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: Did the CBA address this?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-26-2013, 11:22 AM
  #126
Retail1LO
Registered User
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,144
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
So? How often do we hear that a Conference Final was better than the Cup Final, and that those two Conference teams were actually the two best? So if two teams from the same Conference meet in the Final, maybe in that particular year that was the best scenario.
Quite frankly, I love the 4 "conference" alignment that was proposed. Call them conferences if you like, but they're divisions, essentially. They basically get rid of conferences, since there's no higher structure of grouping beyond the 4 divisions.

That said, I love divisional playoffs. The idea of having divisions, beyond geographical concerns, is to build and maintain rivalries. And rivalries played out in the playoffs, rule. That said, once you get down to the final four, I'm all for reseeding...as I think it would be awesome to expand who can play one another in the Stanley Cup final. The idea that either Boston-Philadelphia, Chicago-Vancouver, or even Toronto-Pittsburgh can NEVER occur in the Cup final is just...garbage. To that end, I have no issues with wanting to keep travel to a minimum during the season, but once playoffs come about, I think any two teams in the league should have the potential to meet one another in the Cup final.

That'll never happen, however, and it's stupid.

Retail1LO is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 01:09 PM
  #127
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retail1LO View Post
Quite frankly, I love the 4 "conference" alignment that was proposed. Call them conferences if you like, but they're divisions, essentially. They basically get rid of conferences, since there's no higher structure of grouping beyond the 4 divisions.

That said, I love divisional playoffs. The idea of having divisions, beyond geographical concerns, is to build and maintain rivalries. And rivalries played out in the playoffs, rule. That said, once you get down to the final four, I'm all for reseeding...as I think it would be awesome to expand who can play one another in the Stanley Cup final. The idea that either Boston-Philadelphia, Chicago-Vancouver, or even Toronto-Pittsburgh can NEVER occur in the Cup final is just...garbage. To that end, I have no issues with wanting to keep travel to a minimum during the season, but once playoffs come about, I think any two teams in the league should have the potential to meet one another in the Cup final.

That'll never happen, however, and it's stupid.
Not sure in which way your post applies to that particular discussion I was having. I was saying that, "so what if the teams from one of the 4 Divisions are all eliminated in the 2nd Round", due to having 3 teams from one Division in the Playoffs and 5 teams from another, and the crossover Division eliminates all the teams in the other Division. I don't see that as a problem. I'd absolutely prefer to have the top-8 teams from the east or West in the Playoffs, rather than the top-4 from each Division.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 01:23 PM
  #128
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I'd absolutely prefer to have the top-8 teams from the east or West in the Playoffs, rather than the top-4 from each Division.
The top 4 from each division is so that nobody has to go too far west until as late as possible in the playoffs. Not that teams in the far west enjoy traveling a couple time zones for games either. But the complaints mostly center around teams in the east that have become very accustomed the easy travel.

Top 4 in the proposed western group make it. Then the top 12 from the proposed central group, and the two eastern groups, however it shakes out. Seed it 1-12, 4 from each of the three groups, or 6, 5, and 1, or whatever.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 05:16 PM
  #129
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,664
vCash: 500
I personally do not like what the league came up with last year for realignment and prefer the 6 division 2 conference setting. However, it's silly that teams like Dallas and Minnesota have to play division rivals that are 2 time zones behind them. I would realign to this setting to make sure division rivals are no more than one time zone apart:

Northeast: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
Atlantic: New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
Southeast: Carolina, Columbus, Florida, Tampa Bay, Washington

Central: Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Nashville, St. Louis
Northwest (or a new name): Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Minnesota, Winnipeg
Pacific: Anaheim, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver

Obviously, Detroit and Vancouver would be very unhappy. However, it would reduce the intra-division travel for both Minnesota and Dallas, Detroit continues to be a draw in the west and stays with Original Six team Chicago, and a real good rivalry could be created between Vancouver and San Jose.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 08:16 PM
  #130
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,984
vCash: 500
Don't know why, because I dislike 4 Divisions with 8 teams, but oh Hell, I had this table with each team's 4-nearest geographical opponents, and now here is it expanded to show each team's 7-nearest geographical opponents (including Quebec City and Seattle in the mix)

