HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Colorado Avalanche
Notices

New Realignment Plan

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-26-2013, 03:43 PM
  #51
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
How far do you want to go to rationalize this idea that the teams are set in stone for next year?

Atlanta sold it's team on May 31st 2011, and played it's first game in Winnepeg four months later on September 20th.

Let it go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta...and_relocation
And you think NHL hasn't accounted for the possible sale and most likely location if Phoenix is moved when making this proposal?

we are discussing the proposed divisions and the resulting schedule. It is the only thing that is remotely interesting because it is the only thing we have information about.


If you want to draw up some potential future divisions based on relocation and expansion and what that would mean for Avs schedule, feel free to do so. But let the rest of us discuss the current proposal and what it would mean for Avs.


Last edited by Frenchy: 02-26-2013 at 04:32 PM.
Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 03:44 PM
  #52
CalderKing21
Darth Calder
 
CalderKing21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, AL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,889
vCash: 531
the 4 division thing makes no sense. just re-align the divisions properly and leave it at 6. does make winning the division more important though, only 2 from each conference.

glad we're not in the pacific one. that would be horrendous start times.

CalderKing21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 03:53 PM
  #53
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,599
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
And you think NHL hasn't accounted for the possible sale and most likely location if Phoenix is moved when making this proposal?

we are discussing the proposed divisions and the resulting schedule. It is the only thing that is remotely interesting because it is the only thing we have information about.


If you want to draw up some potential future divisions based on relocation and expansion and what that would mean for Avs schedule, feel free to do so. But let the rest of us discuss the current proposal and what it would mean for Avs.

If the jets sold their franchise, moved it, and played their next game within four months, quit saying we know what the teams are for next year, and that the only way for the math to work is if the Avs play six times in their division. That's fundamentally incorrect.


Last edited by Frenchy: 02-26-2013 at 04:34 PM.
Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 03:55 PM
  #54
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalderKing21 View Post
the 4 division thing makes no sense. just re-align the divisions properly and leave it at 6. does make winning the division more important though, only 2 from each conference.

glad we're not in the pacific one. that would be horrendous start times.
Four divisions work better mathematically with 32 or 28 teams. Switching might indicate that NHL doesn't plan to stay at 30 teams forever.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 04:02 PM
  #55
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post

If the jets sold their franchise, moved it, and played their next game within four months, quit saying we know what the teams are for next year, and that the only way for the math to work is if the Avs play six times in their division. That's fundamentally incorrect.
Ok, you win.

Phoenix could move anywhere and NHL will be taken by surprise and have to re-do everything. Because, we just don't know.


Last edited by Frenchy: 02-26-2013 at 04:35 PM.
Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 04:08 PM
  #56
hockeyfish
Registered User
 
hockeyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the FoCo
Country: United States
Posts: 6,667
vCash: 50
Ideally (never going to happen due $$$), I want to see the playoffs be the top two teams of each division play eachother in the 1st round. Then the winners of that round play the winner from the other division in the region (West vs Midwest, East vs Atlantic). And the SC final between the winners of that round. So, only 8 teams total in the playoffs, period. Screw this BS Kindergarten everyone gets in crap.

hockeyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 04:29 PM
  #57
anleva
Registered User
 
anleva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,236
vCash: 500
I like being in the midwest division better both from a time zone/tv perspective and I think the teams in the midwest set up for better potential and more interesting rivalries.

It this unbalanced intial set up was done with an eye toward future expansion of two more teams (1 in the Pacific division and 1 in the Midwest) I wonder who would be the most likely potential teams (assuming they don't want to just move everyone around again after expanding with teams in the East).

For the Pacific: Seattle? Portland? Las Vegas?

For the Midwest: Milwaukee? Kansas City? Indianapolis?

I think Seattle and Milwaukee would be great additions, seems like there would be alot of support for hockey in those two cities.

anleva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 04:37 PM
  #58
Frenchy
Global Moderator
 
Frenchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,349
vCash: 3375
For the Avs fans living in the East , This new realignment is very time zone friendly .

Frenchy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 04:44 PM
  #59
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by anleva View Post
I like being in the midwest division better both from a time zone/tv perspective and I think the teams in the midwest set up for better potential and more interesting rivalries.

It this unbalanced intial set up was done with an eye toward future expansion of two more teams (1 in the Pacific division and 1 in the Midwest) I wonder who would be the most likely potential teams (assuming they don't want to just move everyone around again after expanding with teams in the East).

For the Pacific: Seattle? Portland? Las Vegas?

For the Midwest: Milwaukee? Kansas City? Indianapolis?

I think Seattle and Milwaukee would be great additions, seems like there would be alot of support for hockey in those two cities.
I guess Houston is possible, but I think the lease of the arena only allows the guy that owns the Rockets to own a NHL team.

Portland is all about Paul Allen.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 04:48 PM
  #60
Lonewolfe2015
Registered User
 
Lonewolfe2015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 10,872
vCash: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchy View Post
For the Avs fans living in the East , This new realignment is very time zone friendly .


I'm very happy, a better division for our team and better start times for me.

Lonewolfe2015 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 04:59 PM
  #61
Bubba Thudd
Moderator
#AvsNewAge
 
Bubba Thudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Avaland
Posts: 12,415
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchy View Post
For the Avs fans living in the East , This new realignment is very time zone friendly .
For us old farts, this new alignment is very friendly. It allows me to be in bed by 9:00 so I can get up by 4:00 a.m.

