HFBoards

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

QC/SEA Expansion With Happy DET/CBJ (Alignment Options)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-26-2013, 04:03 PM
  #351
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Orr,

I just don't see the big deal in having a schedule matrix that's a "general concept" as opposed to a hard and fast, chiseled in stone policy.

The NHL long ago decided "each team is an NHL team, so it doesn't matter if conference schedules aren't all identical"

The model I've been kicking around was a W1, W2, CE 1, CE2, CE3, CE4, E1, E2 schedule model, with four divisions (W, CE1, CE2, E1) and divisional playoffs.

The teams would play virtually the same DIVISION schedule (6 and 4, six unequal games), but their non-division schedules would have only EIGHT similar games.

It maximizes timezones, balances travel better, "solves" the DET/CBJ problem, etc.

The main issue is the "middle" divisions and how to align them without losing some important rivalries, and not creating a "COL/CAR" problem.
So just to clarify your point here... If you play certain teams in your Conference only 2 times, others 4 times, and other 6 times, then you don't see that as an issue. I'm not arguing the point, but if that's what you mean, then I will just say that I don't like it.

I mean, you have stated before that you think all games between in-Conference opponents should have an equal number of Home games, and all of your proposed matrices appear to support that, and I agree with it completely.


I'm just going to put this here and not make a separate post.
As has been demonstrated, to have a balanced home and away schedule against all the teams in-Conference, and to have at least half the Season's games against in-Conference opponents, and also not to have more than a 1/4 of the League's without the paired Home and Away game, then the only way to make such a schedule is with a 3-Conference structure or a 4-Conference structure.

3-Conference Schedule Matrix
Option A
24 games = 6 x 4
24 games = 4 x 6
26 games = 2 x 13
8 games = 1 x 8

Option B
18 games = 6 x 3
28 games = 4 x 7
30 games = 2 x 15
6 games = 1 x 6

4-Conference Schedule Matrix
42 games = 6 x 7 (could be either one 8-team Conference or two 4-team Divisions within the Conference)
32 games = 2 x 16
8 games = 1 x 8


Last edited by MoreOrr: 07-26-2013 at 09:41 PM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 05:56 PM
  #352
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
If the point of this thread has now degenerated to ideas that dont address the issues that are important to the owners (playing in every building every year, grouping by time zones, rivalries in the playoffs), then how about this:

Assuming 32 teams:

Top 22 revenue generating teams are put in Division 1 and they play each other 4 times (2 in each building). Top 16 teams make the playoffs and are ranked 1-16. Bottom 6 teams are ranked and play one series (1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, 3 vs 4). Losing teams are relegated to Division 2 next season.

Division 2 team has 10 teams, they all play each other 8 times (4 times in each building). Top 6 play one series, winners are promoted to Division 1 for the next season.

As you expand, you put new teams in Division 2, and they have to work their way up.

The CyNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 11:00 PM
  #353
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
If the point of this thread has now degenerated to ideas that dont address the issues that are important to the owners (playing in every building every year, grouping by time zones, rivalries in the playoffs)
?

The suggestions I most recently put forth had:
-- heavy time zone groupings for the PTZ/MTZ
-- more ETZ games for the CTZ teams (not the max of CTZ starts, but necessary to accomodate the DET/CBJ problem)
-- solved the CBJ/DET problem
-- had divisional playoffs with like the current setup.


You seem to think that the "home & home" aspect is incredibly important to owners solely because they want to see everyone home & home. We've been over how impractical it is and how there's likely another motivation behind it (like "not being isolated in late games for national TV purposes")


Everything that everybody wants can't ALL be accomplished. It's not possible. We're seeking the best compromise and H&H is first up on the chopping block because of how little money it brings in, how much inventory it wastes for TV, how it prevents the max time zone games, and how it makes geographic groups MORE important when we need them to be LESS important because we don't have geographic symmetry.


Personally, the idea that Quebec City would be skipped over for expansion in favor of two western US cities outrages me as a hockey fan.


