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
02-01-2013, 03:41 PM
  #301
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,131
vCash: 500
So here's my grand idea:

Pacific Division:
ANA COL CGY EDM LA SJ VAN (PHX)
Central Division:
CHI DAL DET MIN NSH STL WPG

Pacific Division:
44 games (home and home against non-division teams)
38 games (six games against three teams; five games against four teams)

Central Division:
46 games (home and home against non-division teams)
36 games (six games against all teams in division)

Playoff format:
Conference qualification, divisional matchup
If four teams from each division qualify, it's 1v4 and 2v3 from each division
If six teams from one and two from the other qualify, its 1v6, 2v5 and 3v4 in one division and 1v2 in the other.
If five teams from one and three from the other, its 1v5, 2v4 in one division, 3 v 2 from other division, and 1v3 in the other division.

Eastern Conference:
Northeast Division:
BOS BUF CAR CLB MTL OTT TOR
Atlantic Division:
FLA NJ NYI NYR PHI PIT TB WAS

30 games against Western Conference
3 games each opponent out of division
4/5 games against in-division opponents

Playoffs:
Straight conference setup, EC Champ v 8, Div Winner 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5, reseed for round 2

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 04:37 PM
  #302
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
So here's my grand idea:

Pacific Division:
ANA COL CGY EDM LA SJ VAN (PHX)
Central Division:
CHI DAL DET MIN NSH STL WPG

Pacific Division:
44 games (home and home against non-division teams)
38 games (six games against three teams; five games against four teams)

Central Division:
46 games (home and home against non-division teams)
36 games (six games against all teams in division)

Playoff format:
Conference qualification, divisional matchup
If four teams from each division qualify, it's 1v4 and 2v3 from each division
If six teams from one and two from the other qualify, its 1v6, 2v5 and 3v4 in one division and 1v2 in the other.
If five teams from one and three from the other, its 1v5, 2v4 in one division, 3 v 2 from other division, and 1v3 in the other division.

Eastern Conference:
Northeast Division:
BOS BUF CAR CLB MTL OTT TOR
Atlantic Division:
FLA NJ NYI NYR PHI PIT TB WAS

30 games against Western Conference
3 games each opponent out of division
4/5 games against in-division opponents

Playoffs:
Straight conference setup, EC Champ v 8, Div Winner 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5, reseed for round 2
Little confused as to why the WC playoffs would employ that whole convoluted system but the EC playoffs would just be straight up normal.

Any reason why? # of teams in each conference is the same.. if its for travel reasons, then this isn't really solving the problem, it's just making it look nice

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 04:50 PM
  #303
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
Little confused as to why the WC playoffs would employ that whole convoluted system but the EC playoffs would just be straight up normal.

Any reason why? # of teams in each conference is the same.. if its for travel reasons, then this isn't really solving the problem, it's just making it look nice
Analysis:

1) The NHL voted in their realignment package 26-4, supposedly with all of the franchises in the two western-most "conferences" approving. Therefore, they don't mind the regular season schedule.

2) The NHLPA voted against the realignment, and besides the travel issue, the main problem was the playoff qualification. This still keeps the 8 of 15 teams per conference qualification, so technically all teams have the same odds starting the season.

3) The NHL wanted "conference-based" playoffs, probably to limit the issues with playoff game start times, not travel. It gets difficult if it is five from one division and three from another, but it still works.

The only other way I see it is the day after the regular season ends is to hold a draft to figure out your opponents, because that makes the regular season more meaningful.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 05:53 PM
  #304
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
Analysis:

1) The NHL voted in their realignment package 26-4, supposedly with all of the franchises in the two western-most "conferences" approving. Therefore, they don't mind the regular season schedule.

2) The NHLPA voted against the realignment, and besides the travel issue, the main problem was the playoff qualification. This still keeps the 8 of 15 teams per conference qualification, so technically all teams have the same odds starting the season.

3) The NHL wanted "conference-based" playoffs, probably to limit the issues with playoff game start times, not travel. It gets difficult if it is five from one division and three from another, but it still works.

