Another Division Realignment

[krt88nc]

Here's my views on the divisions

I dropped titles because that’s irrelevant ;

most of what was done was really good work

West


Vancouver Canucks
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Seattle

Arizona Coyotes
San Jose Sharks
Los Angeles Kings
Anaheim Ducks

Vegas Golden Knights
St. Louis Blues
Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars

Minnesota Wild
Winnipeg Jets
Chicago Blackhawks
Nashville Predators

East


Toronto Maple Leafs
Ottawa Senators
Montreal Canadiens
Boston Bruins

Philadelphia Flyers
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey Devils

Detroit Red Wings
Columbus Blue Jackets
Pittsburgh Penguins
Buffalo Sabres

Washington Capitals
Carolina Hurricanes
Tampa Bay Lightning
Florida Panthers

 

[coolboarder]

I prefer no conference format, just strictly divisions of 4 teams each. Schedule matrix: 8 - 2 for 80 games. Playoff format is simple, top two teams are in and play divisional playoff series, the winner of the series will be division champion. 8 remaining divisional champions are reseeded as 1 v 8. You get the best possible team playing in the SCF. Match-up for round 2 is determined by removing the divisional records and the top points getter in the non-divisional games would be seeded 1 and so on.

Before you criticize this format, the goal should be simple, win the division, you are the best divisional team even if there is a potential top 2 teams in same division. Because this is a divisional-heavy schedule, a division could be a potential weakest division of them all and top two is feasting the points off from the bottom 2 teams due to 8 divisional games against 3 teams and the record will reflect a lopsided record in the standing when determining the playoff seeding. With 4 teams in each division, the odd of having top 2 teams in the whole league from the same division is slim on a given year than 8 teams divisions. Hence is reason why I removed the divisional records for determining a round 2 match-up, and round 3 match-up because of divisional-heavy schedule.

Another reason: this will save a lot of travels for each teams all over the league, specially with western-most teams and Florida teams. It also gives a greater flexibility regardless of the time zone due to distance is shorter but time zone will not be an issue.

So therefore, I propose 3 NYC based teams to be split up due to the travel advantage they would enjoy all year long under this format.

Original 6 division
Montreal-Toronto-Boston-NY Rangers

Half Original 6 Division:
Detroit-Ottawa-St. Louis-Chicago

Atlantic Division:
New York Islanders-Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Buffalo

Eastern Division:
New Jersey, Washington, Carolina, Columbus

Southern Division:
Dallas-Nashville-Tampa Bay-Florida

Pacific Division:
Vancouver-Seattle-San Jose-LA

Western Division:
Vegas-Arizona-Anaheim-Colorado

Prairie Division:
Winnipeg-Minnesota-Calgary-Edmonton

I would love to see some original 6 rivalries coming back as much as possible. Also the best possible solution for Arizona dilemma if they were to be forced to move to central division under current format with playoffs being two hours time difference.

 

[Hatrix]

This is way too convoluted for no valid reason.

Just move Arizona over to the Central.

Problem solved.

 

[kvladimir]

Can you explain how Calgary-Winnipeg are rivals and Calgary isn't rivals with LA or Anaheim?

I would think the Flames and Oilers would love a rivalry with Winnipeg over the Kings or Ducks? Similarly, the Kings and Ducks probably prefer Arizona/Colorado, if given the option, no? As long as doing that doesn't create any other huge problems, as it would if it were done in a 4 Division setup (moving EDM/CGY away from VAN, or moving WPG to the Pacific).

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Terrible. Split up too many rivalries and it'd kill the POs seeding.

 

[MNNumbers]

Let's be honest about what's happening....

1- The NHL wanted in the Seattle market, and now they have it.
2- The minor Re-alignment was going to be one of 2 things:
Either A: Seattle in the Pacific and Arizona to the Central, or
B: Seattle and Colorado in the Pacific and Calgary and Edmonton in the Central.

Each has advantages and disadvantages. Clearly, A was chosen as the simplest to do.

Initially, this looked like advanced notice that Arizona was moving to Houston. But, at the present time, that looks increasingly unlikely - new ownership in Phoenix. Fertitta seems unwilling to pay NHL prices for a team.

Going forward, let's think about playoffs.
4 team divisions are not the best for playoffs because of the statistical chance that an entire division is weak.
Therefore, 8-team divisions are here to stay. Just exactly what the playoff format becomes is not clear.

Let's consider schedules for a minute:
We have 82 games to work with. The PA won't allow expanding the schedule, so let's just count on 82 games.
The owners seem very sure that they want a home/away against all opponents.

Consider first a 4.3.2 schedule....This totals 4*7 + 3*8 + 2*16 which is 84 games, so it won't entirely work. It could be done by decreasing to 4*7 + (3*6 + 2*2) +2*16. That would mean, for example, Montreal playing 3 games against the Rangers, but only 2 against the Islanders.

