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.

Daly on impact of realignment on expansion, negotiations w/NHLPA

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-28-2013, 08:39 PM
  #151
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl--th...214645650.html
Yahoo's Cotsonika takes a look at the problems with proposed realignment, and how to fix.
Well this part makes absolute sense:
Quote:
If both fourth-place teams in a conference make the playoffs, keep them within their divisions regardless of their point totals. Only cross over if three teams make it in one division and five make it in the other.
Can't understand why it should be done any other way.

The simple think here is to drop this "wildcard" idea and simply do a crossover if and when there's an odd number of teams of there's a 3/5 scenario. Top-8 make the Playoffs, but that's where it ends, 1st Round matchups are based on the Division ranking where possible, 2nd Round goes the same, based on Division ranking. Not using the wildcard idea further limits the possibility of a crossover.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 09:02 PM
  #152
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Tsanuri,

What change do they have to make to do a new playoff system? Is that a bylaw? If not, then I am using the wrong term, and I apologize. It seems to me that having a provision limiting a ETZ from meeting a PTZ team in Round 1 is no different to write than "The Top 3 seeds in each Conference will be the Regular Season Division Champions, in order of points earned during the Regular Season"

Or, am I missing something?
The conference/divisional alignments, schedule matrix, and playoff organization are all defined in the NHL By-Laws - which require a 2/3rds majority to amend.

Bottom line - any realignment proposal needs 20 yes votes.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 10:05 PM
  #153
Bucky_Hoyt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore
Country: Canada
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBCnutcase View Post
Do that and leave the 6 division, 2 conference alone which is the status quo.[/FONT]

It is unbalanced with the 4 divisions. The 6 division can be balanced with 2011 proposal, 29x2=58 and the 4 other teams in the division six more times, 4x6=24 does equal 82.

The other way would be
4x5=20 or 4x6=24 (divisional games)
10x3=30 (conference games from the other 2 divs
15x2=30 (from the other conference.

and that equals 80 or 84 games.
So, with your first proposal 8 games against each division / conference, 2 games against everyone else, yes?

Math makes sense but that modelís playoffs would create 6 ,12, 18 or 24 teams advancing if no wildcard strategy created. If wildcard, how would they bracket?

Also, 8 games per divisional rivals would be exhaustingly dull.

The 3 conference model would be even more of a nightmare.

Might as well go with the easy switches for now before relo/expansion gets sorted.

Bucky_Hoyt is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 01:12 AM
  #154
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,772
vCash: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giglio NYR15 View Post
This seems like the most logical thing Ive heard yet. Hope its what takes place.
I like the December alignment with 1 tweak. The bottom 2 playoff spots in each conference being wildcards. This will even out the 8/7/8/7 issue. Forget the conferences during the regular season. Only have them for playoff groupings.

knorthern knight is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 09:18 AM
  #155
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
I was just looking at the Columbus attendance data on nhl.com. This is what I found:

Columbus is currently averaging about 13,500/game. However, that is very skewed. There are really 2 different parts to Columbus' attendance:

1) When Chicago or Detroit is in town
2) When It's someone else.

CMB has had 3 games with Det/Chi in town this year. One was the opener. Avg is about 18000 for those games. Average for the other games is around 11800.

I put this here because it helps me to understand what the Columbus people mean when they say "We need to be in the east." And, looking at last year, the eastern games seemed to average around 2000 higher than the west. I didn't do a full up calculation, but just a rough eyeball.

So, they seem to have a good argument. I think it is fair to say that if Detroit goes to the East without them, they will have a hard time drawing fans. (Now, it's another topic whether people could have foreseen that when the team was awarded.) Without Detroit, they have only Chicago as a good draw for themselves, and it is hard to imagine Dallas, Winnipeg and Minnesota taking up that slack.

So, to me, if they go back to 8/7/8/7 with a Western and Eastern Conference, that leaves 2 options: One is: Would Detroit stay in the west if the playing matrix were home/home with every one and the rest in your own division? That seems more palatable to them. I don't think they would go back west if they knew they had to play 3 games with all the MTZ and PTZ teams. The other option is still Carolina. I also looked at their attendance, and it doesn't seem to make as big a difference there.

