The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Realignment plan approved; set for play through the 2015-16 season
Any system based on divisional playoffs that "rewards" a team as dominant as Chicago with a cross-over opponent two time zones away in PHX Arizona is ridiculous. Either you go all in and have two rounds of divisional playoffs or you go to conference playoff seeding. This set up is absolutely stupid. Finishing first overall should not mean you get a disadvantage over the 2nd and 3rd seed in your division.
Any system based on divisional playoffs that "rewards" a team as dominant as Chicago with a cross-over opponent two time zones away in PHX Arizona is ridiculous. Either you go all in and have two rounds of divisional playoffs or you go to conference playoff seeding. This set up is absolutely stupid. Finishing first overall should not mean you get a disadvantage over the 2nd and 3rd seed in your division.
I don't think I ever said you were crazy. Did I? I was a little annoyed with some of your posts that sounded eastern-centric but I don't think I called you crazy.
Any system based on divisional playoffs that "rewards" a team as dominant as Chicago with a cross-over opponent two time zones away in PHX Arizona is ridiculous. Either you go all in and have two rounds of divisional playoffs or you go to conference playoff seeding. This set up is absolutely stupid. Finishing first overall should not mean you get a disadvantage over the 2nd and 3rd seed in your division.
But that might be what the PA wants. If the PA wants the highest point total team to play the lowest possible point total team, as the lower point total may cancel out extra travel, maybe that's the only way for the owners to get this alignment through without some huge fight.
It may not work. Maybe a team in Chicago's situation does suffer because of it. That's why both sides have agreed to give themselves an out after a few years.
If the PA signs off on something, there's nowhere left to complain. If they're ok to see what happens if that particular situation comes up, what can you do?
I understand the desire to realign according to timezones, but I feel like a much better one could be done geographically using the 4 division/conference format.
West
San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix (Seattle), Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Colorado
North
Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa, (Toronto 2)
South
Dallas, St. Louis, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Florida, Carolina, Washington, Columbus
East
Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New Jersey, NY Rangers, NY Islanders, Boston, Montreal, (Quebec)
Washington and Columbus were placed in the South mostly in anticipation of expansion into Quebec and Toronto in the next couple years but could be moved if need be.
For playoffs, I would just do straight up divisional playoffs and then re-seed for the final four teams remaining. Doesn't address the concerns about unbalanced conferences, but to me it makes the most sense.
And most of the rivalries people seem to be worried about losing have been preserved in this alignment as well. Can't see anything like this happening with so much attention being placed on time zones, but I don't think it's too bad; none of the divisions have teams more than one timezone away. Thoughts?
CyNick, again I agree with part of your thinking. Try to ensure as many Divisional matchups as possible.
But I still don't agree with why either Division winner should be forced to face a team from the other Division in the 1st Round. You may look at it as a punishment of the crossing over team; I look at it as a potential punishment of both teams, especially if the crossover is happening in the West.
Still say that you should crossover the middle teams. If you don't outright come out on top of your Division, then that's the risk. If you come out on top, then you're assured a Divisional 1st Round matchup.
Isn't part of the purpose of these new Divisions to have fewer multiple Time Zone matchups and more Divisional rivalry matchups? And shouldn't teams finishing 1st in the Division reap those rewards as much or more than anyone?
To be clear, I'm just pointing out what I understand is the logic.
I agree with your thinking about the top team in the division. I picture a team like chicago finishing first in the west and being "rewarded" with a trip to california. If it was my call, I would just eliminate the wild card and do top four in each division.
Any system based on divisional playoffs that "rewards" a team as dominant as Chicago with a cross-over opponent two time zones away in PHX Arizona is ridiculous. Either you go all in and have two rounds of divisional playoffs or you go to conference playoff seeding. This set up is absolutely stupid. Finishing first overall should not mean you get a disadvantage over the 2nd and 3rd seed in your division.
Its tough either way. Depending on the teams, you may want to travel to face a team that is really weak. But I agree that the top team shouldn't travel. But I don't think the second seed in a division should play a worse team than the first seed (if they did 1 v 3 and 2 v 4).
Easiest solution to all of this is a play in in the east (eventually added in the west after expansion), and all playoffs are kept in division until there third round. This solves the equity of playoff chances.eliminates travel. Only issue is one extra game four those east teams.
