No worries, I've had ambiguous posts as well. I wouldn't have the arrogance to tell you your story has changed from one post to the next though, cause I really didn't know what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.
NHL Realignment 2012-13 – Part III
- Thread starter MoreOrr
- Start date
- Status
No worries, I've had ambiguous posts as well. I wouldn't have the arrogance to tell you your story has changed from one post to the next though, cause I really didn't know what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.
KevFu
Registered User
I disagree. I think a number of suggestions put forth are better than what wehave now, and don't create "needless" problems. Yeah, changes might create some new flaws, but are they more of an issue than Dallas playing 0 division road games in their time zone?
Agreed KevFu. Also, I think you're 6 div suggestion is one of the best and most creative tabled so far.
Perhaps "suggested" isn't the right word, but you implied that 4 Divisions are more flexible, whereas in you last post that I quoted you focused more on the "unbalanced aspect" of going to 4 Divisions as allowing flexibility. As for the "unbalanced" part, I agree with you, and I said as much in my response to the orginal post that initiated this specific discussion. However, as I stated in the last post, that flexibility is still limited by exactly which Divisions would have 8 teams and which would have 7 teams and where any possible relocated teams or Expansion teams might end up. An Expansion city or a city receiving a relocated team in the region of an 8-team Division would still result in somewhat of a chain-reaction of realignment, and there could still be teams unhappy with their alignment at that time which would want to try to take advantage of that realignment to also have other changes that could make their own alignment better.
So what's the difference from a 6-Division alignmemt? Nothing!
Team stability and movement... The League has never yet, to my knowledge, planned for down the road possible relocations, nor Expansions if it didn't already know exactly where those Expansions were going to take place. I think that you're possibly plotting out an alignment based on where you think such relocations and expansions might take place.
The League is Not considering Contraction. You can plot that into whatever alignment scheme you want, but unless the League is ultimately forced with that scenario, it is simply Not considering any alignment scenario with that in mind.
Sure, of course the League needs to group teams by Time Zones; the TV market is becoming ever more important. Thus the "chain-reaction" potential of fitting Winnipeg into the alignment, because there are currently teams disadvantages Time Zone-wise by the current alignment. And there are alignment adjustments that can fix that.
And as for the Playoffs... well it's a toss up... Go for a more stricter Divisional Playoffs at the cost of putting weaker teams in the Playoffs and leaving ones with better records out... Or sticking with a more record-based Playoff seeding... I say, why not a compromise. If those few Playoff Rounds that mix desperate Time Zones are a problem, then the League could apply an approximated Divisional Playoff, matching up Divisional opponents where possible in the 1st Round.
TV start times all relates to the Time Zone issue... it's one and the same.
And No, I'm suggesting that your "flexibility" argument is necesarily grounded in the "unbalanced Divisions"; however, if I suggest 6 Divisions, unbalanced after Expansion then that's not acceptable to you, it appears. So ultimately what I'm suggesting is that you're purely an advocate for 4 Divisions, just as I am for 6 Divisions, and you're using whatever argument you can think of to support that preference. And we're both arguing back and forth about how the advantages of one can or can't be had with the other.
I've stated my reasons against 4 Divisions numerous times... 8-team Divisions are simply too large from an individual team marketing perspective. Teams buried in the Standings in an 8-team Division will just be lost to many fans, especially teams that aren't in the strongest markets in the League. Fans will just give up and stop watching. And with 6 Divisions, that means more potential Divisional winners, and more teams vying for the potential of winning a Division, thus fewer fans giving up by mid-Season.
A good sized Division should have between 5 and 6, 7 teams max. We've seen however that the NFL saw preference to go with 4-team Divisions, again not for the priority of not splitting up rivals, but to have smaller Divisions with more Division winners. Personally, I don't like Divisions that small because it means too many team with bad records get Playoff spots at the expense of teams with much better records missing out. That's why I'm already onboard for the NHL to stay with 6 unbalanced Divisions whenever Expansion might happen. Better that than eight 4-team Divisions (I don't have much fear about there being four 8-team Divisions).
