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

[RedWingsNow*]

you do realize 32 teams isn't happening.....

Not for now.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Not for now.

IT MAY NEVER happen.

 

[squidz*]

Apparently you didn't get the memo... The two northeastern Divisions don't want a 4 Division setup because it would definitely mean splitting up the membership of their Divisions.

The positive coming out of that is that hopefully it actually does mean that the 4-Division idea has been squashed like a bug.

I genuinely doubt the resolve of "The 10." If it looks like QC is a legitimate possibility, I am certain that Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa throw the Atlantic under the bus immediately because the Northeast can absorb the NYC teams to avoid being broken up. The Southeast would love to have Philly, Pittsburgh and possibly NJD added, and the Northeast would vote for that move if they felt threatened at all (eg think the Atlantic will try oust them instead). That's 9 votes (5 NE, at least 3 SE and either DET/CBJ) from the East, and it shouldn't be too hard to cajole 9 votes from the west.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I genuinely doubt the resolve of "The 10." If it looks like QC is a legitimate possibility, I am certain that Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa throw the Atlantic under the bus immediately because the Northeast can absorb the NYC teams to avoid being broken up. The Southeast would love to have Philly, Pittsburgh and possibly NJD added, and the Northeast would vote for that move if they felt threatened at all (eg think the Atlantic will try oust them instead). That's 9 votes (5 NE, at least 3 SE and either DET/CBJ) from the East, and it shouldn't be too hard to cajole 9 votes from the west.

how is QC a legitimate possibility, if the arena hasn't had 1 spade of dirt turned, squidz, any arena can have delays in construction ie cost overruns, etc.....

 

[Jag68Sid87]

how is QC a legitimate possibility, if the arena hasn't had 1 spade of dirt turned, squidz, any arena can have delays in construction ie cost overruns, etc.....

Quebec City is happening. It's a question of when. 2015 would be my best guess. So basically, we'll have to go through this all over again then.

 

[squidz*]

how is QC a legitimate possibility, if the arena hasn't had 1 spade of dirt turned, squidz, any arena can have delays in construction ie cost overruns, etc.....

Hey I can repeat tired old talking points too!

I'll spare the thread the tedium however. If you'd bothered following what people have said, you'd see that I've mentioned multiple times that I don't believe QC is next in line for relocation.

The point of the matter is, if QC or any other theoretical eastern market is a legitimate worry (note, that doesn't mean impending relocation target, that doesn't mean imminent change, it just means semi-realistically an option), "The 10" will crumble and will gladly throw the opposite division out in the cold if it means saving their own interests. If they're willing to crumble in that scenario, they have to be aware that their near veto power isn't safe, and could be convinced to protect themselves.

 

[Shawa666]

how is QC a legitimate possibility, if the arena hasn't had 1 spade of dirt turned, squidz, any arena can have delays in construction ie cost overruns, etc.....

The biggest hurdle has been cleared last monthh. The political side of the project has been cleared. The funds have been secured. These are the 2 steps that tend to stop a project in it's tracks around here.

The Mayor ran for election almost exclusively on the promise of a new arena. He got something like 80% of the vote. The Provincial Prime Minister has approved the project. No approval is needed from the Federal. The naming rights/lease agreement is signed. We can't start construction so close to the winter. But we can conduct soil studies, draw up plans and put the logistics in place. Everything is coming up nicely. They're not planning on building another Olympic Stadium and the budget has a cost overrun margin built in. No problems there either.

Quebec City is happening. It's a question of when. 2015 would be my best guess. So basically, we'll have to go through this all over again then.

Mayr Labeaume has stated that 2015 was the goal for the opening of the arena, in time for the 2015-16 season.

Gary said that the Colisée could be used while the other arena is built. No problems here.

