NHL Realignment 2012-13 – Part III

[Mad Dog Tannen]

THE 4 DIVISION proposal has been basically been eliminated from consideration, Doc, the current alignment of 2 conferences, 3 divisions w/ 15 teams in each conference.....is the model we're working with currently, they just have to tweak the alignment.....bc we know the following:

WPG is in the West after this season, FACT, if that's all they decide as to per the league/Bettman's statement in October prior to the season starting.....

as More said, regardless of where the Jets are placed, one team goes East, likely Detroit, not a perfect alignment, but as placing Dallas in the Pacific to begin with under the previous/current alignment , it's no wonder they're objecting and wanting out.... it doesn't even look right w/ the Jets in the SE, BUT, the timing of the sale of the Jets, forced the schedule to keep WPG in the SE this season, w/o modifying all of the other 29 schedules and the master schedule, and no league, likes to be placed in the position of adjusting a schedule once it's released....

It absolutely has not.

 

[MoreOrr]

The problem I've heard is the current set up is incredibly inflexible for 2 things, team movement and future growth.

. . . .

All I'm saying is expect those execs to fight tooth and nail to get what they want, they are after all, tasked with looking after the well being of the league.

I'm not saying 4 divs will happen, I'm saying make sure you are keeping both options on the table, despite that development from Sept.

And where have you heard that? Other than it being expressed as the opinion of a few people here, I haven't heard such thinking; and personally I don't agree with the thinking that 4 Divisions offers more "flexibility" for "team movement and future growth".

"Flexibility" all depends on the members in the League, not on the number of Divisions. And it's the two northeastern Divisions which are the most 'inflexible', and even with 4 Divisions there is little potential that the alignment groupings of those two Divisions wouldn't be effected. IN Fact, there is much speculation that those two Divisions have played a big role in likely squashing the 4-Division idea, in part for that very reason.

As for future growth... If the League can go with unbalanced Divisions now, as you and some others might like with a 4-Division setup, and having that with Expansion likely no sooner than at least 3 years after the 2012-13 Season... Then the League can equally live with unbalanced Divisions within a 6-Division setup. And it's that "unbalanced" scenario which actually offers more "flexibility" in alignment because the League can pick and choose, with possible movement of teams, which Divisions get 5 teams and which get 6 teams. The "flexibility" offered by 4-Divisions only really exists as long as the unbalance exists.

 

[cheswick]

Alignment aside what do we peg the chances of the schedule being altered so every team plays every other team at least twice in a season. Thats the one thing I want to see

 

[MoreOrr]

Alignment aside what do we peg the chances of the schedule being altered so every team plays every other team at least twice in a season. Thats the one thing I want to see

If Detroit and/or Columbus stay in the West, then that's what they'll want to see as well. But again, there is at least speculation around here that the Eastern Conference won't be too keen on that idea.

I think that if the League goes with one of the following scheduling matrixes, it could help out Detroit and Columbus or whichever stays in the West (plus the CTZ teams there), while at the same time not forcing the East Conference and the PTZ teams to all necessarily play 2 games against each other:

A)
24 = 6 x 4 games vs Div opponents
24 = 4 x 6 games vs 6 Conf opponents
8 = 2 x 4 games vs 4 Conf opponents
22 = 2 x 11 games vs 11 other Conf teams
4 = 1 x 4 games vs 4 other Conf teams

B)
24 = 6 x 4 games vs Div opponents
20 = 4 x 5 games vs 5 Conf opponents
10 = 2 x 5 games vs 5 Conf opponents
26 = 2 x 13 games vs 13 other Conf teams
2 = 1 x 2 games vs 2 other Conf teams

C)
24 = 6 x 4 games vs Div opponents
28 = 4 x 7 games vs 7 Conf opponents
6 = 2 x 3 games vs 3 Conf opponents
18 = 2 x 9 games vs 9 other Conf teams
6 = 1 x 6 games vs 6 other Conf teams

D)
30 = 6 x 5 games vs Div opponents plus 1 other in-Conf opponent
20 = 4 x 5 games vs 5 Conf opponents
8 = 2 x 4 games vs 4 Conf opponents
18 = 2 x 9 games vs 9 other Conf teams
6 = 1 x 6 games vs 6 other Conf teams

But those are all closer approximations of the more balanced schedule that you want.

