HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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
01-31-2013, 11:38 AM
  #276
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner...

Here's where the problem lies: The problem therefore is figuring out the teams that should be shipped out to play teams in the Mountain or Pacific Time Zones.

Trust me, if you went by the schedule matrix above, you'll see why it doesn't work well at all for teams in the Western conference. If Detroit or Columbus are to remain in the Western, this structure is no different than current. Of course, so the problem isn't as much the "Conferences" as much as it is the matrix.
I know that issue and I knew that almost immediately someone would bring it up. The only consolation I can give is by having an approximated 1st Round Divisional Playoff that it would greatly reduce the chances of matchups outside the Division in the 1st Round. Secondly, even with the 4-Conference (not Division) structure, that still means matchups outside the Conference would take place in the 3rd Round. Therefore, the difference with respect to the Playoffs at least, is that with a 4 Division format teams could face teams outside the Division as early as the 2nd Round.

Quote:
And that matrix was put into effect to placate the Western Conference. It's no coincedence that the rumored 26-4 approval vote didn't have any Western Conference teams voting against it. Therefore, why don't the Western Conference teams go with the NHL-approved structure, and change the scheduling matrix (and even the playoff qualification) for the Eastern, where the rivalries go a little deeper? That would more easily be palatable for most of the Eastern Conference teams (and from what it appears here, the fans).
That idea has been brought up by a few here. I suppose it certainly could work, but could the League be flexible or creative enough to use a different matrix within the 2 Conferences?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 12:13 PM
  #277
azaloum90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The coop!
Posts: 2,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
I think everyone knew there was going to be a lockout, and probably knew, almost to the minute, on what day a new CBA would be signed. The whole thing seemed like such a production. I think the lack of information, or unfair playoff formats, or even the BoG meeting that chose that new alignment, was all just wasting time. Something needed to be done because of Winnipeg, but nothing was ever going to happen until after the lockout. It was all for some weird show that nobody wanted to see.

They came up with a schedule for this season fairly quickly. They changed some dates up, got this to fit with that, plugged this here, and took that out there, and here we are. Realignment is still an issue, one that is never solved easily, so I would think there's people around the league and PA talking about it.
Don't forget the phoenix debacle coupling itself with that lockout... You think the NHL wanted to approve this plan, and then have to face switching the coyotes to one of the eastern Conferences, while switching another team around from the eastern to the western conference, in the middle of a lockout, or even just prior to a lockout??

No... Phoenix will be relocated by next season (13-14), then the conference alignment will be revamped again, and then we'll have the new alignment, hopefully with our original playoff system intact.

As for playoffs, the only thing I would be OK with seeing is having the 8th and 9th place teams of each conference complete a 3 game series to compete for the last playoff spot (8th seed). This way you can't luck yourself into the playoffs because "x team lost their last 2 games"... that isn't fair to the team working their ass off to get a playoff spot.

EDIT: Another thing the NHL needs to do is figure out WTF it is going to do with the teams in Florida. I don't understand why they are in the North Eastern Conference... That causes much too much travel from ALL teams involved in that conference...

azaloum90 is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 12:33 PM
  #278
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,684
vCash: 500
You know, if Quebec City gets the Coyotes, the League could just leave QC in the Southeast, since with that ***** alignment plan from last year the Florida teams would be in the Division with Quebec City regardless.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 12:37 PM
  #279
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
You know, if Quebec City gets the Coyotes, the League could just leave QC in the Southeast, since with that ***** alignment plan from last year the Florida teams would be in the Division with Quebec City regardless.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind if we were in the same division as the Lightning! It'd be cool to see St-Louis and Lecavalier and Stamkos all the time!

Acesolid is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 12:46 PM
  #280
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azaloum90 View Post
No... Phoenix will be relocated by next season (13-14), then the conference alignment will be revamped again, and then we'll have the new alignment, hopefully with our original playoff system intact.
If the Coyotes land in Seattle, the 6-division alignment stays as-is for one more year (yes, even WIN in SE).

If the Coyotes land in Quebec next year, and assuming the league decides to stick with 6 divisions (which would be a bad move in that case!) I wonder if the NHL would move VAN to the PAC against their will (that is, VAN>PAC, WIN>NW and QUE>SE), or do a retarded swap of WIN>PAC and QUE>SE just to avoid stirring up the rest of the hornets (because even this league can't be so retarded as to keep a relocated QUE in the PAC!) for a year.

