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.

HNIC shows new potential alignment with 16 teams in "east" groupings

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-25-2013, 11:32 AM
  #376
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Why did they move away from division heavy schedules?

With all this talk about realignment, I have to wonder why did they move away from the schedule where teams played their division 8 times a season?

Playing within the division leads to shorter travel times (for most teams anyway), more revenue, and better games to watch. Inter-conference play sucks. Who wants to watch inter-conference games?

If they went to a schedule where they played everyone in the division 8 times and the rest of the conference 5 times each, wouldn't that achieve most of what they're trying to achieve with this realignment? I don't think too many people will miss the inter-conference games.

Hockey Team is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 11:35 AM
  #377
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
Last proposal had 8 teams in Conference III and IV, which span from VAN to PHX and from WPG to DAL ... this one has the 8 teams in the 2 conferences that are all in the ETZ.

It's not a huge concession, but one that maybe was enough for the NHLPA, especially if it's only for 1-2 seasons until expansion/relocation happens.
The issue is they added Colorodo to the Central division. Colorado is further from every team in the division than Detroit or Columbuis (save Dallas). The overall travel for that division has increased vs the last poposal.

cheswick is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 11:51 AM
  #378
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I'm VERY late to this discussion, so forgive me if the answers to these questions are obvious but:

Assuming the NHL adopts the 4 Conference setup in the OP,

1. Do we know what playoff system will be? Top four from each conference?
2. Do we know what the regular season schedule breakdown will be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
1. Seems to have a provision for a "playin" to get top 4 in "conference", but I haven't seen any tweets/articles with specifics.

2. Again, haven't seen any details, but I think it will be two games against all other conferences minimum, or there will be some teams that will vote against alignment.
The assumption from the limited information that has been leaked:

The NHLPA's starting point for realignment was the NHL-approved repackaging from December 2011. That means, unless otherwise noted, the four conference setup is home-and-away for every team out of conference, with the remaining games in-conference. The qualification for the playoffs is top-four within each conference.

However, the details other than the alignment are lacking. The newly-proposed realignment in the OP doesn't address the NHLPA's original concern regarding the unfair, unbalanced playoff qualification regarding a strict, top-four qualification in conferences of seven and eight teams. Therefore, if the NHLPA is on board with the realignment, and it has been tweeted, there has to be something that "fixes" the playoff qualification, such as a play-in playoff game.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 11:58 AM
  #379
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 57,027
vCash: 500
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...lyers-analysis

Quote:
Since the Flyers are in an eight-team conference, they'd play each of their conference foes either six times or five times per year, with opponents rotating between five and six each season. We'd play each of the other teams in the league twice a piece -- once at home, once on the road.
...
And as CBC reported over the weekend, the league is thinking about adding some sort of "wild card" system where there'd be an MLB-style play-in game/series between the No. 4 and No. 5 teams in each eight-team conference as long as the imbalance exists. That could be a lot of fun.

LadyStanley is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:08 PM
  #380
wildthing202
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglas, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 713
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wildthing202 Send a message via Yahoo to wildthing202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoupNazi View Post
Agreed, which is why I think HNIC's groupings make some sense.

Tampa and Florida get six markets that produce droves of snowbirds who would want to see their teams play.

If they change that, you're right that Tampa and Florida bleed to death, which, of course, would make moving them to Quebec and Toronto2 easier for potential buyers. I couldn't see either of them surviving in that case.
I've said it before but people from NY also go to Florida(Yankees-Rays, Mets-Marlins, Jets-Dolphins, Knicks/Nets-Heat/Magic before current alignment).

wildthing202 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:09 PM
  #381
Enigma Publius
Registered User
 
Enigma Publius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Empire State
Country: United States
Posts: 86
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
The issue is they added Colorodo to the Central division. Colorado is further from every team in the division than Detroit or Columbuis (save Dallas). The overall travel for that division has increased vs the last poposal.
The increase is partially offset by reduced travel for Dallas and, significantly, Colorado.

Or to put it another way, Colorado was significantly further from the PTZ Coast teams than it is from the CTZ teams.

Enigma Publius is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:11 PM
  #382
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
With all this talk about realignment, I have to wonder why did they move away from the schedule where teams played their division 8 times a season?
Fan & western team complaints about seeing teams from the eastern conference only once every three years (since there were only 10 out-of-conference games in that matrix). It was a major buzzkill having Crosby & Ovechkin only hit 5 western arenas a year.