 

[Grudy0]

Alignment aside what do we peg the chances of the schedule being altered so every team plays every other team at least twice in a season. Thats the one thing I want to see

I don't think it is happening, either.

One of the main reasons the East doesn't want to see a more balanced schedule is because it would eat into their conference games. The 6-4-18 matrix has worked well for them. Making that matrix x-x-30 means twelve games, six home and six away games get rescheduled from either their conference or divisional rivals and forces another six games to be played out in the Western Conference.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Eastern Conference
Bos, Buf, Car, Chi, Clb, Dal, Det, Fla, Min, Mtl, Nas, NJ, NYI, NYR, Ott, Phi, Pit, StL, TB, Tor, Was, Wpg

Western Conference
Ana, Cal, Col, Edm, LA, Phx, SJ, Van

84 game schedule
Eastern teams play each other 4 times each
Western teams play each other 12 times each
Top 12 teams in the east make the playoffs
Top 4 teams in the west make the playoffs
The 4 western teams play each other in the 1st and 2nd rounds
The final four are 3 eastern teams, and 1 western team, and they get reseeded

 

[mucker*]

here's mine (again):

Stupid.
Yea, let's split up NY-PHI, nevermind 40 years of history, let's be the only sport where teams 75-90 miles apart are separated.

 

[mucker*]

I'll ask MoreOrr and the board again (since this was ignored)

Give me your opinion on these proposals:


Option A:
-Nashville to SE
-Winnipeg to NW
-Minnesota to C

Atlantic:
PIT
PHI
NYR
NJ
NYI

NE:
BOS
MON
TOR
BUF
OTT

SE:
WAS
CAR
FLA
TB
NASH


C:
DET
CHI
STL
COLUMBUS
MIN

NW:
VAN
EDM
CAL
WIN
COL

W:
LA
ANA
PHO
SJ
DAL

Option B:
-Nashville to SE
-Winnipeg to NW
-Vancouver to Pacific
-Dallas to Central

Atlantic:
PIT
PHI
NYR
NJ
NYI

NE:
BOS
MON
TOR
BUF
OTT

SE:
WAS
CAR
FLA
TB
NASH


C:
DET
CHI
STL
COLUMBUS
DAL

NW:
MIN
EDM
CAL
WIN
COL

W:
LA
ANA
PHO
SJ
VAN

Option C:
-Nashville to SE
-Winnipeg to NW
-Colorado to Pacific
-Dallas to Central

Atlantic:
PIT
PHI
NYR
NJ
NYI

NE:
BOS
MON
TOR
BUF
OTT

SE:
WAS
CAR
FLA
TB
NASH


C:
DET
CHI
STL
COLUMBUS
DAL

NW:
VAN
EDM
CAL
WIN
MIN

W:
LA
ANA
PHO
SJ
COL

Any of these options, I think, are best.
Why?

1) NO rivalries *(aside from VAN's) are disturbed
-All the NY-NJ are intact
-NY-PHI intact
-PIT-PHI intact
-BOS-MON intact
-CHI-DET intact

2) Balance of conference power maintained
-Still have big market DET and CHI with LA out west
-2 original sixes (Chi is not left out to dry)

3) Time zones more respected
-Option A...Minnesota is with CST
-Option B and C....Dallas is in CST

4) No team is left out to dro
-If DET moves to the east...CHI is the only original 6 out west and Columbus is the only EST in the west

5) No crazy mis-alignments (WIN in the Central, but MIN in the NW as some have proposed would do this).

