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
02-05-2013, 05:29 PM
  #326
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
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.
After a heated playoff series or two, you never know. If your team gets knocked out by a team you didn't care much for, that could easily change.

You say the new alignment creates rivalries. Aren't they already created though? Haven't they been created for several decades now? Don't those teams play each other often enough? In fact, this new alignment has the potential to destroy certain rivalries.

For example, the Rangers will not be with any other original six teams. They will only play the other original six teams twice while Boston, Montreal and Toronto will go at it often in one conference and Detroit and Chicago will go at it often in the others. Games between the Bruins and the Flyers and the Bruins and the Penguins have gotten heated over the last several years. Do we want less of those games for some misplaced sense of amplifying rivalries that have already been amplified? Do we want less of those matchups so we can see the same teams play against each other in the first round of the playoffs every year?

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 06:26 PM
  #327
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,248
vCash: 500
OK. This is a long post. Please excuse that. I will start with the teams and divisions:
WALES:
Eastern Division: QC, MONT, OTT, TOR, BUFF, BOS, CAR
Atlantic Division: NYR, NYI, NJ, PIT, PHI, WAS, FLO, TB
(If PHX does not move or moves to a Western city, replace QC with CMB)

CAMPBELL:
Pacific Division: VAN, CAL, EDM, COL, LA, ANA, SJ
Central Division: WIN, MIN, CHI, DET, STL, DAL, CMB, NAS
(If PHX does not move, or moves to SEA, add them to Pac, and leave CMB off Central)

Now, Schedule: Each conference has a 7 team division and an 8 team division. We assume for the matrix that the Divisions are as I have written them. If PHX does different, then adjust Division names in the matrix as necessary.

Start with the CAMPBELL:
Pacific: 3 games vs all teams from Central = 24 games in all years.
Then, in odd years: 2 games vs all teams from East Div = 14
1 game vs each Atl Div = 8.
In their own Div = 6 vs each team = 36.
In even years: 1 game vs East Div teams + 1 game = 8.
2 games vs Atl Div teams = 16
In Division = 6 games vs 4, 5 games vs 2 = 34
Central: 3 games vs all from Pacific = 21 in all years.
In odd years: 1 games vs East Div = 7.
2 games vs Atl Div = 16
In Division = 5 games vs 4 teams, 6 games vs 3 teams = 38
In even years: 2 games vs East Div = 14.
1 game vs Atl + 1 extra game = 9
In Division = Same as Odd years = 38.
In all cases, make the odd games rotate so that there is even play among all teams over time....

For the WALES:
Replace Pacific with East, and Central with Atlantic. It works the same.

Playoffs:
CAMPBELL: Top 8 by points qualify. We want to minimize extreme travel for the sake of TV starts, so: For the first round: If the teams are 4 and 4, go by Divisions. If the teams are 3 and 5, go 1a v 5a, 2a v 4a, 1b v 3b, 3a v 2b (adjust the crossover if needed to get the top 4 at home). If the teams are 2 and 6, go by straight seeding. Those are the first round matchups. Make a tournament bracket so that if all home teams win, the 2nd round will be 1v4, 2v3. 2nd round has no re seeding, and no respect for travel.
WALES: Top 8 by points qualify. Seed by points. All teams are ETZ, so make a tournament bracket: 1v8, 2v7, etc. 2nd round, no reseeding.

That's my best shot.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
02-05-2013, 10:40 PM
  #328
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,059
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
For example, the Rangers will not be with any other original six teams. They will only play the other original six teams twice while Boston, Montreal and Toronto will go at it often in one conference and Detroit and Chicago will go at it often in the others. Games between the Bruins and the Flyers and the Bruins and the Penguins have gotten heated over the last several years. Do we want less of those games for some misplaced sense of amplifying rivalries that have already been amplified? Do we want less of those matchups so we can see the same teams play against each other in the first round of the playoffs every year?
So what? The Rangers haven't been in a Division with another Original 6 team since the early 80's, it's not like they're having anything taken away from them. Their natural rivals, Flyers, Isles, and Devils are all there though. And heck yes, we want to see those match ups more in the postseason. I want those teams to beat each other senseless and earn the right to be a Division playoff champ before they get the right to play for a shot at the Cup.

IceAce is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 12:11 AM
  #329
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
So what? The Rangers haven't been in a Division with another Original 6 team since the early 80's, it's not like they're having anything taken away from them. Their natural rivals, Flyers, Isles, and Devils are all there though. And heck yes, we want to see those match ups more in the postseason. I want those teams to beat each other senseless and earn the right to be a Division playoff champ before they get the right to play for a shot at the Cup.
Maybe they haven't been in the same division, but that's 4 games a year against the Bruins, Leafs, and Habs as it is currently.

