HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2013, 11:03 AM
  #501
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
And you do realize that there is a Salary Floor, because over most Seasons a lot of teams just can't afford to spend to the Ceiling, as teams like the Rangers and Flyers can afford to do every Season.

And also, this latest CBA may have set back the broadening difference between Ceiling and Floor, but that will soon enough to growing again within a few Seasons.
Have I missed the part of the CBA where the difference between the ceiling and floor expands?

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:04 AM
  #502
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
This is similar to what I would advocate right now. Right now, CyNick, in the west, I would go to: 6x6, 2x23 = 82 games. And, no wild card. This isn't the side where you need one. You have 4/7 already.

In the east, I would go 2x22 = 44, and 5x4+3x6=38 for 82 games. Here, top 8 qualify. It's total wild card. You open it all up because 1) everyone is same TZ and 2) you have 16 teams, which is more than 14, so the total-conference idea makes it less likely someone gets left out. It's a small bone to playoff equity.
Seems reasonable enough. But I still think that teams and fans in both Conference (especially the majority of fans at least) would like as many Divisional matchups as possible. You've stated how you would do the Playoff qualifying, but what about the matchups?

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:06 AM
  #503
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildthing202 View Post
Pitt - 1-5 - more often than not this will be a playoff team until Crosby and Malkin call it quits.
So they will be a playoff team because they have two #1 overall superstars.

This has nothing to do with market size, GM talent, finances or anything else. Columbus could draft two #1 overall superstars and be in an identical position. It's literally luck of the draw.


Quote:
NYR - 1-5 - has the money to keep re-tooling the roster every year to make sure they stay a contender.(Name a FA and the Rags are sure to be in contention)
Did you know the Rangers have missed the playoffs in 8 of the last 14 seasons? It doesn't seem like it would be true, based on their spending, but it is. They flush money down the toilet more often than not, and the new rules will make it harder to sustain that habit.

Quote:
Phil - 1-5 - has the money to fix the problems but the personel bites them in the butt more often than not which prevents them from being elite(rotating door of goalies)
They have been successful because, despite some loud criticism, they have generally been well managed.

Quote:
NJ - 2-6 - Once Broduer is gone they'll tend to being a lower playoff team or just not make it.
Two years ago they were tied with Columbus, and that was WITH Brodeur, Elias, Parise...

Quote:
Wash - 3-7 - Ovi's not as elite as he once was but can carry the team to a decent playoff spot if things work out.
He isn't this year.

Quote:
Car - 3-7 - Has a good system intact but much like the Twins and A's in MLB will eventually fall due to lack of talent at some point.
That's an arbitrary judgment. Why is Carolina going to fail due to lack of talent, but Washington isn't?

Quote:
NYI - 4-8 - Has some good talent but won't be Cup contender anytime soon.
They don't need to be, if they rebuild correctly. Their problems are internal.

Quote:
CBJ - 4-8 - Ditto, spending habits will doom them more often than not.
If by "spending" you mean "drafting". Columbus SHOULD be a contending team right now, according to their rate of opportunities.


Yeah, you're going to have well-run teams who generally make the playoffs, but what I see here is a belief that the 2012 standings will never change. Not buying it.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:06 AM
  #504
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Seems reasonable enough. But I still think that teams and fans in both Conference (especially the majority of fans at least) would like as many Divisional matchups as possible. You've stated how you would do the Playoff qualifying, but what about the matchups?
I am a fan who doesn't want "as many divisional matchups as possible". At least not in the regular season.

And the NHL tried that, and people didn't like it, so they switched back.

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:07 AM
  #505
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Have I missed the part of the CBA where the difference between the ceiling and floor expands?
Yes you have.
15% away from Midpoint.


But I had a doubt, I had to confirm. I'll give you that.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 03-15-2013 at 11:17 AM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:11 AM
  #506
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
I am a fan who doesn't want "as many divisional matchups as possible". At least not in the regular season.