Possible complaints:
1) VAN in Option B is removed from their "rivals" (but is given much better travel and time zone, especially if PHO goes to SEA)
2) Option A and C...COL is the sole US team in the NW and in C MIN is the sole US team in the NW
(But...really...COL...who cares...they have no natural rival as stands in the NW and having WIN over MIN is not a big deal, ratings would likely not be hurt)
(Also...option C...MIN would have nearby WIN).


To me, these make sense because they try to address legit complains from MIN/DAL/WIN without really disrupting current big rivalries.

 

[KevFu]

Do a West - Central - East in each conference, and have teams play all their cross-conference games against the geographical division.

Problems solved.

For example:

Wales Conference:
East: NYR, NYI, NJ, PHI, PIT
Central: DET, CBJ, STL, CHI, NASH
West: VAN, EDM, CAL, WIN, MIN

Campbell Conference:
East: MON, BOS, OTT, TOR, BUF
South: DAL, TB, FLA, CAR, WAS
West: SJ, LA, ANA, PHX, COL

6 vs Division, 4 vs conf, 4 vs one division (E vs E, C vs S, W vs W) 84 games.

DET Road games:
21 ETZ, 15 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 2 PTZ

CBJ Road games:
21 ETZ, 15 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 2 PTZ

DAL Road games:
26 ETZ, 6 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 6 PTZ

MIN Road Games
14 ETZ, 9 CTZ, 10 MTZ, 9 PTZ

WIN Road Games
14 ETZ, 9 CTZ, 10 MTZ, 9 PTZ

VAN Road Games
14 ETZ, 10 CTZ, 14 MTZ, 6 PTZ

 

[Grudy0]

THE 4 DIVISION proposal has been basically been eliminated from consideration, Doc, the current alignment of 2 conferences, 3 divisions w/ 15 teams in each conference.....is the model we're working with currently, they just have to tweak the alignment.....

It absolutely has not.

I'm not so sure. I think we missed an article. From Michael Russo of Minneapolis Star-Tribuine:

Last summer, Leipold said on a radio show that he believed headway had been made as long as the NHL moved to a radical four-division league made up of seven or eight teams in each division. In the Wild's would be Winnipeg, St. Louis, Dallas, Nashville, Chicago, and ... Columbus or Detroit.

That concept has since blown up.

Rumors out of the recent Board of Governors meeting are that Bettman went around the room and at least 12 of 15 Eastern Conference teams essentially said they'd vote against anything that would disrupt their divisional alignment.

If 12 of 15 Eastern teams are banding together to stop a grand realignment to a four-division setup, it can easily be seen that those teams will protect the status quo over anything. Yes, it is possible that Bettman and the League could lobby some of the possible dissenters, but that would require at least three teams to change their vote, and I personally believe that would be a difficult sell.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Do a West - Central - East in each conference, and have teams play all their cross-conference games against the geographical division.

Problems solved.

For example:

Wales Conference:
East: NYR, NYI, NJ, PHI, PIT
Central: DET, CBJ, STL, CHI, NASH
West: VAN, EDM, CAL, WIN, MIN

Campbell Conference:
East: MON, BOS, OTT, TOR, BUF
South: DAL, TB, FLA, CAR, WAS
West: SJ, LA, ANA, PHX, COL

6 vs Division, 4 vs conf, 4 vs one division (E vs E, C vs S, W vs W) 84 games.

DET Road games:
21 ETZ, 15 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 2 PTZ

CBJ Road games:
21 ETZ, 15 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 2 PTZ

DAL Road games:
26 ETZ, 6 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 6 PTZ

MIN Road Games
14 ETZ, 9 CTZ, 10 MTZ, 9 PTZ

WIN Road Games
14 ETZ, 9 CTZ, 10 MTZ, 9 PTZ

VAN Road Games
14 ETZ, 10 CTZ, 14 MTZ, 6 PTZ

that's essentially wht we have now, rotation-wise, in this format, you all are making this harder than it has to be...... Interleague play is wht you've essentially proposed, KevFu, 84 games isn't the question tht's voted upon, it's the alignment in this 3 division format, bc don't they have a 2nd vote on the schedule anyway?

it's not like either conference is playing conference-only..... ie BOS just hosted COL.... THAT'S the complaint lobbied in our league where some of the bigger East cities would see the midwest or west teams, whereas the smaller East cities will not even if it's semi-agreed to be on a rotation....