You and others who share your thoughts say you want to see those matchups in the playoffs, but in a few years I think some of you will come to regret it.

First, the matchups will just feel forced and repetitive. Seeing PIT vs PHI, PIT vs NYR, PHI vs NYR, NYR vs ND, etc. in the first round every year will get ridiculous. Yes, the first round. Those matchups are better saved for at least the semi-finals.

Second, the 5th placed team in one division will have more points than the 3rd or 4th placed teams in another division. It's bound to happen. That's where fans will turn on this 4 conference alignment, and it won't be much later until the teams start demanding a different alignment, or at least a different playoff scenario.

And if you do enjoy seeing these matchups constantly, don't say this alignment "creates new rivalries," because it doesn't. You're just playing the same teams over and over. How is that creating new rivalries? Maybe you specifically haven't said it, but many who share your views have and it makes zero sense.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 01:33 AM
  #330
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
What about
Boston - Philadelphia - Have met in the playoffs 2 times in the past 35 years
Montreal - Philadelphia - Met 2 times in the playoffs the last 24 years
Carolina - Buffalo - Met one time in the playoffs back in 2006
Buffalo - Philadelphia - Six series in last 18 years, maybe best argument for a rivalry.
Chicago - Vancouver - Played in '09, '10, '11. Rivalry big because they've played each other a lot recently in the playoffs, no natural rivalry beforehand.
Nashville - San Jose - Only two playoff series in 2006 and 2007. Is there a playoff rivalry still?
Pittsburgh - Boston - Haven't met in the playoffs since Mario was 26 years old, 1992.
Carolina - Montreal - Met in the playoffs two times since the Canes left Hartford, in 2002 and 2006.

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.
What about big recent playoff rivalries like Edmonton - Dallas and Detroit - Colorado? I would argue those were better in the past 20 years than most of the pairings you listed.

Wondering if you're overvaluing some of the eastern conference rivalries?

mouser is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 02:13 AM
  #331
Bucky_Hoyt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
Country: Canada
Posts: 331
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.
Wouldn't that solidify the rivalries for long-term? I doubt I would be alone in saying grographic rivalries would tend to generate more interest, especially if linked to payoffs.

These ’playoff’ rivalries with teams spanning massive distances are short-lived at best and pale in comparison to the divisional ones prior to mid-90s.

I would imagine playing in-conference teams only 4x / season, it is unlikely to create boredom considering each game can have/will have serious playoff implications.

Bucky_Hoyt is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 06:01 AM
  #332
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
You say the new alignment creates rivalries. Aren't they already created though? Haven't they been created for several decades now? Don't those teams play each other often enough? In fact, this new alignment has the potential to destroy certain rivalries.

For example, the Rangers will not be with any other original six teams. They will only play the other original six teams twice while Boston, Montreal and Toronto will go at it often in one conference and Detroit and Chicago will go at it often in the others. Games between the Bruins and the Flyers and the Bruins and the Penguins have gotten heated over the last several years. Do we want less of those games for some misplaced sense of amplifying rivalries that have already been amplified? Do we want less of those matchups so we can see the same teams play against each other in the first round of the playoffs every year?
The Rangers may not get more games against O6 teams, but Detroit and Chicago would get more if they played home and home against O6 teams from the East every year. Detroit and Chicago had an O6 team taken out of their conference. It's always give and take.

I see two reasons for the proposed 4 conferences:

1) Everybody wants in on the tradition and history in the East. You want the Rangers to play more O6 teams. Well everyone would like the O6 teams to come into their building and play them more. Everyone wants Crosby, and Malkin, and Stamkos, etc, etc, in their building.

2) Detroit, Columbus, and every team in the CTZ want as much to do with the teams in the MTZ and PTZ as the teams in the East do. The 4 conference idea was all about the central part of the league/country. Minnesota and Dallas have bad alignments. Detroit and Columbus have to put up with what no other team in the East has to, even though they're ETZ teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
First, the matchups will just feel forced and repetitive. Seeing PIT vs PHI, PIT vs NYR, PHI vs NYR, NYR vs ND, etc. in the first round every year will get ridiculous. Yes, the first round. Those matchups are better saved for at least the semi-finals.

Second, the 5th placed team in one division will have more points than the 3rd or 4th placed teams in another division. It's bound to happen. That's where fans will turn on this 4 conference alignment, and it won't be much later until the teams start demanding a different alignment, or at least a different playoff scenario.

And if you do enjoy seeing these matchups constantly, don't say this alignment "creates new rivalries," because it doesn't. You're just playing the same teams over and over. How is that creating new rivalries? Maybe you specifically haven't said it, but many who share your views have and it makes zero sense.
"Better saved" is the problem. There are certain teams that are important, and they should only meet later in the playoffs.