Last edited:
Sorry!
Again, I meant that originally you appeared to be implying that it would be simply a 4-Division setup which would be more "flexible", whereas later it appeared to be more the "unbalanced element" of a 4-Division setup. In one sense, it's a minor point, though significant in another... but not something to get your pants all in a knot about. It's just a different interpretation of what you were saying from one post to the next.
Not to take credit away from KevFu, but his latest alignment proposal is one similar to what I've been suggesting for years. But yet you prefer to argue with me.
No offence, but calling me or my post stupid doesn't really open up discussion, and is kind of offensive.
Anyways, anytime I read a post where its "but you can't break up this team and that team" I want to remind them they're on the Business of Hockey board. Realignment is a topic being brought up by the execs. Do you think if they came up with an idea thats benefits outweighed the costs and would be a positive for the league anyone would care about splitting up NJ and Philly?
They've split up rivalries countless times before, my money is on it happening again. Philly doesn't get some special pass simply because Philly fans and Bobby Clarke are awesome - which they are.
If I'm the league and I've laid out problems we are or could face and a new alignment that solves it and your only argument is we can't split up a rivalry, I would politely ask you to **** and get out of the business meeting. Valid from a fan perspective, but hardly a deal breaker from a business one.
Also, as others have mentioned, the irony in you calling my post stupid, then following it with an untrue statement about close teams not being in the same division (disproven by NFL, MLB, etc) wasn't lost on me.
What the hell are you and I arguing about, DocBrown? With your last comment to KevFu, and this post above... I see much more agreement between us than disagreement. Is our argument solely rooted on whether it should be 4 or 6 Divisions? I think we can establish very similar objectives with both, and our objectives don't seem to be that different.
Sorry, I haven't read half of part 1 or any of part 2 in this thread. Wether it was yours or KevFus idea, I think its an interesting and creative solution.
And I really am not here to argue with you, seriously, I just came to say don't expect the 4 div idea to be dead, as I highly doubt it is.
Its obvious you are passionate about a 6 div NHL, and that is a good thing, I would never mean to portray it as anything else. One good point I agree with is looking at the standings in a 5 team div. The problem is in theory that works, but in practice no one looks at div standings. TSN and Globe and mail default to the Conference standings.
And I also really don't want to see Divisional playoffs. Round one of the NHL is the best thing ever, and div playoffs would ruin it completely.
Just an FYI my ideal NHL would have 8 4 team divisions. But you need stability, and a wide geographic footprint to make that happen. IMO, the NHL doesn't have either.
KevFu
Registered User
Keep in mind that divisions do only two things:
#1 - Determine which conference opponents you play six times.
#2 - Give its winner a top-three playoff seed and a banner.
The playoffs are seeded 1-8 by conference, not by division.
A division champ has had their seed improved based on a geographic grouping of teams more often than not (and then there's the "well, they don't play a balanced schedule" argument")
In other words, it's not the DIVISIONS that need to be fixed, it's the SCHEDULING MATRIX that needs to be fixed.
I don't see the issue with separating scheduling from alignment.
Teams have 11 different games from their fellow conference teams now.
Simply dump the out of conference games in favor of "flex games" designed to overcome geography, and all the problems can be improved upon.
Start with a base of 4 games vs everyone in your conference: 56 games (we play these 56 games now).
Add 2 additional games amongst each teams' EIGHT rivals: 16 games
(we have eight of these games now vs division opponents. Simply add four more teams outside of the division, based on time zone)
Play 1 game against each team from two divisions from the other conference (rotate by division): 10 games.
(Instead of seeing every team in the league at home every two years, it would take three years.)
For example, Vancouver would add two extra games vs SJ, ANA, LA, WIN
(creating three additional road games in the PTZ and reducing their ETZ road games from 13 to 9)
Dallas would add NASH, STL, CHI, MIN
(4 more CTZ road games. Their ETZ games would go from 13 to 9)
Sure, you'd have some crazy "extra" matchups, but who cares?
