HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-26-2013, 11:48 AM
  #651
canuckster19
Former CDC Mod
 
canuckster19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gothenburg Sweden
Country: Canada
Posts: 685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwings8831 View Post
Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun

According to NHL memo sent to 30 teams, no longer is the idea to go to 4 conferences, but rather 2 conferences with two divisions each.

https://twitter.com/Real_ESPNLeBrun/...58541743566848

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun

The Eastern Conference would have the Atlantic and Central divisions, the Western Conference would have the Mid-West and Pacific divisions

https://twitter.com/Real_ESPNLeBrun/...58948356153344
Well that's a step in the right direction, I prefer a west and east team in the finals not two from one or the other.

canuckster19 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 11:56 AM
  #652
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
it could happen though. Its possible under the current structure
That's your recovery response to a fallacious original comment... "It could happen."

In a 4-Conference structure, the 3rd place team in one Conference could have a worse record than the 6th in another. That also could very well happen, and make a top-4 look pretty damn stupid if the League went with a Top-4 Playoff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crayton View Post
Three is good. The more guaranteed spots the better, because each conference is playing the same schedule whereas it is less equitable to compare point totals between teams from different conferences with vastly different schedules.
Two would be better!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in MN
I fail to see how Montreal flying to Florida is somehow worse than Edmonton flying to LA

Sure, there are a bunch of other teams between Montreal and Miami, but if the Atlantic teams wanna stick together, so be it
Damn, I tried to find the original of that post but I couldn't find it.
Originally I decided to ignore it, but since someone else has agreed with it then I just can't let that stand.

It's one thing that Edmonton and Anaheim might have to be in the same Division/Conference if the League wants to make 8-team groups, but it's quite another to do the same with other teams when there's absolutely no necessity to do it.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 02-26-2013 at 12:10 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:02 PM
  #653
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 21,451
vCash: 1
Have two divisions in two conferences each is definitely a step in the right direction, though I'd be loathe to admit that I'm not a fan of the "Midwest Division" having 4/7 of the teams not even be in the Midwest (Manitoba, Colorado, Texas, and Tennessee).

Hope they just name that one the Central and call the other eastern division something else.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:06 PM
  #654
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
If they go to 2 conferences, then they should go to 7/8/7/8, right? Wouldn't the PA complain about a 16/14 split like they did last year for 7/7/8/8?

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:07 PM
  #655
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Do we REALLY need to explain "why" again? Haven't people been explaining it to you for 3 days? It is not people on this site, it is the TEAMS that are complaining.
Damn it man, I just gave you examples of teams that wouldn't be complaining. Don't feed me your dribble. Not everyone thinks like east coast fans.

Oh, and to follow your point... Then let the teams vote against it! It's as simple as that.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:10 PM
  #656
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
Olympic Champion
 
Marc the Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,217
vCash: 597
Seems like there are 2 plans out there:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
OK, new realignment terminology. We're back to four divisions (Pacific, Central, Northeast and Atlantic) and two conferences (East and West)

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
In addition to the proposed plan I tweeted out earlier, there's an alternative plan with new terminology.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
This alternative plan would be Pacific and Mid-West divisions in Western Conference and Central and Atlantic divisions in Eastern Conference

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Schedule matrix for alternate plan more complicated.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
West team plays 16 East teams home/away for 32. West plays other out of division but in conference 3x per team (21). 29 GP within division.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
East teams would home-away vs 14 West teams (28), 3x each vs out of division but in conference opponents (24) and 30 games within division.

https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie


Last edited by Marc the Habs Fan: 02-26-2013 at 12:17 PM.
Marc the Habs Fan is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:20 PM
  #657
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRDANHUTCH View Post
you watch the crossover be tossed out, the 1st chance it happens, MO, it's an abject failure and doesn't fix, then who pays attention to the 4 conference champions, then, because everyone will be focused on the cross-over, not who's already in....
CHRDANHUTCH, someone made this argument the other day, and I fully agree.... Hardly anyone cares about Division or Conference Champs as it is, even the players don't want to touch the Conference trophies. Beyond Playoff seeding, what's important isn't who wins the Division or the Conference,... No, what's important are the matchups. Now this Playoff proposal appears to be making both the effort to contain primarily Divisional matchups, while at the same time giving credit to teams with better records. The majority of the matchups (or even all) will still be those Divisional matchups that many fans want to see.

The only "Championship" that anyone really cares about is the Stanley Cup Championship..

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:21 PM
  #658
JmanWingsFan
Your average Jman
 
JmanWingsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere
Country: United States
Posts: 4,204
vCash: 500
This alignment proposal is a mess. Scrap it and start anew. It shouldn't be this complicated.

