NHL Realignment 2012-13 – Part III

[KevFu]

I'm very leery of the divisional playoff format for the following reason. It seems to me that in a given year, there is a good chance that more deserving teams will be left out of the playoffs simply because they were in a deeper division. Just imagine all the hand-wringing that will cause. If you think about it, it could easily happen all the time, and I think that would be kind of bush league.

You're right, without a doubt. You can guarantee that there'll be at least one case of that every Season come Playoff time. And in a sport where teams play a long grueling 82-game Season, it's not right that a team with a better record in one Division gets passed over for a Playoff position by a team with a poorer record in the same Conference in another Division.

#1 - Those are two separate cases: Team screwed by depth of division; team with lower point total getting in.
Neither is "fair" but it's not a valid argument by any of you.

"We deserve access to THAT division's playoff slot, because we have more points."
You played 12 or 14 games vs that division. They played 24 or 30.

If "points are points, they're all NHL teams, points should be THE ONLY consideration for a playoff spot, not geography, not schedule, just points**" Then any divisional OR conference alignment is unfair (it is). And the league should have ONE division of 30, with an 87-game schedule. Or two conferences of 15 that play a completely balanced schedule with each other.

The league made the choice to have geography matter for rivalry (cough, TV, cough) reasons. Therefore, they SHOULD assign
slots to divisions and say "hey, you feel you got screwed? You chose money, TV times and rivalries over fairness. It's your own damned fault."

We accept that an 11-game schedule difference with conference seeding is "Fair" when it's not. It doesn't stop us from wanting to play our rivals six times and have less games against the other teams.

Arguing that we can't change from the current unfair model to an different "unfair" model is illogical.

Now, if you're saying the current unfairness is acceptable and the proposed unfairness is not, we have a vastly different argument. But one that's just as silly because it makes this entire thread completely moot.

If "points are points. Even if you play different schedules, they're all NHL teams, so it should just be points" then we don't need divisions for scheduling reasons. They can just give teams drastically different schedules to maximize TV times, rivalries and the like, while setting a max number of meetings at six.

 

[KevFu]

They could have a format like this:
Only the top 3 spots in any Division are guaranteed. If the 5th spot in one Division of a Conference has a better record than the 4th spot in the other Division, then the 5th spot team is in.
Matchups would go as:
1st vs 5th (same Div)
1st vs 3rd (same Div)
2nd vs 4th (same Div)
and 3rd vs 2nd (across-Div) (Deciding the Home-Ice not by Division position but by which team has the better record.)

Now of course, IMO, if the League can do such an approximated Divisional Playoff with a 4-Division structure, then it can also do it with a 6-Division structure.

I think that leads to more problem than it solves. Again, here's a very logical situation in which the "unfair to a fifth-place team" argument could be made:

DIVISION A
Team 1: 103 points
Team 2: 101 points
Team 3: 96 points
Team 4: 89 points
Team 5: 88 points
Team 6: 87 points
Team 7: 77 points
Team 8: 68 points

DIVISION B
Team 1: 115 points
Team 2: 107 points
Team 3: 102 points
Team 4: 91 points
Team 5: 90 points
Team 6: 59 points
Team 7: 53 points

Who's really getting screwed? Team B5 has more points than A4. But Team B5 had two horrible teams to get points against, and Team A4 had none. Team A5 probably deserves the playoff spot over B4, not B5 over A4

 

[MoreOrr]

I think that leads to more problem than it solves. Again, here's a very logical situation in which the "unfair to a fifth-place team" argument could be made:

DIVISION A
Team 1: 103 points
Team 2: 101 points
Team 3: 96 points
Team 4: 89 points
Team 5: 88 points
Team 6: 87 points
Team 7: 77 points
Team 8: 68 points

DIVISION B
Team 1: 115 points
Team 2: 107 points
Team 3: 102 points
Team 4: 91 points
Team 5: 90 points
Team 6: 59 points
Team 7: 53 points

Who's really getting screwed? Team B5 has more points than A4. But Team B5 had two horrible teams to get points against, and Team A4 had none. Team A5 probably deserves the playoff spot over B4, not B5 over A4

That's a nice example for supporting the top 4 argument, but Standings won't necessarily be that way because one strong Division doesn't necessarily need to have any significantly weak teams.

 

[KevFu]

That's a nice example for supporting the top 4 argument, but Standings won't necessarily be that way because one strong Division doesn't necessarily need to have any significantly weak teams.

I was saying A was the strong division!

B just had high point totals kicking the crap out of bad teams.

 

[MoreOrr]

I was saying A was the strong division!

