NHL Realignment 2012-13 – Part III

[mucker*]

Pretty sure fans will still watch hockey if Pittsburgh and Philadelphia play just 2 less games a year. They should do whats best for the league.

Yawn. Pretty sure as well the league will be fine if Minnesota has 9 PM starts.
Priority. Don't break up any major rivalries. It's best for the NHL if they do not needlessly break up anything good.

Splitting up PIT and PHI would be needless.
You can re-align and solve some problems without foolishly splitting up those two.

#1 - "how do we slide teams around within our current framework?" (Winnipeg to NW, Colorado/Vancouver to Pacific, Dallas to Central, Detroit/Columbus/Nashville to Southeast)

#2 - "how do we create a framework that makes a lot of situations better, without sacrificing anything important we need to retain?"

I think the #1 part is relatively easy. But it still leaves some of Minnesota, Dallas, Columbus, Detroit, Nashville, Washington with situations they'd like to see changed.

Which is why I'm focused on #2.

You can't do number 2.
It's impossible. You cannot make this perfect.
This is like trying to decide on pizza for a party of 10, you have to keep it simple and do the thing of least objection and conflict.

The alignment and location of NHL teams makes it impossible to do number 2, you will just create many new problems, needlessly.

 

[mucker*]

Redefining the wheel. The winged wheel. The promises made and redefining the Detroit Red Wings as an Eastern Conference team. That's what I was going for.

Promises? Detroit was never promised anything worth the paper or sentance it was spoken on.
Bettman does not have the authority to do so, that would be like the president of the US "promising" Libya that NATO would give them trade preferences, the US cannot unilateraly make that move, and Bettman CANNOT unilateraly make that move.

Further, moving Detroit would be completely special interests and would hurt the league a lot.

 

[mucker*]

OK...tangent....since DET has mentioned having scheduling concessions...I'd like to propose the following:

Each season, every east team plays every west team once, and plays three west teams twice.

I would like to propose this concession:
1) Det (in the west) gets to play TOR twice every season.
2) PIT gets to play Columbus twice every season.

This way, both of those east-west nearby cities can have something going.
Why randomly decide that PIT plays Colorado twice, have them play Columbus twice.

 

[beepeearr]

Play everyone twice outside the division and six or seven times in the division. Six cuts the schedule to 78 and seven ups it to 83. Both are doable. Of course the league doesn't mess with the playoff format like this.

Whenever you have an odd number of games you lose the fairness of each team having an even number of home games.

I had a similar idea, but still with 6 divisions of 5 teams, but no conferences. To do the schedule, I thought of two different formats.

6 games vs Divisional opponents = 24 games
2 games vs every one else = 50

Play Offs: Top 16, reseed each round

For a shortened season of 74 games every one loses 4 home and 4 road games.

Pros: way less travel, non divisional travel more equal for everyone. With 8 fewer games the schedule can be spread out, leading to fewer back to backs, and hopefully fewer injuries due to wear and tear.

Cons: Weak divisions can lead to unbalanced playoff seedings. Fewer games mean less gate money.

4 games vs Divisional opponents = 16 games
4 games vs two other rotating divisions = 40
2 games vs the remaining three divisions = 30

Play Offs: Top 16, reseed each round

For a longer season of 86 games every one gains 2 home and 2 road games.

Rotating Divisions: Either a set rotation of divisions so that all 5 other divisions will have the expanded schedule twice in a 10yr period

Pros: Fairer travel, more gate revenue, still get to see non divisional opponents more often, weak divisions not as much of an issue.

Cons: More wear and tear can lead to more injuries

Or a strength of Division rotation where the stronger divisions play each other and the weaker play each other based on the previous years point totals.

Pros: More Parity in the league and fairer travel, more gate revenue, get to see non-divisional opponents more often.

Cons: More wear and tear can lead to more injuries

And hear is how I would shape the Divisions and why.

The North (or whatever) Division
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Detroit
Chicago (or Quebec City if say Phoenix were to move)
This gets Detroit mostly eastern TZ opponents, if 4 Canadian teams that's the price for all eastern TZ.

The Atlantic Division
Boston
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey
Buffalo
This gets you the Boston/New York rivalry, the cross town rivalry, the cross state rivalry, and the Jersey New york rivalry.

The Eastern Division
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Columbus
Washington
Carolina
This is all about giving Columbus a shot, hating Pittsburgh is just natural in Ohio. The cross state rivalry is preserved and who wouldn't want to see Ovechkin and Crosby go head to head every year.