But I do think QUE would end up in the SE if the 6-div stays. The precious ones in the NE & ATL don't want to move, not even to make room for QUE, since whomever drew the short straw would end up in the SE, or worse, the CEN.

Wouldn't that be funny; trading one Canadian city for another in the league's Southeast division

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 02:54 PM
  #281
Jax1166
Registered User
 
Jax1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
From what I've heard, the topic was never discussed!



Likely the best thing really (not specifically meaning Columbus), just make the simplest realignment and then wait to do something more broadsweeping when expansion comes down the pipes. Either way though, they truly do need to decide which teams gets put in the East, whether it's Columbus or some other team.
1) No, Columbus is a mid-west team that if not in a division with PIT, needs to have the DET and CHI markets to play off.

2) I think the problem here is greed and special interests.
A. Detroit thinks they are entitled to go east, which would mess up the conference balances and leave Columbus in the dark being the only EST. Not to mention having 5 of the 6 originals in 1 conference?

B. Minnesota whinning about having start times too late.

C. Vancouver wanting their cake (less travel) and eating it too (won't go to the pacific).

D. No "4" Canada teams with a US team.

You have jealousy of people who dis-like the EC travel, yet not understanding basic NA geography.


My solutions:

1) Status quo. The owners want to bicker and whine, leave it alone and close pandora's box.

OR

2) Sensible compromise. Don't try to punish the ECF or imbalance the conferences with too many good, big market teams in one. Prioritize what matters most.
Think outside the box.

4 divisions is too small, for the amount of league teams and marketing, you need 6. BUT since 8 teams get in, having a 4 or 6 team division is not a big deal.
Do this.


AND

3) RE-do Seeing NBA Style
-If you finish 1st in the conference you get the 1 spot
-If you win your division you get the 2-4 seed
-So Say CHI has 110 points to lead the conference and StL has 109 and the NW team Minnesota has 100 and LA has 99
1) CHI 2) StL 3) Minnesota 4) LA

-If you win the division but you have the 5th most points you are still the 4 seed BUT you do not get home ice round one.
EX: LA wins the west with 98 points....DET is 3rd in the central with 102 points as the 5 seed. DET gets home ice.

Quote:
East

Atlantic
Rangers
Islanders
NJ
PHI
PIT

Northeast
BOS
BUF
MON
OTT
TOR

Southeast
WAS
FLA
TB
CAR
NASHVILLE OR COLUMBUS



West
Central
DET
CHI
StL
NASH or Columbus
Dallas
Minn

Northwest
CAL
EDM
WIN
VAN

Pacific
SJ
ANA
LA
PHO (Seattle?)
Colorado


Bold and Italic=changes
-conference balance remains the same
-Dallas gets their travel fixed
-Colorado is with more traditional rivals
-Minnesota is in a better divisional fit
-Nashville coming east won't upset conference powers and the time zone difference is 1 hour which is not a big deal considering weekend game
-Vancouver is in the Pacific and with/if there is a Seattle has a close rival


OR
Quote:

East

Atlantic
Rangers
Islanders
NJ
PHI
PIT

Northeast
BOS
BUF
MON
OTT
TOR

Southeast
WAS
FLA
TB
CAR
NASHVILLE OR COLUMBUS


West
Central
DET
CHI
StL
NASH or Columbus
Dallas


Northwest
CAL
EDM
WIN
MIN
Colorado

Pacific
SJ
ANA
LA
PHO (Seattle?)
Vancouver

Bold and Italic=changes
Someone tell what is wrong with using one of these two?

Jax1166 is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 03:06 PM
  #282
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doakes View Post
1) No, Columbus is a mid-west team that if not in a division with PIT, needs to have the DET and CHI markets to play off.

2) I think the problem here is greed and special interests.
A. Detroit thinks they are entitled to go east, which would mess up the conference balances and leave Columbus in the dark being the only EST. Not to mention having 5 of the 6 originals in 1 conference?

B. Minnesota whinning about having start times too late.

C. Vancouver wanting their cake (less travel) and eating it too (won't go to the pacific).

D. No "4" Canada teams with a US team.

You have jealousy of people who dis-like the EC travel, yet not understanding basic NA geography.

My solutions:

1) Status quo. The owners want to bicker and whine, leave it alone and close pandora's box.

