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

[Ciao]

Three ten-team divisions wouldn't be too bad a fit geographically, either:

Vancouver, San Jose, LA, Anaheim, Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado, Phoenix, Winnipeg and Dallas;

Minnesota, St. Louis, Chicago, Nashville, Columbus, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Toronto and Ottawa;

Montreal, Boston, NY, NY, NJ, Philadelphia, Washington, Carolina, Tampa Bay and Florida.

Lot of flaws with this plan: Winnipeg and Dallas (Central) and all the Pacific teams have to cross two times zone for divisional play. Established rivalries between Montreal - Ottawa/Toronto and Pittsburgh - Philadelphia/Washington would be broken up. However, it might solve some problems for Detroit and would be more geographically concise.

 

[r0bert8841]

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

Well as a Red Wing fan, I can tell you it would be a huge boost if their were far less 10:30 games during the regular season, which is the main reason the Wings and Columbus are making a big push for moving east (considering those are the only 2 teams currently in both the Western Conference and Eastern Time Zone).

For every team that is not in the Pacific division, they will only play away games with the teams of the Pacific once per season. That means each team in the eastern time zone, regardless of the division they play in, only has to have 7 West Coast games.

Currently Detroit and Columbus have 14 West coast games each. This 4 division proposal would cut that in half, which would be huge.

 

[RandR]

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.

True but due to unbalanced schedules a 4th-place team having less points than another division's 5th or 6th place team would often be because they were in a tougher division where points are harder to come by.

Personally, I'd love to see 4 divisions. I believe, sometimes in accordance with what some others have posted, that:

1. 4 divisions of 7 or 8 teams gives the league the most stable situation to handle contractions of up to 2 teams, expansions of up to 2 teams, or relocations of existing teams. Any increase/decrease/relocation in a 28-32 team-league can likely be done without ever having to shift more than 1 other team from one division to another.

2. I don't believe having divisions only 14% different in size is unfair. If there is an unbalanced schedule, then the toughness of making of the playoffs will vary more by how tough your division is than by whether your division has an extra team or not.

3. I'd also like to see a Canadian division (which has room to absorb an 8th team). And, repeating myself from a month ago, if the first 2 rounds of playoffs were within your division, then every season would have a Canadian champion, which would be massively popular in Canada.

4. Schedule-wise, everyone plays 6 times against teams in their division and twice against all non-divisional teams. This would make for 4 extra games for teams in 8-team divisions; a problem solved by playing only once against half of the teams in the other 8-team division and alternating which 4 teams those are each year. So, in a 2-year cycle, teams in 8-team divisions play non-divisional opponents either 3 or 4 times.

5. I don't see a need for conferences, but I don't think they will go. I just can't imagine the league giving up on handing out conference-championship trophies (even if most players refuse to touch them).

 

[Bucky Katt]

One In-Conference Division (alternating Seasons with other In-Conference Division)
20 = 4 games against 5 teams
Other In-Conference Division
10 = 2 games against 5 teams

If there are three divisions in a conference (A,B,C) and A plays B 4 times, then who does C play 4 against?

It doesn't matter as a schedule like that will never happen. Too many away games in different time zones and too much travel. Higher costs (more travel) and lower revenues (fewer viewers for road games in different time zones) isn't exactly a great business plan.

 

[r0bert8841]

3. I'd also like to see a Canadian division (which has room to absorb an 8th team). And, repeating myself from a month ago, if the first 2 rounds of playoffs were within your division, then every season would have a Canadian champion, which would be massively popular in Canada.

I am glad I am not the only person who likes this idea. Its a shame that Bettman's proposed plan doesn't leave room for it.

 

[Bucky Katt]

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

It allows every team to play every other team twice while still having 5-6 games against division rivals. It also allows more opportunity for the best two teams in the league to play each other in the SCF.

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.

The mechanics of that schedule don't work as explained before and that alignment means higher travel costs and lower TV revenues.

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.

Better than two conferences with 4 time zones each.

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

BOS BUF TOR MON OTT PIT DET CBJ
NYR NYI NJ PHI WAS CAR FLA TB

Easy. If DET or CBJ stays in a midwest division then you leave 7 behind in that division.

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.

Possibly, but that happened to 2 teams this year and nobody seemed to care. Besides, if you are the 5th best team in your division you don't have a great chance of winning the Stanley Cup just like if you are the 9th team in 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.

Yeah, the marketing loss of only 2 divisional winners is really a huge deal.

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

Considering how strong the west has been, perhaps moving DET to an eastern division would bring balance. Besides, if it truly went to four divisions there no longer would be an east and a west.

 

[Killion]

Yeah, the marketing loss of only 2 divisional winners is really a huge deal.

You tell em' Bucky. Lord knows Gillis & the Nucks' are Regular Season Champs. As if that mattered a Tinkers huh?...

 

[Lux Aurumque*]

My opinion:

East has two divisions: Northeast and Southeast
West has two divisions: Northwest and Southwest

Northeast:
Toronto
Montreal
Ottawa
Boston
Buffalo
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
New Jersey

Southeast:
Washington
Florida
Tampa Bay
Carolina
Nashville
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh

Northwest:
Winnipeg
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Minnesota
Detroit
Chicago
Columbus

Southwest:
San Jose
Anaheim
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Dallas
St. Louis
Colorado

 

[Jazz]

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.

