NHL Realignment 2012-13 – Part III

[Crayton]

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.

?

NFL...

[...]
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.

This is actually pretty good reasoning. If the major impetus for moving to 4-divisions is flexibility, would that mean that these same people would move to 6-divisions once we get 32 teams?

I think when I originally had the 4 conference idea it's purpose was to nicely reflect geography (particularly in the West). The flexibility in accommodating relocation was a bonus.

 

[KevFu]

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?

#1 - I moved Dallas to the Southeast because it benefited the most teams.
Moving DET would mean a loss of CBJ-DET, DET-CHI, DET-STL.
Moving CBJ would mean they'd gain time zone games, but have "rivalries" with none of those teams.

Dallas is a geographical outlier with any division. So if someone has to be in the Southeast, why not them?

#2 - There isn't any "unnecessary moves" in this. It's a realignment designed to solve as many of the dissatisfied teams scheduling issues, while retaining the setup for those who are happy.

 

[Crayton]

Let us draw names out of a hat.

Draw #1) 1 of Detroit, Columbus, and Nashville goes to the Southeast

Draw #2) 1 of Vancouver, Colorado, and Minnesota leaves the Northwest

Hey, this sounds like as good a process as any. Minnesota has a 2/3 chance of being rid of Vancouver. Dallas has a 2/3 chance of departing the Pacific. I know I have strong preferences above, but around here many have been given equal support.

Simulating the draws it appears... Columbus is going to the Southeast and Minnesota is going to the Central... and I wanted Colorado to the Pacific.

Of the 9 options above the one I'd most think about removing is Minnesota to the Central. Such a move really only serves them. If I were to add an option... Dallas to the Southeast. Just bypass all of the Central Division politicking and preserve those rivalries.

 

[kdb209]

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.

Phoenix is still a Member Club, even though it is owned by the League, and under the constitution is still entitled to a vote on the BoG. I don't know who the NHL might have appointed as governor - but Don Maloney is listed on the 'Yotes team site with the title "Executive Vice President, General Manager & Alternate Governor".

Now how it votes, or whether it abstains is another issue - the requirement for amending the By-Law is "a two-thirds majority of Member Clubs present and voting".

I haven't seen an official vote count on the Atlanta-to-Winnipeg vote (just that it was unanimous) so we don't know if Phoenix voted on that - however when the League voted on a change to the rules on head-shots during last season, the vote was reported as 30-0, so Phoenix (and their new NHL overlords) did vote on that.

 

[Noldo]

Few issues...

Based on the article posted few posts back 12 EC teams were set opposing change to four conference format. Atlantic teams and Northeast most likely are 10 of those, but any guesses which two Southeast teams are also against any changes?

Second thing to consider... If the schedule is changed to be more local heavy following Detroit's settlement offer, wouldn't that actually make three time zone divisions more problematic and thus make Dallas' situation considerably worse unless they are moved to another division?

 

[barneyg]

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.

The NFL and MLB say hi.

 

[KevFu]

The NFL and MLB say hi.

Only because of the two-league mergers. Philly is with a New York team in every sport:

NFC East:
Philadelphia Eagles
New York Giants (NY Jets in AFC East)

NL East
Philadelphia Phillies
New York Mets (NY Yankees in AL East)

NBA Atlantic
Philadelphia 76ers
New York Knicks
New Jersey Nets

 

[KevFu]

Look, all the ideas of splitting by geography are stupid, because you have to draw the line where you don't want to based on team distribution on the map.

Make an alignment by team relationship, not the map AKA - align your SCHEDULE MATRIX.

Who cares if traditional rivals are in different divisions of the same conference if (a) they continue to play the same number of times and (b) it accomplishes everyone's time-zone game goals?

 

[KevFu]

BTW, Under my schedule model/alignment, here's the number of games in their time zone a team would gain:

+9 DET, CBJ, CHI, NASH, STL, DAL
+5 COL, SJ, ANA, LA, PHX
+1 MIN, EDM, CAL, VAN,

Rivalry Games Lost:
WAS vs Atlantic Division
COL-DET 4
DAL-MIN 4 (haha)
DAL-PHX 2 (haha)

 

[Cynicaps]

Rivalry Games Lost:
WAS vs Atlantic Division
COL-DET 4
DAL-MIN 4 (haha)
DAL-PHX 2 (haha)

What is everyone's obsession with keeping WAS apart from their true rivals? I would think they'd join the West in chasing 4 divisions at this point since why should they be punished further?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

#1 - I moved Dallas to the Southeast because it benefited the most teams.
Moving DET would mean a loss of CBJ-DET, DET-CHI, DET-STL.
Moving CBJ would mean they'd gain time zone games, but have "rivalries" with none of those teams.