This proposed alignment stinks just as the previous version of it did. The league refuses to gore the sacred oxen (the NE & ATL divisions) so we get this horrible setup where the western teams are condemned to irrelevance just so the ETZ clubs never have to leave their timezone. Sucks, sucks, sucks. I'd sooner just see some kind of musical chairs shuffle at this point rather than inflict this 4-div/conf ugliness on us (something like VAN to PAC, DAL to CEN, NAS to SE, and WIN to NW).

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:17 PM
  #383
Enigma Publius
Registered User
 
Enigma Publius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Empire State
Country: United States
Posts: 86
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildthing202 View Post
I've said it before but people from NY also go to Florida(Yankees-Rays, Mets-Marlins, Jets-Dolphins, Knicks/Nets-Heat/Magic before current alignment).
This is true. You could swap CAR and CLB for TB & FLA and you'd have a similar setup. I definitely think it could work - in fact, I might even prefer it. But Columbus would lose out on potential rival PIT and the New York media market. Though, if QC ever gets a team, Columbus will likely be losing out anyway.

Enigma Publius is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:35 PM
  #384
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Fan & western team complaints about seeing teams from the eastern conference only once every three years (since there were only 10 out-of-conference games in that matrix). It was a major buzzkill having Crosby & Ovechkin only hit 5 western arenas a year.

This proposed alignment stinks just as the previous version of it did. The league refuses to gore the sacred oxen (the NE & ATL divisions) so we get this horrible setup where the western teams are condemned to irrelevance just so the ETZ clubs never have to leave their timezone. Sucks, sucks, sucks. I'd sooner just see some kind of musical chairs shuffle at this point rather than inflict this 4-div/conf ugliness on us (something like VAN to PAC, DAL to CEN, NAS to SE, and WIN to NW).
Please tell us why Western teams are "condemned to irrelevance" in this realignment proposal. I get most of the criticisms, but not this one.

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:39 PM
  #385
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,267
vCash: 500
I posted this in the closed thread, so I hope it's ok to put it here, too.

I am still wondering about the reasoning behind this proposal which has been floated:

1) Is it the real thing - I mean a real leak? Or, a trial balloon. Remember, the last time, HNIC floated a trial balloon, and it was revised before we saw what the BoG really went for.

2) If it is the real things, is it true that the PA had something to do with it? If so, how does it meet their concerns? 3 things seem to come to me about that.
2a) Concerning travel, all the ETZ teams are now together. The PA should like that. Only Cal, Edm and Col are playing across TZ within their conference. I would think the PA would want more - like some kind of input in length of road trips, etc.
2b) Concerning playoffs. The PA never said they were dead against a 4-conference setup. So, it's possible that they see a work around here. My guess is the reasoning goes: 7-team conferences: 4/7 or 57% qualify for playoffs. 8-teams conferences: 4/8 or 50%. If we add a mini-playoff to the 8 team conferences, then basically 4.5/8 make the playoffs (I mean that there are 5 teams included, but one of them won't make the round of 16, so the #5 teams doesn't really have a full chance). 4.5/8 = 56%. Now, that's close. I can see the PA agreeing to that. I have no guess about whether it's a 1-game or a 3-game. But I see this working.
2c) Hybrid of travel and playoffs: While the mini-playoff is occuring, the other teams get a little extra rest. It makes sense to have all the PTZ, MTZ and CTZ, who might otherwise have more travel in the playoffs, due to longer flights, be in the 7-team conferences, so they all get extra rest.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:40 PM
  #386
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
The assumption from the limited information that has been leaked:

The NHLPA's starting point for realignment was the NHL-approved repackaging from December 2011. That means, unless otherwise noted, the four conference setup is home-and-away for every team out of conference, with the remaining games in-conference. The qualification for the playoffs is top-four within each conference.

However, the details other than the alignment are lacking. The newly-proposed realignment in the OP doesn't address the NHLPA's original concern regarding the unfair, unbalanced playoff qualification regarding a strict, top-four qualification in conferences of seven and eight teams. Therefore, if the NHLPA is on board with the realignment, and it has been tweeted, there has to be something that "fixes" the playoff qualification, such as a play-in playoff game.
Finally, someone who is just presenting the facts based on what we've heard and what those items didn't address regarding the original proposal and the PA's issues with it. Thanks, Grudy0, I've been getting frustrated with this discussion.