Does anyone with more knowledge of Carolina have anything to add to that?

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 09:42 AM
  #156
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
The 8, 7, 8, 7 split makes more sense. Then at least the wild card idea is logical. But you then have one team, either detroit or columbus who is very unhappy.

Given that, they should definitely limit games outside a teams division. And you still have possibility of columbus playing a team from the far west in the first two rounds.

But I've said this a lot, nothing is perfect. Most interesting thing to me is how they determine if its detroit or columbus who gets screwed.

And I still don't see a long term solution to the problem of phoenix moving to the east or expansion teams in the east. Would the nhl select cities in the west for expansion or relocation simply because it creates an east west balance? This is a league that will likely always be unbalanced towards the east. They need a way to resolve that issue.

The CyNick is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 09:54 AM
  #157
tony d
Thanks for memories
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,319
vCash: 500
Again, I don't why they're going full out on realignment when the easy thing would be to move Nashville to the Southeast and Winnipeg to the Central.

__________________
tony d is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 10:04 AM
  #158
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,908
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
Again, I don't why they're going full out on realignment when the easy thing would be to move Nashville to the Southeast and Winnipeg to the Central.
But then Winnipeg would be in the central with Minnesota being in the Northwest.

Nashville being a CTZ team playing in a conference with all ETZ teams while leaving Det and Columbus as ETZ teams in the Western conference.

Sure its easy, doesn't mean it makes sense.

Even easier would be to just leave winnipeg in the South East.

cheswick is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 10:07 AM
  #159
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
Again, I don't why they're going full out on realignment when the easy thing would be to move Nashville to the Southeast and Winnipeg to the Central.
Or as I've been repeating recently, they could just keep the current alignment, with those few modifications, but divide it up into 3 Conferences, and leave it that way at least until expansion.
That gets...
- Winnipeg out of the Southeast.
- Dallas out of the Pacific.
- Detroit, Columbus, and rest of the current Central separated from the far-west.
- Virtually negates the issue of which team gets put in the Southeast.
- Gives Detroit and Columbus 4 other ETZ opponents.
- At very minimum, separates Minnesota from Vancouver, eliminating all 3-TZ Divisions.
- It doesn't changeup the Northeast nor the Atlantic Divisions.
- It allows for very balanced schedule.
- And they could still do the same approximated 1st Round Divisional matchups as they're trying to do now (though I'm not sure it would be necessary to do with only 10-teams per Conference).
- And it has only 1 crossover matchup for each Playoff Round, right through until the Final.

The 3-Conference structure solves the greatest number of the issues that exist, with very few realigned teams to get it done.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 03-01-2013 at 10:13 AM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 10:13 AM
  #160
Draftman
 
Draftman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,052
vCash: 500
I think they should eliminate conferences all together. Have 5 divisions with 6 teams each. Playoff positioning would come from the top 2 teams from each division plus the 6 next best teams. Then have the best team play team #16 and so on. The regular season would have each team play the other teams in their division 6 times, and 2 games each against the teams from the other divisions. While that would shrink the regular season to 78 games it would be inherently fair for all teams and would reward the teams that do well in the regular season. It would make the regular season and the division races more meaningful and eliminate the the way teams are listed for the playoffs now by conference.



My apologies if a format like this was listed before.

Draftman is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 10:35 AM
  #161
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
Seeding 1 to 16 is great, but its a nightmare for tv. You could easily get all east vs west matches in the first round. That means you will have start times at 4-5 in the west and 10-11 on the eat for road games. Its just awful for building a fan base and it will hurt tv ratings. So you just upset all of your tv partners.

People need do a better job prioritizing the things that are important here. Tv times is a big one, playing every team in the league in your own building, equal chances for all teams to make the playoffs.

