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

[hawksfan79]

I don't know, I guess it's difficult for me to be too sympathetic to Detroit's plight because Chicago is just 300 miles to the west along I-94 and we have those same late night games/multiple road trips. As I'm sure has been mentioned multiple times in these realignment threads, the NHL is so Eastern-centric that's there's always going to be teams that have more travel than others.

I'm also not sure I buy Detroit's concession either. I don't know, it seems kind of bush league to me to have one road trip where you play a team twice on the same trip. You don't see that in any other sport, and it's something I'd expect to see if I was trying to create a schedule in a sim game or something. Unless you split the league north/south instead of east/west, you're always going to have the eastern teams with travel advantages, there's no way around it. Usually, the better team ends up winning anyway.

 

[GKJ]

It's a concession if the League has to give special attention to designing a special schedule format specifically for one team. And again, I think it's a good idea, to a point, but not if the concession involves multiple elements, and elements that most other teams in somewhat similar alignment situations won't get the same concessions for.

Every team in the league makes specific requests to the schedule. This wouldn't be much different.

 

[Kritter471]

I still don't get why Detroit has more of an issue than Columbus, which is also Eastern time zone and is geographically further east.

And Detroit still has more games in its time zone within its division than some other western conference teams. I am not all that sympathetic when nearly 20 percent of the Stars schedule starts in the 9 p.m./9:30 p.m. range local time.

And since we're talking about it, here's how the league currently breaks down in terms of time zone:
Eastern: 16 (all of the EC teams except Winnipeg plus Detroit and Columbus)
Central : 6 (Dallas, Chicago, Nashville, St. Louis, Minnesota, Winnipeg)
Mountain: 3.5 (Calgary, Edmonton, Colorado, Phoenix when daylight savings time is not in effect)
Pacific: 4.5 (Vancouver, Anaheim, LA, San Jose, Phoenix when daylight savings time is in effect)

 

[Rutabaga]

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.

Ok, thanks for the answer.
It really seems like an interesting battle between the franchises, the league, the TV contracts...

As i see it, Detroit cant move from the Western Conference. You need a balance between the conferences, and economically, some teams (Basically, the Pacific plus NSH/CBJ and possibly STL) rely on the presence of Chicago and Detroit in their Conference to have a nice boost in the attendance, and also with their fans.

The overall gain with the potential presence of Detroit in the EC is not enough to be worth it. You already have 4O6 teams there, and a lot of well established franchises, who dont need Detroit as much as others do in the West. They may not like it, but you cant satisfy each franchise...i think that one of Minnesota or Dallas will also be disappointed after the realignement, i cant see how they can fix both requests at the same time without creating other problems elsewhere.


I've read several teams some tries with a 4 division setup, and thats maybe my european touch talking, but considering how close the competition is, i cant find that idea attractive.

Playing in a division with 7 teams rather than 8 will obviously be an advantage, and even if the teams in an 8-team division can benefit from an incentive or an improved schedule, the competitive result, the product on the ice is still what matters the most.

Having a division champion as the 3rd seed even if he is actually the 6th or 7th best record after the regular season is one thing, but seeing each year good teams kicked out of playoffs just because they werent lucky with their division, i dont like it.

 

[LadyStanley]

wyshynski 2:22pm via twitterfeed New Puck Daddy: Extreme realignment scenarios for the National Hockey League yhoo.it/qVkohY

 

[RammsteinGT]

Just throwing in my idea to preserve the 6-division format. I'm sure it's been done already...

NW
WPG, EDM, CGY, MIN, COL

C
DAL, CHI, CLB, STL, DET

P
VAN, SJ, ANA, LA, PHX

SE
NSH, WSH, CAR, TBL, FLA

NE
TOR, OTT, MTL, BUF, BOS

ATL
NYR, NYI, NJD, PIT, PHI

Detroit or Columbus could be swapped with Nashville in the southeast, but this setup preserves most geographic rivalries and assists with having teams play in the same timezone as their hometown's as often as possible (I think?).

That said, things get tough if PHX moves east next year which leads me to believe the NHL will "wait it out" and simply swap WPG and DET as a band-aid solution for now.

 

[Scottrocks58*]

Bettman this afternoon on the radio "We are not focusing on realignment." Anyone have a clue what's going on? is this just misdirection or did the NHL decide better to bag it for another season?

 

[Kritter471]

Detroit or Columbus could be swapped with Nashville in the southeast, but this setup preserves most geographic rivalries and assists with having teams play in the same timezone as their hometown's as often as possible (I think?).

