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, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

Realignment: Did the CBA address this?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-07-2013, 10:22 AM
  #376
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retail1LO View Post
To me, this is the biggest, and most important change I want to see. With a re-seeding of the teams after each of the 4 conferences is decided, it would mean any 2 teams, except those within the same conference, could meet in the Stanley Cup Final. That NEEDS to happen. Personally, I think there needs to be a way that any two teams PERIOD could meet for the final. There's no reason the Hawks and Wings, or Leafs and Bruins, shouldn't be able to meet one another in a Cup final.
If you have one Conference winner from each Conference after the 2nd Round, then it's not possible to have two teams from the same Conference in the Final. What you're suggesting seems to go contrary to what many here are saying they want from the proposed 4-Conference alignment. They want Divisional Playoffs, which will in affect eliminate all but 1 team from each Conference. Then if there's reseeding after the 2nd Round, the Final could have 2 teams both from western Conferences or two both from eastern Conferences, but not two from the same Conference.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:26 AM
  #377
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Better or worse is always in the eyes of the beholder.
Of course, and there would be 30 teams voting to determine that; the majority vote wins. But perhaps it would be good to ask each team, in its vote, to give a direct reason Why it's Better or Why it's worse... Just to make sure that no one is voting one way or the other just out of spite.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:42 AM
  #378
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retail1LO View Post
To me, this is the biggest, and most important change I want to see. With a re-seeding of the teams after each of the 4 conferences is decided, it would mean any 2 teams, except those within the same conference, could meet in the Stanley Cup Final. That NEEDS to happen. Personally, I think there needs to be a way that any two teams PERIOD could meet for the final. There's no reason the Hawks and Wings, or Leafs and Bruins, shouldn't be able to meet one another in a Cup final.
There's always a reason.

Didn't the league used to do it that way? Back when they had byes in the 70's?

Maybe the league could it that way again. There might be too many teams to do it though. Too many potential cross country trips. It's funny, the Western Conference today basically already does that. You'd have to sell the idea of anyone playing anyone to the teams in the East more than anyone else.

I agree, Phi/Pit, Bos/Mtl, etc, in a Cup final would be great. The teams that could benefit the most from it, are the ones you have to convince the most. Life is funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Of course, and there would be 30 teams voting to determine that; the majority vote wins. But perhaps it would be good to ask each team, in its vote, to give a direct reason Why it's Better or Why it's worse... Just to make sure that no one is voting one way or the other just out of spite.
Direct reasons would be great to know. I'm guessing they do that behind closed doors, but maybe they don't.

I think if you vote one issue at a time, you're still going to get a convoluted result. They're only human. Maybe they should vote on how to vote.

KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
02-07-2013, 10:54 AM
  #379
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Direct reasons would be great to know. I'm guessing they do that behind closed doors, but maybe they don't.

I think if you vote one issue at a time, you're still going to get a convoluted result. They're only human. Maybe they should vote on how to vote.
Yes, possibly. But also, in the final analysis, there should be 3 (or 4 maximum) options/scenarios on the table, all of which had been agreed to by some simple majority vote. And then from there they vote on which option/scenario is preferred, again by the biggest majority. For example, two 6-Division options, two 4-Division options.... all 4 with their accompanying scheduling formats (also decided on by greatest majority vote).

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:10 AM
  #380
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
I think if you vote one issue at a time, you're still going to get a convoluted result. They're only human. Maybe they should vote on how to vote.
Precisely.

For those new to the subject, the divisional alignment, scheduling matrix and the playoff qualification are all within the NHL constitution. Changes to the constitution require a 2/3 majority approval, or in today's league, 20 of 30 teams must approve the change.

Now, I suspect that this year's lockout-shortened season attached a different scheduling matrix to the CBA so to avoid the need to change the constitution for this year only.

The problem is voting on one issue at a time as a majority-rules provision. I'm pretty sure that would create many more problems than it resolves.

First, the NHL Constitution must be changed to allow changes to be made by majority rules instead of two-thirds majority.

Second, that gives more power to the Commissioner of the NHL, as the person with that job title sets the agenda that's voted upon.

Third, can anyone imagine how each separate issue would be voted on?

Move Winnipeg to the Northwest? 16 Aye, 14 Nay
We now have a six-team Northwest division and a four-team Southeast division

Move Detroit to the Southeast? 13 Aye, 17 Nay
Move Columbus to the Southeast? 13 Aye, 17 Nay
Move Nashville to the Southeast? 13 Aye, 17 Nay

We now have unbalanced conferences because a majority couldn't make up their mind who to move.