B just had high point totals kicking the crap out of bad teams.

This is an argument that will really have to wait until the proof is in front of us. Hopefully it'll never get to that.

 

[garry1221]

#1 - Those are two separate cases: Team screwed by depth of division; team with lower point total getting in.
Neither is "fair" but it's not a valid argument by any of you.

"We deserve access to THAT division's playoff slot, because we have more points."
You played 12 or 14 games vs that division. They played 24 or 30.

If "points are points, they're all NHL teams, points should be THE ONLY consideration for a playoff spot, not geography, not schedule, just points**" Then any divisional OR conference alignment is unfair (it is). And the league should have ONE division of 30, with an 87-game schedule. Or two conferences of 15 that play a completely balanced schedule with each other.

The league made the choice to have geography matter for rivalry (cough, TV, cough) reasons. Therefore, they SHOULD assign
slots to divisions and say "hey, you feel you got screwed? You chose money, TV times and rivalries over fairness. It's your own damned fault."

We accept that an 11-game schedule difference with conference seeding is "Fair" when it's not. It doesn't stop us from wanting to play our rivals six times and have less games against the other teams.

Arguing that we can't change from the current unfair model to an different "unfair" model is illogical.

Now, if you're saying the current unfairness is acceptable and the proposed unfairness is not, we have a vastly different argument. But one that's just as silly because it makes this entire thread completely moot.

If "points are points. Even if you play different schedules, they're all NHL teams, so it should just be points" then we don't need divisions for scheduling reasons. They can just give teams drastically different schedules to maximize TV times, rivalries and the like, while setting a max number of meetings at six.

this is what i've been trying to say in my posts regarding this topic. I was just was never able to word it quite as in depth as you did.

 

[Dirty Dan]

Lets stick to 6 divisions and two conferences, no dumb stuff like american and national league

this schedule is great and MILES ahead of the one they had in 2006 with 32 divisional games and just 10 across confrence

 

[knorthern knight]

Thread http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=982897 indicates that New Jersey might be in trouble; see article http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/pu...ebt-reports-say-Devils-are-ba?urn=nhl-wp16667

So let's look a 29-team league without Phoenix and New Jersey, but with a team in Quebec. How do things look?

• WEST
  • Anaheim
  • Calgary
  • Colorado
  • Edmonton
  • Los Angeles
  • San Jose
  • Vancouver
• CENTRAL
  • Chicago
  • Dallas
  • Detroit
  • Minnesota
  • Nashville
  • St. Louis
  • Winnipeg
• NORTHEAST
  • Buffalo
  • Columbus
  • Montreal
  • Ottawa
  • Pittsburgh
  • Quebec
  • Toronto
• ATLANTIC
  • Boston
  • Carolina
  • Florida
  • Islanders
  • Philadelphia
  • Rangers
  • Tampa Bay
  • Washington

An argument might be made for swapping Boston and Pittsburgh, to keep old rivalries going.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Sheesh, folks sure do love grasping at straws for contraction and/or teams that they think might be on the chopping/relocation block....

New Jersey ain't going anywhere, dude, and (to bring up a few other blissfully ignorant candidates that get tossed around all over the place) neither are the Isles, Panthers, or Stars (though I will admit that their issues are getting awfully troubling really fast).

 

[Jeffrey93]

Coyotes move to Hamilton...


Eastern:
Heritage Division - BOS, HAM, TOR, OTT, MTL
Patriot Division - NYR, NYI, PHI, BUF, PIT
Atlantic Division - FLA, TBL, CAR, WSH, NJD

Western:
North Division - VAN, CGY, EDM, WPG, MIN
[Division name here] - LA, SJ, ANH, COL, DAL
Midwest Division - DET, CHI, STL, CBJ, NSH

Remember....off the top of my head.....names would be altered to have more historic meaning...either strong historic meaning or strong geographic meaning.

Whattya think? Totally off the top of my head.....and assuming Hamilton lands the Coyotes. If things stay the same....

Eastern:
Heritage Division - BOS, BUF, TOR, OTT, MTL
Patriot Division - NYR, NYI, PHI, CBJ, PIT
Atlantic Division - FLA, TBL, CAR, WSH, NJD

Western:
North Division - VAN, CGY, EDM, WPG, MIN
[Division name here] - LA, SJ, ANH, COL, DAL
Midwest Division - DET, CHI, STL, PHX, NSH

That work at all??

