NHL maps out major changes (Realignment to 4 divisions?)

[AStammer7*]

Does Anyone Smell Expansion Coming...

I don't think it's fair when some divisions have more teams than others. Take baseball for example, AL West teams have such an advantage playing in a 4 team division compared to the NL Central which has 6 teams.

Having 7 in some and 8 in others is not fair IMO.

I like the realignment of teams into 4 divisions. I'm thinking because there are only 30 teams that to even the divisions that 2 new cities need to be added. Of course they would come from the West. Of course Seattle and Las Vegas seem to be a shoe-in with Kansas city and Salt Lake maybe a consideration too. And further down the road,Quebec,Hamilton and Halifax. And maybe with that the play-off format changes to have 10 teams make it in each conference. Teams 7-10 would play a best of 3 set to move on to play against the top 6 in each conference. The NHL has to do something about only 16 clubs making the playoffs out of 30 teams. I think it will work 'cause the last 7,8,9 and 10 place clubs have always been close in terms of points. The added revenue will do wonders for some clubs also!

 

[MoreOrr]

There's nothing much i can add... every possible scenario has been suggested and discussed...

So i'll go a little into the future...



here's my 2020 NHL:

Smythe, Pac - Van-Sea-SJ-LA-Ana-LV-Cal-Edm
Norris, Cen - Wpg-Min-Col-Dal-Chi-StL-KC-Nash

Adams, NE - Tor-Mon-QC-Buf-Bos-NYR-NYI-NJ
Patrick, SE - Det-CBJ-Was-Pit-Phi-Car-TB-Flo

Beautiful i say.

Based on geography i would eventually add Sea, LV, KC... with Pho likely being relocated to one of those cities.
This would bump both CBJ and Det into the east resulting in a nicely balanced league... from a geographic standpoint. Ott to QC.

I just have a Vegas dream - a high end NHL hotel/casino resort with stadium attached just off the strip.... corporate dream.

anyways...

You think the Senators should be relocated to Quebec City...

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Ott to QC.

You want a team in Quebec City so bad, move YOUR favourite god damn team there.

 

[MoreOrr]

I like the realignment of teams into 4 divisions. I'm thinking because there are only 30 teams that to even the divisions that 2 new cities need to be added. Of course they would come from the West. Of course Seattle and Las Vegas seem to be a shoe-in with Kansas city and Salt Lake maybe a consideration too. And further down the road,Quebec,Hamilton and Halifax. And maybe with that the play-off format changes to have 10 teams make it in each conference. Teams 7-10 would play a best of 3 set to move on to play against the top 6 in each conference. The NHL has to do something about only 16 clubs making the playoffs out of 30 teams. I think it will work 'cause the last 7,8,9 and 10 place clubs have always been close in terms of points. The added revenue will do wonders for some clubs also!

I just don't get this love affair with 4 Divisions. Of course, someone can say the same and ask about my love affair with 6 Divisions, but it's not 6 Divisions that I love but that I sincerely believe that 8-team Divisions are too large.

Now, some of you give the argument that 4 Divisions works well with 32 teams (although from my perspective that simply means 4 Divisions of 8 teams,... ), so fine... but there aren't currently 32 teams. If you love 4 Divisions so much, and think it fits so nicely with 32 teams, then why the love affair with 4 Divisions now (for 2012)? You know, before Expansion, which we've heard zero rumors of, there may first be need of a new NHL city to put the Coyotes in. That issue still needs to be resolved.

Ok, now let's then look ahead... Expansion comes, who knows when, I'll predict 2015. I also bet that NFL will be the first League to go beyond 32 teams. How long after that will the NHL go beyond 32 teams? Certainly the NHL has the potential, being the only one of the 4 big leagues that's well represented in Canada. And then, how do the 4 Divisions look with 33 or 34 teams?

At least wait until there are 32 teams! And then the League will go with 8 Divisions of 4 teams each (not my choice, but that's what they'll do.)

