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

[r0bert8841]

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...

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?

Its alrite, it was worded pretty sneakily and right by the end, so it was easy to miss.

And I am kind of under the impression that the 2 division won't be East and West, although I don't know how the finals would be West vs East.

 

[OtownHockey]

I absolutley hate the plan, let me guess the south and pacific division which will contain a total of 1 canadian team will have seven teams, while the east and midwest will have 8 -For comparision the MLB is finalyyy working their flawed system with a NL division having 6 and an AL with 4 my moving the Astros over- Further pandering to the sub par american market as always.

 

[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.

I'm feeling the urge to repost one of my preferred re-alignment ideas:

Campbell Conference

NORTHWEST | NORTHEAST | EAST CENTRAL
Vancouver|Buffalo|Columbus
Calgary|New Jersey|Pittsburgh
Edmonton|NY Rangers|Philadelphia
Winnipeg|NY Islanders|Washington
Minnesota|Boston|Carolina

Norris Conference

SOUTHWEST | SOUTHEAST | GREAT LAKES
San Jose|Dallas|Chicago
Los Angeles|St Louis|Detroit
Anaheim|Nashville|Toronto
Phoenix|Tampa Bay|Ottawa
Colorado|Florida|Montreal

Now since this discussion has evolved into including the idea of a "balanced schedule", I'll add in an idea of how that also can be done while keeping the 6 Divisions:
In Division
24 = 6 games against 4 teams
One In-Conference Division (alternating Seasons with other In-Conference Division)
16 = 4 games against 4 teams
Other In-Conference Division
12 = 2 games against 6 teams
All other Conference teams
30 = 2 games against 15 teams
82 game total

 

[knorthern knight]

OK, here's my go at it. Assume that Phoenix moves to Quebec (or Hamilton) for the 2012-2013 season.

• Western Conference
  • WEST
    • Vancouver
    • Calgary
    • Edmonton
    • Colorado
    • Winnipeg
    • San Jose
    • Anaheim
    • Los Angeles
  • MIDWEST
    • Dallas
    • Minnesota
    • St Louis
    • Chicago
    • Nashville
    • Tampa
    • Miami
• Eastern Conference
  • GREAT LAKES
    • Columbus
    • Detroit
    • Buffalo
    • Toronto
    • Ottawa
    • Montreal
    • Quebec (or Hamilton)
  • ATLANTIC
    • Pittsburgh
    • Carolina
    • Washington
    • Philadelphia
    • New Jersey
    • NY Rangers
    • NY Islanders
    • Boston

Having 7 or 8 teams per division allows some flexibility.

• Winnipeg could move from the West to the Midwest and save timezones/jetlag. But I assume that TNSE/CBC/TSN will want them in a division with Vancouver/Calgary/Edmonton.
  
• Pittsburgh could be shifted to the Great Lakes, but probably wants to be in the same division as their Penn state rival Philadelphia, who wants to be in the same division as Washington/NewJersey/Islanders/Rangers.

 

[MoreOrr]

OK, here's my go at it. Assume that Phoenix moves to Quebec (or Hamilton) for the 2012-2013 season.

• Western Conference
  • WEST
    • Vancouver
    • Calgary
    • Edmonton
    • Winnipeg
    • San Jose
    • Anaheim
    • Los Angeles
  • MIDWEST
    • Dallas
    • Minnesota
    • St Louis
    • Chicago
    • Nashville
    • Tampa
    • Miami
• Eastern Conference
  • GREAT LAKES
    • Columbus
    • Detroit
    • Buffalo
    • Toronto
    • Ottawa
    • Montreal
    • Quebec (or Hamilton)
  • ATLANTIC
    • Pittsburgh
    • Carolina
    • Washington
    • Philadelphia
    • New Jersey
    • NY Rangers
    • NY Islanders
    • Boston

Having 7 or 8 teams per division allows some flexibility.

• Winnipeg could move from the West to the Midwest and save timezones/jetlag. But I assume that TNSE/CBC/TSN will want them in a division with Vancouver/Calgary/Edmonton.
  
