbus
Detroit
/
Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix
Colorado
/
Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Buffalo
Minnesota
Winnipeg
/
Chicago
St Louis
Nashville
Tampa Bay
Florida
Carolina
Dallas


Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-23-2013 at 11:15 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 01:15 AM
  #64
Mike Louis
Registered User
 
Mike Louis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Now what are those "sacred" groupings? You might sense my sarcasm, but sarcasm or not it's obviously a reality. We can pretty much break them down within the Divisions that currently exist...
1) The intact Atlantic Division
2) The intact Northeast Division
3) The Alberta-Vancouver connection
4) The California teams
5) The Florida teams
6) *Hypothetically, Chicago, St Louis, Nashville... Central Division/CTZ trio
Take a look of my alignment (taking the current teams first)


Adams (Northeast) Conference

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Minnesota Wild
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs
Winnipeg Jets


I took the current Northeast Division and added Winnipeg to give them conference games against other Canadian teams and Minnesota to give Winnipeg a local CTZ rival.


Patrick (Atlantic) Conference

Carolina Hurricanes
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitals


I took the current Atlantic Division and added Washington to reunite them with their old Patrick rivals. Carolina is simply along for the ride.


Norris (Central) Conference

Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Tampa Bay Lightning


I took the current Central Division and added Dallas to get them CTZ conference opponents, added Florida and Tampa to give Detroit and Columbus ETZ company.


Smythe (Pacific) Conference

Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames
Colorado Avalanche
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Phoenix Coyotes
San Jose Sharks
Vancouver Canucks


I took Dallas and Minnesota out of the Pacific and Northwest Divisions and reunited the rest of the two divisions.


Now say QC (via relocation), Seattle, and Houston (via expansion) get a team, if the league does keep the four conference format, I would suggest the following breakdown:

ADAMS CONFERENCE

Northeast Division
Boston Bruins
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Quebec Nordiques


Border Division
Buffalo Sabres
Minnesota Wild
Toronto Maple Leafs
Winnipeg Jets


PATRICK CONFERENCE

Tri-State Division
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers


Atlantic Division
Carolina Hurricanes
Columbus Blue Jackets
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitals


NORRIS CONFERENCE

Central Division
Chicago Blackhawks
Detroit Red Wings
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues


Southeast Division
Dallas Stars
Florida Panthers
Houston Aeros
Tampa Bay Lightning


SMYTHE CONFERENCE

Pacific Division
Anaheim Ducks
Colorado Avalanche
Los Angeles Kings
San Jose Sharks


Northwest Division
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Seattle Winterhawks
Vancouver Canucks

Mike Louis is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 02:14 AM
  #65
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,847
vCash: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Louis View Post
Take a look of my alignment (taking the current teams first)

Adams (Northeast) Conference

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Minnesota Wild ??????????
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs
Winnipeg Jets ??????????


I took the current Northeast Division and added Winnipeg to give them conference games against other Canadian teams and Minnesota to give Winnipeg a local CTZ rival.

[...deletia...]

Norris (Central) Conference

Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Florida Panthers ??????????
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Tampa Bay Lightning ??????????
This unnecessarily mixes time-zones. I've seen complaints on the Winnipeg sub-forum about early road starts on TV. 2 Florida teams in Central would be even worse than the "December alignment". Move Minnesota+Winnipeg to Central. Also the 2 Florida teams to Northeast, along with Columbus, who needs all the help they can get.

knorthern knight is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 04:04 AM
  #66
NHL Hartford
Registered User
 
NHL Hartford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
My ideal NHL..

