NHL Realignment 2012-13 – Part III

[Noldo]

The 3 Conference alignment idea hasn't been mentioned in a long time, in part because most people now have gravitated to simply posting what they're guessing to be the most probable alignment that will come out of the December meetings. However, during much of the alignment analysis that we've been going through, I've often been reminded of how much a 3 Conference structure would really fit the NHL geographical reality.
[...]

I have to say that I like the 3 conference idea you have presented. Of course with that framework one can as easily keep the current Northeast and Atlantic together.

The flexi-divisions are quite neat solution to the problem of having Alberta teams in the middle of "West" and thus both Vancouver and Winnipeg prefer to be aligned with them.

However, the 3 conference structure as well flex-division structure in 2-Conference-6-Division -format both lead to following question:

Does the League's alignment and schedule have to be easy to understand for a casual fan?

In current format there are only 3 games that are not based on easy-to-understand-formula, the three additional games against the other conference. In some proposals the structure of schedule and alignment would require plenty of explanations untill it would be understandable.

Your proposal is actually quite straightforward in this regard (barring flexi-divisions and their inheritant "strangeness").

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

The 3 Conference alignment idea hasn't been mentioned in a long time, in part because most people now have gravitated to simply posting what they're guessing to be the most probable alignment that will come out of the December meetings. However, during much of the alignment analysis that we've been going through, I've often been reminded of how much a 3 Conference structure would really fit the NHL geographical reality.

One element that I've rather hooked myself onto is the idea of flex-Divisions, which I've commented on various times, often in discussions with KevFu. And I'm wondering how that could be applied to a 3-Conference structure and perhaps make that structure work even better. I still think that a flex-Division alignment can be found, within the 2 Conferences, 6 Divisions, that could really make the setup work well, but here I want to apply it to 3-Conferences.

This is what I've come up with:

Continental||Conference||American||Conference||National||Conference
PACIFIC||WEST||CENTRAL||SOUTHEAST||NORTHEAST||ATLANTIC
Edmonton |x 6 x| Calgary || Detroit |x 6 x| Washington || Montreal |x 6 x| Boston
Vancouver||Winnipeg||Columbus||Carolina||Ottawa||Islanders
San Jose||Minnesota||Chicago||Florida||Toronto||Rangers
Los Angeles||Colorado||St Louis||Tampa Bay||Buffalo||New Jersey
Anaheim |x 6 x| Phoenix || Dallas |x 6 x| Nashville || Pittsburgh |x 6 x| Philadelphia

In the Conference, teams play each other a minimum of 4 times.
Teams in the Division generally play each other 6 times, except for the teams in Blue in the Division which only play each other 4 times.
The Flex-schedule allows teams across Divisions to play each other 6 times.

Teams play all other teams in the League 2 times (less 2 teams unless the League would go to 84 games).

The Playoffs would be as described many times with the 3-Conference structure:
The top team in each Division is guaranteed a Playoff spot.
The 3 next best records in each Conference is are in.
That makes 15 teams. The 16th team is the team with the best remaining record in the whole League.

That means that 2 Conferences would have 5 Playoff representatives, and 1 Conference has 6.
The matchups go 1st vs 5th, 1st vs 5th, 1st vs 6th, … 2nd vs 4th, 2nd vs 4th, 2nd vs 5th, … 3rd vs 3rd (the 2 Conf with 5 Playoff teams), and 3rd vs 4th (in the other Conf).

The 3rd Playoff Round would be the Conference elimination Round in which one of the 3 Conferences is eliminated.
The Final with two Conference representatives facing each other.

WHY? WHAT OTHER League has a 3 conference alignment which is aligned very similar to MLB, MoreOrr, remember the E-C-W alignment subset, how is the above accomplished if there's only 30? why even bring up a 16th seed unless there's 32?

keep the current 2 conference 6 division alignment, all the current alignment needs is to be tweaked, ? is can you convince those to be appeased w/ the minimum alignment tweaks already proposed.

 

[MoreOrr]

WHY? WHAT OTHER League has a 3 conference alignment which is aligned very similar to MLB, MoreOrr, remember the E-C-W alignment subset, how is the above accomplished if there's only 30? why even bring up a 16th seed unless there's 32?

keep the current 2 conference 6 division alignment, all the current alignment needs is to be tweaked, ? is can you convince those to be appeased w/ the minimum alignment tweaks already proposed.