That's why the entire alignment and scheduling matrix is usually voted on in a whole proposal, instead of piecemeal. It's faster and less convoluted.

And I'm pretty sure no one wants to allow majority rules regarding amendments and changes to the constitution.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:16 AM
  #381
Retail1LO
Registered User
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,356
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Retail1LO Send a message via AIM to Retail1LO Send a message via MSN to Retail1LO
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
If you have one Conference winner from each Conference after the 2nd Round, then it's not possible to have two teams from the same Conference in the Final. What you're suggesting seems to go contrary to what many here are saying they want from the proposed 4-Conference alignment. They want Divisional Playoffs, which will in affect eliminate all but 1 team from each Conference. Then if there's reseeding after the 2nd Round, the Final could have 2 teams both from western Conferences or two both from eastern Conferences, but not two from the same Conference.

Yeah...I know. You'd need to reseed after the first round of Conference playoffs in order to have a chance for two teams from the same Conference to compete in the Cup final...and that seems stupid even to me. That said, assuming there are eventually four 8-team conferences...a team would still have a chance to meet 75% of the league in the Stanley Cup final...and that's better than 50% with a two conference format.

Retail1LO is online now  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:17 AM
  #382
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,444
vCash: 500
I am going to try to do a Bradley-Terry analysis of last year's regular season results. That is the most robust rating system available that uses only wins/losses. I am going to call all shootout results a tie.

To do this analysis, I need to know how many games each team played against each other team.

I know that the matrix for last year - full schedule of games - was:
Vs division - 6
vs Conference - 4
interconference - 1
Plus 3 other games.

Does anyone know a quick way to learn which teams played which for their 3 other games, without going through every one's schedule?

Thanks.

The reason I am doing this is that I would like a better system than just "Points Earned" to look at who might have gotten left out of the playoffs that should have been in. For purposes of comparing a "Top 4 from each of 4 conferences" system.

Thanks.

MNNumbers is online now  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:25 AM
  #383
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Yes, possibly. But also, in the final analysis, there should be 3 (or 4 maximum) options/scenarios on the table, all of which had been agreed to by some simple majority vote. And then from there they vote on which option/scenario is preferred, again by the biggest majority. For example, two 6-Division options, two 4-Division options.... all 4 with their accompanying scheduling formats (also decided on by greatest majority vote).
So let's see if I get this:

Option 1 - Nine votes
Option 2 - Eight votes
Option 3 - Seven votes
Option 4 - Six votes

The Option 1 with nine votes wins? Hint: if Option 1 is to keep the status quo, that's the Northeast and Atlantic division, and they control the entire destiny of the NHL, even if the other 21 teams can't agree to a change?

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:34 AM
  #384
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
For those new to the subject, the divisional alignment, scheduling matrix and the playoff qualification are all within the NHL constitution. Changes to the constitution require a 2/3 majority approval, or in today's league, 20 of 30 teams must approve the change.
Minor nit. Alignment, scheduling matrix, and playoff formats are defined in the NHL By-Laws, not the NHL Constitution. Under the NHL Constitution, it takes a 2/3 majority to amend the By-Laws - amending the NHL constitution requires either a 3/4 majority or unanimous vote, depending upon the article.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:39 AM
  #385
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
So let's see if I get this:

Option 1 - Nine votes
Option 2 - Eight votes
Option 3 - Seven votes
Option 4 - Six votes

The Option 1 with nine votes wins? Hint: if Option 1 is to keep the status quo, that's the Northeast and Atlantic division, and they control the entire destiny of the NHL, even if the other 21 teams can't agree to a change?
No, no, no.... Process of elimination. The option with the least votes gets eliminated. Now you vote for the 3 remaining options. Again (the same as in the first vote, unless there is an overwhelming majority in favor of a particular option), in the 2nd vote another option gets eliminated. Then finally the greatest majority between the final two options.

Between each voting round, teams get another opportunity, a couple hours maximum if needed, to try to sway certain votes for the next round.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:43 AM
  #386
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Minor nit. Alignment, scheduling matrix, and playoff formats are defined in the NHL By-Laws, not the NHL Constitution. Under the NHL Constitution, it takes a 2/3 majority to amend the By-Laws - amending the NHL constitution requires either a 3/4 majority or unanimous vote, depending upon the article.
So there you are... The League gets stuck with something bad, or a new wrinkle gets thrown into the mix, but to fix it becomes a problem. Everything has to be agreed on in one fell swoop and by such a great majority that if they can't reach that number then they're stuck with an issue that can't even simply just be made better.

