Re-Alignment with Seattle

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,091
12,748
Illinois
People will disagree with me, likely very adamantly so, but my honest gut feeling is that rather than moving Arizona to the Central, they'll instead move Colorado back to the Pacific and Edmonton/Calgary over the Central. Barring relocations, of course. That being said, I don't think either would get more than four or five teams opposed regardless, so it'll be whatever Bettman wants, probably.
 
Last edited:

Guffman

Registered User
Apr 7, 2016
6,357
8,533
It just seems strange to move Arizona to the Central given how close they are to Vegas and California, plus they are a PST time zone team for part of the year (including playoffs).

You have to keep Edmonton and Calgary together so it makes sense to move them both to the Central and Colorado to the Pacific.
 

CaliforniaBlues310

Registered User
Apr 9, 2013
4,544
3,506
San Pedro, CA.
First of all, the NHL will NEVER separate the Bruins and Canadiens. Otherwise, the divisions look good.

I like the playoff selection, too. The only change I would make to scheduling would be rotating the 6-game division slate. Every three years you’ll have six games against a divisional opponent, and four games against that same opponent the other two.

Yeah the East was tough to keep certain rivalries together, so I just went more so location based. I do like the rotating divisional slate and thought of that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rfournier103

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
People will disagree with me, likely very adamantly so, but my honest gut feeling is that rather than moving Arizona to the Central, they'll instead move Colorado back to the Pacific and Edmonton and Calgary over the Central. Barring relocations, of course. That being said, I don't think either would get more than four or five teams opposed regardless, so it'll be whatever Bettman wants, probably.



I think I agree, NFS.

My reasons:
I did an informal survey awhile ago on the Calgary and Edmonton boards, and they are not at all heavily weighted to Vancouver over Winnipeg. In other words, Vancouver is across the mountains, and even though it looks like a rival, somehow Winnipeg works just as well. So, CGY and EDM won't be opposed, and might actually be in favor. Travel is NOT going to be a big deal here, and there is something to be said for playing road games to your east rather than west for the sake of local start times. So, I really think that Alberta itself would be NEUTRAL.

Vancouver and Seattle will prefer to keep the Alberta teams in the Pacific. But, Seattle is the cause of this, and, like Vegas doesn't get a cut of the expansion money, I'm not sure Seattle actually gets a vote in the matter.

Colorado won't really care. In fact, the clusters of (AZ, Veg, So Cal) and (SJ, Sea, Van) make easy combined road trips, which the spread in the Central does not.

The Southern California teams won't care one way or the other. Nor will Vegas. If anything, Vegas would prefer to keep AZ as a close rival for the day the novelty wears off in Vegas.

Arizona will STRONGLY prefer to stay where they are. In fact, it would nearly kill them to move. And, since I think the league is highly involved in the financials there, this is important.

So, of the Pacific teams and Alberta teams, and Colorado.... Zona has a strong preference. Seattle does, not that might not matter. Vancouver will have a preference. And, Vegas MAY have a preference. Basically, it's a wash, with slight weighting to moving AZ.

Central Teams:
I really can't see anyone STRONGLY prefering to play any road game on Pacific time. I know it looks like longer travel, but I don't think it necessarily works out that way. No Central team has a strong rivalry or hate toward Colorado, except Minnesota, and that's passing. Winnipeg might prefer the Alberta teams. So, Central to me is slight weight to Alberta.

Generally, the idea of the prior re-alignment was to eliminate out of time zone games, and one BIG focus was: Nothing in division 2 time zones away. Since, for a third of the year, Zona would be 2 time zones from the other teams, I believe that option will be shied away from.

So, I come down on the side of moving the Alberta teams. But, I won't be surprised either way.

Nor would I surprised if Zona moves before Seattle drops a puck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sexydonut

Goldenshark

Registered User
Sep 16, 2007
1,126
306
Vacaville
Second for all the Edmonton and Calgary to the central, Colorado to the pacific people, the NHL stated last alignment that they wanted the western Canadian teams which includes Vancouver to stay together. Why would they change their mind 3 years later? Not to mention this scenario involves 3 teams changing divisions which is way more complex than 1 team moving. NHL also stated they want to promote rivalries. Colorado has already started some nice rivalries with Nashville and Minnesota. Doubt the NHL wants to just throw that away. Why make Colorado throw those away and start fresh, when Edmonton and Calgary already have their rivalry set it doesn't matter what division they play in.

