HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

My Re-Alignment / Schedule Idea

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-29-2012, 10:12 PM
  #201
Sports
bedroom eyes
 
Sports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Futureworld
Country: United States
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet1926 View Post
Being an Avs fan it would royally piss me off if they put the Avs in the Pacific division. There is no reason a team located in Denver Colorado should be in a division based on the Pacific coast. Especially since there are 5 teams that are much closer to the Pacific ocean than the Avs (Vancouver, San Jose, LA, Anaheim and Phoenix). I don't understand why Vancouver fans wouldn't want to be in the Pacific division. You get more games that start at a reasonable time. As an Avs fan I hate all the games when we go to the west coast because they start at 8 or 8:30 locally and don't get done until 11 or 11:30 which sucks when you have to wake up a 6AM the next day to go to work.

I think the best way to break up the divisions would be:

NE: MTL, OTT, BUF, TOR, BOS

Atlantic: NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI, PIT

SE: CAR, NAS, WAS, TBL, FLA

Central: DET, CLB, CHI, STL, MIN

NW(I'd change the name to like Mountian or something): COL, WIN, DAL, EDM, CAL

Pacific: VAN, SJ, ANH, PHX, LA

Sports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:44 PM
  #202
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet1926 View Post
Being an Avs fan it would royally piss me off if they put the Avs in the Pacific division. There is no reason a team located in Denver Colorado should be in a division based on the Pacific coast. Especially since there are 5 teams that are much closer to the Pacific ocean than the Avs (Vancouver, San Jose, LA, Anaheim and Phoenix). I don't understand why Vancouver fans wouldn't want to be in the Pacific division. You get more games that start at a reasonable time. As an Avs fan I hate all the games when we go to the west coast because they start at 8 or 8:30 locally and don't get done until 11 or 11:30 which sucks when you have to wake up a 6AM the next day to go to work.
You must feel real sympathy then for Dallas fans.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:36 PM
  #203
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,821
vCash: 314
Regional cable TV revenue is an important revenue stream for many teams. Playing a game aginst an opponent more than 1 time zone away hurts ratings. If a western team is playing at an eastern opponent at 7:30 PM, the western audience is either driving home from work, or eating dinner while the game is starting. If the game is being played at 7:30 at the western team, the eastern audience will have to choose between staying up late, and being drowsy at work/school. So we want divisions with no more than 2 timezones. Let's look at the distribution of teams by timezone and see what constraints it imposes on us.

PACIFICMOUNTAINCENTRALEASTERN
AnaheimCalgaryChicagoBoston
Los AngelesColoradoDallasBuffalo
San JoseEdmontonMinnesotaCarolina
VancouverPhoenixNashvilleColumbus
  St LouisDetroit
  WinnipegFlorida
   Montreal
   New Jersey
   NY Islanders
   NY Rangers
   Ottawa
   Philadelphia
   Pittsburgh
   Tampa
   Toronto
   Washington

The imbalance is striking. The Pacific and Mountain timezones combined have 7 or 8 teams (depending on the fate of the Coyotes). If the NHL stays at 30 teams, then 4 divisions will give 2 divisions of 8 teams each and 2 divisions of 7 teams each. And we want to have maximum flexibility to allow for a Coyotes relocation. The following 3 items are absolutely forced...
  1. Combine the Pacific and Central timezone teams into 1 division (WEST)
  2. Take the 6 Central timezone teams, and add Detroit (or Columbus) to make 7 (CENTRAL)
  3. Have 7 teams in the division where Quebec would go, giving room to drop in the Coyotes

WESTCENTRALEASTATLANTIC
AnaheimChicagoBuffaloBoston
CalgaryDallasColumbusCarolina
ColoradoDetroitFloridaNew Jersey
EdmontonMinnesotaMontrealNY Islanders
Los AngelesNashvilleOttawaNY Rangers
PhoenixSt LouisTampaPhiladelphia
San JoseWinnipegTorontoPittsburgh
Vancouver  Washington