The only other way I see it is the day after the regular season ends is to hold a draft to figure out your opponents, because that makes the regular season more meaningful.
Right, but why have two completely different playoff systems for the two conferences?

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 07:09 PM
  #305
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 245
vCash: 500
Do what they proposed only moving phoenix into the northeast, and columbus in the atlantic.

Take the top four from each division a spot in the play offs.

It might seem unfair, but it's not in reality, because even if it appears the western teams are getting more chances the reality is they will still end up with one seat in the semi finals.

It's not perfectly balanced, and it never will be with us geography, however it's relatively balanced.

14 teams in a giant region versus 16 in a small.

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 07:48 PM
  #306
bromine
Registered User
 
bromine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: WPG
Posts: 293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoSimon View Post
Do what they proposed only moving phoenix into the northeast, and columbus in the atlantic.

Take the top four from each division a spot in the play offs.

It might seem unfair, but it's not in reality, because even if it appears the western teams are getting more chances the reality is they will still end up with one seat in the semi finals.

It's not perfectly balanced, and it never will be with us geography, however it's relatively balanced.

14 teams in a giant region versus 16 in a small.
Teams in 7-team divisions have a 14.3% chance of making the semis versus 12.5% for teams in 8-team divisions. Likewise, chances of making the playoffs are also reduced if you're in a bigger division.

For half the teams in the NHL, success or failure in any year is measured by whether they make the playoffs. Uneven chances of making the playoffs is simply unfair.

bromine is offline  
Old
02-01-2013, 09:18 PM
  #307
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
So here's my grand idea:

Pacific Division:
ANA COL CGY EDM LA SJ VAN (PHX)
Central Division:
CHI DAL DET MIN NSH STL WPG

Pacific Division:
44 games (home and home against non-division teams)
38 games (six games against three teams; five games against four teams)

Central Division:
46 games (home and home against non-division teams)
36 games (six games against all teams in division)

Playoff format:
Conference qualification, divisional matchup
If four teams from each division qualify, it's 1v4 and 2v3 from each division
If six teams from one and two from the other qualify, its 1v6, 2v5 and 3v4 in one division and 1v2 in the other.
If five teams from one and three from the other, its 1v5, 2v4 in one division, 3 v 2 from other division, and 1v3 in the other division.

Eastern Conference:
Northeast Division:
BOS BUF CAR CLB MTL OTT TOR
Atlantic Division:
FLA NJ NYI NYR PHI PIT TB WAS

30 games against Western Conference
3 games each opponent out of division
4/5 games against in-division opponents

Playoffs:
Straight conference setup, EC Champ v 8, Div Winner 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5, reseed for round 2
You know, ultimately why should it make a difference how each Conference determines its 8 Playoff entry teams and the scheduled used to get there. As long as teams in both Conferences play the same number of total games and use the same format for all Divisions within their Conference, I don't see why there should be a problem.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-02-2013, 09:59 PM
  #308
Jax1166
Registered User
 
Jax1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Sorry this whole "4 conference" talk is stupid.
Why is the NHL determined to go back to the 1980s...4 divisions works with 20 teams, not 30.
It seems like the NHL due to bickering, jealousy, and stupidity wants to have some archaic system which further makes the sport more difficult to follow for the casual fan AND once more marginalizes the New York-Boston rivalry.

This is the only sport with no NY and BOS team in the same division and it is just is dumb.

Jax1166 is offline  
Old
02-02-2013, 10:07 PM
  #309
Jax1166
Registered User
 
Jax1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
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?
Well we can cross that bridge IF and WHEN we come to it.
This assumes that Phoenix is moved and is not going to Seattle.
In this case, it makes sense to just hold off on re-alignment until this is settled.

You just made that case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
The 4 confernce solution solves the travel issues.

the travel with the divison may be greater in some circumstance but the overal travel lessened.
Enough with the travel issues. Geez this is obsessed about like the NHL is some intra-mural league and not one of the big four sports leagues.
Seriously no other league is this fixaxted but the NHL and sorry, this is what happens when you have some many teams in Canada and the North American settlement patterns.
It's never going to be equal but it can be better, can some of you people and clubs out there just stop this non-sense?