3 years ago the NHL had no clue that Seattle would get an arena built. They could change their minds real quick. The Canucks will have a new rival in Seattle and the Flames and Oilers will join the Jets in the Central.

Colorado has already been a member of the Pacific division and has won Pacific divisions, don’t you remember? Not to mention the Coyotes have been playing in the Pacific for over 20 years and now, finally, have a team close to them without a rival, i.e. Vegas. Why would the NHL want to lose all that over the Avs being in the Central for 3 years. Not sure why that’s hard to understand either.
 

Hynh

Registered User
Jun 19, 2012
6,170
5,345
This is going to hurt some feelings but it's the truth. Arizona has no fans, they don't have rivalries and they don't travel to away games. Move them to the Central and be done with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McYoungGuns

chet1926

Registered User
Jan 9, 2008
12,273
5,586
Denver
3 years ago the NHL had no clue that Seattle would get an arena built. They could change their minds real quick. The Canucks will have a new rival in Seattle and the Flames and Oilers will join the Jets in the Central.

Colorado has already been a member of the Pacific division and has won Pacific divisions, don’t you remember? Not to mention the Coyotes have been playing in the Pacific for over 20 years and now, finally, have a team close to them without a rival, i.e. Vegas. Why would the NHL want to lose all that over the Avs being in the Central for 3 years. Not sure why that’s hard to understand either.
Yes I do remember winning many Pacific division titles.

But that was many years ago. Avs have no true rivals in the Pacific at this moment in time. The Cali teams have each other as well as Vegas which is only a few hours from Los Angeles. Then you have the 3 Canadian teams.

Arizona is the only team in the division that really doesn't have that one true rival. Not to mention the fact that more likely than not Arizona won't be in Arizona much longer.

I guess my biggest question is why does it matter what division Edmonton and Calgary are in as long as they are together. In my opinion it just sounds like the fans of those teams want to be in the central so they don't have to stay up late watching their team. Well guess what that's not really a good reason to move around that many teams.

On top of all this why would they move Colorado out of the central when they are geographically closer to all the other teams in the division outside of Winnipeg? They wouldn't.
 

mdm815

Registered User
Dec 22, 2005
1,261
799
pa
OK just spitballing.

4 “Conferences”/Divisions, w.e.

Atlantic
CAR, FLA, NJ, NYI, NYR, PHI, TB, WSH

Northern
BOS, BUF, CLM, DET, MTL, OTT, PIT, TOR

Central
ARZ, COL, CHI, DAL, MIN, NSH, STL, WPG

Pacific
ANA, CGY, EDM, LGK, LA, SJ, SEA, VAN

2 games against each other conference for 48. Leaves you with 34 in conference, 5 against each of 6 opponents, 4 against the 7th team that would rotate annually.
Each conference would have top 4 teams play then the remaining 4 would be reseeded 1-4. If baseball can have long distance travel in the playoffs hockey can too!

Not my ideal outcome, i prefer 2 conferences 8 divisions for the “clean” scheduling and formatting, but it would be cool to see a TB/BOS final, or a WPG/PIT semi for example.
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
OK just spitballing.

4 “Conferences”/Divisions, w.e.

Atlantic
CAR, FLA, NJ, NYI, NYR, PHI, TB, WSH

Northern
BOS, BUF, CLM, DET, MTL, OTT, PIT, TOR

Central
ARZ, COL, CHI, DAL, MIN, NSH, STL, WPG

Pacific
ANA, CGY, EDM, LGK, LA, SJ, SEA, VAN

2 games against each other conference for 48. Leaves you with 34 in conference, 5 against each of 6 opponents, 4 against the 7th team that would rotate annually.
Each conference would have top 4 teams play then the remaining 4 would be reseeded 1-4. If baseball can have long distance travel in the playoffs hockey can too!

