Realignment II: Well, why not, we've got another year to kill

Status
Not open for further replies.

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
Yeah, you can't go by point totals, because those came against a schedule completely different than what they'd play. It'd be like saying a 6-6 SEC team would be 6-6 in the Sun Belt. Doesn't work like that.

you're pretty much have to take the avg points earned per game for versus each opponent, and multiply it times the number of times they'd play that opponent in the new setup. Then add it all together (for every team) and see what those numbers are.

That wasn't the point, KevFu, at least not exactly. The point was, what if 5 of the strongest teams are in one Division? Sure, they're going to be limiting each other's Point Totals, but all 5 may well finish with better records than the 4th place team in the other Division (who knows, possibly even 6 teams in the one Division might have a better record than the 4th place team in the other Division), but a strict Top-4 Divisional Playoff means more weaker teams can get in the Playoffs. Worse than it is now, not having the Top-16 teams in the Playoffs.

Even with a more balanced schedule, still about half of any team's games would be outside the Division, and that certainly lends to the possibility that a group of strong teams from one Division can pick up a lot of Points outside the Division. Or simply another Division may only have 3 strong teams.
 

Nashvols

Registered User
Jun 8, 2011
1,726
33
Nashville
But isn't that smaller than any advantage gained by which conference you are in to begin with? For example, this year the Rangers made the playoffs as 8th seed in the East partly because it was a heck of lot easier to make it there than in the West. There were 2 West teams, Dallas and Calgary, who not only had more points than the Rangers this year, but they also earned those extra points in an overall better conference (and thus a harder schedule that was made even more hard by all the extra travel). Some years, no doubt, have even bigger discrepancies.

I get what you are saying...but theoretically one conference will be better some of the time, and then the other conference will become tougher. It's never even every year...but there isn't any statistical advantage/disadvantage from the get-go like there would be with this. That's not something you can easily control.

Imagine if you flipped the situations, though...and that the East was the tougher conference.


Just my opinion, but I also think both 50% and 57% of teams in conferences making the playoffs are too many to begin with. The regular season would be more meaningful if fewer teams made the playoffs. So, for example, I don't sympathise with Dallas or Calgary not making the playoffs this year with more points and a harder schedule than the Rangers because I think only the top 8-12 teams really deserve to make it anyway. Similarly, neither would I sympathise with a 9th place team failing to make it from the 16-team conference even though an 8th place team did from the 14-team conference.

I can somewhat agree with that. The NHL playoffs are long as hell to begin with...but what do you scale it back to? 8 overall teams? 4 from each conference? That would make it extremely hard to get in...plus it could create a culture of perennial bottom-feeders. 12 overall teams would be the next logical step...but that would involve a wildcard play in...would you do a best of 5 for that? Either way, you would have 4 teams (two from each conference) with byes, that would gain a significant advantage (or could it possibly be a disadvantage?) from a lot of time off before they played anyone. 16 playoff teams would be most ideal if there were 32 overall teams.
 

Nashvols

Registered User
Jun 8, 2011
1,726
33
Nashville
That wasn't the point, KevFu, at least not exactly. The point was, what if 5 of the strongest teams are in one Division? Sure, they're going to be limiting each other's Point Totals, but all 5 may well finish with better records than the 4th place team in the other Division (who knows, possibly even 6 teams in the one Division might have a better record than the 4th place team in the other Division), but a strict Top-4 Divisional Playoff means more weaker teams can get in the Playoffs. Worse than it is now, not having the Top-16 teams in the Playoffs.

Even with a more balanced schedule, still about half of any team's games would be outside the Division, and that certainly lends to the possibility that a group of strong teams from one Division can pick up a lot of Points outside the Division. Or simply another Division may only have 3 strong teams.

Yeah, I totally disagree with making it a strict top 4. At most, make it a strict top 3 with 2 wildcards to the next highest in the standings. At least that would allow for some flexibility if one division happened to be a bit stronger than the other (5-3 split).
 