 

[DL44]

You think the Senators should be relocated to Quebec City...

You want a team in Quebec City so bad, move YOUR favourite god damn team there.

heh heh... easy tiger... I'm not the commish, so its not like my suggestion would start the Sens exit.
Nothing too personal. I just thought it would be healthier for the league.
I just think QC wouldn't have the same issues.

If anything Senators should look to actually move to Ottawa... for real.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

The NHL should really just kill off the Coyotes and Panthers and go with 4 divisions of 7 teams each.

impossible, that eliminates at least 2 franchises at the minor league level

 

[iamaranger]

im kinda ok with new divisions, but divisional poffs would be the wrong thing to do...there will always seem to be one division with 6 competitive teams vs one with 2 or 3... id be happy with the 16 best teams making it...

and if theres more travel to the other coasts, i hope they make an agreement where a game like NYR vs LA start an hour earlyer then normal at la, and an hour later in ny so its not as extreme for fans

 

[KingsFan7824]

but it's not 6 Divisions that I love but that I sincerely believe that 8-team Divisions are too large

But as you know the travel for the teams in the west with legitimate complaints causes 6 divisions to not work well enough for everyone involved. Unless Vancouver moves to the Pacific, and the Coyotes either stay in Phoenix or move to Seattle or Portland.

Not that 6 divisions aren't doable, as they've technically worked for a decade, but Dallas and Minnesota don't want to be in those western divisions. Apparently the first Jets franchise didn't mind being in a more central division, though I don't know what the current ownership's views are on that.

If 4 divisions turns out to be a disaster, they could always change again.

Those 4 divisions would actually be like 4 conferences though, if they change the schedule and go back to divisional playoffs. If you're 5th or 6th in your 7 or 8 team division, it would basically be the same as being 11th, 12th, or 13th in your 15 team conference.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I like the realignment of teams into 4 divisions. I'm thinking because there are only 30 teams that to even the divisions that 2 new cities need to be added. Of course they would come from the West. Of course Seattle and Las Vegas seem to be a shoe-in with Kansas city and Salt Lake maybe a consideration too. And further down the road,Quebec,Hamilton and Halifax. And maybe with that the play-off format changes to have 10 teams make it in each conference. Teams 7-10 would play a best of 3 set to move on to play against the top 6 in each conference. The NHL has to do something about only 16 clubs making the playoffs out of 30 teams. I think it will work 'cause the last 7,8,9 and 10 place clubs have always been close in terms of points. The added revenue will do wonders for some clubs also!

Expansion is not happening in this economic era....... dan, the demise of Augusta, Fresno, and Trenton from the ECHL THE LAST FEW years have shown that....

WVC, (Utah) WASN'T INTERESTED in staying in the AHL to feed players to an NHL franchise.....

some of these markets (QUE, HAL) have established junior franchises which weren't the rage 20-25 years ago, where those markets had backing from an NHL..... Hamilton isn't going anywhere as long as Andlauer maintains his stake in Montreal.....

 

[MoreOrr]

But as you know the travel for the teams in the west with legitimate complaints causes 6 divisions to not work well enough for everyone involved. Unless Vancouver moves to the Pacific, and the Coyotes either stay in Phoenix or move to Seattle or Portland.

Not that 6 divisions aren't doable, as they've technically worked for a decade, but Dallas and Minnesota don't want to be in those western divisions. Apparently the first Jets franchise didn't mind being in a more central division, though I don't know what the current ownership's views are on that.

If 4 divisions turns out to be a disaster, they could always change again.

Those 4 divisions would actually be like 4 conferences though, if they change the schedule and go back to divisional playoffs. If you're 5th or 6th in your 7 or 8 team division, it would basically be the same as being 11th, 12th, or 13th in your 15 team conference.

Listen KingsFan7824, make your arguments about why 4 Divisions are better, but don't rehash arguments that just won't be true with a 6-Division structure either, or that don't need to be true with a 6 Division structure either. Not suggesting that you're one of these people, but some people here seem so enamored with the 4 Division idea that they continually gloss over the fact that the reasons they keep justifying it can also apply to 6 Divisions...