Let's look at what happens if the Coyotes relocate...
  • Seattle or Portland; divisional alignment remains unchanged
  • Houston or KC; WEST goes to 7 teams and CENTRAL goes to 8
  • Quebec or Hamilton; WEST goes to 7 teams and EAST goes to 8

Playoffs by round
  1. Intra-divisional; #1 versus #4, and #2 versus #3 in each division
  2. Intra-divisional; the 2 winners of the divisional series play for the divisional title
  3. Winners of WEST and CENTRAL compete for Clarence Campbell Trophy, while winners of EAST and ATLANTIC compete for Prince of Wales Trophy
  4. The Stanley Cup Finals

knorthern knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:53 PM
  #204
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,317
vCash: 50
"fair" for everyone: randomize conferences every year (lotto) and each team plays 5 times vs everyone in the conference and once vs everyone else. new tiebreaker in seeding is who has more wins in season series. 84 games but why not. this is all in my head and i'm at a wedding listening to gangnam style for the second time so pleas forgive me.

travel woes are random, and there's the chance of seeing, say, a Philly/Boston Stanley Cup Final.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 10:33 AM
  #205
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
PACIFICMOUNTAINCENTRALEASTERN
AnaheimCalgaryChicagoBoston
Los AngelesColoradoDallasBuffalo
San JoseEdmontonMinnesotaCarolina
VancouverPhoenixNashvilleColumbus
  St LouisDetroit
  WinnipegFlorida
   Montreal
   New Jersey
   NY Islanders
   NY Rangers
   Ottawa
   Philadelphia
   Pittsburgh
   Tampa
   Toronto
   Washington

The imbalance is striking. The Pacific and Mountain timezones combined have 7 or 8 teams (depending on the fate of the Coyotes). If the NHL stays at 30 teams, then 4 divisions will give 2 divisions of 8 teams each and 2 divisions of 7 teams each. And we want to have maximum flexibility to allow for a Coyotes relocation. The following 3 items are absolutely forced...
  1. Combine the Pacific and Central timezone teams into 1 division (WEST)
  2. Take the 6 Central timezone teams, and add Detroit (or Columbus) to make 7 (CENTRAL)
  3. Have 7 teams in the division where Quebec would go, giving room to drop in the Coyotes

WESTCENTRALEASTATLANTIC
AnaheimChicagoBuffaloBoston
CalgaryDallasColumbusCarolina
ColoradoDetroitFloridaNew Jersey
EdmontonMinnesotaMontrealNY Islanders
Los AngelesNashvilleOttawaNY Rangers
PhoenixSt LouisTampaPhiladelphia
San JoseWinnipegTorontoPittsburgh
Vancouver  Washington
WHY, Why? do people keep up with this idea of putting the Florida teams in with the eastern Canadian teams?

The Florida teams don't want it, the eastern Canadian teams don't want it, and the players in general don't want it.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 10:53 AM
  #206
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
WHY, Why? do people keep up with this idea of putting the Florida teams in with the eastern Canadian teams?
For spite? Schadenfreude? Karma? All funny enough reasons. How about Mtl, Ott, Tor, Car, TB, Fla, Nas, Dal?

NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Pit, Was, TB, Fla
Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Clb, Car

Geographically Pittsburgh and Carolina should trade places, but we know that's not going to happen.

That SE division needs to go though. No important team wants to be a part of it, and fans complain about it.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 11:24 AM
  #207
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
For spite? Schadenfreude? Karma? All funny enough reasons. How about Mtl, Ott, Tor, Car, TB, Fla, Nas, Dal?

NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Pit, Was, TB, Fla
Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Clb, Car

Geographically Pittsburgh and Carolina should trade places, but we know that's not going to happen.