RandR

Registered User
May 15, 2011
1,901
411
Imagine if you flipped the situations, though...and that the East was the tougher conference.
Good point.... being in a tougher conference that ALSO has a lower percentage of teams make the playoffs would make it extra tough. I have no problem with either 15-15 or 16-14... I just mostly think that the tougher challenge is the inequality that often exists between divisions or conferences.

I can somewhat agree with that. The NHL playoffs are long as hell to begin with...but what do you scale it back to? 8 overall teams? 4 from each conference? That would make it extremely hard to get in...plus it could create a culture of perennial bottom-feeders. 12 overall teams would be the next logical step...but that would involve a wildcard play in...would you do a best of 5 for that? Either way, you would have 4 teams (two from each conference) with byes, that would gain a significant advantage (or could it possibly be a disadvantage?) from a lot of time off before they played anyone. 16 playoff teams would be most ideal if there were 32 overall teams.
I am assuming the league is going to 4 divisions, which I like anyway. So if I had my way I would do the following:

Give each of the 4 divisional winners a bye and make the 2nd and 3rd-place teams in each division play 3-game series to play their divisional winner to become a league semi-finalist. However, the chance of that happening is virtually zero because, without major contraction, the league would never reduce the number of teams in the playoffs from 16 to 12.

So, more realistically, I'd give each divisional winner and runner up byes, and within each division have 3rd play 6th and 4th play 5th in 3-game series. Winners of those 2 series play the top 2 seeds (with winners playing off) to determine divisional champions and league semi-finalists. This actually means 24 teams in the playoffs, but 3-game series are crapshoots, so the 8 teams that got into the top 2 of their division would have a huge advantage over the 16 teams that had to play 3-game series first. And amongst the bottom 16 playoff teams the 8 of those who get home ice in their 3-game series would have a huge advantage over the 8 who play 2 of 3 on the road.

Either way, my thinking is that the regular season would then actually mean a heck of a lot more than it does now. Giving the divisional winners (and possibly runners-up) a week off at the outset of the playoffs would be huge bonus without the layoff being a problem. This would make divisional matchups, especially late in the season, huge for teams contending for the top spot (or 2) in each division.

Currently, the regular season has far too many meaningless games and I think most teams figure they just have to get into the playoffs and hopefully ride a streak or hot goalie from then on. As far as I'm concerned the current 1-3 conference ranking for divisional winners isn't worth much at all so the really big games late in the season are really only those involving teams trying to make the last few spots in the playoffs.
 
Last edited:

RandR

Registered User
May 15, 2011
1,901
411
They just didn't want to open the can of worms this Season, with Phoenix still up in the air especially. My question though, does the League have plans to have the Phoenix situation resolved by December? Or do they know now exactly where their emergency "out" location is, and how that location could effect their ultimate re-alignment plan in December? Because if they don't have that situation resolved, then shortly after they've done this re-alignment they may have to make some adjustments to it.
...
BUT, what happens if the Coyotes need to be relocated and Quebec City (or somewhere else east)? Or what happens with at least a hoped for Expansion team for Quebec City?
There also wasn't enough time to resolve a major realignment on such short notice with the Atlanta move happening so quickly and so late.

As for how to adjust for the uncertainty in Phoenix, this is one of the reasons why I like 4 divisions. If Phoenix is initially put into an 8-team division and they relocate then since there is only other division with 8 teams, there is only a 1/4 chance that you only have to worry that their new home would actually belong in that other 8-team division. (In that 1/4 case, you then have to move 1 team out of that division to presumably one that has 7, which there is a 2/3 chance of being possible with just the 1 team being moved.)

Compare that what would happen if they kept 6 equal divisions of 5 teams. If Phoenix relocates then there is a 5/6 chance of adding their new home to another division. On top of that, you also start a ripple effect that begins with taking 1 team out of that division and doesn't end until a team has also been put into the Pacific division where Phoenix came from.