Last edited by KevFu: 07-26-2013 at 11:05 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 06:41 AM
  #354
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=KevFu;69658245
Personally, the idea that Quebec City would be skipped over for expansion in favor of two western US cities outrages me as a hockey fan.[/QUOTE]

Whereas it would please me greatly. So, to each his own.

rojac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 10:38 AM
  #355
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
Whereas it would please me greatly. So, to each his own.
I can certainly see the far west getting two teams, meaning Seattle and Portland, and I'd be thrilled to have it happen. However, I highly doubt that the League would give two new expansion teams in the same region in the same expansion year. Not an impossibility but highly unlikely. Also, at least up until now, Portland's interest has been primarily in acquiring a relocated team. Put simply, right now the two most lilely expansion sites are Quebec City and Seattle.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 04:45 PM
  #356
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
1. Perfectly balanced, with what an 82-game Season will allow:
40 games = 4 x 10
42 games = 2 x 21

2. Rivalry weighted balanced schedule:
30 games = 6 x 5
52 games = 2 x 26

3. Mixed balanced with rivalry levels:
18 games = 6 x 3
16 games = 4 x 4
48 games = 2 x 24

Only #1 gives at least close to equal weight, in number of total Season games, to what would be an 11-team Conference.
The Conferences in #2 and #3 have significantly less than 1/2 the Season's games played within them.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 02:34 PM
  #357
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
Here's what the NHL needs to do:

Expand to Quebec and Seattle/Portland

Get rid of the East/West conferences. Rename them, so they are not geographically based. (like the NFL with AFC and NFC)

Then you have 8 divisions of 4 teams - just like the NFL does (the most successful business model)

"Wales conference"

Division 1: (all new york teams)
Rangers
Islanders
Devils
Sabres

Division 2 (you could trade Boston into this division for Ottawa if you want to save the Habs/Bruins rivalry)
Maple Leafs
Canadiens
Nordiques
Senators

Division 3
Bruins
Penguins
Flyers
Blue Jackets

Division 4
Capitals
Panthers
Hurricanes
Lightning

"Campbell Conference"

Division 1:
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
St. Louis

Division 2:
Colorado
Dallas
Phoenix
Nashville

Division 3
Anaheim
Los Angeles
San Jose
Portland/Seattle

Division 4:
Winnipeg
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary.

Boom.
I agree with at least part of your premise, bolded above, but man did you ever do a poor job of actually fulfilling your premise with that alignment.

1) You said you were getting rid of the East/West Conferences, renaming them, and making them that they're not geographically based. But the only thing you really did was to rename them. Still looks very much East-West to my eyes.

2) You said "like the NFL with AFC and NFC", which again your alignment isn't. And on that point, thankfully not. There's zero practicality in copying an NFL/MLB-style alignment in which there would be NY, Pen, Ont, Flo, Que, Alb, and Cal teams in both Conferences. No sense in not keeping "geographical Divisions", but there could certainly be NHL-style NFL/MLB Conferences, in which there are eastern and western Divisions, northern and southern Divisions in both Conferences.

So "boom", you'd better go back to the drawing board.

Oh, btw, your Divisions aren't so bad, not exactly what I'd put them together but they're not bad. Perhaps you can just mix and match them between the two Conferences.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 02:48 PM
  #358
flapanthersfan
Registered User
 
flapanthersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I agree with at least part of your premise, bolded above, but man did you ever do a poor job of actually fulfilling your premise with that alignment.

1) You said you were getting rid of the East/West Conferences, renaming them, and making them that they're not geographically based. But the only thing you really did was to rename them. Still looks very much East-West to my eyes.

2) You said "like the NFL with AFC and NFC", which again your alignment isn't. And on that point, thankfully not. There's zero practicality in copying an NFL/MLB-style alignment in which there would be NY, Pen, Ont, Flo, Que, Alb, and Cal teams in both Conferences. No sense in not keeping "geographical Divisions", but there could certainly be NHL-style NFL/MLB Conferences, in which there are eastern and western Divisions, northern and southern Divisions in both Conferences.

So "boom", you'd better go back to the drawing board.