The South Eastern Division
Florida
Tampa Bay
Nashville
St Louis
Dallas
Not an ideal solution for Dallas, but better then the Pacific travel wise. Would love to have a Division with Dallas, St Louis, Chicago, Nashville and Minnesota, but doesn't really work out. Nashville, St Louis, Dallas should make for some good rivalries, and retains the cross state rivalries in Florida.

The Central Division
Edmonton
Calgary
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Colorado (unless Phoenix to QC, then Chicago, if KC then KC)
Pretty much the north west division with Vancouver swapped for Winnipeg.

The Pacific Division
Vancouver
San Jose
LA
Anaheim
Phoenix (Unless they Move, Then Colorado, Maybe Calgary to sweeten the pot for Vancouver)
Really can't get much further west then Vancouver, but a really hard sell to get them to move.

 

[danishh]

the "fairer travel" argument IMO is Pejorative Slured.

why should we increase overall costs to the league and increase emissions.

I'm all for finding ways to reduce the travel strains on western teams (mainly vancouver and dallas), but doing so at the expense of increasing overall league-wide travel is stupid.

 

[beepeearr]

I'm all for finding ways to reduce the travel strains on western teams (mainly vancouver and dallas), but doing so at the expense of increasing overall league-wide travel is stupid.

Well if we were to go to a play own division 6 times, all other teams twice (once at home, once away) scheduled like they already schedule cross conference play usually, it should reduce overall travel for the whole league. Four fewer road games for all 30 teams, and scheduling road games against a division as a single road trip should reduce most teams overall travel costs.

Each Team would make 5 trips outside their own division, that is way better then the current conference model were inter conference travel is a crap shoot at best.

The north east teams would still have way less travel and every team would visit every NHL city at least once a year, which is really needed to help the game thrive. Lesser markets need to have a chance to see the leagues super stars every year, even if they are in another "conference".

It's not just about alleviating travel but also expanding fan bases. Plus with doing away with split conference playoffs you get the best 16 teams, with a chance to always have the best two teams playing in the Stanley Cup, instead of potentially the conference finals, If the two best teams are in the same conference.

Also eliminating conferences, makes future changes due to relocation simpler, too.

 

[MoreOrr]

And here is how I would shape the Divisions and why.

The North (or whatever) Division
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Detroit
Chicago (or Quebec City if say Phoenix were to move)
This gets Detroit mostly eastern TZ opponents, if 4 Canadian teams that's the price for all eastern TZ.

The Atlantic Division
Boston
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey
Buffalo
This gets you the Boston/New York rivalry, the cross town rivalry, the cross state rivalry, and the Jersey New york rivalry.

The Eastern Division
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Columbus
Washington
Carolina
This is all about giving Columbus a shot, hating Pittsburgh is just natural in Ohio. The cross state rivalry is preserved and who wouldn't want to see Ovechkin and Crosby go head to head every year.

The South Eastern Division
Florida
Tampa Bay
Nashville
St Louis
Dallas
Not an ideal solution for Dallas, but better then the Pacific travel wise. Would love to have a Division with Dallas, St Louis, Chicago, Nashville and Minnesota, but doesn't really work out. Nashville, St Louis, Dallas should make for some good rivalries, and retains the cross state rivalries in Florida.

The Central Division
Edmonton
Calgary
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Colorado (unless Phoenix to QC, then Chicago, if KC then KC)
Pretty much the north west division with Vancouver swapped for Winnipeg.

The Pacific Division
Vancouver
San Jose
LA
Anaheim
Phoenix (Unless they Move, Then Colorado, Maybe Calgary to sweeten the pot for Vancouver)
Really can't get much further west then Vancouver, but a really hard sell to get them to move.

Interesting Divisions, but there are two problems with that alignment...
Four of the original six teams are in one Division (The North)... not a very good spreading around of heartland teams, but ok...
However, the contrary to that is (The South) which has virtually no hockey history other than perhaps St Louis. It's a Division meant for disaster. And especially with your first proposed scheduling format:

6 games vs Divisional opponents = 24 games
2 games vs every one else = 50

which would leave that South Division with very few games against established fan-draw teams.

 

[MoreOrr]

the "fairer travel" argument IMO is Pejorative Slured.

why should we increase overall costs to the league and increase emissions.