So if the December vote has 4 divisions with Phoenix being in one with 8 teams and then Phoenix then moves, there is a 75% chance that no further moves will be necessary. Compare that to a only a 17% chance (1/6) that no further moves would be needed if the December vote leaves the league with 6 divisions and Phoenix then moves.
 
Last edited:

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
There also wasn't enough time to resolve a major realignment on such short notice with the Atlanta move happening so quickly and so late.

As for how to adjust for the uncertainty in Phoenix, this is one of the reasons why I like 4 divisions. If Phoenix is initially put into an 8-team division and they relocate then since there is only other division with 8 teams, there is only a 1/4 chance that you only have to worry that their new home would actually belong in that other 8-team division. (In that 1/4 case, you then have to move 1 team out of that division to presumably one that has 7, which there is a 2/3 chance of being possible with just the 1 team being moved.)

Compare that what would happen if they kept 6 equal divisions of 5 teams. If Phoenix relocates then there is a 5/6 chance of adding their new home to another division. On top of that, you also start a ripple effect that begins with taking 1 team out of that division and doesn't end until a team has also been put into the Pacific division where Phoenix came from.

So if the December vote has 4 divisions with Phoenix being in one with 8 teams and then Phoenix then moves, there is a 75% chance that no further moves will be necessary. Compare that to a only a 17% chance (1/6) that no further moves would be needed if the December vote leaves the league with 6 divisions and Phoenix then moves.

The point I was making was, to those who think that the League should go with a 14/16 split to get both Detroit and Columbus in the East (which seems the fair thing to do, rather than leave just one ETZ team stranded in the West), then what happens if either through relocation or Expansion another team goes in the east (especially the possibility of a Quebec City team)? In that scenario, it would seem to be a lot of League restructuring for nothing. Because, One of Detroit or Columbus can/will go East even in a 6-Division alignment.

Better just to save the restructuring of the alignment at least until Phoenix is completely resolved. (I'd say leave it until there is actually a planned Expansion of 2 more teams.) And better also, at least until then, to put Nashville in the East until it can be discovered if there's a real scenario that can put and keep both Detroit and Columbus in the East. And until then, if they want to fix the 3 Time Zone Divisions, that can be done; and if they want a more balanced schedule, that can also be done.
 
Last edited:

Nashvols

Registered User
Jun 8, 2011
1,726
33
Nashville
The point I was making was, to those who think that the League should go with a 14/16 split to get both Detroit and Columbus in the East (which seems the fair thing to do, rather than leave just one ETZ team stranded in the West), then what happens if either through relocation or Expansion another team goes in the east (especially the possibility of a Quebec City team)? In that scenario, it would seem to be a lot of League restructuring for nothing. Because, One of Detroit or Columbus can/will go East even in a 6-Division alignment.

Say they go with the 16-14 split...

Then think about if the league expands to 32...one team in the east, the other in the west.

Now you have your optimal 32 team alignment...yet a 17-15 conference split due to time zones of all things.


So yes, it would be a lot of restructuring for nothing. That's why I like the 8-7 East 8-7 West arrangement. If a team moves across the continent, you can just float a team over from one division to another to balance things back out.

With the balanced schedule, I think it lessens the issue of an ETZ team being "stranded" in the West.
 

Rubber Biscuit

Registered User
Sep 9, 2010
13,752
8,277
Long Island
Exactly! People want a strict Top-4 1st Round Divisional Playoff, and if you had a strong Division similar to that then Tampa wouldn't have made the Playoffs this past Season. :shakehead

But they also probably wouldn't have had 103 points if they had to play the Wings, Penguins and Flyers an extra two times each.
 

RandR

Registered User
May 15, 2011
1,901
411
The point I was making was, to those who think that the League should go with a 14/16 split to get both Detroit and Columbus in the East (which seems the fair thing to do, rather than leave just one ETZ team stranded in the West), then what happens if either through relocation or Expansion another team goes in the east (especially the possibility of a Quebec City team)? In that scenario, it would seem to be a lot of League restructuring for nothing. Because, One of Detroit or Columbus can/will go East even in a 6-Division alignment.