How so? The new alignment has two Conferences, Chicago will be in one of the western Divisions and Vancouver will be in the other western Division.
You took advantage of a typo, I called it the Central Division when I should've called it the Midwest, but I was clearly referring to Chicago.
Wasn't taking advantage, thought you were referring to the Central (toronto, mtl, etc) and the pacific.
However, now that I realize you are talking about the divisions within the same conference, too bad. Division winners play the two wild-cards, that is it.
And what if the 4th place team in the Pacific Division has more points than the 3rd place team in the Midwest Division? Will Chicago, who won the Midwest but came 2nd in the Conference, still have to face the 4th in the Pacific rather than the 3rd in the Midwest?
Yes and the 2nd place team in the midwest plays the 3rd place team in the midwest. And, if that is not "fair", too bad.
Come on man, seriously. It would be better then for Boston not to win the Division.
Whatever! Seriously, whatever. If you think that's an acceptable Playoff seeding arrangement, then there's no sense in me debating it with you.
No, there is a reason. It is not just about the first round. You still have to win the first round and then they would have home-ice still in the 2nd round.
What if the 2nd place team in the Pacific has a better record than the 1st place team in the midwest? Is it fair that the 2nd place team has a better record but gets a tougher opponent in the first round? How is that fair? How can you or the league justify this format?
The same people that are OUTRAGED at how this crazy new timezone league alignment punishes poor teams that have to move 2 timezones due to the crossover rule are the same people that are happy with the current set up in which this happens more frequently, Detroit vs SJ first round. Lol....
Anyways, its pretty much a non-issue. It will only happen in the western conference, and only if there's a crossover. one series out of 8 is pretty good to the current 4/8 that is possible now.
But don't let facts get in the way of complaining about the new and improved NHL....
MoreOrr, I have an idea that I think you will like. Top team in conference gets to choose their opponent among the bottom-5. Then, the other division winner gets to choose their opponent. Then, the 2nd place team with the better record gets to choose their opponent of the 2 remaining teams.
MoreOrr, I have an idea that I think you will like. Top team in conference gets to choose their opponent among the bottom-5. Then, the other division winner gets to choose their opponent. Then, the 2nd place team with the better record gets to choose their opponent of the 2 remaining teams.
I remember reading something back in 2011 about either Florida or Tampa (or both) not being happy about being added to today's Northeast division when the original realignment plan was agreed upon by the BoG. Seems to me that adding Detroit, typically the league's best road draw, to that division makes it more palatable for them.
Our GM isn't thrilled. Our attendance is fine, so having the league's best road draw really doesn't make much difference. (Note: ESPN's attendance figures are incorrect, as they are based on pre-renovation capacity numbers. We're not 97.2% attendance, we are 100%. We're trying to get that corrected.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Zetterberg Era
Tampa for sure will be happy about Detroit that is a big relocation spot for a lot of Detroiters. Some split time but more common with the auto pension slash is that a lot of Detroit area people have just stuck with one house down in Florida and gotten rid of the up north place. Michigan people mostly move to Western Florida not the East. They do sell out in Miami as well, but putting Detroit over there is probably a big sell for Florida maybe enough to push a yes vote.
Yes, those Detroiters are here. When Detroit is in town, they switch from Lightning jerseys to Detroit jerseys. It's a misconception that those fans in the other teams' jerseys are fans who only come to those specific games. We have fans around us who have had season tickets for 15 years who still switch to their Toronto, Pittsburgh, Flyers, etc., jerseys when those teams are in town. It's not strictly more fans. (And it drives us "real" fans insane.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retail1LO
Ummm...they do it NOW. They already have to haul ass across the continent to get to Winnipeg. They essentially lost Carolina and DC from their division. DC, from a flight standpoint is like, within a half an hour of the Philadelphia-NY corridor.
That's not really fair, since that was always intended to be a temporary situation. Be that as it may, the travel isn't really the problem, it's just that having one division inside of another division and making teams hop/skip/jump over closer teams is, well, stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retail1LO
Trust me...the Floridian teams won't be complaining. Especially not the ownership groups. They just traded in a season full of home dates with the Jets, Capitals, and Hurricanes....for home dates with Detroit, Ottawa, Toronto, and Boston.
Too bad our biggest division rivals are the Caps and Canes.
