HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Realignment?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2011, 12:28 PM
  #51
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madillsux View Post
I like this except move Phi and BUF to East, Tor or OTT to South and DAL to MidWest
????

No Canadian team will ever be in the South. The whole point is to cut down on travel and time zone hopping. Having a team that has to travel the 3000 miles to south Florida is against the point.

If Pittsburgh is moving out of the traditional Atlantic rivalries, you need to bring someone with them. Philly is the best idea.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 01:15 PM
  #52
terrrrrible
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
1:VAN, SJ, LAK, ANA, PHX
2:EDM, CGY, COL, DAL, WPG
3:STL, NSH, CAR, TB, FLA

4:MIN, CHI, CBJ, DET, PIT
5:TOR, OTT, BUF, PHI, WSH
6:NJD, NYI, NYR, BOS, MTL

This seems to be the most time-zone / area centric. The problem is having an East / West split. The other option is to group MIN, CHI, CLB, STL and NSH (West) together, and then DET, PIT, CAR, TB, and FLA (East) together, but that's too much of a north / south split for travel, with that. TOR, BUF, OTT, MTL, BOS and NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI, WSH could also be kept together, either way.


Last edited by terrrrrible: 06-27-2011 at 01:21 PM.
terrrrrible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 01:18 PM
  #53
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2014
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 2,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madillsux View Post
I like this except move Phi and BUF to East, Tor or OTT to South and DAL to MidWest
Except that Tor or Ott are in CANADA, doesn't get more North than that. Trying to fit all the teams into these neat geographic buckets is seriously stupid. They need to go back to the classic division names and group teams as best as possible geographically where at least you don't end up with inaccurate labels

GordonGecko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 01:19 PM
  #54
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Leading plan is 4 divisions. I really don't think they're sticking with 6 in the end.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 01:21 PM
  #55
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
Except that Tor or Ott are in CANADA, doesn't get more North than that. Fitting all teams into these neat geographic buckets is seriously stupid. They need to go back to the classic division names and group teams however they want (as best as possible geographically)
The whole point of realignment is to cut down travel costs. Of course we'll be talking about geographic alignments in "buckets"

Not understanding what the motivation here is "seriously stupid"

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 01:33 PM
  #56
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2014
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 2,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Not understanding what the motivation here is "seriously stupid"
The name. The name is seriously stupid when you have a team from the top half of the country in a division called "South". Arranging geographically is obviously the way to go but lets go back to neutral division names

GordonGecko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 02:00 PM
  #57
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
The name. The name is seriously stupid when you have a team from the top half of the country in a division called "South". Arranging geographically is obviously the way to go but lets go back to neutral division names
That I agree with. It sounded like you were criticizing the concept of tight geographic divisions in favor of divisions only loosely based on geography.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 02:09 PM
  #58
alkurtz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mahopac, NY
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
Three facts are obvious here:

One: the prime motivator for realignment is to cut down on travel expenses.
Two: no matter what combination you come up with, some teams are going to be unhappy.
Three: there is no perfect solution. No matter how you try to shoehorn teams into groups, some teams just don't fit.

Frankly, I would be glad to get rid of divisions altogether. Face it, when we look at the playoff races coming down the stretch of a season, we always look at conference first. Except for the first place team in each division, where you sit in a division is of no import.

If we are going to have divisions, I am all in favor of a heavy division schedule and making the first round or two of the playoffs divisional play. As someone who goes back to the days of the Original Six, when there were only five opponents that you played 14 times each year and each and every game was a "traditional rivalry," and intense, the more games the Rangers play against the Isles, Devs, and whoever else ends up in their division, the better. What I could do without are mid-season games against teams we only see only once or twice or year that have no "juice" because there is no history between the teams.

The big problem is that there are just two many teams that should go into a hypothetical East Divison. Tawnos' idea of having Pitt and Phil in the south is interesting. I could deal with a division with the Rangers, Isles, Devs, Bruins, and the three eastern Canadian teams easily. Would miss the games against the Pens and Flyers, but playing the Bruins and the Canadian teams somewhat makes up for it. Putting the two Pennsylvania teams in with the Caps and the southern teams is an interesting concept.

And that what this is about; throwing out ideas without insulting each other. In my time the NHL has gone through seeming dozens of reorganizations and I've learned not to get to attached to any. Change always comes. Even MLB is talking about realignment.

We could always go to the system used in the English Premier League. Everyone is in one grouping. You can finish 1st or 20th. They don't have post season playoffs but if they did, it would be easy to identify the 8 teams to make a playoff: the top 8 point getters. Kind of fair, wouldn't you say? Never happen here but I am looking forward to a new arrangement for 12-13. There will be one.

alkurtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 02:31 PM
  #59
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
The way the quote sounded to me, it almost sounds as if we're going towards a REALLY division heavy schedule. As in, home-and-home against every team in the league not in your division. 5 or 6 games against all teams in your division. It's an unbalanced schedule, but parity is so high in this league that I don't think it really matters that much. It's just a thought too.
Travel costs are one issue, but then again alot of the Western teams want more games against Crosby/Malkin and Ovechkin. They want Montreal, Toronto, NYR, Philly and Boston coming into Phoenix/Dallas to draw in transplanted fans from the area.

I think part of their complaints aren't how much they spend on travel but how little we spend on travel.

Basically, the Western teams will pout how the schedule is set up today then they'll cry next season about how it's set up then. Remember, we used to skip playing an entire division of the other conference a few seasons ago. That reduced travel costs, but teams wanted more Pitt/Was visits so they changed the schedule.

30 home and home games with the West
52 East games (4 div games/team=28, 3 out of div games=21, 3 rivalry games/special matchups)
That's a balanced schedule. Or you do 15 West games and increase the division games to 5 and the out of division games to 4.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:30 PM
  #60
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Travel costs are one issue, but then again alot of the Western teams want more games against Crosby/Malkin and Ovechkin. They want Montreal, Toronto, NYR, Philly and Boston coming into Phoenix/Dallas to draw in transplanted fans from the area.

I think part of their complaints aren't how much they spend on travel but how little we spend on travel.

Basically, the Western teams will pout how the schedule is set up today then they'll cry next season about how it's set up then. Remember, we used to skip playing an entire division of the other conference a few seasons ago. That reduced travel costs, but teams wanted more Pitt/Was visits so they changed the schedule.

30 home and home games with the West
52 East games (4 div games/team=28, 3 out of div games=21, 3 rivalry games/special matchups)
That's a balanced schedule. Or you do 15 West games and increase the division games to 5 and the out of division games to 4.
The 3 out of div, but in conference games will be hard to work out. Who gets the two home and who gets the one? No different than 5 in-division games, sure... but still. It'll be a balance.

By the way, teams still don't visit 6 arenas in the other conference every year. The Rangers will not be playing in Nashville for the 2nd time in three seasons. I don't really think Pacific division teams could care less what the Rangers spend on travel. They just want to reduce what they spend. The teams in the NorthEast aren't going to change the amount they spend on travel no matter what you do to the alignment of the league short of going to an American/National setup. We know that's not going to happen.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 04:43 PM
  #61
Darrelle Lundqvist
Swagelin
 
Darrelle Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
The NHL should keep it as it is, move a team to the east after WPG goes to the west in 2012, but keep the divisons the same. No need for two divisons of eight teams each IMO.

Darrelle Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:04 PM
  #62
asphyXy
Registered User
 
asphyXy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Nutley, NJ
Posts: 195
vCash: 500
Here's my two cents.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg div1.jpg‎ (171.5 KB, 12 views)
File Type: jpg div2.jpg‎ (176.9 KB, 12 views)

asphyXy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:17 PM
  #63
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,757
vCash: 500
If they go with 4 huge divisions, i dont want to play teams like Florida, Phoenix, Calgary, Edmonton... more then once. Those games are boring.

If they want divisions so badly, then contain teams within their division most of the season.

Maybe its just me, but when a game is at 10:30pm at a small market and no fans show up... its boring... especially when Gianone does those games...

Keep games intense by keeping them against natural rivals.

And forget about naming the divisions. They wont make sense. Just number them.

EASTERN CONFERENCE:

DIV 1:
NYR. NYI. NJD. BOS. MTL. OTT. TOR. BUF

DIV 2:
PHI. PIT. WSH. CAR. NSH. TBL. FLA

WESTERN CONFERENCE:

DIV 3:
DET. CHI. MIN. CLB. WIN. STL. DAL

DIV 4:
VAN. CGY. EDM. SJS. LAK. ANA. PHX. COL

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:35 PM
  #64
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
The 3 out of div, but in conference games will be hard to work out. Who gets the two home and who gets the one? No different than 5 in-division games, sure... but still. It'll be a balance.

By the way, teams still don't visit 6 arenas in the other conference every year. The Rangers will not be playing in Nashville for the 2nd time in three seasons. I don't really think Pacific division teams could care less what the Rangers spend on travel. They just want to reduce what they spend. The teams in the NorthEast aren't going to change the amount they spend on travel no matter what you do to the alignment of the league short of going to an American/National setup. We know that's not going to happen.
I agree that it would be hard to work out, but I didn't intend to limit it to out of division. I would toss it up to the entire league although I have no issues with the games being against NJ, NYI and Philly for instance.

I know I said earlier in the thread to ignore the other leagues, but the one thing they do get right is their willingness to create TV ready matchups (NBA christmas game, MNF goes to the most deserving teams, MLB will have NYY/BOS start before the rest of the league.) Hey, maybe base the extra 3 games on the previous season's winning percentage. I'm not saying these ideas are better than anything out there, but at least its something.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:56 PM
  #65
Mr Atoz
I hid the Atavachron
 
Mr Atoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Where NYI, NJ, and PHI goes, so go the Rangers.
I think you have it backwards.

Mr Atoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 06:20 PM
  #66
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 15,217
vCash: 500
Four divisions. Top four in the division make the po's.