 

[MoreOrr]

Give me your opinion on these proposals:

Option A:
-Nashville to SE
-Winnipeg to NW
-Minnesota to C

Option B:
-Nashville to SE
-Winnipeg to NW
-Vancouver to Pacific
-Dallas to Central

Option C:
-Nashville to SE
-Winnipeg to NW
-Colorado to Pacific
-Dallas to Central

Any of these options, I think, are best.
Why?

I've already stated on the 1st page of this thread that I think "Option B" has a good likelihood.

But Vancouver or Colorado to the Pacific is still a hard call, and Detroit or Nashville to the Southeast is still a hard call. Who knows for sure how the vote will go either case.

 

[MoreOrr]

Do a West - Central - East in each conference, and have teams play all their cross-conference games against the geographical division.

Problems solved.

For example:

Wales Conference:
East: NYR, NYI, NJ, PHI, PIT
Central: DET, CBJ, STL, CHI, NASH
West: VAN, EDM, CAL, WIN, MIN

Campbell Conference:
East: MON, BOS, OTT, TOR, BUF
South: DAL, TB, FLA, CAR, WAS
West: SJ, LA, ANA, PHX, COL

6 vs Division, 4 vs conf, 4 vs one division (E vs E, C vs S, W vs W) 84 games.

DET Road games:
21 ETZ, 15 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 2 PTZ

CBJ Road games:
21 ETZ, 15 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 2 PTZ

DAL Road games:
26 ETZ, 6 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 6 PTZ

MIN Road Games
14 ETZ, 9 CTZ, 10 MTZ, 9 PTZ

WIN Road Games
14 ETZ, 9 CTZ, 10 MTZ, 9 PTZ

VAN Road Games
14 ETZ, 10 CTZ, 14 MTZ, 6 PTZ

Now you're getting there!!

I would change up your schedule idea though...
6 vs 4 Division
4 vs 5 in-Conference
2 vs other 5 in-Conference
-----
3 vs 5 cross-Conference geographical Division
2 vs 5 other Conference teams
1 vs 5 distant other Conference teams
84 games, same total you have.

 

[Grudy0]

that's essentially wht we have now, rotation-wise, in this format, you all are making this harder than it has to be...... Interleague play is wht you've essentially proposed, KevFu, 84 games isn't the question tht's voted upon, it's the alignment in this 3 division format, bc don't they have a 2nd vote on the schedule anyway?

I don't think there is a second vote on the schedule. I think the schedule has to be determined with the groupings, otherwise the schedule will be left as-is if there is a second vote, and I'd have to see what the by-law actually says in order to figure out how it is changed.

 

[MoreOrr]

that's essentially wht we have now, rotation-wise, in this format, you all are making this harder than it has to be...... Interleague play is wht you've essentially proposed, KevFu, 84 games isn't the question tht's voted upon, it's the alignment in this 3 division format, bc don't they have a 2nd vote on the schedule anyway?

How so? Not at all!
Detroit, Columbus, Chicago, St Louis, Nashville, Dallas... none of those teams have the benefit of the format KevFu sketched out.

 

[KevFu]

that's essentially wht we have now, rotation-wise, in this format, you all are making this harder than it has to be...... Interleague play is wht you've essentially proposed, KevFu, 84 games isn't the question tht's voted upon, it's the alignment in this 3 division format, bc don't they have a 2nd vote on the schedule anyway?

No, as of now, they play 18 games against the other conference, everyone ONCE and three teams an extra time.

This would make the ETZ teams go the west coast (VAN/EDM/CAL or SJ/ANA/PHX) the same number of times, but they'd hit the CTZ/MTZ an extra time.

