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

[Space Herpe]

I can't stand un-even divisions and what not! Every team should have the same logic applied to the creation of their schedule. Un-even divisions implies different logic.

28 teams, 4 divisions, 7 per
or
32 teams, 4 divisions , 8 per.

As others have hinted, this hints to expansion.

 

[Bucky Katt]

So then imagine, by mid-Season, fans of teams buried at or near the bottom of an 8-team Division will just say, 'forget it', my team has no chance of leap-frogging all those teams above them in the Division.

That is complete nonsense. The 4th best team in a 7/8 team division will almost always be very close in points to the 8th best team in a 15 team conference so teams that are trying to catch up will have about the same level of difficulty getting in. In fact, it may give those teams more of a chance in a 7/8 team division because there will be more divisional games and there are fewer teams to pass along the way.

I love the four division model - hopefully the NHL goes with it.

 

[MoreOrr]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_18334600?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

Minnesota really wants out of NW division (and into Central) due to time zone and travel (Van, Cal, Edm, etc.).

Minnesota doesn't have near as much to complain about as Dallas, at least not with respect to the supposed reasons mentioned above. All of the Western Divisions have at least 2 Time Zones, and Minnesota only has Vancouver to deal with being 2 TZs away. So what, within the current setup, if Minnesota was in the Central that would mean 1 single less trip in a Season to Vancouver... Huge griping material there!

No, it's a lie... Part of what Minnesota doesn't want is to be in a Division as the lone US city with 4 Canadian cities. Distance and Vancouver are side issues.

There seems to be some "power struggles" between the Detroits and other teams with some clout that may have a bearing on how the new alignments are done.

That's where this 4-Divsion talk is all coming from. Different teams disadvantaged by the current alignment, and other teams entrenched in their current alignments and not willing to change things up in order to make accommodations for those teams that want alignment adjustments.

But as some are already saying, no matter how you slice it there's going to be teams that aren't content. And fine, the League may go with a more balanced schedule for some time, but how long will that last? Eventually there'll be an outcry to have some other type of scheduling format, to go back to the way it was before... and then what happens with this supposedly convenient 4-Division structure, when it doesn't quite matchup with a different scheduling format?

We know that they're going to think through this carefully, well at least we hope so, because really... Are 8-team Divisions, and what that entails, really what the League wants?

 

[MoreOrr]

I agree with Colorado and Philly, but I was thinking Winnipeg might want to be with the 3 Western Canadian teams. But I agree geographically Winnepeg wouldn't be likely for the Pacific.

So imagine... Anaheim and Los Angeles to Winnipeg. How is that a positive alignment?

And what, take Phoenix out the Pacific Division in order to put Winnipeg in... And then you have Phoenix and Minnesota-Chicago all in the same Division. Again..

 

[mpfitz85]

I will support anything that includes divisional palyoffs.

 

[MoreOrr]

I will support anything that includes divisional palyoffs.

Teams will end up in Divisions that have teams which they currently play in the 1st Round anyway, but that aren't currently Division opponents. So what difference does it make? You're still competing primarily within the Conference.

6 Division winners gives more fans a little something to feel good about than does only 4.


As all of you can see, I'm all over this Bettman idea like a rabid dog....
Whether it's four Divisions of 8, or 8 Divisions of four, it's equally bad.
8-team Divisions is as bad as playing 8 games against Division opponents.
8-team Divisions is almost as bad as having a best of 8 series.
8-team Divisions is likely playing with 8 players on the ice for each team rather than 6.
The League had an Original 6, not an Original 8.

That's 6 not 8!

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

Teams will end up in Divisions that have teams which they currently play in the 1st Round anyway, but that aren't currently Division opponents. So what difference does it make? You're still competing primarily within the Conference.

6 Division winners gives more fans a little something to feel good about than does only 4.


As all of you can see, I'm all over this Bettman idea like a rabid dog....
Whether it's four Divisions of 8, or 8 Divisions of four, it's equally bad.
8-team Divisions is as bad as playing 8 games against Division opponents.
8-team Divisions is almost as bad as having a best of 8 series.
8-team Divisions is likely playing with 8 players on the ice for each team rather than 6.
The League had an Original 6, not an Original 8.

That's 6 not 8!

You must have been the only Bruins fan that disliked all the series with Montreal

 

[CBJ goalie]

I love the idea of 4 divisions, it will make more sense and more teams happier than the current set up.
I also don't see why all the b!tching over having uneven divisions, or even 14 in one conference and 16 in the other - at the end of the day, the top 16 teams make it to the dance, who cares how they sit in their division?

The one thing I ask is for the NHL to take away the provision that finishing first in your division places you in a certain rank - the days of the 1st place SE division team being 3rd in the conference, when they should have been 8th, need to go bye-bye.

 

[Bucky Katt]

Whether it's four Divisions of 8, or 8 Divisions of four, it's equally bad.

The teams are pretty much in two "divisions" of 15 right now. What good are the divisions right now? Two extra games against four teams, perhaps a higher conference seeding, and two extra division championship banners. Teams would rather finish 5th in the division and 8th in the conference instead of 2nd in the division and 9th in the conference.

 

[MoreOrr]

You must have been the only Bruins fan that disliked all the series with Montreal

And many of those series happened without Division Playoffs.

And who's to guarantee that with a Divisional Playoff Boston and Montreal will play each other in that 1st Round? It's not as if the Division would only have 5 teams and the odds aren't so small that Boston and Montreal could face each other... The Division will have 8 teams, so a 1st round match is definitely not guaranteed. I dare say, that the occurrance of Boston and Montreal facing each in the 1st Round won't be greater than it has been.

But yes, I hate Montreal, but I don't particularly wish for Bruins-Canadiens matchups in the Playoffs... To be honest.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

I can't stand un-even divisions and what not! Every team should have the same logic applied to the creation of their schedule. Un-even divisions implies different logic.

28 teams, 4 divisions, 7 per
or
32 teams, 4 divisions , 8 per.

As others have hinted, this hints to expansion.

Might it hint at contraction by two teams?

But then again, expansion is a way get a cash infusion or maybe even a way to recoup losses of some sort.

 

[MoreOrr]

Might it hint at contraction by two teams?

But then again, expansion is a way get a cash infusion or maybe even a way to recoup losses of some sort.

There have been Expansion threads posted here, and the more recent ones have been closed, with the explanation that the League/Bettman has clearly stated that Expansion is not on the horizon.

And whether you are a proponent of contraction or not, we all know that the League isn't or wouldn't be.

 

[Grudy0]

You missed one "impetus"... getting both Detroit and Columbus out of the West.

Of course, not having an East-West (nor North-South) is another solution to that problem.

Sources say under Bettman’s proposal, the league will have four divisions: Pacific, Midwest, East and South. It’s believed the Detroit Red Wings and Columbus Blue Jackets would both get their wish to move to the East conference.

I'm not sold on seeing Detroit moved to the East. As I said, keeping Detroit in the Midwest while guaranteeing only seeing opponents outside of the division twice helps mollify Detroit's current problems...

Redwings have to travel to the West Coast twice. In their current 82-game schedule, 41 games are at home, and of the remaining 41 games:

12 are played at their divisional opponents
20 are played at their non-divisional conference opponents (two western/pacific road trips)
9 are played against the Eastern Conference

If it is the travel that is brutal, it would have to be the travel to the west, the rest of the conference. And Dallas has more room to complain, as they simply have no one around them for about 700 miles.

In this proposal, Detroit would be playing-
41 home games
15 games against other Eastern Conference teams
That's 56 Eastern Time Zone games, leaving 26 others, including-

Divisional Play (18 or 19 games on the road within the division)
One game each in LA, Anaheim, SJ, Phoenix, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary (instead of two)
Stays with Chicago/St.Louis in same division (natural rivals)

I just don't think the Wings are moving to the Eastern Conference.

 

[MoreOrr]

Definitely, if you MUST put 4 teams from each division in the playoffs, then mixing the 8 first round winners is the best way to go.
I would also allow for some leeway (2 spots) in allowing teams to continue to be matched against their division opponents.

If, for example, Vancouver and Anaheim advance to the Second Round from the Pacific Division, then allow them to be matched up if Anaheim is #8, #7, or #6 (Vancouver would obviously be ranked #1).

Exactly! How else could they do a strictly Divisional Playoff 1st Round?

People complain now when a 9th place team in one Conference has a better record than a 7th place team in the other Conference. And we've all seen the potential that a current Division winner might actually finish with far from a Top-3 record, and it's griped about frequently.

So, the Top-4 teams in each Division make the Playoffs, but the 5th and 6th place teams in one Division have a better record than the 4th place team in the other Division... And that's probably on top of perhaps having a better record than the lowest Playoff seeded team in the other Conference... Whoaa... won't that get a lot of you fired up!!

So okay, maybe they don't go with a strict Divisional Playoff... only the Top-2 or 3 in each Division are guaranteed Playoff spots. Now what happens to your semi-assured 1st Round Division Rivalry matchups? They're not guaranteed to begin with because there are 8 teams in the Division, much less chance than with 5 teams, and now some of those 1st Round matchups will be against teams in the other Division anyway.

 

[MoreOrr]

I'm not sold on seeing Detroit moved to the East. As I said, keeping Detroit in the Midwest while guaranteeing only seeing opponents outside of the division twice helps mollify Detroit's current problems...

. . . . .

I just don't think the Wings are moving to the Eastern Conference.

Neither am I. Not saying that the League won't do it, if they go through with Bettman's proposal, but that would it really serve the League well to leave only Chicago, as an Original Six team, in the West?

AGAIN, the way to fix this is to have both eastern and western Divisions in both Conferences. Not this 4-Divisions nonsense. Going the 4-Division route is an attempt to put a band-aid on something, in which the band-aid will eventually fall off and the problem will still be there.

Really, both Conferences should contain 1 truly western Division and 2 essentially eastern Divisions (6 Divisions in total).

 

[Ogopogo*]

Don't miss the main point in any realignment: money.

Why do the Red Wings and Blue Jackets want to be in the East? They lose TV revenue by playing teams outside of their time zone. TV ratings are lower, the money they get for those games is reduced.

Realignment is primarily about maximizing TV dollars and that means showing as many games as possible at 7pm local time.

Nobody would agree to have Tampa in the same divison as Colorado or anything like that.

 

[sickest flow bro]

SouthWest: LA, Anaheim, San Jose, Phoenix, Colorado, Dallas, Nashville

Northwest: Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Minnesota, Chicago, St Louis

Northeast: Toronto, Detroit, Columbus, Montreal, Ottawa, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Boston

Atlantic: Florida, Tampa, Washington, New York, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Carolina

??

Guessing without conferences?

 

[Grudy0]

Don't miss the main point in any realignment: money.

Why do the Red Wings and Blue Jackets want to be in the East? They lose TV revenue by playing teams outside of their time zone. TV ratings are lower, the money they get for those games is reduced.

Realignment is primarily about maximizing TV dollars and that means showing as many games as possible at 7pm local time.

You said it better than I.

This is why Detroit wants some semblance of a movement to play against more Eastern teams. Keep Detroit in the Midwest and tweak the schedule as mentioned, and...

A) Detroit keeps many of their natural rivals, including the Black Hawks, and
B) Detroit would only have five games in the Pacific Time Zone (including Phoenix) and three in the Mountain, unless one of those teams ends up in their division. Currently Detroit is playing twice as many in those time zones.

 

[LeafShark]

I prefer the nfl model of 8 divisions of 4 teams rather than 4 divisions of 8 teams. Divisions become that much tighter and easier to manage. Plus transportation goes way down.

32 games from out of conference ~ 2 each
36 games from within conference ~ 3 each
15 games from within division ~ 5 each

83 games total

- top 2 from each division face each other in the first round
- divisions from each conference are grouped and seeded for the quarter finals
- teams from both conferences are grouped together and seeded in the semi-finals

Division rivalries escalate to an all time high

 

[GKJ]

People are acting like uneven divisons has never happened before in any sport. Relax. It's going to be ok. Promise.

 

[MoreOrr]

People are acting like uneven divisons has never happened before in any sport. Relax. It's going to be ok. Promise.

You're posting like it's already a done deal.... It's Not!

 

[iamaranger]

keep it the way it is

 

[Grudy0]

People are acting like uneven divisons has never happened before in any sport. Relax. It's going to be ok. Promise.

People forget that from 1978 to 1991, the league only had an odd amount of teams, nevermind uneven divisions.

Four divisions of six for the 1992-1993 season, and then uneven divisions again up until the current setup in 1999-2000.

I can get with this program...

 

[MoreOrr]

People forget that from 1978 to 1991, the league only had an odd amount of teams, nevermind uneven divisions.

Four divisions of six for the 1992-1993 season, and then uneven divisions again up until the current setup in 1999-2000.

I can get with this program...

An odd number of teams meant the League had no choice.

 

[hockeyfan1988]

What are the problems with "uneven" divisions?

I'm puzzled people are suggesting divisions based on proximity from left to right or east to west. When you do that, you'll have teams in the same division perhaps 2 time zones difference which will hinder a viewers opportunity to reasonably watch the division games. Plus, it's not so much the miles traveled but the time zone difference which affects players and teams more. It changes the consistency of the day's schedule.