Not my ideal outcome, i prefer 2 conferences 8 divisions for the “clean” scheduling and formatting, but it would be cool to see a TB/BOS final, or a WPG/PIT semi for example.

I agree with this, except that I would swap COL/AZ with EDM/CGY for the reasons that others have laid out here...chiefly the AZ time zone situation and that Arizona is struggling as a franchise, and would suffer more with this move to the Central.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdm815

treple13

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
2,818
1,504
I'd put the chances of the Calgary-Edmonton vs. Colorado swap as just as likely as moving Detroit back to the Central at this point. It's not happening. It'd be like putting New Jersey in a different division from the two New York teams imo. Calgary-Edmonton-Vancouver is a trio, not a pair.

But the other truth is everything comes down to travel. Arizona's travel increase going to the Central is much less than Calgary and Edmonton's travel increase going to the Central. And it's much easier to make one team unhappy than three teams (possibly, can't speak for Colorado fans).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Louis

Foppberg

Registered User
Nov 20, 2016
24,089
26,539
Summerside, PEI
Metro
- Carolina
- New Jersey
- Rangers
- Islanders
- Philly
- Pittsburgh
- Washington
- Columbus

Atlantic
- Boston
- Montreal
- Buffalo
- Toronto
- Ottawa
- Detroit
- Florida
- Tampa Bay

Central
- Colorado
- Chicago
- Dallas
- St.Louis
- Minnesota
- Nashville
- Winnipeg
- Arizona


Pacific
- Anaheim
- San Jose
- LA
- Seattle
- Vancouver
- Calgary
- Edmonton
- Las Vegas
 

Foppberg

Registered User
Nov 20, 2016
24,089
26,539
Summerside, PEI
Agreed. I did the math and overall Colorado is closer to Central division teams. Interestingly, the two closest NHL cities to Denver are Las Vegas (749 miles) and Glendale AZ (786 miles), both Pacific teams. But that's negated by how far away San Jose, Seattle and Vancouver are. Also goes to show how terrible the Avs travel is compared to other teams...they are truly isolated

Yep, it sucks. Central makes more sense but we're pretty far away from most teams either way.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,591
9,425
Yep, it sucks. Central makes more sense but we're pretty far away from most teams either way.
AZ will draw the short straw and move divisions simply because they haven’t secured heir long term future in AZ. Don’t want to be in Glendale but can’t get into Phoenix/Scottsdale. Kind of in limbo.

So, not going to be messing with other teams until they settle their future.

Honestly, if AZ were locked in for a long time in AZ, as a Vancouver fan, I would have them in the pacific which means they have to swap Colorado in too. And that’s only because AZ is pacific time come playoffs and I think that matters.
 

Foppberg

Registered User
Nov 20, 2016
24,089
26,539
Summerside, PEI
AZ will draw the short straw and move divisions simply because they haven’t secured heir long term future in AZ. Don’t want to be in Glendale but can’t get into Phoenix/Scottsdale. Kind of in limbo.

So, not going to be messing with other teams until they settle their future.

Honestly, if AZ were locked in for a long time in AZ, as a Vancouver fan, I would have them in the pacific which means they have to swap Colorado in too. And that’s only because AZ is pacific time come playoffs and I think that matters.

In a perfect world Arizona relocates to Houston in the longterm.
 

mdm815

Registered User
Dec 22, 2005
1,261
799
pa
I agree with this, except that I would swap COL/AZ with EDM/CGY for the reasons that others have laid out here...chiefly the AZ time zone situation and that Arizona is struggling as a franchise, and would suffer more with this move to the Central.
Yeah. I mean i think ARZ makes the most sense cos you have to bone team(s), might as well minimize that as much as possible. The tough thing w the West is you have 10 teams out of CST, and 6 in it. Actually, let me spitball one more time.

2 Conferences, 7 divisions. Wacky i know but considering the two conferences are so drastically different, why not?

Eastern Conf.
NE Div- TOR, MTL, OTT, BOS
Great Lakes Div- CLM, PIT, DET, BUF
Atlantic Div- PHI, NYI, NYR, NJ
Southern Div- WSH, CAR, TB, FLA.