Oh, btw, your Divisions aren't so bad, not exactly what I'd put them together but they're not bad. Perhaps you can just mix and match them between the two Conferences.

there's reasons for what i did:

#1 - the divisions are geographically aligned for a reason - to minimize travel.

#2 - the teams/conferences don't have to be in this format, i just did it like that out of laziness. the premise is still the same. 8 divisions of 4 teams each, with the divisions being geographically based instead of the conferences.

#3 - there are certain rivalries the NHL will not want to lose, so those teams will likely be put in the same divisions (habs-nordiques, habs-bruins, isles- rangers, etc etc.)

flapanthersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 03:16 PM
  #359
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapanthersfan View Post
there's reasons for what i did:

#1 - the divisions are geographically aligned for a reason - to minimize travel.

#2 - the teams/conferences don't have to be in this format, i just did it like that out of laziness. the premise is still the same. 8 divisions of 4 teams each, with the divisions being geographically based instead of the conferences.

#3 - there are certain rivalries the NHL will not want to lose, so those teams will likely be put in the same divisions (habs-nordiques, habs-bruins, isles- rangers, etc etc.)
Fine; but simply changing the names of the Conferences so that they aren't called East/West doesn't change the issues that are involved in being in the west rather than the east if a team is ETZ or even CTZ. You can't seriously think that it's just a Conference "name" issue, can you really? You still have an East-West split of the Conferences, regardless of what you're naming them.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 07:11 PM
  #360
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
So just to clarify your point here... If you play certain teams in your Conference only 2 times, others 4 times, and other 6 times, then you don't see that as an issue.
As opposed to what we have now? Where the divisions are playing an unequal number of divisional games in order to play everyone home/home (which continues to be stupid).

I'd prefer schedule balance. But we just can't make it happen without isolating a ETZ team in the WC.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 08:03 PM
  #361
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
As opposed to what we have now? Where the divisions are playing an unequal number of divisional games in order to play everyone home/home (which continues to be stupid).

I'd prefer schedule balance. But we just can't make it happen without isolating a ETZ team in the WC.
Well, I agree completely with the complaint about teams in the same Division playing an unequal number of games against each other. But reducing Divisional or Conference games against to only 2 seems a bit too extreme.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 08:55 PM
  #362
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
?

The suggestions I most recently put forth had:
-- heavy time zone groupings for the PTZ/MTZ
-- more ETZ games for the CTZ teams (not the max of CTZ starts, but necessary to accomodate the DET/CBJ problem)
-- solved the CBJ/DET problem
-- had divisional playoffs with like the current setup.


You seem to think that the "home & home" aspect is incredibly important to owners solely because they want to see everyone home & home. We've been over how impractical it is and how there's likely another motivation behind it (like "not being isolated in late games for national TV purposes")
It is important to Gary Bettman. You know how I know, because he's said it in multiple interviews.

You guys with all these whacky scenarios just choose to gloss over things that the guy WHO RUNS THE LEAGUE says is important and claim its a reasonable idea. Its not. Whether or not its a flawed idea, the league wants each team in each arena every year. If you dont agree with that, you should ask Gary about it.

But go ahead, keep putting out ideas that accomplish none of the goals of the league. Why not 16 divisions of 2? Discuss.

The CyNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 09:40 PM
  #363
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
It is important to Gary Bettman. You know how I know, because he's said it in multiple interviews.

You guys with all these whacky scenarios just choose to gloss over things that the guy WHO RUNS THE LEAGUE says is important and claim its a reasonable idea. Its not. Whether or not its a flawed idea, the league wants each team in each arena every year. If you dont agree with that, you should ask Gary about it.

But go ahead, keep putting out ideas that accomplish none of the goals of the league. Why not 16 divisions of 2? Discuss.
A couple of things, CyNick... Ok

1) It was also reported that this new alignment package is to be a trial experiment for 2 or I believe 3 Seasons. So I ask you, What part of it is being experimented with if, as you argue, everything that's in place now won't change because Bettman promised that it wouldn't?