JmanWingsFan is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:22 PM
  #659
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma Publius View Post
Problem is, this system greatly increases the travel (and more importantly, the time-zone differences) if it is applied to the Western Conference teams. Last year would have seen Division winner STL being punished by traveling across timezones to visit LAK. Their weakest in-division team was CHI, with 101 pts. The year prior might have had PHO @ NSH; then maybe CLG @ CHI in 2009-2010; and ANA @ CHI in 2008-2009. So much for winning the division, eh?
Increases it over what, the current Playoff system? I dare say, Not!

It has the chance to increase it over some other system that You prefer, Yes.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:23 PM
  #660
MuckOG
The Brodin Effect
 
MuckOG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Right behind you....
Country: United States
Posts: 5,677
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
This alignment proposal is a mess. Scrap it and start anew. It shouldn't be this complicated.
I don't think this new proposal is complicated....and it ain't a mess...I actually like it.

Remember, though, that we still don't know all the details...seems there are now a couple of proposals floating around in terms of regular season and playoff scheduling.

MuckOG is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:24 PM
  #661
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwings8831 View Post
Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun

According to NHL memo sent to 30 teams, no longer is the idea to go to 4 conferences, but rather 2 conferences with two divisions each.

https://twitter.com/Real_ESPNLeBrun/...58541743566848

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun

The Eastern Conference would have the Atlantic and Central divisions, the Western Conference would have the Mid-West and Pacific divisions

https://twitter.com/Real_ESPNLeBrun/...58948356153344
Whooa, YES! Things apparently seem to be finally sliding in the right direction.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:25 PM
  #662
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
Olympic Champion
 
Marc the Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,217
vCash: 597
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
For playoffs, East or West, wild card team with fewest points gets seeded 4th vs division winner with highest points.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Wild card team with most points would be 4th seed in division vs the second-ranked division winner. 2 vs 3 within division is constant.

Marc the Habs Fan is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:29 PM
  #663
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 MoreOrr View Post
Increases it over what, the current Playoff system? I dare say, Not!

It has the chance to increase it over some other system that You prefer, Yes.
It's an increase over the strict, top-four qualifiers proposal from 2011. Thing is, while I understand adding the setup in the East, it doesn't need to be implemented in the West, where teams already have a higher chance of qualifying for the playoffs in the current alignment. All it does is add complexity and timezone (and travel) distance for Western teams. And it doesn't do anything to level the playing field for the east.

Like I've said above, I can live with it, but it's not the most elegant idea out there.

EDIT: Ninjaed by March the Habs Fan

Enigma Publius is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:31 PM
  #664
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma Publius View Post
It's an increase over the strict, top-four qualifiers proposal from 2011. Thing is, while I understand adding the setup in the East, it doesn't need to be implemented in the West, where teams already have a higher chance of qualifying for the playoffs in the current alignment. All it does is add complexity and timezone (and travel) distance for Western teams. And it doesn't do anything to level the playing field for the east.

Like I've said above, I can live with it, but it's not the most elegant idea out there.

EDIT: Ninjaed by March the Habs Fan
And that proposal got shot down, regardless of my opinion or yours.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:35 PM
  #665
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 MoreOrr View Post
And that proposal got shot down, regardless of my opinion or yours.
And your point? Just because it was shot down doesn't mean there was nothing about it worth keeping. And while your opinion may be as irrelevant as mine regarding the ultimate alignment, that doesn't mean I can't point out an aspect of the 2011 proposal that I believe was superior to the current one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc the Habs Fan View Post
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
For playoffs, East or West, wild card team with fewest points gets seeded 4th vs division winner with highest points.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Wild card team with most points would be 4th seed in division vs the second-ranked division winner. 2 vs 3 within division is constant.
Sounds like what I mentioned earlier in the thread. And once again, it makes perfect sense ... in the east. And almost no sense in the west. Ah well, you can't have everything.

Enigma Publius is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:35 PM
  #666
Steenager
Registered User
 
Steenager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Wales
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Elliote Friedman just explained the scheduling matrix for the two Western divisions on TSN 1290 (Western teams only addressed because it's a Winnipeg station). Basically, he says that those teams will play twice against out-of-conference foes, and three times against in-conference, but out-of-division foes. I've done some math to extrapolate things, and the total matrix looks like this:

Two games against out-of-conference teams - 32 total games
Three games against in-conference, but out of division teams - 21 total games
Five games against 5/6 in-division teams, four games against remaining team - 29 total games

Steenager is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:36 PM
  #667
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
This alignment proposal is a mess. Scrap it and start anew. It shouldn't be this complicated.
I would guess that every alignment after the 66-67 season has been increasing in complexity.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:38 PM
  #668
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma Publius View Post
Who needs fairy tales when there are facts to be considered? Fact is, Colorado's travel is significantly less in the current proposal vs. the previous one from the NHL.