Division winners get an automatic spot, unless they finish with fewer points than WC5. Either way teams are seeded 1-8 based on conference standings. 4 Division winners, 4 wildcards. 1 game vs other conference, 4 vs other divisions, 6 vs in-division.

Western Conf.
Central Div(6)- NSH, MIN, WPG, CHI, STL, DAL
Northwest(5)- SEA, EDM, VAN, CGY, COL (sorta eh here)
Pacific(5)- ANA, SJ, ARZ, LA, LV

Each division plays 1 game vs East for 16, leaving 66 in conference

4 games vs each of the other 15 puts you to 6 remaining flex games. So each team would play each in-division team 5 games total (64 for Pac and NW, 65 total for Cen) and the remaining floater games would rotate annually. Division winners ranked 1-3 and 5 wild card spots like the old format.

Thoughts?
 

chethejet

Registered User
Feb 4, 2012
8,291
1,790
While Bettman loves the fact that teams not moving indicates stability, Florida and Arizona moved to say Quebec and Houston will not happen. Owners want the cash expansion money and with LV, Seattle and those two adds up to over 2 billion for the 30 teams that represents 60 million to each franchise.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,346
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
Nashville is closer to St Louis (300 m) or Chicago (470m) than it is to Raleigh (540 m), Tampa (740m) or Miami (910m) even Minnesota (810m) is closer than Miami. Winnipeg though is hike (1340m)
 

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
MDM,

I like your idea in a way.....

You address the reality that the East and West are 2 different animals. In a perfect world, you would get, in my opinion, something like this:
East: As is. Schedule...4 in division. 2 vs West (that makes 60). Versus other East division: 3 games except 2 games with 2 of the teams on a rotate basis. Playoffs: (Since the schedule is fairly even)..Top8.
West: the big problem is that you have 3 1/2 teams in the MTZ, 6 1/2 teams in PTZ, and 6 teams in Central. Really, to me, the best is to add Seattle to the Pacific, and move Edm and Cgy to the Central and go with an 8/8 split. But, the schedule would be a 5/4 - 2, and the playoffs would be 2 rounds in division.

I would not be opposed to 3 divisions in the West. However, it's hard to figure out the right way, because you have to keep Van/Cgy/Edm together (if you split them up, you would be better off doing the 8-8 I proposed above). So, with the 3 Western Canadian teams together, and then you add Seattle to that (because of Vancouver), then you have to either add Colorado (as you did), or possibly San Jose. And, it just doesn't come out as clean. And, the schedule doesn't separate as well, either, in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdm815

mdm815

Registered User
Dec 22, 2005
1,261
799
pa
MDM,

I like your idea in a way.....

You address the reality that the East and West are 2 different animals. In a perfect world, you would get, in my opinion, something like this:
East: As is. Schedule...4 in division. 2 vs West (that makes 60). Versus other East division: 3 games except 2 games with 2 of the teams on a rotate basis. Playoffs: (Since the schedule is fairly even)..Top8.
West: the big problem is that you have 3 1/2 teams in the MTZ, 6 1/2 teams in PTZ, and 6 teams in Central. Really, to me, the best is to add Seattle to the Pacific, and move Edm and Cgy to the Central and go with an 8/8 split. But, the schedule would be a 5/4 - 2, and the playoffs would be 2 rounds in division.

I would not be opposed to 3 divisions in the West. However, it's hard to figure out the right way, because you have to keep Van/Cgy/Edm together (if you split them up, you would be better off doing the 8-8 I proposed above). So, with the 3 Western Canadian teams together, and then you add Seattle to that (because of Vancouver), then you have to either add Colorado (as you did), or possibly San Jose. And, it just doesn't come out as clean. And, the schedule doesn't separate as well, either, in my opinion.
Yeah definitely doesn’t appeal to the ocd side of me that wants symmetry, and the scheduling becomes a little muddy. The biggest issue w the West is the 10/6 split on PST and CST. With a MST thrown in just to make it that much harder haha.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->