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

[hockeyfan1988]

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?

I personally like

NorthEast- Eastern Conference Clb, Pit, Buff, Tor, Ott, Mon, Bos

Atlantic- Eastern Conference Nyi, Nyr, Phi, Nj, Was, Car, Fla, Tb

Midwest- Western Conference Dal, Nas, Det, Chi, Stl, Min, Wpg

Pacific- Western Conference Edm, Cal, Van, LA, Ana, SJ, Pho, Col

 

[saskganesh]

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

You make it sound like a mafia threat.

 

[eggy2486]

would it be too revolutionary to scrap the conferences, go with 5 divisions of 6, and just rank everyone 1-16 for the playoffs? Itll never happen, but the divisions don't seem pretty bad, I kinda screwed the south but it would cut down on everyone else's travel .. one major problem with this is that it gets ugly if Phoenix doesn't move to Quebec

West
----
Anaheim
Calgary
Edmonton
Los Angeles
San Jose
Vancouver

Midwest
-------
Chicago
Columbus
Detroit
Minnesota
St Louis
Winnipeg

South
-----
Carolina
Colorado
Dallas
Florida
Nashville
Tampa Bay

Northeast
---------
Boston
Buffalo
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec
Toronto

Atlantic
--------
New Jersey
NY Islanders
NY Rangers
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

 

[Grudy0]

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

Two points:

1) The League had unbalanced divisions for all but two years between 1978 and 1999 (21 seasons).

2) The League had an odd amount of teams for the first 13 of those seasons. However, the League had a choice. One team folded in 1978. The League then invited four (not three nor five) from the WHA one year later. The League didn't bother going to an even amount of teams until the Gunds (who were the owners of the NHL Barons and then merged them with the North Stars) wanted out of Minnesota and were granted the expansion franchise for San Jose.

At any point in time, from the beginning when looking to take on some of the WHA franchises until the Gunds were finally awarded a franchise, the NHL could have evened up their franchise count. Just because they didn't doesn't mean "the League had no choice".

 

[KevFu]

That's completely false!

The AL West is often the toughest division the game. People like to look at it as in the AL West you have a 1/4th shot to win the division and in the NL Central you have a 1/6th, and that's a really bad way to look at it. More teams in a division means MORE GAMES AGAINST BAD TEAMS in your division. The NL Central is usually the easiest division to win because the Pirates and at least 1 of the Cubs, Reds, Brewers, and Astros are always terrible. The Angels, A's, Mariners, and Rangers would all KILL to be swapped with an NL Central team.

Or more games against good teams?

Your argument fails.

No, it doesn't, because the teams aren't ever good. The Cardinals are the only consistently good team in the division. All the others are usually quite mediocre. The NL Central has been the worst division in the game for years.

If you look at the number of times a team got into the MLB playoffs with a record that was 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th best in their league, it's never been the AL West. It's been the NL Central, AL Central and NL West.

The idea that you have a 1/6 chance of winning the division vs a 1/4 chance of winning the division is stripping something down to ridiculous simplicity. That WOULD be true if MLB was drawing names out of a hat for a playoff berth per division. They're not. They're playing an unbalanced 162 game schedule, with the best record in the division taking the division title.


Then again, it's a circular argument: Are the records of the AL West teams "artificially higher" because they're playing a bunch of bad teams all the time and someone has to win?

But that changes year by year. The Pirates aren't bad because they're in the six-team NL Central. They're just bad.

The unfairness of the NL Central isn't that they have five other division opponents to play; it's that they can't mathematically play the SAME DIVISION SCHEDULE. Some division opponents you play 15 times, others 18 times.

If everyone plays the same schedule in each conference, then divisions don't matter except to say "we finished fourth in the Atlantic" instead of "eighth in the east."

The goal of MLB proposed realignment, and NHL's realignment is to make teams competing for the same prize play the same schedule.

 

[Jazz]

variation of this - which was a north, east, west and central

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

There is merit in having all Canadian teams in one division, and money ties in here.