OR

2) Sensible compromise. Don't try to punish the ECF or imbalance the conferences with too many good, big market teams in one. Prioritize what matters most.
Think outside the box.

4 divisions is too small, for the amount of league teams and marketing, you need 6. BUT since 8 teams get in, having a 4 or 6 team division is not a big deal.
Do this.

AND

3) RE-do Seeing NBA Style
-If you finish 1st in the conference you get the 1 spot
-If you win your division you get the 2-4 seed
-So Say CHI has 110 points to lead the conference and StL has 109 and the NW team Minnesota has 100 and LA has 99
1) CHI 2) StL 3) Minnesota 4) LA

-If you win the division but you have the 5th most points you are still the 4 seed BUT you do not get home ice round one.
EX: LA wins the west with 98 points....DET is 3rd in the central with 102 points as the 5 seed. DET gets home ice.

-conference balance remains the same
-Dallas gets their travel fixed
-Colorado is with more traditional rivals
-Minnesota is in a better divisional fit
-Nashville coming east won't upset conference powers and the time zone difference is 1 hour which is not a big deal considering weekend game
-Vancouver is in the Pacific and with/if there is a Seattle has a close rival

OR

Someone tell what is wrong with using one of these two?
It all sounds good to me; seriously, just about all of it.
That includes the idea that Columbus is best served either in a Division with Pittsburgh or Detroit; and that Nashville, regardless of the slight TZ difference, is really the best fit in the SE.

However,...
One thing though, what if the Coyotes need to be relocated before the NHL believes Seattle is ready?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 03:38 PM
  #283
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doakes View Post
East

Atlantic
Rangers
Islanders
NJ
PHI
PIT

Northeast
BOS
BUF
MON
OTT
TOR

Southeast
WAS
FLA
TB
CAR
NASHVILLE OR COLUMBUS


West
Central
DET
CHI
StL
NASH or Columbus
Dallas
Minn

Northwest
CAL
EDM
WIN
VAN

Pacific
SJ
ANA
LA
PHO (Seattle?)
Colorado

Bold and Italic=changes
Doakes, you just gave mean idea...

I said in the post above that I agreed with just about all of what you posted; but there is one small part that No.... That one option of the West with one 4-team Division and one 6-team Division. It's one thing to have 5 and 4-team Divisions, or 5 and 6 team Divisions, or 7 and 8-team Divisions,... but a difference of 4 and 6 is simply too much. HOWEVER,... if the basic two Conference separation is maintained, where teams from one Conference really aren't competing in the Standings with teams from the other Conference, then just perhaps a 4-team Division could exist in the one Conference and a 6-team Division in the other. I mean, hell, the League was planning a 16-14 Conferences split anyway.

West

PACIFIC
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix
Colorado

NORTHWEST
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Winnipeg

WEST CENTRAL
Minnesota
Chicago
St Louis
Dallas
Detroit

East

NORTHEAST
Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Buffalo

EAST CENTRAL
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
New Jersey
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Columbus

ATLANTIC
Washington
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Florida
Nashville


And in that 4-team Division, the League could guarantee the Division winner only a top-4 spot. And in the 6-team Division, the 2nd place team could be guaranteed a Playoff spot, something in the top-8.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 03:53 PM
  #284
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
With the news today, I do not know if Phoenix will stay there any longer without any deal so relocation is highly likely this summer because the league knows that they can't keep Phoenix any longer.

So if Phoenix moves to Seattle, then Vancouver must switch to pacific division no matter what because it is easy travel for them and gets to play in PTZ teams in a division for the first time, finally. However, if Phoenix moves to Quebec City then Vancouver must stay in NW because of the Alberta's rivalry and shorter travel in case if the league decides to keep 6 division format. I would prefer that the league switch to 4 division with 2 conference or 4 conference format.