Smythe
  • Anaheim
  • Calgary
  • Colorado
  • Edmonton
  • Los Angeles
  • San Jose
  • Seattle
  • Vancouver

Norris
  • Chicago
  • Columbus
  • Dallas
  • Detroit
  • Minnesota
  • Nashville
  • St. Louis
  • Winnipeg

Patrick
  • Carolina
  • Florida
  • New Jersey
  • NY Islanders
  • NY Rangers
  • Philadelphia
  • Pittsburgh
  • Washington

Adams
  • Boston
  • Buffalo
  • Hartford
  • Montreal
  • Ottawa
  • Quebec City
  • Tampa Bay
  • Toronto

NHL Hartford is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 06:58 AM
  #67
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Louis

Adams (Northeast) Conference

• Boston Bruins
• Buffalo Sabres
• Minnesota Wild
• Montreal Canadiens
• Ottawa Senators
• Toronto Maple Leafs
• Winnipeg Jets

Norris (Central) Conference

• Chicago Blackhawks
• Columbus Blue Jackets
• Dallas Stars
• Detroit Red Wings
• Florida Panthers
• Nashville Predators
• St. Louis Blues
• Tampa Bay Lightning
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
This unnecessarily mixes time-zones. I've seen complaints on the Winnipeg sub-forum about early road starts on TV. 2 Florida teams in Central would be even worse than the "December alignment". Move Minnesota+Winnipeg to Central. Also the 2 Florida teams to Northeast, along with Columbus, who needs all the help they can get.
First off...
3 options:
Winnipeg, Minnesota, plus the Alberta teams and Colorado (no Vancouver)
Winnipeg, Minnesota, plus the Ontario teams and Buffalo
Winnipeg, Minnesota, plus Chicago, St Louis, and Nashville

At least in Winnipeg's case, I'm fairly sure that a 1 TZ difference and getting some Canadian rivals would be preferred.
Now in Minnesota's case, obviously they'd prefer the teams in the CTZ, but I'd still think that either of the other two options is better than their current alignment with Vancouver.

Secondly...
You're complaining about Tampa and Florida possibly being with CTZ teams. Well the alternative is Detroit and/or Columbus still being stuck with the CTZ teams. In fact, apparently Detroit insisted on Columbus being kept in the Division to have ETZ company. So either way...

2 Time Zones in a Division isn't a problem really.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-24-2013 at 11:02 AM. Reason: Added Quotes
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 09:25 AM
  #68
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
2 Time Zones in a Division isn't a problem really.
Agreed. Back when I was more interested in this topic I figured out that splitting the CTZ squads is the key to an alignment that everybody can live with. If you keep all 6 of them together, then you are asking two ETZ clubs (and they'll be Detroit + Columbus) to play a ton of road starts 1 hour behind. All to keep those 'sacred groupings' intact, as you called them. Quite frankly, that ain't fair. Detroit has shouldered the burden long enough and they deserve to have another ETZ division/conference rival besides the hapless Blue Jackets.

You can separate the CTZ clubs into three pairs: MIN/WPG, CHI/STL, and DAL/NAS. Or you could group them in two trios: MIN/WPG/CHI and DAL/STL/NAS. One group, and the most obvious candidate is the one that includes MIN/WPG, has to move into a div/conf with ETZ clubs to create some balance in the time zone burden. Otherwise this whole exercise is just a lot of fan****ing.

tl; dr version: a realignment that keeps all the CTZ clubs together isn't fair and shouldn't be done. Split 'em up!

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 09:36 AM
  #69
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Agreed. Back when I was more interested in this topic I figured out that splitting the CTZ squads is the key to an alignment that everybody can live with. If you keep all 6 of them together, then you are asking two ETZ clubs (and they'll be Detroit + Columbus) to play a ton of road starts 1 hour behind. All to keep those 'sacred groupings' intact, as you called them. Quite frankly, that ain't fair. Detroit has shouldered the burden long enough and they deserve to have another ETZ division/conference rival besides the hapless Blue Jackets.

You can separate the CTZ clubs into three pairs: MIN/WPG, CHI/STL, and DAL/NAS. Or you could group them in two trios: MIN/WPG/CHI and DAL/STL/NAS. One group, and the most obvious candidate is the one that includes MIN/WPG, has to move into a div/conf with ETZ clubs to create some balance in the time zone burden. Otherwise this whole exercise is just a lot of fan****ing.

tl; dr version: a realignment that keeps all the CTZ clubs together isn't fair and shouldn't be done. Split 'em up!
All nice thoughts, and very interesting. As a Wild fan, I wouldn't mind being in a division with Boston/Montreal and etc.