I'm all for finding ways to reduce the travel strains on western teams (mainly vancouver and dallas), but doing so at the expense of increasing overall league-wide travel is stupid.

Would the increase really be that great that it's worth not having a good group of heartland hockey teams in both Conferences? Think about how that would benefit the League, rather than just the Eastern Conference.
I mean hell, we're talking a possible 2 PTZ teams and 2 MTZ teams in both Conferences. And the rest is all CTZ and ETZ.
And if the League keeps geographically compact Divisions, which is absolutely the way to continue, with a Division-heavy schedule, then where's the Great travel monster in such a setup?

Mixed East-West Conferences would solve more problems than it would create. And it's also possible that a scheduling matrix could allow for a greater number of cross-Conference games between the paired Divisions of the two Conferences... more games between the two far-west Divisions, more games between what could be the two central Divisions, and more games between the two eastern Divisions.

Truly, look at a map and think about it... A Western Conference is a misnomer! There aren't currently teams to form a "Western Conference", unless the League were to go with a 3-Conference structure.

 

[MoreOrr]

The biggest problem with the NHL map and alignment:

The NHL truly needs a team in at least one of...
Salt Lake City, Tulsa, Kansas City, or Omaha.

A team in Portland or Seattle would help also.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Promises? Detroit was never promised anything worth the paper or sentance it was spoken on.
Bettman does not have the authority to do so, that would be like the president of the US "promising" Libya that NATO would give them trade preferences, the US cannot unilateraly make that move, and Bettman CANNOT unilateraly make that move.

Further, moving Detroit would be completely special interests and would hurt the league a lot.

Redefining the wheel(Detroit). It was just a play on words.

The NHL Conference
Atlantic: NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Pit
Northeast: Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf

The Rest
The other 20 teams

-The NHL Conference plays each of the other 20 teams once, all at home, so no extra travel for "The 10".
-The Atlantic and Northeast play the 4 teams within the division 8 times each, and play the 5 teams in the other division 6 times each.
-The other 20 teams do whatever to make up the other 72 games.
-Playoffs are "The 10", plus the best 6 from the rest

 

[Cynicaps]

The biggest problem with the NHL map and alignment:

The NHL truly needs a team in at least one of...
Salt Lake City, Tulsa, Kansas City, or Omaha.

A team in Portland or Seattle would help also.

Seattle would be best, but of the former list the only one that has a suitable venue and has a decent enough population would be Kansas City. Omaha would be an interesting Winnipeg-style risk but would diehard UNO Mavericks/Lancers fans migrate to an NHL team or would it run the risk of taking both of them out?

 

[barneyg]

Sorry for polluting the thread with a lousy joke, but I believe most of the realignment problems would easily be solved if Nashville just moved to the Eastern Time Zone.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

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.

Apologies for the late response. Lousy work.

Regarding flexibility, I think we have too different definitions and outcomes. By your definition, yes more divisions allow more mixing and matching. What I meant but explained poorly is flexibility while allowing no changes to the league set up, like a skyscraper bending in the wind. The league is worried about several franchises stability, regardless of tv contracts or leases. Moving to 4 divisions will allow teams to move cities and no changes to the league (ie; NYI could move to QC, or Kansas and nothing would change except 8 teams in one div changes to 7 and vice versa). If you have these small divisions and a team moves, it sets off a chain reaction like we're seeing now with WPG. If you go through the list of teams in some sort of fire to put out right now (including SERIOUS attendence and revenue issues) its at least 4 or 5, not 1 or 2 (NYI, CLB, FLO, PHX, DAL, STL and EDM), and if you go through possible scenarios of those teams moving to say either SEA, QC, KC, HAM, or Houston, 4 divs can handle those movements without having to shuffle up the deck again.

What happens if PHX moves to QC next year with 6 divisions of 5 teams? PAc has 4 teams and Northeast gets 6? Then what happens if the next year CLB move to Hamilton? 7 teams in the Northeast? 13 teams in the West and 17 in the East? This is something that NHL execs need to worry about, its communicating it effectively to the owners and govs that can be difficult.

Additionally, the places the NHL wants to expand, KC, Sea and Hou (less so QC and we probably will never see Ham unless poop hits the fan) could be accommodated in the 4 division set up.

Additionally, from a TV stand point the league and NBC want to turn the NHL playoffs into a march madness type event. You have timezone divisions that play in division playoffs the first round and you can stagger start times perfectly for TV. Its marketing gold, as opposed to having Nashville and Detroit (maybe one day CLB lol) as your west games that start the same time as your east games.