The 8, 7, 8, 7 system pretty much covers all of that. Especially if you only play teams in your division more than other teams vs having tiers based on division, then conference, then league. You reduce the imbalance issue by saying a 5th place team from an 8 team group can take the spot of 4th place team in a 7 team group. But limit that movement to eastern and western conferences.

One eastern time zone team would be screwed, but its for the greater good, and even that team still has an improved schedule to their current one.

The CyNick is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 10:35 AM
  #162
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
I was just looking at the Columbus attendance data on nhl.com. This is what I found:

Columbus is currently averaging about 13,500/game. However, that is very skewed. There are really 2 different parts to Columbus' attendance:

1) When Chicago or Detroit is in town
2) When It's someone else.

CMB has had 3 games with Det/Chi in town this year. One was the opener. Avg is about 18000 for those games. Average for the other games is around 11800.

I put this here because it helps me to understand what the Columbus people mean when they say "We need to be in the east." And, looking at last year, the eastern games seemed to average around 2000 higher than the west. I didn't do a full up calculation, but just a rough eyeball.

So, they seem to have a good argument. I think it is fair to say that if Detroit goes to the East without them, they will have a hard time drawing fans. (Now, it's another topic whether people could have foreseen that when the team was awarded.) Without Detroit, they have only Chicago as a good draw for themselves, and it is hard to imagine Dallas, Winnipeg and Minnesota taking up that slack.

So, to me, if they go back to 8/7/8/7 with a Western and Eastern Conference, that leaves 2 options: One is: Would Detroit stay in the west if the playing matrix were home/home with every one and the rest in your own division? That seems more palatable to them. I don't think they would go back west if they knew they had to play 3 games with all the MTZ and PTZ teams.
Columbus really needs to go to the Eastern Conference. Pittsburgh is about 140 miles away. Pittsburgh plays nine games against the Western Conference in their arenas, meaning their lucky to play six games two or more hours away in a given season. Columbus (and Detroit) play 16 games two or more hours away. That will generally hurt ratings and attendance. Neither gets hurt badly when a team is doing well; both can be hurt when a team is doing poorly (Columbus) or uncertainty hangs over the franchise (Phoenix).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
The other option is still Carolina. I also looked at their attendance, and it doesn't seem to make as big a difference there.

Does anyone with more knowledge of Carolina have anything to add to that?
The attendance figures were posted at one point during one of these realignment threads that have popped up over the past 18 or so months. Carolina's best home attendance is when their opponents are from the Eastern Conference teams north of them and Detroit, and the more north the better. I recall that Buffalo, Boston and the Northeast Canadian teams were like five of their top six draws.

This is my scenario:
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Pacific: ANA LA SJ PHX - CGY COL EDM VAN
Central: CHI DAL DET MIN NSH STL WPG

Matrix: two games against everyone, rest of games divisional -
Pacific: 2 games / 22 opponents - 44 games, 38 games in-division (3x6, 4x5) (if Coyotes go to Seattle, Colorado and Seattle swap places in the pod)
Central: 2 games / 23 opponents - 46 games, 26 games in-division (6x6)

Keeps Detroit in the West in the format they like
This is, if rumors are correct, the exact format that no Western team vetoed except Columbus isn't in the Central


EASTERN CONFERENCE
Northeast: BOS BUF CAR CLB MTL OTT TOR
Atlantic: FLA NJD NYI NYR PHI PIT TB WAS

All scheduling: 2 games / 15 opponents - 30 games, 52 games in-conference. I don't care how it's done, just prefer that more divisional than non-divisional, just like this year.

The East gets their "cushy" travel schedule not leaving the ETZ but has to fly all over the eastern seaboard for their games, as they do now.
I don't care if the playoffs here qualify by division or by conference


Playoffs:
Top NINE in each conference qualify.
The belief is that with many in-division games in the West, it should almost always be a five-four split across divisions for qualification. If six teams from a division qualify, there must be some really poor teams in your division...