                    
VANCOUVER  EDMONTON  MINNESOTA  MONTREAL  WASHINGTON  BOSTON    
Calgary672 km Calgary261 km Chicago560 km Ottawa165 km Philadelphia193 km NY Rangers301 km   
Edmonton822 km Vancouver822 km Winnipeg632 km Boston404 km Pittsburgh306 km NY Islanders306 km   
San Jose1325 km Winnipeg1194 km St. Louis736 km Toronto505 km New Jersey317 km New Jersey316 km   
Los Angeles1719 km Colorado1640 km Detroit855 km Buffalo508 km NY Islanders327 km Montreal404 km   
Anaheim1760 km Minnesota1730 km Columbus997 km NY Rangers528 km NY Rangers332 km Philadelphia440 km   
Colorado1774 km San Jose1906 km Nashville1113 km New Jersey532 km Carolina373 km Ottawa481 km   
Seattle192 km Seattle908 km Toronto1118 km Quebec City230 km Buffalo470 km Quebec City495 km   
                    
SAN JOSE  CALGARY  CHICAGO  OTTAWA  CAROLINA  NY ISLANDERS  QUEBEC CITY 
Los Angeles472 km Edmonton261 km Detroit383 km Montreal165 km Washington373 km NY Rangers20 km Montreal230 km
Anaheim529 km Vancouver672 km St. Louis422 km Toronto353 km Pittsburgh527 km New Jersey40 km Ottawa376 km
Phoenix981 km Winnipeg1202 km Columbus445 km Buffalo380 km Philadelphia560 km Philadelphia133 km Boston495 km
Vancouver1325 km Colorado1445 km Minnesota560 km Boston481 km Columbus600 km Boston306 km NY Rangers707 km
Colorado1502 km San Jose1651 km Nashville636 km New Jersey535 km New Jersey672 km Washington327 km New Jersey715 km
Calgary1651 km Minnesota1695 km Pittsburgh665 km NY Rangers536 km NY Islanders677 km Buffalo475 km NY Islanders717 km
Seattle1145 km Seattle711 km Toronto713 km Quebec City376 km NY Rangers685 km Montreal539 km Toronto728 km
                    
LOS ANGELES  COLORADO  ST. LOUIS  TORONTO  PITTSBURGH  NY RANGERS  SEATTLE 
Anaheim58 km Phoenix945km Nashville414 km Buffalo96 km Columbus260 km NY Islanders20 km Vancouver192 km
San Jose472 km Dallas1064 km Chicago422 km Detroit332 km Buffalo290 km New Jersey30 km Calgary711 km
Phoenix590 km Minnesota1125 km Columbus643 km Ottawa353 km Washington306 km Philadelphia139 km Edmonton908 km
Colorado1358 km St. Louis1268 km Detroit735 km Pittsburgh361 km Detroit336 km Boston301 km San Jose1145 km
Vancouver1719 km Winnipeg1282 km Minnesota736 km Montreal505 km Toronto337 km Washington332 km Los Angeles1546 km
Calgary1919 km Anaheim1332 km Dallas878 km Columbus505 km Philadelphia408 km Buffalo467 km Anaheim1576 km
Seattle1546 km Los Angeles1358 km Pittsburgh904 km Philadelphia511 km New Jersey492 km Pittsburgh511 km Colorado1637 km
                    
ANAHEIM  WINNIPEG  NASHVILLE  BUFFALO  TAMPA BAY  NEW JERSEY    
Los Angeles58 km Minnesota632 km St. Louis414 km Toronto96 km Florida300 km NY Rangers30 km   
San Jose529 km Chicago1154 km Columbus540 km Pittsburgh290 km Carolina947 km NY Islanders40 km   
Phoenix539 km Edmonton1194 km Chicago636 km Detroit352 km Nashville1000 km Philadelphia125 km   
Colorado1332 km Calgary1202 km Carolina734 km Ottawa380 km Washington1320 km Boston316 km   
Vancouver1760 km Colorado1282 km Detroit760 km Philadelphia448 km Columbus1341 km Washington317 km   
Calgary1942 km St Louis1365 km Pittsburgh762 km New Jersey454 km St Louis1390 km Buffalo454 km   
Seattle1576 km Detroit1367 km Washington914 km NY Rangers467 km Pittsburgh1409 km Pittsburgh492 km   
                    
