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
02-06-2013, 04:44 PM
  #351
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
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.
Now you must admit, that makes a lot of sense.
The Florida teams in the Northeast with the eastern Canadian teams, and Toronto2 in the Atlantic with Philadelphia, Washington, and Carolina. That's an alignment screaming to be fixed immediately after it's created.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 04:49 PM
  #352
decma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
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.
i thought he was mainly referring to getting tired of the same playoff matchups. In any case, to address your point re the reg season, i don't think 42 of 82 against the same 7 teams is necessarily a bad thing. Those are the 7 teams that you would be competing with to make the playoffs, and to get to the semi finals. I think it makes sense to play them a lot in the reg season.

And seven is a large enough number that I don't think the reg season will feel repetitive.

Contrast with 80s, when 32 of 80 games were against the same four teams. (35 of 80 against the same five teams for the Patrick teams).

And in the 80s each team would only get 3 games against the other 16 teams.

In a 32-team league, with 42 against your division foes, that would leave, what, 2 each against teams in two of the other divisions, and 1 each against teams in the other division?

Not as good as 3 each as it was in the 80s, but that's the reality of going from 21 teams to 32.

decma is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 04:58 PM
  #353
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,710
vCash: 500
That was my point, I added two expansion teams to my scenario. Even though it seems dumb, I think that's the path the nhl is headed towards.

You end up with four conferences of eight teams. Minimizing travel. Promoting rivalries in the playoffs making it easier for casual fans to follow. Seems like a win win.

The CyNick is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 05:02 PM
  #354
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Now you must admit, that makes a lot of sense.
The Florida teams in the Northeast with the eastern Canadian teams, and Toronto2 in the Atlantic with Philadelphia, Washington, and Carolina. That's an alignment screaming to be fixed immediately after it's created.
As I said, its not perfect.

But I actually think the florida teams would be best off in the adams division. There a little thing called snowbirds you should look into.

as for toronto 2, they would be screwed a little, but as an expansion team you have to expect that.

and it will be fixed as the failed franchises are moved

The CyNick is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 05:10 PM
  #355
atticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
That was my point, I added two expansion teams to my scenario. Even though it seems dumb, I think that's the path the nhl is headed towards.

You end up with four conferences of eight teams. Minimizing travel. Promoting rivalries in the playoffs making it easier for casual fans to follow. Seems like a win win.
Exactly. It may not be perfect, but four conferences is a lot better then the setup we have now, and it does address the travel and start time issues, which are the real problems that face the league.

atticus is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 05:12 PM
  #356
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,320
vCash: 500
Not sure if this was already discussed but too lazy to read.

Isn't the most sensible change Jets and Predators?

Or is the NHL waiting to see what happens with Phoenix?

timekeep is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 05:35 PM
  #357
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
In a divisional format, no one will care about Jets vs Blue Jackets more than they would in the current format.
In a divisional format, if the Jets faced they Jackets people would start caring. Rivalries aren't born, they're made. Detroit/Colorado was made because of the current, conference-based system, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
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.
Which is a distinct possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
Teams that are bad and don't draw ratings in the current format won't do any better in the 4 conference format.
I'm not so sure about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
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.
Name those rivalries. There aren't too many.

For example, if I were to list the Capitals rivals, there would be three teams in their proposed division listed before any of the teams in their current division are even remotely listed. So although the Caps were dispatched by the Lightning two years ago and the Canadiens three years ago, their rivals are still the Rangers, Penguins and Flyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
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.
Not too many of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
So the idea should be to send the west coast teams to every single eastern conference team every year during the regular season?
The proof is in the pudding. In order to segregate the Mountain/Pacific Time Zones from the rest of the league, they wanted everyone to visit their building once. This does two things:

It balances out the schedule as everyone plays a home-and-home.
It technically reduces the amount of travel for the West while increasing the amount of travel for the East. As it stands right now, in the regular season the teams in the Pacific Time Zone play 13 games in the Eastern Time Zone, while the teams in the Eastern Conference play no more than 3 games in the Pacific Time Zone.

The whole thing levels the playing field a bit more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
Doesn't seem to have hurt the west that often over the past few years. 2007: Anaheim, 2008: Detroit, 2010: Chicago, 2012: Los Angeles.
True. Yet when we speak of rivalries, remind me of the Western ones. The proposed schedule and alignment does attempt to generate that which the Eastern Conference used to have.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 05:41 PM
  #358
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timekeep View Post
Not sure if this was already discussed but too lazy to read.