That SE division needs to go though. No important team wants to be a part of it, and fans complain about it.
Whatever the reason, it's only an alignment that would eventually have to be fixed, so if it can be avoided in anyway now (and it can) then there's no point in creating such an alignment to begin with.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 01:03 PM
  #208
TrillMike
Registered User
 
TrillMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
You must feel real sympathy then for Dallas fans.
Seriously. People don't care about it until it affects them. I shouldn't have to stay up till 12-1AM on a weeknight in February to watch my team play their division opponents.

TrillMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 01:34 PM
  #209
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Whatever the reason, it's only an alignment that would eventually have to be fixed, so if it can be avoided in anyway now (and it can) then there's no point in creating such an alignment to begin with.
Alignments seem to be like coaches; hired to be fired. But I do agree that there are better ways to group the teams in Florida. Although like the Dallas situation in 1998, there has to be a reason why the proposed alignment was the way it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillmike View Post

Seriously. People don't care about it until it affects them. I shouldn't have to stay up till 12-1AM on a weeknight in February to watch my team play their division opponents.
The NHL has a unique placement of teams.

In the NFL, the specific alignment doesn't matter that much, since there's one game a week, on Sunday afternoons. In the NHL, Vancouver is the equivalent of Seattle or Portland in the NBA and MLB. The Canucks should be with the other west coast teams. However, because they're in Canada, and Edmonton and Calgary are their closest neighbors(the NHL being the only league with even one team north of Denver in the MTZ), it's difficult to break those teams apart. Having only one team in Texas doesn't help either.

Dallas never should've been put in the Pacific though.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 03:29 PM
  #210
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Alignments seem to be like coaches; hired to be fired. But I do agree that there are better ways to group the teams in Florida. Although like the Dallas situation in 1998, there has to be a reason why the proposed alignment was the way it was.
Oh, there is a reason. The reason being that the owners couldn't force themselves to agree on something better. I'd say, sometimes you should just look at something and say that just isn't good enough, we must force ourselves to agree to something better.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 03:35 PM
  #211
Qward
Moderator
Because! That's why!
 
Qward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Behind you, look out
Posts: 13,372
vCash: 265
Just expand 2 teams.

Seattle/Portland and Quebec.

Give the Yotes another 5 years to make it work. If not, by then Saskatchewan's current rate of growth along with developement of oil fields and industry growth they could possibly support a NHL franchise in the 5 years.

Qward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 08:43 PM
  #212
letmesleep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 313
vCash: 500
I don't know why everyone makes realignment so difficult. It's really pretty easy.



6 games against teams in your division
3 games against teams out of your division but in your conference
1 game against teams out of your conference

The schedulers get some leeway to make interesting/lucrative match-ups with the last 4-7 games on the schedule. (extra games so PIT/PHI can play former Atlantic division teams, DET can get in a lot of games against East teams, you could get an extra LA-NJ rematch in, get extra all-Canadian match-ups, etc.)

Top 3 teams from each division make the playoffs with 2 wildcard spots in each conference. The wildcard spots make the uneven divisions a moot point.

------

Pros: Makes sense geographically, makes sense for time-zones, no issues with the odds of making the playoffs, there aren't any weak divisions (the SE would actually become superstar central with Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin/Stamkos), most divisional rivalries are preserved while making a lot of new ones.

Cons: Lots of people whining about losing the Atlantic division.

letmesleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 09:36 PM
  #213
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,548
vCash: 2960
The teams in the east shouldn't be in divisions with 8 teams. If western teams want this realignment so bad, they should have the 8 team divisions.

__________________
Kane One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 10:00 PM
  #214
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
The teams in the east shouldn't be in divisions with 8 teams. If western teams want this realignment so bad, they should have the 8 team divisions.
You know, once I take a moment to think about it, it actually shouldn't really matter if the two Conferences have different Divisional structures because the ultimate result is how it works out for the Playoffs, and by the time the two Conference Champs meet the structural stuff is all behind them. Obviously, within the Conference, Divisions should be the same, but in the other Conference I don't see why it should matter so much.