Quote:
6 division format with Seattle relocation
Western Conference
Pacific Division
Vancouver
Seattle
San Jose
LA
Anaheim

Mountain Division
Edmonton
Calgary
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Colorado

Central Division
Detroit
Columbus
St. Louis
Chicago
Dallas

Eastern Conference
Northeast Division
Toronto
Ottawa
Montreal
Boston
Buffalo

Atlantic Division
NYR
NYI
NJ
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh

Southeast Division
Washington
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Florida
Nashville
Quote:
4 Conference or 2 conference w/ 4 divisions with Seattle relocation

Western Conference
Vancouver
Seattle
San Jose
LA
Anaheim
Colorado
Edmonton
Calgary

Central Conference
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Chicago
St. Louis
Dallas
Nashville
Columbus

Northeast Conference
Detroit
Toronto
Ottawa
Montreal
Boston
Buffalo
Carolina (Hartford)

Atlantic Conference
NYI
NYR
NJ
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Tampa Bay
Florida
Quote:
4 Conference or 2 conference with 4 divisions with Quebec City Relocation

Western Conference
Vancouver
San Jose
LA
Anaheim
Colorado
Edmonton
Calgary

Central Conference
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Chicago
St. Louis
Dallas
Nashville
Columbus

Northeast Conference
Detroit
Toronto
Ottawa
Montreal
Boston
Buffalo
Quebec City
Carolina

Atlantic Conference
NYI
NYR
NJ
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Tampa Bay
Florida

If the league goes with 2 conference with 4 division then Detroit would be in Central division. If it goes with 4 conferences, it will be 7-7-8-8 set-up.

coolboarder is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 05:23 PM
  #285
atticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Here we go again. Most of these proposed alignments that have been posted are just solutions looking for a problem, when really there isn't a problem there. So just for a minute, take a step back and look at what are the "real" problems under the current NHL alignment.

Right now, are there any "real" alignment issues in the Eastern Conference? No. Are there any "real" issues in the Western Conference? Yes. Okay, so lets take a look at what the real issues are out west before coming up with a solution. That way we may actually have a solution that addresses the problems rather than figure out how many more times the Flyers can play Pittsburgh.

The problems in the west revolve around two main issues (and it is not how many times does a given team play the Maple Leafs, sorry Toronto fans.): Problem 1. The start times of away games. Problem 2. Travel distances.

These issues become particularly key in the playoffs. Notice I didn't mention "not playing enough games against some team X." That is a minor problem that some fans from the eastern conference think is a major problem, really because they don't have any real major problems. Most Western conference teams would be thrilled if their real problems were actually addressed, and those minor problems were the only ones they had to deal with.

Okay, so how do we address problems 1 and 2 above? Lets see, if we reduce the number games played between Pacific & Mountain timezone teams with Central and Eastern timezone teams, we solve both!!! Wow!!! That sure was easy.

So how can we do this in the regular season? Well, if we keep 3 divisions in the West, there will still be the middle division of the three that will have some CTZ and PTZ teams. So that doesn't work. But wait, if we go down to just two divisions in the west, we no longer have that issue. It can't be that easy, can it?

Okay, now lets look at the playoffs. How to we minimize the number of times the ETZ & CTZ teams play MTZ and PTZ teams in playoff series to both reduce travel distances (and save money), and have better away game start times (which means more viewers which also means more money)? Hmmm... well, if the two divisions do not play each other until the third round as was proposed last year, then wow!!! those issues wont happen in rounds 1 or 2 of the playoffs either, (where 80% of the playoff series matchups are actually played).

So wait, by just going to 4 "conferences" addresses all of the real issues and generates more money for teams as well? So what is the reason we are looking at something else again???


Last edited by atticus: 01-31-2013 at 05:30 PM.
atticus is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 05:58 PM
  #286
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 5,763
vCash: 500
The 4 confernce solution solves the travel issues.

the travel with the divison may be greater in some circumstance but the overal travel lessened. It could be even more imporved if you coordinate scheduling near by opponents. for example dont have you dont have vancouver do a single trip to LA, instead have them do a game in LA followed by a game in San Jose or colorado.

Interconference would be pretty balanced because every team would travel to every other team once and have them once.

With the other 3 conferences there is dispute on what teams go where....

you could divide teams multiple ways like doing a south, midwest, and east or what was proposed in the NHL plan of putting Florida in with the NE teams. you could also do it in a way that each conference has a team in NYC. You can do it in a way so there isnt a singleton Canadian team in a conference.

If they go with the 5 team division format then what they really need to do is go with the baseball approach and have conferences each have a western divison thus balancing the travel requirements.