2) Regardless of whether it's an experiment or not, but reports have stated that it is, there is still a good likelihood that at least parts of it will stay in place. Either way though, it's obvious that Bettman would speak of whatever the League agreed on as positive, as the things that they wanted. So for you to tell us, "Bettman said that's what was important"... Well, duh! What was he going to say, 'that it wasn't what they wanted'? But going back to point 1), or regardless, things can change. And expansion or the League's and PA's opinions of the experiment could both be catalysts for some sorts of changes.

3) Now your idea is that either Quebec City won't be an expansion site or that Quebec City will be slotted into a western/the Central Division. Just like you're mocking us, I applaud you on the simplicity of how you resolve a Quebec City expansion option.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 09:47 PM
  #364
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Well, I agree completely with the complaint about teams in the same Division playing an unequal number of games against each other. But reducing Divisional or Conference games against to only 2 seems a bit too extreme.
Well, if it's divisional playoffs, the only reason "Conference" is a factor is to see who plays whom for the Wales/Campbell trophies.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 09:47 PM
  #365
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
It is important to Gary Bettman. You know how I know, because he's said it in multiple interviews.

You guys with all these whacky scenarios just choose to gloss over things that the guy WHO RUNS THE LEAGUE says is important and claim its a reasonable idea. Its not. Whether or not its a flawed idea, the league wants each team in each arena every year. If you dont agree with that, you should ask Gary about it.

But go ahead, keep putting out ideas that accomplish none of the goals of the league. Why not 16 divisions of 2? Discuss.
Super. We will. Will you shutup and leave us alone while we do?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 09:49 PM
  #366
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
A couple of things, CyNick... Ok

1) It was also reported that this new alignment package is to be a trial experiment for 2 or I believe 3 Seasons. So I ask you, What part of it is being experimented with if, as you argue, everything that's in place now won't change because Bettman promised that it wouldn't?

2) Regardless of whether it's an experiment or not, but reports have stated that it is, there is still a good likelihood that at least parts of it will stay in place. Either way though, it's obvious that Bettman would speak of whatever the League agreed on as positive, as the things that they wanted. So for you to tell us, "Bettman said that's what was important"... Well, duh! What was he going to say, 'that it wasn't what they wanted'? But going back to point 1), or regardless, things can change. And expansion or the League's and PA's opinions of the experiment could both be catalysts for some sorts of changes.

3) Now your idea is that either Quebec City won't be an expansion site or that Quebec City will be slotted into a western/the Central Division. Just like you're mocking us, I applaud you on the simplicity of how you resolve a Quebec City expansion option.
I always assumed that the promise to revisit the realignment in two or three years was to get enough votes to pass -- not because they were experimenting with some specific feature.

rojac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2013, 09:52 PM
  #367
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
I always assumed that the promise to revisit the realignment in two or three years was to get enough votes to pass -- not because they were experimenting with some specific feature.
Fine, that could be. But in the end, what's the difference? The topic is to be revisited in 2 or 3 years and supposedly to be opened to continued approval, or not.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 10:52 AM
  #368
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
It is important to Gary Bettman. You know how I know, because he's said it in multiple interviews.

You guys with all these whacky scenarios just choose to gloss over things that the guy WHO RUNS THE LEAGUE says is important and claim its a reasonable idea. Its not. Whether or not its a flawed idea, the league wants each team in each arena every year. If you dont agree with that, you should ask Gary about it.

But go ahead, keep putting out ideas that accomplish none of the goals of the league. Why not 16 divisions of 2? Discuss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
A couple of things, CyNick... Ok

1) It was also reported that this new alignment package is to be a trial experiment for 2 or I believe 3 Seasons. So I ask you, What part of it is being experimented with if, as you argue, everything that's in place now won't change because Bettman promised that it wouldn't?
I think the history of the entire realignment process is in order, but I'll spare the details of the entire history and just give the relevent information to the point:

This "trial" period may not necessarily be a trial period. What the League did in order to gain NHLPA approval was to "revisit" this new alignment in three years. More on this momentarily...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
2) Regardless of whether it's an experiment or not, but reports have stated that it is, there is still a good likelihood that at least parts of it will stay in place. Either way though, it's obvious that Bettman would speak of whatever the League agreed on as positive, as the things that they wanted. So for you to tell us, "Bettman said that's what was important"... Well, duh! What was he going to say, 'that it wasn't what they wanted'? But going back to point 1), or regardless, things can change. And expansion or the League's and PA's opinions of the experiment could both be catalysts for some sorts of changes.
Let's make some assumptions:

In three years, if nothing is done, what happens? I assume that the new, current alignment is codified into the Constitution and By-laws, and therefore, unless there is a time-specific rider, that the new, current alignment will be "forever" until the Board of Governors approves a new alignment. Remember, it's upon insistence of the NHLPA that this alignment is revisited in three seasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
3) Now your idea is that either Quebec City won't be an expansion site or that Quebec City will be slotted into a western/the Central Division. Just like you're mocking us, I applaud you on the simplicity of how you resolve a Quebec City expansion option.
And I can get behind that premise. If the wonderful people of Winnipeg liked being in the Southeast simply because they had great start times all season, then the people of Quebec would be the new "Detroit and Columbus" for a few seasons, until consensus can be gained in order to get a new alignment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
I always assumed that the promise to revisit the realignment in two or three years was to get enough votes to pass -- not because they were experimenting with some specific feature.
I doubt it.

The December 2011 Realignment proposal is basically the same as the March 2013 approved realignment, with a few changes. Therefore, the promise to revisit wasn't to get enough votes to pass within the Board of Governors ranks; it was to appease the NHLPA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Fine, that could be. But in the end, what's the difference? The topic is to be revisited in 2 or 3 years and supposedly to be opened to continued approval, or not.
Well, that's the issue, isn't it?

I mean, there was no "revisit" language in the December 2011, four-conference proposal, and that matrix had home-and-homes against the other three conferences and the remainder of your team's games played in-conference. The approved March 2013 realignment continues to play the other conference home-and-home; the modification was to move from four-conferences to two and then have a hybrid divisional-conferencial playoff system. One would think the revisit to the alignment has less to do with playing all teams twice per year and more to do with the changes made between the original December 2011 alignment and the March 2013 approved alignment.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 11:36 AM
  #369
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
I think the history of the entire realignment process is in order, but I'll spare the details of the entire history and just give the relevent information to the point:

I mean, there was no "revisit" language in the December 2011, four-conference proposal, and that matrix had home-and-homes against the other three conferences and the remainder of your team's games played in-conference. The approved March 2013 realignment continues to play the other conference home-and-home; the modification was to move from four-conferences to two and then have a hybrid divisional-conferencial playoff system. One would think the revisit to the alignment has less to do with playing all teams twice per year and more to do with the changes made between the original December 2011 alignment and the March 2013 approved alignment.
If you don't mind, Grudy, I will attempt to rehash the process:

1) Winnipeg looks bad in the SE division, so something must be done
2) Dallas and Minnesota see opportunity for resolution of their very unhandy alignments
3) Upon discussion, NHL realizes that no 6-division alignment is going to satisfy enough teams to get votes to pass
4) Original 4-conference floater is put up, with Pitts and Phil in different conferences, and TB and FL with the old Atlantic teams
5) Idea of separating Pitts/Phil is shot down
6) Dec 2011 Proposal passes, with 4 Conferences, 8-8-7-7, and Det/Cmb with the CTZ teams.
7) PA objects on basis of 2 things: Increased travel for players (Show us a schedule, please...) and playoff inequity (4/8 vs 4/7)
8) League resolves PA issue with playoff equity via the Wild Card system, giving good teams in stacked Divisions opportunity to qualify, but at the cost of the strict 4-conference layout
9) Since the strict 4-conference layout is lost, Detroit and Columbus insist on being in the East, so they don't have to play extra on the West Coast.
10) We get what they passed.

Conclusion: The 'Review' is at the request of the PA, for purposes of the 2 things they objected to in the first place.
1) Since we have seen the travel schedule for this year, we know there are no major increases in travel over 2011-12
2) Let's wait and see on what happens with the playoffs

If you take everything at face value of what has been said, this is the conclusion.