 

[MoreOrr]

I genuinely doubt the resolve of "The 10." If it looks like QC is a legitimate possibility, I am certain that Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa throw the Atlantic under the bus immediately because the Northeast can absorb the NYC teams to avoid being broken up. The Southeast would love to have Philly, Pittsburgh and possibly NJD added, and the Northeast would vote for that move if they felt threatened at all (eg think the Atlantic will try oust them instead). That's 9 votes (5 NE, at least 3 SE and either DET/CBJ) from the East, and it shouldn't be too hard to cajole 9 votes from the west.

But who in the Northeast would they "throw under the bus"?

 

[squidz*]

But who in the Northeast would they "throw under the bus"?

The Atlantic? They could push for this:

North: CHI, DET, TOR, BUF, OTT, QC, WPG, MIN
Atlantic: PIT, PHI, NYI, NYR, NJD, BOS, MTL, CBJ
West: VAN, CGY, EDM, COL, SJS, ANA, LAK
American: FLA, TBL, CAR, NSH, DAL, STL, WSH

There could also be an ugly swap in there where Montreal stays in the North and Chicago is dumped into the American division with Washington possibly moving into the Atlantic. Could also work with Winnipeg to the West division (but that's yucky).

Is there anything you see that the Atlantic wouldn't like? The West division would be happy with that alignment. Detroit would probably support it. The whole Atlantic should be happy. That's 16 votes. Dallas likely votes for it. Chicago gets to keep Detroit and picks up Minnesota and Winnipeg so they vote yes. Winnipeg keeps 3 Canadian teams in their division. Minnesota goes from 9 west coast trips to 4, and are given Chicago and Winnipeg. That makes 20 votes for. The only one in the Atlantic I see possibly voting no is Montreal.

 

[MoreOrr]

The Atlantic? They could push for this:

North: CHI, DET, TOR, BUF, OTT, QC, WPG, MIN
Atlantic: PIT, PHI, NYI, NYR, NJD, BOS, MTL, CBJ
West: VAN, CGY, EDM, COL, SJS, ANA, LAK
American: FLA, TBL, CAR, NSH, DAL, STL, WSH

There could also be an ugly swap in there where Montreal stays in the North and Chicago is dumped into the American division with Washington possibly moving into the Atlantic. Could also work with Winnipeg to the West division (but that's yucky).

Is there anything you see that the Atlantic wouldn't like? The West division would be happy with that alignment. Detroit would probably support it. The whole Atlantic should be happy. That's 16 votes. Dallas likely votes for it. Chicago gets to keep Detroit and picks up Minnesota and Winnipeg so they vote yes. Winnipeg keeps 3 Canadian teams in their division. Minnesota goes from 9 west coast trips to 4, and are given Chicago and Winnipeg. That makes 20 votes for. The only one in the Atlantic I see possibly voting no is Montreal.

Ohhh, ok, you're pushing the 4-Division idea.

My question, several posts back, was about Quebec City within 6 Divisions.

 

[Rutabaga]

Is the fact that we may have 4 teams from Canada in a potential NW division really a problem for the Minnesota Wild ?

I could understand that economically, its not the best situation for them, but geographically, its the most obvious choice.
Winnipeg in the NW, Colorado in the SW, Dallas in the Central, and Nashville or Columbus (more likely the latter) in the SE.

Im not used to this debate as much as some are, so, if anyone can explain to me why this cant work...

 

[squidz*]

Ohhh, ok, you're pushing the 4-Division idea.

With 6 divisions, there's really only a few ways to minimally restructure those two divisions:

Northeast: TOR, BUF, OTT, MTL, QC
Atlantic: NYI, NYR, NJD, PHI, BOS/PIT

Leaves Buffalo alone in an all Canadian division. Not sure how big of a fight Pegula puts up there. Montreal loses Boston but gains QC.

NE: TOR, OTT, MTL, QC, BOS
ATL: NYI, NYR, NJD, PHI, PIT/BUF

Same issues except Boston instead of Buffalo alone and TOR losing BUF. This is probably less desirable considering the geography, but I don't know specifically how the owners feel.