We have three crazy extra match-ups now, vs OOC teams. That's a small price to pay to make more people happy.
You'd also have a different number of conference games for teams, as DET/CBJ would play extra games vs the East.
But again, who cares? It's not like CONFERENCE RECORD is how we seed the playoffs. Teams play 11 different games now and no one seems to care. They're all NHL teams. Sure, strength of schedule would "matter" more in determining playoff seed, but the owners have already sacrificed a fair round-robin format decades ago.
#1 - Determine which conference opponents you play six times.
#2 - Give its winner a top-three playoff seed and a banner.
The playoffs are seeded 1-8 by conference, not by division.
A division champ has had their seed improved based on a geographic grouping of teams more often than not (and then there's the "well, they don't play a balanced schedule" argument")
In other words, it's not the DIVISIONS that need to be fixed, it's the SCHEDULING MATRIX that needs to be fixed.
I don't see the issue with separating scheduling from alignment.
Teams have 11 different games from their fellow conference teams now.
Simply dump the out of conference games in favor of "flex games" designed to overcome geography, and all the problems can be improved upon.
Start with a base of 4 games vs everyone in your conference: 56 games (we play these 56 games now).
Add 2 additional games amongst each teams' EIGHT rivals: 16 games
(we have eight of these games now vs division opponents. Simply add four more teams outside of the division, based on time zone)
Play 1 game against each team from two divisions from the other conference (rotate by division): 10 games.
(Instead of seeing every team in the league at home every two years, it would take three years.)
For example, Vancouver would add two extra games vs SJ, ANA, LA, WIN
(creating three additional road games in the PTZ and reducing their ETZ road games from 13 to 9)
Dallas would add NASH, STL, CHI, MIN
(4 more CTZ road games. Their ETZ games would go from 13 to 9)
Sure, you'd have some crazy "extra" matchups, but who cares?
We have three crazy extra match-ups now, vs OOC teams. That's a small price to pay to make more people happy.
You'd also have a different number of conference games for teams, as DET/CBJ would play extra games vs the East.
But again, who cares? It's not like CONFERENCE RECORD is how we seed the playoffs. Teams play 11 different games now and no one seems to care. They're all NHL teams. Sure, strength of schedule would "matter" more in determining playoff seed, but the owners have already sacrificed a fair round-robin format decades ago.
Last edited:
I also never said the 4-Division idea is dead. I only said that it's been reported to be not being favored. Things can change.
And how the Standings are presented in Canada simply is evidence that most Canadian fans won't give up watching their team no matter how buried down the Standings they are, and if a Canadian team can simply squeak into the Playoffs then that's something that fans there get at least a bit excited about.
Lol, I'm really really trying not to argue and really just trying to pass on stuff for discussion in a nonchalant way.
I do have a preference for 4 divs, but that is only because of the imbalance in the league regarding Det/CLB and NSH right now. If CLB and NSH were in Sea and KC and every team in the league was healthy (minus 1 or 2 bad eggs) then I would dismiss any notion of change outright.
I really feel the league has a snowballing list of issues it needs to deal with, even on top of the specific problems presented by Dallas, Minnie, Det, NSH, and CLB.
On top of that I feel its naive to think this topic will simply fizzle out. Quite frankly I'm sure Bettman quite liked someone saying the idea is dead to the media because now he doesn't have to talk about it while he works on a compromise behind the scenes.
However, I also recognize that it looks like most of the east is refusing to budge, and any headway may be impossible, so the most likely outcome will be det and wpg switching, but it may be a temporary solution that may need to be voted on again the following year....does Detroit in the southeast seem like a long-term solution to you?
Regardless, I'm suggesting it would be too soon to dismiss a 4 div solution and if the league felt 6 divs best solved all/most of their specific problems then they would have never suggested a 4 div solution.