It's a system that is designed to allow certain teams to control the outcome of what is decided, so that it doesn't effect them in a way that they don't want.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 11:52 AM
  #387
IceAce
RAISED IN A BARN
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 4,132
vCash: 4600
I'm sure some will hate this, but here's another thought on this process.

Keeps it to at most, 2 time zones per Division. Splits the O6 up 3 and 3, maintains MTL/BOS and other traditional Northeastern rivalries. Brings the Leafs back to their Norris roots (and takes the Sens with them for the ride), gives the Wings two ETZ division opponents, keeps the Canucks in the PTZ most of the time, and lets the Preds have at least one division opponent in their time zone and a lot less travel.

You'd also have some flexibility if a team like PHO was to move to QC, they could just jump into the Central, and maintain the same conference balance.

Obvious downsides are you'd be shipping TOR and OTT out to the Central, and you'd split MTL from being in a conference with any other Canadian team even though they'd stay with BOS and gain NYR and PIT as division rivals.

Eastern Conference
Northeast
NYI-NYR-NJ-PHI-PIT-BUF-BOS-MTL

Southeast
CAR-FLA-NAS-DAL-TB-WAS-CLB

Western Conference
Central
DET-CHI-STL-MIN-WPG-TOR-OTT

West
ANA-LA-SJ-PHO-COL-VAN-CAL-EDM


Last edited by IceAce: 02-07-2013 at 12:00 PM.
IceAce is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 12:08 PM
  #388
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Just to illustrate the point of how rivalries are really just code for given the strong strong and weak weaker.


Pacific. Van, Edmoton, 3 cals
Western Calgary winnerpeg, minysoda, Dal-s and Denvur
Midwestern, chicago, d-troit, toe-rono, st louis, and columbus
Central ottawa buffalo, the rangers, pittsburg and nashville
Eastern Philli, Wash, New jersey, florida`s
Atlantic, Boston,QC, Mont, Islanders, carolina.

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 12:21 PM
  #389
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoSimon View Post
Just to illustrate the point of how rivalries are really just code for given the strong strong and weak weaker.

Pacific. Van, Edmoton, 3 cals
Western Calgary winnerpeg, minysoda, Dal-s and Denvur
Midwestern, chicago, d-troit, toe-rono, st louis, and columbus
Central ottawa buffalo, the rangers, pittsburg and nashville
Eastern Philli, Wash, New jersey, florida`s
Atlantic, Boston,QC, Mont, Islanders, carolina.
Ok, you're trying to make a point; I thought I'd have interest to see your "illustration" of that point, but be damned if I know what it is you're trying to illustrate.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 12:25 PM
  #390
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
I'm sure some will hate this, but here's another thought on this process.

Keeps it to at most, 2 time zones per Division. Splits the O6 up 3 and 3, maintains MTL/BOS and other traditional Northeastern rivalries. Brings the Leafs back to their Norris roots (and takes the Sens with them for the ride), gives the Wings two ETZ division opponents, keeps the Canucks in the PTZ most of the time, and lets the Preds have at least one division opponent in their time zone and a lot less travel.

You'd also have some flexibility if a team like PHO was to move to QC, they could just jump into the Central, and maintain the same conference balance.

Obvious downsides are you'd be shipping TOR and OTT out to the Central, and you'd split MTL from being in a conference with any other Canadian team even though they'd stay with BOS and gain NYR and PIT as division rivals.

Eastern Conference
Northeast
NYI-NYR-NJ-PHI-PIT-BUF-BOS-MTL

Southeast
CAR-FLA-NAS-DAL-TB-WAS-CLB


Western Conference
Central
DET-CHI-STL-MIN-WPG-TOR-OTT

West
ANA-LA-SJ-PHO-COL-VAN-CAL-EDM
The problem is creating Divisions like that Southeast which isn't made up of any really established teams. And then in comparison, you look at your Northeast Division which is jam-packed with strongly established teams (though that in itself isn't a problem).
And therein again lies part of the problem, that those established teams don't want to the wealth of their established status, at least not in a way that isn't totally inconvenient for those teams (such as putting the Florida teams in a bizarre NE alignment).

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 12:39 PM
  #391
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Ok, you're trying to make a point; I thought I'd have interest to see your "illustration" of that point, but be damned if I know what it is you're trying to illustrate.
Sorry don`t mind the names I didn`t wanna aggravate anyone or get anyone thinking about it too seriously.


But my point is there are tons of options once you start breaking up rivalries, ones where there is actually balance between top end and bottom end franchises.

If I had to be more specific, ideally there should be a new york team in every division.
A southern team in every division.
A canadian team in every division
etc etc.

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 12:48 PM
  #392
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoSimon View Post
Sorry don`t mind the names I didn`t wanna aggravate anyone or get anyone thinking about it too seriously.

But my point is there are tons of options once you start breaking up rivalries, ones where there is actually balance between top end and bottom end franchises.

If I had to be more specific, ideally there should be a new york team in every division.
A southern team in every division.
A canadian team in every division
etc etc.
Yes, that's a way to go; referring to your "more specific" comment. But I don't even think it's necessary to separate immediate geographic groupings. Just putting each team with some nearest geographic opponent and saying... There, you've got something, may not be all you want but it's also not like you've been left stranded on an island (like Dallas currently is).... Just doing that for each team, and you've got various options of how teams can be grouped together to create the best possible dynamic for all Divisions.

HugoSimon, based on what appears to be your way of thinking, check out post #130. It may offer you something that you can work it.

PS: It wasn't the names, it was the alignment without any explanation.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 02-07-2013 at 12:55 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 12:59 PM
  #393
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Yes, that's a way to go; referring to your "more specific" comment. But I don't even think it's necessary to separate immediate geographic groupings. Just putting each team with some nearest geographic opponent and saying... There, you've got something, may not be all you want but it's also not like you've been left stranded on an island (like Dallas currently is).... Just doing that for each team, and you've got various options of how teams can be grouped together to create the best possible dynamic for all Divisions.

HugoSimon, based on what appears to be your way of thinking, check out post #130. It may offer you something that you can work it.
Yeah I got tons of ideas.

Dallas, miami, newyork(islanders), chicago, and boston as a big city division would be great.


My real point is I think the whole thing should be sent to an outside consultant. Where balance is valued over tradition.

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 01:10 PM
  #394
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Yes, that's a way to go; referring to your "more specific" comment. But I don't even think it's necessary to separate immediate geographic groupings. Just putting each team with some nearest geographic opponent and saying... There, you've got something, may not be all you want but it's also not like you've been left stranded on an island (like Dallas currently is).... Just doing that for each team, and you've got various options of how teams can be grouped together to create the best possible dynamic for all Divisions.

HugoSimon, based on what appears to be your way of thinking, check out post #130. It may offer you something that you can work it.
How about, we take the 22 teams in the ETZ and CTZ, and have a lottery each year. Do it individually, or group some teams together, and shuffle the groups around. Every year it would be different.

Bos/Mtl
Tor/Ott/Buf
NYR/NYI/NJ
Phi/Pit
Was/Car
TB/Fla
Det/Clb
Chi/StL
Nas/Dal
Wpg/Min

Make it a TV event every year. Randomly put them together in 3 conferences, and call it a day.

KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
02-07-2013, 01:13 PM
  #395
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
I'm still going back to my preferred structure, and that's keeping the six Divisions, even whenever expansion happens, and allowing the rivalries to grow within them. If 7 and 8-team Divisions can be okay, then so can 5 and 6-team Divisions. Continuing with that allows for Divisional rivalries (more condensed than 8-team Divisions) and also still allows for secondary Conference rivalries (which sometimes get more intense than the Divisional ones). Of course, the six Divisions need to be fixed, in a more equitable way; and that can be done! I also think it's possible for an approximated 1st Round Divisional Playoff with six Divisions (not a Playoff to see which team(s) come out of the Division, but matchups that are mostly Divisional). And by doing that, you at least reduce the potential of out-of-Time Zone 1st Round matchups.

Let's be honest here, 8-team Divisions are large; whether you think they're too large or not, that's an opinion maybe. But they're large enough that ultimately they could become problematic for the League (as we know, all other major Leagues have shyed away from large 8-team Divisions). So, I believe that ultimately the League would shift from 8 to 4-team Divisions. Now if we think trying to shuffle around teams in a 6-Division format is problematic, imagine separating 8-team Divisions into 4-team Divisions... And then 4-Divisions also suck big time (look at what happens frequently in the NFL for an example).