I don't disagree with you, essentially, CHRDANHUTCH. But the answer to that 16th seed is an easy one... How else to you have all teams matched up if not with 16 teams?
And I think it also provides a nice solution in the scenario that a 6th place team with a better record in one Conference would then be added into the mix.

And as to other leagues and what they have... Ultimately, what does it matter? In fact, the 4 Division proposal that Bettman suggested, with its accompanying schedule format, actually looks more like 4 Conferences, just being called Divisions. What other league has 4 Conferences?

As to your second point, I mentioned in the 3-Conference post, at the beginning, that I believe a Flex-Division setup can be made that would solve most of the 2 Conference, 6-Division problems. Just need to keep applying flex-Divisions to different 6-Division alignment scenarios until we come up with one that fits the best.

However, the 3 conference structure as well flex-division structure in 2-Conference-6-Division -format both lead to following question:

Does the League's alignment and schedule have to be easy to understand for a casual fan?

In current format there are only 3 games that are not based on easy-to-understand-formula, the three additional games against the other conference. In some proposals the structure of schedule and alignment would require plenty of explanations untill it would be understandable.

Your proposal is actually quite straightforward in this regard (barring flexi-divisions and their inheritant "strangeness").

I don't think it's actually that difficult. And do those who aren't that attentive to the League details even need to understand? What's important is that Flyer and Penguin fans, for instance, know that their teams are inextricably linked even if they aren't in the same Division... and that the Season schedule recognizes that.

The ultimate thing is that it's the Conference records that count, beyond which team wins the Division.


Those flex-Division matchups could be referred to as "designated matchups" which could possibly even make them more special.

 

[optimus2861]

This is what I've come up with:

Continental||Conference||American||Conference||National||Conference
PACIFIC||WEST||CENTRAL||SOUTHEAST||NORTHEAST||ATLANTIC
Edmonton |x 6 x| Calgary || Detroit |x 6 x| Washington || Montreal |x 6 x| Boston
Vancouver||Winnipeg||Columbus||Carolina||Ottawa||Islanders
San Jose||Minnesota||Chicago||Florida||Toronto||Rangers
Los Angeles||Colorado||St Louis||Tampa Bay||Buffalo||New Jersey
Anaheim |x 6 x| Phoenix || Dallas |x 6 x| Nashville || Pittsburgh |x 6 x| Philadelphia

Damn, I like that alignment and schedule even if it did take me a few minutes to wrap my head around it. The only flaw is the strange playoff format you end up with; some year, there will inevitably be a cross-continent playoff series in the first round (the 3-3 series) and possibly the second as well (when the winner of that 3-3 series has to play off against a member of the third conference).

Then you hit the third round and the mess really hits the fan. Here's a possible scenario for the four surviving teams:

Vancouver #1 Continental Conference
Washington #1 American Conference
NY Rangers #3 National Conference
Boston #5 National Conference

What are the match-ups? No matter what, you're stuck with a cross-continent third round as someone has to play VAN. If you force VAN/WAS to play to eliminate a conference, their #1 seeds just meant jack. If you go the other way and give both VAN & WAS home ice against NYR & BOS, you open the possibility of an in-division final between NYR & BOS. Which is good or bad depending on your POV.

I think I'd lean toward reseeding strictly by seeds (#1 always gets home ice) and then points (if three #1s made it, the lowest #1 hits the road) in the third round and let the chips fall where they may. So VAN/NYR and WAS/BOS, let's say. If an NYR/BOS final shakes out of that, so be it! (Hell, the league would love that particular one!)

Bottom line: the playoff format probably dooms a 3-conference scenario, but the alignment & schedule is a strong one.

 

[MoreOrr]

Damn, I like that alignment and schedule even if it did take me a few minutes to wrap my head around it. The only flaw is the strange playoff format you end up with; some year, there will inevitably be a cross-continent playoff series in the first round (the 3-3 series) and possibly the second as well (when the winner of that 3-3 series has to play off against a member of the third conference).

That point is definitely true, but then I think at least the possibly is less likely than currently with Detroit and/or Columbus having to play against PTZ teams in the Playoffs.

Then you hit the third round and the mess really hits the fan. Here's a possible scenario for the four surviving teams:

Vancouver #1 Continental Conference
Washington #1 American Conference
NY Rangers #3 National Conference
Boston #5 National Conference.

That I really don't see as being a problem. I'd still go with in-Conference matchups first. Meaning that definitely a National Conference team would be in the Final.
What wouldn't be a good thing, IMO, is for an all-one-Conference Final.