KevFu, I don't know if it's just me, or more so you, or the both of us equally... But I'm getting slightly frustrated, just slightly, with your posts and that very few people seem to follow them up. I think you've got some great ideas and you're putting much thought into them, but sometimes the explanation all comes off somewhat unattainable. I think we need a bit more very specific demonstration of your thinking.For example, the more I look at what you wrote above, the more it seems that it's a format that would apply to 30 teams, no Divisions, no Conferences. I know that's an over-simplied, erroneous idea, but can you possibly show us actual Divisions and Conferences with your scheduling matrix applied to them... if such Divisions and Conferences really exist. Like which teams might play which teams which number of times in a Season, since your focus is on scheduling.
It also seems that maybe you're suggesting different scheduling matrixes for different teams. But if that's the case, then you're potentially creating a rat's nest because as soon as you change up the scheduling of one team then that creates a chain-reaction with the scheduling of other teams. But again, we or I need clarification with some actual examples in order to know exactly what you're suggesting.
Sorry, I really just want to grasp your idea clearly, and for others to grasp it too, because sincerely I want you to get more feedback about it.
Last edited:
KevFu
Registered User
For example, the more I look at what you wrote above, the more it seems that it's a format that would apply to 30 teams, no Divisions, no Conferences. I know that's an over-simplied, erroneous idea, but can you possibly show us actual Divisions and Conferences with your scheduling matrix applied to them... if such Divisions and Conferences really exist. Like which teams might play which teams which number of times in a Season, since your focus is on scheduling.
It also seems that maybe you're suggesting different scheduling matrixes for different teams. But if that's the case, then you're potentially creating a rat's nest because as soon as you change up the scheduling of one team then that creates a chain-reaction with the scheduling of other teams. But again, we or I need clarification with some actual examples in order to know exactly what you're suggesting.
Sorry, I really just want to grasp your idea clearly, and for others to grasp it too, because sincerely I want you to get more feedback about it.
One of these days, I'll have to sit down and make a clear presentation of what's rattling around in my head. There's a number of different ideas on how to "align" but all of them boil down to:
1. Scrap this scheduling matrix.
2. Make an imbalanced matrix that caters to the issues people have with the current alignment along three basic principles:
A - No team will play a team more than 6 times in one season.
B - Not all teams will play each other.
C - It might not be easy to look at or explain, but it will be better for a lot of teams, and not harmful to our current rivalries.
thanks, though for legibility i'd use the timezone one and the population density one sans timezone lines:
and
(I apologize for the old logos ducks yotes sabres caps and bolts fans. I was working off an old image set)
quite frankly, without understanding these two images, you shouldnt even attempt a realignment strategy.
similarly, without reading this post, you shouldnt attempt a relocation/expansion suggestion.
danishh and all, I put the following two maps together, based on 2010 population stats for the contiguous United States and the Canadian provinces (less the territories). This rough work intentionally doesn't use a dividing line between the two countries nor specifically along Time Zone lines.
The first map shows two distinct lines, both generally following state and province borders (though in the case of Ontario, due to its great geographic size, there is division along census lines, separating the census areas of Kenora, Rainy River, and Thunder Bay).
The Blue line represents a rough East-West 50% population boundary. One interesting thing here is that the boundary is almost exactly that of the boundary between the Eastern and Central Time Zones. I think that for convenience sake, instead of following the state and Ontario census boundaries in this specific case, just using the ETZ and CTZ boundary would work just as well to represent that 50% split.
The Purple line represents a rough North-South 50% population boundary. I think this line really highlights why the League has tried so hard to establish teams in the relatively deep south because 50% of the population lives there.
Now this second map represents a similar attempt to divide the same map but in six parts; the West in 3 parts of roughly equal population size; and the East in 3 parts of roughly equal population size.
Now to do with that map what danishh did with his map, to show how the NHL is represented % wise relative to those 6 areas of the map:
Representative of the population distribution
The pacific area has 4/5
The northwest has 7/5
The southwest has 2/5
The northeast has 7/5
The east central has 6/5
The southeast has 4/5 (Though DC could go on either side, east central or southeast. On the southeast and then they're both 5/5.)