Make it happen. Do it. Do it.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 06:28 PM
  #67
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 15,217
vCash: 500
The complaints about soft divisions and such are bunk. Soft teams will have to strive to get better. Same goes for teams in tougher divisions. Get better or shut your traps

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 07:35 PM
  #68
Hockeyplayer99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country:
Posts: 305
vCash: 500
the top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs, guess the Rangers won't make the playoffs for a long time if it is the one huge division with Philly, Pens, Caps, Boston, Devils, Montreal and the Islanders. That is a stackted division and some good teams won't make it. Then teams in the crappy division will make it because they have St. Louis, Florida, Carolina, TB Dallas, Columbus., and 2 other tams, don't remember them. How is it fair when a team in a division has 92 points, but is 7th in the division and they have more points then almost every team in the other division but St. Louis makes it as the 2nd seed with 80 points. I don't know just sounds pretty bad.

Hockeyplayer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 07:55 PM
  #69
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
I think you have it backwards.
I stand corrected.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 08:01 PM
  #70
Darrelle Lundqvist
Swagelin
 
Darrelle Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyplayer99 View Post
the top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs, guess the Rangers won't make the playoffs for a long time if it is the one huge division with Philly, Pens, Caps, Boston, Devils, Montreal and the Islanders. That is a stackted division and some good teams won't make it. Then teams in the crappy division will make it because they have St. Louis, Florida, Carolina, TB Dallas, Columbus., and 2 other tams, don't remember them. How is it fair when a team in a division has 92 points, but is 7th in the division and they have more points then almost every team in the other division but St. Louis makes it as the 2nd seed with 80 points. I don't know just sounds pretty bad.
I agree. It can turn into the same scenario that the NFL has. When a division winner that has seven wins and the third place team in a strong division has nine or ten that team is out. If the NHL were to make two divisions, I think the teams with the best records should get in no matter what division their from.

Darrelle Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 08:40 PM
  #71
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
The complaints about soft divisions and such are bunk. Soft teams will have to strive to get better. Same goes for teams in tougher divisions. Get better or shut your traps
That's not the issue. That setup gives a built-in advantage to the teams in the two seven-team divisions. Four divisions is fine, but it can't be four playoff spots to each division. That's just unfair to 16 of the teams.

Zil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 08:50 PM
  #72
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyplayer99 View Post
the top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs, guess the Rangers won't make the playoffs for a long time if it is the one huge division with Philly, Pens, Caps, Boston, Devils, Montreal and the Islanders. That is a stackted division and some good teams won't make it. Then teams in the crappy division will make it because they have St. Louis, Florida, Carolina, TB Dallas, Columbus., and 2 other tams, don't remember them. How is it fair when a team in a division has 92 points, but is 7th in the division and they have more points then almost every team in the other division but St. Louis makes it as the 2nd seed with 80 points. I don't know just sounds pretty bad.
In that setup, there wouldn't be a 7th place team with 92 points. The schedule would be very different and the balance of power would shift accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
That's not the issue. That setup gives a built-in advantage to the teams in the two seven-team divisions. Four divisions is fine, but it can't be four playoff spots to each division. That's just unfair to 16 of the teams.
It doesn't really. It might be an advantage or it might be a disadvantage. Depending on the strength of the teams in the particular division, you might have a year where playing more games against less teams is bad for one particular team or vice versa. Having less teams to play against doesn't mean those teams are easier to play against.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 09:24 PM
  #73
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
It doesn't really. It might be an advantage or it might be a disadvantage. Depending on the strength of the teams in the particular division, you might have a year where playing more games against less teams is bad for one particular team or vice versa. Having less teams to play against doesn't mean those teams are easier to play against.
Yes it does. There's statistically one less team to beat out to make the playoffs. Having to beat out four teams is always going to be tougher than having to beat out three. The best eight records in each conference should make the playoffs regardless of divisions (with guaranteed spots to division winners of course).

Zil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 09:28 PM
  #74
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
Yes it does. There's statistically one less team to beat out to make the playoffs. Having to beat out four teams is always going to be tougher than having to beat out three. The best eight records in each conference should make the playoffs regardless of divisions (with guaranteed spots to division winners of course).
What you're saying is ONLY true if we're talking about the same team trying to beat out 3 or 4 teams that are equal to one another. There is no realistic way to project this kind of thing statistically. It's like saying that the Rangers would've ended up with 93 points last year if they were playing in the West. Maybe... maybe not. There's no way to know.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2011, 12:43 AM
  #75
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
What you're saying is ONLY true if we're talking about the same team trying to beat out 3 or 4 teams that are equal to one another. There is no realistic way to project this kind of thing statistically. It's like saying that the Rangers would've ended up with 93 points last year if they were playing in the West. Maybe... maybe not. There's no way to know.
It's dumb to lock playoff spots into divisions like that. The best eight teams in each conference should make playoffs regardless of divisional structure.

Zil is online now   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 11:43 PM.

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.