The bottom line is, in any scenario with QC involved, "The 10" are going to have some dissenting votes because it seems unrealistic that QC would be put in the Southeast. I have a hard time picturing a scenario where a majority of the league prefers 6 divisions if QC is in play. If Phoenix relocates northeast, the West will be unified for a 4 division alignment and will see support from QC, WSH, TBL, CAR, FLA, PIT, and BUF.


Edit: Just saw your edit, I was going at it for a different angle, but see the confusion

 

[squidz*]

Is the fact that we may have 4 teams from Canada in a potential NW division really a problem for the Minnesota Wild ?

I could understand that economically, its not the best situation for them, but geographically, its the most obvious choice.
Winnipeg in the NW, Colorado in the SW, Dallas in the Central, and Nashville or Columbus (more likely the latter) in the SE.

Im not used to this debate as much as some are, so, if anyone can explain to me why this cant work...

As a Wild fan, I don't see the issue. However, Leipold has been public about his desire to not be alone in a division with only Canadian teams. I haven't been able to find out why he's opposed, just that he is. The strange thing is it seems that every (especially those in the hockey media) just takes it as face value that it somehow represents an issue without any apparent curiosity as to why it's an issue.

 

[KevFu]

1) Inside 1 or 2 Time Zones, distance apparently matters, and I don't disagree with those who think it should matter.

2) Beyond 2 Time Zones, then it's only the Time Zone difference that matters.

Putting Montreal and Florida in the same Division wouldn't make sense.
And putting Dallas and San Jose in the same Division doesn't make sense either, not if it can be avoided in some possible way.

Why does it matter though? It's not like the teams are in a traveling circus? When I suggested splitting up the Southeast into Patrick and Adams with Carolina being separate from FLA, TB and WAS, I posted their travel itineraries. Carolina had more WAS-MIN-CAL (1) road trips than road trips with three of WAS-ATL-TB-FLA in any order (0).

It doesn't matter where your team is located, your travel is going to be dictated by the order of the games.

Obviously, Vancouver and Florida in the same division is an issue. Kind of. Depends on the number of games they play. As of now, they're going to the ETZ to play 13 total games. What's the difference if they're in the same conference with Florida and play 13 total games in the ETZ?

Is the fact that we may have 4 teams from Canada in a potential NW division really a problem for the Minnesota Wild ?

I could understand that economically, its not the best situation for them, but geographically, its the most obvious choice.
Winnipeg in the NW, Colorado in the SW, Dallas in the Central, and Nashville or Columbus (more likely the latter) in the SE.

Im not used to this debate as much as some are, so, if anyone can explain to me why this cant work...

As a Wild fan, I don't see the issue. However, Leipold has been public about his desire to not be alone in a division with only Canadian teams. I haven't been able to find out why he's opposed, just that he is. The strange thing is it seems that every (especially those in the hockey media) just takes it as face value that it somehow represents an issue without any apparent curiosity as to why it's an issue.

Someone once said "the answer to all of your questions is money."

He can get more money from TV networks selling his games to Fox Sports when they're playing Chicago six times than when they're playing Winnipeg six times, because Minnesota is in the same division as Chicago in baseball, football and basketball so there's more interest. His TV partner can get more money from NHL Center Ice selling more games against US teams. And he's going to have more opportunities to be on national TV and grow his brand if he's playing more US teams, because US national TV rarely if ever puts a US-Canada match-up on.

 

[squidz*]

Someone once said "the answer to all of your questions is money."

He can get more money from TV networks selling his games to Fox Sports when they're playing Chicago six times than when they're playing Winnipeg six times, because Minnesota is in the same division as Chicago in baseball, football and basketball so there's more interest. His TV partner can get more money from NHL Center Ice selling more games against US teams. And he's going to have more opportunities to be on national TV and grow his brand if he's playing more US teams, because US national TV rarely if ever puts a US-Canada match-up on.