Jax1166 is offline  
Old
02-02-2013, 10:14 PM
  #310
Jax1166
Registered User
 
Jax1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: I-95
Country: United States
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
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.
Nah, I don't like the 16 v 14 split.
I don't like Columbus in the east as well; I think that is unneccessary.


A 6 v 4 division in ONE conference is fair.
It is MUCH more fair than 4 conferences where:
-4 teams per conference automatically get in no matter how weak the conference is (meaning a team finishing 5 in one division despite having more points than a 2nd place team misses the playoffs).
-Further, the Rangers having only TWO games with Boston and the original sixes...is that really fair?


You solve the 4 v 6 division in a conference this way: Copying the NBA.

1) The 1 seed goes to the team with the best record
2) The 2 seed DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GO to a division winner. It goes to the team with the 2nd best record.
3) The other two division winners get a the 2nd/3rd/4th seed depending on points not just too each other but to the other top 4 non-division champ and
4) If the 3rd division champ is really weak, they lose home ice in round 1.

So in my example....the 6 team central has:

StL-110 points
CHI-106 points
DET-100 points

the 4 team NW has:
VAN-99 points

and the 5 team Pacific has:
LA-104 points

Currently the seeds are:
1) StL 2) LA 3) Van 4) CHI 5) DET

But now....

1) StL 2) CHI 3) LA 4) Van 5) DET and DET has home ice.

I think that MORE than solves the problem and makes divisions of different sizes fair and irrelevant.

Jax1166 is offline  
Old
02-04-2013, 04:28 PM
  #311
kvladimir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Here's another totally imperfect idea (that might be somewhat realistic?):

Division A: Anaheim, Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver (4 Pacific + 4 Mountain TZ)

Schedule:

(7x4 Div. A teams) + (6x3 Div. A teams) = 46 games + 3x7 Div. B teams = 21 games + 1x7 Div. C teams = 7 games + 1x8 Div. D teams = 8 games = 82 games

Division B: Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis, Winnipeg (6 Central + 1 East TZ)

Schedule:

5x6 Div. B teams = 30 games + (2x1 Div. C team) + (3x6 Div. C teams) = 20 games + 3x8 Div. A teams = 24 games + 1x8 Div. D teams = 8 games = 82 games

Division C: Boston, Buffalo, Carolina, Columbus, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto (All East TZ)

Schedule:

5x6 Div. C teams = 30 games + (2x1 Div. B team) + (3x6 Div. B teams) = 20 games + 3x8 Div. D teams = 24 games + 1x8 Div. A teams = 8 games = 82 games

Division D: Florida, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Washington (All East TZ)

Schedule:

(7x4 Div. D teams) + (6x3 Div. D teams) = 46 games + 3x7 Div. C teams = 21 games + 1x7 Div. B teams = 7 games + 1x8 Div. A teams = 8 games = 82 games

Playoffs:

Top 4 from each Division make the playoffs and play 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3.

However, crossovers by sub-4 teams in each division with better records than top-4 teams in certain other divisions can happen like this:

A ==> B <===> C <=== D (Any series between A+B will be 2-3-2 format)

In other words, the 2 divisions with 7 teams can have teams from 2 other divisions take their spots with better records, but for teams in the 8-team divisions, if they are top-4, their spot is secure. An idea to help balance this problem of uneven divisions, plus the schedule is designed to have teams in contention with each other (via crossover or otherwise) for playoff spots play each other more often in the regular season. On top of that, the crossovers can reduce the repetition of post-season matchups, and does so by placing teams that are likely to be outside-division rivals together (including rekindling some of the rivalries that exist between Div. B + C).

2nd Round will be 2 winners from each division bracket in a Division Final, then 3rd Round will be 4 division bracket winners reseeded and matched up 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3.