Consider next what happens if we play all available extra games within our division:
We get one of 2 possibilities:
A) 5 games against 6 teams, and 4 games against the other team.
B) 6 games against 3 teams, and 4 games against 4 teams.

Obviously, choice B is simply a 4-team-per-division schedule, but here it would be within and 8-team division.

It seems logical that the proper playoff system follows the schedule.
If they went to a modified 4-3-2, then the playoffs would be 1-8 in each conference.
If they do the 5/4 - 2 or a 6-4-2, then the playoffs should be 1-4 in each division.
No wild cards in either case.

Now, my own preference would be:
In the East:
Use the 4-3-2 schedule, and a 1-8 playoffs
In the West:
5/4 - 2 and 1-4 in each division.
My reasoning is that the travel in the West demands the schedule and playoff format listed, while the opposite is true in the east.

 

[AUAIOMRN]

You only play one more game against division teams than conference teams. It really doesn't make that much of a difference.

 

[RaleighBlues]

Of course a Blues fan thinks they should have priority to stay in the Central. Nevermind that Winnipeg is closer to Minnesota than St. Louis is, or that St. Louis is closer to all of Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix than Winnipeg is.

WPG and MIN are the two newest teams in that division. It’s just a fact. Also, sorry if it offends you, but WPG and MIN don’t have nearly the rivalry that CHI vs STL vs NSH has with anyone else in the division. “Of course a Blues fan thinks they should have priority”. No idea what this even means. The NHL will not break up the Blackhawks/Blues rivalry. They just won’t.

 

[Phrazer]

After 50 years the Canucks finally have a geographical rival in Seattle and you put them in different divisions.

The development of the rivalry with Vancouver will be a part of the development plan of the Seattle franchise. They won't be separated.

 

[Phrazer]

West
1.
Canucks
Flames
Oilers
Seattle
2.
Ducks
Kings
Sharks
Knights
3.
Coyotes
Avs
Stars
Preds
4.
Jets
Hawks
Blues
Wild

East
1.
Leafs
Habs
Sens
Sabres
2.
Panthers
Lightning
Canes
Caps
3.
Wings
Jackets
Pens
Flyers
4.
Rangers
Islanders
Devils
Bruins

Swap Bruins and Buffalo and I like it. Keep Bruins with Montreal and Toronto. Let Buffalo play with the NY teams.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Sharks/Knights and Flames/Kings are two of the best rivalries right now and you want to separate them?

 

[These Are The Days]

Prince of Wales Conference

Adams: DET, TOR, OTT, MTL, BUF, BOS (6)
Hart: TBL, FLA, CAR, WSH, CBJ (5)
Patrick: NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI, PIT (5)

Clarence Campbell Conference

Norris: NSH, STL, DAL, CHI, MIN, COL (6)
Ross: ARI, ANA, LAK, SJS, VGK (5)
Smythe: SEA, VAN, CGY, EDM, WPG (5)

All you're doing is adding DET to the old Northeast division, CBJ to the old Southeast division. The West has seen expansion but DAL and MIN neatly take their place in the Central while COL, WPG, SEA and VGK slot to the closest geographical rivals. I know the Jets are getting screwed in travel but they are not really any other teams within any other geographic proximity to the other 4 members of the division unless you decide "Geez let's move the Sharks to the Seattle/Canada division!" move COL to the Ross division and move WPG to the Norris.

Brain surgery boys


The inter-conference play sees home/away as is being done now.

Playoff format sees seeds 1-3 being division winners, the last 5 fill out by points and record

Abolish ROW, abolish divisional playoff structure.

Gonna scream this til I'm blue in the face. The North American continent is too goddamn big for 4 divisions. You need 6 at least. And it's enough. The previous playoff format was better than the current one.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Clearly we need to add 3 more teams in Portland, Houston, and Indianapolis. Go 7 divisions of 5 teams each.

VAN, EDM, CGY, SEA, POR
ANA, SJS, LAK, VGK, ARI
COL, MIN, WPG, CHI, STL
DAL, NSH, HOU, TBL, FLA
DET, CBJ, CAR, WSH, IND
NYR, NYI, NJ, PIT, PHI
OTT, TOR, MTL, BOS, BUF

As for playoff format I'd do this just to see what kind of ridiculous playoff format the NHL could come up with

 

[HockeyDBspecialist]

Sabres and Bruins should switch in your proposal. Toronto and Buffalo are so close, makes zero sense not to have them in the same division.

Boston can't be without Montreal

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

I'd love to have just conferences and a 1-16 crossover tournament for the Stanley Cup.
Last season the matchups would have been
1) Tampa vs 16) Vegas
2) Calgary vs 15) Dallas
3) Boston vs 14) Montreal
4) Washington vs 13) Columbus
5) NY Islanders vs 12) St Louis
6) San Jose vs 11) Carolina
7) Toronto vs 10) Winnipeg
8) Nashville vs 9) Pittsburgh


And anyone can meet for the Cup.