What are the match-ups? No matter what, you're stuck with a cross-continent third round as someone has to play VAN. If you force VAN/WAS to play to eliminate a conference, their #1 seeds just meant jack. If you go the other way and give both VAN & WAS home ice against NYR & BOS, you open the possibility of an in-division final between NYR & BOS. Which is good or bad depending on your POV.

I think I'd lean toward reseeding strictly by seeds (#1 always gets home ice) and then points (if three #1s made it, the lowest #1 hits the road) in the third round and let the chips fall where they may. So VAN/NYR and WAS/BOS, let's say. If an NYR/BOS final shakes out of that, so be it! (Hell, the league would love that particular one!)

Bottom line: the playoff format probably dooms a 3-conference scenario, but the alignment & schedule is a strong one.

And again, No, I wouldn't do that. The objective is still to have two Conference Champs meeting in the Final. The 3rd Conference gets eliminated in the Conference Elimination Round.

 

[optimus2861]

What wouldn't be a good thing, IMO, is for an all-one-Conference Final.

You've devalued Conferences already by putting in three of them and enacting this playoff format, which crowns two Conference champions after just two rounds of playoffs. I fail to see why you now draw a line and say, "No we must have two Conference winners in the final," knowing the pitfall of the scenario I outlined.

Admittedly it's quite possible that in the current format we have one all-powerhouse conference final and one with weak sisters, but at least that process doesn't devalue a #1 seed in the third round, which is what you propose to do.

Oh well, it's all academic anyhow.

 

[SavardianSpinorama]

Here's my crack at it.

Wales Conference

Adams Division
Bruins
Canadiens
Maple Leafs
Sabres
Senators
Penguins
Flyers
Blue Jackets

Norris Divsion
Blackhawks
Red Wings
Blues
Stars
Wild
Avalanche
Jets

Campbell Conference

Patrick Division
Rangers
Islanders
Devils
Capitals
Hurricanes
Predators
Lightning
Panthers

Smythe Divsion
Oilers
Flames
Canucks
Kings
Ducks
Sharks
Coyotes

*If the Coyotes do end up moving to Quebec then they would move to the Adams division. The Blue Jackets would move to the Norris Division and the Avalanche would move to the Smythe Division.

Scheduling
Teams in divisions with 8 teams play each team 6 times and teams in divisions with 7 teams play each team 7 times. 42 games

Teams play all the teams in the other division within the conference twice. 14 or 16 games

Teams in the Adams Division and Patrick Division play each other twice, except for three team that they play three times. One which will be determined from the previous year's standings and two on a permanent basis. 19 games

Teams in the Norris Division and Smythe Division play each other twice, except for two teams that they'll play three times. One based on the previous year's standing and one on a permanent basis.
16 games

Teams in the Adams Division play teams in the Smythe Divison once. 7 or 8 games

Teams in the Norris Division play teams in the Patrick Division once.
7 or 8 games

*If a for example the team the Blackhawks play the Canucks 3 times on a permanent basis if the Canucks and Blackhawks both win the division the previous year then those teams will play each other 4 times.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I don't disagree with you, essentially, CHRDANHUTCH. But the answer to that 16th seed is an easy one... How else to you have all teams matched up if not with 16 teams?
And I think it also provides a nice solution in the scenario that a 6th place team with a better record in one Conference would then be added into the mix.

And as to other leagues and what they have... Ultimately, what does it matter? In fact, the 4 Division proposal that Bettman suggested, with its accompanying schedule format, actually looks more like 4 Conferences, just being called Divisions. What other league has 4 Conferences?

As to your second point, I mentioned in the 3-Conference post, at the beginning, that I believe a Flex-Division setup can be made that would solve most of the 2 Conference, 6-Division problems. Just need to keep applying flex-Divisions to different 6-Division alignment scenarios until we come up with one that fits the best.



I don't think it's actually that difficult. And do those who aren't that attentive to the League details even need to understand? What's important is that Flyer and Penguin fans, for instance, know that their teams are inextricably linked even if they aren't in the same Division... and that the Season schedule recognizes that.

The ultimate thing is that it's the Conference records that count, beyond which team wins the Division.


Those flex-Division matchups could be referred to as "designated matchups" which could possibly even make them more special.

the issue is with 3 divisions is this, More: Milwaukee was an AL market for much of their existence, now it petitioned themselves to be in the NL Central, there is also the possibility that Houston and Texas are put in the same division if tht's a condition of the Astros being sold, they'd be switched, how would you propose a 3 division alignment if you end up transferring a franchise from 1 league to the other, which throws the even balance.... what we all are proposing is keeping both conferences at 15 franchises.