Playoffs start, where the division that qualifies five teams plays a 4v5 single- elimination game, then the rest of the playoffs are DIVISIONAL. That solves the problems regarding time zones out west. It also solves the scenario regarding a fifth-place divisional team having a better record than the other division's fourth-place team. Win and you keep going. Just ask the eighth-seed LA Kings from 2012 or the seventh-seed Philadelphia Flyers from 2010 about having to play on the road.

Just win, baby!

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 10:39 AM
  #163
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
Again, I don't why they're going full out on realignment when the easy thing would be to move Nashville to the Southeast and Winnipeg to the Central.
Only if you think Winnipeg's placement in the Southeast Division is worse than other placements. Hint: There are a few more, and have been simmering to a boil for fifteen years.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 11:01 AM
  #164
cbjgirl
Just thinking
 
cbjgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: about last summer.
Country: United States
Posts: 3,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
I was just looking at the Columbus attendance data on nhl.com. This is what I found:

Columbus is currently averaging about 13,500/game. However, that is very skewed. There are really 2 different parts to Columbus' attendance:

1) When Chicago or Detroit is in town
2) When It's someone else.

CMB has had 3 games with Det/Chi in town this year. One was the opener. Avg is about 18000 for those games. Average for the other games is around 11800.

I put this here because it helps me to understand what the Columbus people mean when they say "We need to be in the east." And, looking at last year, the eastern games seemed to average around 2000 higher than the west. I didn't do a full up calculation, but just a rough eyeball.

So, they seem to have a good argument. I think it is fair to say that if Detroit goes to the East without them, they will have a hard time drawing fans. (Now, it's another topic whether people could have foreseen that when the team was awarded.) Without Detroit, they have only Chicago as a good draw for themselves, and it is hard to imagine Dallas, Winnipeg and Minnesota taking up that slack.

So, to me, if they go back to 8/7/8/7 with a Western and Eastern Conference, that leaves 2 options: One is: Would Detroit stay in the west if the playing matrix were home/home with every one and the rest in your own division? That seems more palatable to them. I don't think they would go back west if they knew they had to play 3 games with all the MTZ and PTZ teams. The other option is still Carolina. I also looked at their attendance, and it doesn't seem to make as big a difference there.

Does anyone with more knowledge of Carolina have anything to add to that?
Another thing to consider with Columbus is fan loyalties before Columbus got a team. Most people in central Ohio were probably Pens or Wings fans before the CBJ showed up or they most likely followed another historically Eastern Conference team. Until the CBJ are good, there is some dependence on the local fans of Eastern Conference teams showing up at those games.

Check out the Pens and Buffalo attendance numbers in Columbus as well.

Columbus will be able to draw well on its own once the team gets better (and sustains the success for a time). This market is more than capable of selling out the building, but it needs a little help to get to that point. Being in the East will help.

cbjgirl is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 11:07 AM
  #165
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
Columbus really needs to go to the Eastern Conference. Pittsburgh is about 140 miles away. Pittsburgh plays nine games against the Western Conference in their arenas, meaning their lucky to play six games two or more hours away in a given season. Columbus (and Detroit) play 16 games two or more hours away. That will generally hurt ratings and attendance. Neither gets hurt badly when a team is doing well; both can be hurt when a team is doing poorly (Columbus) or uncertainty hangs over the franchise (Phoenix).

The attendance figures were posted at one point during one of these realignment threads that have popped up over the past 18 or so months. Carolina's best home attendance is when their opponents are from the Eastern Conference teams north of them and Detroit, and the more north the better. I recall that Buffalo, Boston and the Northeast Canadian teams were like five of their top six draws.

This is my scenario:
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Pacific: ANA LA SJ PHX - CGY COL EDM VAN
Central: CHI DAL DET MIN NSH STL WPG

Matrix: two games against everyone, rest of games divisional -
Pacific: 2 games / 22 opponents - 44 games, 38 games in-division (3x6, 4x5) (if Coyotes go to Seattle, Colorado and Seattle swap places in the pod)
Central: 2 games / 23 opponents - 46 games, 26 games in-division (6x6)

Keeps Detroit in the West in the format they like
This is, if rumors are correct, the exact format that no Western team vetoed except Columbus isn't in the Central


EASTERN CONFERENCE
Northeast: BOS BUF CAR CLB MTL OTT TOR
Atlantic: FLA NJD NYI NYR PHI PIT TB WAS

All scheduling: 2 games / 15 opponents - 30 games, 52 games in-conference. I don't care how it's done, just prefer that more divisional than non-divisional, just like this year.

The East gets their "cushy" travel schedule not leaving the ETZ but has to fly all over the eastern seaboard for their games, as they do now.
I don't care if the playoffs here qualify by division or by conference


Playoffs:
Top NINE in each conference qualify.
The belief is that with many in-division games in the West, it should almost always be a five-four split across divisions for qualification. If six teams from a division qualify, there must be some really poor teams in your division...

Playoffs start, where the division that qualifies five teams plays a 4v5 single- elimination game, then the rest of the playoffs are DIVISIONAL. That solves the problems regarding time zones out west. It also solves the scenario regarding a fifth-place divisional team having a better record than the other division's fourth-place team. Win and you keep going. Just ask the eighth-seed LA Kings from 2012 or the seventh-seed Philadelphia Flyers from 2010 about having to play on the road.

Just win, baby!
This is about as good as it gets. Even a few potentially different wrinkles for the West and East, which always make sense to me, since they're two different worlds, and shouldn't be treated as carbon copies of each other.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 11:23 AM
  #166
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
Columbus really needs to go to the Eastern Conference. Pittsburgh is about 140 miles away. Pittsburgh plays nine games against the Western Conference in their arenas, meaning their lucky to play six games two or more hours away in a given season. Columbus (and Detroit) play 16 games two or more hours away. That will generally hurt ratings and attendance. Neither gets hurt badly when a team is doing well; both can be hurt when a team is doing poorly (Columbus) or uncertainty hangs over the franchise (Phoenix).The attendance figures were posted at one point during one of these realignment threads that have popped up over the past 18 or so months. Carolina's best home attendance is when their opponents are from the Eastern Conference teams north of them and Detroit, and the more north the better. I recall that Buffalo, Boston and the Northeast Canadian teams were like five of their top six draws.

This is my scenario:
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Pacific: ANA LA SJ PHX - CGY COL EDM VAN
Central: CHI DAL DET MIN NSH STL WPG

Matrix: two games against everyone, rest of games divisional -
Pacific: 2 games / 22 opponents - 44 games, 38 games in-division (3x6, 4x5) (if Coyotes go to Seattle, Colorado and Seattle swap places in the pod)
Central: 2 games / 23 opponents - 46 games, 26 games in-division (6x6)

Keeps Detroit in the West in the format they like
This is, if rumors are correct, the exact format that no Western team vetoed except Columbus isn't in the Central


EASTERN CONFERENCE
Northeast: BOS BUF CAR CLB MTL OTT TOR
Atlantic: FLA NJD NYI NYR PHI PIT TB WAS

All scheduling: 2 games / 15 opponents - 30 games, 52 games in-conference. I don't care how it's done, just prefer that more divisional than non-divisional, just like this year.

The East gets their "cushy" travel schedule not leaving the ETZ but has to fly all over the eastern seaboard for their games, as they do now.
I don't care if the playoffs here qualify by division or by conference
I like all of this, but got rid of your playoff thing. The West should definitely be two rather segregated divisions (conferences?). That is how I would do it.

And the East... I too am in agreement that you could do whatever. 2 divisions or just stick Columbus into the current Southeast. Play 3-ish games against the conference and 5 or 6 against your division.

If the league and NHLPA wouldn't mind a 14-16 split (which is still better than a 7-7-8-8 split), then you could even keep both Detroit and Columbus in the East and consider a 4-division (within the EC) setup. With 32 teams, divisions of 4 or 8 are the eventuality (whether that is 5 or 25 years from now).