Anyways, all I'm going to say about sources is that I present this as a topic for discussion and leave it at that. If you look at anything from the NHL in the past what they say isn't necessarily what you end up getting. If the only obstacle is getting 2 teams to flop in the East, I would suggest to you that its not an impossible mountain to climb. There are bigger problems to worry about then keeping Philadelphia with New Jersey.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Seattle would be best, but of the former list the only one that has a suitable venue and has a decent enough population would be Kansas City. Omaha would be an interesting Winnipeg-style risk but would diehard UNO Mavericks/Lancers fans migrate to an NHL team or would it run the risk of taking both of them out?

There are only so many Omahas and Wpgs a league can support. The NHL already has Edm, CGY, WPG, Nash, CLB, and Glendale (Lol) but seriously, I think we need more Seattles or Houstons then Omahas, if we're taking a risk on a new market that is.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

The biggest problem with the NHL map and alignment:

The NHL truly needs a team in at least one of...
Salt Lake City, Tulsa, Kansas City, or Omaha.

A team in Portland or Seattle would help also.

Why does the NHL need a team in any of these markets?

If there is a strong demand in a market AND it helps achieve the leagues goals then go there. We've forced ourselves into enough markets.

I fell in love with Hockey while living in Phx, I actually bought seasons cause they were so affordable before really knowing much about the game just that I liked the few games I went to. But I'd be lying if I said there was a lot of interest in the team. I really hope they kick butt this year and catch the attention of the city (phx) with the suns not playing, but if I'm running a business, I may not have gone into so many sunbelt markets all at once. Phx seemed like the safest bet with all the snowbirds and the population size.....but ughh, the move to Glendale. Murder.

Moving to Omaha, Salt Lake, or Tulsa seems like a disaster.

 

[Grudy0]

Why does the NHL need a team in any of these markets?

I'm not too sure about "need"...

If there is a strong demand in a market AND it helps achieve the leagues goals then go there. We've forced ourselves into enough markets.

And I'm certainly not too sure about "forced".

I'm none to enthralled by what our friends to the north consider "the Sunbelt plan", especially when that supposed plan was started way before Gary Bettman was installed into the Commissioner's office.

The brothers Gund no longer wanted to own and operate a franchise in Minnesota. They sold the North Stars to Howard Baldwin and that money was used as the expansion fee to create the San Jose Sharks, the Bay Area's second attempt at NHL hockey. The expansion wasn't a selection process; the BoG and the League granted the expansion to both keep the team in Minnesota as well as expand to another market.

Then the NHL decided to expand by two. Likely hockey markets such as Milwaukee, Denver, Seattle, Houston and Hamilton, as well as San Diego, were all considered. Some felt the $50 million expansion fee was too rich, and that left the franchises awarded to Ottawa and Tampa Bay. Both clubs have had their financial difficulties.

Meanwhile, Howard Baldwin sold his stake to minority investor Norm Green the same year, and in about four years, Baldwin moved the Stars to Dallas.

And then in 1992, the League hastily expanded to Anaheim and Miami.

And all of this was done (save the relocation vote of moving the Stars to Dallas) before Gary Bettman was installed as Commissioner.

So the only "Bettman" problems are:
"allowing" the Nordiques to move to Denver
"allowing" the Jets to move to Phoenix
"allowing" the Whalers to move to Raleigh
adding four more teams

And all of that still requires the Board of Governors' approval. Those people bought teams to put there, so I can't say that any of these teams were "forced".

Moving to Omaha, Salt Lake, or Tulsa seems like a disaster.

Especially if there are more compelling sites.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

If Phoenix relocates, Seattle or Las Vegas are the only American/Western Conference options as far as I'm concerned. And I don't even know if either is much better than Phoenix, to be honest. Seattle could be, but is there a strong combination of potential ownership/great arena? If it's Vegas, can they convince someone with vision like Jerry Bruckheimer to get involved? Otherwise, there's probably no hope there either.

So it basically comes down to Quebec City or maybe Southern Ontario. And I'd prefer to see those two areas land expansion franchises.

In any case, it's pretty hard to envision a realignment that won't be revised fairly quickly because we all know Quebec City (at least) is coming back sooner or later.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

I'm not too sure about "need"...And I'm certainly not too sure about "forced".