If PHX moves to Seattle then the divisions would be (Atlantic and NE stay the same):

A1:seattle vancouver calgary edmonton winnipeg
B1: san jose colorado dallas anaheim and LA
A2: minnesota chicago detroit st louis columbus
B2: nashville florida tampa bay washington carolina

OR

A1: seattle vancouver LA, anaheim, and San Jose
B1:Colorado calgary edmonton winnipeg minnesota
A2:chicago detroit columbus st louis washington
B2: dallas nashville florida tampa bay carolina

Djp is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 06:08 PM
  #287
Bucky_Hoyt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
Country: Canada
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticus View Post
Here we go again. Most of these proposed alignments that have been posted are just solutions looking for a problem, when really there isn't a problem there. So just for a minute, take a step back and look at what are the "real" problems under the current NHL alignment.

Right now, are there any "real" alignment issues in the Eastern Conference? No. Are there any "real" issues in the Western Conference? Yes. Okay, so lets take a look at what the real issues are out west before coming up with a solution. That way we may actually have a solution that addresses the problems rather than figure out how many more times the Flyers can play Pittsburgh.

The problems in the west revolve around two main issues (and it is not how many times does a given team play the Maple Leafs, sorry Toronto fans.): Problem 1. The start times of away games. Problem 2. Travel distances.

These issues become particularly key in the playoffs. Notice I didn't mention "not playing enough games against some team X." That is a minor problem that some fans from the eastern conference think is a major problem, really because they don't have any real major problems. Most Western conference teams would be thrilled if their real problems were actually addressed, and those minor problems were the only ones they had to deal with.

Okay, so how do we address problems 1 and 2 above? Lets see, if we reduce the number games played between Pacific & Mountain timezone teams with Central and Eastern timezone teams, we solve both!!! Wow!!! That sure was easy.

So how can we do this in the regular season? Well, if we keep 3 divisions in the West, there will still be the middle division of the three that will have some CTZ and PTZ teams. So that doesn't work. But wait, if we go down to just two divisions in the west, we no longer have that issue. It can't be that easy, can it?

Okay, now lets look at the playoffs. How to we minimize the number of times the ETZ & CTZ teams play MTZ and PTZ teams in playoff series to both reduce travel distances (and save money), and have better away game start times (which means more viewers which also means more money)? Hmmm... well, if the two divisions do not play each other until the third round as was proposed last year, then wow!!! those issues wont happen in rounds 1 or 2 of the playoffs either, (where 80% of the playoff series matchups are actually played).

So wait, by just going to 4 "conferences" addresses all of the real issues and generates more money for teams as well? So what is the reason we are looking at something else again???
Fair points.

Bucky_Hoyt is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 07:31 PM
  #288
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 5,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticus View Post
Here we go again. Most of these proposed alignments that have been posted are just solutions looking for a problem, when really there isn't a problem there. So just for a minute, take a step back and look at what are the "real" problems under the current NHL alignment.

Right now, are there any "real" alignment issues in the Eastern Conference? No. Are there any "real" issues in the Western Conference? Yes. Okay, so lets take a look at what the real issues are out west before coming up with a solution. That way we may actually have a solution that addresses the problems rather than figure out how many more times the Flyers can play Pittsburgh.

The problems in the west revolve around two main issues (and it is not how many times does a given team play the Maple Leafs, sorry Toronto fans.): Problem 1. The start times of away games. Problem 2. Travel distances.

These issues become particularly key in the playoffs. Notice I didn't mention "not playing enough games against some team X." That is a minor problem that some fans from the eastern conference think is a major problem, really because they don't have any real major problems. Most Western conference teams would be thrilled if their real problems were actually addressed, and those minor problems were the only ones they had to deal with.

Okay, so how do we address problems 1 and 2 above? Lets see, if we reduce the number games played between Pacific & Mountain timezone teams with Central and Eastern timezone teams, we solve both!!! Wow!!! That sure was easy.

So how can we do this in the regular season? Well, if we keep 3 divisions in the West, there will still be the middle division of the three that will have some CTZ and PTZ teams. So that doesn't work. But wait, if we go down to just two divisions in the west, we no longer have that issue. It can't be that easy, can it?

Okay, now lets look at the playoffs. How to we minimize the number of times the ETZ & CTZ teams play MTZ and PTZ teams in playoff series to both reduce travel distances (and save money), and have better away game start times (which means more viewers which also means more money)? Hmmm... well, if the two divisions do not play each other until the third round as was proposed last year, then wow!!! those issues wont happen in rounds 1 or 2 of the playoffs either, (where 80% of the playoff series matchups are actually played).