And the NHL tried that, and people didn't like it, so they switched back.
Well good, I'm happy that you and I don't completely disagree on everything. The 8-games against Divisional opponents was pure overkill. I'd be content with 6 or 4 games against, but an even number so that all teams in the Division, and Conference as well, get an equal number of home games in those matchups. 4 games against would be fine if the League would decide to go with a completely balanced Conference schedule, but the 6 games against specifically Divisional opponents is also fine.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:11 AM
  #507
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Yeah, you're going to have well-run teams who generally make the playoffs, but what I see here is a belief that the 2012 standings will never change. Not buying it.


This!

This kind of "logic" that I see thrown around on here with such regularity is complete and utter nonsense.

Its like how at the beginning of every season 80% of posters say things like "well, 7 of the 8 playoff spots are already accounted for", and just slot in last years standings as if players will never improve, never regress, never get injured and basically never change. Every one of these argument about competitive imbalance really just boil down to this line of "things will never change" logic.

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:11 AM
  #508
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crayton View Post
This seems acceptable to me. Guaranteeing spots in each Eastern division (2 or 3) may still be acceptable because the two divisions are playing highly separated schedules. And you can still tack-on some quasi-divisional playoffs in the East rather than 1-8 if only because the teams/fans would enjoy the higher frequency of divisional series.
Interesting theory about "More separated schedules means we need to guarantee playoff spots." I would actually think it less likely to get a 6/2 split with more separated schedules, because you would have to have 2 really good or 2 really bad teams in one division for that to happen. I don't have the time to do it, but it would be interesting to look at last year's results, and use only the last 2 games between Boston and Rangers, for example, and simply double the interconference results, and see what one gets.

I understand the idea of divisional playoffs. Big rivalries there in the east. I just don't see a way to write it simply enough that it will make sense, as a way to do it. Try it, ok?

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:15 AM
  #509
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Yeah, you're going to have well-run teams who generally make the playoffs, but what I see here is a belief that the 2012 standings will never change. Not buying it.
I personally never said that it would "never change", in fact I specifically pointed out that it could. What I said is that the odds will be more greatly stacked against certain teams being able to have any kind of consistancy in making the Playoffs.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:16 AM
  #510
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Yes you have.
15% away from Midpoint.
That doesn't mean the difference between the cap and floor expands, it just means it shifts. The difference will always be 15%, no?

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:18 AM
  #511
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I personally never said that it would "never change", in fact I specifically pointed out that it could. What I said is that sthe odds will be more greatly stacked against certain teams being able to have any kind of consistancy in making the Playoffs.
Why?

What is stopping Columbus from hitting the lottery jackpot just like Pittsburgh did, and drafting the next Crosby+Malkin combo?

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:18 AM
  #512
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
That doesn't mean the difference between the cap and floor expands, it just means it shifts. The difference will always be 15%, no?
The $ value can actually expand, yes.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:19 AM
  #513
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
Why?

What is stopping Columbus from hitting the lottery jackpot just like Pittsburgh did, and drafting the next Crosby+Malkin combo?
Geez, if I knew that "lotteries" provide such a great chance of being a winner, I'd play more often.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:21 AM
  #514
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The $ value can actually expand, yes.
So what? Its always the same percentage of revenues. To imply that the difference actually 'expands' because the actual dollar values increase is ludicrous and purposely ignores the entire concept of linkage.

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:22 AM
  #515
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Geez, if I knew that "lotteries" provide such a great chance of being a winner, I'd play more often.
Well 1/30 is pretty great odds (actually more like 1/14 as only non-playoff teams are eligible).

Had Pittsburgh not hit that lottery they wouldn't pose the competitive "problem" that you seem to think they do.