Isn't the most sensible change Jets and Predators?

Or is the NHL waiting to see what happens with Phoenix?
Putting another southern franchise into a division that is already weak is far too problematic.

Also winnipeg would be isolated from all of it`s natural rivals(all the canadian teams+minnesota)

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
02-06-2013, 06:06 PM
  #359
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timekeep View Post
Not sure if this was already discussed but too lazy to read.

Isn't the most sensible change Jets and Predators?

Or is the NHL waiting to see what happens with Phoenix?
I think its partially due to the uncertainty of Phoenix, but I think its mostly because the league wanted to address travel issues.

As it is now you got a team like Columbus, Chicago, and Detroit making multiple trips to Southern California and Western Canada. The new format would drastically reduce travel times by having more divisional games.

Also the existing playoff structure is a nightmare for travel because again, teams like Detroit and Chicago could up flying all the way to the west coast for each of the first three rounds of the playoffs.

The proposed format would limit travel to within your "conference", and wouldnt be as crazy. There would still be some pain points (ie Boston or Toronto vs Florida or Tampa, or LA/SJ/Ana vs Vancouver/Calgary or Edmonton, but nothing is going to be perfect.

I would also like it if they took the final four teams and did a re-seeding, that way a team in the Leafs division for example could play a team in the Rangers division in the cup final.

The CyNick is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 03:37 AM
  #360
CBCnutcase
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timekeep View Post
Not sure if this was already discussed but too lazy to read.

Isn't the most sensible change Jets and Predators?

Or is the NHL waiting to see what happens with Phoenix?
The sensible thing to do would be to switch Winnipeg and Columbus.

CBCnutcase is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 03:50 AM
  #361
CBCnutcase
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
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.

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.

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:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
Some matchups are best saved for the second round and beyond.

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 right about the repitition, divisional playoffs is not a good thing. A divisional matchup in round 3 would be lost if the playoff format changed. No more exciting conference finals between Detroit-Chicago, Devils-Rangers, Penguins-Flyers, and other combos from the Atlantic Division. Imagine a Bruins-Canadiens conference finals? It would be insain! Vancouver-Chicago has become a great rivalry in the regular season and playoffs.

CBCnutcase is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 05:55 AM
  #362
Steve Bennett*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yes
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
My solution.

West
SJ, LA, ANA, PHO, COL, VAN, EDM, CAL

South
DAL, TB, FLO, NASH, CARO, ST LOUIS, COLUMBUS

North
Mont, Ott, Tor, Det, Chi, Minn, Winn

East
NYI, NYR, NJ, Philly, Pitts, Wash, Bos, Buff
looks good except some changes

west: VANCOUVER, edm, cal, col, phx, la, sj, ana

northeast; det, chi, min, wpg, tor, ott, mtl, buf

south: dal, nas, tb, fla, car, stl, was

atlantic: nyi, nyr, nj, pha, bos, clb, pit

Steve Bennett* is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 07:54 AM
  #363
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bennett View Post
looks good except some changes

west: VANCOUVER, edm, cal, col, phx, la, sj, ana

northeast; det, chi, min, wpg, tor, ott, mtl, buf

south: dal, nas, tb, fla, car, stl, was

atlantic: nyi, nyr, nj, pha, bos, clb, pit
I'd say it looks good except:

Pacific: Edm, Cal, Van, SJ, LA, Ana, Col, Pho

Northeast: Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Det, Min, Win

Central: Dal, StL, Chi, Nas, Car, TB, Flo

Atlantic: Bos, NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Was, Pit, Clb

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 09:08 AM
  #364
atticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBCnutcase View Post
The sensible thing to do would be to switch Winnipeg and Columbus.
That makes no sense at all. What problem does that fix? Definitely not any major ones. Why would WPG even want to switch?

Until an Eastern Conference team wants to swap with Det,Clbs, or any of the CTZ teams, and play multiple playoff series at a PTZ team, the whole "repetitive matchup" argument doesn't hold any weight.

atticus is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 09:52 AM
  #365
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timekeep View Post
Not sure if this was already discussed but too lazy to read.

Isn't the most sensible change Jets and Predators?