So wait, by just going to 4 "conferences" addresses all of the real issues and generates more money for teams as well? So what is the reason we are looking at something else again???



For the playoffs under a 4 conference model with 32 teams...thus 2 divisions

1. divison winners get byes, top 4 teams advance per conference. You could have it a 2 vs 3 set up cross divisions or a 3 vs 6 4 vs 5 with the winners playing division winners. each of these rounds would be best of 5.

2. you will have 2 survivors from each conference and it could set up in an elite 8 NCAA setup where you preset the season before in a rotating basis of which team would play where do for division A the highest is A1 and the lowest is A2. You could have something set up where the only way the conference teams face off is in the finals or you set it up where you pair two conferences like one year conference A and see face off so its A1 vs C2 and C1 vs A2 and the winners play in the semi finals effectivly creating a conference championship except restoring the old conference names. In divison rotatio each team would fall under each "conference" 2 times over 4 years.

AL with 30 teams.....4 conferences aka divisions would rotate which conference they were in from year to year(old names restored)...think of it like the NCAA final 4 where its preset of who west plays in the semi final.

Prior to an expansion....the playoffs could still be like above in #2 except the top 6 advance with the top 2 teams getting byes. in the preliminary round its 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 with winners playing 1 and 2. This may eleiviate some of the concern of some teams missing out on the playoffs.

another option is go back to the old old system from the 70s...with a twist....

with the 4 divisons the top 2 are assured of a playoff spot and thus seeded 1-4 among 1st place tams, and 5-8 among second place teams. Then the top 8 based on common game record advance to the playoffs. Since ever team plays every other 2 times those 58 games will decide the playoff teams. the divisional games will factor in but those games that matter will be preselected and designated as counting toward these standings.

In a 7 team division where you would play 6 times gainst division foes and 2 times against all others...of those 6 times against divison foes 2 games will be marked as counting toward playoff standing for the overall race. These would be scattered in the schedule so among the 12 games that matter would average out to about 2 per month (1 in April, 1 in october, and 2 in other months).

thus you would have your final 16 with a 1 vs 16 etc approach.

the other option is to rotate the divisons in conferences in groups of 2 like i mentioned above and then top 2 automatically qualify and then the 4 best after qualify based on the common game 58 game schedule...then its a 1 vs 8 set up to the conference final and then stnley cup.

Djp is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 07:59 PM
  #289
5RingsAndABeer
John MacKinnon Fan
 
5RingsAndABeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 1220
I would definitely be against uneven divisions unless it was temporary.

I expect teams involved would be as well.

5RingsAndABeer is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 08:53 PM
  #290
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticus View Post
So how can we do this in the regular season? Well, if we keep 3 divisions in the West, there will still be the middle division of the three that will have some CTZ and PTZ teams. So that doesn't work. But wait, if we go down to just two divisions in the west, we no longer have that issue. It can't be that easy, can it?
That is Not necessarily true! And especially if the Coyotes are relocated, but even if they're not.

Quote:
Okay, now lets look at the playoffs. How to we minimize the number of times the ETZ & CTZ teams play MTZ and PTZ teams in playoff series to both reduce travel distances (and save money), and have better away game start times (which means more viewers which also means more money)? Hmmm... well, if the two divisions do not play each other until the third round as was proposed last year, then wow!!! those issues wont happen in rounds 1 or 2 of the playoffs either, (where 80% of the playoff series matchups are actually played).
That was not proposed last year, it was mentioned as an option and never decided upon. In fact, the prevailing view seemed to be that the Divisional Playoffs would likely be just in the 1st Round. But regardless, with at least one Round of even an approximated Divisional Playoff that means one Round less than currently in which teams won't need to play teams outside their Division. The difference then becomes the potential of playing outside in the Division in the 2nd Round as compared to absolutely playing outside the Division in the 3rd (with a 4-Conference format); understanding also that with only a 1st Round "Divisional" Playoff, a team may play outside its Division in the 2nd Round but then again be inside the Division in the 3rd Round (the possibility exists).