But here's my question, Grudy0,... How is it that this Wildcard play-in idea can resolve the imbalance presented by 7 and 8-team Conferences? It's a pure smoke-screen, and I hope Fehr and company aren't stupid enough to not see that. All a wildcard play-in does is to give an even lower seed an opportunity to be in the Playoffs. The odds of a team in an 8-team Conference being in the Playoffs is still the same: 50%, whereas in a 7-team Conference it's: 57%.

The issue that some of us have with a top-4 Playoffs is that frequently there'll be a 4th place team in one Conference with a worse record than a 5th or possibly even a 6th place team in another Conference. But unless this is a crossover Wildcard Play-in, which apparently it isn't, then this idea will only serve to give an even lower seed a chance to be in the Playoffs. Talk about diminishing the significance of an 82-game Season. This is ******** in its purist form.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:42 PM
  #387
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Hey, LadyStanley. Great, thanks. That seems to relate a lot to what I posted in the other thread that you closed.

If the League is still insisting or planning on a home-and-home against every team in the League, and if it's still planning a top-4 Divisional Playoff, then that would leave 8-team Conferences with an imbalance in the number of games that some teams inside the Conference play against each other.
2 x 22 = 44 games
6 x 3 = 18 games
5 x 4 = 20 games

So, imagine this situation: The 4th place team finishes with 88pt, the 5th with 86 or 87pt, but those two teams have only played each other 5 times. If a 6th game between the two could be won by the 5th place team, and if that win would be enough to overtake the 4th place team in the Standings, then that 6th game would be the Wildcard game.

If, on the other hand, the 4th and 5th place teams have already played their even series of 6 games against, then no wildcard game should be played and the Standings go as they are.

* One problem could be, what if there are two teams only 1 point below the 4th place team, and both have only played against the 4th place team only 5 times?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:42 PM
  #388
Chileiceman
Registered User
 
Chileiceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Chile
Posts: 8,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Fan & western team complaints about seeing teams from the eastern conference only once every three years (since there were only 10 out-of-conference games in that matrix). It was a major buzzkill having Crosby & Ovechkin only hit 5 western arenas a year.

This proposed alignment stinks just as the previous version of it did. The league refuses to gore the sacred oxen (the NE & ATL divisions) so we get this horrible setup where the western teams are condemned to irrelevance just so the ETZ clubs never have to leave their timezone. Sucks, sucks, sucks. I'd sooner just see some kind of musical chairs shuffle at this point rather than inflict this 4-div/conf ugliness on us (something like VAN to PAC, DAL to CEN, NAS to SE, and WIN to NW).
It seems like the Eastern teams will be leaving their timezone more frequently with the realignment. They didn't have 15 Western Conference road games before this

Chileiceman is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:43 PM
  #389
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The issue that some of us have with a top-4 Playoffs is that frequently there'll be a 4th place team in one Conference with a worse record than a 5th or possibly even a 6th place team in another Conference.
Prior to 1-8 conference seeding that started with 93-94 playoffs, this is exactly how it was in the NHL (Except instead of "conferences" they were "divisions"). And I bet if you go back and look at standings pre 93-94, you'll see this very issue come up. Point is, a "purist" would say that this is the way to go since it is exactly what the NHL did prior to 93-94.

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:43 PM
  #390
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
Please tell us why Western teams are "condemned to irrelevance" in this realignment proposal. I get most of the criticisms, but not this one.
Living out east, I don't think you guys get a fair shake in the media coverage out here as it is. Pull the Red Wings into the east and it will just further reinforce the notion in the big eastern media markets that the NHL is an eastern league first & foremost with a western appendix stuck onto it. The Canadian teams will be fine, and the Blackhawks will be fine, but I think the rest of the western teams will tend to get overlooked, especially if the schedule reverts to a division-heavy one.

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:43 PM
  #391
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Fan & western team complaints about seeing teams from the eastern conference only once every three years (since there were only 10 out-of-conference games in that matrix). It was a major buzzkill having Crosby & Ovechkin only hit 5 western arenas a year.