Old Proposal (in miles)
COL - SJS - 962
COL - PHO - 584
COL - ANA - 822
COL - LAK - 832
COL - VAN - 1103
COL - CAL - 895
COL - EDM - 1032
6032 - total distance one way
890 - average distance one way

Current Proposal
COL - WPG - 797
COL - MIN - 703
COL - CHI - 917
COL - STL - 792
COL - NSH - 730
COL - DAL - 664
4603 - total distance one way
767 - average distance one way

That's an improvement of over a hundred miles, one way. I'd say that matters.
Now compare Colorado in the Central with Detroit/Columbus in the Central. That 123 mile average difference is more than made up for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma Publius View Post
Looking at the standings for five years (including this one), the most recent rumor (top three in EVERY conference qualify, the four remaining Wild Cards are distributed globally based on points) produces some disturbing results. Looking at this year's standings, the proposed Eastern division (for lack of a better moniker) would currently send six of its eight teams to the playoffs - resulting in, say, TB @ ANA. DET would likely be kicked into the Atlantic against NJD. In 2009-2010, the proposed Western Division would have sent six of its seven teams to the playoffs with the possible ANA @ WSH and CAL @ CHI opening round matchup.

Yikes! What a terrible, clumsy and unnecessarily complicated system!
Well, if you have cross-over series, there really is no longer any reason to have bracketed playoffs. If 6 teams qualify from 1 division, play 3 series between them. Sure you'll still have a cross-over series in Round 2, but you still would have had this had you added needless cross-overs in Round 1.

ROUND ONE
1 Montreal vs. 6 Tampa Bay (Northeast)
2 Ottawa vs. 5 Detroit (Northeast)
3 Boston vs. 4 Toronto (Northeast)
1 Chicago vs. 4 Dallas (Central)
2 Nashville vs. 3 St. Louis (Central)
1 Anaheim vs. 6 Carolina **cross-country series
2 Pittsburgh vs. 4 New Jersey (Atlantic)
3 Vancouver vs. 5 Los Angeles (Pacific)

ROUND TWO
3 divisional series and then:
Northeast team vs. Pitt/NJ (if Ana>Car) or Van/LA (if Car>Ana)
Anaheim is a high seed and likely to beat Carolina, so only a minimal chance of a cross-country series here.

In 2010-11, #6 Calgary finished 2 points behind #4 Montreal and #5 Buffalo in the wild-card race. When these teams are playing the same schedule and playing more games against one another, you will find the median of each of the 4 conferences closer to one another.

Crayton is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:41 PM
  #669
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steenager View Post
Elliote Friedman just explained the scheduling matrix for the two Western divisions on TSN 1290 (Western teams only addressed because it's a Winnipeg station). Basically, he says that those teams will play twice against out-of-conference foes, and three times against in-conference, but out-of-division foes. I've done some math to extrapolate things, and the total matrix looks like this:

Two games against out-of-conference teams - 32 total games
Three games against in-conference, but out of division teams - 21 total games
Five games against 5/6 in-division teams, four games against remaining team - 29 total games
Except you can't have an odd number of teams playing an odd number of games against themselves. Chances are it is 5 games within your division, 3 within your conference and 2 against the East and 1 of the teams from the other in-conference division.

Crayton is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:43 PM
  #670
Steenager
Registered User
 
Steenager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Wales
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc the Habs Fan View Post
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
For playoffs, East or West, wild card team with fewest points gets seeded 4th vs division winner with highest points.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Wild card team with most points would be 4th seed in division vs the second-ranked division winner. 2 vs 3 within division is constant.
I really don't like the Wild Card team playing the second-ranked division winner. That really skews the whole divisional thing. Why not have the Wild Card team simply take the spot of the team it is replacing?