It's hardly perfect (what is?) but it has some ideas I thought might be interesting. Columbus certainly might not like it, but they get a schedule with only 4 games played outside the East/Central, and 3 games each season against their usual rivals + Pittsburgh. Obviously, all bets are off if Phoenix moves to Quebec City, so yeah...

kvladimir is offline  
Old
02-04-2013, 05:33 PM
  #312
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,595
vCash: 500
Alignment, maximum 3 Time Zones per Division

PACIFIC
Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Portland, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, (exp: Seattle)
CENTRAL
Colorado, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, St Louis, Dallas, Nashville, Detroit
NORTHEAST
Columbus, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, *Boston, (exp: Quebec City)
ATLANTIC
NY Rangers, NY Islanders, New Jersey, *Philadelphia, Washington, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida
(*Could swap Boston and Philadelphia)


Alignment, maximum 2 Time Zones per Division

PACIFIC
Vancouver, Portland, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, (exp: Seattle)
NORTHWEST
Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado, Winnipeg, Minnesota
WEST CENTRAL
Dallas, St Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus
NORTHEAST
Buffalo, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, (exp: Quebec City)
EAST CENTRAL
NY Rangers, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
ATLANTIC
Washington, Carolina, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-04-2013, 10:54 PM
  #313
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Most likely scenario is the alignment proposed last year, but the owners will be old two more teams are coming in the near future. That will make 4 "conferences" of 8.

Seattle comes in either to take over Phoenix, and then Toronto 2 and Quebec City are added to the "eastern" conferences as expansion teams.

The CyNick is online now  
Old
02-04-2013, 11:06 PM
  #314
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doakes View Post
Sorry this whole "4 conference" talk is stupid.
Why is the NHL determined to go back to the 1980s...4 divisions works with 20 teams, not 30.
It seems like the NHL due to bickering, jealousy, and stupidity wants to have some archaic system which further makes the sport more difficult to follow for the casual fan AND once more marginalizes the New York-Boston rivalry.

This is the only sport with no NY and BOS team in the same division and it is just is dumb.
The proposed re-alignment actually makes it much easier to follow.

The current system is complicated; three division winners get top 3 seeds, next best 5 in conference get in. And then the tournament isnt really a tournament, because teams get re-ranked. What happens when the 5th seed plays the 3rd seed, but the 5th seed had a better record? Its far from simple.

The new system is simple in that you have to finish top 4 to make the playoffs, and you need to fight your way out of your division. The best thing is it promotes rivalries again. I'm a Leafs fan. I know to get to the semi finals I need to battle divisional rivals. I would much rather have a better chance of playing the Habs, Sens, Sabres, or Bruins in the playoffs than teams like the Pens, Devils, or Caps.

Look at how NBC has been promoting their mid week games; calling them Rivalry Wednesday. You think that's a coincidence? Those are the games people want to see. Rangers-Devils, Flyers-Pens, Bruins-Habs, Leafs-Sens, Wings-Hawks, Oilers-Flames, Sharks-Kings, etc. All of those become more likely to happen in the early rounds of the playoffs. Which is a win for the TV networks.

As for NY-Boston, its just never been as big of a hockey rivalry as it is in other sports. If you put Boston and New York in the same division, you either separate Boston from Montreal, or you bring Montreal with them. But makes no sense to split Montreal from Ottawa and Toronto. And it also makes no sense to split the Rangers from the Flyers, Devils, or Islanders. All of a sudden you have a ten team division.

The CyNick is online now  
Old
02-04-2013, 11:12 PM
  #315
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bromine View Post
Teams in 7-team divisions have a 14.3% chance of making the semis versus 12.5% for teams in 8-team divisions. Likewise, chances of making the playoffs are also reduced if you're in a bigger division.

For half the teams in the NHL, success or failure in any year is measured by whether they make the playoffs. Uneven chances of making the playoffs is simply unfair.
So why don't we let new york, place in the west in the play offs.

Oh wait that's right there not a chance in hell any eastern team wants to be in a western play off.

I wonder what reason that may be, could it be to protect fairness?