With 1 caveat: Daly at one point said that it will be reopened immediately if PHX>> QUE

MNNumbers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 12:35 PM
  #370
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
If you don't mind, Grudy, I will attempt to rehash the process:
Good idea, so let me reformat what you've added:

1) Winnipeg looks bad in the SE division, so something must be done
2) Every team that's had complaints about the alignment for the past fifteen years, such as Dallas, Minnesota, Columbus, Nashville and Detroit, see opportunity for resolution of their very unhandy alignments
3) Upon discussion, NHL realizes that no 6-division alignment is going to satisfy enough teams to get votes to pass
4) A 4-conference proposal is floated, where Pitts and Phil are in different conferences, and TB and FL with the old Atlantic teams, and shot down by Flyers owner Ed Snider almost immediately
5) Dec 2011 Proposal passes Board of Governors, with 4 Conferences, 8-8-7-7, and Det/Cmb with the CTZ teams, and the Florida teams with the Northeast, with strict top-four per conference playoff qualification and schedule matrix play everyone twice with remainder of schedule to be played in-conference
6) PA objects to realignment on basis of 2 things: Increased travel for players (Show us a schedule, please...) and playoff inequity (4/8 vs 4/7)
7) League resolves PA issue with playoff equity via the Wild Card system in a two-conference format, giving good teams in stacked Divisions opportunity to qualify, but at the cost of the strict 4-conference layout
8) As a two-conference layout would have teams play more than two games against all conference opponents, Detroit and Columbus insist on being in the East, so they don't have to play extra on the West Coast.
9) We get what they passed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Conclusion: The 'Review' is at the request of the PA, for purposes of the 2 things they objected to in the first place.
1) Since we have seen the travel schedule for this year, we know there are no major increases in travel over 2011-12
2) Let's wait and see on what happens with the playoffs

If you take everything at face value of what has been said, this is the conclusion.

With 1 caveat: Daly at one point said that it will be reopened immediately if PHX>> QUE
Yes, here's the hope that many here have:

The "review" by the League and the PA shows unhappiness with the "visit every arena" requirement. However, I think it may be extremely difficult to get that changed. It takes 20 of 30 teams to approve changes to the alignment, matrix and playoff qualfication. The teams outside of the Eastern Time Zone (the current Western Conference) may have severe issues with changing that requirement. We know they're the ones that really want every team to visit their arena. So until we find out exactly why they want the "visit every arena" requirement (and it cannot be ticket sales), then we'll be stuck with it until more than two-thirds of the League no longer want to be stuck with it.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 01:02 PM
  #371
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
And I can get behind that premise. If the wonderful people of Winnipeg liked being in the Southeast simply because they had great start times all season, then the people of Quebec would be the new "Detroit and Columbus" for a few seasons, until consensus can be gained in order to get a new alignment.
That's a response that's being offered up time and again, and it's really getting annoying. But I'll rehash my reply to it one more time... Winnipeg came into the League, and immediately thereafter realignment talks began. Winnipeg was at least the ultimately catalyst for that to take place. Yes, Winnipeg waited 2 Seasons to get a proper alignment, but again realignment discussions were put on the table immediately upon Winnipeg's entry, and secondly, if the PA hadn't turned down the first realignment attempt, Winnipeg would've had 1 solo Season in the SE Division.

Now saying that Quebec City would be put into a Western Division/Central Division, only a few Seasons after a new alignment, and then potentially left in that Division for what could be 10 years (the last alignment lasted 14 years),... How in any way does that compare to Winnipeg? Winnipeg got it's realignment, one could say Immediately! The argument was given that the Season schedule was already made up for Winnipeg's first Season, and realignment was prepared for the second Season and only postponed because of the PA.

And lastly, again... Quebec City and Montreal were a huge rivalry and will almost certainly be so immediately again... assuming of course that they're put in the same Division.