I'm none to enthralled by what our friends to the north consider "the Sunbelt plan", especially when that supposed plan was started way before Gary Bettman was installed into the Commissioner's office.

The brothers Gund no longer wanted to own and operate a franchise in Minnesota. They sold the North Stars to Howard Baldwin and that money was used as the expansion fee to create the San Jose Sharks, the Bay Area's second attempt at NHL hockey. The expansion wasn't a selection process; the BoG and the League granted the expansion to both keep the team in Minnesota as well as expand to another market.

Then the NHL decided to expand by two. Likely hockey markets such as Milwaukee, Denver, Seattle, Houston and Hamilton, as well as San Diego, were all considered. Some felt the $50 million expansion fee was too rich, and that left the franchises awarded to Ottawa and Tampa Bay. Both clubs have had their financial difficulties.

Meanwhile, Howard Baldwin sold his stake to minority investor Norm Green the same year, and in about four years, Baldwin moved the Stars to Dallas.

And then in 1992, the League hastily expanded to Anaheim and Miami.

And all of this was done (save the relocation vote of moving the Stars to Dallas) before Gary Bettman was installed as Commissioner.

So the only "Bettman" problems are:
"allowing" the Nordiques to move to Denver
"allowing" the Jets to move to Phoenix
"allowing" the Whalers to move to Raleigh
adding four more teams

And all of that still requires the Board of Governors' approval. Those people bought teams to put there, so I can't say that any of these teams were "forced".Especially if there are more compelling sites.

Wow, did not mean to imply anything about Bettman, Sunbelt or any of that nonsense. You'd be hard pressed to prove to me there was a demand for Hockey in Dallas or Miami. However, Dallas benefitted from having an amazing franchise immediately.

And I met a snowbird and moved to canada about 2 yrs ago now, so I cut them a little more slack now...lol. But agree with everything you said, its pretty unbearable, especially when they find out i'm a yotes fan.

 

[Kebekoi]

The biggest problem with the NHL map and alignment:

The NHL truly needs a team in at least one of...
Salt Lake City, Tulsa, Kansas City, or Omaha.

A team in Portland or Seattle would help also.

Phoenix -> Québec
Long Island -> Brooklyn
Florida -> Kansas City
Expansion : Houston + Seattle

Western Conference
Pacific (PT+MT) : VAN/CGY/EDM/SEA/COL/LAK/SJS/ANA
Central (CT) : WIN/MIN/CHI/KCS/DAL/HOU/NAS/STL

Eastern Conference
Great Lakes (Old boys division) (ET) : DET/TOR/OTT/BUF/MTL/QUE/BOS/CLB
Atlantic (ET) : PIT/PHI/NYR/NJD/BRO/TBL/WAS/CAR


You could swap Pittsburgh and Boston:
Great Lakes (Old boys division) (ET) : DET/TOR/OTT/BUF/MTL/QUE/PIT/CLB
Atlantic (ET) : BOS/PHI/NYR/NJD/BRO/TBL/WAS/CAR

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I've proposed something similar in the thread, based on Coyotes moving to QC.

WESTERN - Anaheim, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Vancouver
CENTRAL - Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota, St Louis, Winnipeg
NORTHEASTERN - Buffalo, Detroit, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto
MIDEASTERN - Boston, New Jersey, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
SOUTHEASTERN - Carolina, Columbus, Miami, Nashville, Tampa, Washington

THE only problem with the above is this: you have to include Glendale/Phoenix, in any proposal until the determination is made as to who actually owns the Coyotes and then, it's highly improbable, that once an owner is re-established in Arizona, the franchise may in fact be not allowed to relocate for a certain # of years, to truly close the chapter of illegally placing a pro franchise into Bankruptcy, which is why the NHL stepped in after Moyes placed the franchise there,knorthern, otherwise why would the NHL or any league fight for the right to select any market to place a franchise, just as they've done w/ Pittsburgh, not once, but twice, and Buffalo, to a lesser extent after the Rigas fraud..... that is why Moyes was summarily removed as a member of the BOG, something which was revealed in the PHX BK, when Balsillie was the threat to Pittsburgh, bc of the arena, then inserted himself into the Nashville ownership (remember the vote on JB, no current Governor voted for Balsillie, after his grandiose experiment of moving the Predators to Hamilton....

how long did it take TNSE to build the MTSC, but it also had a tenant willing to go until the Thrashers bc available, had that not occurred, The Moose would still be in WPG, NOT transferred by lease to St. John's.