Quote:
So wait, by just going to 4 "conferences" addresses all of the real issues and generates more money for teams as well? So what is the reason we are looking at something else again???
It addresses all of those issues (some of which can be addressed in other ways) and creates others:
1) Rival potentials become pretty much limited to the teams inside the Division. Because of that limitation, many fans might not see much interest in following much of the 46 to 48 games outside the Division.
2) Teams and fans alike may likely begin to wonder why more than half of the games played are against teams that their team isn't directly competing with in the Standings.
3) Until there is actually 32 teams, there will be imbalance. Some may be fine with that, others won't (just as is the case with apparently every alignment and scheduling format). Clearly imbalance existed previously in the League, so it can exist again, but for virtually every instance that imbalance existed in the past it was because there was any other option due to the number of teams in the League at that time.
4) There apparently will still be some teams that won't be content with that new 4-Conference alignment.
5) The scheduling format that was agreed on might very well not be the scheduling format that the League will use 3 years down the road, because as we've seen the League has a habit of frequently changing the format. And even if it can't get enogh votes to change it, I'll still wager my bottom dollar that fans and owners alike will be wanting it changed after a period of time, especially fans and teams in the East who will get tired of playing 2 games against every western team every Season (not saying that I don't like it, but I think we've had a sense just over the past 10 years about how fans tastes frequently chance on this matter).
6) What about when we start getting 5th place team(s) every Season with much better records in one or two Conferences than the 4th place team(s) in other Conferences? Some fans will accept it, but for others it'll just be another complaint; and the League sometimes sees fit to respond to such complaints.


The 4-Conference idea brings its own issues and thus creates as many problems as it solves. If must be, then 4-Divisions is still the better way to go.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-31-2013, 10:36 PM
  #291
Bucky_Hoyt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
Country: Canada
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5RingsAndABeer View Post
I would definitely be against uneven divisions unless it was temporary.

I expect teams involved would be as well.
Doubt the uneven conferences would exist for too long. NHLBoG sees the all-mighty expansion/TV dollars and NHLPA sees jobs. Both Greater Toronto (though I do hope that means Hamilton) and Quebec City are clamoring for teams. I'd give it 2-3 seasons of unevenness followed by expansion.

Bucky_Hoyt is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 06:42 AM
  #292
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky_Hoyt View Post
Doubt the uneven conferences would exist for too long. NHLBoG sees the all-mighty expansion/TV dollars and NHLPA sees jobs. Both Greater Toronto (though I do hope that means Hamilton) and Quebec City are clamoring for teams. I'd give it 2-3 seasons of unevenness followed by expansion.
Let's say that QC gets the Coyotes and MLSE continues to put up a fuss over having another team in the territory, or just one of those happens.

Expansion will happen, though perhaps not quite as soon as some think. And to repeat a common question: Why create the imbalance, why not wait to expansion actually happens?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 06:48 AM
  #293
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,814
vCash: 500
Bos, NYR, NYI, NJ
Mtl, Que, Ott, Tor
Phi, Pit, Buf, Clb
Was, Car, TB, Fla

Det, Chi, Nas, StL, Wpg, Min, Dal

Van, Edm, Cal, SJ, LA, Ana, Col

East is 1-8 conference playoffs. Central and West are top 4 divisional playoffs.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 10:45 AM
  #294
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,684
vCash: 500
Who knows for sure yet, and perhaps Seattle isn't the most probable scenario, but If Seattle gets a relocated Coyotes then I don't think there'll be any huge need to change up the alignment structure prematurely to expansion.

From Phoenix to Seattle is a vast improvement in trying to push Vancouver into the Pacific Division.
The Northwest, without Vancouver and plus Winnipeg, puts less teeth in Minnesota's complaint about the Division.
Detroit wants to keep Columbus with them, in whichever alignment arrangement; so the League says fine, we'll put Nashville in the SE.
And Dallas is Happy!

PACIFIC
Vancouver, Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim
NORTHWEST
Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado, Winnipeg, Minnesota
CENTRAL
Dallas, St Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus

Nashville in the SE.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 11:09 AM
  #295
lesHabitants514
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 75
vCash: 500
The NHL attempted a realignment last year that had 16 teams in the west and 14 in the east. I believe they made those lopsided conferences to open the discussion for 2 expansion teams. Any realignment in the coming years would be to support a 32 team league.

Now, we know this:

Long Island to Brooklyn (doesn't change anything)
Quebec City, Toronto and Seattle are building arenas.
Phoenix is on it's way out.