Quebec City might possibly have to do exactly what Winnipeg had to, you and everyone else are very correct on that. KevFu and I are talking about after the 1 possible Season in a Western Division/Conference,... What then?
And if Quebec City enters the League at the time this "revisit" is planned, then there you have the perfect opportunity to fix things so as to fit Quebec City in properly.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 07-29-2013 at 01:09 PM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 01:51 PM
  #372
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
Yes, here's the hope that many here have:

The "review" by the League and the PA shows unhappiness with the "visit every arena" requirement. However, I think it may be extremely difficult to get that changed. It takes 20 of 30 teams to approve changes to the alignment, matrix and playoff qualfication. The teams outside of the Eastern Time Zone (the current Western Conference) may have severe issues with changing that requirement. We know they're the ones that really want every team to visit their arena. So until we find out exactly why they want the "visit every arena" requirement (and it cannot be ticket sales), then we'll be stuck with it until more than two-thirds of the League no longer want to be stuck with it.
Grudy,

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

MoreOrr for one has been adamant for ever since I first came here that The most important thing in a schedule is that you play an even number of games against your division and then your conference, so that opportunities against teams with whom you compete for playoff berths are equitable. He would like that to be in interconference play as well, but it is not as important to him there. As such, MoreOrr was quite satisfied with the playing matrix in the 6-division setup, although I think he didn't think it was perfect, he thought it was as good as you can get.
Using him as an example, I think he hopes the revisited alignment/matrix addresses the home/home versus everyone, because he thinks that is the weak point.

I can't remember who stands where on the issue, but I can't see anything in the discussions so far that leads me to believe that anyone else thinks that is the point they want to review. As I said earlier, the PA wants the review, and their complaints are: Travel and Playoff Opportunity Inequity. Travel might be associated with the home/home + all the rest in conference, but since we have seen the travel calculations, and there is no more travel in 13-14 than there was in 11-12, that won't be an issue for the PA.

So, I think that MoreOrr and others who dislike the home/home part of the matrix because of how it affects everything else, are going to be disappointed.

EDIT: Remember again that Daly said at one point that they wanted to look at it again sooner if there was a PHX>QUE relocate.

MNNumbers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 02:18 PM
  #373
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
Grudy,

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

MoreOrr for one has been adamant for ever since I first came here that The most important thing in a schedule is that you play an even number of games against your division and then your conference, so that opportunities against teams with whom you compete for playoff berths are equitable. He would like that to be in interconference play as well, but it is not as important to him there. As such, MoreOrr was quite satisfied with the playing matrix in the 6-division setup, although I think he didn't think it was perfect, he thought it was as good as you can get.
Using him as an example, I think he hopes the revisited alignment/matrix addresses the home/home versus everyone, because he thinks that is the weak point.

I can't remember who stands where on the issue, but I can't see anything in the discussions so far that leads me to believe that anyone else thinks that is the point they want to review. As I said earlier, the PA wants the review, and their complaints are: Travel and Playoff Opportunity Inequity. Travel might be associated with the home/home + all the rest in conference, but since we have seen the travel calculations, and there is no more travel in 13-14 than there was in 11-12, that won't be an issue for the PA.

So, I think that MoreOrr and others who dislike the home/home part of the matrix because of how it affects everything else, are going to be disappointed.

EDIT: Remember again that Daly said at one point that they wanted to look at it again sooner if there was a PHX>QUE relocate.
That's part of it, for sure MNN, but it's not just me, KevFu thinks the same, but much more importantly is the opinion of many of the eastern teams. It's been rumored at least that the eastern teams aren't so thrilled with having to give up a number of games against big rival and mid-range rival teams in order to play more games against western teams. A lot of this could come down to how fans (especially eastern fans), both at the arenas and on TV, react to a lot of these extra cross-Conference games. I've read at least a few comments here and there, particularly on the Bruins board, of some fans saying that there'll be a few less games they'll be giving attention to because Bruin games against western teams are generally "boring".

Hey, I'm not saying that's my sentiment, because, as you well stated, my view is that there should be balance in the number of Home games between teams directly competing in the Standings (and not to sacrifice that for more games outside the Conference). My second argument is that Conference games should make up at least 1/2 of the Season's schedule, since again those are the games against teams directly competing in the Standings. Hey, if the League wants to open up the Standings to be League-wide, top-16, then fine. And lastly, I don't like the direction this is heading of potentially having a top-4/Division/Conference,.... I'd much prefer the Top-16 if that were possible (though I know that isn't practical).