That said, things get tough if PHX moves east next year which leads me to believe the NHL will "wait it out" and simply swap WPG and DET as a band-aid solution for now.

Nashville is in the Central time zone. I would move Columbus (and then Detroit) over them for that reason alone.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I still don't get why Detroit has more of an issue than Columbus, which is also Eastern time zone and is geographically further east.

And Detroit still has more games in its time zone within its division than some other western conference teams. I am not all that sympathetic when nearly 20 percent of the Stars schedule starts in the 9 p.m./9:30 p.m. range local time.

And since we're talking about it, here's how the league currently breaks down in terms of time zone:
Eastern: 16 (all of the EC teams except Winnipeg plus Detroit and Columbus)
Central : 6 (Dallas, Chicago, Nashville, St. Louis, Minnesota, Winnipeg)
Mountain: 3.5 (Calgary, Edmonton, Colorado, Phoenix when daylight savings time is not in effect)
Pacific: 4.5 (Vancouver, Anaheim, LA, San Jose, Phoenix when daylight savings time is in effect)

Columbus doesn't have the seniority that Illitch and the Wings have, the ? IS will they allow Dallas to fix their issue of the 9pm CST start time....

 

[No Fun Shogun]

When Quebec City re-enters the League, and it eventually will happen, the realignment should be something like this:

Quebec City, Montreal, Boston, Islanders, Rangers, New Jersey

Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago

Or something similar.

If you could somehow squeeze St. Louis into there, that would pretty much be my ideal division.

Granted, will never, ever happen, but still.... guy can dream.

Actually... you know what? Screw it. Let's make it happen.

NORTHEAST - 8 teams
Boston Bruins
Montreal Canadiens
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitals

CENTRAL - 8 teams
Buffalo Sabres
Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
Detroit Red Wings
Minnesota Wild
Ottawa Senators
St. Louis Blues
Toronto Maple Leafs

SOUTH - 7 teams
Carolina Hurricanes
Colorado Avalanche
Dallas Stars
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
Phoenix Coyotes
Tampa Bay Lightning

WEST - 7 teams
Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
San Jose Sharks
Vancouver Canucks
Winnipeg Jets

.... give me some time to think about this one....

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Or, semi-related, maybe...

NORTH - 8 teams
Buffalo Sabres
Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
Detroit Red Wings
Minnesota Wild
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs
Winnipeg Jets

EAST - 7 teams
Boston Bruins
Montreal Canadiens
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins

SOUTH - 7 teams
Carolina Hurricanes
Dallas Stars
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Tampa Bay Lightning
Washington Capitals

WEST - 8 teams
Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames
Colorado Avalanche
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Phoenix Coyotes
Vancouver Canucks

How's that for extreme realignment?

.... methinks not very probable, though....

 

[Crayton]

Hmm. Expanding for verification and clarification...

Each Eastern team plays 18 games against each Western team, for a total of 15*18, or 270 total East/West matchups.

Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary:
42 games (6 games against 7 in-division)
21 games (3 games vs. 7-team Central)
15 games (1 game vs. every Eastern team)
4 games - 4th game vs. Winnipeg, 2nd game vs. Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto

18 games against East x 3 teams, total 54 games. subtotal 54 games

San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix, Colorado
42 games (6 games against 7 in-division)
21 games (3 games vs. 7-team Central)
15 games (1 game vs. every Eastern team)
3* games (4th game vs. select [American] Central teams)
1* games (2nd game vs. select Eastern teams)

16 games against East x 5 teams, total 80 games, subtotal 134 games

St. Louis, Chicago, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville
36 games (6 games against 6 in-division)
24 games (3 games vs. 8-team Pacific)
15 games (1 game vs. every Eastern team)
3* games (4th game vs. select [American] Pacific teams)
4* games (2nd game vs. select Eastern teams)

19 games against East x 5 teams, total 95 games, subtotal 229 games

Winnipeg:
36 games (6 games against 6 in-division)
24 games (3 games vs. 8-team Pacific)
15 games (1 game vs. every Eastern team)
3 games - 4th game vs. Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton
4* games (2nd game vs. select Eastern teams)

19 games against East, total 19 games, subtotal 248 games

Detroit:
36 games (6 games against 6 in-division)
24 games (3 games vs. 8-team Pacific)
15 games (1 game vs. every Eastern team)
7 games (2nd game vs. select Eastern Teams)

22 games against East, total 22 games, grand total 270 games.

Although I cannot say that I am a fan of having one team in the Western Conference play 22 total games out-of-conference, I think I like this a bit better.

