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
01-28-2013, 01:45 PM
  #201
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
I don't think the league really works with the 6 divisions they've had since 98. It's a nice number and size of divisions in theory(so are 4 conferences...what isn't good in theory?), but one of the divisions in the East barely registers, and the entire Western Conference is a bit of a train wreck. It's great for the NE and Atlantic divisions though (travel, start times, rivals), and since they have the big ticket teams, everything revolves around them.
I'm not 100% sure in which way you mean the West is a "bit of a train wreck", but in general I have to challenge that. It's not the first time that I've heard something similar, if you're specifically referring to alignment issues; though again it's not a perspective that I hold even in that regard.

The West does have an issue, yes, but I'll get to that in a moment, and I'm sure you know what it is anyway. But alignment in the West, specifically referring to 6-Division alignment, has been pretty much totally ill-effected by the alignment of one team, Vancouver. If Vancouver had been or could be forced to be part of the Pacific Division then the majority of the alignment issues would be solved. Of course, someone will argue then that Vancouver would have an alignment issue,... but if Vancovuer were in fact in the Pacific, and had been there since the beginning of the 6-Division format, I'd dare say that there wouldn't be nearly as many people today claiming alignment chaos in the West. Just as many believe today, many would look at Vancouver in the Pacific Division and not see that as a serious issue.

If Vancouver were in the Pacific, we all know then how the other Divisions would look. Which western teams then would have a serious alignment issue? Sure, Minnesota might still be complaining, but the sympathy factor would be much less.

And what about before Winnipeg came along? Vancouver in the Pacific, Chicago in the NW. Then Minnesota's complaints would likely be minimal if at all. Oh, but then Chicago would've complained,... separated from Detroit. The thing is though, we all know that Detroit would take that separation in a flash if it could be in the East. Therein actually lies the biggest issue in the West, and an issue that won't go away no matter how the West is aligned. Status! The West has little status in the League and in the eyes of many fans.

Perhaps the worst thing that happened to the West was when Toronto was allowed to be put in the East. If Toronto had stayed in the West, the West would at least have more economic influence in the League.

And what happens when or if Detroit goes into an extended period of slump, as the franchise lived through in the 70s and 80s, and heaven forbid at the same time Chicago isn't the strong team that it recently has become? Again, therein lies the real Western issue and why Detroit is being held onto for dear life to be kept in the West (and primarily because the Red Wings became a powerhouse in the 90s which has lasted for about 15 years). Minnesota, Dallas,... they want a better Time Zone alignment, but just like St Louis and Nashville, they want to be in a Division with the likes of Detroit and Chicago,... That's where the hockey status is. And the East hasn't been sharing any of it. They took a big piece away when they took Toronto.

And of course there's the scheduling issue for teams like Detroit and Columbus. But without some very special alignment or scheduling format to resolve that, the 6-Division structure alone isn't primarily responsible for that issue.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-28-2013 at 01:51 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 02:51 PM
  #202
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
And one has to remember how the Leafs ended up in the Eastern Conference back in 1998:

With the four franchise expansion in 1997 came the need to realign. The proposed realignment looked almost exactly as it currently is, except that Columbus was to be in the Northeast and Toronto in the Central, until either the 2003-04 season or until Columbus first made the playoffs. At that point, the two franchises would swap places.

Somehow, Ken Dryden (President of MLSE at the time) managed to convince the Board of Governors when it came time to approval a new alignment that Toronto should be switched to the Northeast immediately upon implementation of the six-division system, leaving Columbus in the Central.

So there were definitely a few franchises, specifically Columbus and probably Detroit, that may have been "promised" spots in the Eastern Conference if the possibility arose. There were defintely franchises that weren't happy with the six-division alignment in 1997.
I did not know that. Very interesting. I'm guessing Toronto being the only Canadian team in what would be the Central division played a part. With the Leafs and Jets being together in the Norris in the 80's, until the Rockies moving to NJ forced Winnipeg into the Smythe, then eventually back to the Norris/Central with expansion, then moving to Phoenix, it just became time to get out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Now it makes me wonder how the NFL, NBA, and MLB got their 8 and 6 Division alignments approved, and if all those teams are happy with their alignment. Compromise would seem to be a key element, I'd expect. The NHL didn't really make fair compromises for some of its teams when it formed the 6 Divisions, that's certainly part of the issue.
The NFL and MLB have two different leagues that merged together, which I think makes their situation a little easier in terms of alignment. A different schedule too. One game a week, or a 3/4 game series.