Steenager is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:44 PM
  #671
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma Publius View Post
And your point? Just because it was shot down doesn't mean there was nothing about it worth keeping. And while your opinion may be as irrelevant as mine regarding the ultimate alignment, that doesn't mean I can't point out an aspect of the 2011 proposal that I believe was superior to the current one.
You're saying this latest proposal increases Playoff travel, and I'm just saying, "over what", real travel that the teams already experience, or hypothetical travel that was part of another proposal? It doesn't increase anything, it just doesn't reduce it as much as some other plan. And I'm sure that if travel reduction would be the primary objective, that there could yet be other plans which could reduce travel even more than that previous proposal.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:45 PM
  #672
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 Crayton View Post
Now compare Colorado in the Central with Detroit/Columbus in the Central. That 123 mile average difference is more than made up for.
Shall I dig up the figures for decreased travel on the part of Dallas, too? And you're not factoring in the fact that the reduction of travel from everyone in the Pacific conference is much greater than the increase from the other Central teams. Additionally, Dallas sees reduced travel with the departure of DET & CLB. So yeah, the other teams see an increase in travel, but the overall reduction of travel (from the Pacific teams; from Dallas) compensates for it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crayton View Post
Well, if you have cross-over series, there really is no longer any reason to have bracketed playoffs. If 6 teams qualify from 1 division, play 3 series between them. Sure you'll still have a cross-over series in Round 2, but you still would have had this had you added needless cross-overs in Round 1.

ROUND ONE
1 Montreal vs. 6 Tampa Bay (Northeast)
2 Ottawa vs. 5 Detroit (Northeast)
3 Boston vs. 4 Toronto (Northeast)
1 Chicago vs. 4 Dallas (Central)
2 Nashville vs. 3 St. Louis (Central)
1 Anaheim vs. 6 Carolina **cross-country series
2 Pittsburgh vs. 4 New Jersey (Atlantic)
3 Vancouver vs. 5 Los Angeles (Pacific)

ROUND TWO
3 divisional series and then:
Northeast team vs. Pitt/NJ (if Ana>Car) or Van/LA (if Car>Ana)
Anaheim is a high seed and likely to beat Carolina, so only a minimal chance of a cross-country series here.

In 2010-11, #6 Calgary finished 2 points behind #4 Montreal and #5 Buffalo in the wild-card race. When these teams are playing the same schedule and playing more games against one another, you will find the median of each of the 4 conferences closer to one another.
Hey look! You're the #1 seed! As a reward, you get a cross-continent playoff series where not only must you factor in the cost and drain of travel, but start times are guaranteed to reduce your regional TV viewership!

Congrats!

Enigma Publius is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:46 PM
  #673
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
Olympic Champion
 
Marc the Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,217
vCash: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steenager View Post
Elliote Friedman just explained the scheduling matrix for the two Western divisions on TSN 1290 (Western teams only addressed because it's a Winnipeg station). Basically, he says that those teams will play twice against out-of-conference foes, and three times against in-conference, but out-of-division foes. I've done some math to extrapolate things, and the total matrix looks like this:

Two games against out-of-conference teams - 32 total games
Three games against in-conference, but out of division teams - 21 total games
Five games against 5/6 in-division teams, four games against remaining team - 29 total games
^

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
West team plays 16 East teams home/away for 32. West plays other out of division but in conference 3x per team (21). 29 GP within division.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
East teams would home-away vs 14 West teams (28), 3x each vs out of division but in conference opponents (24) and 30 games within division.

Marc the Habs Fan is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:49 PM
  #674
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma Publius View Post
Hey look! You're the #1 seed! As a reward, you get a cross-continent playoff series where not only must you factor in the cost and drain of travel, but start times are guaranteed to reduce your regional TV viewership!

Congrats!
Exactly, Enigma, I don't agree with that. #1 seeds should get the lowest Playoff seed in their Division, plain and simple.

And imagine if they lose that series. No Divisions fans want the Top-seed eliminate in the 1st Round by a team from another Division, not if Divisional matchups are a primary focus where possible. If the 2nd place team gets eliminated in a crossover matchup, well that's the risk/price they take for not winning the Division.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:49 PM
  #675
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 MoreOrr View Post
You're saying this latest proposal increases Playoff travel, and I'm just saying, "over what", real travel that the teams already experience, or hypothetical travel that was part of another proposal? It doesn't increase anything, it just doesn't reduce it as much as some other plan. And I'm sure that if travel reduction would be the primary objective, that there could yet be other plans which could reduce travel even more than that previous proposal.
Oh, I get it. You're being contrarian, playing at semantics. Let's spell it out, then:

Is there an increase between the 2011 proposal vs. the one now? Yes. Should the current one be finalized, will there be an overall reduction compared to the current six-division alignment? Yes. Will it be as much as the 2011 proposal? No. Can I live with the current proposal? As I've state a couple of times, yes. Will I continue to point out that adding in a WC for the West is inelegant, particularly if much of the rationale for realignment was to address issues of time zone and travel?

Oh yeah.

Enigma Publius 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 04:54 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.