In the past couple of seasons, TSN has made an effort to broadcast teams on their main network that involve at least 1 Canadian team. Canadian TV rights are up soon and are likely to increase after this. With all Canadian teams in 1 division, it will significantly increase the number of all-Canadian matchups during the regular season. And to those in the east worried about time-zone differences, well, we've already seen the CBC finagle Toronto games in Vancouver to start at 4pm local, so I don't see this as a problem.
If they go with divisional playoffs in the first round (which I hope they do not), then there will be guaranteed 2 Canadian vs Candian matchups in the first round (on alternating nights of course) with 2 of these making the 2nd round (again, alternating nights...)

I can also see NBC pushing this as well (having all the Canadian teams in one conference), as with all the money they have now invested in the league with the new long-term deal, the last thing they want is an All-Canadian Stanely Cup Final. This will guarantee at least 1 US team in the final.

I will support anything that includes divisional palyoffs.

This is interesting because in the early 1990s most people were sick of seeing the same playoff matchups over and over again

Might it hint at contraction by two teams?

Contraction will not happen unless fans get together and pool money to buy-out the teams involved, because the current owners will not to it.

....My stomach is churning that this 4-Division idea has even been brought up. Regardless if there is Expansion sometime in the future or not. Could the League actually have forgotten why it went away from large Divisions in the first place? This is just not a very good marketing idea.

...

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.

To the League: Please stay with 6 Divisions, and work within that to find a solution to the alignment problems!

From a marketing perspective, this makes sense (having 6 divisions vs 4). Especially in southern markets there hockey is not the No 1 sport.

 

[r0bert8841]

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..

If Winnepeg was in the Pacific, I would think Colorado would go midwest. Phoenix wouldn't make sense.

 

[RealKrug47*]

Original 6 division: Boston. NYR, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto

Atlantic: Buffalo, NYI, NJ, WSH, PHI, PITT

South: Carolina, TB, Florida, Nashville
-----------------------------------------
Canadian: Ottawa, Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton,Winnipeg

Pacific: Phoneix, San Jose, L.A, Dallas, Anaheim

North: Minn,Colorado, St.Louis, Columbus

 

[kdb209]

Two points:

1) The League had unbalanced divisions for all but two years between 1978 and 1999 (21 seasons).

2) The League had an odd amount of teams for the first 13 of those seasons. However, the League had a choice. One team folded in 1978. The League then invited four (not three nor five) from the WHA one year later. The League didn't bother going to an even amount of teams until the Gunds (who were the owners of the NHL Barons and then merged them with the North Stars) wanted out of Minnesota and were granted the expansion franchise for San Jose.

At any point in time, from the beginning when looking to take on some of the WHA franchises until the Gunds were finally awarded a franchise, the NHL could have evened up their franchise count. Just because they didn't doesn't mean "the League had no choice".

Now, don't sell the League short ...


1) The League had unbalanced divisions for all but one year between 1974 and 1999 (26 seasons).

For years the Patrick Division had 6 teams to every other division's 5 - two teams missed the playoffs to every other divisions one.

In fact, from '74-'75 thru '99-'00, there was exactly one year ('92-'93) when all divisions had the same number of teams.

'74-'75 - '77-'78 - 18 Teams: Adams (4), Norris (5), Patrick (4), Smythe (5)
'78-'79 - 17 Teams: Adams (4), Norris (5), Patrick (4), Smythe (4)
'79-'80 - 21 Teams: Adams (5), Norris (5), Patrick (5), Smythe (6)
'80-'81 - '81-'82 - 21 Teams: Adams (5), Norris (6), Patrick (5), Smythe (5)
'82-'83 - '90-'91 - 21 Teams: Adams (5), Norris (5), Patrick (6), Smythe (5)
'91-'92 - 22 Teams: Adams (5), Norris (5), Patrick (6), Smythe (6)
'92-'93 - 24 Teams: Adams (6), Norris (6), Patrick (6), Smythe (6)
'93-'94 - '94-'95 - 26 Teams: Atlantic (7), Central (6), Northeast (7), Pacific (6)
'95-'96 - '97-'98 - 26 Teams: Atlantic (7), Central (6), Northeast (6), Pacific (7)
'98-'99 - 27 Teams: Atlantic (5), Central (4), Northeast (5), Northwest (4), Pacific (5), Southeast (4)
'99-'00 - 28 Teams: Atlantic (5), Central (4), Northeast (5), Northwest (4), Pacific (5), Southeast (5)

 

[MoreOrr]

If Winnepeg was in the Pacific, I would think Colorado would go midwest. Phoenix wouldn't make sense.