• Pittsburgh could be shifted to the Great Lakes, but probably wants to be in the same division as their Penn state rival Philadelphia, who wants to be in the same division as Washington/NewJersey/Islanders/Rangers.

Can I just ask, where's Colorado?

 

[r0bert8841]

My impression of the new set up would be that each team would play in their 6-7 games against each division foe, then 2 games (1 home 1 away) against every other team in the league. That would mean teams in the Midwest, South, and East would all play the same number off games against Pacific teams.

Since the playoff format would be different, where the first round is against division rivals, Mid Western teams wouldn't play Pacific teams until the 2nd round of the playoffs potentially. So even if the Western conference contains both the Pacific and Midwest, their is no time zone issues for mid western teams until the 2nd round of the playoffs.

So as a result I think Detroit and Columbus will be in the Midwestern division, but since most of the games they play will start at 7, it won't make much of a difference.

This is the most reasonable way I see for keeping a West/East SCF while trying to accomadate all the teams that want to play in the Eastern time zone.

 

[Hymanbrah]

Sounds awful, no wonder some here like it. Divisional Playoffs are garbage.

 

[EventHorizon]

I was never a fan of 3 divisions per conference, especially with the division winners getting the top 3 seeds, so this appeals to me a bit. There are also a lot of possibilities. The most interesting part of this story to me is this:

Teams would play a balanced 82-game schedule with home-and-home against teams outside their division.

This brings up an obvious question: Why bother having Conferences at all? I was always a fan of the top 16 teams making the playoffs so you can have a potential local rivalry in the Final. Unfortunately that's not really feasible with an unbalanced schedule. But this schedule, balanced against the other 3 divisions, could lead to a sort of a hybrid of the 1 vs. 16 and divisional playoff formats allowing local rivals to compete in the finals. It's simple. You have the top 4 teams in the division make the playoffs. 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 in the division. Then after the first round is complete you seed the remaining teams 1 through 8 and you keep reseeding until you have your finalists.

Sounds good to me though I doubt it will happen. But can I help it if the idea of a NYR vs. NYI Stanley Cup Final makes me shudder with excitement?

 

[BrianL*]

Sounds awful, no wonder some here like it. Divisional Playoffs are garbage.

For full marks, you must show how you arrived at your final answer.

 

[knorthern knight]

Can I just ask, where's Colorado?

In the West Post edited to correct it.

 

[r0bert8841]

I was never a fan of 3 divisions per conference, especially with the division winners getting the top 3 seeds, so this appeals to me a bit. There are also a lot of possibilities. The most interesting part of this story to me is this:



This brings up an obvious question: Why bother having Conferences at all? I was always a fan of the top 16 teams making the playoffs so you can have a potential local rivalry in the Final. Unfortunately that's not really feasible with an unbalanced schedule. But this schedule, balanced against the other 3 divisions, could lead to a sort of a hybrid of the 1 vs. 16 and divisional playoff formats allowing local rivals to compete in the finals. It's simple. You have the top 4 teams in the division make the playoffs. 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 in the division. Then after the first round is complete you seed the remaining teams 1 through 8 and you keep reseeding until you have your finalists.

Sounds good to me though I doubt it will happen. But can I help it if the idea of a NYR vs. NYI Stanley Cup Final makes me shudder with excitement?

I believe they would have the East/West conferences for financial reasons. I believe they would want the SCF to appeal to the great amount of people possible, and I believe thats the best way going about it.

 

[EventHorizon]

I believe they would have the East/West conferences for financial reasons. I believe they would want the SCF to appeal to the great amount of people possible, and I believe thats the best way going about it.

I don't think East vs. West necessarily would appeal to more people than East vs. East or West vs. West. All you really need is two teams from different media markets which is still the most likely scenario. Just look at the Winter Classic as a perfect example of this. Obviously NBC and the NHL want ratings to be as high as possible and every one of those games have been within their own Conference. All you really need is two distinct media markets and you're good. And that's still the most likely scenario for the Stanley Cup Final if you throw Conferences out the window. In fact, the only way you're drawing from the same market is if the Ducks meet the Kings or two of the Rangers, Islanders and Devils make it to the Final.