Obviously the lines can be controversial, but again the attempt was to follow state and provincial boundaries.
The population total number used was: 340,464,000
Therefore the population 1/2 was: 170,232,000
And the population divided by 6 was: 56,744,000
Decided I better do a second option for dividing that midwest in the six parts map, because surely someone will complain that there should've been an attempt to try to follow the Time Zone line north to south, rather than west to east. So here is a second version:
In that scenrio:
The pacific area has 4/5
The high plains west has 5/5
The midwest has 4/5
That also shows more balance.
OK, PART II of the post... A tiny bit of analysis
In fact, using the second six-way split map, if we follow the ETZ-CTZ line, which I said would work well as an East-West dividing line for a roughly 50-50 split of the population, then Nashville would give that "midwest" section a 5/5 representation.
That then would leave the "southeast" section 1 team short (assuming DC is slotted into that section).
So we're left with 1 team short in the "pacific" section and 1 team short in the "southeast" section. And 2 teams extra in the "northeast" section.
It would seem that putting yet another team in the northeast might not be the best option for the League, at least based on population %.
The League is truly stuck with at least one too few teams in the West and a vacancy in the Southeast. But with too many teams to fit in the general area of the northeast. And the threat of losing a team in the West.
Now, hypothetically, nothing more...
If the Islanders or Devils were relocated to Seattle or Portland, and if Philadelphia were slid into that southeast section, then the alignment situation could be resolved:
PACIFIC
Vancouver, Seattle/Portland, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim
WEST
Edmonton, Winnipeg, Calgary, Colorado, Phoenix
MIDWEST
Minnesota, Chicago, Nashville, St Louis, Dallas
NORTHEAST
Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, Rangers, Islanders/Devils
GREAT LAKES
Toronto, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Detroit
ATLANTIC
Philadelphia, Washington, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida
Now, do I want the Islanders or Devils to be relocated? No. But then, here we are...
Last edited:
beepeearr
@beepeearr
I had two proposed schedules, the one I actually would prefer to see, and the one I think would be better for the league in the long run is this one.
This way you always have your regional rivalries always on the schedule, and then you would also have the best divisions going head to head all year as well. Since weaker divisions would also be going head to head, they should be more competitive too, and winning can solve a lot of problems.
This could create somewhat nontraditional rivalries that could last for a few seasons, because the teams are competitive and not lopsided.
A variation of the above could be one division chosen by strength of division, and the other division chosen on a set rotation, just to ensure you'll see every division at least once every 5 years for those extra games.
KevFu
Registered User
...can you possibly show us actual Divisions and Conferences with your scheduling matrix applied to them... if such Divisions and Conferences really exist. Like which teams might play which teams which number of times in a Season, since your focus is on scheduling.
It also seems that maybe you're suggesting different scheduling matrixes for different teams. But if that's the case, then you're potentially creating a rat's nest because as soon as you change up the scheduling of one team then that creates a chain-reaction with the scheduling of other teams. But again, we or I need clarification with some actual examples in order to know exactly what you're suggesting.
Ok, here's one possible example.
6 games vs everyone in your division
4 games vs everyone in your conference
10 games total vs the other conference.
-- one game vs each team in two divisions. (This would rotate, so you'd face everyone in the league at home once every three years).
8 games vs four designated non-division opponents. Some can be constant, every year. Others could shift from year to year. Or you could take all the teams without geographic concerns (ETZ teams) and simply give them EIGHT random extra games outside of the division.
SAMPLE:
Winnipeg to Northwest; Colorado to Pacific, Dallas to Central, Nashville to Southeast.
(You could use this matrix with virtually every alignment, just use the flex games to fix stuff)
SAMPLE of the "West - Central - East" format:
Last edited:
WE can see Kansas, but highly unlikely you will see either Houston or OKC switch leagues, OKC jst did tht when the CHL franchise was returned to make way for the Barons (EDM)
It all depends on which map 6-way split map you look at. Looking at that first one would definitely give you the impression that that "southwest" area is lacking. But looking at the second 6-way split map, which follows more closely the Time Zone line, the Great Plains split shows 5 teams on both sides of the line (that's with including Nashville in the Midwest section, if the ETZ-CTZ line is used as the 50-50 east-west population split line, for which it really looks like a very good approximation line to follow for that split). Then the only western section that's lacking is the pacific, which only has 4 teams.