No, stick with 5 and then 5 and 6-team Divisions. Stick with 5 and or 6-team Divisional rivalries. Stick with secondary Conference rivalries. Incorporate approximated 1st Round Divisional matchups. Stick with a 2-Conference structure, the winners from the two semi-leagues/Conferences meeting in the Final. That's all still my preference.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 01:19 PM
  #396
IceAce
RAISED IN A BARN
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 4,132
vCash: 4600
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The problem is creating Divisions like that Southeast which isn't made up of any really established teams. And then in comparison, you look at your Northeast Division which is jam-packed with strongly established teams (though that in itself isn't a problem).
And therein again lies part of the problem, that those established teams don't want to the wealth of their established status, at least not in a way that isn't totally inconvenient for those teams (such as putting the Florida teams in a bizarre NE alignment).
I disagree. You have two franchises that have been around for 40+ years with the Caps and Stars. Then you have teams like Carolina and Tampa that have their names engraved on the Stanley Cup. Florida, Nashville, and Columbus are what they are.

IceAce is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 01:28 PM
  #397
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceAce View Post
I disagree. You have two franchises that have been around for 40+ years with the Caps and Stars. Then you have teams like Carolina and Tampa that have their names engraved on the Stanley Cup. Florida, Nashville, and Columbus are what they are.
The Stars franchise may have existed for 40+ years, but Dallas as a hockey city is a relative virgin in that 40+year timespan. And as for Washington, a decently established franchise it may be, but to hang the burden of appeal at the gate on Washington alone within a Conf/Div isn't anything near to the case of doing the same in the Central with the likes of Detroit. Hell, the whole Western Conference has tried to hold onto to Detroit (and that's in addition to Chicago); imagine Washington filling even a fraction of such a role in a Conf/Div all by itself.

It's bad enough to have 4 or 5 teams in a Division with little or no gate attraction; creating a 7 or 8-team Division with a similar hockey resume would just spread such a curse to a bigger group of teams.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 01:30 PM
  #398
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
How about, we take the 22 teams in the ETZ and CTZ, and have a lottery each year. Do it individually, or group some teams together, and shuffle the groups around. Every year it would be different.

Bos/Mtl
Tor/Ott/Buf
NYR/NYI/NJ
Phi/Pit
Was/Car
TB/Fla
Det/Clb
Chi/StL
Nas/Dal
Wpg/Min

Make it a TV event every year. Randomly put them together in 3 conferences, and call it a day.
I think it`s ironic that almost any idea could work better than what we have now.

Which is where there is a massive imbalance in the net value of each division.

The northeast is worth 2.25 billion.
Atlantic 1.73 billion.
South 0.950 billion.

Central 1.14 billion
northwest 1.25 billion
Pacific 1.06 billion

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
02-07-2013, 02:25 PM
  #399
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoSimon View Post
I think it`s ironic that almost any idea could work better than what we have now.

Which is where there is a massive imbalance in the net value of each division.

The northeast is worth 2.25 billion.
Atlantic 1.73 billion.
South 0.950 billion.

Central 1.14 billion
northwest 1.25 billion
Pacific 1.06 billion
I think it's why I have a preference for larger divisions. If you could do 3 conferences with 10 teams each, I would do that. But 2 of Winnipeg, Minnesota, or Dallas would have a tough draw, and they've done their time. Winnipeg was forced into the Smythe division after the Rockies went to NJ, and Dallas and Minnesota drew the short straw in 1998.

Mixing up more teams, within fewer divisions. More chances to keep teams together, and more ways to help teams that need it. Instead we get the SE and Pacific divisions. 3 relocated teams, 5 expansion teams, and 2 franchises that haven't been all that relevant in their history, combined. Great idea.

KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
02-07-2013, 02:29 PM
  #400
one2gamble
Registered User
 
one2gamble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The problem is creating Divisions like that Southeast which isn't made up of any really established teams. And then in comparison, you look at your Northeast Division which is jam-packed with strongly established teams (though that in itself isn't a problem).
And therein again lies part of the problem, that those established teams don't want to the wealth of their established status, at least not in a way that isn't totally inconvenient for those teams (such as putting the Florida teams in a bizarre NE alignment).
I dont think there is an issue with the divisions being built like that, the issue comes in how you even up scheduling so the southeast gets to play those big market teams enough to support the fan base and revenue streams.

one2gamble 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 10:19 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.