We have our 13th consecutive sellout tomorrow (already announced). We don't need those teams to fill the building, it's already full.
As for not complaining, as I said above, our GM isn't exactly happy with this whole thing.
6) Florida and Tampa, as has been said a million times on here, will benefit with home games against the Canadian teams.
And has been pointed out, Tampa's building is full every night. Not sure where we're going to put all these traveling fans when they show up. There are very limited SRO's for each game.
And please don't bring up ticket prices, a full building is a full building. If someone who usually pays twice as much as we do shows up to the game tomorrow without a ticket, they're still not going to be able to get in. Unless the league's plan is to drastically increase prices overnight and force the local fans out so the traveling fans can get in, I don't see how this influx of fans will benefit the Lightning. If that is the plan, shame on them. Fortunately, every indication here is that our owner wants a local fan base as opposed to a transient one, and we're already well on our way there.
As I said on the main boards, I dislike this for three reasons.
1. It defies geographical logic. I just think it's stupid to have one division basically nestled inside another. A more geographically sensible realignment, IMO, will make for better rivalries. I could afford to travel to Carolina, Dallas, Columbus, and could get game tickets there. I can't fly to Toronto, Detroit, Montreal, etc., for road games, so this realignment, while it supposedly may benefit the northern fans traveling south, it hurts the southern fans who like to attend away games.
2. It takes away the division rivals we had - the Caps and the Canes. We haven't built a real rivalry with Florida.
3. The logic that the teams in the division will bring more fans into our building (can't speak for Florida). We're doing fine as it is. We're filling the building now and prices are climbing yearly. We're building a local fan base and don't relish the idea of the league trying to force the locals out of the building in order to allow traveling fans in.
I think you're wrong here. isn't it working that the 7 and 8 wild cards are the top two remaining teams, with the top ranked division winner playing the 8 and the other playing the 7.
in this scenario both divisions can qualify 4 teams and there could still be a 'crossover'. it would be a double crossover where both division champs play teams from the other division. this scenario is probably not all that unlikely, actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr
No, he's right. There can only be one crossover matchup in each Conference in any Round. One or none.
No, castle is correct. There can be 2 non-divisional playoffs in each conference each year.
For example, in the new Western Conference we could have something like:
Midwest:
1- Chicago = 102 (highest Division champ D1)
2- Dallas = 92
3- St Louis = 92
4- Minnesota = 82 (highest Wildcard W1)
5- Winnipeg = 72, etc
Pacific:
1- Anaheim = 101 (lowest Division champ D2)
2- Vancouver = 91
3- Los Angeles = 91
4- San Jose = 81 (lowest Wildcard W2)
5- Phoenix = 76, etc.
In this scenario,
Chicago is ranked 1 (D1) and would play the lowest wildcard (W2) San Jose in the 1st crossover series.
Anaheim is ranked 2 (D2) and would play the highest wildcard (W1) Minnesota in a 2nd crossover series in the same conference.
My original explanation is also incorrect. The result is the same, but one correct way to view it is:
The highest-ranked division champ D1 plays the lower-ranked wildcard W2, and (A) = the chance that wildcard W2 is from the same division as D1 = roughly 50%
The lower-ranked division champ D2 plays the higher-ranked wildcard W1, and (B) = the chance that wildcard W1 is from the same division as D2 = roughly 50%
Probability of both (A) and (B) is roughly .5 x .5 = .25 or 25% (= 0 crossovers)
Probability of (A) and not (B) is roughly .5 x .5 = .25 or 25% (=1 crossover)
Probability of (B) and not (A) is roughly .5 x .5 = .25 or 25% (=1 crossover)
Probability of neither (A) nor (B) is roughly .5 x .5 = .25 or 25% (= 2 crossovers)
So in a given conference in a random year,
25% chance of 0 crossovers
50% chance of 1 crossover
25% chance of 2 crossovers
Meaning, on average, 1 crossover per conference per year in the first round of the playoffs.
The end result was still the same, an average of 1+1 = 2 crossover series and therefore 8-2 = 6 series featuring divisional rivals in the first round of the playoffs.
I don't think I ever said you were crazy. Did I? I was a little annoyed with some of your posts that sounded eastern-centric but I don't think I called you crazy.
I thought you wanted a wild card set up. No?