How is moving Vancouver in the Pacific worse than a 4-Division alignment that leaves Winnipeg as the lone Canadian team in a Central/Midwest Division?

Unless Phoenix is relocated somewhere out of far-west, and in that case Vancouver isn't moved into the Pacific Division, then Dallas Won't be in the Pacific Divisoin any more, not with the addition of Winnipeg to the Northwest Division.

Winnipeg in the NW Division, gives Minnesota a CTZ partner, and again, if the League is willing to strand Winnipeg in a 4-Division Central Division, then why not Vancouver in a 6-Division Pacific Division? Then all 3 Time Zone Divisions are gone. Of course the Jets mind being separated from at least from the Alberta teams, but technically being the new guy on the block, they've got little say about.

Yes, if 4 Divisions don't work out then they can change it up again, likely to 8 Divisions of 4 teams each. But why make the change to 4 Divisions before there's 32 teams? Most of the other things the League is considering: more balanced schedule, getting rid of 3 Time Zone Divisions, trying to fit at least one of Detroit or Columbus in the East... that can all be done with 6 Divisions.

 

[Retail1LO*]

Agreed.

And I continue to echo this, as Bettman proposes these changes:

1. What are the business reasons to go to four-divisions from six?
2. What are the business reasons to change the schedule matrix from heavy in- conference games to heavy in-division and home-and-home with everyone else?
3. What are the business reasons to go to a divisional playoff for only the first round?
4. Why does it appear most of the member teams like this idea?

1. Going to 4 divisions from 6 is required in order to make the divisional playoff structure work.

2. Changing the schedule from heavy in-conference to in-division creates more games where both teams are in the same time zone, which creates a more favorable viewing time for all fans, which creates better ratings, and more dollars. It also fosters rivalries which will bleed over to the divisional playoff format. Home-and-home (assuming you mean playing everyone else in the league not in your division or conference, i.e. the OTHER conference) is needed because every fan of the game deserves an opportunity to see each player in the league play at his/her own barn at least ONCE a season. The fans deserve that much.

3. Divisional playoffs for the first round only? How do you reseed after something like that? It'd make more sense for the divisional playoffs to represent the first TWO rounds, then having the divisional winners vie for the conference. Do you have a link that discusses this format? Not doubting you, I just find it curious. Although, with two teams remaining in each division, I can see the top seeded team of one division playing the bottom seeded of the other.

4. And it would appear most member teams like the idea because they're the brains behind the sport and understand what's best for their bottom line, not us.

 

[Retail1LO*]

I really like the idea of divisional playoffs for at least 1 round too. My only comment about rivalries is that the best rivalries are those where, due to proximity and/or other non-hockey factors, the cities and fans themselves are rivals beyond just the NHL. For example, for a long list of reasons, Edmonton and Calgary are rival cities in many ways, thus getting the bragging rights from winning a hockey playoff series between them becomes an even bigger deal for fans.

I don't ENTIRELY agree with this. Rivalries can form at any distance. Any. Vancouver-Colorado. Detroit-Colorado. Chicago-Vancouver. It just SEEMS like location plays a role in the east, because all of the teams are inherently close. They're piled onto one another. It's too easy to say it's a contributing factor. You could make divisions with one team from each timezone, and if these guys have to see each other 8 times a year, and in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs each season...I GUARANTEE you...you're going to have some downright nasty rivalries.

Yes, there are a TON of rivalries that currently exist. The game is a hundred years old! But rivalries rise and fall with roster turn over, relocation, and just the times in general. To me...bragging rights come when I have a Cup...and you don't. ANd those bragging rights actually carry weight when I had to go through YOU...to get them. I love knowing that not only would I see Minnesota, St. Louis, and Winnipeg 8 times a year, but I'd have to battle with them further come playoff time, after 8 games worth of hate has built up. Besides, with the ex-Hawks that are on Winnipeg, and Toews being FROM Winnipeg, I can't wait to play them. I just wish we were keeping Detroit, and ditching Nashville or Dallas.