The divisional playoff format solidified a lot of the rivalries that exist today. It didn't create all of them, but it cemented many of them. Look at the SE division. Nobody cares about the SE division. Why? Most of the teams in it didn't exist in the 80's, and never got to develop a rivalry with any of the franchises that matter. They get into the league, and are then segregated as much as they can be, and the only time anyone thinks about the SE is around playoff time, when it's time to complain about playoff seeding.

The Eastern Conference spans 1 time zone, and the other conference spans 4 time zones. You can't even call it the Western Conference. It's just sort of what was left over after figuring out what was best for a handful of teams in the northeast corridor. Two divisions within the conference span 3 time zones. Easy fix, just move Vancouver to the Pacific. They'll at least have Edmonton and Calgary as conference rivals. Yet if you say the same thing with Pittsburgh and Philly, just break them up in two different divisions, they'll still be conference rivals...the league might stop functioning.

The league needed to realign before the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg, because all of the same problems were still there. That relocation just opened up a huge can of worms though.

KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
02-06-2013, 07:13 AM
  #333
wildthing202
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglas, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 697
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wildthing202 Send a message via Yahoo to wildthing202
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
The Eastern Conference spans 1 time zone, and the other conference spans 4 time zones. You can't even call it the Western Conference. It's just sort of what was left over after figuring out what was best for a handful of teams in the northeast corridor. Two divisions within the conference span 3 time zones. Easy fix, just move Vancouver to the Pacific. They'll at least have Edmonton and Calgary as conference rivals. Yet if you say the same thing with Pittsburgh and Philly, just break them up in two different divisions, they'll still be conference rivals...the league might stop functioning.
Yep the Eastern Conference alignment works a lot better if you separate Pittsburgh and Philly. I prefer it if the NHL just re-did the mid-90's alignment plugging in the new teams in where necessary.

Atlantic - Car, Wash, TB, FL, Phil, NYR, NYI, NJ
Northeast - Buf, Bos, Mon, Ott, Tor, Pitt, Det/Clb(or both)
Central - Chi, St.L, Nash, Dal, Wpg, Min, Det/Clb/Col(or neither of them)
Pacific - Van, Edm, Cgy, SJ, LA, Phx, Ana, Col

wildthing202 is online now  
Old
02-06-2013, 07:51 AM
  #334
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
So what? The Rangers haven't been in a Division with another Original 6 team since the early 80's, it's not like they're having anything taken away from them. Their natural rivals, Flyers, Isles, and Devils are all there though. And heck yes, we want to see those match ups more in the postseason. I want those teams to beat each other senseless and earn the right to be a Division playoff champ before they get the right to play for a shot at the Cup.
They may certainly have not been in a Division with any of those teams for a long time, but never will they have played those teams so few times in a Season as they would under that planned alignment and scheduling structure from a year ago. Plain and simple, there are out-of-Division (or in that planned alignment, out-of-Conference) matchups that draw a lot of attention outside of just the normal Division matchups. Essentially, that planned alignment would do to all teams what Detroit has had done to it all these past couple of decades, and that is extremely limit games with teams also are also a big draw. Detroit has had very limited games against all ETZ teams because of it's "Conference" alignment, and now some of you seem happy to extend that formula across the League.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 07:55 AM
  #335
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
What about big recent playoff rivalries like Edmonton - Dallas and Detroit - Colorado? I would argue those were better in the past 20 years than most of the pairings you listed.

Wondering if you're overvaluing some of the eastern conference rivalries?
To begin with, I wasn't referring to Playoff matchups; I was referring to Regular Season games. Or is it just not important to try to sell a good % of those 82 games that each team has to play in a Season?

And I wasn't "overevaluating", but I'm also not underevaluating those matchups by limiting them to only 2 games against in a Season.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 09:25 AM
  #336
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,059
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
Maybe they haven't been in the same division, but that's 4 games a year against the Bruins, Leafs, and Habs as it is currently.

You and others who share your thoughts say you want to see those matchups in the playoffs, but in a few years I think some of you will come to regret it.

First, the matchups will just feel forced and repetitive. Seeing PIT vs PHI, PIT vs NYR, PHI vs NYR, NYR vs ND, etc. in the first round every year will get ridiculous. Yes, the first round. Those matchups are better saved for at least the semi-finals.
Actually we used to LOVE that. Some repetition is good, familiarity breeds contempt. You think the fans of the Atlantic Division teams get excited for a 1st round playoff series with Florida or Ottawa? You think fans in Chicago get as amped up for a 1st round series with Calgary or Anaheim as they would to play Detroit or St. Louis? Heck no.