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
02-04-2013, 11:18 PM
  #316
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doakes View Post


Enough with the travel issues. Geez this is obsessed about like the NHL is some intra-mural league and not one of the big four sports leagues.
Seriously no other league is this fixaxted but the NHL and sorry, this is what happens when you have some many teams in Canada and the North American settlement patterns.
It's never going to be equal but it can be better, can some of you people and clubs out there just stop this non-sense?
What does canada have to do with it? I'm pretty sure canada is helping the west versus east balance atleast when winnipeg is put where it belongs.

Again you mention the dumbness of the bost ny issue, and this again is a fault of NY3 and phil/penn.

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 09:48 AM
  #317
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Most likely scenario is the alignment proposed last year, but the owners will be old two more teams are coming in the near future. That will make 4 "conferences" of 8.

Seattle comes in either to take over Phoenix, and then Toronto 2 and Quebec City are added to the "eastern" conferences as expansion teams.
Someone still needs to show us how that can logically be done.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 10:59 AM
  #318
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doakes View Post
Sorry this whole "4 conference" talk is stupid.
Why is the NHL determined to go back to the 1980s...4 divisions works with 20 teams, not 30.
The old divisional playoff format was far superior to the cross division one we have now. Made for much better rivalries.

Quote:
It seems like the NHL due to bickering, jealousy, and stupidity wants to have some archaic system which further makes the sport more difficult to follow for the casual fan AND once more marginalizes the New York-Boston rivalry.

This is the only sport with no NY and BOS team in the same division and it is just is dumb.
This is also the only sport where the NY area has 3 teams, so you're a bit limited in creating divisions. Then you add Philly to the mix, which is a closer geographic and historical rival. Maybe you sub Pittsburgh out for Boston? But then again, I think the league would be hesitant to split the PA rivals up, not to mention Pittsburgh's a historical Patrick Division team anyway.

Rangers/Bruins just isnt a huge rivalry. Boston is tied closer to Montreal than NY in hockey. No need to try to force feed us some rivalry that exists mostly just in MLB.

IceAce is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 11:09 AM
  #319
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
The old divisional playoff format was far superior to the cross division one we have now. Made for much better rivalries.



This is also the only sport where the NY area has 3 teams, so you're a bit limited in creating divisions. Than you add Philly to the mix which is a closer geographic and historical rival. Maybe you sub Pittsburgh out for Boston? But then again, I think the league would be hesitant to split the PA rivals up, not to mention Pittsburgh's a historical Patrick Division team.

Rangers/Bruins just isnt a huge rivalry. Boston is tied closer to Montreal than NY in hockey.
What about
Boston - Philadelphia
Montreal - Philadelphia
Carolina - Buffalo
Buffalo - Philadelphia
Chicago - Vancouver
Nashville - San Jose
Pittsburgh - Boston
Carolina - Montreal

All to varying degrees have kind of a rivalry atmosphere. But with that proposed 4-Conference alignment, all rivalry potential is limited to the teams inside the Conference.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 02-05-2013 at 11:15 AM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 12:37 PM
  #320
RappinHobo
#1 Lehner Fanboy
 
RappinHobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 433
vCash: 500
So has the league and PA actually discussed anything or is it still speculation by everyone?

RappinHobo is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 12:38 PM
  #321
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
What about
Boston - Philadelphia
Montreal - Philadelphia
Carolina - Buffalo
Buffalo - Philadelphia
Chicago - Vancouver
Nashville - San Jose
Pittsburgh - Boston
Carolina - Montreal

All to varying degrees have kind of a rivalry atmosphere. But with that proposed 4-Conference alignment, all rivalry potential is limited to the teams inside the Conference.
Some of those are OK (Carolina - Buffalo??), but outside of maybe Detroit/Colorado in the late 90's, nothing really comes close to the feel of those interdivisional playoff rounds that almost always guaranteed an Islanders/Rangers, Caps/Pens, Bruins/Habs, Habs/Nords, Wings/Hawks, Canucks/Flames, Oilers/Flames, etc. type playoff series year in and year out. Familiarity definitely bred contempt in those days.