Regarding the map I quoted, I should have mentioned I was only referring to putting all 7 Canadian teams in one division, as the maker of the map had it, not necessarily the rest of it... It would have to be tweaked, so that, for example, both Florida teams are in the same division...
The 4 time zones will be less of an issue as much time will be saved not having to go through customs as often (eg, Vancouver, on a cross continent flight could be in the hotel rooms a lot quicker flying to Montreal than to Buffalo).
I still think that the main broadcast partners on both sides of the border would support this plan, and that NBC might even push for it so at least one US team will be in the SCF.
If not in the same division, then all Canadian teams in one Conference (but CBC/TSN would love all the all-Canadian matchups...)

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.

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.

Also agree with 'MoreOrr' & 'Hamilton Tigers'
The league has never had as much talent as it has nowadays (you could perhaps argue that the year before the KHL was formed a couple of years ago was the all-time high, even so the current level is only slightly below that.
IMHO, the league was diluted between 1975-1985ish (part of the WHA wars)

 

[Corey Perry*]

I like it the way it is....

 

[Jazz]

.... 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.....

...Yeah, the marketing loss of only 2 divisional winners is really a huge deal. ...

It does make a difference in terms of marketing, especially in markets where hockey is still gaining it's footprint.
It is much better and easier to built up hype to be able to say "X is in 3rd place and 10 points of out first (of a 5 team division)" than "X is in 5th place and 12 points out of 1st (of a 7 or 8 team division)"

 

[MoreOrr]

If there are three divisions in a conference (A,B,C) and A plays B 4 times, then who does C play 4 against?

It doesn't matter as a schedule like that will never happen. Too many away games in different time zones and too much travel. Higher costs (more travel) and lower revenues (fewer viewers for road games in different time zones) isn't exactly a great business plan.

Ok, Bucky, good catch. A little calculation oversight there.

So, adjusting for that (again in a 6-Division League with a more "balanced schedule")...
In Division
24 games = 6 against 4 teams
One In-Conference other Division teams
16 games = 4 against 4 teams
Other In-Conference teams
12 games = 2 against 6 teams
All other-Conference teams
30 games = 2 against 15 teams
82 game total

I know there's only 10 other teams, not 12, so the 4 games against 4 other Division teams still doesn't work out evenly... but those extra games against can be played in the other Conference.

 

[MoreOrr]

Well as a Red Wing fan, I can tell you it would be a huge boost if their were far less 10:30 games during the regular season, which is the main reason the Wings and Columbus are making a big push for moving east (considering those are the only 2 teams currently in both the Western Conference and Eastern Time Zone).

For every team that is not in the Pacific division, they will only play away games with the teams of the Pacific once per season. That means each team in the eastern time zone, regardless of the division they play in, only has to have 7 West Coast games.

Currently Detroit and Columbus have 14 West coast games each. This 4 division proposal would cut that in half, which would be huge.

And staying with 6 Divisions doesn't cut that in half?

It's the same. The difference is only accomplished with unbalanced Conferences, if they put 16 teams in one Conference and 14 in the other... and that would be more workable with larger Divisions.

 

[MoreOrr]

It allows every team to play every other team twice while still having 5-6 games against division rivals. It also allows more opportunity for the best two teams in the league to play each other in the SCF.

That part I just don't get. How is it different from what is also possible with 6 Divisions (if the calculations are adjusted from what I posted earlier)?

The mechanics of that schedule don't work as explained before and that alignment means higher travel costs and lower TV revenues.

A system of games against in a 6-Division League can accomplish the same thing. And fine, if you don't like my mixed east-west Conferences then just stay with the current East-West Conference format.... It's the same teams in both Conferences anyway, as compared to the 4-Division structure.

Better than two conferences with 4 time zones each.

Responded to above. That's only a complaint against my proposed alignment, not the current one. And yes, the current alignment does have 2 3-TZ Divisions, but that's likely to be reduced to one with the addition of Winnipeg to the Northwest.


So I still don't see the great benefit of a 4-Division structure over the current 6-Division structure.
For some people I think it's nothing more than aesthetics, they like the idea of 4 Divisions better than 6 Divisions.

 

[htpwn]

The Chicago Tribune took a stab at realignment earlier in the year. Personally, this is my favorite option as it leaves the majority of rivalries in tact.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/chi-110602-nhl-graphic,0,283082.graphic

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Love the Trib using the traditional conference names.

NHL missed the boat on that - it should, as a whole, celebrate its differences from the usual North American sporting conventions rather than its similarities. Casual fans may not understand which division is the Adams or what a Selke award means, but they usually love it once they figure it out.

 

[MoreOrr]

The Chicago Tribune took a stab at realignment earlier in the year. Personally, this is my favorite option as it leaves the majority of rivalries in tact.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/chi-110602-nhl-graphic,0,283082.graphic

That alignment has already been proposed here, and it's probably the best with the 4-Division structure. Though it has the unbalanced Conferences setup.