the lineage of the Hamilton Bulldogs is the original franchise owned by VAN, (as the Canucks), it was then transferred to Edmonton, the name was changed to Bulldogs.... when the deal came for the Oilers to pull out, Montreal, by then, had joined them holding a dormant franchise called the Quebec Citadelles, whose fans whether or not they liked them, or due to the rivalry between MTL/QUE since the Nordiques inclusion as a league member in 1979, until the COMSAT acquisition in 1995, which is why the Avalanche exist today.... when the Oilers left Hamilton, they took the franchise with them....the Citadelles were largely ignored so to speak with the fanbase being split w/ the Remparts (since bought by Patrick Roy), as their fanbase elected to go to their games instead of the Citadelles..... so the Citadelles were re-activated in Hamilton, but a whole new organizational structure had to be formed which is why Andlauer stepped in, and why he's now also a minority ownership in MTL.... Edmonton then tried Ricoh, and played a season in essentially Toronto's backyard, until they were evicted.... at this same time, the lockout happened, so the Oilers moved their affiliate, after the 2005 AHL master Schedule was released, they announced they were playing in Edmonton, (tht team is now in Oklahoma City).

 

[MoreOrr]

Apologies for the late response. Lousy work.

Regarding flexibility, I think we have too different definitions and outcomes. By your definition, yes more divisions allow more mixing and matching. What I meant but explained poorly is flexibility while allowing no changes to the league set up, like a skyscraper bending in the wind. The league is worried about several franchises stability, regardless of tv contracts or leases. Moving to 4 divisions will allow teams to move cities and no changes to the league (ie; NYI could move to QC, or Kansas and nothing would change except 8 teams in one div changes to 7 and vice versa). If you have these small divisions and a team moves, it sets off a chain reaction like we're seeing now with WPG. If you go through the list of teams in some sort of fire to put out right now (including SERIOUS attendence and revenue issues) its at least 4 or 5, not 1 or 2 (NYI, CLB, FLO, PHX, DAL, STL and EDM), and if you go through possible scenarios of those teams moving to say either SEA, QC, KC, HAM, or Houston, 4 divs can handle those movements without having to shuffle up the deck again.

Again, sorry but I think you're being too simplistic in your critical analysis. First of all, you're applying your "flexibility" reason just as I suggested, that it's the unbalanced aspect that allows for more flexibility. It's not as you originally suggested, that it's "4-Divisions" that would be more flexible, and you added into that the "growth element"; because with 4 complete 8-team Divisions, you're flexibility element is out the window. Also, even with unbalanced Divisions, if it's a team in one of the smaller 7-team Divisions that needs to be relocated to another part of the continent, then you are going to have a bit of a chain-reaction because a team from a larger 8-team Division is going to have to go to the smaller Division to keep the unbalance within reason.

But more than anything, your comment about the "chain-reaction" isn't valid here. There isn't any absolute necessity for the great necessity of a chain-reaction. The simplest swap of Winnipeg with Columbus or Nashville could be done. The whole discussion of a "chain of realignments" is based on certain aspects of the current alignment already being bad... not on the addition of Winnipeg into the League. That addition of Winnipeg simply offers an opportunity to correct some of those alignment grievances. The possible "chain-reaction" has almost nothing to do with the fact there are 6 Divisions. Even with 4-Divisions, there still would be alignment grievances that certain teams would want addressed whenever a realignment opportunity came up.

What happens if PHX moves to QC next year with 6 divisions of 5 teams? PAc has 4 teams and Northeast gets 6? Then what happens if the next year CLB move to Hamilton? 7 teams in the Northeast? 13 teams in the West and 17 in the East? This is something that NHL execs need to worry about, its communicating it effectively to the owners and govs that can be difficult.

Oh exactly, what happens in such a scenario? But until those things actually happen, the League hasn't previously gone around planning for such eventualities. And to you your reasoning... What if the League creates a 7 or 8-team Northeast Division, and then through relocation or Expansion or both the League has a team in Quebec City and Hamilton... Someone will have to be relocated. Unless the League today knows exactly where it's putting teams tomorrow, any potential alignment today might have to be readjusted tomorrow.

Additionally, the places the NHL wants to expand, KC, Sea and Hou (less so QC and we probably will never see Ham unless poop hits the fan) could be accommodated in the 4 division set up.