The NBA, it's pretty different from the NHL. The south isn't a curse word. One team in Canada. 3 teams in Texas, and now in Oklahoma, and NO. Dallas and Denver aren't as isolated as in the NHL. The NBA has 13 teams in the ETZ, and 17 west of it. They have to steal from the CTZ to fill out the Eastern Conference. Although they still have a division spanning 3 time zones. Nothing is perfect I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Therein actually lies the biggest issue in the West, and an issue that won't go away no matter how the West is aligned. Status! The West has little status in the League and in the eyes of many fans.

Perhaps the worst thing that happened to the West was when Toronto was allowed to be put in the East. If Toronto had stayed in the West, the West would at least have more economic influence in the League.
Can't argue there.

Back in the day, Gretzky and the Oiler dynasty were in the Smythe. There were 3 O6 teams in the Norris.

Now, with free agency and free agents that gravitate toward the northeast, and Toronto getting out, and Detroit willing to leave everyone behind for the same reasons as Toronto, teams hardly ever on NBC, the West certainly has an image problem. Too much travel, nobody is up late enough to watch, little history, etc.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 03:07 PM
  #203
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
The NFL and MLB have two different leagues that merged together, which I think makes their situation a little easier in terms of alignment. A different schedule too. One game a week, or a 3/4 game series.
I'm fully aware of the merging leagues, but was referring to when those "Leagues" increased their number of Divisions to the current 8 and 6 respectively. That increase in the number of Divisions certainly had to have split up certain teams that had for at least a period of time been together. I can't imagine that all NFL and MLB teams were happy with the 8 and 6 Division alignment format; though apparently they're living with it.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 03:55 PM
  #204
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I'm not 100% sure in which way you mean the West is a "bit of a train wreck", but in general I have to challenge that. It's not the first time that I've heard something similar, if you're specifically referring to alignment issues; though again it's not a perspective that I hold even in that regard.

The West does have an issue, yes, but I'll get to that in a moment, and I'm sure you know what it is anyway. But alignment in the West, specifically referring to 6-Division alignment, has been pretty much totally ill-effected by the alignment of one team, Vancouver. If Vancouver had been or could be forced to be part of the Pacific Division then the majority of the alignment issues would be solved. Of course, someone will argue then that Vancouver would have an alignment issue,... but if Vancovuer were in fact in the Pacific, and had been there since the beginning of the 6-Division format, I'd dare say that there wouldn't be nearly as many people today claiming alignment chaos in the West. Just as many believe today, many would look at Vancouver in the Pacific Division and not see that as a serious issue.