But the problem could still be how the Eastern teams are aligned regardless, and who gets to join the East.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 10:30 PM
  #215
letmesleep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
The teams in the east shouldn't be in divisions with 8 teams. If western teams want this realignment so bad, they should have the 8 team divisions.
...yeah, okay.

letmesleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:25 AM
  #216
Steve55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,495
vCash: 500
My re alignment:

Western conference:

Northwest division

Vancouver

Calgary

Edmonton

Winnipeg

Minnesota

Pacific division

Anaheim

LA

San Jose

Phoenix

Colorado

Central division

Dallas

St Louis

Chicago

Detroit

Columbus





Eastern conference

Northeast division

Toronto

Buffalo

Ottawa

Montreal

Boston

Atlantic division

Islanders

Rangers

New jersey

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Southeast division

Nashville

Carolina

Washington

Florida

Tampa Bay


Last edited by Homeland Security: 12-31-2012 at 01:21 PM. Reason: Bolded divisions for easier reading.
Steve55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 06:11 AM
  #217
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
The teams in the east shouldn't be in divisions with 8 teams. If western teams want this realignment so bad, they should have the 8 team divisions.
Except there are 16 teams in the eastern time zone. Why do Detroit and/or Columbus have to get the shaft?

Move Columbus to the SE to replace Winnipeg. Then Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, NYR, Boston, and Philly all rotate as the one eastern time zone team in the central division. If Detroit can do it, so can those other 5 franchises.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 06:19 AM
  #218
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,548
vCash: 2960
Quote:
Originally Posted by letmesleep View Post
...yeah, okay.
The actual realignment that was approved 26-4 has the western divisions with 8 teams each. I guess it's just a coincidence..

Kane One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 02:54 PM
  #219
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by letmesleep View Post
I don't know why everyone makes realignment so difficult. It's really pretty easy.



6 games against teams in your division
3 games against teams out of your division but in your conference
1 game against teams out of your conference

The schedulers get some leeway to make interesting/lucrative match-ups with the last 4-7 games on the schedule. (extra games so PIT/PHI can play former Atlantic division teams, DET can get in a lot of games against East teams, you could get an extra LA-NJ rematch in, get extra all-Canadian match-ups, etc.)

Top 3 teams from each division make the playoffs with 2 wildcard spots in each conference. The wildcard spots make the uneven divisions a moot point.

------

Pros: Makes sense geographically, makes sense for time-zones, no issues with the odds of making the playoffs, there aren't any weak divisions (the SE would actually become superstar central with Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin/Stamkos), most divisional rivalries are preserved while making a lot of new ones.

Cons: Lots of people whining about losing the Atlantic division.
I think any scheduale that does not have home and home with every team in the league is a failure.

Hypothetical example: Penguins come to rexall place in 2012-2013 season. I work or have commitments so cant get a ticket. 2013-2014 season is a write off because the team doesnt even leave its conference.

I now have to wait from 2012 to 2015 for a chance to see the Penguins again. Its unacceptable to hide all of the league stars in the east because they are wimps and cant handle travel like the other half of the league deals with. If Crosby and Malkin played in the west I imagine they would be making trips to New York, Toronto etc more then once every 2 years

Jamin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:03 PM
  #220
letmesleep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 313
vCash: 500
I guess you missed the part where it wasn't approved by the PA.

Here are their reasons, lifted from the Fehr/NHLPA statement.

Quote:
Two substantial Player concerns emerged: (1) whether the new structure would result in increased and more onerous travel; and (2) the disparity in chances of making the playoffs between the smaller and larger divisions.
My plan definitely fixes concern 2 and likely 1 as well.

letmesleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:19 PM
  #221
letmesleep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamin View Post
I think any scheduale that does not have home and home with every team in the league is a failure.