Dallas is a geographical outlier with any division. So if someone has to be in the Southeast, why not them?

#2 - There isn't any "unnecessary moves" in this. It's a realignment designed to solve as many of the dissatisfied teams scheduling issues, while retaining the setup for those who are happy.

not exactly, KevFu, Dallas is unhappy being in a division now w/ 3 CA franchises and Glendale, how does moving them into a division w/ WSH, CAR, TB, & FLA, solve their issue of being in their natural time zone, which is the Central....

Columbus doesn't have the seniority that Detroit has, nor is it likely will they get the 2/3 to switch.... which leads back to my proposal:

DAL to CEN, VAN to PAC, DET to SE, (YOU don't touch the other two divisions as they are now ), and WPG to NW

 

[garry1221]

not exactly, KevFu, Dallas is unhappy being in a division now w/ 3 CA franchises and Glendale, how does moving them into a division w/ WSH, CAR, TB, & FLA, solve their issue of being in their natural time zone, which is the Central....

Columbus doesn't have the seniority that Detroit has, nor is it likely will they get the 2/3 to switch.... which leads back to my proposal:

DAL to CEN, VAN to PAC, DET to SE, (YOU don't touch the other two divisions as they are now ), and WPG to NW

I believe that dallas would be just as open to anything as long as it gets them out of the Pacific. That said, if Dallas would move to the SE, then it only seems natural to move Nashville with them, which would require a bigger shakeup than anyone in the east seem to want. Other than that, I agree with your post.

 

[KevFu]

not exactly, KevFu, Dallas is unhappy being in a division now w/ 3 CA franchises and Glendale, how does moving them into a division w/ WSH, CAR, TB, & FLA, solve their issue of being in their natural time zone, which is the Central....

It doesn't solve the time zone issue for them, but they'd lose 5 games in the PTZ in favor of ETZ games.

There's never going to be an ideal solution (unless we move teams to accommodate geography, I suppose). The idea is to make things better for as many people as possible, while not making things unreasonably worse.

Columbus doesn't have the seniority that Detroit has, nor is it likely will they get the 2/3 to switch.... which leads back to my proposal:

DAL to CEN, VAN to PAC, DET to SE, (YOU don't touch the other two divisions as they are now ), and WPG to NW

I think you move COL instead of VAN to the Pacific. But I don't think you pass up the opportunity to re-do some things.

Just slotting teams into the current alignment/matrix doesn't make everything better like a radical realignment COULD if done properly.

I think you have to go to a flex schedule to overcome geography.

 

[mucker*]

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

MoreOrr, I respectfully disagree.

Point A: Minnesota with 4 Canada Teams
I do not think Minnesota with 4 Canada teams would left out to dry.
Here is why:

1) Right now, Minnesota is in a division without any real rivals. Colorado is the only other US team, and they are hardly a nearby rival.
2) Nobody is anywhere close to driving distance in the division from Minnesota.

IF Minnesota is in a division with Winnipeg and not Colorado, it HELPS them because:
1) They finally have a team in their time zone close enough to drive to and actually form a rivalry.
2) Come on, will it really matter that they lose Colorado?


Point B: Buffalo with 4 Canada Teams
I also disagree with your point if Quebec comes back in the league, that if you had Quebec, Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto with Buffalo, you would be leaving Buffalo high and dry.
Hardly, and here is why:

1) Right now, Buffalo only has Boston as their US divisional rivals. Buffalo is barely within driving range, and this really is not that big a rivalry.
2) Instead, Buffalo's main rival is Toronto, because Toronto is 90 miles away (but right over the border).
One could actually make the argument that Buffalo is a quasi-Canada market since 15% of their season ticket holders are from Canada.
Go to any Sabres game, especially if playing a Canada team, and easily 1/4 or more are rooting for the Canadian team.


Point C: Colorado with 4 Canada Teams
1) Come on, Colorado with Winnipeg instead of Minnesota?
Is that REALLY a big deal?
They are nowhere close to any other division or NHL market, Minnesota is a boring team, in a small market, that has little TV appeal outside their own market, I fail to see how this something which must have a complete barrier.
If Buffalo were to be in a division with four Canada teams it would not be a bad marketing scenario, given they already are with three Canada teams, they are on the border, draw from Canada, and they really lack a natural US city as their main rival.