Certainly, in the east, the southeast section is also lacking a team, if Nashville is slotted in the Midwest secion. But with the excess number of teams in the general area of the northeast, as I said, if Philadelphia is slid into the southeast section then that just leaves 11 teams in the two northeast sections... Thus a New York area team to the Pacific, and balance is established.
I'd like to expand a bit more on what you said about Seattle/Portland being the "key". That wasn't my original point, I just suggested that if a New York City area team were relocated (which I don't desire) to Seattle/Portland that it could solve the alignment problem. But let's say having the Coyotes relocated to Seattle, that could help fix alignment issues in the West, but there'd still be the issue of Columbus or Detroit stuck in the West.
Truly though, especially if Seattle gets a team... wow, does that ever fix the far-west alignment issue. As it stands, there are the 3 far-western Canadian teams, and the 3 California teams... a Division of six in an alignment that only allows 5-teams/Division. The thing that's special about Vancouver is that it seems that the fans there would be hugely excited for there to be a team in Seattle. Compare that to Toronto, where it seems that Toronto fans could almost care less about Buffalo (though Buffalo does care). I think Vancouver would be much more willing to give up the Alberta teams if it had a chance for a good rivalry with Seattle. Then it's Vancouver, Seattle, and the California teams.
Last edited:
Yes, OKC is out unless the NBA fails there. Tulsa is truly the best option of all, IMO, in the Great Plains area. I think the city is just big enough, it has an arena, no other major league sports to compete with, an established hockey tradition, and possibly a desire to compete with OKC at a major league level to say that they can support a team as well. But Kansas City though is a more logical bet for the League, for sure, because of its size. I'd definitely choose KC over Houston... though some may say I'm crazy... well, we're crazy, since you and I appear to agree on that, CHRDANHUTCH.
NOOOOOOOOO.
MoreOrr, what are you thinking!
The Great Plains does not need a team, nor would it be a good place to put a team!
The NHL needs to be in one place, the US Pac NW!
This is the only region of the US where there is no NHL team, and it really is a problem.
While expansion had some merit in trying to follow where North America's growth is, the sunbelt and southwest, it forgot the pacific NW.
Not only is this a region that actually, climate wise, hockey can fit but it also has the market size.
The Great Plains, they lack a major market that any new US team needs.
The NHL either needs to be in more Canada markets where they would love a team, or more expand to serve US regions that lack a team which could grow.
KC is in the midwest, which already is covered.
Further, KC is a small market. Even if KC were to do great as a market, just how much does that help the NHL?
Would the NHL be better with a team in KC or a team in Houston or Seattle (or even Atlanta).
I saw Houston, because that gives Dallas an immediate nearby rival (KC is not close to Dallas and St. Louis has Chicago).
Houston is a major market, that is and will keep growing.
The location helps current NHL teams more in terms of Geography and the market as well.
WHY WHY KC?
You really think Vancouver (if Seattle gets a team) would rather be with Seattle in the Pacific than stay in the NW?
I think this would be a tough call. Vancouver hates their travel, and really wants Seattle to get a team to help out (this has to be a first...a sports team WANTING more regional competition!).
But, would they want to be in a division with no traditional rival?
Tough call.
I think we both agree, we would like Seattle to have a team.
Huh?
Yeh, it is stupid to split up major rivalries.
The point of realignment for me and most is to fix some of the current travel problems WITHOUT disrupting any current rivalries.
It makes no sense to solve one problem and create two more.
I understand and would like the Dallas/Minnesota issue addressed, but to gerrymander and split up traditional rivals in very important markets, just so some isolated, less popular western conference team has less 9 PM starts is short sighted.