No matter what team moves where, the relocations and realignments in the next coming years would be pieces to the final puzzle that, I believe, will look like this. (I took into account last years NHL's realignment plan to have the Florida markets with Canadian teams and i also took into account time zoning.)

By 2016, after relocations and expansion these seem to be the best bet divisions:

Detroit
Chicago
St-Louis
Minnesota
Winnipeg
Columbus
Nashville
Dallas

Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
**Seattle
Los Angeles
San Jose
Anaheim
Colorado

New York
Brooklyn
New Jersey
Boston
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Carolina

Montreal
Toronto
**Quebec City
**Markham team
Ottawa
Buffalo
Tampa Bay
Florida

Play your division 6 X:42
Play 2 divisions 2 X : 32
Play 1 division 1 X : 8

Total: 82 games


Last edited by lesHabitants514: 02-01-2013 at 11:16 AM.
lesHabitants514 is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 11:17 AM
  #296
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Nashville in the SE.
You sure the delicate flowers in the NE and Atlantic could handle willingly bringing in an 8pm team? Winnipeg is forced on them, and everyone wants them in the West as soon as possible. They're going to vote Nashville in, when Columbus or Detroit are there? 8pm is pretty late.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 11:53 AM
  #297
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lesHabitants514 View Post
New York
Brooklyn
New Jersey
Boston
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Carolina

Montreal
Toronto
**Quebec City
**Markham team
Ottawa
Buffalo
Tampa Bay
Florida
You really think that the Northeast would agree to tossing out Boston in order to make room for the Florida teams.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 12:05 PM
  #298
lesHabitants514
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 75
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
You really think that the Northeast would agree to tossing out Boston in order to make room for the Florida teams.
Both teams have huge followings. i don't believe having them in separate divisions hurts either team, monetarily speaking. That and the fact that Florida teams draw huge Canadian crowds, again the Bettman ship will steer towards revenue-generating realignment.

edit: then again, Habs-B's games draw huge ratings and dollars.....there could be sponsors and networks that can influence decisions.....

lesHabitants514 is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 12:14 PM
  #299
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lesHabitants514 View Post
Both teams have huge followings. i don't believe having them in separate divisions hurts either team, monetarily speaking. That and the fact that Florida teams draw huge Canadian crowds, again the Bettman ship will steer towards revenue-generating realignment.

edit: then again, Habs-B's games draw huge ratings and dollars.....there could be sponsors and networks that would influence this.....
Look, I know that Montreal will re-establish its great rivalry with QC; but Montreal was one of the teams that voted against the Florida teams inclusion in the NE Division, and if that costs the loss of Boston... Montreal will raise ole Hell! Toronto and Buffalo also will join the ranks with Montreal, and Boston may also join in. Now they've got not 4 teams voting against that alignment but 7. And other teams in the League might also look at it as the breaking up of a huge draw rivalry.

Hey, I'm like Boston, I think, in that I don't think it would be a horrible alignment for the Bruins to be in with the NYC area teams and Philadelphia; but it's clear what the prevailing sentiment would be, and that's that the Montreal-Boston rivalry isn't one that should be separated.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 02-01-2013 at 12:27 PM. Reason: minor clarification
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 12:32 PM
  #300
lesHabitants514
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 75
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Look, I know that Montreal will re-establish its great rivalry with QC; but Montreal was one of the teams that voted against the Florida teams inclusion in the NE Division, and if that costs the loss of Boston... Montreal will raise ole Hell! Toronto and Buffalo also will join the ranks with Montreal, and Boston may also join in. Now they've got not 4 teams voting against that alignment but 7. And other teams in the League might also look at it as the breaking up of a huge draw rivalry.

Hey, I'm like Boston, I think, in that don't think it would be a horrible alignment for the Bruins to be in with the NYC area teams and Philadelphia; but it's clear what the prevailing sentiment would be, and that's that the Montreal-Boston rivalry isn't one that should be separated.
not to take anything away from the rivalry but no matter who we play, if the team is playing well, we're watching them. Boston or not, the fans are watching. Also this is IF they go to a 32-team format BIG IF. but lets say the florida teams stay down there and Boston stays with Montreal, who moves into this 8-team division? separate the Pennsylvanian teams? Also, the suffering Florida teams would get a HUGE boost by playing Canadian teams frequently...... spread some wealth around

lesHabitants514 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 12:52 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.