Compare the W-C-E format to the West Conf/East Conf format we have now:

DET Road games:
WCE: 21 ETZ, 15 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 2 PTZ
Now: 12 ETZ, 13 CTZ, 8 MTZ, 8 PTZ

CBJ Road games:
WCE: 21 ETZ, 15 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 2 PTZ
Now: 12 ETZ, 13 CTZ, 8 MTZ, 8 PTZ

DAL Road games:
WCE: 26 ETZ, 6 CTZ, 4 MTZ, 6 PTZ
Now: 13 ETZ, 8 CTZ, 9 MTZ, 11 PTZ

MIN Road Games
WCE: 14 ETZ, 9 CTZ, 10 MTZ, 9 PTZ
Now: 13 ETZ, 8 CTZ, 11 MTZ, 9 PTZ

WIN Road Games
WCE: 14 ETZ, 9 CTZ, 10 MTZ, 9 PTZ
Now: NA

VAN Road Games
WCE: 14 ETZ, 10 CTZ, 14 MTZ, 6 PTZ
Now: 13 ETZ, 11 CTZ, 11 MTZ, 6 PTZ

 

[mucker*]

I've already stated on the 1st page of this thread that I think "Option B" has a good likelihood.

But Vancouver or Colorado to the Pacific is still a hard call, and Detroit or Nashville to the Southeast is still a hard call. Who knows for sure how the vote will go either case.

Which one of those do you personally want to see?

I am cool with either, but would like A with Minnesota back in the "Noris".

 

[MoreOrr]

I don't think there is a second vote on the schedule. I think the schedule has to be determined with the groupings, otherwise the schedule will be left as-is if there is a second vote, and I'd have to see what the by-law actually says in order to figure out how it is changed.

Ok, we discussed this the other day. There may not be more than one comprehensive vote (unless the first one doesn't pass, they may try a modified second vote some time after), but there almost certainly will be small voting sessions on individual elements to see what pieces will constitute the final official comprehensive package to be voted on. Otherwise, how would they decide what exact elements to put in the complete package that will be ultimately voted on.

 

[MoreOrr]

Which one of those do you personally want to see?

I am cool with either, but would like A with Minnesota back in the "Noris".

Option B!

Though I'd love to see Columbus in the East but with an all-round changed-up alignment there.
Clb and Pit > Northeast/Great Lakes
Mtl and Bos > Atlantic/Northeast
Phi > Southeast/Atlantic

But that's extremely unlikely to happen.

 

[mucker*]

Option B!

Though I'd love to see Columbus in the East but with an all-round changed-up alignment there.
Clb and Pit > Northeast/Great Lakes
Mtl and Bos > Atlantic/Northeast
Phi > Southeast/Atlantic

But that's extremely unlikely to happen.

You can have PHI not with BOTH NY/NJ AND PIT!
Come on.

In a perfect world, I too would like NY and BOS to be re-united and I'd like PIT to have the Ohio rivalry.
But with the current location of 30 teams, table it.

Sounds to me like people are beginning to be more reasonable.

MoreOrr, let me ask, don;t you find the whole "we can't have 4 Canada teams in 1 division" to be foolish?

Like come on, is it really going to matter if Winnipeg replaces Minnesota in the NW?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

How so? Not at all!
Detroit, Columbus, Chicago, St Louis, Nashville, Dallas... none of those teams have the benefit of the format KevFu sketched out.

under KevFu's format:

why is DAL aligned w/ the 4 Current SE teams, that other proposals have said DET is the team replacing WPG in said division....

WPG to NW, Dallas replaces Detroit in the current Central, VAN replaces DAL in the Pacific..... why unnecessarily move CHI, St. Louis or Nashville, or even Columbus?

 

[MoreOrr]

You can have PHI not with BOTH NY/NJ AND PIT!
Come on.

In a perfect world, I too would like NY and BOS to be re-united and I'd like PIT to have the Ohio rivalry.
But with the current location of 30 teams, table it.