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 02:22 PM
  #374
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
That's a response that's being offered up time and again, and it's really getting annoying. But I'll rehash my reply to it one more time... Winnipeg came into the League, and immediately thereafter realignment talks began. Winnipeg was at least the ultimately catalyst for that to take place. Yes, Winnipeg waited 2 Seasons to get a proper alignment, but again realignment discussions were put on the table immediately upon Winnipeg's entry, and secondly, if the PA hadn't turned down the first realignment attempt, Winnipeg would've had 1 solo Season in the SE Division.

Now saying that Quebec City would be put into a Western Division/Central Division, only a few Seasons after a new alignment, and then potentially left in that Division for what could be 10 years (the last alignment lasted 14 years),... How in any way does that compare to Winnipeg? Winnipeg got it's realignment, one could say Immediately! The argument was given that the Season schedule was already made up for Winnipeg's first Season, and realignment was prepared for the second Season and only postponed because of the PA.
Very true!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
And lastly, again... Quebec City and Montreal were a huge rivalry and will almost certainly be so immediately again... assuming of course that they're put in the same Division.
Again, also true. But why is that rivalry necessarily needed almost immediately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Quebec City might possibly have to do exactly what Winnipeg had to, you and everyone else are very correct on that. KevFu and I are talking about after the 1 possible Season in a Western Division/Conference,... What then?
And if Quebec City enters the League at the time this "revisit" is planned, then there you have the perfect opportunity to fix things so as to fit Quebec City in properly.
The answer lies within the December 2011, Board of Governors-approved alignment, but that upsets people:

Alignment:

Eastern Conference: Boston, Buffalo, Florida, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Tampa Bay, Toronto
Atlantic Conference: Carolina, Columbus, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
Central Conference: Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis, Winnipeg
Pacific Conference: Anaheim, Arizona, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Seattle, Vancouver

Alternate proposal sends Carolina and Columbus to the Eastern in exchange for Florida and Tampa Bay.

Matrix:

Every team in outside conference home-and-home, Every team inside conference five times (and one team only four).

Playoffs:

Strict top-four qualification per conference for playoffs. Reseed after two rounds based on regular season points (the "Final Four", so to speak, 1v4, 2v3).

Pros:
Everyone maintains happiness, while Detroit still gets to play their rivals over the past 30 years.

Cons:
More games outside of conference than inside.

EDIT: NHLPA concerns:
It satisfies the original PA requirement that playoff chances are equitable, and technically the travel should be lessened slightly with less out-of-conference games.


Last edited by Grudy0: 07-29-2013 at 02:34 PM.
Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 02:31 PM
  #375
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
That's part of it, for sure MNN, but it's not just me, KevFu thinks the same, but much more importantly is the opinion of many of the eastern teams. It's been rumored at least that the eastern teams aren't so thrilled with having to give up a number of games against big rival and mid-range rival teams in order to play more games against western teams. A lot of this could come down to how fans (especially eastern fans), both at the arenas and on TV, react to a lot of these extra cross-Conference games. I've read at least a few comments here and there, particularly on the Bruins board, of some fans saying that there'll be a few less games they'll be giving attention to because Bruin games against western teams are generally "boring".
More -
I totally respect your point of view. It's as valid as anyone's. At this point, though, what we know is that the PA wants to revisit this, and we know why. The owners side of that is, at this point, as you said "rumors".

As for the schedule, I think the easy way is to have close to even numbers is:
Western teams (7-7): 6/2/2/2 which makes 82 games. Top 3 + 2 wild cards. Wild cards play in division if possible. (My real preference is Top 4, because it's clean and neat and easy to see, but the PA didn't like that....)
Eastern teams (8-8): 4/4/2/2,which makes 88, so subtract 1 game against 6 teams in other division and rotate that, so in 8 years everything (# of games, and home games) comes even. And, Top 8 make the playoffs, with a Total 1-8 seeding, where the Division Winners are guaranteed only 1 home series (in other words, at least Top4 seeding...)

MNNumbers 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 09:20 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.