Bettman's 14-team West:
PACIFIC
Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix
MIDWEST
Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Nashville, St Louis, Dallas, Colorado

Colorado is already in the Midwest. To put Winnipeg in the Pacific, you need to move Phoenix to the Midwest, to be with Minnesota and Chicago.

 

[Jazz]

Bettman's 14-team West:
PACIFIC
Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix
MIDWEST
Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Nashville, St Louis, Dallas, Colorado

Colorado is already in the Midwest. To put Winnipeg in the Pacific, you need to move Phoenix to the Midwest, to be with Minnesota and Chicago.

I do not see a scenario where Winnipeg is separated from the 3 Western Canadian teams. It will be both what they want, and that the American teams would want to see less of 'Winnipeg' in their arenas as well.

But as mentioned above, I also see a scenario where all Canadian teams are in one division, mainly for TV reasons.

 

[Valhuen]

Relocation is a must, I can even swallow the idea of uneven divisions, however the last thing I would want to see is expansion. The talent pool is diluted enough as is, what we don't need are more low-talent teams clogging up the neutral zone.

 

[MoreOrr]

I do not see a scenario where Winnipeg is separated from the 3 Western Canadian teams. It will be both what they want, and that the American teams would want to see less of 'Winnipeg' in their arenas as well.

But as mentioned above, I also see a scenario where all Canadian teams are in one division, mainly for TV reasons.

Fine, I accept that and pretty much agree with that. However, under the alignment that Bettman is proposing, how do you see that happening?

He wants unbalanced Conferences in order to put both Columbus and Detroit in the East, so that leaves 14 teams in the West. He's talking about a Pacific Division and a Midwest Division... likely to reduce the number of Time Zones within any Division... But fine, Winnipeg says it willing to be the lone CTZ team in the Pacific. But should that force Phoenix into the Midwest?

How?

And if you come back with the response that Bettman can't have exactly what he wants. Then I ask the question: Why then will the League go through with the change to 4-Divisions if it doesn't accomplish what it was meant to accomplish?


Checking your "above", I can say with significant confidence that creating 4-Divisions is partly to remove the need to 3 Time Zone Divisions. There isn't much point to go with 4 Divisions if that still means having 3 Times Zones in any one Division. And you're talking put 4 Time Zones in a Division... No Way In Hell will that happen!

And PS: Why in hell is Florida in a different Division from Tampa Bay in that alignment? Sorry man, but that's just a misguide alignment all around.

 

[MoreOrr]

Relocation is a must, I can even swallow the idea of uneven divisions, however the last thing I would want to see is expansion. The talent pool is diluted enough as is, what we don't need are more low-talent teams clogging up the neutral zone.

The talent pool is not "diluted"; show me the evidence that it is. And the League will do everything in it's power to avoid more relocations; not to say that it won't happen though. As for Expansion, that too isn't likely on the near horizon, but then you never know.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

The talent pool is not "diluted"

I agree.

FWIW, I've never seen so many talented hockey players that can skate and handle the puck as they do nowadays.

The last few years of NHL playoffs have been so darn exciting and entertaining. Never been better IMO.

Not only is training and fitness so much more advanced now, so are the hockey programs in the U.S. and Europe that are producing more and more talented and top notch hockey players.

 

[r0bert8841]

Bettman's 14-team West:
PACIFIC
Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix
MIDWEST
Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Nashville, St Louis, Dallas, Colorado

Colorado is already in the Midwest. To put Winnipeg in the Pacific, you need to move Phoenix to the Midwest, to be with Minnesota and Chicago.

Wait, are those officially what Betman proposed?

In my initial post I say I believe the Pacific will have 8 teams. 3 western canada, 3 californa, phx, and one of colorado and winnepeg.

 

[MoreOrr]

Wait, are those officially what Betman proposed?

In my initial post I say I believe the Pacific will have 8 teams. 3 western canada, 3 californa, phx, and one of colorado and winnepeg.

He proposed the 14 teams in the West (moving both Detroit and Columbus into the East), and a Pacific and Midwest Division.

You put the teams in those Divisions as you see fit. Or otherwise, design a whole other plan, but then it won't be what Bettman is proposing.

 

[knorthern knight]

Contraction will not happen unless fans get together and pool money to buy-out the teams involved, because the current owners will not to it.