They could be accommodated in a 6-Division setup as well. You seem ok with unbalanced Divisions, so why not? And again, if the League is Not fine with unbalanced Divisions then it should wait until there actually is a plan to make the League be 32 teams and then go with 8 Divisions of 4 teams each. Because I'll bet with you right now, it will never be 4 Divisions of 8 teams each.

Additionally, from a TV stand point the league and NBC want to turn the NHL playoffs into a march madness type event. You have timezone divisions that play in division playoffs the first round and you can stagger start times perfectly for TV. Its marketing gold, as opposed to having Nashville and Detroit (maybe one day CLB lol) as your west games that start the same time as your east games.

Approximated Divisional Playoffs can be done within a 6-Division format. And as for a strict top-4 Divisional Playoff within 4 Divisions... Not for that at all!! Adding more teams with worse records to the Playoffs while teams with better records are left outside... No Thanks. Still, even with a more balanced schedule, 1/2 a teams games would be played outside the Division, so there's zero reason why Conference records shouldn't supercede Division records.

 

[MoreOrr]

Why does the NHL need a team in any of these markets?

If there is a strong demand in a market AND it helps achieve the leagues goals then go there. We've forced ourselves into enough markets.

I fell in love with Hockey while living in Phx, I actually bought seasons cause they were so affordable before really knowing much about the game just that I liked the few games I went to. But I'd be lying if I said there was a lot of interest in the team. I really hope they kick butt this year and catch the attention of the city (phx) with the suns not playing, but if I'm running a business, I may not have gone into so many sunbelt markets all at once. Phx seemed like the safest bet with all the snowbirds and the population size.....but ughh, the move to Glendale. Murder.

Moving to Omaha, Salt Lake, or Tulsa seems like a disaster.

I simply implied that that area of the NHL map is vacant, and that it would really help things if there were at least one more team in that vacant area. Not that the League desperately Needs to have a team in that region or that's it's bad for the League that there isn't a team there.

 

[Grudy0]

Wow, did not mean to imply anything about Bettman, Sunbelt or any of that nonsense. You'd be hard pressed to prove to me there was a demand for Hockey in Dallas or Miami. However, Dallas benefitted from having an amazing franchise immediately.

And I met a snowbird and moved to canada about 2 yrs ago now, so I cut them a little more slack now...lol. But agree with everything you said, its pretty unbearable, especially when they find out i'm a yotes fan.

I realized I quoted you, but I wasn't directly responding, per se. It was meant as a general statement regarding a "failed" Sunbelt policy, when in fact those wheels were greased, the runway was clear and the all-go was given before a certain commissioner took office.

And now it should be understood what is meant by NHL politics. The league allowed Norm Green to move the Stars to Dallas. Dallas had hockey tradition, but only in the minor league level, and certainly not at the local level. They've been, excuse the pun, a shining star for years. The bloom has only really fallen off the rose since the Hicks bankruptcy.

No offense to our friends up north: no team in the United States is going to rake in the money that the Leafs or Canadiens earn, because no NHL team in the United States can rake in that amount of money when there are other sports that outrank them. And with the cap tied to revenues, with the parity between the two countries' dollars, the seven Canadian teams should be within the top ten revenue earners in the league, regarding team ticket and local television revenues.

That was the lesson learned from the 1990's. There is no right to NHL hockey. Markets that should have been an easy sell (Quebec, Winnipeg, Minneapolis, Hartford) all lost their franchises because the revenues weren't there, in what could be defined as "hockey hotbeds". Fast-forward to now, and Atlanta lost their team because the revenues weren't there.

Seattle should be on the radar, now, as there isn't a tenable building in place, yet. Houston should be on the radar as that city has just about everything that could be needed, except for the fact that NBA Rockets owner Alexander has the exclusive ability to run an NHL franchise from the Toyota Center. Kansas City needs willing investors and the hope that AEG turns over more proft. Quebec should be getting their arena soon. Hamilton is, well, Hamilton, and until anyone can talk about the Leafs and Sabres allowing a team there, it remains a hockey hotbed while politics keeps them out of the discussion.