So you think that the TV contract for playing against St. Louis, Nashville, and Columbus is worth more than playing against Vancouver/Colorado, Edmonton, and Calgary? I certainly don't believe that for a second. Prove it to me and I still probably don't believe it. The benefit of TV contracts for Chicago games is going to be comparable to those for Winnipeg games. The biggest flaw in the "TV Contracts" argument is that we're talking about a total of 8 games here. With two of those games being against Nashville and two against St. Louis, teams absolutely no one in Minnesota cares the slightest bit about, you're going to be hard pressed to break even, even if Columbus moves east and the Wild get both Detroit and Chicago, the maximum increase in TV revenues would be measured in the tens of thousands, if even that much.

Edit: To touch on the national TV coverage, a MIN-NSH or MIN-STL game simply isn't going to get national coverage. While MIN-CHI or MIN-DET has a chance, we're talking about 4 additional matchups that could be considered, and only two of those are home games. Finally, I'm fairly certain that the TV contracts themselves are actually paid to the league, and then distributed to the teams, so those dollars wouldn't change meaningfully anyway.

 

[MoreOrr]

So you think that the TV contract for playing against St. Louis, Nashville, and Columbus is worth more than playing against Vancouver/Colorado, Edmonton, and Calgary? I certainly don't believe that for a second. Prove it to me and I still probably don't believe it. The benefit of TV contracts for Chicago games is going to be comparable to those for Winnipeg games. The biggest flaw in the "TV Contracts" argument is that we're talking about a total of 8 games here. With two of those games being against Nashville and two against St. Louis, teams absolutely no one in Minnesota cares the slightest bit about, you're going to be hard pressed to break even, even if Columbus moves east and the Wild get both Detroit and Chicago, the maximum increase in TV revenues would be measured in the tens of thousands, if even that much.

The Blues were once the North Stars biggest rivals. It's hard to believe that Wild fans could care less about the Wild playing the Blues.

I would assume that if Minnesota could design its Division, it would have Chicago, St Louis, Dallas, and yes perhaps Winnipeg in that Division.

 

[KevFu]

So you think that the TV contract for playing against St. Louis, Nashville, and Columbus is worth more than playing against Vancouver/Colorado, Edmonton, and Calgary? I certainly don't believe that for a second. Prove it to me and I still probably don't believe it. The benefit of TV contracts for Chicago games is going to be comparable to those for Winnipeg games. The biggest flaw in the "TV Contracts" argument is that we're talking about a total of 8 games here. With two of those games being against Nashville and two against St. Louis, teams absolutely no one in Minnesota cares the slightest bit about, you're going to be hard pressed to break even, even if Columbus moves east and the Wild get both Detroit and Chicago, the maximum increase in TV revenues would be measured in the tens of thousands, if even that much.

Edit: To touch on the national TV coverage, a MIN-NSH or MIN-STL game simply isn't going to get national coverage. While MIN-CHI or MIN-DET has a chance, we're talking about 4 additional matchups that could be considered, and only two of those are home games. Finally, I'm fairly certain that the TV contracts themselves are actually paid to the league, and then distributed to the teams, so those dollars wouldn't change meaningfully anyway.

Hey, I don't think the word "Canadian" is a factor in the logic that Minnesota prefers to not be the only US team in the division.

I think the real reason is:
at Vancouver, 9 pm CT
at Vancouver, 9 pm CT
at Vancouver, 9 pm CT
at Calgary, 8 pm CT
at Calgary, 8 pm CT
at Calgary, 8 pm CT
at Edmonton, 8 pm CT
at Edmonton, 8 pm CT
at Edmonton, 8 pm CT

They'd get better ratings and more money with more local start times.
If it was "Seattle, Boise and Montana" instead of Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary" they'd still want out of the Northwest.

 

[AllByDesign]

The Blues were once the North Stars biggest rivals. It's hard to believe that Wild fans could care less about the Wild playing the Blues.

I would assume that if Minnesota could design its Division, it would have Chicago, St Louis, Dallas, and yes perhaps Winnipeg in that Division.

It would be a logical division design. I don't feel the NHL is looking for logical as much as they are looking for an easy fix without re-designing the whole set-up.

 

[squidz*]

The Blues were once the North Stars biggest rivals. It's hard to believe that Wild fans could care less about the Wild playing the Blues.

I would assume that if Minnesota could design its Division, it would have Chicago, St Louis, Dallas, and yes perhaps Winnipeg in that Division.

I don't think that many outside of Minnesota really understand the Wild. I mentioned earlier in this thread that they're really not prominent in Minnesota right now. The North Stars are long gone, and the rivalries they had went with them. Sure, you see North Stars jerseys at games, but that's just as much because those fans are so casual they won't buy a current team jersey as it is because of any love for the lost team.

Now, add to that the Blues' performance since the lockout. The extent of Wild fans' concern about playing the Blues extends to posting Youtube videos of that Stoner/Backes fight. Neither team has played a particularly exciting style of hockey over recent years either. Teams that get something of a rise out of Wild fans right now are Dallas, Edmonton, Vancouver (only when @Xcel, no one pays much attention when it's @ Vancouver), and possibly San Jose and Anaheim. Winnipeg will get a ton of attention in the two matchups this year as well.

 

[squidz*]

Hey, I don't think the word "Canadian" is a factor in the logic that Minnesota prefers to not be the only US team in the division.

I think the real reason is:
at Vancouver, 9 pm CT
at Vancouver, 9 pm CT
at Vancouver, 9 pm CT
at Calgary, 8 pm CT
at Calgary, 8 pm CT
at Calgary, 8 pm CT
at Edmonton, 8 pm CT
at Edmonton, 8 pm CT
at Edmonton, 8 pm CT

They'd get better ratings and more money with more local start times.
If it was "Seattle, Boise and Montana" instead of Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary" they'd still want out of the Northwest.

The time zones are a factor, but moving to the central only drops 3 of those from the list. It could be a contributing factor, but if that's the main concern, Leipold must be the world's biggest drama queen. I wish I could find the actual statements from Leipold (as opposed to someone like McKenzie saying "Minnesota doesn't want to be in a Canadian division") to see if he actually referenced being the only American team or if that's fluff from the writers.

 

[squidz*]

It would be a logical division design. I don't feel the NHL is looking for logical as much as they are looking for an easy fix without re-designing the whole set-up.

No, I think that's exactly what the league's looking for. The 4 division setup they propose gets exactly that layout (plus Nashville and Detroit) as well as fixing the Pacific and Southeast in the same way. The problem is that certain individual teams have shied away from that plan.

 

[Crayton]

I don't really expect the NHL to consider it but... dividing the Western conference into 2 divisions is the best solution. The scheduling would be such that 1/3 of Central-Pacific rivalries are played 4 times and 2/3 of Central-Pacific rivalries are played 3 times.

This also gives the smaller, 7-team Central division a few more games against the Eastern Conference (whose schedule would remain as is). And I am sure you could give the lone ETZ team a break with only 3-game series vs. the Pacific Division and a full 22 games vs. the Eastern Conference.

wht did I just tell you why would anyone vote for, much less want to be in a 7 or 8 team division, Crayton, wht's the advantage of a 2 division format even for 1 conference, if you eliminate one entire division, what does that solve, which of the 3 divisions do you lose (NW, Central or Pacific), to accomodate fifteen franchises and you leave the East as a 3 division, tht's why the 4 division option is not gaining support league-wide, it's bad enough if you're a fan of any Western franchise and you have to add in a cross-over just to qualify....

You told me... actually it was Kritter471 who was corresponding with me...

Wht's the advantage of a 2 division format even for 1 conference?