There is no real precedent as well like you speak of for splitting up rivalries in other sports.
In every other sports, Philly is with NY, and NY is with Boston in some form or another.
The NHL made a mistake splitting up NY and Boston decades ago, to split up NY and Philly or Philly and PIT, is senseless.
You can easily fix Dallas/Minnesota without disrupting important, major, rivalries, again.
Yes.
Having NY and Philly in different divisions, breaking up PIT and PHI...just so Dallas has "better travel" is short sighted and absurd.
You can fix the Dallas problem without disrupting those rivalries, and if not (which you can), then tough.
I think more NHL fans and common sense dictate that Dallas and their 9 PM starts, well, you have to prioritize, and Dallas as a new, untraditional market that is isolated, oh well.
I'm not giving up Philly rivalries just so you have earlier starts.
Dumb.
I asked this before and nobody responded, I will ask again:
Detroit is upset at losing Toronto as a rival, but we all know that in sports, Michigan fans usual go up against Chicago, Ohio, and other midwest cities.
They are not traditional aligned with Ontario or Northeastern Cities.
Hence, Detroit makes more sense to be with Chicago and Columbus than Toronto/Buffalo.
However, Detroit brought up the notion of schedule concessions.
Well, what do you all think of this:
-Every season as it stands, every team eastern team plays every western once, accept for three teams whom they play twice.
Example: Detroit plays everybody in the east once this season, except for Buffalo, Philly, and Washington (whom they play twice).
This is the case for every team, they play some randomly selected three teams from the other conference two times, and everybody else once.
I have no idea how this is determined, but it seems to me to be enne menne minne mooo.
Here is what I would like:
-Instead of Detroit "randomly" playing three eastern conference teams twice, have them every season play: Toronto/Buffalo twice
-Have Columbus play Pittsburgh twice every season
This way, though both stay in the west, they can get a "semi-rival" going with either traditional eastern NHL rivals (DET-TOR) or traditional rivals in other sports (PIT and Ohio).
Sound fair?
Detroit is upset at losing Toronto as a rival, but we all know that in sports, Michigan fans usual go up against Chicago, Ohio, and other midwest cities.
They are not traditional aligned with Ontario or Northeastern Cities.
Hence, Detroit makes more sense to be with Chicago and Columbus than Toronto/Buffalo.
However, Detroit brought up the notion of schedule concessions.
Well, what do you all think of this:
-Every season as it stands, every team eastern team plays every western once, accept for three teams whom they play twice.
Example: Detroit plays everybody in the east once this season, except for Buffalo, Philly, and Washington (whom they play twice).
This is the case for every team, they play some randomly selected three teams from the other conference two times, and everybody else once.
I have no idea how this is determined, but it seems to me to be enne menne minne mooo.
Here is what I would like:
-Instead of Detroit "randomly" playing three eastern conference teams twice, have them every season play: Toronto/Buffalo twice
-Have Columbus play Pittsburgh twice every season
This way, though both stay in the west, they can get a "semi-rival" going with either traditional eastern NHL rivals (DET-TOR) or traditional rivals in other sports (PIT and Ohio).
Sound fair?
Did you read my post immediately above the one that you commented on here? I'm 100% for a team in Seattle or Portland. I'm personally more for Portland than Seattle, but Seattle would have better rival potential for Vancouver, and as long as there isn't NBA in Seattle then that's another for Seattle over Portland.
Don't for a second think that I believe Kansas City or Tulsa are better options or more needed options (for the area) than Seattle or Portland is. If you've read any of my posts relating to the northwest US, going back years now, then you should already know that.
Last edited:
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
GAME 7 - North Bay Battalion @ Oshawa Generals - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 5Staked: $1,097.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Series Winner Florida Panthers vs Boston BruinsWagers: 15Staked: $115,345.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
GAME 6 - Portland Winterhawks @ Prince George Cougars - Portland Winterhawks leads series 3-2Wagers: 2Staked: $110.00Event closes- Updated: