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.

Realignment plan approved; set for play through the 2015-16 season

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2013, 08:08 PM
  #26
DatsyukToZetterberg
Alligator!
 
DatsyukToZetterberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Newfoundland
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
And then there was one big road draw in the West.
SJ, LA, VAN are no longer in the western conference?

DatsyukToZetterberg is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:09 PM
  #27
Garbs
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Garbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 500
Should have been TOR-MON-DET-BOS-OTT-BUF-PIT-PHI, but I understand why it's not. Too loaded with top tier media markets and fanbases.

__________________
Garbs is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:13 PM
  #28
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hull and Oates View Post
I don't understand this. I'd rather see every team, every year. I'd gladly sacrifice a few games against the same teams that the Blues play over and over and over to get Montreal, Boston, Toronto (and now Detroit) in the house.
screw that. play 1 game each year alternating the home team. trying to build division rivals, but now going to play less games against each team in your division.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:19 PM
  #29
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: 24,457
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukToZetterberg View Post
SJ, LA, VAN are no longer in the western conference?
Not on the same level as Detroit and Chicago. Original Six teams have fans all over the place and they usually come out very well when they come visiting.


Last edited by No Fun Shogun: 03-07-2013 at 08:26 PM.
No Fun Shogun is online now  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:19 PM
  #30
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbs View Post
Should have been TOR-MON-DET-BOS-OTT-BUF-PIT-PHI, but I understand why it's not. Too loaded with top tier media markets and fanbases.
And the Atlantic division has no interest in being broken up.

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:20 PM
  #31
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hull and Oates View Post
I don't understand this. I'd rather see every team, every year. I'd gladly sacrifice a few games against the same teams that the Blues play over and over and over to get Montreal, Boston, Toronto (and now Detroit) in the house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
screw that. play 1 game each year alternating the home team. trying to build division rivals, but now going to play less games against each team in your division.
Western conference fan, meet eastern conference fan. Though I'm the rare eastern fan that thinks a home-and-home is a great idea.

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:24 PM
  #32
Garbs
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Garbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
And the Atlantic division has no interest in being broken up.
That's nice, but those things tend to happen during realignment.

Garbs is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:25 PM
  #33
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,268
vCash: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
Western conference fan, meet eastern conference fan. Though I'm the rare eastern fan that thinks a home-and-home is a great idea.
Agreed. With 30 teams and a 82 games schedule, there's no reason why every team cannot play each everyone in each other's barn. Long overdue.

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:31 PM
  #34
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk
You keep saying this, but it makes no sense at all.

Each of the 16 East teams will play 28 games against the West teams (and 54 against the East)

Why is it not a valid measuring stick for the playoffs if the Habs get 45 points against the West, and in the same games, the Bruins get 12?
If the Standings are based on League-wide records then that is just fine. But if Boston dominates the Division but has a difficult time outside the Division and thus finishes below Montreal in the Division Standings, are the Division Standings an appropriate measuring stick for Divisional Playoffs? And in that example I put the focus on Boston; I could reverse that and put it on Montreal. If Montreal then sucked in the Division but gained most of its points outside the Division and finished near the top of the Division as a result, how does that appropriately represent the Divisional Standings?

But I'm just responding to your example, which I still think is somewhat beside the point. But still, I don't think what I was agreeing with Morris Wanchuk about is a serious issue. Yes, I was agreeing that it seems very contradictory that the League should go from a more Division-based schedule to a less Division-based schedule while at the same time going to a more Division-based Playoffs. But nevertheless, the primary purpose of Divisions should be to put the focus on rivalry matchups, and if the League chooses to do that more in the Playoffs than in the Regular Season, what's the big problem with that. Nothing really!

MY point in my response to Morris was more about playing so many games against teams which are not competing in the Standings, so many games against the other Conference, in sacrifice of games against teams which are competing in the Standings.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:36 PM
  #35
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
Western conference fan, meet eastern conference fan. Though I'm the rare eastern fan that thinks a home-and-home is a great idea.
I think it's a great idea too, sincerely I do. Unfortunately though, within an 82-game Season (not a MLB schedule) and with 30 teams (perhaps soon to be 32) doing a complete home-and-home against every team in the League, in a League that's divided up into two Conferences (perhaps unfortunately soon to be 4 Conferences), that doesn't leave a whole lot of games left over to play against internal Conference opponents. This is one area where patnyrnyg and I are in agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
Agreed. With 30 teams and a 82 games schedule, there's no reason why every team cannot play each everyone in each other's barn. Long overdue.
Wow! You see, completely opposite opinion to what I just expressed above.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:48 PM
  #36
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
It's 58 games to play the whole league, soon expanding to 62. That leaves 25% of the season to be focused on the conference play. That seems like enough to me. :shrug:

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 08:56 PM
  #37
Mightygoose
Registered User
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,268
vCash: 514
The games outside of the division still counts for 2 points in the standings so I really have a hard time subscribing to the motion that inter-division games are considered meaningless.

Teams that treat these games just as important as the ones in their division will be successful under this alignment.

Mightygoose is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 09:46 PM
  #38
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
I would be in favor of the realignment plan and the playoff structure but if both divisions in a conference has 4 playoff teams in a divison, I don't want any crossover no matter who is the weakest wildcard team. If there is 5/3 division playoff set-up, I do not mind one bit on that scenario for such crossover.

coolboarder is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:01 PM
  #39
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolboarder View Post
I would be in favor of the realignment plan and the playoff structure but if both divisions in a conference has 4 playoff teams in a divison, I don't want any crossover no matter who is the weakest wildcard team. If there is 5/3 division playoff set-up, I do not mind one bit on that scenario for such crossover.
I'm not 100% certain about what you're saying, but if it's what I think it is, then you know that I agree with that. No wildcard where there's a crossover purely because the team in the other Division is weaker and should face the highest seed which in the opposite Division. A crossover only because there's a 3/5 in the Top-8.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:03 PM
  #40
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
I know this is slightly unfair because teams are not playing next year's schedule and because the season is not complete, but... here would be the playoffs should they start NOW yet under the future alignment. I've listed "conference" seeds to show the proposed pairings.

WESTERN CONFERENCE
1 Chicago vs. 6 Phoenix (cross-over)
2 Anaheim vs. 5 San Jose
3 Vancouver vs. 4 Los Angeles
7 Dallas vs. 8 St. Louis

EASTERN CONFERENCE
1 Montreal vs. 6 Ottawa
2 Boston vs. 4 Toronto
3 Pittsburgh vs. 5 Detroit (cross-over)
7 Carolina vs. 8 New Jersey

Yuck. Here would be my modifications:

WESTERN CONFERENCE
1 Chicago vs. 8 St. Louis
2 Anaheim vs. 7 Dallas (cross-over)
3 Vancouver vs. 6 Phoenix
4 Los Angeles vs. 5 San Jose

EASTERN CONFERENCE
1 Montreal vs. 8 New Jersey (cross-over)
2 Boston vs. 6 Ottawa
3 Pittsburgh vs. 7 Carolina
4 Toronto vs. 5 Detroit (YES!)

Note, the MUCH improved balance between the series. No more 7v8 in the first round. There is still ONLY 1 cross-over max per conference, but it does not unfairly target the division winners (ha, though all 4 division winners end up with one in at least one of the above proposals).

You can wrap those ugly matchups in the first round with a pretty bow by listing teams by their "division" seeds, but we are not crowning division champions in the playoff (otherwise there'd be no cross-over), we are crowning conference finalists and eventually conference champions. Plus, especially in the East, the schedule will now be much less "divisional" than it is this year. Can I still hope for the BOG to look into this?

Now, if you opened up the wild-card to the entire league, you'd get this beauty:

1 Chicago vs. 16 St. Louis
2 Anaheim vs. 13 San Jose
3 Montreal vs. 15 Dallas (cross-over)
4 Boston vs. 9 Ottawa
5 Pittsburgh vs. 14 NY Rangers
7 Vancouver vs. 12 Los Angeles
6 Toronto vs. 8 Detroit
10 Carolina vs. 11 New Jersey

Only 1 cross-over and it is in neighboring timezones unlike ANA-DAL and PHX-CHI in the earlier 2 proposals. The Rangers make the playoffs based off of their 1 point besting of Phoenix (yay! for neutralizing the 14-16 split).

The numerical seedings do look off, but you can list teams by their divisional finish (1C Montreal vs. 2M Dallas; 2C Boston vs. 5C Ottawa).


Last edited by Crayton: 03-07-2013 at 10:15 PM.
Crayton is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:10 PM
  #41
Roomtemperature
Registered User
 
Roomtemperature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,997
vCash: 500
stupid stupid. Its all stupid.

Roomtemperature is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:13 PM
  #42
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crayton View Post
I know this is slightly unfair because teams are not playing next year's schedule and because the season is not complete, but... here would be the playoffs should they start NOW yet under the future alignment. I've listed "conference" seeds to show the proposed pairings.

WESTERN CONFERENCE
1 Chicago vs. 6 Phoenix (cross-over)
2 Anaheim vs. 5 San Jose
3 Vancouver vs. 4 Los Angeles
7 Dallas vs. 8 St. Louis

EASTERN CONFERENCE
1 Montreal vs. 6 Ottawa
2 Boston vs. 4 Toronto
3 Pittsburgh vs. 5 Detroit (cross-over)
7 Carolina vs. 8 New Jersey

Yuck. Here would be my modifications:

WESTERN CONFERENCE
1 Chicago vs. 8 St. Louis
2 Anaheim vs. 7 Dallas (cross-over)
3 Vancouver vs. 6 Phoenix
4 Los Angeles vs. 5 San Jose

EASTERN CONFERENCE
1 Montreal vs. 8 New Jersey (cross-over)
2 Boston vs. 6 Ottawa
3 Pittsburgh vs. 7 Carolina
4 Toronto vs. 5 Detroit (YES!):
Based on those Standings, here's how I'd do them:
WESTERN CONFERENCE
1 Chicago vs 8 St. Louis
2 Anaheim vs 6 Phoenix
3 Vancouver vs 5 San Jose
4 Los Angeles vs 7 Dallas (crossover)

EASTERN CONFERENCE
1 Montreal vs 7 Carolina
2 Boston vs 6 Ottawa
3 Pittsburgh vs 8 New Jersey
4 Toronto vs 5 Detroit

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:18 PM
  #43
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Based on those Standings, here's how I'd do them:
WESTERN CONFERENCE
1 Chicago vs 8 St. Louis
2 Anaheim vs 6 Phoenix
3 Vancouver vs 5 San Jose
4 Los Angeles vs 7 Dallas (crossover)

EASTERN CONFERENCE
1 Montreal vs 7 Carolina (crossover)
2 Boston vs 6 Ottawa
3 Pittsburgh vs 8 New Jersey
4 Toronto vs 5 Detroit
Those look decent. Is there a method to your choices? I was going with whatever was closest to standard pairings (erring, though not needed in the above examples, for cross-overs for the top and bottom 2 teams).

Crayton is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:25 PM
  #44
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crayton View Post
Those look decent. Is there a method to your choices? I was going with whatever was closest to standard pairings (erring, though not needed in the above examples, for cross-overs for the top and bottom 2 teams).
LOL, yes there's a method to that Montreal - Carolina choice... It's not a crossover. ;-)

But to satisfy your sticking to the NHL proposed alignment,
EASTERN CONFERENCE
1 Montreal vs 6 Ottawa
2 Boston vs 5 Detroit
3 Pittsburgh vs 8 New Jersey
4 Toronto vs 7 Carolina (crossover)

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:26 PM
  #45
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,250
vCash: 5775
Guaranteeing 3 playoff spots per division is one thing that gets me. When there's only 2 divisions, what are the chances that one of those divisions produces 2 or less of the 8 best teams?

GKJ is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:26 PM
  #46
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
LOL, yes there's a method to that Montreal - Carolina choice... It's not a crossover. ;-)
Haha. Nice.

Crayton is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:32 PM
  #47
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Guaranteeing 3 playoff spots per division is one thing that gets me. When there's only 2 divisions, what are the chances that one of those divisions produces 2 or less of the 8 best teams?
Huh, that is a good point. Plus, in that off year when only 2 do qualify it helps ensure ALL 4 conference quarterfinals are "divisional."

To be sure, I wouldn't mind starting from a 90s-style 4-division setup. Adding quasi-divisional playoffs and a 2-team guarantee from each division would be worth-while additions. Ensuring a 3rd team... it creates the appearance of parity, I suppose. ??

Crayton is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 10:38 PM
  #48
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Guaranteeing 3 playoff spots per division is one thing that gets me. When there's only 2 divisions, what are the chances that one of those divisions produces 2 or less of the 8 best teams?
It certainly is a possibility, GKJ, and originally I was in favor of only guaranteeing the Top-2 per Division. But then I thought, if they really want two Rounds of Divisional matchups, and if one Division only has two Playoff teams, then it's absolutely impossible not to have a crossover matchup in the 2nd Round.

Hopefully the odd chance that a 3rd place team will be worse than even a 6th in the other Division will be extremely rare.


Crayton, I modified it to accord with the actual proposed alignment.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-07-2013, 11:12 PM
  #49
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,183
vCash: 500
Is there actually any wording in the release that describes the playoff bracketing?

The reason I ask is that with this wild card, you are really making a sort of Top 8. Well, not really, because a really good 6P could lose out to a poor 3M, but that's not too likely. So, what about this:

1) If the teams are 4-4, use division playoffs.
2) If not, bracket 1-8 in Round 1: Then, using the standings you guys were working from:

WESTERN CONFERENCE:
1 (1M) Chicago v 8 (3M) St Louis
2 (1P) Anaheim v 7 (2M) Dallas (crossover)
3 (2P) Vancouver v 6 (5P) Phoenix
4 (3P) Los Angeles v 5 (4P) San Jose

EASTERN CONFERENCE
1 (1C) Montreal v 8 (3A) New Jersey (crossover)
2 (2C) Boston v 6 (5C) Ottawa
3 (1A) Pittsburgh v 7 (2A) Carolina
4 (3C) Toronto v 5 (4C) Detroit

Obviously, what I did here was a 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5, but with the provision that only one crossover was possible. That's why Boston/Ottawa is 2/6.

Now, this looks at first like Anaheim and Montreal are getting the short stick. But, look closer. If this were a straight bracket, and Anaheim won, they would get Van/Pho in Round 2. That works. If Montreal won, they would get Tor/Det. That also works. I believe it would be possible to write language to make this work no matter what the seeds were.

Thoughts?

I see this is very close to Crayton's idea. My 'rules' would be: 1v8 always. Then, 2v7 unless that creates a 2nd crossover, otherwise 2v6 or 2v5. Continue in that way. I just tried it out. This "rule" fails if the 3 teams from the Midwest are (2 of the top 4 but neither #1) and (8th seed).

2nd Edit: Perhaps the rule is: Take the 3 teams from the 'weaker' conference. Choose the 2 who most closely match the natural 1/8, etc seeding, and put them against each other. Then, rank the other 6:1,2,3,4,5,6. Pair them off 1/6,2/5,3/4.

The 2nd Round is the problem. Here is why: To get the most fair 1stRound matchups, you have to allow for the Division Champion to be the team playing the crossover matchup - like Montreal above. But, in that series, if Montreal wins, you want them to face the winner of Tor/Det. If NJ wins, you want them to face the winner of Pitts/Carolina. So, you can't do a straight bracket. It would have to be a reseed.

So, I wonder what will actually be the rule...??


Last edited by MNNumbers: 03-07-2013 at 11:42 PM.
MNNumbers is offline  
Old
03-08-2013, 12:16 AM
  #50
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Wow just checked the responses over at NHL.com and TSN...allot of people not happy about this.

Jetsfan79 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 03:59 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.