Last edited by Pilky01: 03-15-2013 at 11:31 AM.
Pilky01 is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:33 AM
  #516
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Interesting theory about "More separated schedules means we need to guarantee playoff spots." I would actually think it less likely to get a 6/2 split with more separated schedules, because you would have to have 2 really good or 2 really bad teams in one division for that to happen. I don't have the time to do it, but it would be interesting to look at last year's results, and use only the last 2 games between Boston and Rangers, for example, and simply double the interconference results, and see what one gets.

I understand the idea of divisional playoffs. Big rivalries there in the east. I just don't see a way to write it simply enough that it will make sense, as a way to do it. Try it, ok?
True about the 6/2 split becoming less and less likely with that schedule. The ration I would have for ensuring 3 teams would be to make quasi-divisional playoffs fairer (you wouldn't want those 2 really good teams to play-off in the First Round).

But then, I suppose, that goes to your second point about it being difficult to write the playoff rules...

My best effort (and one that is not very acceptable):
In the event that only 3 teams make the playoff from 1 of the Eastern division, the two (of those 3) teams more closely approximating a standard (1v8, 2v7, etc...) seeding will be paired. The remaining 6 Eastern Conference teams will be paired by point totals. Should two potential pairings from this division both equally approximate a standard seeding, the pairing of teams closer to the #4 and #5 seed will be used.

A simpler but less fair approximation:
The Conference Quarterfinals will be paired by division. In the event where 1 division has only 3 teams in the playoff, the #1 and #3 teams will be paired and the remaining 6 teams in the conference will be paired by points.

Crayton is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:35 AM
  #517
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
And you do realize that there is a Salary Floor, because over most Seasons a lot of teams just can't afford to spend to the Ceiling, as teams like the Rangers and Flyers can afford to do every Season.

And also, this latest CBA may have set back the broadening difference between Ceiling and Floor, but that will soon enough be growing again within a few Seasons.
So? The difference is $16MM between the max and min. Not as if we will have a situation like in baseball where the yankees are spending more than double and triple other teams.

patnyrnyg is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:35 AM
  #518
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
So what? Its always the same percentage of revenues. To imply that the difference actually 'expands' because the actual dollar values increase is ludicrous and purposely ignores the entire concept of linkage.
Come on, Pilky, now you're doing something similar to what you were accusing me of earlier,... rephrasing something to get it to say what you want it to say.

If the Salary Midpoint is $55mil
the Cap is $63.25mil, the Floor is $46.75mil
a difference of $16.5mil

If the Midpoint is $60mil
the Cap is $69mil, the Floor is $51mil
a difference of $18mil

If the Midpoint is $65mil
the Cap is $74.75milm the Floor is $55.25mil
a difference of $19.5mil

So the $ difference does grow, even if ever so slightly.

And the higher the Midpoint goes, the less the potential that certain teams will be able to spend much above the Floor.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:38 AM
  #519
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crayton View Post
True about the 6/2 split becoming less and less likely with that schedule. The ration I would have for ensuring 3 teams would be to make quasi-divisional playoffs fairer (you wouldn't want those 2 really good teams to play-off in the First Round).

But then, I suppose, that goes to your second point about it being difficult to write the playoff rules...

My best effort (and one that is not very acceptable):
In the event that only 3 teams make the playoff from 1 of the Eastern division, the two (of those 3) teams more closely approximating a standard (1v8, 2v7, etc...) seeding will be paired. The remaining 6 Eastern Conference teams will be paired by point totals. Should two potential pairings from this division both equally approximate a standard seeding, the pairing of teams closer to the #4 and #5 seed will be used.

A simpler but less fair approximation:
The Conference Quarterfinals will be paired by division. In the event where 1 division has only 3 teams in the playoff, the #1 and #3 teams will be paired and the remaining 6 teams in the conference will be paired by points.
Totally agree Crayton. I also would not want to force the A1 v A2 in the first round in the event of a 6/2 split. Perhaps those same 2 teams might meet in the Conference Finals, and then it would really be big!!!