Or is the NHL waiting to see what happens with Phoenix?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBCnutcase View Post
The sensible thing to do would be to switch Winnipeg and Columbus.
There will be more than 10 votes against realignment if it only involves the simple swap of Winnipeg and one of Detroit, Columbus or Nashville, so it is a complete non-starter.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:25 AM
  #366
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
There will be more than 10 votes against realignment if it only involves the simple swap of Winnipeg and one of Detroit, Columbus or Nashville, so it is a complete non-starter.
Therein lies a huge problem with the way the League does things. Certain solutions or options are negated because a certain number of teams will vote against them just because they don't address their individual complaints; it doesn't matter that that option would be a general improvement and doesn't effect them negatively,.... if it doesn't address my complaint then I'm voting against it.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:31 AM
  #367
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticus View Post
That makes no sense at all. What problem does that fix? Definitely not any major ones. Why would WPG even want to switch?

Until an Eastern Conference team wants to swap with Det,Clbs, or any of the CTZ teams, and play multiple playoff series at a PTZ team, the whole "repetitive matchup" argument doesn't hold any weight.
I can no longer keep track of who I agree with and who I disagree with on this discussion.

But, either way, Atticus (To Kill A Mockingbird?), I think you are exactly right. Any amount of fiddling with the current arrangement comes up flat against the amount of travel that Detroit and Columbus are making.

And, if PHX moves to QC (still looks to me the most likely), then it's even worse.

So, it's well possible that the current 2-conference arrangement, which contains at least 2 ETZ teams playing in the West (and maybe 3 if PHX relocates over there), is simply dead. Try to fix it however you want, the BoG won't agree. So, it's dead.

And, in a way, that's too bad. My own preference, see the previous page, is a 2-conference 4-division model where the Central would play the Pacific 3 games a year. It makes 2 extra PTZ games and 1 or 2 extra MTZ games for Detroit/Columbus compared to the December proposal, but offers lots of relief from the current arrangement. Then, I would do 1-8 Conference playoffs. In the East, straight according to conference points standings. In the West, I would set up the rules so that 1-8 qualify, but the Centr/Pac first round matchups would be minimized.

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:39 AM
  #368
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Therein lies a huge problem with the way the League does things. Certain solutions or options are negated because a certain number of teams will vote against them just because they don't address their individual complaints; it doesn't matter that that option would be a general improvement and doesn't effect them negatively,.... if it doesn't address my complaint then I'm voting against it.
Really though.

The rivalry nonsense is by far the biggest issue.

Having Penn, Ny, and all the canadian teams in their own division is the root of so much of the problem.

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:49 AM
  #369
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
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?
You always want the easier match-up, but, you play who you play when you play them. For a franchise like the Flyers, if they play the Panthers in the 1st and win, then lose to the Devils in the 2nd, or if they lose to the Devils in the 1st, what difference does it make? A couple extra million $ for the Flyers, but they still didn't win the Cup.

Quote:
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.
Probably right.

Quote:
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.
But Detroit/Colorado was made and sustained in the playoffs, whenever they met. It was a rivalry that was specific to the great players that were on the teams at the time, and catapulted into the stratosphere of all-time rivalries by that one incident, and everything that came after it. It's not a generational thing.

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

There are a lot of teams though, almost a third of the league, that were never really part of the divisional playoffs from the 80's, and never got to benefit from it. They got thrown into a conference playoff format, where it's easier to get lost in the shuffle.

However there are more teams today, and in an 8 or 7 team group, you might get just as lost. Florida could still miss the playoffs for more than a decade, and be completely irrelevant. Certainly more difficult to miss the playoffs that often in a league where 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs each year.

There were a few years in the 80's when the entire Norris division was under .500, and yet still had a team in the 3rd round of the playoffs, just because of the way it was set up. Who doesn't like the Norris division though? Nobody really likes the SE division.

Granted, there were three O6 teams in the Norris, which made a huge difference. The SE was created with 3 southern expansion teams, a relocated WHA team, and what the old Patrick division felt it could throw away.

Quote:
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.
How many of them are there? Over the years, there have been a number of them. But like Detroit/Colorado, they sort of come and go. They get created and destroyed by the very nature of the conference playoff system.

And the fact that there are just more teams, which probably doesn't help the argument for divisional playoffs. It won't be exactly like the 80's. In turn, that could be an argument for divisional playoffs though, because it won't be exactly like the 80's.