Sounds to me like people are beginning to be more reasonable.

MoreOrr, let me ask, don;t you find the whole "we can't have 4 Canada teams in 1 division" to be foolish?

Like come on, is it really going to matter if Winnipeg replaces Minnesota in the NW?

You need to go and read through the first couple of pages of this thread. I had already commented on which of your 3 Options I thought was best even before you first posted them. And I've already commented specifically on the topic I bolded in your post above...
Post #35

Perhaps some of us, well at least myself, have been looking at the Minnesota in an otherwise all-Canadian Division from the wrong angle. I/we have kept focusing on the idea that Minnesota/Wild fans wouldn't be interested to be in such a Division. But perhaps Leipold realizes that such a Division would almost certainly leave Minnesota as being the 5th wheel. The Canadian teams would all have rivalries with each other and none of them and their fans would really care about the Wild. That wouldn't be the best of situations for the Wild, to be in a Division where the potential of a rivalry against Division opponents would be significantly hindered.

So the same would go for Quebec City. I personally think that if Quebec gets a team then the 4 Eastern Canadian teams should be separated into different Divisions rather than leaving, let's say, Buffalo as the 5th wheel.
I'd put Quebec City and Montreal in one Division, and Toronto and Ottawa in another.
Besides, if in the West Vancouver gets separated from the Alberta teams then it seems only fair that the East has a similar alignment.

Buffalo - Toronto is an excellent example of this... Toronto is much closer to Buffalo, but do Maple Leaf fans care much about a Sabre - Leafs rivalry? Not much that I've been able to tell. Buffalo does, but not Toronto. Toronto is focused on the rivalries with Ottawa and Montreal.
In the West, it could be the same scenario with Minnesota and Winnipeg.

 

[MoreOrr]

under KevFu's format:

why is DAL aligned w/ the 4 Current SE teams, that other proposals have said DET is the team replacing WPG in said division....

WPG to NW, Dallas replaces Detroit in the current Central, VAN replaces DAL in the Pacific..... why unnecessarily move CHI, St. Louis or Nashville, or even Columbus?

Just go back and look again at KevFu's alignment, CHRDANHUTCH... You seem to be missing a significant factor. Hint... East and West in both Conferences!

 

[kdb209]

I don't think there is a second vote on the schedule. I think the schedule has to be determined with the groupings, otherwise the schedule will be left as-is if there is a second vote, and I'd have to see what the by-law actually says in order to figure out how it is changed.

The Conference/Divisional alignment is defined in By-Law 6.

The Regular Season playing schedule is defined in By-Law 26 (although the By-Laws filed in the Phoenix BK, still have the scheduling matrix from '92-'93, 26 teams).

The Stanley Cup Playoff seeding and format is defined in By-Law 27.

By-Laws 7, 26, and 27 (if there are any changes to the playoffs) would all have to be amended with a 2/3s vote - 20 out of 30 teams voting yes.

The Constitution & By-Laws do not specify a process for amending the By-Laws - just the 2/3 majority vote requirement. They do not require nor disallow that By-Law amendments be voted individually or aggregated in a single vote - so it would be basically up to GB, under his authority to interpret and establish policies and procedures regarding League Rules, to make that decision. Doing anything other than voting on them as a package would not make any sense.

That said, any official vote at the BoG meeting will likely be nothing more than a formality - any proposal will have already been vetted with the teams and unofficial votes already taken.

 

[MoreOrr]

By-Laws 7, 26, and 27 (if there are any changes to the playoffs) would all have to be amended with a 2/3s vote - 20 out of 30 teams voting yes.

. . . . .

That said, any official vote at the BoG meeting will likely be nothing more than a formality - any proposal will have already been vetted with the teams and unofficial votes already taken.

19 out 29... The Phoenix vote, how would it be handled?

And that "vetted" part you talk about, could probably consist of various indivdual more or less informal voting processes.