This proposed alignment stinks just as the previous version of it did. The league refuses to gore the sacred oxen (the NE & ATL divisions) so we get this horrible setup where the western teams are condemned to irrelevance just so the ETZ clubs never have to leave their timezone. Sucks, sucks, sucks. I'd sooner just see some kind of musical chairs shuffle at this point rather than inflict this 4-div/conf ugliness on us (something like VAN to PAC, DAL to CEN, NAS to SE, and WIN to NW).
How are they condemned to irrelevance? This should be entertaining. How is the NE and Atlantic divisions, "sacred oxen"?

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:43 PM
  #392
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Good points made on SB Nation article on realignment

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/2/25/40...-west-east-win

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:44 PM
  #393
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Living out east, I don't think you guys get a fair shake in the media coverage out here as it is. Pull the Red Wings into the east and it will just further reinforce the notion in the big eastern media markets that the NHL is an eastern league first & foremost with a western appendix stuck onto it. The Canadian teams will be fine, and the Blackhawks will be fine, but I think the rest of the western teams will tend to get overlooked, especially if the schedule reverts to a division-heavy one.
They are overlooked in the East now and it is always going to be like that because their home games during the week start at 10/10:30 eastern, so people living in the east aren't watching anyway. Just like I am sure there aren't many people in California watching too many Rangers or Isles games because they start at 4/4:30.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:46 PM
  #394
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
Prior to 1-8 conference seeding that started with 93-94 playoffs, this is exactly how it was in the NHL (Except instead of "conferences" they were "divisions"). And I bet if you go back and look at standings pre 93-94, you'll see this very issue come up. Point is, a "purist" would say that this is the way to go since it is exactly what the NHL did prior to 93-94.
It didn't start until 81-82 (or maybe 82-83). Before that, it was a 1-16 seeding league-wide. In the 70s, when 12 made the play-offs the 4 division winners got first round byes and were seeded 1-4.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:47 PM
  #395
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimus2861 View Post
Living out east, I don't think you guys get a fair shake in the media coverage out here as it is. Pull the Red Wings into the east and it will just further reinforce the notion in the big eastern media markets that the NHL is an eastern league first & foremost with a western appendix stuck onto it. The Canadian teams will be fine, and the Blackhawks will be fine, but I think the rest of the western teams will tend to get overlooked, especially if the schedule reverts to a division-heavy one.
I totally agree and I sincerely appreciate your acknowledgement of this and concern. But it really doesn''t get much worse with realignment. Many of us fans of west teams are tired of only getting exposure when our teams play the Red Wings anyways. (i.e., we only get on NHL on NBC game of the week if they are playing Red Wings).

I'd go into this realignment and hope that the entire hockey media world puts pressure on the NHL into giving the West more exposure. Just having the Red Wings in the West hasn't done much for us.

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:48 PM
  #396
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
It didn't start until 81-82 (or maybe 82-83). Before that, it was a 1-16 seeding league-wide. In the 70s, when 12 made the play-offs the 4 division winners got first round byes and were seeded 1-4.
Thanks for the clarification. I'll amend my point to say that the NHL did go with that divisional playoffs for, what, 10 seasons, and it did help produce some intense rivalries that exist to this day.

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:48 PM
  #397
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
* One problem could be, what if there are two teams only 1 point below the 4th place team, and both have only played against the 4th place team only 5 times?
Simple, they apply a tie-breaker like they do now. What happens if two teams are tied for 8th in the conference at the end of the season? One gets in, one doesn't.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:48 PM
  #398
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
Prior to 1-8 conference seeding that started with 93-94 playoffs, this is exactly how it was in the NHL (Except instead of "conferences" they were "divisions"). And I bet if you go back and look at standings pre 93-94, you'll see this very issue come up. Point is, a "purist" would say that this is the way to go since it is exactly what the NHL did prior to 93-94.
Fine, but did they do a wildcard play-in back then and give even a lower 5th seed an opportunity to be in the Playoffs?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:49 PM
  #399
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
Thanks for the clarification. I'll amend my point to say that the NHL did go with that divisional playoffs for, what, 10 seasons, and it did help produce some intense rivalries that exist to this day.
It definitely did. Teams absolutely HATED their division opponents.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:50 PM
  #400
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Fine, but did they do a wildcard play-in back then and give even a lower 5th seed an opportunity to be in the Playoffs?
No. In 88, Devils and Rangers tied for 4th in the only 6-team division. Devils had more wins, so they got in (and went to the Conference Finals), Rangers went home. All other divisions had 5 teams with 4 making it in.

patnyrnyg 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 01:48 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.