 

[KevFu]

The 3 Conference alignment idea hasn't been mentioned in a long time, in part because most people now have gravitated to simply posting what they're guessing to be the most probable alignment that will come out of the December meetings. However, during much of the alignment analysis that we've been going through, I've often been reminded of how much a 3 Conference structure would really fit the NHL geographical reality.

One element that I've rather hooked myself onto is the idea of flex-Divisions, which I've commented on various times, often in discussions with KevFu. And I'm wondering how that could be applied to a 3-Conference structure and perhaps make that structure work even better. I still think that a flex-Division alignment can be found, within the 2 Conferences, 6 Divisions, that could really make the setup work well, but here I want to apply it to 3-Conferences.

I like how you defied the use of the divisions as scheduling pods to ensure that rivals played each other.

THAT'S the goal. Not "who's grouped with whom" but "making sure teams are playing each other the right number of times"

Does the League's alignment and schedule have to be easy to understand for a casual fan?

I don't see what stops the league from adopting this scheduling model:

1. You'll play all your rivals six times (no one more than six times)
2. You'll play as many road games in your time zones as we can fit.
3. You'll get some other games, too, so it's 82 total.
4. Shut up and like it, especially around playoff seeding time, or we'll ship the first ETZ team to complain to the Western Conference.

The NHL doesn't explain why some teams play twice outside the conference. It's just accepted.
MLB doesn't explain why their interleague schedule is what it is. They just schedule the big money games and work the rest in.
MLB doesn't "explain" why some years, you play a team 6, 7, 8, or 9 times if they're outside of your division. There's 90+ game difference some years between teams schedules. And people like me are the only ones to ever complain about it.

"You get your rivals six times, and then some other games" is perfectly acceptable scheduling model.

the issue is with 3 divisions is this, More: Milwaukee was an AL market for much of their existence, now it petitioned themselves to be in the NL Central, there is also the possibility that Houston and Texas are put in the same division if tht's a condition of the Astros being sold, they'd be switched, how would you propose a 3 division alignment if you end up transferring a franchise from 1 league to the other, which throws the even balance.... what we all are proposing is keeping both conferences at 15 franchises.

Two points of order: First, Milwaukee was moved as a "solution" to end a multi-year debacle of realignment because MLB totally screwed the pooch (Long Story short: MLB screwed Tampa one too many times: White Sox, Giants, Miami Expansion. FL politicians called anti-trust hearings; MLB expanded so they'd drop it; MLB called Colangelo, who said he'd buy a Phoenix expansion team IF he got an NL team; Re-alignment, RADICAL realignment, DH, Interleague play talks ensued and turned to chaos; Owners forced out Vincent; Selig stepped in, tried his hand, failed, and offered to move "his" team to the NL to make everyone happy).

Second, MLB needs team consent to switch leagues. NHL teams don't have divisions/conferences swapping veto power.
If someone moves, and someone needs to switch, you go back to drawing board. Same as ever in the NHL.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Some "kinda" confirmation that Detroit is okay with staying in the West, as well as some new info that more than one realignment plan may be presented at the meeting early december.


The realignment story keeps getting more interesting as we inch closer to the Board of Governors session in early December.

I've been told now that the Detroit Red Wings, while still wanting to move to the East, might be willing to stay right where they are if the rest of the league agrees to a schedule that allows "a home-and-home series" with every team in the East. That would guarantee the Wings more games in the Eastern Time zone and allow them to get at least one visit per season at the Joe from their longest and most historic rivals (read: Original 6).

The other bit of info that is circulating is that there is a possibility of the two conferences being eliminated completely, with four divisions remaining. The first two rounds of the playoffs would occur in those divisions with a re-seeding for third round.

That being said, I have also been told that the NHL has yet to decide the process for discussion at the meeting in December. Would there be just one plan for approval or multiple plans for discussion? As of now, we just don't know, and apparently, neither does the league office.


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/11/10/shannon_adding_to_the_debate/

 

[wildthing202]

The NHL doesn't explain why some teams play twice outside the conference. It's just accepted.
MLB doesn't explain why their interleague schedule is what it is. They just schedule the big money games and work the rest in.
MLB doesn't "explain" why some years, you play a team 6, 7, 8, or 9 times if they're outside of your division. There's 90+ game difference some years between teams schedules. And people like me are the only ones to ever complain about it.

"You get your rivals six times, and then some other games" is perfectly acceptable scheduling model.




Two points of order: First, Milwaukee was moved as a "solution" to end a multi-year debacle of realignment because MLB totally screwed the pooch (Long Story short: MLB screwed Tampa one too many times: White Sox, Giants, Miami Expansion. FL politicians called anti-trust hearings; MLB expanded so they'd drop it; MLB called Colangelo, who said he'd buy a Phoenix expansion team IF he got an NL team; Re-alignment, RADICAL realignment, DH, Interleague play talks ensued and turned to chaos; Owners forced out Vincent; Selig stepped in, tried his hand, failed, and offered to move "his" team to the NL to make everyone happy).

Second, MLB needs team consent to switch leagues. NHL teams don't have divisions/conferences swapping veto power.
If someone moves, and someone needs to switch, you go back to drawing board. Same as ever in the NHL.

MLB scheduling - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_schedule

As for the 2 points of order: Milwaukee elected to go to the NL because of 2 reasons, 1 MLB wasn't sure that Interleague would last and two because the Royals declined to move. Minnesota was next in line after Milwaukee. So Detroit moved to the Central division while Tampa took their spot in the east.
Selig was named Acting Commish in 1992, Arizona wasn't officially in the picture until 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwau..._.2F_.22We.27re_taking_this_thing_National.22
""However, it soon became clear that it would be impractical to have an odd number of teams per league: baseball would either have to give teams many more off-days than in the past, or interleague play would have to be extended year-round, or both. In order for MLB officials to continue the existing schedule, where teams play almost every day and where interleague play is limited to a few days per year, both leagues would need to carry an even number of teams. The decision was made to have one existing club switch leagues."

 

[MoreOrr]

Ok, some possible Flex-Division setups with two Conferences and 6 Divisions.
Again, the scheduling format would be the same as with the 3-Conference structure… the only thing is that the teams that play 4 games against isn’t so clearly defined. Each team generally plays 6 games against teams in its Division, except those teams that are flex-matched with a team in another Division. And each team plays 4 games against 5 teams in the Conference, and 2 games against the other 5 teams in the Conference as well as all the teams in the other Conference (less two, unless the League goes to 84 games). The awkwardness is in matching up those 5 teams in the Conference with which each teams plays 4 games against,… but it can be done (and in so doing it can be arranged that, for instance, Detroit would not play 4 games against any PTZ teams).

Again, the colored teams in each Division only play against each other 4 times, thus enabling the flex-matchups between cross-Divisional teams.

Flex-Divisions Option A

|Continental||Conference|
SOUTHWEST||NORTHWEST||CENTRAL
San Jose |

x 6 x​

| Vancouver ||
Los Angeles||Calgary||Nashville
Anaheim||Edmonton||St Louis
Phoenix||Winnipeg||Chicago
|| Minnesota |

x 6 x​

| Detroit
| Colorado |

x 6 x​

| Dallas |

Flex-Divisions Option B

|Continental||Conference|
PACIFIC||WEST||CENTRAL
Edmonton |

x 6 x​

| Calgary ||Chicago
Vancouver|| Winnipeg |

x 6 x​

| Detroit
San Jose||Colorado||St Louis
Los Angeles|| Minnesota |

x 6 x​

| Dallas Anaheim |

x 6 x​

| Phoenix ||Nashville

Flex-Divisions Option A

|National||Conference|
ATLANTIC||SOUTHEAST||NORTHEAST
Philadelphia |

x 6 x​

| Pittsburgh ||
New Jersey||Washington||Buffalo
Rangers|| Carolina |

x 6 x​

| Columbus
Islanders||Tampa Bay||Toronto
||Florida||Ottawa
| Boston |

x 6 x​

| Montreal |

Flex-Divisions Option B

|National||Conference|
ATLANTIC||SOUTHEAST||NORTHEAST
Pittsburgh |

x 6 x​

| Washington ||
Philadelphia||Florida||Montreal
New Jersey||Tampa Bay||Ottawa
Islanders||Carolina||Toronto
|| Columbus |

x 6 x​

| Buffalo
| Rangers |

x 6 x​

| Boston |

Next step is determining the matchups for 4 games against... Not so easy as with the 3-Conference setup.

 

[optimus2861]

And each team plays 4 games against 5 teams in the Conference, and 2 games against the other 5 teams in the Conference

I'm not sure this matrix works because of the odd number of teams in the conference. Try working it out; I've done so twice and can't do it. I wind up at least one grid short.

 

[Noldo]

[...]
I've been told now that the Detroit Red Wings, while still wanting to move to the East, might be willing to stay right where they are if the rest of the league agrees to a schedule that allows "a home-and-home series" with every team in the East. That would guarantee the Wings more games in the Eastern Time zone and allow them to get at least one visit per season at the Joe from their longest and most historic rivals (read: Original 6) [...]

Althought we all know that DET by no means have a veto in the matter, I would assume the League would do their best to meet their wishes in case of compromise.

Can you envision a system incorporating either:

(a) home-and-home againt all teams in the league (in other words, a viable way to increase number of inter-conference games by 12 from 18 to 30)

or

(b) more games between DET and their historic rivals (most likely MTL, BOS, TOR and NYR, in home-and-home they would also get PIT and PHI) Currently MTL and TOR have their additional matchups already filled with western Canadian teams) If home-and-home is taken as benchmark, this would mean at least 8 games in total against eastern original six, more if other eastern key matchups are taken into consideration (and although most eastern teams would be enthrilled to have their additional "western" games be against Detroit, all other western teams would most likely also like to have their fair share of games against BOS, TOR, MTL, NYR, PHI and PIT)

While staying in the current 2Conference/6Division-format?

 

[MoreOrr]

I'm not sure this matrix works because of the odd number of teams in the conference. Try working it out; I've done so twice and can't do it. I wind up at least one grid short.

No, optimus, it has to work. After each team has its 4 other teams (mostly Divisional opponents) with which it plays 6 games against, then there are 10 teams remaining... 5 to play 4 games against and 5 to play 2 games against.
And then of course the whole other Conference which they play 2 games against, less 2 teams that are only played against once in a Season (unless the schedule would be increased to 84 games thus making it a perfect 2 games against every team in the other Conference).

The scheduling format is exactly the same as with the 3-Conference structure, it's just that those 5 teams that are played against 4 times each aren't obvious to see... you have to program them in.

 

[MoreOrr]

Althought we all know that DET by no means have a veto in the matter, I would assume the League would do their best to meet their wishes in case of compromise.

Can you envision a system incorporating either:

(a) home-and-home againt all teams in the league (in other words, a viable way to increase number of inter-conference games by 12 from 18 to 30)

or

(b) more games between DET and their historic rivals (most likely MTL, BOS, TOR and NYR, in home-and-home they would also get PIT and PHI) Currently MTL and TOR have their additional matchups already filled with western Canadian teams) If home-and-home is taken as benchmark, this would mean at least 8 games in total against eastern original six, more if other eastern key matchups are taken into consideration (and although most eastern teams would be enthrilled to have their additional "western" games be against Detroit, all other western teams would most likely also like to have their fair share of games against BOS, TOR, MTL, NYR, PHI and PIT)

While staying in the current 2 Conference/6 Division-format?

The following scheduling format would be a fine compromise for Detroit:

6 x 4 vs four rival teams (primarily Division opponents)
4 x 5 vs five programmed in-Conference opponents (in Detroit's case, PTZ teams could be avoided)
2 x 5 vs the other five teams in the Conference

2 x 13 other Conference teams
1 x 2 other Conference teams (Or 2 x All other Conference teams if the schedule is increased to 84 games)

 

[RandR]

Some "kinda" confirmation that Detroit is okay with staying in the West, as well as some new info that more than one realignment plan may be presented at the meeting early december.


The realignment story keeps getting more interesting as we inch closer to the Board of Governors session in early December.

I've been told now that the Detroit Red Wings, while still wanting to move to the East, might be willing to stay right where they are if the rest of the league agrees to a schedule that allows "a home-and-home series" with every team in the East. That would guarantee the Wings more games in the Eastern Time zone and allow them to get at least one visit per season at the Joe from their longest and most historic rivals (read: Original 6).

The other bit of info that is circulating is that there is a possibility of the two conferences being eliminated completely, with four divisions remaining. The first two rounds of the playoffs would occur in those divisions with a re-seeding for third round.

That being said, I have also been told that the NHL has yet to decide the process for discussion at the meeting in December. Would there be just one plan for approval or multiple plans for discussion? As of now, we just don't know, and apparently, neither does the league office.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/11/10/shannon_adding_to_the_debate/

Thanks for the update Doc.

Doesn't yet mean it will happen of course, but the fact that more details are trickling out about the 4-division format could be interpreted as evidence that the league thinks there is a real chance of their overall plan being accepted (otherwise fleshing out such details would be a waste of time and energy).

The elimination of conferences makes a lot of sense if the schedule becomes basically each team play every non-divisional opponent twice with the rest of the games within their division. It also provides even more flexibility for potential franchise re-locations in the future; no need to worry for any reason about which 2 divisions have 7 teams and which 2 have 8 teams.

As a side benefit, doing away with the 2 conference championship trophies means we would no longer have to put up with the ridiculous spectacle of watching photo-op's of team captains being presented with a conference championship trophy while they and their teammates treat it as if it was infested with the plague.

 

[Noldo]

The following scheduling format would be a fine compromise for Detroit:

6 x 4 vs four rival teams (primarily Division opponents)
4 x 5 vs five programmed in-Conference opponents (in Detroit's case, PTZ teams could be avoided)
2 x 5 vs the other five teams in the Conference

2 x 13 other Conference teams
1 x 2 other Conference teams (Or 2 x All other Conference teams if the schedule is increased to 84 games)

Playing Devil's (or Bettman's) advocate...

Wouldn't it be a bit strange to have only two games againts several teams that are competing for the same playoffs spots?

Of course that could be avoided with flat 3 games against rest of the conference, but uneven number of games would also be problematic. Just imagine losing last playoff spot to team you have met once at home and twice away during the season...

 

[MoreOrr]

The other bit of info that is circulating is that there is a possibility of the two conferences being eliminated completely, with four divisions remaining. The first two rounds of the playoffs would occur in those divisions with a re-seeding for third round.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/11/10/shannon_adding_to_the_debate/

Does the League really want to end up with the potential of a Final that could match up any of these teams from the 3 columns?

||
Edmonton||
Calgary|Winnipeg|
Vancouver|Minnesota|Carolina
San Jose|St Louis|Tampa Bay
Los Angeles|Nashville|Florida
Anaheim|Dallas|
Phoenix||
Colorado||

I mean, yes, a few of those Final matchups are possible now, but a "no Conferences" structure would open the door to a lot more Finals matchups that might not be the best-case scenario for the League.

 

[MoreOrr]

Playing Devil's (or Bettman's) advocate...

Wouldn't it be a bit strange to have only two games againts several teams that are competing for the same playoffs spots?

Of course that could be avoided with flat 3 games against rest of the conference, but uneven number of games would also be problematic. Just imagine losing last playoff spot to team you have met once at home and twice away during the season...

Unless the League actually does drop the Conferences all together, then it will have that reality starting in the 2nd Round of the Playoffs (though 2 Rounds of Divisional Playoffs is beginning to be discussed).

And hell, it sort of already exists... Division opponents play 6 times, Conference opponents 4 times, but after the 1st 3 seeds the rest of the Playoff spots are determined by Conference records.

 

[Noldo]

Unless the League actually does drop the Conferences all together, then it will have that reality starting in the 2nd Round of the Playoffs (though 2 Rounds of Divisional Playoffs is beginning to be discussed).

Yes, teams having met only twice will meet in Conference finals, just like teams that have met only once can now meet each other in Finals.
I don't really think that it matter that much how many times the teams facing ech other in playoffs have met during the previous season. But integrity of playoffs, IMO, requires that teams competing for playoff-spots meet each other sufficiently often during the season.

It seems that in 4Ddivision-model the teams would meet all the other teams competing for same playoff-spots at least four times ("only" 4 if teams in divisions of eight play 4 against 2 teams in the division and 6 against others, at least 5 if teams in eight team division play each other 5 times and two teams an additional time).

And hell, it sort of already exists... Division opponents play 6 times, Conference opponents 4 times, but after the 1st 3 seeds the rest of the Playoff spots are determined by Conference records.

Yes, but teams still meet all teams fighting for same playoff-spots (ie. teams in the same conference) at least four times.

How could be justifiable that MTL and FLA meet each other only twice while they fight for same playoff spots while at the same time MTL and CHI meet also twice, even though they are not in the same conference and do not fight for the same playoff-spots?

 

[MoreOrr]

Yes, teams having met only twice will meet in Conference finals, just like teams that have met only once can now meet each other in Finals.
I don't really think that it matter that much how many times the teams facing ech other in playoffs have met during the previous season. But integrity of playoffs, IMO, requires that teams competing for playoff-spots meet each other sufficiently often during the season.

It seems that in 4Ddivision-model the teams would meet all the other teams competing for same playoff-spots at least four times ("only" 4 if teams in divisions of eight play 4 against 2 teams in the division and 6 against others, at least 5 if teams in eight team division play each other 5 times and two teams an additional time).

No, teams outside the Division are to play each other only 2 times in a Season. That's the more balanced schedule that Bettman's 4-Division structure includes. And the original plan of the 4-Division idea was that there be only one Round of Divisional Playoffs (though apparently the possibility of two Rounds is being discussed). So that means that many teams playing against each other in the 2nd and 3rd Rounds (not just the Final) will have faced each other only two times in the Season, though in some cases there would still be Divisional matchups which had faced each other 6 times in the Season. In the proposed schedule there will be no teams that will play against each other 4 times in a Season (only either 6 or 2 times, and in a very few cases only once).

 

[optimus2861]

No, optimus, it has to work.

Not the question I asked. Did you actually try to do it? I'll take the dead simple scenario to demonstrate. Let the 5 teams in the existing Pacific division play the 5 teams in the existing Northwest division 4x/ea. OK, so the Pacific teams now play the Central teams 2x/ea. And the Northwest teams play the Central teams ... 2x/ea. And the Central teams play their 4x/ea against who? Nobody's left.

Shuffle the grid around all you want, that scheduling matrix doesn't work for a 15-team conference. I tried drawing the 4x/teams at random, didn't work. I tried an ordered approach, didn't work. Someone always ran out of teams to play 4x. There are too many odd numbers in play here, something's screwing it up. Whether it's 5/division or 15/conference I'm not sure, my brain won't spit out the equation.

 

[knorthern knight]

The other bit of info that is circulating is that there is a possibility of the two conferences being eliminated completely, with four divisions remaining. The first two rounds of the playoffs would occur in those divisions with a re-seeding for third round.

I remember suggesting this and getting panned for it. This is really the best way to...

1. come as close as possible to guaranteeing playoff games in every time zone for at least the first round or 2 (not 100% by any means, but definitely better than today's setup)
2. save Detroit (and possibly Columbus) from travelling all over the continent during the first 2 rounds of playoffs
3. prevent teams that don't play against each other much from competing for the same playoff spots

 

[saskriders]

I like the flex division idea, have also seen an idea with "sub divisions" with 3 or 4 teams each and the first round of the playoffs is a "sub division final" then "divisional final" etc. I was thinking the flex division idea could make rivalries still happen, without the trouble of timezones and geography.

Div 1:
-sub 1-(Van, Cgy, Edm, Wpg)
-sub 2-(SJ, Ana, LA, Phx)
flex games Van-Phx, Edm-LA
Div 2:
-sub 1-(Det, Chi, Min, Stl)
-sub 2-(Col, Dal, Nsh)
flex games Col-Det, Stl-Nsh
Div 3:
-sub 1-(Mtl, Tor, Ott, Buf)
-sub 2-(Bos, NYR, NYI, NJ)
flex games Bos-Mtl Buf-NYR
Div 4:
-sub 1-(Wsh, Pit, Phi, Clm)
-sub 2-(Car, Flo, TB)
flex games Wsh-Car TB-Clm

Everyone plays everyone twice 2*29=58 24 games left

8 team divisions play all the teams in their sub div 6 times (4 more games) (flex game teams get the 6 games against their "flex rival" instead of the other flex team in their sub division (ex Bos plays Mtl 6 times instead of NYR)
div 1 and 3: 4*3=12 therefore 12 games remain

they then play the rest of the teams in your division (outside your sub division) 5 times (3 more)
div 1 and 3: 3*4=12 therefore 82 games

7 team divisions play each team in their subdivision 7 times (5 more games)
div 2 and 4 sub 1: 3*5=15 therefore 9 games remain
div 2 and 4 sub 2: 2*5=10 therefore 14 games remain

sub 1 (in div 2 and 4) play the rest of their teams in their division (sub 2) 5 times (3 more games)
div 2 and 4 sub 1: 3*3=9 therefore 82 games
div 2 and 4 sub 2: 3*4=12 therefore 2 games remain

Sub 2 (in div 2 and 4) play the lase 2 games by playing the rest of the teams in their sub division 1 more time-flex teams are not played though (Car plays TB not Wsh)
div 2 and 4 sub 2: 1*2=2 therefore 82 games

Some of the flex games could change (although I tried to keep rivalries in tack through them) Unfortunately I had to split up the Atlantic, but I don't see how you can keep both the Atlantic, and the NE (both of which should be kept in tact) without having unequal conferences or having SE teams split up (which would be a travel nightmare). Although the Atlantic could be put back together in a few years if the NE got two more teams (Quebec, Hamilton, Hartford etc.) The only sub division which goes through more than 2 timezones is the western Canadian one, however they do get to have fewer border crossings which helps with the travel.