I'm not saying this or that rivalry is less or more than another kind. Just different.

Quote:
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.
It would certainly be more difficult to sustain them, no question. Fewer regular season games, only potential round for, say, the Bruins and Flyers to meet would be the 3rd round. Maybe the Finals, depending on if they reseed all 4 teams in the 3rd round.

If they threw that wrinkle into the mix, where Philly and Boston, or NY and Toronto could meet in the Finals, that would be something different, and potentially incredible. Of course you could also see Nashville and Anaheim, or any two teams out west that nobody would want to watch, in the Final. Depends on the level of risk/reward the league is willing to take.

Quote:
So the idea should be to send the west coast teams to every single eastern conference team every year during the regular season?
I'm sure fans in the East don't have a ton of want to see teams from the west coast, but I've heard and read fans from teams further west talk about how they would like to be able to see Crosby(or whoever) come into their building every year though. Or see the Bruin, Canadien, or Leaf logo in person, more than once every few years.

Fans want to feel the history of the league. They want to see the top players live and in person. They want to feel like the team they cheer for is part of the league, and not just some money grab for owners and players.

Quote:
Doesn't seem to have hurt the west that often over the past few years. 2007: Anaheim, 2008: Detroit, 2010: Chicago, 2012: Los Angeles.
True. For the players, travel has gotten better. Maybe the teams in the East would have less of a reason to hold onto their travel advantage if that's the case...

I'm just kidding, they would never do that.

But seriously, it's mostly for the fans. Fans in the east don't like staying up for late games. School and work the next day. Fans in the central don't want to either, for the same reasons, but they have to if they want to watch their team play a lot of their road games. Dallas has 3 division rivals 2 time zones away, in a sport that is played on any day of the week. Fans on the west coast have many games start at 4pm, or 5pm, before anyone gets home.

Going to a home and home schedule, with more east coast trips, doesn't help that. But if in return you get Crosby, Stamkos, Boston, the Rangers, Montreal, into your building every year, maybe it isn't a bad trade.

There are too many variables involved to ever make a perfect regular season and playoff system. Why should fans in Boston have to stay up late a few more times during the year so that fans in Dallas don't have to? Why should fans in Philly be deprived of more games against certain teams so that fans in Detroit get more games against those same certain teams? There are thousands of similar questions, and nobody has an inarguable answer to any of them.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:49 AM
  #370
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoSimon View Post
Really though.

The rivalry nonsense is by far the biggest issue.

Having Penn, Ny, and all the canadian teams in their own division is the root of so much of the problem.
Yes indeed, that's another biggie!! I'm a Bruins fan, and absolutely the rivalry with Montreal is immense, but there is often logic for why Boston should be grouped with the NYC area teams (not in all alignment options, but in a fair number of them); and the same goes for Vancouver not being in the Pacific but Needing to be grouped with the Alberta teams.
Hell, Detroit and Toronto's traditional rivalry was tossed aside. Atlanta and Nashville were never given a chance. The same goes for Columbus and Pittsburgh. Dallas, to accommodate other team's expectations, got tossed out of the Central and into the Pacific.

And then there's the east's insistance that those teams must be kept separate from the rest of the League. Anything west of 80degrees West longitude can't possibly be mixed with anything east of that (unless it's Winnipeg).

But still, the voting process prohibits a variety of solutions from being used.


The Atlantic Division seems to also be another obstacle... In that proposed 4-Conference alignment, those teams get to shut out the rest of the League and just focus on their own internal rivalries. They welcomed Washington back into their fold, as like a related cousin from the old Patrick Division days, and probably reluctantly needed to accept Carolina. But heaven forbid that they take the Florida teams into their Divisional rivalry mix,... toss those fish into someone else's barrel.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 02-07-2013 at 11:04 AM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:57 AM
  #371
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Therein lies a huge problem with the way the League does things. Certain solutions or options are negated because a certain number of teams will vote against them just because they don't address their individual complaints; it doesn't matter that that option would be a general improvement and doesn't effect them negatively,.... if it doesn't address my complaint then I'm voting against it.
You've gone down to a much deeper human condition level than just simply how the NHL as a league does things with that one. Open things up to a vote, and all hell breaks loose!