However, there is a bit of a conundrum with this sort of arrangement (I speak generically of an alignment with 1 western conf and 3 that share the CTZ and ETZ).

And, that conundrum is: The normal breakdown goes:
1) North Central and Northeast
2) Mid Central and Middle Atlantic
3) South Central and Southeast

I know it is probably a possible flamefest to bring this up, so I am sorry. But, it seems to me that, in all such arrangements, the southern part will consist of teams with high potential to struggle at the gate.

Dallas, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, Tampa, Florida.....

In an ideal world, where gate revenue was even across all teams, I think this idea would be great. Perfect, in fact.

But, in the real world, I am left feeling "Not so sure..."

Does anyone share my concerns?


Last edited by MNNumbers: 01-24-2013 at 09:43 AM.
MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 09:42 AM
  #70
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
This unnecessarily mixes time-zones. I've seen complaints on the Winnipeg sub-forum about early road starts on TV. 2 Florida teams in Central would be even worse than the "December alignment". Move Minnesota+Winnipeg to Central. Also the 2 Florida teams to Northeast, along with Columbus, who needs all the help they can get.
KK -

In some ways I agree with what you are saying - for practical reasons only. The practical facts seem to be that TB and Fla are sort of the red-headed step children. It is not advantageous to anyone to be grouped with them in either a 6-div or 4-conf arrangement.

Therefore, apparently, the BoG decided (26-4: Does anyone know who the No votes were?) that, although it looks horrible on a map, the December realignment was the best possible.

And, the advantages to the Florida teams are that they get big draws in their building 2 or 3 times a year.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 09:52 AM
  #71
Peter Tosh
Registered User
 
Peter Tosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Sweden
Posts: 243
vCash: 500
This alignment is based on reducing travel and creating rivalry rather than focusing on time zones. Some teams are ultimately going to have to travel between different zones. There's no way around it.

WAS in the ATL keeps PIT and PHI together, and also gives a weak market division two strong market teams and makes the division more competative. BOS and MTL get's split up, but as I said, you can't have it all.

MIN are the losers in this proposal, but if there always is going to be a loser, the loser might as well be the team that last entered the league. One could swap COL and VAN if the focus where on time zones.


PACIFIC
-----------
ANA
LA
SJ
COL
PHX


NORTHWEST
-----------
CGY
EDM
VAN
WPG
MIN


CENTRAL
-----------
CHI
DAL
NAS
STL
CMB

NE
-----------
DET
TOR
OTT
BUF
MTL

ATL
-----------
NYI
NYR
NJ
BOS
WAS

SE
-----------
FLA
TBL
PIT
PHI
CAR

Peter Tosh is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 10:27 AM
  #72
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Louis View Post
Take a look of my alignment (taking the current teams first)


Adams (Northeast) Conference

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Minnesota Wild
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs
Winnipeg Jets


I took the current Northeast Division and added Winnipeg to give them conference games against other Canadian teams and Minnesota to give Winnipeg a local CTZ rival.


Patrick (Atlantic) Conference

Carolina Hurricanes
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitals


I took the current Atlantic Division and added Washington to reunite them with their old Patrick rivals. Carolina is simply along for the ride.


Norris (Central) Conference

Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
Dallas Stars
Detroit Red Wings
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Tampa Bay Lightning


I took the current Central Division and added Dallas to get them CTZ conference opponents, added Florida and Tampa to give Detroit and Columbus ETZ company.