Hypothetical example: Penguins come to rexall place in 2012-2013 season. I work or have commitments so cant get a ticket. 2013-2014 season is a write off because the team doesnt even leave its conference.

I now have to wait from 2012 to 2015 for a chance to see the Penguins again. Its unacceptable to hide all of the league stars in the east because they are wimps and cant handle travel like the other half of the league deals with. If Crosby and Malkin played in the west I imagine they would be making trips to New York, Toronto etc more then once every 2 years
Originally before I was working on the scheduling, I agreed with you. You should be able to see every player in your home arena once a year. However, when I started working on the numbers, I realized what a HUGE chunk of games that would take up: 58 out of 82. That only leaves 24 games to split among division opponents and conference opponents. In a sport that relies heavily on rivalries, I thought that was too few. I just worked out the numbers: if the Penguins came to Edmonton every season, you would only see Calgary in town twice. You would only see Vancouver in town twice. The only way anyone would see any of their divisional rivals more than twice a season would be if the schedulers thought that one of your 5-6 extra games should be against your division rival and it should be in your home town.

letmesleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:00 PM
  #222
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,548
vCash: 2960
Quote:
Originally Posted by letmesleep View Post
I guess you missed the part where it wasn't approved by the PA.

Here are their reasons, lifted from the Fehr/NHLPA statement.



My plan definitely fixes concern 2 and likely 1 as well.
It wasn't approved so they could use it as a negotiating chip. The realignment will go into affect.

Kane One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:16 PM
  #223
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by letmesleep View Post
Originally before I was working on the scheduling, I agreed with you. You should be able to see every player in your home arena once a year. However, when I started working on the numbers, I realized what a HUGE chunk of games that would take up: 58 out of 82. That only leaves 24 games to split among division opponents and conference opponents. In a sport that relies heavily on rivalries, I thought that was too few. I just worked out the numbers: if the Penguins came to Edmonton every season, you would only see Calgary in town twice. You would only see Vancouver in town twice. The only way anyone would see any of their divisional rivals more than twice a season would be if the schedulers thought that one of your 5-6 extra games should be against your division rival and it should be in your home town.
Except your math is wrong because you already play your divisional rivals twice each in those 58 games.

Going by the example of the NHLs proposal using the Edmonton Oilers 46 games would be played against non divisional rivals the other 36 split between their 7 divisional rivals. Not looking so bad anymore eh?


Last edited by MessierII: 12-31-2012 at 04:22 PM.
MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:34 PM
  #224
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by letmesleep View Post
Originally before I was working on the scheduling, I agreed with you. You should be able to see every player in your home arena once a year. However, when I started working on the numbers, I realized what a HUGE chunk of games that would take up: 58 out of 82. That only leaves 24 games to split among division opponents and conference opponents. In a sport that relies heavily on rivalries, I thought that was too few. I just worked out the numbers: if the Penguins came to Edmonton every season, you would only see Calgary in town twice. You would only see Vancouver in town twice. The only way anyone would see any of their divisional rivals more than twice a season would be if the schedulers thought that one of your 5-6 extra games should be against your division rival and it should be in your home town.
That's why the league was realigned into 4 big conferences.

7 team conference:
2 games against non-conference opponents = 46 games
6 games against conference opponents = 36 games

8 team conference:
2 games against non-conference opponents = 44 games
5 games against 4 conference opponents = 20 games
6 games against 3 conference opponents = 18 games

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 08:46 PM
  #225
leesmith
"We're NEVER Done!"
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,308
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=alpine4life;56063815]a friend of mine who's an economist seggested that...

mentionned that it would be the most viable solutions for travelling in the NHL while keeping the rivalries together. I dont mind both of them, but if 4 divisions were to be set in the NHL, it would be nice to see 2 teams leave for Divisions to be of equal numbers.

4 Division:


I really like the 4 division plan here.

leesmith 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 02:07 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.