Quote:
Second, the 5th placed team in one division will have more points than the 3rd or 4th placed teams in another division. It's bound to happen. That's where fans will turn on this 4 conference alignment, and it won't be much later until the teams start demanding a different alignment, or at least a different playoff scenario.
As opposed to the multi-division format we have now, where a team can get a 3 seed and have only the 8th highest point total in the Conference simply because it won a Division? Inequities are going to exist in any playoff format. At least in a divisional format you're playing the most games against all the teams you're competing against for a playoff spot.

Quote:
And if you do enjoy seeing these matchups constantly, don't say this alignment "creates new rivalries," because it doesn't. You're just playing the same teams over and over. How is that creating new rivalries? Maybe you specifically haven't said it, but many who share your views have and it makes zero sense.
I wouldn't really say it creates new rivals as much as it revives the existing ones that have been a bit flat without all of those epic playoff matchups.

IceAce is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 10:19 AM
  #337
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
Actually we used to LOVE that. Some repetition is good, familiarity breeds contempt. You think the fans of the Atlantic Division teams get excited for a 1st round playoff series with Florida or Ottawa? You think fans in Chicago get as amped up for a 1st round series with Calgary or Anaheim as they would to play Detroit or St. Louis? Heck no.
Actually, I do think the fans of the teams you mentioned prefer a first-round matchup with a weaker team. Nobody wants their season to end in late April. Some matchups are best saved for the second round and beyond.



Quote:
As opposed to the multi-division format we have now, where a team can get a 3 seed and have only the 8th highest point total in the Conference simply because it won a Division? Inequities are going to exist in any playoff format. At least in a divisional format you're playing the most games against all the teams you're competing against for a playoff spot.
That's better than what a divisonal playoff offers. Even if a lower seed has more points than the 3rd seed, at least they actually get into the playoffs as opposed to having to sit out because there's a divisional format and they play in a stronger conference.



Quote:
I wouldn't really say it creates new rivals as much as it revives the existing ones that have been a bit flat without all of those epic playoff matchups.
A lot of pro-divisional people say this now. I wonder how many of their minds will change after the same matchups every year. It'll get repetitive and dry eventually.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 11:31 AM
  #338
IceAce
HEY BUD, LETS PARTY!
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,059
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
Actually, I do think the fans of the teams you mentioned prefer a first-round matchup with a weaker team. Nobody wants their season to end in late April. Some matchups are best saved for the second round and beyond.
The skill level of the team has little to do with the discussion. Whether or not Florida is an easier opponent than NJ for the Flyers has zero to do with the rivalry factor and intensity of the series. Not to mention, the current format in no way guarantees that either


Quote:
That's better than what a divisonal playoff offers. Even if a lower seed has more points than the 3rd seed, at least they actually get into the playoffs as opposed to having to sit out because there's a divisional format and they play in a stronger conference.
It's one example of a discrepancy. You also have years where the 9th seed in a conference would've had the 5th or 6th best record in the other conference and missed the playoffs. My point was simply that no system is perfect and someone can always complain about something no matter what playoff system we use. At least the Divisional system, gives you more control over your own destiny.


Quote:
A lot of pro-divisional people say this now. I wonder how many of their minds will change after the same matchups every year. It'll get repetitive and dry eventually.
You're acting like this is some kind of unknown. We had the system for years, and it was pretty awesome. The playoffs were neither dry nor repetitive. if anything, they've been worse since the change in '94.

IceAce is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 12:19 PM
  #339
kvladimir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Is it just me, or is no one considering the possibility of introducing crossovers if we go to a divisional/4-conference format? Is there a reason for that? Too complicated? Too unfair?

Seems to me like it would help address both the issue of restricted, repetitive matchups (somewhat), as well as allowing stronger teams that would finish 5th+ in one division/conference to make the playoffs in another. All while still making the chances of division matchups much higher than they are now, and with that, the chances of appropriate start times for the fans...

If people don't want crossovers between the Pacific/Mountain teams and East teams, that would be understandable. A way to deal with this would be to do either the crossover format I proposed last page, or a more flexible one that just excludes crossovers between Pacific-Atlantic, Pacific-Northeast and Central-Atlantic divisions. Like this:

Pacific <===> Central <===> Northeast <===> Atlantic

That would make the possible matchups more diverse than they are now, they just wouldn't be that likely...

kvladimir is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 01:00 PM
  #340
atticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kvladimir View Post
Is it just me, or is no one considering the possibility of introducing crossovers if we go to a divisional/4-conference format? Is there a reason for that? Too complicated? Too unfair?

Seems to me like it would help address both the issue of restricted, repetitive matchups (somewhat), as well as allowing stronger teams that would finish 5th+ in one division/conference to make the playoffs in another. All while still making the chances of division matchups much higher than they are now, and with that, the chances of appropriate start times for the fans...