IceAce is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 12:53 PM
  #322
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
Some of those are OK (Carolina - Buffalo??), but outside of maybe Detroit/Colorado in the late 90's, nothing really comes close to the feel of those interdivisional playoff rounds that almost always guaranteed an Islanders/Rangers, Caps/Pens, Bruins/Habs, Habs/Nords, Wings/Hawks, Canucks/Flames, Oilers/Flames, etc. type playoff series year in and year out. Familiarity definitely bred contempt in those days.
The thing is though, to repeat the point, if the League were to actually go with that 4-Conference format, then it would really extremely limit any opportunity of diversity in rivalry development outside of the 8-team Conference; and going with a top-4 Divisional Playoff would also very much prohibit outside the Conference Playoff rivalry potential. I personally don't want the only rivalry opportunities to be limited to those 7 teams inside any particilar team's 8-team Conference.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 02:40 PM
  #323
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
What about
Boston - Philadelphia
Montreal - Philadelphia
Carolina - Buffalo
Buffalo - Philadelphia
Chicago - Vancouver
Nashville - San Jose

Pittsburgh - Boston
Carolina - Montreal

All to varying degrees have kind of a rivalry atmosphere. But with that proposed 4-Conference alignment, all rivalry potential is limited to the teams inside the Conference.
Notice how those bolded are the only Western Conference rivals, per se. The rest are Eastern Conference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
Some of those are OK (Carolina - Buffalo??), but outside of maybe Detroit/Colorado in the late 90's, nothing really comes close to the feel of those interdivisional playoff rounds that almost always guaranteed an Islanders/Rangers, Caps/Pens, Bruins/Habs, Habs/Nords, Wings/Hawks, Canucks/Flames, Oilers/Flames, etc. type playoff series year in and year out. Familiarity definitely bred contempt in those days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The thing is though, to repeat the point, if the League were to actually go with that 4-Conference format, then it would really extremely limit any opportunity of diversity in rivalry development outside of the 8-team Conference; and going with a top-4 Divisional Playoff would also very much prohibit outside the Conference Playoff rivalry potential. I personally don't want the only rivalry opportunities to be limited to those 7 teams inside any particilar team's 8-team Conference.
Hence the reason for my proposal, where the Western Conference's divisions only play against each other twice, and the Eastern Conference's divisions play against each other thrice.

The Eastern Conference is a different beast than the Western Conference.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 02:52 PM
  #324
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The thing is though, to repeat the point, if the League were to actually go with that 4-Conference format, then it would really extremely limit any opportunity of diversity in rivalry development outside of the 8-team Conference; and going with a top-4 Divisional Playoff would also very much prohibit outside the Conference Playoff rivalry potential. I personally don't want the only rivalry opportunities to be limited to those 7 teams inside any particilar team's 8-team Conference.
This a million times! The 4 conference alignment idea doesn't create new rivalries at all. Your team will just be playing the same teams over and over again. After a few seasons it will start to feel repetitive and forced, with hardly any chance of developing new rivalries.

I think some of you who like the 4 conference idea will hate in after a few years, and I wouldn't be surprised if certain teams start to hate it and want to change it back.

Shockmaster is online now  
Old
02-05-2013, 03:48 PM
  #325
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The thing is though, to repeat the point, if the League were to actually go with that 4-Conference format, then it would really extremely limit any opportunity of diversity in rivalry development outside of the 8-team Conference; and going with a top-4 Divisional Playoff would also very much prohibit outside the Conference Playoff rivalry potential. I personally don't want the only rivalry opportunities to be limited to those 7 teams inside any particilar team's 8-team Conference.
But your closest geographic opponents, are typically always your biggest rivals. The in division rivalry creates that, and the playoff series' amplify those rivalries. They rarely, if ever, create them on their own. I don't think you'll ever create a Florida/Ottawa or Phoenix/Columbus rivalry no matter how hard you try with it.

IceAce 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 08:05 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.