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:06 AM
  #372
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
You've gone down to a much deeper human condition level than just simply how the NHL as a league does things with that one. Open things up to a vote, and all hell breaks loose!
Simplify the vote. Ask the question: Will this re-arrangement make things better or worse? Better-Yes or Worse-Yes

Ask the question: Do we need to get Winnipeg out of the SE. Yes or No?
If the vote is yes. Ask the next question: Which team takes Winnipeg's place? The team receiving the greatest number of votes... There you have it.
Now ask the next question. What should we do with Winnipeg's alignment in the West? And go on from there...

Complicating the issue by trying to solve everyone's complaints in one single vote just asks for some convoluted result, because there will always be any number of people voting against whatever option is presented.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 02-07-2013 at 11:13 AM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:13 AM
  #373
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Therein lies a huge problem with the way the League does things. Certain solutions or options are negated because a certain number of teams will vote against them just because they don't address their individual complaints; it doesn't matter that that option would be a general improvement and doesn't effect them negatively,.... if it doesn't address my complaint then I'm voting against it.
To be fair, without going into the specifics:

The last time the league voted in a "realignment", it was to add the four newer teams added from 1998-2000, which was approved in December 1997. Prior to that, a realignment vote had to be held to move the Nords to Colorado, to add the Ducks and Panthers, to add the Lightning and Senators and to add the Sharks. That was an eight years with four realignment votes.

This alignment has been in place for fifteen years without a single change, although a couple of votes were made approving changes to the scheduling matrix. Anyone that felt the need to have alignment addressed had to wait for the first reason for it to be addressed, and that was the move of the Thrashers to Winnipeg.

And let's get a bit real on this: there were rumors that Ed Snider of the Flyers would block any realignment that didn't keep the Rangers and the Penguins within his playing circle. So about half the league is for the status quo, and the other half wants a signficant change.

Swapping Winnipeg for Columbus might be a "general improvement". It still requires all teams to vote. And of course, if that swap is a general improvement, so would Vancouver to the Pacific - Dallas to the Central - Winnipeg to the Northwest - Columbus to the Southeast be a general improvement. It still requires all teams to vote.

And there would still be some teams that would be generally unhappy.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:15 AM
  #374
Retail1LO
Registered User
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,241
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Retail1LO Send a message via AIM to Retail1LO Send a message via MSN to Retail1LO
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
I think its partially due to the uncertainty of Phoenix, but I think its mostly because the league wanted to address travel issues.

As it is now you got a team like Columbus, Chicago, and Detroit making multiple trips to Southern California and Western Canada. The new format would drastically reduce travel times by having more divisional games.

Also the existing playoff structure is a nightmare for travel because again, teams like Detroit and Chicago could up flying all the way to the west coast for each of the first three rounds of the playoffs.

The proposed format would limit travel to within your "conference", and wouldnt be as crazy. There would still be some pain points (ie Boston or Toronto vs Florida or Tampa, or LA/SJ/Ana vs Vancouver/Calgary or Edmonton, but nothing is going to be perfect.

I would also like it if they took the final four teams and did a re-seeding, that way a team in the Leafs division for example could play a team in the Rangers division in the cup final.
To me, this is the biggest, and most important change I want to see. With a re-seeding of the teams after each of the 4 conferences is decided, it would mean any 2 teams, except those within the same conference, could meet in the Stanley Cup Final. That NEEDS to happen. Personally, I think there needs to be a way that any two teams PERIOD could meet for the final. There's no reason the Hawks and Wings, or Leafs and Bruins, shouldn't be able to meet one another in a Cup final.

Retail1LO is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:22 AM
  #375
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Simplify the vote. Ask the question: Will this re-arrangement make things better or worse? Better-Yes or Worse-Yes
Better or worse is always in the eyes of the beholder.

Now I'm not even sure if it was real, or if was a lockout preparation thing, but there were enough votes in favor of the realignment plan, as long as certain conditions were met of course.

Who knows how the PA feels about it either. They rejected it, but again, that was before the lockout, when the posturing may have meant something. Maybe the extra travel is really a problem for them, and the PA likes to have all the teams in the East have easy travel, because come free agent time, if you choose a team in the northeast corridor, you're making tons of money, and sleeping in your bed more often.

Nobody really knows what the dynamic is just yet. Since we haven't heard much about realignment for about a year now(which is scary, because where does the time go), it's still up in the air.

KingsFan7824 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 10:25 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.