Regarding Canadian games:
VAN vs EDM x 6
VAN vs CGY x 6
CGY vs EDM x 6
WPG vs CGY, VAN, EDM x 4 (total 12)
VAN, EDM, CGY vs MTL, OTT, TOR x 2 (total 18)
WPG vs TOR, OTT, MTL (total 3)
MTL vs OTT x 6
MTL vs TOR x 6
TOR vs OTT x 6

Truthfully, this fixes a lot. Detroit could be upset that they have to go into the MTZ/PTZ for about 12 games, instead of the eight I have in my proposal. The rest of the Eastern Conference is hardly touched, only than to have Columbus take Winnipeg's spot. Not sure if the Southeast would mind having Columbus, but then again, with Columbus playing Pittsburgh x 4 and Philadelphia x 4 (thanks Paul Holmgren), it does spice things up a bit.

Detroit currently plays 16 games vs. the far-western teams. Dropping that to 12 is an improvement. And although dropping that to 8 in a full-split Western Conference would be better, I would wager most would consider playing 7 or 8 games within your division that has 7 or 8 teams to be overkill.

Apparently there has been talk of giving Detroit a concession by staying in the West. Dropping 2 PTZ and 2 MTZ away games, and adding 2 ETZ (and 2 CTZ) away games is a decent compromise presented here compared to keeping the current scheduling format.

I like the fact that there's "flexibility" being considered here (and I think so will KevFu), in that it appears that they're considering a schedule change specifically for those ETZ teams that are stuck in the West, and not necessarily a change that would effect all teams. It would be an odd thing to work out, but there should be a way to do it.

 

[knorthern knight]

I don't know, I guess it's difficult for me to be too sympathetic to Detroit's plight because Chicago is just 300 miles to the west along I-94 and we have those same late night games/multiple road trips.

Wrong. It's about TV start times for road games. Chicago is Central time whilst Detroit is Eastern. A 7:00PM game in Van/SJ/LA/Ana comes onto Detroit TV screens at 10 PM, but onto Chicago TV screens at 9:00 PM.

I'm also not sure I buy Detroit's concession either. I don't know, it seems kind of bush league to me to have one road trip where you play a team twice on the same trip. You don't see that in any other sport, and it's something I'd expect to see if I was trying to create a schedule in a sim game or something.

??? Ever heard of baseball? Heck, they even have double headers. Given the gruelling physicality, a twi-night double header ain't gonna happen in hockey. But 2 games in 2 days is easily possible.

 

[hawksfan79]

Wrong. It's about TV start times for road games. Chicago is Central time whilst Detroit is Eastern. A 7:00PM game in Van/SJ/LA/Ana comes onto Detroit TV screens at 10 PM, but onto Chicago TV screens at 9:00 PM.

??? Ever heard of baseball? Heck, they even have double headers. Given the gruelling physicality, a twi-night double header ain't gonna happen in hockey. But 2 games in 2 days is easily possible.

Eh, one hour, honestly when you get that late at night, I don't feel it really matters that much for most of the working world, whether the game ends at midnight or 1, it's still late.

Also, I don't think you can compare baseball to any of the other sports because baseball is 162 games and plays games in series. I think the valid comparable is basketball and you never see that in basketball.

 

[knorthern knight]

Eh, one hour, honestly when you get that late at night, I don't feel it really matters that much for most of the working world, whether the game ends at midnight or 1, it's still late.

It's a difference. If nothing else, viewers might go 1 hour longer before giving up if their home team is losing.

Also, I don't think you can compare baseball to any of the other sports because baseball is 162 games and plays games in series. I think the valid comparable is basketball and you never see that in basketball.

That boils down to "this is the way we've always done it". Given rising fuel costs and the economy, every little bit helps. The economy hasn't been this bad since the depression. Given the choice of 2-game homestands against the same team, versus contraction, which would you prefer?

 

[knorthern knight]

With all this wild-eyed talk of expansion justifying 6 divisions, I figure that contraction justifies 4, or maybe 5 divisions. I expect Phoenix, Miami, and the Islanders to disappear, with Quebec being the only relocation target. Here's a 4-division setup...

• WESTERN (4 PTZ and 3 MTZ teams)
  • Anaheim
  • Calgary
  • Colorado
  • Edmonton
  • Los Angeles
  • San Jose
  • Vancouver
• CENTRAL (6 CTZ and 1 ETZ teams)
  • Chicago
  • Dallas
  • Detroit
  • Minnesota
  • Nashville
  • St Louis
  • Winnipeg
• GREAT LAKES (7 ETZ teams)
  • Boston
  • Buffalo
  • Columbus
  • Montreal
  • Ottawa
  • Quebec
  • Toronto
• ATLANTIC (7 ETZ teams)
  • Carolina
  • Philadelphia
  • Pittsburgh
  • New Jersey
  • NY Rangers
  • Tampa Bay
  • Washington

You can even get away with 5...