Crayton is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 11:25 AM
  #167
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
So, I am probably over thinking again, but to go back to the first things:
1) It's really all about $$, especially local $$.
2) That means having seats in the building paid for, and it means local TV.
3) Local TV means that we don't want to stretch more than one TZ away for most games.
4) The home/home with everyone seems to be in every proposal of the PA and the League.

Time Zone breakdown:
ETZ - 16
CTZ - 6
MTZ - 3.75 (Phoenix for most of the year)
PTZ - 4.25

More - Points for ingenuity on the 3-conference system. I do believe, however, that it's too for out of the box. And, it still mandates Minnesota and Winnipeg to play across 2 TZs, plus the PTZ teams to play them as well. Likely therefore it wouldn't even be proposed in a BoG meeting.

Since there are 30 teams, it seems we need a 15/15 split somehow, to make the playoffs equitable.

Conclusion: We have big problems. No matter how we do anything, someone from the ETZ is going to have to play mostly in the CTZ.

Further conclusion: If PHX moves this year, it likely is to QUE (if they don't move until next year, then SEA comes stronger in play, as least in my view)

PHX to QUE means:
ETZ - 17
CTZ - 6
MTZ - 3
PTZ - 4

Or, bigger problems yet because now we have to move 2 ETZ teams to the CTZ division.

There are lots of justifications for any arrangement that is anyone' favorite. Detroit and Columbus seem the likeliest candidates, but neither wants the job.

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 11:55 AM
  #168
MuckOG
The Brodin Effect
 
MuckOG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Right behind you....
Country: United States
Posts: 6,132
vCash: 50
@RealKyper

Hearing #NHL #NHLPA will soon announce an agreement in principle on realignment. Players appear comfortable enough moving forward.



MuckOG is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 11:56 AM
  #169
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
No matter how we do anything, someone from the ETZ is going to have to play mostly in the CTZ.
Detroit is good with that. Detroit has history there, and none of those teams want Detroit to leave. The Wings just don't want more guaranteed trips to the west coast than other ETZ teams, and they want to play other ETZ teams more often.

The Wings would obviously love to be in an eastern group, but if it came down to it, they would stay in a central group if it's home and home with everyone outside of the group, and the central and western groups aren't exclusively linked for the playoffs before the 3rd round, at the earliest.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 12:09 PM
  #170
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Detroit is good with that. Detroit has history there, and none of those teams want Detroit to leave. The Wings just don't want more guaranteed trips to the west coast than other ETZ teams, and they want to play other ETZ teams more often.

The Wings would obviously love to be in an eastern group, but if it came down to it, they would stay in a central group if it's home and home with everyone outside of the group, and the central and western groups aren't exclusively linked for the playoffs before the 3rd round, at the earliest.
KingsFan - Not sure what you mean by the last. Do you mean that Detroit would require either 1) A full league 1-16 or 2) Divisional only? So that, they would seriously balk at a: Top 3 in the PAC, Top 4 in the MIDWEST + 1 arrangement?

Example of the last:
Van 102
SJ 100
LA 98
Ana 97
Col 95

Det 103
Chi 101
Min 100
StL 94

And the playoffs are: Van v Ana or Col; SJ v LA; Det v Col or Ana; Chi v Min

Here I put Col back in the Far West because we can't have them with the CTZ teams if Detroit is also with the CTZ teams (3 time zones)

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 12:20 PM
  #171
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
KingsFan - Not sure what you mean by the last. Do you mean that Detroit would require either 1) A full league 1-16 or 2) Divisional only? So that, they would seriously balk at a: Top 3 in the PAC, Top 4 in the MIDWEST + 1 arrangement?

Example of the last:
Van 102
SJ 100
LA 98
Ana 97
Col 95

Det 103
Chi 101
Min 100
StL 94

And the playoffs are: Van v Ana or Col; SJ v LA; Det v Col or Ana; Chi v Min

Here I put Col back in the Far West because we can't have them with the CTZ teams if Detroit is also with the CTZ teams (3 time zones)
I would think think Detroit would want nothing to do with any team west of the CTZ before the 3rd round. I'm sure Detroit would like it even more if the 3rd round was re-seeded with all 4 teams. Even less of a guaranteed link to the west. They could still end up playing, say, Vancouver, in that situation, but so might Philly, or the Rangers, or Boston, or Montreal, or whoever.