PHOENIX  DALLAS  DETROIT  COLUMBUS  FLORIDA  PHILADELPHIA    
Anaheim539 km St. Louis878 km Columbus264 km Pittsburgh260 km Tampa Bay300 km New Jersey125 km   
Los Angeles590 km Nashville990 km Toronto332 km Detroit264 km Carolina1090 km NY Islanders133 km   
Colorado945 km Colorado1064 km Pittsburgh336 km Chicago445 km Nashville1280 km NY Rangers139 km   
San Jose981 km Chicago1287 km Buffalo352 km Buffalo475 km Washington1455 km Washington193 km   
Dallas1428 km Minnesota1390 km Chicago383 km Toronto505 km Columbus1565 km Pittsburgh408 km   
Calgary1957 km Phoenix1428 km Washington644 km Washington527 km Pittsburgh1595 KM Boston432 km   
Seattle1789 km Columbus1470 km Ottawa694 km Nashville540 km Philadelphia1620 km Buffalo448 km   

But you could also obviously use the table to form reasonable 5-team Divisions.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-26-2013 at 08:26 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 07:21 AM
  #131
Retail1LO
Registered User
 
Retail1LO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 5,144
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
Not sure in which way your post applies to that particular discussion I was having. I was saying that, "so what if the teams from one of the 4 Divisions are all eliminated in the 2nd Round", due to having 3 teams from one Division in the Playoffs and 5 teams from another, and the crossover Division eliminates all the teams in the other Division. I don't see that as a problem. I'd absolutely prefer to have the top-8 teams from the east or West in the Playoffs, rather than the top-4 from each Division.
I understand what you're saying.

Retail1LO is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 07:55 AM
  #132
Schroedingers Cat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,539
vCash: 500
The problem I see with realignment is that the entire Eastern Conference is pretty much happy with the status quo as is. Some pretty heavy considerations will have to be given to the EC teams to get them to agree to realignment.

The NYR\NJD\NYI\PIT\PHI group doesn't want to be broken up, and IIRC neither does BOS\BUF\OTT\TOR\MON. That right there is a third of the NHL that's pretty much not going to agree to realignment unless they get something significant out of it.

I would like to see:

Atlantic: NYR\NJD\NYI\PIT\PHI\WSH\BOS
NE: BOS\BUF\OTT\TOR\MON\DET\NSH\CBS
S: DAL\PHX\FLO\TB\STL\CHI\MIN
PAC: VAN\SJ\LA\ANA\EDM\CAL\COL\WPG

Those are 4 time zone balanced divisions, all of the rivalries are kept alive, Winnipeg gets to play 3 other canadian teams, travel is kept to a minimum for most teams, and the 10 EC teams get what they want. The division with the most travel (S) only has 7 teams, so they can minimize travel with scheduling, and have a higher shot at the divisional playoffs. Each division has a good blend of strong, middling, and weak teams, and rivalries are maintained.

Schroedingers Cat is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 08:31 AM
  #133
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,210
vCash: 500
Why is everyone so sure that Winnipeg wants a division with other western Canadian teams?

I remember hearing the brass from the Jets say the loved the December proposal - and they are the only Canadian team in that proposal.

Also, I have seen Winnipeg fans on here saying that they don't have any particular desire to play Calgary and Edmonton a bunch of times, and that they think of Minnesota as a more natural rival.

Thanks.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 08:36 AM
  #134
wpgallday1960
Registered User
 
wpgallday1960's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunny St. James
Country: Canada
Posts: 915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Why is everyone so sure that Winnipeg wants a division with other western Canadian teams?

I remember hearing the brass from the Jets say the loved the December proposal - and they are the only Canadian team in that proposal.

Also, I have seen Winnipeg fans on here saying that they don't have any particular desire to play Calgary and Edmonton a bunch of times, and that they think of Minnesota as a more natural rival.