• WESTERN (4 PTZ and 2 MTZ teams)
  • Anaheim
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Los Angeles
  • San Jose
  • Vancouver
• CENTRAL (1 MTZ and 5 CTZ teams)
  • Chicago
  • Colorado
  • Dallas
  • Minnesota
  • St Louis
  • Winnipeg
• SPARE PARTS (1 CTZ and 4 ETZ teams)
  • Buffalo
  • Columbus
  • Detroit
  • Nashville
  • Pittsburgh
• GREAT LAKES (5 ETZ teams)
  • Boston
  • Montreal
  • Ottawa
  • Quebec
  • Toronto
• ATLANTIC (6 ETZ teams)
  • Carolina
  • Philadelphia
  • New Jersey
  • NY Rangers
  • Tampa Bay
  • Washington

 

[Street Hawk]

Ok, thanks for the answer.
It really seems like an interesting battle between the franchises, the league, the TV contracts...

As i see it, Detroit cant move from the Western Conference. You need a balance between the conferences, and economically, some teams (Basically, the Pacific plus NSH/CBJ and possibly STL) rely on the presence of Chicago and Detroit in their Conference to have a nice boost in the attendance, and also with their fans.

The overall gain with the potential presence of Detroit in the EC is not enough to be worth it. You already have 4O6 teams there, and a lot of well established franchises, who dont need Detroit as much as others do in the West. They may not like it, but you cant satisfy each franchise...i think that one of Minnesota or Dallas will also be disappointed after the realignement, i cant see how they can fix both requests at the same time without creating other problems elsewhere.


I've read several teams some tries with a 4 division setup, and thats maybe my european touch talking, but considering how close the competition is, i cant find that idea attractive.

Playing in a division with 7 teams rather than 8 will obviously be an advantage, and even if the teams in an 8-team division can benefit from an incentive or an improved schedule, the competitive result, the product on the ice is still what matters the most.

Having a division champion as the 3rd seed even if he is actually the 6th or 7th best record after the regular season is one thing, but seeing each year good teams kicked out of playoffs just because they werent lucky with their division, i dont like it.

No realignment is going to be perfect. You have 4 PST teams, 4 MST teams, 6 CST, therefore at least 1 EST team must play in the west.

I would favor a 4 division setup.

Van/Edm/Cal/SJ/LA/Ana/Col/Phx and Dal/StL/Win/Min/Chi/Nas/Cbs in the West. They obviously need to figure out how to set that up. 4 games each against the 14 in your conf gets you to 56 games, leaving 26 left for the East. Home and home with 11/15 from the other Conf.

I would assume that they would keep the conf play and not go back to divisonal playoffs.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

With all this wild-eyed talk of expansion justifying 6 divisions, I figure that contraction justifies 4, or maybe 5 divisions. I expect Phoenix, Miami, and the Islanders to disappear, with Quebec being the only relocation target. Here's a 4-division setup...

Sorry to sound brash, but you have to be absolutely nuts if you honestly think that contraction's going to happen any time soon, especially when you remember that league profits are going up and the sport's popularity is increasing in the U.S.

Heck, I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that the NHL is far closer to expanding to 32 than it is to contracting to 28 regardless of how much fans may be against it.

 

[Grudy0]

It makes perfect sense if one of the desired goals is the elimination of divisions that span three time zones. Of course we don't actually know if this is one of the league's goals at this time.

All I can state is that the original alignment proposal from Bettman and the League office appears to have aligned by timezone and keep the first round of playoffs within a one-hour increment.

No realignment is going to be perfect. You have 4 PST teams, 4 MST teams, 6 CST, therefore at least 1 EST team must play in the west.

I would favor a 4 division setup.

It is one of the few reasons why I like a four-division setup, but then again I now like the five-division setup where I aligned the West into two divisions while keeping the East as-is with Columbus in the Southeast and where Crayton revised the West's schedule matrix.

 

[squidz*]

Sorry, that's all I can come up with.

You argue semantics, but can't begin to back it up...


The NHL is set up like any generic corporation. The CEO (Bettman) represents the actual administration, which is the company (league). The Board of Governors is the Board of Governors. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. What Bettman and his subordinates say or do is the league. The BoG is a wholly separate entity with a wholly different role.