If people don't want crossovers between the Pacific/Mountain teams and East teams, that would be understandable. A way to deal with this would be to do either the crossover format I proposed last page, or a more flexible one that just excludes crossovers between Pacific-Atlantic, Pacific-Northeast and Central-Atlantic divisions. Like this:

Pacific <===> Central <===> Northeast <===> Atlantic

That would make the possible matchups more diverse than they are now, they just wouldn't be that likely...

There are eastern time zones teams in the Central as well as the NW & ATL divisions. What makes you think those teams (or any of the central time zone teams) want to travel to the Pacfic any more than Eastern Conference teams do? Or even do any of the Pacific teams want to travel east if they don't have to? The precious east coast teams don't want it, and surprise!, the west coast teams don't either.


Crossovers do not work for a few logistical reasons, and they shaft the division winner in favor of the fifth place team in another division.

Imagine that using the division setup, Detroit won its division followed by St Louis, Chicago, and Nashville. Also in this example, Anaheim finished fifth in its division but had more points than Nashville. Ok, so now the playoffs come along with the purpose of crowning the best team on hockey. Detroit has worked hard all season to earn the number one seed. Is it fair that Detroit should have to give up a first round matchup with Nashville to travel across the country to play Anaheim instead? No. I am not saying it doesn't suck for Anaheim that they get left out over Nashville, but of we have to be fair to a team, who should it be to? Should the NHL say sorry Detroit, you have the best record in the league but you have to travel to SoCal to play your series so a team that couldn't even finish in the top 4 of their division can't argue that they weren't the crown champ of hockey that year? Or do you reward the division champ in this case (Det) by letting them play the fourth best team in their division with minimal jet lag and travel issues?

The whole purpose of the divisions is to minimize travel and bad TV start times during the first and second rounds. A crossover series defeats that, and penalizes the division winner more than anything. If the goal is to reduce travel and have more equitable start times (which it should be), you have the first two rounds in division, with the side benefit of better rivalries. Just unfortunately there will be an occasional team who couldn't finish in the top four of their division claiming they were the best team in hockey but denied the right to prove it.


Last edited by atticus: 02-06-2013 at 01:32 PM.
atticus is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 02:02 PM
  #341
decma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 52
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
A lot of pro-divisional people say this now. I wonder how many of their minds will change after the same matchups every year. It'll get repetitive and dry eventually.
I think you're overestimating how often there would be repeat matchups in an 8-team division with the first 2 rounds of the playoffs being within the division. It is far less likely with 8 teams than with 5. In a 5-team format, as we had from early 80s to early 90s, the chance of a given team meeting the same team in the first round in back to back years was 20%.

In an eight-team format, the probability drops to about 7%.

And was it really so bad even in the 5-team era? Mtl, Bos, Buf, Que, Hfd constituted the Adams division from 81/82 to 91/92. During those 11 seasons, Mtl played Bos in the first round 4 times, Buf 3 times, Hfd 3 times, and Que only once. Yes, Mtl-Bos in the first round 4 years in a row was maybe a little much, but in general these matchups hold more interest for me (and I think for most fans) than first round of Mtl-Car or Mtl-NJ.

Similarly, in the Edm-Cgy-Wpg-LA-Van Smythe, Edm met Cgy in the first round only once (it was Wpg 5 times, LA 3 times, and Van 0) (only 9 years with these teams b/c Wpg didn't come in to the division until 82/83, and SJ made it a 6 team division in 91/92).

In the NYR-NYI-NJ-Phi-Pit-Wsh Patrick, the NYR met Philly in the first round 4 times, NYI 3 times, and Pit, Wsh, and NJ once each (10 yrs with this alignment b/c no Caps in 81/82).

So there was a decent mix of opponents. With 8 teams instead of 5, there would be more variety, and far less chance of getting the same first round matchup multiple years in a row.

decma is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 02:18 PM
  #342
atticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by decma View Post
I think you're overestimating how often there would be repeat matchups in an 8-team division with the first 2 rounds of the playoffs being within the division. It is far less likely with 8 teams than with 5. In a 5-team format, as we had from early 80s to early 90s, the chance of a given team meeting the same team in the first round in back to back years was 20%.

In an eight-team format, the probability drops to about 7%.

And was it really so bad even in the 5-team era? Mtl, Bos, Buf, Que, Hfd constituted the Adams division from 81/82 to 91/92. During those 11 seasons, Mtl played Bos in the first round 4 times, Buf 3 times, Hfd 3 times, and Que only once. Yes, Mtl-Bos in the first round 4 years in a row was maybe a little much, but in general these matchups hold more interest for me (and I think for most fans) than first round of Mtl-Car or Mtl-NJ.