 

[MoreOrr]

Phoenix -> Québec
Long Island -> Brooklyn
Florida -> Kansas City
Expansion : Houston + Seattle

Western Conference
Pacific (PT+MT) : VAN/CGY/EDM/SEA/COL/LAK/SJS/ANA
Central (CT) : WIN/MIN/CHI/KCS/DAL/HOU/NAS/STL

Eastern Conference
Great Lakes (Old boys division) (ET) : DET/TOR/OTT/BUF/MTL/QUE/BOS/CLB
Atlantic (ET) : PIT/PHI/NYR/NJD/BRO/TBL/WAS/CAR


You could swap Pittsburgh and Boston:
Great Lakes (Old boys division) (ET) : DET/TOR/OTT/BUF/MTL/QUE/PIT/CLB
Atlantic (ET) : BOS/PHI/NYR/NJD/BRO/TBL/WAS/CAR

You know the problem with the Western Conference - Eastern Conference thinking, is that there really isn't a "western" Conference. Sometimes I wonder, if the Eastern Time Zone weren't called the "Eastern" time zone. Let's say there were no "Atlantic Time Zone in eastern Canada, and the whole eastern United States were called the "Atlantic Time Zone"... Would we have an Atlantic Conference and a Western Conference? Because that would in fact be more accurate to what exists.

There aren't enough teams in the West to make a truly "western Conference", but the League has created this idea. It's a misnomer. The League is primarily in the east, the population is primarily in the east, so if the League wants two Conferences then it should divide the east, and fit whatever teams are left over in the "west" into those Conferences.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Again, sorry but I think you're being too simplistic in your critical analysis. First of all, you're applying your "flexibility" reason just as I suggested, that it's the unbalanced aspect that allows for more flexibility. It's not as you originally suggested, that it's "4-Divisions" that would be more flexible, and you added into that the "growth element"; because with 4 complete 8-team Divisions, you're flexibility element is out the window. Also, even with unbalanced Divisions, if it's a team in one of the smaller 7-team Divisions that needs to be relocated to another part of the continent, then you are going to have a bit of a chain-reaction because a team from a larger 8-team Division is going to have to go to the smaller Division to keep the unbalance within reason.

But more than anything, your comment about the "chain-reaction" isn't valid here. There isn't any absolute necessity for the great necessity of a chain-reaction. The simplest swap of Winnipeg with Columbus or Nashville could be done. The whole discussion of a "chain of realignments" is based on certain aspects of the current alignment already being bad... not on the addition of Winnipeg into the League. That addition of Winnipeg simply offers an opportunity to correct some of those alignment grievances. The possible "chain-reaction" has almost nothing to do with the fact there are 6 Divisions. Even with 4-Divisions, there still would be alignment grievances that certain teams would want addressed whenever a realignment opportunity came up.



Oh exactly, what happens in such a scenario? But until those things actually happen, the League hasn't previously gone around planning for such eventualities. And to you your reasoning... What if the League creates a 7 or 8-team Northeast Division, and then through relocation or Expansion or both the League has a team in Quebec City and Hamilton... Someone will have to be relocated. Unless the League today knows exactly where it's putting teams tomorrow, any potential alignment today might have to be readjusted tomorrow.



They could be accommodated in a 6-Division setup as well. You seem ok with unbalanced Divisions, so why not? And again, if the League is Not fine with unbalanced Divisions then it should wait until there actually is a plan to make the League be 32 teams and then go with 8 Divisions of 4 teams each. Because I'll bet with you right now, it will never be 4 Divisions of 8 teams each.



Approximated Divisional Playoffs can be done within a 6-Division format. And as for a strict top-4 Divisional Playoff within 4 Divisions... Not for that at all!! Adding more teams with worse records to the Playoffs while teams with better records are left outside... No Thanks. Still, even with a more balanced schedule, 1/2 a teams games would be played outside the Division, so there's zero reason why Conference records shouldn't supercede Division records.

Nothing changed from my first post to the next, please show me where my argument changed? Maybe there was ambiguity but that would be it.

I think we also differ on who is taking the simplistic approach.

There are several factors the league wants to address
- Team instability - movement
- Contraction/expansion
- Grouping teams by Timezones
-Television start times

Yup all those things can be dealt with using a 6 division template. You CAN drive a car with 3 good wheels, you CAN hammer in a screw. Its a question of whats the best tool or set up to use. I'm simply stating that the NHL execs are pretty convinced that 4 divs can handle some or all of these things better than 6 divisions.

You keep suggesting I'm for unbalanced divisions. Its not my preferance at all to be honest.

May I ask why you are for 6 divisions? What is stopping you from being open to 4 divisions? Maybe then I can understand your point of view a little better. I assume its not the unbalance divs, cause you seem to be for those as long as its with 6 divisions.