Better just to save the restructuring of the alignment at least until Phoenix is completely resolved. (I'd say leave it until there is actually a planned Expansion of 2 more teams.) And better also, at least until then, to put Nashville in the East until it can be discovered if there's a real scenario that can put and keep both Detroit and Columbus in the East. And until then, if they want to fix the 3 Time Zone Divisions, that can be done; and if they want a more balanced schedule, that can also be done.
I agree with you on that point... I would not put both Columbus and Detroit into a 16-team East until they sort out Phoenix; so I would initially just move Detroit and I think this is what is most likely to be happening.

However, I do think the league is going about things the right way by apparently not holding off the major realignment because of Phoenix. One reason is that the 4 division setup provides the flexibility of easily dealing with almost whatever happens to Phoenix; another reason is that the Phoenix situation could get punted down the road for one or more years (eg- if Glendale subsidizes the team's losses for another year). Meanwhile there are grievances that the league wants to tackle sooner than later, one of which is Detroit's longstanding wait to move to a division and conference in their own time zone.
 

KingsFan7824

Registered User
Dec 4, 2003
19,356
7,445
Visit site
NE: Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Det
East: NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Was, Pit
Central: Chi, StL, Clb, Min
South: Car, TB, Fla, Nas, Dal
NW: Van, Edm, Cal, Wpg, Col
West: SJ, LA, Ana, Phx
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
Yeh, why should be PIT be displaced from old school rivals and logical geographic opponets just to appease new school small market Nashville?

Oh god, another communist.
This isn't China or whatever where everybody is equal and we all are winners.

Sorry but there are priorities, and it is a priority to keep old school rivalries in tack, to not for small market Nashville, Edmonton, or Minnesota ignore and delete CHI-STL or NY-PHI.
No, it makes no sense to be the only sports where NY-PHI and NY-BOS are in separate divisions JUST DO SOME PUNY WESTERN CONFERENCE MARKET OR SELFISH DETROIT is treated fairly.

All things are not equal, having a NY-PHI rivalry or a PIT-PHI rivalry, having teams 90 miles away in the same division takes priority over puny western markets having fewer 9 PM starts, and if you don't see that, that is your mistake.

I am so sick of these NIMBY western simple interest fans.
Sorry but this is North America and the balance of power and population is in the east, don't like?
Leave the NHL and have your oh-so-exciting mid America small market geographic alignment you want, but don't mess up NY-PHI for it.

What's the point of re-aligning if there's much that can't be touched? The League doesn't seem adverse to trying new things, so what's wrong with experimenting to see if new Division groupings can produce new rivalries? As long as the League doesn't try to make illogical Divisions, some alternation of longer-established groupings should be acceptable. If they want the whole League to have a fair chance at success, you can't just protect established preferences.

I have no fear that teams like the Canadiens, Bruins, Rangers, Flyers, Maple Leafs, Red Wings, Blackhawks, Canucks, Wild, Devils, among a few others, will slide into difficulties if their Division opponents get changed up a bit. You're throwing around the word "communist", but it's also rather anti-capitalist just to stand pat with what's been successful and not "venture" to discover what can be gained by change. The option is to stand pat with what's working, as well as what's not working so well, or to change things up and see if you can find something that works better for most. Growth is always the goal, it seems, in business.

Conservative, protectionist capitalism is deadend capitalism... And that's coming from a socialist-democrat. ;)
 
Last edited:

Nashvols

Registered User
Jun 8, 2011
1,726
33
Nashville
Yeh, why should be PIT be displaced from old school rivals and logical geographic opponets just to appease new school small market Nashville?

I'm not saying Pit should be displaced from all of its old school rivals. I think, in general, the NHL should make an effort to keep historical rivalries intact. That said, the new alignment needs to come with the consideration of all of the teams. It's a 30 team league now...and whether you respect them or not (well, who am I kidding...I know you don't), every team deserves some input in the final plan.

Oh god, another communist.
This isn't China or whatever where everybody is equal and we all are winners.

Sorry but there are priorities, and it is a priority to keep old school rivalries in tack, to not for small market Nashville, Edmonton, or Minnesota ignore and delete CHI-STL or NY-PHI.
No, it makes no sense to be the only sports where NY-PHI and NY-BOS are in separate divisions JUST DO SOME PUNY WESTERN CONFERENCE MARKET OR SELFISH DETROIT is treated fairly.

All things are not equal, having a NY-PHI rivalry or a PIT-PHI rivalry, having teams 90 miles away in the same division takes priority over puny western markets having fewer 9 PM starts, and if you don't see that, that is your mistake.

I am so sick of these NIMBY western simple interest fans.
Sorry but this is North America and the balance of power and population is in the east, don't like?
Leave the NHL and have your oh-so-exciting mid America small market geographic alignment you want, but don't mess up NY-PHI for it.

You know what I'm sick of? Pompous Eastern fans who think that they know more, they matter more, and because of history, they should be granted more than the other teams and their fans.

I tend to agree with you on a lot of the rivalry aspects, but you folks need to learn some humility.

Wow....Preds-Wings, is not a close rivalry in miles and not a big deal anymore than anybody else (generic team x) v Wings (everybody) hates those clubs.

So if mileage determines rivalries...I guess Wings-Avs and Canucks-Hawks were never really rivals, were they?

We obviously FAIL to get the rules or re-alignment, so I need to re-post and remind you people:


1) PIT and PHI must be together (if not, then PIT must be with WAS, under no circumstance is PIT separated from both rivals).
2) PHI must be with all NY teams
3) All NY teams must be together
4) CHI and STL must be together

5) If possible, NY and BOS are together
Uh yes, it is a deal breaker when it idoitocally seperates PIT-PHI, PHI-NY, NY-BOS.

We heard you the first time. We got it. Pipe down.

Of course those aren't actually rules, but rather your opinions and mere suggestions. I'm sure the league is reading this board right now to get some blabbering fan's take of what guidelines they HAVE to follow in order to "properly" realign the league.:sarcasm:

And my alignment proposal, which you all fail to comply with:

If you insist on opening up pandora's box
East
Rangers
Isles
Devils
Flyers
Bruins
Pens
Habs
Sens

North
Leafs
Sabres
Wings
Hawks
Blues
Wild
Jets

South
Caps
Canes
Bolts
Cats
Preds
Stars
Jackets

West
Canucks
Flames
Oilers
Avs
Coyotes
Sharks
Kings
Ducks


And even this is hardly flawless
1) Jackets without Wings or Pens
2) Leafs without Habs or Sens
3) Caps without PHI/PIT/NY

but at least it makes some sense geographical and avoids unforgivable errors like
1) NY teams all together
2) NY and PHI together
3) PHI and PIT together
4) CHI and STL together
5) BUF and TOR together

and heck
6) Re-unites TOR and DET
7) Re-unites NY and BOS
8) Respects and keeps DET and CHI

hardly perfect, but the idea of separating NY teams, or NY PHI, or PIT from PHI and NY but yet having Boston which further north and east with them?
Please.

Columbus gets the short end, but only them, and they being expansion and in Ohio, better they get it than doing something dumb like having NY AND PHI APART!

That wouldn't be a bad proposal...outside of the South division. Of course, I'm sure it wasn't intentional that you lumped all the teams you don't care about in one division...

But let's be glad that the real realignment isn't going to a fan's vote.;)
 

Bucky Katt

Registered User
Aug 30, 2005
1,444
0
Vancouver
We obviously FAIL to get the rules or re-alignment, so I need to re-post and remind you people:


1) PIT and PHI must be together (if not, then PIT must be with WAS, under no circumstance is PIT separated from both rivals).
2) PHI must be with all NY teams
3) All NY teams must be together
4) CHI and STL must be together

5) If possible, NY and BOS are together
Uh yes, it is a deal breaker when it idoitocally seperates PIT-PHI, PHI-NY, NY-BOS.

So PIT, PHI, NJ, NYI, NYR must be together and they should be with BOS and WAS as well. Gotcha. So when other people request divisions that enable them to keep two or three rivals in their division, that is secondary to making sure that these teams keep four, five or six rivals. :shakehead
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
But let's be glad that the real realignment isn't going to a fan's vote.;)

I'm just as concerned that the "real alignment" will be determined by the NHL old-boys-club, and not be what's best for a wider majority. Hopefully all 30 teams do actually have an equal vote, and that they're not forced into a bad compromise because most can't/won't agree on options that might be better. Not saying that I, or any of us here, know what's better, but sometimes compromise isn't actually the best thing, it's just the best that can be agreed on.
 

Bucky Katt

Registered User
Aug 30, 2005
1,444
0
Vancouver
And my alignment proposal, which you all fail to comply with...

And even this is hardly flawless
1) Jackets without Wings or Pens
2) Leafs without Habs or Sens
3) Caps without PHI/PIT/NY

That is the problem with the East. You want to keep the NY3, PIT and PHI together. By doing that you have to gerrymander the other Eastern divisions and/or you have to split up some other rivalries. PIT wants to be with PHI. PHI wants to be with NYR,NJ,NYI. NYR wants to be with BOS. BOS wants to be with MON. MON wants to be with OTT/TOR. BUF wants to be with TOR. Yeah we get it - some rivalries in the northeast corner are going to get broken up. Is PHI/PIT more valuable than TOR/MON? Depends on who you ask.
 

Nashvols

Registered User
Jun 8, 2011
1,726
33
Nashville
So PIT, PHI, NJ, NYI, NYR must be together and they should be with BOS and WAS as well. Gotcha. So when other people request divisions that enable them to keep two or three rivals in their division, that is secondary to making sure that these teams keep four, five or six rivals. :shakehead

You are forgetting the fact that everywhere outside of the NE US and Eastern Canada doesn't actually matter.:sarcasm:

I'm just as concerned that the "real alignment" will be determined by the NHL old-boys-club, and not be what's best for a wider majority. Hopefully all 30 teams do actually have an equal vote, and that they're not forced into a bad compromise because most can't/won't agree on options that might be better. Not saying that I, or any of us here, know what's better, but sometimes compromise isn't actually the best thing, it's just the best that can be agreed on.

That would be my concern as well. But I'm hopeful that after hearing the team representatives speak at the Preds SOTU that the NHL is serious about getting every team's input, from the coaches, general managers, owners, and front office. I much rather like the idea of a balance of a collection ideas, rather than a select group's.

Whether it actually turns out that way remains to be seen...but we can hope.

That is the problem with the East. You want to keep the NY3, PIT and PHI together. By doing that you have to gerrymander the other Eastern divisions and/or you have to split up some other rivalries. PIT wants to be with PHI. PHI wants to be with NYR,NJ,NYI. NYR wants to be with BOS. BOS wants to be with MON. MON wants to be with OTT/TOR. BUF wants to be with TOR. Yeah we get it - some rivalries in the northeast corner are going to get broken up. Is PHI/PIT more valuable than TOR/MON? Depends on who you ask.

Obviously you didn't know that the center of the hockey universe is in Pennsylvania/New York/New Jersey.

Ignorant fool.
 

KingsFan7824

Registered User
Dec 4, 2003
19,356
7,445
Visit site
Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Det, Clb, Car
NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Was, Pit, TB, Fla
Chi, StL, Min, Dal, Nas

Van, Edm, Cal, Wpg, Col
SJ, LA, Ana, Phx
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
That is the problem with the East. You want to keep the NY3, PIT and PHI together. By doing that you have to gerrymander the other Eastern divisions and/or you have to split up some other rivalries. PIT wants to be with PHI. PHI wants to be with NYR,NJ,NYI. NYR wants to be with BOS. BOS wants to be with MON. MON wants to be with OTT/TOR. BUF wants to be with TOR. Yeah we get it - some rivalries in the northeast corner are going to get broken up. Is PHI/PIT more valuable than TOR/MON? Depends on who you ask.

They're all valuable to one degree or another, and that's why, as KevFu has been suggesting, that scheduling shouldn't be tied to Divisions. If Conference Standings are what's ultimately important, then you can have either flex-Divisions or flex-scheduling or both. There is no perfect setup that can give every team the alignment that it wants, but with a bit of creativity you can create Divisions that try to foster certain rivalries, while at the same time scheduling extra-Divisional games that accommodate rivals that aren't in a Division together.
 

voyageur

Hockey fanatic
Jul 10, 2011
9,467
8,157
I would like to see:

WEST

Pacific
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Seattle (Phoenix)
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim

Central
Colorado
Dallas
St. Louis
Nashville
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
Winnipeg

EAST

Northeast
Toronto
Ottawa
Montreal
Boston
Buffalo
NY Rangers
NY Isles
New Jersey

Atlantic
Philly
Pitt
Washington
Columbus
Carolina
Tampa
Florida


I think geographically this is the best solution, however I don't expect it will play out like that. Detroit wants to be in the East, the big networks, Canadian too, want Detroit in the East. Snider and Comcast don't want to be in a division with just 3 strong U.S markets, when they can have access to New York too. I think the competition between the powerhouse franchises in the East may end up creating a bit of an unorthodox alignment, like the NFL ended up with. I am a big fan of the 4 division set-up and divisional playoffs, I think the fans will love it too when they realise how important divisional play becomes, and how the energy level will be amped up for divisional games because of the importance of each game. I just hope that the NHL does not expand the playoff format. 16 out of 30 (or 29 depending on Phoenix) teams is enough, no need to water down the playoffs to make it accessible for everyone. Especially since the playoffs already last 2 months, are a total war, the 1st rd of the NHL playoffs is highly entertaining, and by the end of it, most players can scarcely walk...
 

Bucky Katt

Registered User
Aug 30, 2005
1,444
0
Vancouver
They're all valuable to one degree or another, and that's why, as KevFu has been suggesting, that scheduling shouldn't be tied to Divisions. If Conference Standings are what's ultimately important, then you can have either flex-Divisions or flex-scheduling or both. There is no perfect setup that can give every team the alignment that it wants, but with a bit of creativity you can create Divisions that try to foster certain rivalries, while at the same time scheduling extra-Divisional games that accommodate rivals that aren't in a Division together.

I think the problem with flex scheduling is that it may be beneficial to the East but it is completely unnecessary in the West. The two division alignment works perfectly in the west and there are no significant rivalries that would be split up by having a PTZ/MTZ division and a CTZ division with the possible exception of WIN and VAN/CAL/EDM.

The more I think about this, the more I wonder if the solution is to have completely different formats for the two conferences. If we were to keep the two conference format, with division winners getting top seed and eight teams making it, perhaps the ideal would be:

Alignment

East
BOS, BUF, MON, OTT, TOR
NJ, NYI, NYR, PHI, PIT
CAR, CBJ, FLA, TB, WAS

West
ANA, CAL, COL, EDM, LA, PHX, SJ, VAN
CHI, DAL, DET, MIN, NAS, STL, WIN

Schedule

East
Out-of-conference games 15*2 = 30
Division games 6*4 = 24
Conference games (2*2 + 8*3) = 28

West
Out-of-conference games 15*2 = 30
Division games 6*6 = 36
Conference games 8*2 = 16

Out-of-conference games 15*2 = 30
Division games (4*5 + 3*6) = 38
Conference games 7*2 = 14
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->