The advantage of 2 divisions in the West is that you could reflect the actual geography of that part of the continent. There would be no more 3 TZ divisions (something you could also accomplish now), but more importantly, this maximizes the number of away games teams play in their region without going to the 4 conference model that Gary Bettman originally proposed.

Away games Vancouver has in the PTZ:
6 currently, 9 with this plan
Away games Phoenix has in the MTZ:
6 currently, 9 with this plan
Away games Minnesota has in the CTZ: (assuming Winnipeg in and Col/Van out)
11 (with WPG), 15 in this plan
Away games Detroit has in the ETZ: (assuming they stay behind in the West)
9 (all alone), 11 in this plan

With 3 division formats you can accomplish only 1 of these, maybe 2. And this is for all 15 teams in the conference (ie. flex schedules work for only some teams). TWO western divisions does the most good for the most of these teams.

Plus, you minimize the number of away games that teams have 2+ time zones away.
Vancouver will play 8 or 9 games in the ETZ, compared to 13 now. They will play 10 games in the CTZ, compared to 14 in a division with Minnesota and Winnipeg.

Also, I said nothing about a cross-over playoff with regards to the even 15-15 conference split.

 

[KevFu]

Here's an example of what I mean when I say that "travel and distance" don't matter in divisional alignments.

We can all agree that Winnipeg playing in the Southeast Division this season is ridiculous travel, because they are 1244 miles from WAS, 1661 miles from CAR, 2025 miles from TB, and 2213 miles from FLA.

According to the ontheforcheck.com Super Schedule, the Winnipeg Jets will log 44,627 miles this season playing in the Southeast Division. That travel schedule ranks 21st of 30 worst. Ninth most miles.

If they were in Atlanta, playing the exact same schedule, their total mileage would be: 43,645.

Moving 1290 miles away cost them 982 more total travel miles.

(And we know they didn't schedule for the Jets to have easy travel, because if there was time for that, there was time to swap them into the Central Division for CBJ, DET or NASH for one year).

The ORDER of the games is more important than the distance to each opponent. And that changes every year.

I can save 934 miles off the Jets travel schedule by swapping the order of TWO dates.

Feb. 9-16, Winnipeg has: at WAS, at PIT, vs NYI, at MIN.
Round trip: 3752 miles.

Swap the MIN and NYI games:
at WAS, at PIT, at MIN, vs NYI
Round trip: 2818 miles.

The order matters more than the locations and distance

 

[LadyStanley]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/pu...717&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Puck Daddy summarizes some of the recent mullifications in the alignment discussion.

 

[drive45]

yes, but with 4 conferences

That's life in the big city.

What this means is that regular season divisional games are almost like playoff games.
It makes regular season games more important. The divisional rivalries will be better in the regular season, and then they will be amped up in the playoffs

I used to be opposed to divisional playoffs, but because of the stuff capt Bob is talking about, I've switched sides.

Only I think it would be better with a 4 conference allignment, such as the one suggested by arterydonor:

Western

Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix
Colorado

Northern

Winnipeg
Minnesota
Chicago
Detroit
Columbus
Pittsburgh
Buffalo
Toronto

Southern

Dallas
St Louis
Nashville
Washington
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Florida

Eastern

Ottawa
Montreal
Boston
New York
New York
New Jersey
Philadelphia

No conference crosses more than two time zones and most rivalries are maintained (some potential new ones created). Phoenix could also easily be moved to Quebec with this approach.

To my knowledge, arterydonor did not suggest a playoff or scedule matrix, but I would go with this:

teams from the 7-team conferences play 6 games against each of their conference rivals and 2 games against everybody else, teams from the 8-team conferences do the same, only they skip 1 out of conf home game and 1 out of conf road game per year

1st 2 rnds of playoffs=conference playoffs, then re-seed the conf champs according to regular season records for the last 2 rnds of playoffs.