Go with what Grudy mentioned. 4 teams in the central, and 5 teams in the west, to soothe the PA. 4/5 in the west play each other as wildcards, and then straight divisional in both groups after that.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 12:26 PM
  #172
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
So, I am probably over thinking again, but to go back to the first things:
1) It's really all about $$, especially local $$.
2) That means having seats in the building paid for, and it means local TV.
3) Local TV means that we don't want to stretch more than one TZ away for most games.
4) The home/home with everyone seems to be in every proposal of the PA and the League.

Time Zone breakdown:
ETZ - 16
CTZ - 6
MTZ - 3.75 (Phoenix for most of the year)
PTZ - 4.25

Conclusion: We have big problems. No matter how we do anything, someone from the ETZ is going to have to play mostly in the CTZ.
That last point is true; but, having an ETZ play mostly with CTZ teams does not need to translate into more PTZ/MTZ games. Under the original scheduling matrix (4 conferences), St. Louis play Anaheim no more than Boston does; twice. Having Detroit (and Minnesota and Dallas) play in a Central Conference will still solve their primary problem of too many games on the West Coast. With such a scheduling dynamic, I would not call this a "big" problem. Whether the West's scheduling matrix and the East's scheduling matrix are identical doesn't really matter.

To the playoffs:

I remember when we proposed "Open" Divisions (teams determine their own schedules and rival set apart from any preset division sizes), a solution proposed for the playoff was that series be conducted with timezones in mind. This is precisely what the NHL is worried about for the playoffs (and why league-wide wild-cards seem to have been nixed).

"Open Playoff" Priorities:
1. ETZ and PTZ teams are not paired unless they must be
2. Teams 2 timezones away are not paired unless they must be
3. Higher seeded teams (#1 through #16) are paired against lower seeded teams

As long as a MTZ and CTZ team qualify (or the # of West Coast teams is even), you will never have a series cross multiple timezones. Note, there is not a priority emphasizing series strictly within timezones. This allows greater adherence to the basic #1 vs. #16 seeding process.

2012 Example
1 Vancouver vs. 13 Los Angeles
2 NY Rangers vs. 16 Ottawa
3 St. Louis vs. 15 Washington
4 Pittsburgh vs. 14 Florida
5 Nashville vs. 10 Chicago
6 Philadelphia vs. 9 New Jersey
7 Boston vs. 8 Detroit
11 Phoenix vs. 12 San Jose

2 NY Rangers vs. 15 Washington
5 Nashville vs. 14 Florida
7 Boston vs. 9 New Jersey
11 Phoenix vs. 13 Los Angeles

PW: 2 NY Rangers vs. 9 New Jersey
CC: 5 Nashville vs. 13 Los Angeles (2 timezones away)

SC: 9 New Jersey vs. 13 Los Angeles (3 timezones away)

2013 Example (advances determined by Point Differential [for fun])
1 Chicago vs. 16 Dallas
2 Montreal vs. 14 Minnesota
3 Anaheim vs. 15 San Jose
4 Boston vs. 13 St. Louis
5 Ottawa vs. 11 Nashville
6 Pittsburgh vs. 10 Detroit
7 Toronto vs. 9 New Jersey
8 Vancouver vs. 12 Los Angeles

1 Chicago vs. 7 Toronto
2 Montreal vs. 6 Pittsburgh
3 Anaheim vs. 12 Los Angeles
4 Boston vs. 5 Ottawa

CC: 1 Chicago vs. 3 Anaheim (2 time zone difference)
PW: 2 Montreal vs. 4 Boston

SC: 1 Chicago vs. 2 Montreal

Crayton is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 12:36 PM
  #173
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crayton View Post
That last point is true; but, having an ETZ play mostly with CTZ teams does not need to translate into more PTZ/MTZ games. Under the original scheduling matrix (4 conferences), St. Louis play Anaheim no more than Boston does; twice. Having Detroit (and Minnesota and Dallas) play in a Central Conference will still solve their primary problem of too many games on the West Coast. With such a scheduling dynamic, I would not call this a "big" problem. Whether the West's scheduling matrix and the East's scheduling matrix are identical doesn't really matter.