 

[KevFu]

I believe that dallas would be just as open to anything as long as it gets them out of the Pacific. That said, if Dallas would move to the SE, then it only seems natural to move Nashville with them, which would require a bigger shakeup than anyone in the east seem to want. Other than that, I agree with your post.

Correct, but I'm not moving Dallas to the Eastern Conference, I'm realigning the conferences to each have a West, Central, and East.

Ideally, I'd blow up the Southeast Division.

I suppose Nashville/Dallas are interchangeable in my alignment. But it would make Nashville being the outlier by time zone, and Dallas at least has ties to the "West division" of that conference.

 

[MoreOrr]

not exactly, KevFu, Dallas is unhappy being in a division now w/ 3 CA franchises and Glendale, how does moving them into a division w/ WSH, CAR, TB, & FLA, solve their issue of being in their natural time zone, which is the Central....

That's an easy one...

3 teams 2 Time Zones away, with Phoenix also 2 Time Zones away in springtime... Compared to 4 teams only 1 Time Zone away.
[/QUOTE]

Dallas knows it's an "outlier", as some people put it, so being in a Division with a certain set of teams is only a wish, but not being in a Division that is totally outlandish for Dallas, with the Southeast wouldn't be, is better than its current alignment.

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

To agree with CHRDANHUTCH a bit, I do think you could switch up Nashville and Dallas, I mean since Nashville has requested to be in the Southeast anyway, it does make more sense to do that and put Dallas in the Central.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Correct, but I'm not moving Dallas to the Eastern Conference, I'm realigning the conferences to each have a West, Central, and East.

Ideally, I'd blow up the Southeast Division.

I suppose Nashville/Dallas are interchangeable in my alignment. But it would make Nashville being the outlier by time zone, and Dallas at least has ties to the "West division" of that conference.

E/C/W is already in play in other leagues/divisional alignments, Kev, (MLB uses this not only for alignment but interleague play as well), I'd stay w/ the current format of Divisional alignments we now have, otherwise you'll going to turn off all the fanbases, in fact using DET as an example, why is MI considered ETZ, BUT the Red Wings are in the Central, as are the Detroit Tigers, if there wasn't a North/South alignment in the NFL, so would the Detroit Lions be likely be in a Central division, even the NBA has a Southwest which includes Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio....

 

[KevFu]

MoreOrr, I respectfully disagree.

Point A: Minnesota with 4 Canada Teams
Point B: Buffalo with 4 Canada Teams
Point C: Colorado with 4 Canada Teams

I don't disagree with your assessments.
But I think looking at the "groupings" is the wrong way to go about it.

What do the groupings MEAN? Six games instead of four. That's basically it.

Give each team two extra "six-game" rivalries and you can move them to a different division with no repercussions.

Or, reduce the number of six-game rivalries for each team to three, and play more teams four times each, and outliers aren't a problem.

 

[KevFu]

E/C/W is already in play in other leagues/divisional alignments, Kev, (MLB uses this not only for alignment but interleague play as well), I'd stay w/ the current format of Divisional alignments we now have, otherwise you'll going to turn off all the fanbases, in fact using DET as an example, why is MI considered ETZ, BUT the Red Wings are in the Central, as are the Detroit Tigers, if there wasn't a North/South alignment in the NFL, so would the Detroit Lions be likely be in a Central division, even the NBA has a Southwest which includes Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio....

I think the MLB style alignment would work great in hockey.
MLB separates division rivals from regional rivals, but still plays the regional rivals.

MLB has a lot more games, but divide the schedule in half:
Division: 9
Conference: 3
Out of Conference Regional Rivals: 3
Out of Conference Non-Regional Rivals: 0

Adopt something similar for hockey:
Division: 6
Conference: 4
Out of Conference Regional Rivals: 6
Out of Conference Non-Regional Rivals: 0

The only real problem with going to an MLB style for hockey is that you'd lose some of the historical matchups by not having a perfectly congruent split, and some teams (Vancouver, Dallas, Boston) lack a perfect geographic counterpart like Rangers-Islanders, Oilers-Flames, Kings-Ducks.

I've put forth an MLB-style alignment and schedule model which I think would be a great increase in number of attractive games for each team.

 

[MoreOrr]

MoreOrr, I respectfully disagree.