But how many people here have problems with that, in one form or another?

Here's a few things that have been mentioned already...
- It is unbalanced
- Pittsburgh is separated from Philadelphia
- Winnipeg is separated from the other western Canadian teams
- With that there's only 1 Original Six attraction in the West
- 8-team Divisions are just too large
- How are the Playoff spots chosen without either increasing the number of teams with better records that miss the Playoffs, or without losing part of the 1st Round Divisional Playoff setup?

- And ultimately, what can you do with a 4-Division setup like that, that can't be done with a 6-Division setup?... Other than have the unbalanced Conferences/Divisions because the Divisions are larger.

 

[Grudy0]

That part I just don't get. How is it different from what is also possible with 6 Divisions (if the calculations are adjusted from what I posted earlier)?

I'll take a stab at this...

Detroit's schedule:
50 games against non-divisional opponents (home-and-home)
32 games against four divisional opponents, eight games split four each home-and-home, against...

Chicago
Columbus
Nashville
St. Louis

Does it work? Yes. Pittsburgh and Tampa only see Boston and Washington twice a year? Detroit only sees Minnesota, Dallas and Colorado twice a year?

The only issue is that divisional play in five-team divisions leads to loads of repetition.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

Love the Trib using the traditional conference names.

NHL missed the boat on that - it should, as a whole, celebrate its differences from the usual North American sporting conventions rather than its similarities. Casual fans may not understand which division is the Adams or what a Selke award means, but they usually love it once they figure it out.

"Traditional?" Names which were only implemented in the '70s have somehow become "traditional?" I better dig out my Doobie Brothers tapes - who knew that all this time I was listening to traditional American music?

 

[r0bert8841]

And staying with 6 Divisions doesn't cut that in half?

It's the same. The difference is only accomplished with unbalanced Conferences, if they put 16 teams in one Conference and 14 in the other... and that would be more workable with larger Divisions.

I don't disagree. I just think their is no sense in discussing ideas that isn't the one proposed by Bettmen. Their is plenty of good potential ideas out their, but the likely hood that one is going to happen at the moment isn't good.

 

[MoreOrr]

I'll take a stab at this...

Detroit's schedule:
50 games against non-divisional opponents (home-and-home)
32 games against four divisional opponents, eight games split four each home-and-home, against...

Chicago
Columbus
Nashville
St. Louis

Does it work? Yes. Pittsburgh and Tampa only see Boston and Washington twice a year? Detroit only sees Minnesota, Dallas and Colorado twice a year?

The only issue is that divisional play in five-team divisions leads to loads of repetition.

In a 6-Division structure, it could be programmed that..
Detroit has
24 games against Division opponents (6x4)
50 games against all the other 25 teams (2x25)
8 games more to play against other In-Conference teams.

In a 4-Division structure, it could be programmed that (assuming Detroit is in an 8-team Division)...
Detroit has
42 games against Division opponents (6x7)
44 games against all the other 22 teams (2x22)
And then you have a total of 86 games
So that doesn't exactly work.
So you either cut back on the games against Division rivals, or not have 2 games against all other Division opponents.

 

[Tawnos]

"Traditional?" Names which were only implemented in the '70s have somehow become "traditional?" I better dig out my Doobie Brothers tapes - who knew that all this time I was listening to traditional American music?

It's not about how long those names were in place for, it's about what the names are. Those are significant names in the history of the league and the game, therefore they are traditional.

 

[MoreOrr]

I don't disagree. I just think their is no sense in discussing ideas that isn't the one proposed by Bettmen. Their is plenty of good potential ideas out their, but the likely hood that one is going to happen at the moment isn't good.

And I don't disagree with you either. But I am challenging as to where the real advantage with Bettman's proposal, that can't also be achieved with 6-Divisions. And aren't there essentially as many drawbacks to the 4-Divisions as there are with 6-Divisions.

 

[r0bert8841]

And I don't disagree with you either. But I am challenging as to where the real advantage with Bettman's proposal, that can't also be achieved with 6-Divisions. And aren't there essentially as many drawbacks to the 4-Divisions as there are with 6-Divisions.

You would probably have to ask Bettmen himself why he choose 6 over 4, because I think he was in a position where he could have chosen either, but concluded on a 4 division system. While I may not know the reasons, I know their must have been good reasons for him to conclude that, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ciao]

The Chicago Tribune took a stab at realignment earlier in the year. Personally, this is my favorite option as it leaves the majority of rivalries in tact.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/chi-110602-nhl-graphic,0,283082.graphic

I like the alignment the Trib suggests.

It put the 14 teams in the Central, Mountain and Pacific time zones in the Western Conference, and all 16 team in the Eastern time zone in the Eastern Conference. That alone makes sense.

No team has to change more than one time zone for intra-divisional play. Excellent.

A lot of the traditional rivalries are preserved, and new ones would develop. Very good.

What happens if Phoenix moves to Quebec? It could go in with Montreal-Toronto-Boston-Detroit etc; move Columbus in with Chicago-St. Louis etc; and Colarado in with Vancouver, San Jose etc.