Minnesota scribe postulates 3 conferences

[LadyStanley]

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/hockey/12937300.htm

Minnesota writer discusses the possibility of some "re-alignment", perhaps to "three" conferences, allowing more teams to make the post season, better travel, etc., as well has some re-locations.



Seems "out there" at first blush, but how many predicted the type of play currently on the ice a few years ago?

Click to read more...

 

[Verbal Kint*]

Great Idea.

Hopefully the NHL calls him up to do post-season scheduling.

 

[waffledave]

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/hockey/12937300.htm

Minnesota writer discusses the possibility of some "re-alignment", perhaps to "three" conferences, allowing more teams to make the post season, better travel, etc., as well has some re-locations.



Seems "out there" at first blush, but how many predicted the type of play currently on the ice a few years ago?

So in the Stanley cup final, do we have 3 teams on the ice at once? How does this work?

 

[Dave is a killer]

So in the Stanley cup final, do we have 3 teams on the ice at once? How does this work?

exactly ... this guy is out to lunch

 

[Bear of Bad News]

So in the Stanley cup final, do we have 3 teams on the ice at once? How does this work?

That's not a big deal - the NHL hasn't always had a "winner of each conference" meet in the Stanley Cup Final. Just to name one, remember the 1980 Final?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

That's not a big deal - the NHL hasn't always had a "winner of each conference" meet in the Stanley Cup Final. Just to name one, remember the 1980 Final?

And that was a period of time where the schedule was balanced (everyone played everyone else the same number of times) and the top 16 overall made the playoffs. With the schedule as unbalanced as it is, there's no way you could do 1-16 overall for the playoffs.

However, I think you could do 1-8 in each conference and then pair them off with #1 East vs. #8 West and so on. That's about as close as you're going to get to the playoff format from '77-81.

 

[PecaFan]

Just a *tad* short on details in that article.

If you're going to throw out some wild *** "three conference" scheme, at least put down on paper how it could work. Who makes the playoffs? How many teams? From where? Who do they play? Who plays whom in the second round?

'Cause I'm not seeing it.

 

[kdb209]

And that was a period of time where the schedule was balanced (everyone played everyone else the same number of times) and the top 16 overall made the playoffs. With the schedule as unbalanced as it is, there's no way you could do 1-16 overall for the playoffs.

However, I think you could do 1-8 in each conference and then pair them off with #1 East vs. #8 West and so on. That's about as close as you're going to get to the playoff format from '77-81.

The completely balanced schedule (everyone plays everyone 4 times , 2 home /2 away) and league wide #1-#16 make the playoffs (#1 vs #16, #2 vs #15, etc) abberation only lasted two years - 1979-80 and 1980-81. This came after the WHA merger when the league grew from 17 to 21 teams.

From 1974-75 (when they split the East/West conferences into the four named divisions - Adams, Norris, Patrick, Smyth) untill 1978-79, the four division winners got a first round bye and the next 8 teams league wide made the playoffs and played a best of three first round (#1 vs #8, #2 vs #7, etc). The playoff seeding (other than the byes) were done league wide, but IIRC, there was not a balanced schedule.

In 1981-82, they dumped the balanced schedule experiment and went to an unbalanced schedule and a divisional and conference playoff structure that lasted until 1992-93.

From 1993-94 until 1997-98 they dropped the divisional playoffs and went to a top 8 in each conference playoff structure.

And finally from 1999-00 (post expansion six divisions) to date they used the current setup - three division winners and next 5 seeds per conference.

 

[tinyzombies]

They do need a scheme where the big markets could potentially meet for a real playoff round. That would definitely help. A wildcard concept wouldn't hurt.

If you look at the Levitt figures, the NHL was in trouble after that famous Hurricanes-Wings final. That's what was the final blow (of course, some gerryrigging of the financials helps add spine to that argument, but I digress).

 

[StevenintheATL]

Three conferences seems to be a bit off-balance, especially in the post season. I say keep the two conference system that's currently in place but instead of 3 divisions in each conference, go to 4 divisions. To do it fairly though, two more teams would have to be added to give the system balance. I'll expound on this in "Restructure Your NHL" Thread.

 

[dolfanar]

3 conferances could work, but the current setup works fine at 6 divisions, and you could go as high as 6 teams per division before needing to change. 6x6 would be 36 teams, and at 40 you could go to 4 conferances which would be much easier to handle in terms of playoffs.

No need for this, imo.

 

[Dave is a killer]

3 conferances could work, but the current setup works fine at 6 divisions, and you could go as high as 6 teams per division before needing to change. 6x6 would be 36 teams, and at 40 you could go to 4 conferances which would be much easier to handle in terms of playoffs.

No need for this, imo.

add 2 teams and divide by 4

 

[MiamiScreamingEagles]

For two seasons, the WHA had a three division setup. The top two teams made the playoffs, plus two wild card entries for an eight team post-season.

If Back to the Future is in the cards, I'd opt for a four division set up (two divisions of eight teams and two divisions of seven teams).

 

[Patman]

all of the sudden my 3 conf. 6 div. 24 playoff team scheme isn't so off the wall anymore.