Point A: Minnesota with 4 Canada Teams
I do not think Minnesota with 4 Canada teams would left out to dry.
Here is why:

1) Right now, Minnesota is in a division without any real rivals. Colorado is the only other US team, and they are hardly a nearby rival.
2) Nobody is anywhere close to driving distance in the division from Minnesota.

IF Minnesota is in a division with Winnipeg and not Colorado, it HELPS them because:
1) They finally have a team in their time zone close enough to drive to and actually form a rivalry.
2) Come on, will it really matter that they lose Colorado?


Point B: Buffalo with 4 Canada Teams
I also disagree with your point if Quebec comes back in the league, that if you had Quebec, Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto with Buffalo, you would be leaving Buffalo high and dry.
Hardly, and here is why:

1) Right now, Buffalo only has Boston as their US divisional rivals. Buffalo is barely within driving range, and this really is not that big a rivalry.
2) Instead, Buffalo's main rival is Toronto, because Toronto is 90 miles away (but right over the border).
One could actually make the argument that Buffalo is a quasi-Canada market since 15% of their season ticket holders are from Canada.
Go to any Sabres game, especially if playing a Canada team, and easily 1/4 or more are rooting for the Canadian team.


Point C: Colorado with 4 Canada Teams
1) Come on, Colorado with Winnipeg instead of Minnesota?
Is that REALLY a big deal?
They are nowhere close to any other division or NHL market, Minnesota is a boring team, in a small market, that has little TV appeal outside their own market, I fail to see how this something which must have a complete barrier.
If Buffalo were to be in a division with four Canada teams it would not be a bad marketing scenario, given they already are with three Canada teams, they are on the border, draw from Canada, and they really lack a natural US city as their main rival.

I am just saying that the more Canadian teams there are in a Division, the more of an outsider any single US-based team would be. Boston has an advantage in the Northeast because it's an original six team with original six rivalries. But Buffalo would only be further pushed aside if another Canadian team entered that group. So therefore, you could say... Why not just leave Boston in an otherwise all-Canadian Northeast Division? Well yes, that's an alternative. But Buffalo would still be much better served if kept with Toronto, and in a Division with just the Ontario teams. That way the distraction of the two Quebec teams would be out of the Division.

The same goes for the 4 western Canadian teams; with 4 of them together, they'll be more focused on each other and Minnesota won't be seen as anything near the same level of a rival.

This is already the case in both of those essentially Canadian Divisions. Oh sure, Colorado had a short-term rivalry with Vancouver, but that quickly faded. And Ottawa has had kind of a rivalry with Buffalo, but nothing to write home to mother about.

 

[MoreOrr]

Only because of the two-league mergers. Philly is with a New York team in every sport:

NFC East:
Philadelphia Eagles
New York Giants (NY Jets in AFC East)

NL East
Philadelphia Phillies
New York Mets (NY Yankees in AL East)

NBA Atlantic
Philadelphia 76ers
New York Knicks
New Jersey Nets

NBA
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks

MLB
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees

NFL
New England Patriots
New York Jets

Is any of that supposed to mean anything?

PS: I editted Post #116 with a comment to you.

 

[KevFu]

NBA
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks

MLB
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees

NFL
New England Patriots
New York Jets

Is any of that supposed to mean anything?

Yeah, Canada screws everything up!

I'm kidding. relax people. It's a joke.

 

[MoreOrr]

Yeah, Canada screws everything up!

I'm kidding. relax people. It's a joke.

What?

 

[KevFu]

I think the NHL should have each team submit a list of how many times they feel they should play each team in the league (cap the max at 6) and then hire the guys who arranged the names on the WTC memorial to figure out how to make everyone happy.

It's really frustrating to me that I can't find a quick, easy layout that just works.

 

[MoreOrr]

I think the NHL should have each team submit a list of how many times they feel they should play each team in the league (cap the max at 6) and then hire the guys who arranged the names on the WTC memorial to figure out how to make everyone happy.

It's really frustrating to me that I can't find a quick, easy layout that just works.

That sounds like an add-on to part of what I said in the Post #2:

Each team should be permitted to submit a short-list of one or two things it doesn't want in an alignment...
Such as not being in a 3 Time Zone Division, or being the lone Canadian team in an otherwise all-Canadian Division.

And each team should be permitted to submit a short-list of two or three opponent teams that it wants to be aligned with in a Division, understanding that it might end up with only one or two of those teams.

But an alignment formula in which every team gets at least a little something of what it wants would be a great place to start. But you see, the obstacle is that certain teams have more clout and want and get ALL of what they want.