I wasn't referring to you or anyone thinking I'm crazy. Haha. I was referring to the fact that you were agreeing with what I had been saying, and until then it seemed that I must be talking nonsense because no one else appeared to relate to the point I was making.
And absolutely no, I'm not in favor of a wildcard setup. What I'm in favor of is a simple top-8 setup where the top-3 in each Division are guaranteed but one Division could have 3 Playoff teams and the other 5. In that case, the top-seed in both Divisions plays the lowest Play seed in its Division (and isn't penalized by having to play a crossover team from the other Division). The crossover should be done between the middle seeds.
Blue Jacket fans are a bunch of lemmings and think this is a great idea. They've been told for years the CBJ will compete better against the east. Thus, they totally dismiss the playoff disparity. Fans have been misled to think time zone means less travel and havent done their homework and discovered the team will travel further for divisional rivals that the team currently does. This fan base whines when Pens fans take over Nationwide arena. Can't wait to see their reaction next year. And I can't wait to say I told you so.
But that might be what the PA wants. If the PA wants the highest point total team to play the lowest possible point total team, as the lower point total may cancel out extra travel, maybe that's the only way for the owners to get this alignment through without some huge fight.
It may not work. Maybe a team in Chicago's situation does suffer because of it. That's why both sides have agreed to give themselves an out after a few years.
If the PA signs off on something, there's nowhere left to complain. If they're ok to see what happens if that particular situation comes up, what can you do?
How do we know who wants it? Yes, it would appear that the PA wanted the option of a 5th place team with a better record to get a Playoff spot over a 4th in the other Division with fewer points. But that doesn't mean that it was the PA who came up with this wildcard idea in order to accommodate that scenario, nor how it should be applied.
On further thought... I wouldn't be surprised at all that it was an owners' idea, this wildcard format. When the PA refused the top-4, the owners probably offered this up as an alternative. Something so problematic that everyone will curse it in short order, and then the owners will try again to get their way. I seriously would suspect any of this kind of manuevering coming from either side, as both sides don't like each other after all these lockouts and stuff.
Blue Jacket fans are a bunch of lemmings and think this is a great idea. They've been told for years the CBJ will compete better against the east. Thus, they totally dismiss the playoff disparity. Fans have been misled to think time zone means less travel and havent done their homework and discovered the team will travel further for divisional rivals that the team currently does. This fan base whines when Pens fans take over Nationwide arena. Can't wait to see their reaction next year. And I can't wait to say I told you so.
The fanbase may whine when Pens fans fill up the arena, but I'll bet the owners sure don't.
Being honest about my opinion, the Jackets aren't going to compete 'better' anywhere. There is no 'better' in regards to the Jackets at the moment. The organization really needs to get its crap together internally no matter where they play.
For now, it's going to be about minimizing overall travel and maximizing the road draw for financial benefit. The East is an improvement for them in that regard. Winning and the playoffs will come in time. In the meantime, the team needs to stay alive so they have a chance to do so.
You're mistaken on travel, by the way. If you measure travel based upon a trip from Columbus to each rival, sure. But travel is usually done in trips. CBJ to the 3 NY area teams to Philly and/or Pittsburgh is a ridiculously short trip for 4-5 games.
Wasn't taking advantage, thought you were referring to the Central (toronto, mtl, etc) and the pacific.
However, now that I realize you are talking about the divisions within the same conference, too bad. Division winners play the two wild-cards, that is it.
That may well be what is to happen, because that's what we heard is being considered. But punishing the lowest seeds by matching them up in opposite Divisions against the highest seeds also punishes the higher seeds. If the top team in Division A has to play a 4th place team in Division B with a better record than the 3rd place team in Division A, then that's Not a record for finishing 1st in the Division.
It's almost like if you can't have your pure top-4 seeding per Division, then you want to have a punishment system of seeding, where finishing 1st in a Division can be a negative.
No, castle is correct. There can be 2 non-divisional playoffs in each conference each year.
For example, in the new Western Conference we could have something like:
Midwest:
1- Chicago = 102 (highest Division champ D1)
2- Dallas = 92
3- St Louis = 92
4- Minnesota = 82 (highest Wildcard W1)
5- Winnipeg = 72, etc
Pacific:
1- Anaheim = 101 (lowest Division champ D2)
2- Vancouver = 91
3- Los Angeles = 91
4- San Jose = 81 (lowest Wildcard W2)
5- Phoenix = 76, etc.