 

[stanleycaps18]

NJD is even closer to PHI than NYR/NYI. Why would you split them from the NY area teams? Can't even look at the rest of it, because that is so glaring.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

NJD is even closer to PHI than NYR/NYI. Why would you split them from the NY area teams? Can't even look at the rest of it, because that is so glaring.

He also named the southeast division the atlantic division, and the atlantic division the "patriot" division.....

Also, phx could be moving a lot of places, but hamilton isn't one of them.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Was, Phi, Pit, TB, NYR, Car, NJ, Clb, NYI, Fla
Det, Bos, Nas, Chi, Mtl, Buf, StL, Min, Tor, Ott
Van, SJ, Ana, Phx, LA, Dal, Cal, Wpg, Col, Edm

-3 conferences
-8 games against 4 teams within your conference(32)
-6 games against 5 teams within your conference(30)
-1 game against the other 20 teams in the league(20)
-Top 5 in each conference, +1, make the playoffs. Or, 16 best records. Whatever. 1/16, 2/15, 3/14, etc.

Phi/Pit, Phi/NY area stay together. Washington gets back with their old rivals. Pit/Clb has a chance to get started. That group takes on Car, TB, and Fla.

The NE stays together, plus they get Det and Chi, so five O6 teams. There is a price to pay for that, so that's why StL, Min, and Nas can go in this group.

The west is the west, nobody cares. Sorry Dallas.

Maybe switch Minnesota and Dallas. In that case, sorry Minnesota.

 

[Marv4Life]

As a Caps fan, what do you think the response would be to the CBC proposal:

But with CAR and PIT swapped?

It makes since geographically. Kinda what I posted a while back. Pittsburgh should not be in the same division with 4 teams near the coast when they are closer to the likes of Buffalo.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

It makes since geographically. Kinda what I posted a while back. Pittsburgh should not be in the same division with 4 teams near the coast when they are closer to the likes of Buffalo.

You're actually disagreeing with KevFu. He wants Pitts kept with Philly and the NY teams, and thinks it makes more sense to put Car with the Northeast in lieu of Pitts.

Thake doesn't make much sense geographically, but it may be a concession made if to get it passed.

Personally, I think they'll be able to get enough votes without Pitts or Philly's approval.

Florida, Car, TB and Wash will probably be on board with the CBC proposal as is, as will most, if not all of the western teams.

You only get this odd demand of putting carolina into the northeast from Atlantic team fans, due to their self interest in keeping set rivalries, which in the long run isn't really that important when compared to the other issues.

You're completely right though, Pitts isn't an Atlantic team.

Mucker* was a big proponent of separating Pitts and Philly to fix the league if necessary, and I must say I agree with him on that point.

 

[voyageur]

Given the success the Winnipeg Jets have reaped this year, perhaps the NHL would be prudent to have another long standing AHL franchise make the leap when the Coyotes come up for sale...I have waffled quite a bit on where the Coyotes should move, but I think that Milwaukee would be a safe and profitable location for relocation. Milwaukee is a sports town, and I have no doubt NHL hockey would be very popular there, as the Admirals have built a solid foundation to work with. For all the talk Kansas City gets of needing a tenant, maybe they could have the Bucks, I am quite sure an NHL team would outdraw an NBA team in Milwaukee.

The subsequent relocation process could then proceed as:

WEST

Pacific

Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Colorado
San Jose
L.A.
Anaheim

Central

Detroit
Chicago
Milwaukee
Minnesota
Winnipeg
St. Louis
Nashville
Dallas


EAST

Northeast

Toronto
Ottawa
Montreal
Boston
Buffalo
New York Rangers
New York Islanders


Atlantic

New Jersey
Philly
Pittsburgh
Columbus
Washington
Carolina
Tampa
Florida

With this alignment the NHL can subsequently look to Seattle and Quebec as expansion teams to complete 4 8 team divisions.

If the NHL goes to a schedule which concentrates on divisional games, and allows for 2 games against all others teams, as I believe it should, the Detroit argument for going East is rendered moot. Surely Mike Ilitch could be convinced to stay in the Central under such circumstances because travel wise they will not be disadvantaged anymore, especially if divisional playoffs become the norm...I think the rivalry Detroit has with Chicago in every other sports league is indication that Detroit belongs in the same division as Chicago. Especially given the nature of the Wings-Hawks rivalry dating back to Howe vs. Hull. Then Nashville doesn't want to move either. You look at the Cleveland-Pittsburgh rivalry in the NFL and I think Columbus, which is in deep financial trouble, would be better served by a move to the East.