Thanks.
As a Winnipeg resident, I endorse this post.

wpgallday1960 is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 08:47 AM
  #135
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schroedingers Cat View Post
The problem I see with realignment is that the entire Eastern Conference is pretty much happy with the status quo as is. Some pretty heavy considerations will have to be given to the EC teams to get them to agree to realignment.

The NYR\NJD\NYI\PIT\PHI group doesn't want to be broken up, and IIRC neither does BOS\BUF\OTT\TOR\MON. That right there is a third of the NHL that's pretty much not going to agree to realignment unless they get something significant out of it.

I would like to see:

Atlantic: NYR\NJD\NYI\PIT\PHI\WSH\BOS
NE: BOS\BUF\OTT\TOR\MON\DET\NSH\CBS
S: DAL\PHX\FLO\TB\STL\CHI\MIN
PAC: VAN\SJ\LA\ANA\EDM\CAL\COL\WPG

Those are 4 time zone balanced divisions, all of the rivalries are kept alive, Winnipeg gets to play 3 other canadian teams, travel is kept to a minimum for most teams, and the 10 EC teams get what they want. The division with the most travel (S) only has 7 teams, so they can minimize travel with scheduling, and have a higher shot at the divisional playoffs. Each division has a good blend of strong, middling, and weak teams, and rivalries are maintained.
Not sure if Boston can support another team.. :p

Assuming that the first BOS is supposed to be CAR, the eastern conference looks just like the NHL proposed last year.

I was okay with the realignment proposed last year but really dislike the playoff system. I don't want to have forced playoff matchups with the Rangers or Flyers every year.. that would make them not so special anymore. Was much more special/fun this past year when we met up with the Rangers in the ECF, the Flyers in the second round, etc.

Having that every year would be awesome but eventually become nothing special. It's also really unfair for teams in ultra-competitive divisions, like the Atlantic. The team representing the Atlantic 'conference' in the final four would have had to gone through two of the best teams in the NHL as they are today.. much tougher road than many other conferences would have. Weak conferences would basically guarantee the same team a final four appearance every year...

Keep the current playoff system, change up the conferences however they want.

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 08:56 AM
  #136
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
Not sure if Boston can support another team.. :p

Assuming that the first BOS is supposed to be CAR, the eastern conference looks just like the NHL proposed last year.
Unfortunately, what the NHL proposed last year does Not look like what Schroedingers Cat is proposing here. In fact, almost anything that someone could propose here would look better than what the League proposed last year.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 09:04 AM
  #137
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
Not sure if Boston can support another team.. :p

Assuming that the first BOS is supposed to be CAR, the eastern conference looks just like the NHL proposed last year.

I was okay with the realignment proposed last year but really dislike the playoff system. I don't want to have forced playoff matchups with the Rangers or Flyers every year.. that would make them not so special anymore. Was much more special/fun this past year when we met up with the Rangers in the ECF, the Flyers in the second round, etc.

Having that every year would be awesome but eventually become nothing special. It's also really unfair for teams in ultra-competitive divisions, like the Atlantic. The team representing the Atlantic 'conference' in the final four would have had to gone through two of the best teams in the NHL as they are today.. much tougher road than many other conferences would have. Weak conferences would basically guarantee the same team a final four appearance every year...

Keep the current playoff system, change up the conferences however they want.
I posted this earlier, too.
West: Van, Cal, Edm, LA, Ana, Col, SJ
Central: Winn, Minn, Chi, Det, StL, Dal,Nash
East:Tor, Buff, Mont, Bos, Ott
Atl: NYR, NYI, Jersey, Phil, Pitts

Leaving: Pho, Cmb, Car, Was, TB, Flo

Now, I want 15 total in the West/Central and 15 total in the East/Atl.
So, if I still have PHX, then the Central is full. So, I can put either Cmb/Car or TB/Flo with the East, and the others with the Atl. Doesn't matter to me.

If PHX moves to Seattle, no changes. If PHX moves to QC, then, the East now has 8 teams, too, so something else needs to change. In that case, I put Cmb into the Central, no matter where they were before.

So, 15 teams west, 15 teams east. Play the schedule like it was proposed: everyone in everyone else's barn (makes 58 games) and the rest with your division.

Playoffs: 8 teams east, 8 teams west. Seed by points. Re-seed between rounds if you want, I don't care.

MoreOrr thought that in the west only, the top seed should have the option, if the #8 seed is 2 time zones away, of choosing to play the next lowest team within one time zone. I think that is too complicated. And, I think that even though the rule is written that the reason is time zones (travel), it will be used as a ploy (they thought we are an easy matchup). There must be a reason that no league let's teams choose their playoff opponent.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 09:10 AM
  #138
DevilChuk*
(not that -chuk)
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
I posted this earlier, too.
West: Van, Cal, Edm, LA, Ana, Col, SJ
Central: Winn, Minn, Chi, Det, StL, Dal,Nash
East:Tor, Buff, Mont, Bos, Ott
Atl: NYR, NYI, Jersey, Phil, Pitts

Leaving: Pho, Cmb, Car, Was, TB, Flo

Now, I want 15 total in the West/Central and 15 total in the East/Atl.
So, if I still have PHX, then the Central is full. So, I can put either Cmn/Car or TB/Flo with the East, and the others with the Atl. Doesn't matter to me.

If PHX moves to Seattle, no changes. If PHX moves to QC, then, the East now has 8 teams, too, so something else needs to change. In that case, I put Cmb into the Central, no matter where they were before.

So, 15 teams west, 15 teams east. Play the schedule like it was proposed: everyone in everyone else's barn (makes 58 games) and the rest with your division.

Playoffs: 8 teams east, 8 teams west. Seed by points. Re-seed between rounds if you want, I don't care.

MoreOrr thought that in the west only, the top seed should have the option, if the #8 seed is 2 time zones away, of choosing to play the next lowest team within one time zone. I think that is too complicated.
I don't like ever giving teams "options" to do things like that. Too messy IMO.

If time zones are really an issue early on though, scheduling can take that into account and compensate with extra travel days. If extremely necessary, I wouldn't mind a 2-3-2 series for the first round either.

With your schedule though, how do you get to 58 games? Scheduling won't be as equal because of the 7 or 8 team division.. Would have to play an extra game or two against a division opponent.. again, something I think the NHL wants to avoid.

I think a simple swap just works better in this case. Temporary, at the very least until expansion/PHX is worked out. Then you can try and get crazy with 16 team conferences, 8 team divisions, etc.

DevilChuk* is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 09:24 AM
  #139
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
MoreOrr thought that in the west only, the top seed should have the option, if the #8 seed is 2 time zones away, of choosing to play the next lowest team within one time zone. I think that is too complicated. And, I think that even though the rule is written that the reason is time zones (travel), it will be used as a ploy (they thought we are an easy matchup). There must be a reason that no league let's teams choose their playoff opponent.
Then there's this other idea that I tossed around last year,... an approximated Divisional Playoff. Essentially, the 1st Round is a Divisional Playoff, but the Top-8 seeds from the Conference make the Playoffs. So if there's 3 from one Division and 5 from the other, then at least in the 1st Round the number of crossover games is limited, and the Division winner will always play that Round within their Division.
1st Round
Con-A: 1 vs 5
Con-B: 1 vs 3
Con-A: 2 vs 4
Con-B/A: 2 vs 3 (best record gets Home-Ice)

After that, Rounds 2 and 3 are seeded by Conference rankings (still with Division winners, if they haven't been eliminated, getting Home-Ice priority in 2nd Round).

Think about it... It puts the top-8 in the Playoffs, provides at least a likely 6-series of Divisional rivals meeting in the 1st Round, and it would really limit those possible distant Time Zone matchups in the 1st Round, plus not being an option scenario as this is the set Playoff format.


Here, I'll add to that with a Scheduling format:
Again, the focus is on Conference Standings, but with the approximated 1st Round Divisional Playoff. Divisions are established primarily for teams to compete with specific rivals for the Division title and to setup those 1st Round matchups.

Assuming a 32-team League, 16 teams in both Conferences:
4 x 15 = 60 games in Conference
2 x 8 = 16 games against one other Conference Division
1 x 8 = 8 games against other Conference Division
84 game Regular Season


Last edited by MoreOrr: 01-27-2013 at 10:11 AM. Reason: Added more...
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 09:32 AM
  #140
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
I don't like ever giving teams "options" to do things like that. Too messy IMO.

If time zones are really an issue early on though, scheduling can take that into account and compensate with extra travel days. If extremely necessary, I wouldn't mind a 2-3-2 series for the first round either.

With your schedule though, how do you get to 58 games? Scheduling won't be as equal because of the 7 or 8 team division.. Would have to play an extra game or two against a division opponent.. again, something I think the NHL wants to avoid.
I agree about the choices, obviously. I also would not mind 2-3-2 in the west in even 2 rounds.

58 games = home and home with the whole league.
Leaves 24 games more. I would do that exactly how the league proposed to do it a year ago. 3 or 4 more against every one in your division. For 7 team divisions, it works out perfectly. For 8 team divisions, not quite.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 10:08 AM
  #141
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilChuk View Post
Not sure if Boston can support another team.. :p

Assuming that the first BOS is supposed to be CAR, the eastern conference looks just like the NHL proposed last year.

I was okay with the realignment proposed last year but really dislike the playoff system. I don't want to have forced playoff matchups with the Rangers or Flyers every year.. that would make them not so special anymore. Was much more special/fun this past year when we met up with the Rangers in the ECF, the Flyers in the second round, etc.

Having that every year would be awesome but eventually become nothing special. It's also really unfair for teams in ultra-competitive divisions, like the Atlantic. The team representing the Atlantic 'conference' in the final four would have had to gone through two of the best teams in the NHL as they are today.. much tougher road than many other conferences would have. Weak conferences would basically guarantee the same team a final four appearance every year...

Keep the current playoff system, change up the conferences however they want.
Bingo! When the realignment proposal was first announced by the league, everyone was saying "Yeah! This is how real rivalries are formed!" I was just thinking to myself "You're going to hate this playoff format after 3 or 4 seasons playing the same teams over and over again."

If the NHL does indeed go forward with their original proposal, put Columbus in the same division as Pittsburgh. Go ahead with the heavy intra-division schedule and home-and-home with inter-divisional play. When playoff time comes around, you'll have eastern and western conferences. Seeds 1 and 2 will be the division winners and seeds 3-8 will be whoever has the most amount of points after that.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 10:15 AM
  #142
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
Bingo! When the realignment proposal was first announced by the league, everyone was saying "Yeah! This is how real rivalries are formed!" I was just thinking to myself "You're going to hate this playoff format after 3 or 4 seasons playing the same teams over and over again."

If the NHL does indeed go forward with their original proposal, put Columbus in the same division as Pittsburgh. Go ahead with the heavy intra-division schedule and home-and-home with inter-divisional play. When playoff time comes around, you'll have eastern and western conferences. Seeds 1 and 2 will be the division winners and seeds 3-8 will be whoever has the most amount of points after that.
I think an approximated 1st Round Divisional Playoff, with 8 teams in a Division,... and with that you wouldn't get a constant succession of the same matchups every year, but yet enough to keep Divisional Playoff people happy.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 10:24 AM
  #143
AXN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupChamps2011 View Post
I don't understand why they are having such an issue here. Move Columbus to the south, and Winnipeg to the central.
As soon as they switch somebody someone else want to change.

A three way switch is better. Switch Columbus with Winnipeg and then Winnipeg with Minnesotta. Minnesotta wants the central. You already have Detroit that is unhappy.

AXN is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 10:32 AM
  #144
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I think an approximated 1st Round Divisional Playoff, with 8 teams in a Division,... and with that you wouldn't get a constant succession of the same matchups every year, but yet enough to keep Divisional Playoff people happy.
But it will still feel too forced. Again, it's the repetition of playing the same 3 or 4 teams over and over. The more I think about it, the more I think divisional play is not the way to go. And I think some of the people who support it now will regret it in a few years.