If Vancouver were in the Pacific, we all know then how the other Divisions would look. Which western teams then would have a serious alignment issue? Sure, Minnesota might still be complaining, but the sympathy factor would be much less.

~~~~~~ Minnesota, Dallas,... they want a better Time Zone alignment, but just like St Louis and Nashville, they want to be in a Division with the likes of Detroit and Chicago,... That's where the hockey status is. And the East hasn't been sharing any of it. They took a big piece away when they took Toronto.

And of course there's the scheduling issue for teams like Detroit and Columbus. But without some very special alignment or scheduling format to resolve that, the 6-Division structure alone isn't primarily responsible for that issue.
More Orr,

I agree on the status issue. And, I agree on the Vancouver issue. But, that still doesn't answer the very real question of "What happens if PHX moves to QUE?" Now, the East is going to be a big fight among the 17 ETZ teams. You know that. I know that. The west, of course, fits a little easier, but it gets dicey to fill the end of it. Like I have posted before:

Even if Vanc moves to the Pacific, without PHX, the Pacific must look like this:
VAN, SJ, ANA, LA, COL
The Mountain Central must look like this:
CAL, EDM, WIN, MINN, DAL or STL or CHI
The Midwest must look like what?:
2 of DAL/CHI/STL, NASH, and..... Who?? Remember, needs 2 teams....



Which is why I am sure that the issue can't be solved until the end of the PHX situation is resolved.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 04:03 PM
  #205
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I'm fully aware of the merging leagues, but was referring to when those "Leagues" increased their number of Divisions to the current 8 and 6 respectively. That increase in the number of Divisions certainly had to have split up certain teams that had for at least a period of time been together. I can't imagine that all NFL and MLB teams were happy with the 8 and 6 Division alignment format; though apparently they're living with it.
I can only speak to the NFL:

By the time the four-division, two conference setup was approved, the creation of the fourth division in each conference had some roots:

The NFC East removed Arizona
The NFC Central removed Tampa Bay and renamed themselves the NFC North
The NFC West only kept San Francisco and the Rams, and added Arizona and Seattle from the AFC
Atlanta, Carolina and New Orleans moved from the NFC West to the new NFC South, while picking up Tampa Bay

The AFC East dispatched Indianapolis
The AFC Central removed Tennessee and Jacksonville
The AFC West lost Seattle to the NFC
The AFC South was created out of Indianapolis, Tennessee, Jacksonville and the expansion Houston franchise.

I think everyone involved was relatively happy.

Arizona, long considered the fifth-wheel in the NFC East, was able to be in a division with two other western teams.

Tampa Bay, an expansion addition to the "NFC Norris" was able to join three other nearby teams.

San Francsico and the Rams were able to play teams that didn't have borders with the Atlantic Ocean.

The list goes on and on. And I think that the NFL is slightly different in the fact that within four years (64 games) you've played every team in the opposite conference once, one division within your conference twice and the other two divisions once, and your own division eight times.


Last edited by Grudy0: 01-28-2013 at 04:10 PM.
Grudy0 is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 04:09 PM
  #206
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
More Orr,

I agree on the status issue. And, I agree on the Vancouver issue. But, that still doesn't answer the very real question of "What happens if PHX moves to QUE?" Now, the East is going to be a big fight among the 17 ETZ teams. You know that. I know that. The west, of course, fits a little easier, but it gets dicey to fill the end of it. Like I have posted before:

Even if Vanc moves to the Pacific, without PHX, the Pacific must look like this:
VAN, SJ, ANA, LA, COL
The Mountain Central must look like this:
CAL, EDM, WIN, MINN, DAL or STL or CHI
The Midwest must look like what?:
2 of DAL/CHI/STL, NASH, and..... Who?? Remember, needs 2 teams....



Which is why I am sure that the issue can't be solved until the end of the PHX situation is resolved.
But that just provides another reason why the NHL voted to scrap the two-conference, six-division alignment.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 04:25 PM
  #207
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 MNNumbers View Post
More Orr,

I agree on the status issue. And, I agree on the Vancouver issue. But, that still doesn't answer the very real question of "What happens if PHX moves to QUE?" Now, the East is going to be a big fight among the 17 ETZ teams. You know that. I know that. The west, of course, fits a little easier, but it gets dicey to fill the end of it. Like I have posted before:

Even if Vanc moves to the Pacific, without PHX, the Pacific must look like this:
VAN, SJ, ANA, LA, COL
The Mountain Central must look like this:
CAL, EDM, WIN, MINN, DAL or STL or CHI
The Midwest must look like what?:
2 of DAL/CHI/STL, NASH, and..... Who?? Remember, needs 2 teams....



Which is why I am sure that the issue can't be solved until the end of the PHX situation is resolved.
Jamison signs the lease, as has been rumored, MNN, BY 1/31, then the PHX issue is resolved....

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 04:37 PM
  #208
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
But that just provides another reason why the NHL voted to scrap the two-conference, six-division alignment.
Correct. You move PHX to QUE and you get big problems. So, why fight to work out a 2-conference, 6-division alignment, only to need to fight all over again?

If I am NHL now, I wait to see about Jamison and the Coyotes. If PHX moves to QUE, then we all know the 6-division is basically toast.

And, we can keep arguing about which 4-conference alignment is best.

My favorite:
WEST: Van, Cal, Edm, Col, LA, SJ, Ana
CENT: Win, Minn, StL, Chi, Dal, Nash, Det, Cmb
EAST: Que, Mont, Bos, Ott, Tor, Buff, Car
ATL: NYR, NYI, NJ, Phil, Pitt, Was, TB, Flo
(Although I don't like any options here for Cmb and Car) And, I don't want to put both in the EAST, because:

Playoffs:
WEST and CENT make Campbell Conference. Top 8 make the playoffs. Division winners get 1 and 2 seeds. Higher seeds in all 4 matchups choose travel format (2-3-2 or 2-2-1-1-1). Reseed by regular season points after first round. (Means that if division winners advance, they are not guaranteed home ice in Round 2) Again, higher seeds choose format. Conference finals: Again, higher seed chooses format.

EAST and ATL make Wales Conference. Top 8 make playoffs. Division winners get 1 and 2 seeds. No choosing of formats. It's always 2-2-1-1-1. Reseed by points after Round 1 (Means that if division winners advance, they are not guaranteed home ice in Round 2).

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 04:41 PM
  #209
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
But that just provides another reason why the NHL voted to scrap the two-conference, six-division alignment.
no, Grudy0, the NHL didn't have enough time to implement the 4 conference alignment this season, even had the NHLPA Approved that alignment that was shown live on CBC

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 04:43 PM
  #210
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
Jamison signs the lease, as has been rumored, MNN, BY 1/31, then the PHX issue is resolved....
CHRDAN - Full disclosure. I hope he doesn't, because that lease is horrible for the City of Glendale.

Now, my comment. "Rumored" is an important word. Apparently, from the mega thread, he assured the reporter that there will be an announcement. And, then, the common no-promise of "we are working to finalize the purchase." I guess everyone takes that how they want to.......

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 05:06 PM
  #211
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 MNNumbers View Post
CHRDAN - Full disclosure. I hope he doesn't, because that lease is horrible for the City of Glendale.

Now, my comment. "Rumored" is an important word. Apparently, from the mega thread, he assured the reporter that there will be an announcement. And, then, the common no-promise of "we are working to finalize the purchase." I guess everyone takes that how they want to.......
positive, it's a done deal by the 31st, MNN, it may take longer to to get full approval from the NHL, but usually, that's how it goes behind the ice, I suspect it'll take months to get approval or a date and subsequent vote, in which GJ SELLS the interest in SJ/SVSE, which he still has. I see this as much the same process that Hansen executed w/ Sacramento.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 05:58 PM
  #212
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
More Orr,

I agree on the status issue. And, I agree on the Vancouver issue. But, that still doesn't answer the very real question of "What happens if PHX moves to QUE?" Now, the East is going to be a big fight among the 17 ETZ teams. You know that. I know that. The west, of course, fits a little easier, but it gets dicey to fill the end of it. Like I have posted before:

Even if Vanc moves to the Pacific, without PHX, the Pacific must look like this:
VAN, SJ, ANA, LA, COL
The Mountain Central must look like this:
CAL, EDM, WIN, MINN, DAL or STL or CHI
The Midwest must look like what?:
2 of DAL/CHI/STL, NASH, and..... Who?? Remember, needs 2 teams....

Which is why I am sure that the issue can't be solved until the end of the PHX situation is resolved.
Oh for sure, MNN, if the Coyotes were to be relocated to Quebec City then regardless of how the West could be dealt with, the East becomes a serious problem; and that's what we were referring to earlier. The thing is though, is a Coyotes relocation to Quebec City still now a serious fear in the League, on two fronts: 1) whether the Coyotes will still need to be relocated (at least in the near future), and 2) if so, does the League now have a western relocation destination that wouldn't upset Eastern alignment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
But that just provides another reason why the NHL voted to scrap the two-conference, six-division alignment.
That's exactly what he's referring to, I believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
Jamison signs the lease, as has been rumored, MNN, BY 1/31, then the PHX issue is resolved....
There you go, well at least temporarily. So then, can many of the West issues be dealt with without resorting to the unbalanced 4-Division idea? Still here believing that it was the fear of a Coyotes relocation to Quebec City which was the primary impetus for the 4-Division proposal (though now pandora's box has been opened, and Leopold, among others, might fight to keep it open).


Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-28-2013 at 06:05 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 09:51 PM
  #213
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
Everybody has their own east/west realignment opinions but nobody ever talks about the north/south realignment opinion in this thread so far. I know that there were attempts but here is my attempt on it. I would put likely Quebec City and Seattle as a part of expansion team, to force the eastern based team to travel a little bit because as my long hatred for Atlantic based team getting easy travel every year, especially with the east teams. So I cannot persuade everybody to like the north/south conference due to various reasons: history, tradition, etc.

North Conference
West Division: Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Seattle
Central Division: Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit
East Division: Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo
Atlantic Division: Ottawa, Quebec City, Pittsburgh, Columbus

South Conference
West Division: L.A., Anaheim, San Jose, and Phoenix
Central Division: Dallas, Nashville, St. Louis, and Colorado
East Division: Tampa Bay, Florida, Carolina, Washington
Atlantic Division: NY Rangers, NY Islanders, NJ, and Philadelphia

Regular Season breakdown:
Divisional games: 4 games each with 3 teams for 12 games
Conference games, 3 games each with 12 teams for 36 games
Inter-conference games, 2 games each with 16 teams for 32 games.
Extra Rivalry games: 2 games total

Total games: 82 games.

This is perfect amount of games, 80 games but if the owner is concerned that they will lose their extra home gate, I would use 2 games as a rivalry games with two teams, for example, Vancouver can play against its own time zone opponent against south conference, L.A. and San Jose. Pittsburgh could play extra game against Flyers and Rangers, even they are in different conference. Ottawa could still play an extra game against Toronto and Montreal even it is not in their own division. Quebec City could play against Montreal.

For those who is concern that I took away Pens/Flyers division, I will post a revised for those who is concerned about it so much. However, I would suggest that it might be actually a good thing because then Pittsburgh will play against Detroit/Chicago, or any Canadian teams for a few more games in the conference games. For those who is wondering why I didn't put Quebec City in same division with Montreal, I would rather to keep Montreal/Boston/Toronto rivalry rather than a new team, Quebec City with no history at all. I don't count the Nordiques a history because they are a different team.

I will list two or three rivalry games for each team that is not in their own division and/or north/south conference:

North:
VAncouver: L.A., San Jose, or Anaheim
Calgary: Colorado, Winnipeg
Edmonton: Colorado, Winnipeg.
Seattle: Anaheim, San Jose
Winnipeg: Calgary, Edmonton
Minnesota: St. Louis, Chicago
Chicago: St. Louis, Nashville, NY Rangers, or Boston
Detroit: Toronto, St. Louis, Boston, or NY Rangers
Boston: NY Rangers, Detroit, Chicago
Montreal: Quebec City, Ottawa, Detroit, Boston, Chicago
Toronto: Ottawa, Detroit
Buffalo: NY Islanders, Philadelphia
Ottawa: Montreal, Toronto
Quebec City: Montreal, Ottawa, or Toronto
NY Islanders: NY Rangers, Buffalo
Columbus: No history so create one for them even Detroit is disinterested in them. Nashville, or St. Louis or Carolina or NY Islanders
Pittsburgh: Philadelphia, NY Rangers

South:
NY Rangers: Pittsburgh, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal
NY Islanders: Buffalo, Columbus
New Jersery: Pittsburgh, Washington
Philadelphia: Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Washington
Washington: Pittsburgh, Philadephia, New Jersey
Tampa Bay: Nashville, Dallas
Florida: Nashville, Dallas
Carolina: Columbus, Dallas
Dallas: Florida, Tampa Bay, Carolina
St. Louis: Detroit, Chicago
Colorado: Edmonton, Calgary, or Phoenix
Nashville: Florida, Tampa Bay or Columbus or Carolina
LA: Vancouver, Edmonton
San Jose: Vancouver, Calgary
Phoenix: Colorado, Winnipeg, Calgary or Edmonton
Anaheim: Seattle, Vancouver or Colorado

I will revise post a revision north/south conference and you tell me who I take away in order for Pittsburgh to remain with the Flyers in same division or conference?

My choice: NY Islanders. They have been irreverent for years.

Give me your best North/south realignment with expansion team. East/West has been talked about to the death.

coolboarder is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 09:58 PM
  #214
atticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
I love how there are still posts that basically state "we need to retain the 2-conference system for 'fairness' sake when it comes to the post season". Having 2-conferences is not even close to fair for some teams, and there is no current way the 2-conference system can be "fair" when it comes to a post season setup.

Yes I will agree there is the potential with the 4-division setup that the fifth place team from a stronger division might miss out on the playoffs over a worse team that finishes fourth in a weak division. But you know what, "boo-hoo" because the playoffs are all about winning the Stanley Cup anyway. So if you can't finish fourth in your division, even if it is a strong one, then too bad you don't get a chance to compete for the Stanley Cup and be the best team in hockey that year. Yes, the regular system should be worth something.

Much better that a fifth place team miss out on the playoffs (even if they were more deserving than a fourth place team in another division) in a proposed 4-division setup, than have the number 1, 2, or 3 team OVERALL in the league continually be disadvantaged in the postseason, as we have now in the current 2-conference system.

*Note, the 2-conference system in my post refers to the current setup (or something similar with 1-team switched). Obviously radical changes such as coolboarders' post may have a different effect.

atticus is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 10:32 PM
  #215
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolboarder View Post
Everybody has their own east/west realignment opinions but nobody ever talks about the north/south realignment opinion in this thread so far. I know that there were attempts but here is my attempt on it. I would put likely Quebec City and Seattle as a part of expansion team, to force the eastern based team to travel a little bit because as my long hatred for Atlantic based team getting easy travel every year, especially with the east teams. So I cannot persuade everybody to like the north/south conference due to various reasons: history, tradition, etc.
North/South conferences wouldn't work. It works in:
NFL (because all game times are mostly standardized and once a week)
MLB (because they play mostly in the afternoon and no-one cares if they watch every game)

But when you have the NBA and NHL, it won't work. You'll be forcing fans to watch games at 10 pm at night or 4 pm in the afternoon on a regular basis... not fan friendly at all.

The answer to making travel times fair isn't forcing all teams to travel more... we're going for MINIMAL average travel time not "I hate the Atlantic Division travel schedule so I'm going to make them fly to California five times a year"

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 10:44 PM
  #216
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
North/South conferences wouldn't work. It works in:
NFL (because all game times are mostly standardized and once a week)
MLB (because they play mostly in the afternoon and no-one cares if they watch every game)

But when you have the NBA and NHL, it won't work. You'll be forcing fans to watch games at 10 pm at night or 4 pm in the afternoon on a regular basis... not fan friendly at all.

The answer to making travel times fair isn't forcing all teams to travel more... we're going for MINIMAL average travel time not "I hate the Atlantic Division travel schedule so I'm going to make them fly to California five times a year"
Not really, if you look at my schedule breakdown, you will see that NY Rangers would travel to California once or twice a year which isn't that bad. This will bring the mileage to an average for all teams. Especially if you consider that the west coast travel to the east coast 3 to 4 times a year even with the current schedule format while the east get to travel, once or twice a year because the west has fewer teams compared to the east. That is not even to same teams because you have Canadian northeast teams, and southeast teams and the Atlantic teams from the west coast so that brings the road trip to average 4 to 5 times a year, back and forth, even to the central division teams.

coolboarder is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 11:04 PM
  #217
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,254
vCash: 500
If you can have a North-South Conference alignment, then you can have an NHL-style NFL/MLB type alignment,... NHL-style in that it keeps the Divisions geographically based, but has a mix of east-west, north-south in both Conferences. I've always wanted such an alignment in order to have both Conferences be more or less equal travelwise. It also eliminates the issue of a couple of ETZ teams stuck in an otherwise western Conference, because both Conferences would have Eastern, Central, Mountain, and Pacific TZs.
Anyway, forget that, it won't happen.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-29-2013, 12:51 AM
  #218
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
As mentioned above with north/south realignment. I included the expansion because it was easier to do but the challenge to do it without any expansion and realignment north/south with 30 teams is challenging. So here is my effort:

North Conference

West Division: Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado
Central Division: Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus
East Division: Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, NY Islanders

South Conference

West Division: LA, Anaheim, San Jose, Phoenix
Central Division: Dallas, St. Louis, Nashville, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida
East Division: NY Rangers, NJ, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

You will notice that the west division get only 4 teams while other divisions are 5 teams and 6 teams. I was thinking, why not do that route because travel is unbalanced for the west coast teams so let them have its own and get to play more games in their own zone. I thought why not do the unbalance divisional set-up.

Regular season games breakdown:

4-team division

Divisional game: 6 games each, 3 teams for 18 games
Conference: 3 games each, 11 teams for 33 games
Inter-conference: 2 games each, 15 teams for 30 games
Rivalry game: 1 game
Total: 82 games

5-team division

Divisional game: 5 games each, 4 teams for 20 games
Conference: 3 games each, 10 teams for 30 games
Inter-conference: 2 games each, 15 games for 30 games
Rivalry game: 2 games
Total: 82 games

6-team division

Divisional game: 5 games each, 5 teams for 25 games
Conference: 3 games each, 9 teams for 27 games
Inter-conference: 2 games each, 15 teams for 30 games
Rivalry game: 0 game
Total: 82 games

Rivalry game can be games against its own division or against inter-conference that has a few games to spare anywhere in the league however, the 6-team division will have no game to spare for this rivalry because they have a perfect 82-games schedule with this.

I took out NY Islanders to the north since they are irreverent with this bad history since 90's. NY can play its own state, Buffalo so this isn't that a big deal for the Islanders to switch since the Rangers is their biggest rivals but has been irreverent for years anyways.

I have had a hard time choosing whether Toronto or Buffalo can join in the central division so that the division will have 3 ETZ teams and 3 CTZ teams for both conference and I suppose you could do that for this conference. So I just made the north conf. East Div. 6 teams while south conf. Central Div 6 teams for now unless Toronto or Buffalo, one of them, the willing partner to join with the central division. If it happens, the east division could play two extra games against two other east divisions in a North/South games. NY Islanders could play 2 extra games against the Devils and the Rangers. While NY Rangers could play against the Islanders and Boston, etc. Rotate them yearly for home/away while the west could rotate one extra game, odd years, home and even years, away.

I think that is it for the north/south realignment, 30 teams league.

Playoffs remains to be each conference seeded 1-8.

coolboarder is offline  
Old
01-29-2013, 01:59 AM
  #219
Mike Louis
Registered User
 
Mike Louis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
The political (real) reason for the move to the four conference format:

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Northeast Division

Buffalo
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec City (former Coyotes)
Toronto

Atlantic Division

Boston
New Jersey
NY Islanders
NY Rangers
Philadelphia

Southeast Division

Carolina
Florida
Pittsburgh
Tampa Bay
Washington


WESTERN CONFERENCE

Central Division

Columbus
Dallas
Detroit
Nashville
St. Louis


Northwest Division

Calgary
Chicago
Edmonton
Minnesota
Winnipeg

Pacific Division

Anaheim
Colorado
Los Angeles
San Jose
Vancouver

I can see at minimum, nine "no" votes for a relocation to QC. Don't forget that a two-thirds majority (20 out of 30) is needed to approve any relocation. With the likes of Snider, Ilitch, Wirtz, and Mario being alienated by this potential alignment, moving the Coyotes east to QC within the six division format is DOA.

Mike Louis is offline  
Old
01-29-2013, 02:12 AM
  #220
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolboarder View Post
I took out NY Islanders to the north since they are irreverent with this bad history since 90's. NY can play its own state, Buffalo so this isn't that a big deal for the Islanders to switch since the Rangers is their biggest rivals but has been irreverent for years anyways.
Not going to happen, especially with the move to Brooklyn. Basically setting the franchise up for failure if you move them out of the rivalries with the rest of the Atlantic Division.. especially now that they will be mere miles from NYR/NJD.

The Atlantic Division isn't going to lose any teams which means divisions will have to be consolidated.

The four conference plan is fine.. it's just the playoff system that sucks.

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
01-29-2013, 02:30 AM
  #221
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