I split up the Patrick Division because I think the NHL could be well served re-kindling a Boston-New York rivalry, consolidating an optimum amount of original six games, and this makes geographic sense. Perhaps if New Jersey goes bankrupt, and chooses to cut its ties to the Devils, they could move to Atlanta, bringing Ilya Kovalchuk back to where he started, just a lot richer.

 

[NHL1674]

The Star Tribune's, Michael Russo, added his 2 cents.

Told at last BOG Meeting, 12 of 15 East teams said it wouldn't vote for anything that changed their current situation. It's despicable

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

The Star Tribune's, Michael Russo, added his 2 cents.

This is gonna be a fun month....

I imagine the 3 willing to vote are wpg, florida and either TB or Wash.

 

[Grudy0]

This is gonna be a fun month....

I imagine the 3 willing to vote are wpg, florida and either TB or Wash.

We know the Jets want to get out of the Eastern. That's one.

We know the Panthers are asking for a four-division setup. That's two.

If there were a third team, I'm thinking it's Carolina. The Canes would benefit most from moving to a four-division format; their rivals aren't in the Southeast Division. Why? Washington, although maybe enjoying more games against their former Patrick Division rivals, have sold out for almost three years straight. Tampa Bay is building a contender and may not need any changes. None of "the Ten" want to be bothered.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The Star Tribune's, Michael Russo, added his 2 cents.

Keep the East with what they have, divisions, schedule, playoffs. Realign the west into two divisions, change the schedule, and modify the playoffs in some way.

 

[NHL1674]

Keep the East with what they have, divisions, schedule, playoffs. Realign the west into two divisions, change the schedule, and modify the playoffs in some way.

That would give the impression that the Eastern GM's run the league. And they don't. They're gonna have to get off their little pedestals and meet in the middle with the West.

 

[KingsFan7824]

That would give the impression that the Eastern GM's run the league. And they don't. They're gonna have to get off their little pedestals and meet in the middle with the West.

The more I think about it, the less reason I see to keep both conferences set up the same. They're two conferences that really have very little to do with each other, and with different sets of problems, but there's always just one solution(4 divisions, or 6 divisions, for everyone). The east has no time zone issues, and is rivalry centric. The west, while having a few rivalries needing continuation, has huge time zone/travel/location issues more than anything.

I'm thinking setting up the two conferences differently would be meeting in the middle. It wouldn't be forcing two central teams into far western divisions. It wouldn't be forcing Vancouver to break away from the two teams that are somewhat close to them. You could probably keep Detroit sort of happy in the western conference if the schedule in the west gets changed. It would keep things the same for the teams that want nothing to change, and it would make at least a few needed changes for the teams wanting some kind of change.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

I'm very leery of the divisional playoff format for the following reason. It seems to me that in a given year, there is a good chance that more deserving teams will be left out of the playoffs simply because they were in a deeper division. Just imagine all the hand-wringing that will cause. If you think about it, it could easily happen all the time, and I think that would be kind of bush league.

The same thing happens now between the conferences! Every year we see some team or three in the West finishing out of the playoffs with more points than a supposedly weaker East team.

It's not a big deal. Going back to divisional playoffs would really ramp up rivalries, which the NHL really needs given the sheer number of teams lessening the emotions behind a lot of matchups. Way, way too many NHL games these days people don't give a damn about. Going divisional and having the home-home with every other team makes a lot of sense.

Another thing people don't seem to realize -- the formula wouldn't be carved in stone. I'd love to see the NHL vary things up on a yearly schedule. Say do divisional one year, then conference, then even rank the whole league 1-16. Could get some amazing results that way, with the latter making it possible to have the Leafs play the Habs in the SC final, NYR take on NJ, etc. I don't see why the league has to lock itself into one format forever. You can do all of this without realigning, too, which makes it easy.

IMO, this would be exciting for fans, make every season different. As it is now, any playoff setup gets old after a while. I really want divisional playoffs back now, but 20 years ago I was sick of seeing the same teams playing each other every spring. So it's cyclical. Wouldn't be any harm in the NHL recognizing that.

 

[stanleycaps18]

I am quite sure an NHL team would outdraw an NBA team in Milwaukee.

There was a very long expansion/relocation thread last year. Milwaukee probably cannot support an NHL team. Wisconsin is not a hockey state despite the historic success of the Badgers Men's and Women's teams.

Sincerely

stanleycaps98
UW Alum

 

[Marv4Life]

...

They're not moving. Just because a team is in a financial mess doesn't mean they'll relocate, especially with a TV contract and team value in a new, profitable arena. Why can't you folks grasp that?

Also putting Columbus with Pittsburgh in the Atlantic makes no sense.