To the playoffs:

I remember when we proposed "Open" Divisions (teams determine their own schedules and rival set apart from any preset division sizes), a solution proposed for the playoff was that series be conducted with timezones in mind. This is precisely what the NHL is worried about for the playoffs (and why league-wide wild-cards seem to have been nixed).

"Open Playoff" Priorities:
1. ETZ and PTZ teams are not paired unless they must be
2. Teams 2 timezones away are not paired unless they must be
3. Higher seeded teams (#1 through #16) are paired against lower seeded teams

As long as a MTZ and CTZ team qualify (or the # of West Coast teams is even), you will never have a series cross multiple timezones. Note, there is not a priority emphasizing series strictly within timezones. This allows greater adherence to the basic #1 vs. #16 seeding process.

2012 Example
1 Vancouver vs. 13 Los Angeles
2 NY Rangers vs. 16 Ottawa
3 St. Louis vs. 15 Washington
4 Pittsburgh vs. 14 Florida
5 Nashville vs. 10 Chicago
6 Philadelphia vs. 9 New Jersey
7 Boston vs. 8 Detroit
11 Phoenix vs. 12 San Jose

2 NY Rangers vs. 15 Washington
5 Nashville vs. 14 Florida
7 Boston vs. 9 New Jersey
11 Phoenix vs. 13 Los Angeles

PW: 2 NY Rangers vs. 9 New Jersey
CC: 5 Nashville vs. 13 Los Angeles (2 timezones away)

SC: 9 New Jersey vs. 13 Los Angeles (3 timezones away)

2013 Example (advances determined by Point Differential [for fun])
1 Chicago vs. 16 Dallas
2 Montreal vs. 14 Minnesota
3 Anaheim vs. 15 San Jose
4 Boston vs. 13 St. Louis
5 Ottawa vs. 11 Nashville
6 Pittsburgh vs. 10 Detroit
7 Toronto vs. 9 New Jersey
8 Vancouver vs. 12 Los Angeles

1 Chicago vs. 7 Toronto
2 Montreal vs. 6 Pittsburgh
3 Anaheim vs. 12 Los Angeles
4 Boston vs. 5 Ottawa

CC: 1 Chicago vs. 3 Anaheim (2 time zone difference)
PW: 2 Montreal vs. 4 Boston

SC: 1 Chicago vs. 2 Montreal
In theory, interesting. So, to explain how it works:
Top 16 by points qualify.
#1 overall seed plays lowest seed within one Time Zone
#2 overall seed plays lowest seed left within one Time Zone
Continue. If you get to where no such matchups exist, then expand to 2 TZs for that team. Finally, if you must, ETZ v PTZ.

Round 2 does a total re-seed and do the above process again

Round 3: PW Trophy is contested by the 2 easternmost remaining teams, CC by the 2 westernmost remaining teams.

I like it, but I can't see the League and the PA thinking this far outside of the box.

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 12:41 PM
  #174
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
That's way too complicated. Good luck explaining that on sportscentre

The CyNick is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 12:49 PM
  #175
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
That's way too complicated. Good luck explaining that on sportscentre
I agree. That's why I put "I can't see the League or the PA going for it." Plus, it sounds contrived. Even though here on the BOHB, we all know that $$ and therefore TZ considerations are very important, the League will never announce anything if they to do so and say "We did this for revenue." That is bad optics. So, it will be something else. They will hide away the need for TZ considerations in a 7/8/7/8 situation with something about competitive equity or something.

MNNumbers is online now  
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 03:00 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.