Similarly, in the Edm-Cgy-Wpg-LA-Van Smythe, Edm met Cgy in the first round only once (it was Wpg 5 times, LA 3 times, and Van 0) (only 9 years with these teams b/c Wpg didn't come in to the division until 82/83, and SJ made it a 6 team division in 91/92).

In the NYR-NYI-NJ-Phi-Pit-Wsh Patrick, the NYR met Philly in the first round 4 times, NYI 3 times, and Pit, Wsh, and NJ once each (10 yrs with this alignment b/c no Caps in 81/82).

So there was a decent mix of opponents. With 8 teams instead of 5, there would be more variety, and far less chance of getting the same first round matchup multiple years in a row.
Good research!

atticus is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 02:18 PM
  #343
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by decma View Post
I think you're overestimating how often there would be repeat matchups in an 8-team division with the first 2 rounds of the playoffs being within the division. It is far less likely with 8 teams than with 5. In a 5-team format, as we had from early 80s to early 90s, the chance of a given team meeting the same team in the first round in back to back years was 20%.
I may be wrong, but I think he was referring to 6 games against the 7 same teams every year, as opposed to it only being the same 4 teams now, and then 4 games against another 10 teams. 42 games in the Season will be against the same 7 teams. Whereas currently there are 64 games against 14 teams.

Regardless though, that's what I'm referring to.

Some of you talk about or just simply ignore the Regular Season as if those 82 games are just not important.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 03:05 PM
  #344
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
The skill level of the team has little to do with the discussion. Whether or not Florida is an easier opponent than NJ for the Flyers has zero to do with the rivalry factor and intensity of the series. Not to mention, the current format in no way guarantees that either
Does the current format guarantee fewer matchups between powerhouses in the first round? Not always, no. Penguins/Flyers, Predators/Red Wings in the first round last year. But does it decrease the chances of less of those matchups in the first round than a divisional playoff would? Absolutely. Flyers fans would love to see their team play the Panthers in the first round over the Devils. Better chance of winning a series against the Panthers, and the Flyers' season continues on into early May at least.


Quote:
It's one example of a discrepancy. You also have years where the 9th seed in a conference would've had the 5th or 6th best record in the other conference and missed the playoffs. My point was simply that no system is perfect and someone can always complain about something no matter what playoff system we use. At least the Divisional system, gives you more control over your own destiny.
Actually, no it doesn't. Not if you play in a stronger conference. The current format at least allows the team with the most points to get in over the teams with fewer points. Is the current system perfect? No, but it at least allows the best teams with the most points to get in. Now, if they wanted to do something like the NBA does if the 4th seed has more points than the 2nd or 3rd seeds I could live with that.



Quote:
You're acting like this is some kind of unknown. We had the system for years, and it was pretty awesome. The playoffs were neither dry nor repetitive. if anything, they've been worse since the change in '94.
Based on what? Fans still get pretty excited about the playoffs, and if anything new rivalries have been created because you aren't boxed into your own division in the first and second rounds.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 03:20 PM
  #345
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 317
vCash: 500
4 Conference playoffs format would help intensify the rivalry within the conference that would spill over to the next regular season with grudge and revenge. More games played against the conference would also help reduce the travel for the west coast teams especially in the playoffs.

This is a win-win situation for the league, however, if you keep the current format, the rivalry will not last longer because I remember, Edmonton met Dallas in the playoffs for 5 straight years but where are they today? They aren't a bitter rivalry when they meet in the regular season today. They haven't met in the playoffs since 2002 so it has been more than 10 years and they aren't a rivals anymore.

The fact is that the current conference format does not breed the rivalry because of the geographical factor. Chicago and Vancouver may be bitter right now but in 5 years that they do not meet in the playoffs, the bitterness factor will dwindle due to several factors. First factor, rosters will change while some players retire and some new faces playing their first game and geographical distance is too vast for this to remain a real rivalry any longer more than 5 years if they don't meet in the playoffs

Look at Vancouver/Calgary/Edmonton, they are a rivalry even though they sucks for many years and the reason they are a rivals because of the geographical factor and the fans love to get involved with trash talk, the same for the Atlantic division rivals, it is the fans and the teams makes it a bitterness factor remains high.

I could imagine if the southeast divisions teams meet in the playoffs frequency with the divisional playoff format every year, their interest in hockey would increase no matter what due to geographical factor.

Sadly, Florida and Tampa Bay have not met in the playoffs once and probably not for a while if the current playoff system remains however if you change the system to a playoff format to the division, the frequency of them meeting for the first two rounds would increase and Carolina would love to get involved and have their rivals of their own with southern teams. If Atlanta still have their team and anytime one of their divisional rivals meet in the playoffs, the fans and the hatred would increase and the fans would keep coming back to their rivalry regular season games and their revenue would increase and it would reduce the relocation for this reason alone.