That assumes an owner somewhere doesn't give up the ghost on their franchise. Remember the Cleveland Barons?

 

[r0bert8841]

He proposed the 14 teams in the West (moving both Detroit and Columbus into the East), and a Pacific and Midwest Division.

You put the teams in those Divisions as you see fit. Or otherwise, design a whole other plan, but then it won't be what Bettman is proposing.

Can you give me a link to this?

Because I have a little different impression of whats going on.

 

[hkymnky]

A different angle...

I realize this is a departure from what the article states...but what if the conferences were North and South rather than East and West?

For Example

Not only would this put Detroit and Columbus in the "East", it would also allow for the creation of a "Canadian" division.

Northern Conference

Canadian Division
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs
Winnipeg ???
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Vancouver Canucks

American Division
Boston Bruins
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey Devils
Buffalo Sabres
Detroit Red Wings
Chicago Blackhawks
Minnesota Wild

Southern Conference

Eastern Division
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Columbus Bluejackets
Washington Capitals
Carolina Hurricanes
Tampa Bay Lightning
Florida Panthers

Western Division
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Dallas Stars
Colorado Avalanche
Phoenix Coyotes
Anaheim Ducks
LA Kings

I admit the more I look at this the more I like it. Not only does it provide all the benefits of an all Canadian division as has been discussed in previous posts, it also creates a "classic hockey market" division and provides some interesting opportunities for non-traditional markets to shine in the Southern Conference.

Thoughts?

 

[MoreOrr]

Can you give me a link to this?

Because I have a little different impression of whats going on.

There's the link in the OP:
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2011/06/22/18321961.html?cid=rsssportsslam! hockey
and this one:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/22/nhl-maps-out-major-changes

But I am going to have to concede one detail... the part about the 14/16 split between the Conferences. The article doesn't exactly say that, but it's implied. The 14/16 split has been tossed around here so much since the article was reported that I simply came to believe that the article actually stated it.

 

[r0bert8841]

There's the link in the OP:
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2011/06/22/18321961.html?cid=rsssportsslam! hockey
and this one:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/22/nhl-maps-out-major-changes

But I am going to have to concede one detail... the part about the 14/16 split between the Conferences. The article doesn't exactly say that, but it's implied. The 14/16 split has been tossed around here so much since the article was reported that I simply came to believe that the article actually stated it.

No read the first article again it says this.

With 30 teams, one division in each conference will have eight squads while the other will have seven. Under the current format — two conferences and six divisions — division winners and the top five teams make the playoffs.

 

[garry1221]

There's the link in the OP:
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2011/06/22/18321961.html?cid=rsssportsslam! hockey
and this one:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/22/nhl-maps-out-major-changes

But I am going to have to concede one detail... the part about the 14/16 split between the Conferences. The article doesn't exactly say that, but it's implied. The 14/16 split has been tossed around here so much since the article was reported that I simply came to believe that the article actually stated it.

I'm of the opinion that, especially with a division heavy schedule, it won't matter as much how the divisions are divided into conferences. We've talked plenty here in other alignments about abandoning the east/west format. I don't understand why it couldn't be the same with unbalanced divisions. Pacific/NE, Midwest/SE or Pacific/SE, Midwest/NE. If out of division games are all home and home, I don't see why there couldn't be an 8 team division and 7 team division in each conference.

 

[MoreOrr]

No read the first article again it says this.

Well how about that... Sorry man, but I don't recall noticing anyone point that out. Okay then, if Detroit and Columbus are both in an Eastern Conference...

Bettman’s idea would not affect a East-West Stanley Cup final matchup.

then which current Eastern Conference team would be put in the West to take the place of having both Detroit and Columbus in the East?

 

[MoreOrr]

I'm of the opinion that, especially with a division heavy schedule, it won't matter as much how the divisions are divided into conferences. We've talked plenty here in other alignments about abandoning the east/west format. I don't understand why it couldn't be the same with unbalanced divisions. Pacific/NE, Midwest/SE or Pacific/SE, Midwest/NE. If out of division games are all home and home, I don't see why there couldn't be an 8 team division and 7 team division in each conference.

Yes please, to the bolded part....

But really, how much of Bettman's idea can be changed before the whole idea just gets crumpled up and thrown in the waste basket?

As the article states, the East-West structure is still part of the Bettman proposal.