 

[MoreOrr]

1. Going to 4 divisions from 6 is required in order to make the divisional playoff structure work.

2. Changing the schedule from heavy in-conference to in-division creates more games where both teams are in the same time zone, which creates a more favorable viewing time for all fans, which creates better ratings, and more dollars. It also fosters rivalries which will bleed over to the divisional playoff format. Home-and-home (assuming you mean playing everyone else in the league not in your division or conference, i.e. the OTHER conference) is needed because every fan of the game deserves an opportunity to see each player in the league play at his/her own barn at least ONCE a season. The fans deserve that much.

3. Divisional playoffs for the first round only? How do you reseed after something like that? It'd make more sense for the divisional playoffs to represent the first TWO rounds, then having the divisional winners vie for the conference. Do you have a link that discusses this format? Not doubting you, I just find it curious. Although, with two teams remaining in each division, I can see the top seeded team of one division playing the bottom seeded of the other.

4. And it would appear most member teams like the idea because they're the brains behind the sport and understand what's best for their bottom line, not us.

Now that is true! Bolded 1., if you want to apply a strict Top-4 Divisional 1st Round Playoffs, you do need to go to 4 Divisions. (not something I want though... it ignores Conference Standings in favor of Division Standings.)

 

[Retail1LO*]

Now that is true! Bolded 1., if you want to apply a strict Top-4 Divisional 1st Round Playoffs, you do need to go to 4 Divisions. (not something I want though... it ignores Conference Standings in favor of Division Standings.)

But it SHOULD ignore conference standings if you're playing a heavy divisional schedule. See?


How do you align playoff teams using best records by conference, when the teams within that conference, have drastically difference schedules? Part of the reason I don't like it NOW. You get some division winner kickin' arse because their division sucks, and that gives them a higher position over someone else who had a great record but played more games against infinitely better opponents? Garbage. You play most of your games within your division, rank the teams according to the work they did in that division, then let them battle it out to prove the what the season-long standings state. You can't create a playoff structure by comparing apples to oranges.

 

[MoreOrr]

But it SHOULD ignore conference standings if you're playing a heavy divisional schedule. See?


How do you align playoff teams using best records by conference, when the teams within that conference, have drastically difference schedules? Part of the reason I don't like it NOW. You get some division winner kickin' arse because their division sucks, and that gives them a higher position over someone else who had a great record but played more games against infinitely better opponents? Garbage. You play most of your games within your division, rank the teams according to the work they did in that division, then let them battle it out to prove the what the season-long standings state. You can't create a playoff structure by comparing apples to oranges.

What's the difference? A Division winner that gets a 3rd place Playoff seed with a 6th place Conference record, or a Division winner with a 2nd place Playoff seed and a 4th place Conference record? Or worse yet, a guaranteed top-4 Playoff spot, with a record worse than the 6th place in the other Division, which doesn't get a Playoff spot.

 

[Crayton]

I'm trying to make a realignment program. (new thread?)

For now I have a few alignment options. Please suggest more. You can drag-drop teams around (although this is somewhat broken and triggers whenever you pass over another team). You can also select a few "historic" teams, although I have not fleshed that feature out past the first few teams alphabetically.

I also have a season-simulation planned, complete with playoffs. The schedule algorithm works great, although you currently can't view the schedule.

Please tell me, first, if it works, and second what additions/changes (features, options, layout) should be incorporated. I'd like some of this information before I move into the simulation portion of the program.

One option I will add is being able to Save a Custom alignment of your own.

 

[RandR]

I don't ENTIRELY agree with this. Rivalries can form at any distance. Any. Vancouver-Colorado. Detroit-Colorado. Chicago-Vancouver. It just SEEMS like location plays a role in the east, because all of the teams are inherently close. They're piled onto one another. It's too easy to say it's a contributing factor. You could make divisions with one team from each timezone, and if these guys have to see each other 8 times a year, and in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs each season...I GUARANTEE you...you're going to have some downright nasty rivalries.

Yes, there are a TON of rivalries that currently exist. The game is a hundred years old! But rivalries rise and fall with roster turn over, relocation, and just the times in general. To me...bragging rights come when I have a Cup...and you don't. ANd those bragging rights actually carry weight when I had to go through YOU...to get them. I love knowing that not only would I see Minnesota, St. Louis, and Winnipeg 8 times a year, but I'd have to battle with them further come playoff time, after 8 games worth of hate has built up. Besides, with the ex-Hawks that are on Winnipeg, and Toews being FROM Winnipeg, I can't wait to play them. I just wish we were keeping Detroit, and ditching Nashville or Dallas.

Yes, certainly rivalries on the ice can pop up anywhere after, for example, a couple of intense playoff series. Chicago-Vancouver is a great example, and those Detroit-Colorado series were legendary.

However, go off the ice and does anybody in Chicago personally know a Vancouver fan or vice-versa where they have to face them at work or on the street or by phone the day after or months after one of those series was over? And how many fans in Chicago or Vancouver actually make it over to watch any of their road games in the other team's building?

Change that to, for example, where I live, in Ottawa. Ottawa hasn't played their nearest geographic rival, Montreal, in the playoffs yet, but they have played their next nearest rivals, Toronto and Buffalo a couple of times each. I can assure you that there was nowhere near the fervour or lingering animosity in this city after the Sens played Buffalo than there was after playing Toronto. There are 2 big reasons for that:

1. Toronto and Ottawa are rival cities. Aside from being the only cities in Ontario with NHL teams, both are capitals (Toronto is provincial capital, Ottawa is the national capital). Also, long story, but Torontonians sometimes look down on Ottawa (it is 1/4 the population) whereas I think people here in Ottawa too often want to be considered "worthy" or equal of Toronto.

2. Ottawa is still full of many Leaf fans and they are close enough of a drive to each other (and lots of people, like myself, have lived in or near both cities). So anytime Toronto plays in Ottawa, the Leaf fans try to make as much noise or more than the Sens fans. And vice-versa for the Ottawa fans who head down to Toronto for their games.

Due to sheer distance and lack of any commonality outside of hockey, Vancouver and Chicago fans will never have anything as emotional between them off the ice like the above even though on the ice their recent playoff bouts have been far better entertainment than say the recent Leaf-Senators playoff matchups.

And as far as bragging rights go, I know and have known all kinds of fans who say things like "I know we have no chance of winning the cup, but I just want to beat out xxxx". Or "yeah we missed the playoffs again, but at least we knocked you guys out too" (3 years ago, Toronto knocked out the Habs on their last game of the season.)

Ultimately, we agree on the main point about liking divisional matchups in the playoffs. For pure intensity on the ice, I also agree with you that nasty rivalries can spur up between any two teams given a couple of intense playoff series. However, I also contend that rivalries also extend off the ice for the fans who live in or near the cities where their teams play and that is where proximity and other non-hockey factors count for extra.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Listen KingsFan7824, make your arguments about why 4 Divisions are better, but don't rehash arguments that just won't be true with a 6-Division structure either, or that don't need to be true with a 6 Division structure either. Not suggesting that you're one of these people, but some people here seem so enamored with the 4 Division idea that they continually gloss over the fact that the reasons they keep justifying it can also apply to 6 Divisions...

I hear you. Any number of divisions can work.

How is moving Vancouver in the Pacific worse than a 4-Division alignment that leaves Winnipeg as the lone Canadian team in a Central/Midwest Division?

Worse? It isn't worse. It's not even better. It's just a different set up.

Unless Phoenix is relocated somewhere out of far-west, and in that case Vancouver isn't moved into the Pacific Division, then Dallas Won't be in the Pacific Divisoin any more, not with the addition of Winnipeg to the Northwest Division.

That would help Dallas, no question.

Winnipeg in the NW Division, gives Minnesota a CTZ partner, and again, if the League is willing to strand Winnipeg in a 4-Division Central Division, then why not Vancouver in a 6-Division Pacific Division? Then all 3 Time Zone Divisions are gone. Of course the Jets mind being separated from at least from the Alberta teams, but technically being the new guy on the block, they've got little say about.

If Vancouver can go to the Pacific in a 6 division league, that's great. Helps to manage many problems.

Yes, if 4 Divisions don't work out then they can change it up again, likely to 8 Divisions of 4 teams each. But why make the change to 4 Divisions before there's 32 teams? Most of the other things the League is considering: more balanced schedule, getting rid of 3 Time Zone Divisions, trying to fit at least one of Detroit or Columbus in the East... that can all be done with 6 Divisions.

That's what I was saying. Vancouver goes to the Pacific, and the Coyotes are in Phoenix, Seattle, or Portland, and 6 divisions can work for more teams from a TV/time zone aspect.

Why change divisions before 32 teams? I'm not even worried about two more teams. Since the league has to change things because of the Jets anyway, then make things make the most sense for the most teams in a 30 team league as it stands after next season. If that involves 6 divisions, that's fine.

If not, then either Minnesota or Dallas will be in divisions they don't want to be in. Minnesota would have Winnipeg, but in that interview with the Wild owners, I think he said something about not having to play in Canada as much with the new 4 divisions. Minnesota wants to be in a central division. If Minnesota is in a central division, then Colorado has to be in the NW, and then Dallas can't get out of their problems.

I'd like to see a 5 division set up myself.

I'm open to some crazy stuff though if need be. Uneven divisions, uneven conferences, uneven teams within divisions and conferences, everything as even as it can get, I'm all game. Make the teams and fans as happy as possible. If the 4 western teams in Canada want to be in a division, then I say go for it. If Minnesota or Colorado wouldn't want to be there though, I'm open to that. If both Minnesota and Colorado would want to be in that division, I'm open to that too. Want a two 4 team divisions, two 5 team divisions, and two 6 team divisions? Sign me up.

I'm all for square pegs not being in round holes. Figure out which teams want to play where, and then let the chips fall where they may. 4 divisions? Great. 6 divisions? Terrific. 9 divisions? Sure. 10 divisions? Outstanding.

 

[MoreOrr]

Here we go... I knew that Leipold wasn't necessarily the most reliable source, a guy and his team which would be one of the winners with a 4-Division re-alignment:

NHL Realignment: League Has Yet To Decide On New Alignment, Report Says
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2011/7/13/2274420/nhl-realignment-rumors-central-division-winnipeg-jets

Looks like NHL realignment is not such a done deal, after all. . . .

Burnside rants: Truth to realignment rumors, . . . July, 13, 2011
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/...allout-from-hulsizer-and-heatley-havlat-trade

That discussion about Winnipeg being destined for a revamped Central Division for the 2012-13 season? Better cool your, er, Jets.

Despite Minnesota Wild owner Craig Leipold's assertions to a local radio station earlier this week that the realignment question has been all squared away and the Winnipeg Jets would join the Wild in a new Central Division, the relocation issue is far from being resolved.

An NHL source told ESPN.com on Wednesday it was premature to suggest any decisions have been made on how the NHL will look a year from now.

Of course, it may all still end up working out that way, but with the NHL having stated that a decision will be made in December, it does seem pre-mature to think that so much has already been decided. Still hoping here that they ultimately trash the whole 4-Division idea. (we need a fingers crossed icon).