If you can have a North-South Conference alignment, then you can have an NHL-style NFL/MLB type alignment,... NHL-style in that it keeps the Divisions geographically based, but has a mix of east-west, north-south in both Conferences. I've always wanted such an alignment in order to have both Conferences be more or less equal travelwise. It also eliminates the issue of a couple of ETZ teams stuck in an otherwise western Conference, because both Conferences would have Eastern, Central, Mountain, and Pacific TZs.
Anyway, forget that, it won't happen.
In an "ideal" 32 team league I'd keep the Conferences as East/West but change the East to have just North and South divisions

DyerMaker66 is online now  
Old
01-29-2013, 06:49 AM
  #222
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
The political (real) reason for the move to the four conference format:

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Northeast Division

• Buffalo
• Montreal
• Ottawa
Quebec City (former Coyotes)
• Toronto

Atlantic Division

• Boston
• New Jersey
• NY Islanders
• NY Rangers
• Philadelphia

Southeast Division

• Carolina
• Florida
• Pittsburgh
• Tampa Bay
• Washington


WESTERN CONFERENCE

Central Division

• Columbus
• Dallas
• Detroit
• Nashville
• St. Louis


Northwest Division

• Calgary
• Chicago
• Edmonton
• Minnesota
• Winnipeg

Pacific Division

• Anaheim
• Colorado
• Los Angeles
• San Jose
• Vancouver

I can see at minimum, nine "no" votes for a relocation to QC. Don't forget that a two-thirds majority (20 out of 30) is needed to approve any relocation. With the likes of Snider, Ilitch, Wirtz, and Mario being alienated by this potential alignment, moving the Coyotes east to QC within the six division format is DOA.
And if the Coyotes to Quebec City is taken off the table? And expansion isn't to happen for a few years.

This Jamison group isn't buying the Coyotes to move them to Quebec City; I don't think he has any associations with QC.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-29-2013 at 06:59 AM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-29-2013, 07:04 AM
  #223
Grimmas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 85
vCash: 500
People keep saying the 4 conference playoff system isn't fair.

The only way a playoff system would be fair is that if each team played every team the same amount of times and playoffs were based on that.

Once you have any divisional or conference set up, its unfair, because teams will play different teams a different amount.

Grimmas is offline  
Old
01-29-2013, 07:17 AM
  #224
Mike Louis
Registered User
 
Mike Louis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Assuming the Coyotes stay put and the six division format is kept (with no expansion):

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Northeast Division
Boston
Buffalo
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto


Atlantic Division
New Jersey
NY Islanders
NY Rangers
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh


Southeast Division
Carolina
Florida
Nashville
Tampa Bay
Washington


WESTERN CONFERENCE

Central Division
Chicago
Columbus
Dallas
Detroit
St. Louis


Northwest Division
Calgary
Edmonton
Minnesota
Vancouver
Winnipeg


Pacific Division
Anaheim
Colorado
Los Angeles
Phoenix
San Jose


This alignment does give the shaft to Minnesota, but alas what else can you do with the current geographical realities of the league.

Mike Louis is offline  
Old
01-29-2013, 07:27 AM
  #225
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
I can only speak to the NFL:

By the time the four-division, two conference setup was approved, the creation of the fourth division in each conference had some roots:

The NFC East removed Arizona
The NFC Central removed Tampa Bay and renamed themselves the NFC North
The NFC West only kept San Francisco and the Rams, and added Arizona and Seattle from the AFC
Atlanta, Carolina and New Orleans moved from the NFC West to the new NFC South, while picking up Tampa Bay

The AFC East dispatched Indianapolis
The AFC Central removed Tennessee and Jacksonville
The AFC West lost Seattle to the NFC
The AFC South was created out of Indianapolis, Tennessee, Jacksonville and the expansion Houston franchise.

I think everyone involved was relatively happy.
I still find it interesting that the NFL in one shot fixed virtually all of their alignment issues and radically restructured the league, but still didn't have the courage to take on the Dallas Cowboys; they left them in the NFC East rather than risk their ire by separating them from the Redskins, Giants, and Eagles.

Is there an equivalent "king of the hill" in the NHL who will not be moved/realigned come hell or high water? I suspect the strongest candidate is the Philadelphia Flyers. They seem strongly adamant that they will not be separated from the New York teams and from the Pittsburgh Penguins; they're the "glue" that holds the Atlantic division together. If you could figure out how to split the Flyers & Penguins, it creates some options.

optimus2861 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 09:39 PM.

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.