Bubba Thudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 05:03 PM
  #62
anleva
Registered User
 
anleva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,236
vCash: 500
Because a picture is always worth a thousand words.


anleva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 05:07 PM
  #63
henchman24
#ImagineAvs
 
henchman24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by anleva View Post
Because a picture is always worth a thousand words.

With this 4 division set up, it is really about as good as it can get. Expand with Seattle and Quebec. Then move Detroit back to the mid west.

henchman24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 05:09 PM
  #64
tucker3434
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,528
vCash: 500
I'd be pretty pumped if the avs came to Nashville a couple times a year. I also wouldn't mind a few less west coast games. It'll take some getting used to but it looks okay by me.

tucker3434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 05:12 PM
  #65
anleva
Registered User
 
anleva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by henchman24 View Post
With this 4 division set up, it is really about as good as it can get. Expand with Seattle and Quebec. Then move Detroit back to the mid west.
That would would be perfect

anleva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 05:31 PM
  #66
expatriated_texan
Freaking Loopy
 
expatriated_texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Country: United States
Posts: 7,370
vCash: 50
Conference 1 will do away with charter airfare and go back to using a greyhound.

expatriated_texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 05:50 PM
  #67
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
NHL.com posted the proposal.

"The schedule matrix would see each team play teams in the other conference both home and away.

In the seven-team divisions, teams would play intraconference foes three times per season and five of the six intradivision foes five times a season. The sixth opponent within the division would be played four times. In the eight-team divisions, teams would play intraconference opponents three times and intradivision opponents either four or five times per season on a rotating basis."


I guess there might be three-four extra Mountain/Pacific games for Avs compared to if they only had met out of division teams twice.

"Under the proposed system, the top three teams in each of the four divisions would qualify for the postseason. The final four spots would go to the two teams in each conference with the next-best records. So, in theory, five teams from one division and just three from the other division in each respective conference could make the postseason."

It's a bit similar to AHL playoffs. It's not that big a change compared to how it works now though.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 05:53 PM
  #68
CalderKing21
Darth Calder
 
CalderKing21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, AL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,889
vCash: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
Four divisions work better mathematically with 32 or 28 teams. Switching might indicate that NHL doesn't plan to stay at 30 teams forever.
32 teams would be better but if you go 32 then the real question is how much does that grow the pie? i can't remember the revenue sharing portion of the CBA.

CalderKing21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 06:07 PM
  #69
hockeyfish
Registered User
 
hockeyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the FoCo
Country: United States
Posts: 6,667
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalderKing21 View Post
32 teams would be better but if you go 32 then the real question is how much does that grow the pie? i can't remember the revenue sharing portion of the CBA.
Got to love the NHL. Cancel half a season because half the league is failing, then plan to expand.

hockeyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 08:31 AM
  #70
Nzap
Insert clever phrase
 
Nzap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Middle of Noux
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,792
vCash: 50
Let's say hypothetically that Phoenix moves to Quebec next season or in the near future.
Will it be Winnipeg or us who will move to the Pacific division.
We are geographically closer, but Winnipeg with all the Canadian teams might be a better fit in that sense, but then again if we move there would be less travel for the Pacific teams.

Let's suppose that Seattle/Portland/whatever city close to the Pacific ocean doesn't get a team.

Nzap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 11:22 AM
  #71
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,599
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfish View Post
Got to love the NHL. Cancel half a season because half the league is failing, then plan to expand.
It's rich guy economics. "We can lose half a season, cost a bunch of blue collar guys their jobs, piss off fans, and only pay half our employees salaries. We'll come out on top after the millions we'll get in expansion and relocation fees."

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 11:42 AM
  #72
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
It's rich guy economics. "We can lose half a season, cost a bunch of blue collar guys their jobs, piss off fans, and only pay half our employees salaries. We'll come out on top after the millions we'll get in expansion and relocation fees."
There was some pundit (McKenzie or LeBrun) speculating that NHL would prefer relocating to Seattle and then in a few years expand in Toronto and Quebec because they could get so much in expansion fees ($500M) in those markets.

It's all about money.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 01:04 PM
  #73
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
Puckdaddy on how the new proposal doesn't work out from a math perspective.

I don't know why they went from four separate conferences last week to two conferences with two divisions yesterday, since the previous proposal was more clean.

I guess NHLPA might have balked and wanted slightly fewer in-division games and a few more games against other teams for some reason. From what I can understand everyone involved has to compromise a lot here since there isn't a solution that will make everyone happy.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 01:13 PM
  #74
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,599
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
There was some pundit (McKenzie or LeBrun) speculating that NHL would prefer relocating to Seattle and then in a few years expand in Toronto and Quebec because they could get so much in expansion fees ($500M) in those markets.

It's all about money.
Yea, I heard a similar thing earlier in the year. The expansion fees, and revenue sharing boost from another Toronto based team would be insane.

It's why the owners were so comfortable holding out until the last second playing hardball with the union IMO.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 01:39 PM
  #75
Bubba Thudd
Moderator
#AvsNewAge
 
Bubba Thudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Avaland
Posts: 12,415
vCash: 50
So, add another Toronto area team to Div. A, shift DET to Div B, and move CBJ to Div C?

(I think DET has more of a right to stay in the East than CBJ does)

__________________
"Pay The Man!"
Bubba Thudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:54 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.