Also, another problem is when you look at Pittsburgh's division, the 5th placed team in that division is probably better than the 3rd placed team in Boston's division. Yet that 5th placed team won't make the playoff in the new format. That's another reason I think some of the pro-divisional playoff people will regret their opinion in a few years.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 10:37 AM
  #145
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,285
vCash: 500
WIN goes west, DET comes east, then SEA comes in as EXP team, an East club relocates to QUE and then Markham EXP in east. 16/16=32

ranold26 is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 11:08 AM
  #146
HugoSimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
WIN goes west, DET comes east, then SEA comes in as EXP team, an East club relocates to QUE and then Markham EXP in east. 16/16=32
Detroit will never go east, The western conference is weak enough on established franchises as is.


Again my opinion is that an east versus west divide will never make sense in terms of fairness.

The east gets much smaller travel distances, and access to much stronger franchises.

They should go back to way it was before when a conference wasn't so strictly defined by how far east or west one was.

HugoSimon is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 11:17 AM
  #147
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Why is everyone so sure that Winnipeg wants a division with other western Canadian teams?

I remember hearing the brass from the Jets say the loved the December proposal - and they are the only Canadian team in that proposal.

Also, I have seen Winnipeg fans on here saying that they don't have any particular desire to play Calgary and Edmonton a bunch of times, and that they think of Minnesota as a more natural rival.

Thanks.
So it would make more sense for the Jets to play Dallas, St. Louis, and Nashville more often than Calgary and Edmonton?

That's why I proposed changing the Northwest division to CGY, COL, EDM, MIN, and WPG. They stay with Minnesota and get to play in a division with other Canadian teams.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 11:32 AM
  #148
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
So it would make more sense for the Jets to play Dallas, St. Louis, and Nashville more often than Calgary and Edmonton?

That's why I proposed changing the Northwest division to CGY, COL, EDM, MIN, and WPG. They stay with Minnesota and get to play in a division with other Canadian teams.
Shockmaster - I guess I should admit that I am really seeing this whole issue on 2 levels:

1) What makes sense geographically. Which would be: Van in the Pacific, and a NW division like you have established.

2) What might happen based on what teams want. And, This is different from what makes sense geographically. What teams want is: Vancouver wants Calgary and Edmonton. In fact, all 3 of those want each other. So, it's close to impossible to put Vancouver alone in the Pacific. Winnipeg wants Minnesota. Minnesota likes that, but also wants Chicago (I am from St Paul. We remember fondly battles with the Hawks). The way you get that is: 4 divisions. The Central one is Winn, Minn, Chi, Det, StL, etc.

I hope that makes sense.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 11:46 AM
  #149
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Here, I'll add to that with a Scheduling format:
Again, the focus is on Conference Standings, but with the approximated 1st Round Divisional Playoff. Divisions are established primarily for teams to compete with specific rivals for the Division title and to setup those 1st Round matchups.

Assuming a 32-team League, 16 teams in both Conferences:
4 x 15 = 60 games in Conference
2 x 8 = 16 games against one other Conference Division
1 x 8 = 8 games against other Conference Division
84 game Regular Season
More - I like this scheduling format. A couple of questions:

1) What if no expansion? Then?
4 x 14 = 56 (leaves 26 games for an 82 game schedule)
2 x 7 = 14
1 x 8 = 8 (4 extra games left. I guess you could take half of the teams this time, and half in 2 years. That's ok.)
Or, 2 x 8 = 16
1 x 7 = 7 (3 extra games left. What do you with these? I would suggest pick them up with the 7 team division on a rotating scale.)

2) And, probably a bigger question. What happens when Detroit's owner stands up in the BoG meeting and says, "The reason we like the 4 divisions is less travel to the west coast. You haven't changed that at all." Now, personally, I would like a way to answer that. I just don't see a good way.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 11:47 AM
  #150
CP
Registered User
 
CP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 521
vCash: 699
As a Canucks fan, I think a pacific division with Vancouver as the only Canadian team is ideal. The Canucks have a huge following in Vancouver so it doesn't matter if they always play Canadian teams or American ones. Travel is the biggest problem and going North/South without time zone changes is easier than going West/East. I hope Winnipeg is not in the same division as Vancouver when all is said and done. It is just too much travel. In an ideal world, a struggling team will soon relocate to Seattle and give Vancouver someone really close to compete with.

CP 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 09:54 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.