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Here we go... I knew that Leipold wasn't necessarily the most reliable source, a guy and his team which would be one of the winners with a 4-Division re-alignment:

NHL Realignment: League Has Yet To Decide On New Alignment, Report Says
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2011/7/13/2274420/nhl-realignment-rumors-central-division-winnipeg-jets

Burnside rants: Truth to realignment rumors, . . . July, 13, 2011
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/...allout-from-hulsizer-and-heatley-havlat-trade


Of course, it may all still end up working out that way, but with the NHL having stated that a decision will be made in December, it does seem pre-mature to think that so much has already been decided. Still hoping here that they ultimately trash the whole 4-Division idea. (we need a fingers crossed icon).

meh, this is standard NHL. Heard the same before

Source comes out and says "Deal is not done for Jets" - deal was, for all intents and purposes done.

Source comes out and says Bond sale is dead for glenndale - NHL - Bond sale not done, we've sold half. Bond sale was actually done

To be honest, I believe sources like liepold and steve brunt more than the official NHL statements now. Burnside seems to be a mouthpiece for the NHL.

 

[MoreOrr]

meh, this is standard NHL. Heard the same before

Source comes out and says "Deal is not done for Jets" - deal was, for all intents and purposes done.

Source comes out and says Bond sale is dead for glenndale - NHL - Bond sale not done, we've sold half. Bond sale was actually done

To be honest, I believe sources like liepold and steve brunt more than the official NHL statements now. Burnside seems to be a mouthpiece for the NHL.

So why would the League not want people to think that a re-alignment structure is already fairly firmly decided upon?

 

[Crayton]

Funny, the SB Nation blurb erroneously quotes that Nashville wants to move West.

 

[Grudy0]

Did anyone read the article? Only one sentence needs to be quoted:

Rather than the move being a done deal, in fact, ESPN's sources are suggesting that the Atlanta Thrashers' relocation to Winnipeg is prompting the NHL to rethink their entire conference and schedule structure.

The current "conference and schedule structure" is six-divisions, six games against division opponents, four games against conference opponents and eighteen total games agains non-conference opponents. The proposed realignment is a rethinking of "their entire conference and schedule structure".

 

[MoreOrr]

Did anyone read the article? Only one sentence needs to be quoted:The current "conference and schedule structure" is six-divisions, six games against division opponents, four games against conference opponents and eighteen total games agains non-conference opponents. The proposed realignment is a rethinking of "their entire conference and schedule structure".

Despite Minnesota Wild owner Craig Leipold's assertions to a local radio station earlier this week that the realignment question has been all squared away and the Winnipeg Jets would join the Wild in a new Central Division, the relocation issue is far from being resolved.

An NHL source told ESPN.com on Wednesday it was premature to suggest any decisions have been made on how the NHL will look a year from now.

Interpret it as you wish, but the bolded parts are what I'm focused on.

 

[Henkka]

Did anyone read the article? Only one sentence needs to be quoted:The current "conference and schedule structure" is six-divisions, six games against division opponents, four games against conference opponents and eighteen total games agains non-conference opponents. The proposed realignment is a rethinking of "their entire conference and schedule structure".

The new division structure would be quite different.

With 7 team division, it would go like this:

6 games against 6 division opponents = 6 x 6 = 36 games
2 games against the other 3 divisions 23 opponents 2 x 23 = 46 games

Total 82 games.

There would be no conferences, the 7 team Pacific division teams would play against each other 6 times, and against every other team in the league 2 times, and that's it. I think it would be a huge drop also for travelling, that is just a bonus.

The 8 team divisions would be little bit complicated:

5-6 games against 7 division opponents = 5 x 7 = 35 +3 extra = 38 games
2 games against the other 3 divisions 22 opponents = 2 x 22 = 44 games

Total 82 games.

So we see, that the divisional weight would be huge, and other 3 divisions would be eaqually "rare". I somehow really like this system and that divisional playoff would be great too, if it's only for 1st round.

Then after that no conferences, only best point total team against the 8 best from round 1 and so on. No conference playoffs anymore. That would be just absolutely great. 1st round against division, 2-3-4 rounds against everybody.

I don't think same teams would be always against each other every year, because the divisional playoffs are only for first round, not winning the whole division.