You are right, and I thank you. Because that's just one more reason why this wildcard idea is stupid. I was thinking with respect to the crossover as I'm imagining it, and not as it could work out using the wildcard scenario as it's been described. As you say, using the wildcard, as they've described it to be used, actually means that in one Conference, in the 1st Round, there could be two crossover matchups, just as you described. But in the crossover format that I'd use, there can only be 1 crossover matchup per Conference per Round.
So you see again, I don't understand. You guys almost all argue that you'd prefer a pure top-4, no crossovers, but when I present an idea that limits crossovers some of you say that's not a good idea; you'd prefer a format that could have as many as two crossover matchups.
As I said on the main boards, I dislike this for three reasons.
1. It defies geographical logic. I just think it's stupid to have one division basically nestled inside another. A more geographically sensible realignment, IMO, will make for better rivalries. I could afford to travel to Carolina, Dallas, Columbus, and could get game tickets there. I can't fly to Toronto, Detroit, Montreal, etc., for road games, so this realignment, while it supposedly may benefit the northern fans traveling south, it hurts the southern fans who like to attend away games.
2. It takes away the division rivals we had - the Caps and the Canes. We haven't built a real rivalry with Florida.
3. The logic that the teams in the division will bring more fans into our building (can't speak for Florida). We're doing fine as it is. We're filling the building now and prices are climbing yearly. We're building a local fan base and don't relish the idea of the league trying to force the locals out of the building in order to allow traveling fans in.
It is not about the traveling fans, it is the transplants already living there. Maybe it doesn't matter as much for Tampa, it does for Florida. Same for Carolina.
If you can't afford to fly to Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, then don't go. Besides, if you can't afford to fly, you can't afford the tickets in those arenas either.
As for the "geographical logic", I have said it a few times. Dallas is in the NFC East, Indianapolis in the AFC South, St Louis in the NFC West. Those defy "geographical logic", but doesn't seem to be hurting those teams.
I seriously doubt the league is too concerned about a Carolina-Tampa or Tampa-Washington rivalry. Washington will benefit greatly by being brought back to the Patrick Division. Carolina will benefit as they always draw very well when the Rangers, Flyers, and Pens are in Raleigh.
It is not about the traveling fans, it is the transplants already living there. Maybe it doesn't matter as much for Tampa, it does for Florida. Same for Carolina.
If you can't afford to fly to Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, then don't go. Besides, if you can't afford to fly, you can't afford the tickets in those arenas either.
As for the "geographical logic", I have said it a few times. Dallas is in the NFC East, Indianapolis in the AFC South, St Louis in the NFC West. Those defy "geographical logic", but doesn't seem to be hurting those teams.
I seriously doubt the league is too concerned about a Carolina-Tampa or Tampa-Washington rivalry. Washington will benefit greatly by being brought back to the Patrick Division. Carolina will benefit as they always draw very well when the Rangers, Flyers, and Pens are in Raleigh.
You know, sorry patnyrnyg, but there's something not so convincing about Rangers and Flyers fans defending why the Florida teams should be in the Division with the eastern Canadian teams, and not in with the New York and Pennsylvania teams.
And has been pointed out, Tampa's building is full every night. Not sure where we're going to put all these traveling fans when they show up. There are very limited SRO's for each game.
And please don't bring up ticket prices, a full building is a full building. If someone who usually pays twice as much as we do shows up to the game tomorrow without a ticket, they're still not going to be able to get in. Unless the league's plan is to drastically increase prices overnight and force the local fans out so the traveling fans can get in, I don't see how this influx of fans will benefit the Lightning. If that is the plan, shame on them. Fortunately, every indication here is that our owner wants a local fan base as opposed to a transient one, and we're already well on our way there.
Really? If a Habs fan gets on a plane to Tampa tomorrow, they can't get in?
Now, before you say those are tickets that have already been sold by the Lightning, it wouldn't shock me if the Lightning put these tickets on stubhub themselves. Many teams do it, haven't tracked Lightning tickets to see if the evidence suggests they do, but it wouldn't shock me.
Edit: Just looked through that page. Found a few spots where I can get 20+ tickets together. So yeah, the Lightning are putting those tickets up themselves.