 

[squidz*]

It is one of the few reasons why I like a four-division setup, but then again I now like the five-division setup where I aligned the West into two divisions while keeping the East as-is with Columbus in the Southeast and where Crayton revised the West's schedule matrix.

The biggest problem with the 5 division alignment is that it appears so extreme. I know that it's actually relatively simple, but people tend to be so anti-change that I don't know if it could ever have a chance.

 

[MoreOrr]

You argue semantics, but can't begin to back it up...


The NHL is set up like any generic corporation. The CEO (Bettman) represents the actual administration, which is the company (league). The Board of Governors is the Board of Governors. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. What Bettman and his subordinates say or do is the league. The BoG is a wholly separate entity with a wholly different role.

Bettman doesn't make the decisions of the League. He's part of the decision process, and he's the frontman for the final decisions that are made. I'm only talking here about "decision-related" aspects of his job, because ultimately there are other aspects.

He came up of a group of proposals, regarding alignment and scheduling. We don't know if he initiated that or if it was League decision (primarily the BOG with Bettman involved) to draft a proposal. Anyway, he presented that proposal, and now we hear that it appears the League isn't really onboard at least with the 4-Division part of the package. Can Bettman force them to impliment it? NO! So therefore, your statement that "Bettman is the League" is simply wrong! The League is not a dictatorship controlled by Bettman.

 

[Cynicaps]

Why nobody sees this idea as being viable amazes me:

Northeast: BOS, BUF, TOR, OTT, MTL, FLA, TB
Atlantic: NYR, NYI, NJ, PHI, PIT, CBJ, WSH, CAR
Central: DET, CHI, STL, MIN, NSH, WPG, DAL
Pacific: COL, PHX, CGY, EDM, VAN, SJ, LA, ANA

Upsides: Most existing rivalries maintained (and WSH gets reunited with its ex-Patrick Division foes), CBJ/DAL/MIN get into more geographically appropriate settings, VAN gets more in-timezone games while keeping EDM/CGY in the same division.

Downsides: DET will object given that they're still "west" and the Florida teams in with the Northeast 5 is a little awkward but there is no other real place for them to go less breaking them up. If breaking FLA/TB is a viable option, I propose WAS/FLA in the Atlantic and CAR/TB in the Northeast.

 

[MoreOrr]

Why nobody sees this idea as being viable amazes me:

Northeast: BOS, BUF, TOR, OTT, MTL, FLA, TB
Atlantic: NYR, NYI, NJ, PHI, PIT, CBJ, WSH, CAR
Central: DET, CHI, STL, MIN, NSH, WPG, DAL
Pacific: COL, PHX, CGY, EDM, VAN, SJ, LA, ANA

Upsides: Most existing rivalries maintained (and WSH gets reunited with its ex-Patrick Division foes), CBJ/DAL/MIN get into more geographically appropriate settings, VAN gets more in-timezone games while keeping EDM/CGY in the same division.

Downsides: DET will object given that they're still "west" and the Florida teams in with the Northeast 5 is a little awkward but there is no other real place for them to go less breaking them up. If breaking FLA/TB is a viable option, I propose WAS/FLA in the Atlantic and CAR/TB in the Northeast.

If an alignment such as that is reasonable, then almost any alignment is reasonable.

I mean seriously... The Canadian and Florida teams in the same Division. Talk about bending over backwards to "not separate the two Division groupings in the northeast". That alignment is pure nonsense, other than your decision that Columbus should be the team put in the East.

And how about stopping for a moment to think about why the League is apparently shying away from the 4-Division idea. Could at least a tiny part of it be that an alignment such as you're suggesting is also seen as ridiculous by the League? Or could it be that no one other than you thought of it? Which do you think is the case?

 

[Grudy0]

If an alignment such as that is reasonable, then almost any alignment is reasonable.

I mean seriously... The Canadian and Florida teams in the same Division. Talk about bending over backwards to "not separate the two Division groupings in the northeast". That alignment is pure nonsense, other than your decision that Columbus should be the team put in the East.

And how about stopping for a moment to think about why the League is apparently shying away from the 4-Division idea. Could at least a tiny part of it be that an alignment such as you're suggesting is also seen as ridiculous by the League? Or could it be that no one other than you thought of it? Which do you think is the case?

I think the reasoning the BoG doesn't like the idea of four divisions is the way the scheduling matrix was presented with it. I think "the 10", or maybe the entire Eastern Conference is quite happy with the current format, where they play their divisional rivals six times and the rest of the conference four times. Moving to four divisions jeopardizes that format.

Why "fix" what ain't broke? What is broken is the West, and maybe it is time to do something a bit more radical out West.