Smythe (Pacific) Conference

Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames
Colorado Avalanche
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Phoenix Coyotes
San Jose Sharks
Vancouver Canucks


I took Dallas and Minnesota out of the Pacific and Northwest Divisions and reunited the rest of the two divisions.
I prefer a divisional alignment like this over the NHL's proposal. I think the most fair would be where no division has only one CDN or only one US team. And all teams within the division are at most one time zone away. This accomplishes that.

cheswick is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 11:13 AM
  #73
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
All nice thoughts, and very interesting. As a Wild fan, I wouldn't mind being in a division with Boston/Montreal and etc.

However, there is a bit of a conundrum with this sort of arrangement (I speak generically of an alignment with 1 western conf and 3 that share the CTZ and ETZ).

And, that conundrum is: The normal breakdown goes:
1) North Central and Northeast
2) Mid Central and Middle Atlantic
3) South Central and Southeast

I know it is probably a possible flamefest to bring this up, so I am sorry. But, it seems to me that, in all such arrangements, the southern part will consist of teams with high potential to struggle at the gate.

Dallas, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, Tampa, Florida.....

In an ideal world, where gate revenue was even across all teams, I think this idea would be great. Perfect, in fact.

But, in the real world, I am left feeling "Not so sure..."

Does anyone share my concerns?
I think you're partially correct. Yes, I believe it would be a totally fair alignment structure, with all Divisions having 2 Time Zones, but I don't think the primary issue would be that southern group of teams,... because you didn't actually complete the Division. It's those teams needed to complete the Division which would make the problem... trying to separate them from that "Atlantic" group.

For one, Columbus wouldn't be part of that 8-team group (and it would be 8-team because it's highly unlikely that there's an expansion site in that area). Therefore, the Division, that "southern" Division, would be made up of:
Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh, Carolina, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville, and Dallas.
Now, as you can see, you do actually have gate attractive teams in the Division.
But trying to separate Philadelphia and Pittsburgh from the Atlantic,... good luck with that,... Unfortunately!

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 11:19 AM
  #74
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
KK -

In some ways I agree with what you are saying - for practical reasons only. The practical facts seem to be that TB and Fla are sort of the red-headed step children. It is not advantageous to anyone to be grouped with them in either a 6-div or 4-conf arrangement.

Therefore, apparently, the BoG decided (26-4: Does anyone know who the No votes were?) that, although it looks horrible on a map, the December realignment was the best possible.

And, the advantages to the Florida teams are that they get big draws in their building 2 or 3 times a year.
If I'm remembering correctly... Tampa Bay, Florida, Montreal, and the Rangers.

If that's correct, I believe the Rangers simply didn't like the most of the whole 4-Division/new scheduling format package; whereas Montreal, Tampa, and Florida hated the alignment.

Other teams might not have liked it either, but whereas it was an alignment that they saw as not effecting them badly, that's probably why they went along with it. And of course, probably a lot of teams liked it.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 11:31 AM
  #75
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I think you're partially correct. Yes, I believe it would be a totally fair alignment structure, with all Divisions having 2 Time Zones, but I don't think the primary issue would be that southern group of teams,... because you didn't actually complete the Division. It's those teams needed to complete the Division which would make the problem... trying to separate them from that "Atlantic" group.

For one, Columbus wouldn't be part of that 8-team group (and it would be 8-team because it's highly unlikely that there's an expansion site in that area). Therefore, the Division, that "southern" Division, would be made up of:
Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh, Carolina, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville, and Dallas.
Now, as you can see, you do actually have gate attractive teams in the Division.
But trying to separate Philadelphia and Pittsburgh from the Atlantic,... good luck with that,... Unfortunately!
More,

I see what you are saying here. However, I am confused. Not arguing, just confused. In your prior post 63, your southern division didn't look like this at all. It was:
CHI, STL, NASH, TB, FLA, CAR, DAL

Now, you are exchanging Phil, Pitts, and Was in place of Chi and St L?

Not sure how to take that.

Otherwise, I agree. No way to get Pitts and Phil to even think of separating from the New York teams. And, those kind of strong opinions are part of the problem the BoG has.

MNNumbers is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:57 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.