 

[garry1221]

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.

The queston is, which parts are true, and which aren't. Only the SLAM article is stating that the east/west structure is still in play. The OttawaSun article doesn't say anything about east/west. It can't go both ways. I suppose as the year moves on we'll hear more about this plan of his. I mentioned this in another of these threads, but w/ a division heavy schedule, I think if a 4 division alignment goes through, the 'conferences' could be switched in a couple years in order to really see what matchups get the best ratings or create the best rivalries. If the league goes w/ both 4 divisions and east/west, then it's a sure sign of expansion in the near future.

 

[MoreOrr]

For full marks, you must show how you arrived at your final answer.

No really... You should explain just how those Divisional Playoffs would work...

If the top 4 teams from every Division make the Playoffs, then you're liable to have a 4th place team in one Division with a worse record than both the 5th and 6th place team in the other Division. So okay, only the Top 2 or 3 teams in each Division are guaranteed Playoff spots. But that means that not all 1st Round matchups will be Division opponents. And with 8-team Divisions, already you are including teams in the Division which aren't currently Division rivals. So those 1st Round matchups could quite likely not be the matchups that everyone is so keen on seeing or at least likely won't occur any more frequently than they already do.

That 1st Round Division rivalry Playoffs that so many want to see will ultimately end up being fairly bogus.

 

[r0bert8841]

I don't think East vs. West necessarily would appeal to more people than East vs. East or West vs. West. All you really need is two teams from different media markets which is still the most likely scenario. Just look at the Winter Classic as a perfect example of this. Obviously NBC and the NHL want ratings to be as high as possible and every one of those games have been within their own Conference. All you really need is two distinct media markets and you're good. And that's still the most likely scenario for the Stanley Cup Final if you throw Conferences out the window. In fact, the only way you're drawing from the same market is if the Ducks meet the Kings or two of the Rangers, Islanders and Devils make it to the Final.

I think that it would be most appealing to the most fans if 2 teams from different divisions play in the SCF. If teams are playing their division rivals 6-7 times a year, I think fans will get familiar with all the teams in their division, so they would be more inclined to tune in to the SCF if a team they are familiar with is playing. 2 teams from the same division would be a much less appealing draw in my opinion.

 

[r0bert8841]

The queston is, which parts are true, and which aren't. Only the SLAM article is stating that the east/west structure is still in play. The OttawaSun article doesn't say anything about east/west. It can't go both ways. I suppose as the year moves on we'll hear more about this plan of his. I mentioned this in another of these threads, but w/ a division heavy schedule, I think if a 4 division alignment goes through, the 'conferences' could be switched in a couple years in order to really see what matchups get the best ratings or create the best rivalries. If the league goes w/ both 4 divisions and east/west, then it's a sure sign of expansion in the near future.

The only thing the SLAM article mentions about the east-west setup is that Gary Bettman still wants a West vs East final. So it is really saying the East/West thing is going to play much of an effect accept in the later rounds of the playoffs.

 

[MoreOrr]

The queston is, which parts are true, and which aren't. Only the SLAM article is stating that the east/west structure is still in play. The OttawaSun article doesn't say anything about east/west. It can't go both ways. I suppose as the year moves on we'll hear more about this plan of his. I mentioned this in another of these threads, but w/ a division heavy schedule, I think if a 4 division alignment goes through, the 'conferences' could be switched in a couple years in order to really see what matchups get the best ratings or create the best rivalries. If the league goes w/ both 4 divisions and east/west, then it's a sure sign of expansion in the near future.

Both articles say the same thing:

The top four teams in each division would make the playoffs. The first round would be divisonal play, the teams would then re-seed for conference play. Bettman’s idea would not affect a East-West Stanley Cup final matchup.

The only thing the SLAM article mentions about the east-west setup is that Gary Bettman still wants a West vs East final. So it is really saying the East/West thing is going to play much of an effect accept in the later rounds of the playoffs.