I have some time on the road this afternoon. I am going to try to come up with better language to work with 6/2 and 5/3 splits. I don't think that a strict 1/8 is necessary. And, time aones are no issue. I believe the top points team would prefer the #8 team regardless of division status. Would you agree?

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:45 AM
  #520
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
The difference between this season and next season?

This season, three division winners are guarnteed a top-three seeding in the playoffs with five wildcards. Next season, the top-three places in each division are guaranteed the top-three seeds in divisional playoffs, with two wildcards.

It isn't as if anything has severely changed, other than the Eastern Conference picks up Detroit and Columbus and loses Winnipeg.

I listed to Bill Daly's interview yesterday afternoon on Sirius/XM NHL Radio; he made mention some teams just don't compete to win it all.

I just don't understand how it makes a big difference if Carolina is in a five-team division or an eight-team division. Nothing became harder for them. Heck, if anything:

Carolina loses four games against Winnipeg, and three each against Tampa Bay and Florida. They lose one game against Buffalo, Toronto, Boston, Montreal and Ottawa. They keep pretty much the same schedule against the current Atlantic Division, might lose a game or two against the Caps, and gain a few games against Columbus and Detroit. And of course, they gain the extra five or six games to round out their Western Conference schedule.

Just win, baby.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:52 AM
  #521
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
The difference between this season and next season?

This season, three division winners are guarnteed a top-three seeding in the playoffs with five wildcards. Next season, the top-three places in each division are guaranteed the top-three seeds in divisional playoffs, with two wildcards.

It isn't as if anything has severely changed, other than the Eastern Conference picks up Detroit and Columbus and loses Winnipeg.

I listed to Bill Daly's interview yesterday afternoon on Sirius/XM NHL Radio; he made mention some teams just don't compete to win it all.

I just don't understand how it makes a big difference if Carolina is in a five-team division or an eight-team division. Nothing became harder for them. Heck, if anything:

Carolina loses four games against Winnipeg, and three each against Tampa Bay and Florida. They lose one game against Buffalo, Toronto, Boston, Montreal and Ottawa. They keep pretty much the same schedule against the current Atlantic Division, might lose a game or two against the Caps, and gain a few games against Columbus and Detroit. And of course, they gain the extra five or six games to round out their Western Conference schedule.

Just win, baby.
You're right. The changes made in the scheduling matrix, compared to the first proposal, will pretty much balance things out to some extent the way they are now. But, to confess, part of me still sees that 4-Conference scenario staring at us, and the possibility that the League may try to return to that when there's 32 teams. Hopefully between next Season and then, whenever "then" will be, there might be enough evidence to show that it's not a good idea.

But those changes in the matrix, with the unbalanced (as well as reduction in) games against Divisional and Conference opponents, are not something to be praising. They happen to work out to somewhat neutralize the point that I've been making above, but they're bad in other ways.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:55 AM
  #522
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I personally never said that it would "never change", in fact I specifically pointed out that it could. What I said is that the odds will be more greatly stacked against certain teams being able to have any kind of consistancy in making the Playoffs.
I agree with that to a point, but I'm not sure that alignment can do very much about the disparity resources that different organizations bring to the table.

The only thing you could really do to help the lower-rung orgs would be to create something like the current Southeast Division, which is universally disliked and a financial drag for the teams involved. That just doesn't seem like a particularly good solution, having experienced it for the past little while.

The whole large/small market issue is more of a CBA, salary-cap, draft system kind of issue rather than an alignment issue, in my eyes anyway.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
03-15-2013, 11:59 AM
  #523
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 56,481
vCash: 500
Mod note

Discussion seems to just be rehashing a lot of what's gone on before.

So, I think we're done. (The only thing "outstanding" is division names, and we had a quagmire before when attempting to allow discussion on that.)


Please note: Alignment talk (changing how alignment "is") will not be allowed on BOH for a couple more years, or when there's an actual expansion or relocation on the table (not proposed).

LadyStanley 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 04:52 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.