The format worked for 10 years in 80's and helped the league with the rivalry, just take a look at Norris, Adams, and Patrick division among the American teams. So I don't see why this will not work again since it has been proven and it will be proven again.

Now, if the league ever goes to 32 teams, I would rather to see 2 divisions in a conference, with 4 conference and top two in each division make the playoffs and 1 vs 2 and the division winner meet another division winner within the conference for the conference championships, you can bet that this will not go well with the losing team that was knocked out of the first round to spill it over next season, the result: more money for teams with fans coming to the game.

So for now, with 30 teams, I liked the league current proposal before it was shot down by the NHLPA so the compromise had to be made hopefully sooner than later.

coolboarder is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 03:31 PM
  #346
kvladimir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticus View Post
There are eastern time zones teams in the Central as well as the NW & ATL divisions. What makes you think those teams (or any of the central time zone teams) want to travel to the Pacfic any more than Eastern Conference teams do? Or even do any of the Pacific teams want to travel east if they don't have to? The precious east coast teams don't want it, and surprise!, the west coast teams don't either.


Crossovers do not work for a few logistical reasons, and they shaft the division winner in favor of the fifth place team in another division.

Imagine that using the division setup, Detroit won its division followed by St Louis, Chicago, and Nashville. Also in this example, Anaheim finished fifth in its division but had more points than Nashville. Ok, so now the playoffs come along with the purpose of crowning the best team on hockey. Detroit has worked hard all season to earn the number one seed. Is it fair that Detroit should have to give up a first round matchup with Nashville to travel across the country to play Anaheim instead? No. I am not saying it doesn't suck for Anaheim that they get left out over Nashville, but of we have to be fair to a team, who should it be to? Should the NHL say sorry Detroit, you have the best record in the league but you have to travel to SoCal to play your series so a team that couldn't even finish in the top 4 of their division can't argue that they weren't the crown champ of hockey that year? Or do you reward the division champ in this case (Det) by letting them play the fourth best team in their division with minimal jet lag and travel issues?

The whole purpose of the divisions is to minimize travel and bad TV start times during the first and second rounds. A crossover series defeats that, and penalizes the division winner more than anything. If the goal is to reduce travel and have more equitable start times (which it should be), you have the first two rounds in division, with the side benefit of better rivalries. Just unfortunately there will be an occasional team who couldn't finish in the top four of their division claiming they were the best team in hockey but denied the right to prove it.
Good arguments, but the thing is, what you described (division winners being "shafted" by ending up against teams in a far away time zone) happens all the time in the current format, much more so than that proposal would. It's true that it's a bit problematic that it would usually be the 1st place team ending up in the crossover matchup, though...

The main reason for this idea is to counteract the inevitable problems with strong teams missing the playoffs only because they play in strong divisions. Also, in the alignment I proposed, Columbus would be in the Northeast, so Detroit is the only ETZ team that would be at risk of matching up against a PTZ team, and it would be exceedingly rare for this to occur, since they would likely have to finish 1st (maybe 2nd), and have 1 of only 4 PTZ teams finish higher than the 4th (or 3rd) place team in the Central, AND be better than the 5th place Northeast team (or the Northeast team would get the spot).

Either that, or Detroit finishes 5th, and crosses over to the Pacific, and not Northeast, and matches up against one of the 4 PTZ teams that finished 1st/2nd. My proposal on the previous page actually prevents the Central-to-Pacific crossover because the Central has less teams, but I don't know about that idea, either... 3 TZ crossovers are pretty unlikely in this proposal, and if they do happen, I say give the higher team the 2-3-2 option...

Anyway, this is just food for thought. I think crossovers could work, as long as it minimizes matchups of teams 3 TZ away, and the schedule format reflects which teams are in competition in the crossovers, too...

kvladimir is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 03:45 PM
  #347
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
Does the current format guarantee fewer matchups between powerhouses in the first round? Not always, no. Penguins/Flyers, Predators/Red Wings in the first round last year. But does it decrease the chances of less of those matchups in the first round than a divisional playoff would? Absolutely. Flyers fans would love to see their team play the Panthers in the first round over the Devils. Better chance of winning a series against the Panthers, and the Flyers' season continues on into early May at least.
But I'm guessing Flyer fans would want to beat the Devils more.