 

[Patman]

Just a *tad* short on details in that article.

If you're going to throw out some wild *** "three conference" scheme, at least put down on paper how it could work. Who makes the playoffs? How many teams? From where? Who do they play? Who plays whom in the second round?

'Cause I'm not seeing it.

3 conferences--2 division each--5 teams each... 30

Teams seeded by division 1-4 w/ a crossover scheme... if the 5th from one division does better than 4th from the other the 5th place team crosses over.

best of 5 opening round (they did this in the 80s with a 16 team playoff), best of 7 round, best of 7 round, double round robin elimination round, best of 7 cup finals.

Any 3 conference method that tries to wind down to a typical 2^k tree will have massive problems with the fans.

 

[Dave is a killer]

these are my 32 teams

someone place them by geographic order the closest together

San Jose Sharks
Los Angeles Kings
Vancouver Canucks
Calgary Flames
St. Louis Blues
Colorado Avalanche
Edmonton Oilers
Minnesota Wild
Chicago Blackhawks
Dallas Stars
Atlanta Thrashers
Tampa Bay Lightning
Nashville Predators
Colombus Blue Jackets
Detroit Red Wings
Toronto Maple Leafs
Ottawa Senators
Montreal Canadiens
Boston Bruins
Carolina Hurricanes
Pittsburgh Penguins
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Washington Capitals
Philadelphia Flyers
Buffalo Sabres
Florida Panthers
Phoenix Coyotes
Anaheim Mighty Ducks of Los Angeles
Winnepeg
Portland

 

[Ted Hoffman]

(explanation of the evolution of the playoff format in the NHL)

Yes, I knew all of that - hence why I said "a period of time".

However, the point I was trying to make is that no proposal to go to 1-16 overall (which has been pitched around here several times in the past) was feasible because there was no balanced schedule, and no way to balance the schedule. And going to 3 conferences is just going to cause headaches for logistical, scheduling, and playoff considerations.

In short, it's a silly idea - thus it's one that Bettman could/would/will consider.

 

[katodelder]

someone place them by geographic order the closest together

San Jose Sharks
Los Angeles Kings
Vancouver Canucks
Calgary Flames
St. Louis Blues
Colorado Avalanche
Edmonton Oilers
Minnesota Wild
Chicago Blackhawks
Dallas Stars
Atlanta Thrashers
Tampa Bay Lightning
Nashville Predators
Colombus Blue Jackets
Detroit Red Wings
Toronto Maple Leafs
Ottawa Senators
Montreal Canadiens
Boston Bruins
Carolina Hurricanes
Pittsburgh Penguins
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Washington Capitals
Philadelphia Flyers
Buffalo Sabres
Florida Panthers
Phoenix Coyotes
Anaheim Mighty Ducks of Los Angeles
Winnepeg
Portland

WESTERN CONF.

...Pacific
Los Angeles
Anaheim
San Jose
Phoenix

...Northwest
Portland
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton

...Midwest
Colorado
Dallas
St. Louis
Nashville

...Central
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Chicago
Detroit


EASTERN CONF.

...Southeast
Florida
Tampa Bay
Atlanta
Carolina

...Mideast
Washington
Pittsburgh
Columbus
Buffalo

...Atlantic
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
NJ Devils
Philadelphia

...Northeast
Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto

 

[PecaFan]

3 conferences--2 division each--5 teams each... 30

Teams seeded by division 1-4 w/ a crossover scheme... if the 5th from one division does better than 4th from the other the 5th place team crosses over.

best of 5 opening round (they did this in the 80s with a 16 team playoff), best of 7 round, best of 7 round, double round robin elimination round, best of 7 cup finals.

Ok, so we have divisions A-B in the West, C-D in the Middle, E-F in the East. Four teams make it each. Thus:

Round 1: A1 v A4, A2 v A3, B1 v B4... (5 games)
Round 2: assume home team won each series, A1 v A2, B1 v B2... (7 games)
Round 3: A champ vs B champ, C vs D, E vs F.

Ok, it's not terrible so far. But:

You now have 3 teams left. You want to play a round robin? How many games? 2 each? So if you've got Dallas, Vancouver, and Ottawa, Vancouver flys to Ottawa and plays, then back home to play Dallas, then fly to Dallas, meanwhile Ottawa flys to Dallas, then to Vancouver, then Vancouver comes home... Sorry, but that's a real mess.

Then we have the tie problem. Round robins inevitably lead to ties, and now you're relying on tie breakers like goals for or other such nonsense.

Not to mention the whole 24 out of 30 teams make it into the playoffs stuff. 80% make it? That's a joke, makes the old 16 of 21 days look good.

 

[Patman]

You have to realize I have an large distaste for bye rounds... I could only justify them if the team playing in the opening around had a sizable layoff or 3-4 days between the last game (5 of 5, 7 of 7) and the and the first game of the next round.

If you swing out to 3 conferences some odd setup is going to have to result unless you are going to seed 1-6 then 7-16/20/24... and then why even bother with conferences.