I know I was blind regarding the "one division in each conference will have eight squads while the other will have seven", but am I also seeing things...
Both articles say exactly the same thing. They're obviously quoted from the same source.

 

[EventHorizon]

No really... You should explain just how those Divisional Playoffs would work...

If the top 4 teams from every Division make the Playoffs, then you're liable to have a 4th place team in one Division with a worse record than both the 5th and 6th place team in the other Division.

I remember that being the main complaint of the Divisional Playoff format and the reason they changed it to a 1 vs. 8 format for the '94 season.

So okay, only the Top 2 or 3 teams in each Division are guaranteed Playoff spots. But that means that not all 1st Round matchups will be Division opponents. And with 8-team Divisions, already you are including teams in the Division which aren't currently Division rivals. So those 1st Round matchups could quite likely not be the matchups that everyone is so keen on seeing or at least likely won't occur any more frequently than they already do.

That 1st Round Division rivalry Playoffs that so many want to see will ultimately end up being fairly bogus.

You lost me with the bold sentence. What do you mean?

 

[MoreOrr]

I remember that being the main complaint of the Divisional Playoff format and the reason they changed it to a 1 vs. 8 format for the '94 season.

You lost me with the bold sentence. What do you mean?

Well, if only the top 2 or 3 teams in each Division is guaranteed a Playoff spot, then you could easily and very likely have cases in which 2 or 3 teams from one Division make the Playoffs, and 5 or 6 teams from the other Division (in the Conference) make the Playoffs.
So let's say it's 3 and 5... Obviously then at least one Playoff 1st Round matchup can't be Divisional.

 

[r0bert8841]

Both articles say the same thing:




I know I was blind regarding the "one division in each conference will have eight squads while the other will have seven", but am I also seeing things...
Both articles say exactly the same thing. They're obviously quoted from the same source.

I never actually read the 2nd article, just basing off his comments. But that would make sense that they were quoted from the same source. But I am not sure how that affects anything? I feel like I might be missing something.

 

[Crayton]

You lost me with the bold sentence. What do you mean?

He means if the number of teams from the four divisions making the playoffs are 4, 4, 5, and 3 that not all of the first round matchups can be between divisional matchups. You can only Guarantee first-round divisional matchups if exactly 4 teams from each division make the playoffs (or 2 or 6, I suppose).

 

[EventHorizon]

Well, if only the top 2 or 3 teams in each Division is guaranteed a Playoff spot, then you could easily and very likely have cases in which 2 or 3 teams from one Division make the Playoffs, and 5 or 6 teams from the other Division (in the Conference) make the Playoffs.
So let's say it's 3 and 5... Obviously then at least one Playoff 1st Round matchup can't be Divisional.

Ah, OK. Was there another article I missed? The one in the Sun and the one from Slam both said it would be a divisional playoff with the top 4 making it from each division. Then they re-seed for the next round.


ETA - Either that or I'm reading the articles wrong.

 

[Crayton]

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

To be fair, in the 80s there were only 5 teams in most divisions, so there were only so many permutations (10 unique matchups). With an 8 team division the variation possible in divisional playoffs increases greatly (28 unique matchups).

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

Colorado in the Midwest is about as intelligent as Dallas in the Pacific. Winnipeg will more likely be with Toronto (and likely Ottawa) in the Midwest. If Phoenix moves out of the Pacific area then maybe we'd see Winnipeg take their spot, but Manitoba to California is quite a distance.

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...

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?

The quote from the article is:
"It’s believed the Detroit Red Wings and Columbus Blue Jackets would both get their wish to move to the East conference."

"Believed" means it is not a fact but rather a detail presumed by other facts. Perhaps "believed" is referring to the fact that Detroit will play against the far-western teams only twice a year.

My impression of the new set up would be that each team would play in their 6-7 games against each division foe, then 2 games (1 home 1 away) against every other team in the league. That would mean teams in the Midwest, South, and East would all play the same number of games against Pacific teams.

Since the playoff format would be different, where the first round is against division rivals, Mid Western teams wouldn't play Pacific teams until the 2nd round of the playoffs potentially. So even if the Western conference contains both the Pacific and Midwest, their is no time zone issues for mid western teams until the 2nd round of the playoffs.