Quote:
Based on what? Fans still get pretty excited about the playoffs, and if anything new rivalries have been created because you aren't boxed into your own division in the first and second rounds.
How many? Any that have been directly created by a conference playoff format are short lived. Detroit/Colorado is one of the all time rivalries. It's not anything anymore though. There really isn't even any residue left from it. Is there any hype about a Colorado/Detroit game today? A divisional playoff format would probably have seen those two teams play in a 3rd round a time or two anyway, since they were so good, and would've been in different groups.

Although maybe the Avs not being in Colorado for years before that rivalry took off creates a situation where there was no history to sustain the rivalry beyond the particular players at that particular time. Maybe if both teams were good at the same time again, but, who knows.

Vancouver/Chicago has been the big one lately, but it won't last if they don't keep meeting in the playoffs. Once again, if they were good enough, they could each meet up in later rounds of the playoffs, since when playoff match-ups happen seems to be important.

Most of the rivalries that people look forward to are the ones in the division. The ones with proximity.

Playoffs can work either way really. Rivalries work in two different ways as well. Some rivalries have more of a college feel, where it doesn't matter who wears the jersey, it's the jersey that matters, like Boston/Montreal. Other rivalries are more professional, and depend on the players at a specific time, like Detroit/Colorado.

The main reason for the idea of returning to divisional playoffs is because Detroit, Columbus, and the CTZ teams don't want to go to the west coast so much, and especially come playoff time, when it could mean 3 trips way out west before the Finals.

Have the two eastern conference have a conference playoff for the 1st and 2nd rounds somehow. The central and west have to be divisional though. Nobody wants to do the travel so early and potentially so often.

KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
02-06-2013, 04:03 PM
  #348
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
But I'm guessing Flyer fans would want to beat the Devils more.
When did I say they wouldn't? The point is that the Devils would be the tougher matchup for the Flyers. Thus, would you want that matchup in the first-round or in a later round?



Quote:
How many? Any that have been directly created by a conference playoff format are short lived. Detroit/Colorado is one of the all time rivalries. It's not anything anymore though. There really isn't even any residue left from it. Is there any hype about a Colorado/Detroit game today? A divisional playoff format would probably have seen those two teams play in a 3rd round a time or two anyway, since they were so good, and would've been in different groups.
Maybe because Colorado hasn't been very good lately. In a divisional format, no one will care about Jets vs Blue Jackets more than they would in the current format.

Quote:
Although maybe the Avs not being in Colorado for years before that rivalry took off creates a situation where there was no history to sustain the rivalry beyond the particular players at that particular time. Maybe if both teams were good at the same time again, but, who knows.
If both teams were good, it wouldn't matter. Detroit and Colorado would only play twice in the 4 conference format. Even if Colorado got better, there'd be no rivalry because of the divisional format.

Teams that are bad and don't draw ratings in the current format won't do any better in the 4 conference format.

Quote:
Vancouver/Chicago has been the big one lately, but it won't last if they don't keep meeting in the playoffs. Once again, if they were good enough, they could each meet up in later rounds of the playoffs, since when playoff match-ups happen seems to be important.

Most of the rivalries that people look forward to are the ones in the division. The ones with proximity.
And what about the rivalries that have been created but will be destroyed by the new 4 conference alignment? Those teams would only play twice a year.

Quote:
Playoffs can work either way really. Rivalries work in two different ways as well. Some rivalries have more of a college feel, where it doesn't matter who wears the jersey, it's the jersey that matters, like Boston/Montreal. Other rivalries are more professional, and depend on the players at a specific time, like Detroit/Colorado.
The current format isn't diminishing the rivalries like Boston/Montreal or Pittsburgh/Philadelphia. The 4 conference format will however diminish conference rivalries that have been created over the past 20 years.

Quote:
The main reason for the idea of returning to divisional playoffs is because Detroit, Columbus, and the CTZ teams don't want to go to the west coast so much, and especially come playoff time, when it could mean 3 trips way out west before the Finals.
So the idea should be to send the west coast teams to every single eastern conference team every year during the regular season?

Quote:
Have the two eastern conference have a conference playoff for the 1st and 2nd rounds somehow. The central and west have to be divisional though. Nobody wants to do the travel so early and potentially so often.
Doesn't seem to have hurt the west that often over the past few years. 2007: Anaheim, 2008: Detroit, 2010: Chicago, 2012: Los Angeles.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 04:26 PM
  #349
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Someone still needs to show us how that can logically be done.
the original proposal had the 2 " western divisions" with 8 teams, and the "eastern" had 7. You put Quebec in the division with the habs. Then the new toronto team can join the new york teams. Phoenix becomes seattle.

Its not perfect dividing up the toronto teams, but its temporary until a bunch of these other franchises are moved.

The CyNick is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 04:29 PM
  #350
atticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Eventually it will get to 32 teams, then the 7 and 8 team difference won't matter.

atticus 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 08:46 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.