So as a result I think Detroit and Columbus will be in the Midwestern division, but since most of the games they play will start at 7, it won't make much of a difference.

This is the most reasonable way I see for keeping a West/East SCF while trying to accomadate all the teams that want to play in the Eastern time zone.

This. This. This.
Robert, you know what you are talking about.
But there won't/can't be more than 6 games against your division opponents.

This brings up an obvious question: Why bother having Conferences at all? I was always a fan of the top 16 teams making the playoffs so you can have a potential local rivalry in the Final. Unfortunately that's not really feasible with an unbalanced schedule. But this schedule, balanced against the other 3 divisions, could lead to a sort of a hybrid of the 1 vs. 16 and divisional playoff formats allowing local rivals to compete in the finals. It's simple. You have the top 4 teams in the division make the playoffs. 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 in the division. Then after the first round is complete you seed the remaining teams 1 through 8 and you keep reseeding until you have your finalists.

While I also hold out hope that there will be wiggle-room that allows one division to send 5 teams to the playoffs while another sends 3; I think a divisional first round followed by league-wide reseeding is the best way to go. But Bettman's idea is probably best (ick, who likes saying that) "IF" the NHL's number crunchers determine it is best to continue an East-vs-West Stanley Cup.

 

[Ciao]

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

This is as good a proposal as I've seen.

Alternatively, I would like to see divisions as much as possible grouped by time zones. For example:

All four Pacific time zone teams (Vancouver, San Jose, LA and Anaheim) and all four Mountain time zone teams (Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado and Phoenix) in one division. That way no team has to change more than one time zone for divisional play, which should help tv broadcast times on road trips.

All six Central time zone teams (Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas and Nashville) in the other Western Conference division, along with one team that resides in the Eastern time zone. Unfortunately, none of them are an easy fit, but that will never change as long as there are 15 teams in an Eastern Conference and 16 teams in the Eastern time zone. Which one to migrate to the Central time zone? Beats me. There is no good answer.

The remaining two Eastern Conference divisions would both be exclusively comprised of Eastern time zone teams. I like Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Buffalo, Boston and Pittsburgh (if they are all in the Eastern Conference) in one division, with NY, NY, NJ, Philadelphia, Carolina, Washington, Tampa Bay and Florida in the other Eastern division, with Columbus being the swing team that migrates to the west.

Then, if Phoenix moves to Quebec it could join the seven-team Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto-Boston group, and leave the Western Conference with two seven-team divisions.

I don't think this is any better than anyone else's idea, but it works for me.

 

[MoreOrr]

The quote from the article is:
"It’s believed the Detroit Red Wings and Columbus Blue Jackets would both get their wish to move to the East conference."

"Believed" means it is not a fact but rather a detail presumed by other facts. Perhaps "believed" is referring to the fact that Detroit will play against the far-western teams only twice a year.

What problem is a 4-Division League solving if both Detroit and Columbus can't both be in the East?

As for balanced schedule, a 4-Division League isn't needed for that. Check my editted post above at #153, which I added in a more balanced schedule with a 6-Division League.

As for multiple Time Zone Divisions, there's one guy on here who's saying that Winnipeg should be in the Division with Vancouver and the Alberta teams... So that means that other teams in that Division would have to still deal with 3 Times Zones. Otherwise, with a 4-Division League Winnipeg is separated from the other western Canadian teams.

There's still the problem of where you'd divide the teams in the East.

Divisional Playoffs could only completely work if you guarantee the top-4 teams makes the Playoffs in each Division, but then leads to more teams with better records not making the Playoffs. Furthermore, 8-team Divisions just makes the odds of wanted 1st Round rivalry matchups not so likely... teams end up playing against teams that they already play against within the Conference.

So really, where's the gain from switching to large 8-team Divisions? It's certainly not a marketing gain, not with 4 Division winners rather than 6.

And if somehow Detroit and Columbus are both in the East, then doesn't that weaken the West by taking away Detroit?