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

Status
Not open for further replies.

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Went with a split of NYC team since no other major sport until the Nets move the Brooklyn puts two NYC teams in the same division.

This is probably definitely the biggest non-starter in this whole thread.

There is no way in hell the League splits up the Rangers & Isles (& Devils).

The only reason the Mets/Yankees and Jets/Giants are split is history - The AL and NL were separate leagues and the AFC/NFC split is a legacy of the AFL & NFL as separate leagues.
 

wildthing202

Registered User
May 29, 2006
971
39
This is probably definitely the biggest non-starter in this whole thread.

There is no way in hell the League splits up the Rangers & Isles (& Devils).

The only reason the Mets/Yankees and Jets/Giants are split is history - The AL and NL were separate leagues and the AFC/NFC split is a legacy of the AFL & NFL as separate leagues.

I don't see why they can't split them up. It would probably help the league to have the NYC teams play more games outside the market rather than spending it inside. Why limit NYC's chances for rivalries, with this format every team in the East would have a chance of developing a rivalry with a NYC team not just the 4/5 teams that get clumped in with the NY metro teams which would most likely be Philly and the SE division.
At least this way you get to have a NY-Bos and a NY-Phil rivalry and most of the rivalries of all the other sports aside from NY-Dallas.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
I don't see why they can't split them up. It would probably help the league to have the NYC teams play more games outside the market rather than spending it inside. Why limit NYC's chances for rivalries, with this format every team in the East would have a chance of developing a rivalry with a NYC team not just the 4/5 teams that get clumped in with the NY metro teams which would most likely be Philly and the SE division.
At least this way you get to have a NY-Bos and a NY-Phil rivalry and most of the rivalries of all the other sports aside from NY-Dallas.

I think you can split them up, but you need to have a scheduling format that compensates for the separation:

NORTHEAST
Ottawa (6 games against Toronto, 4 games against Rangers)
Montreal
Boston
NY Islanders
NY Rangers (6 games against Ottawa, 4 games against New Jersey)

EAST CENTRAL
Toronto (6 games against Ottawa, 4 games against Nashville)
Buffalo
Pittsburgh
Carolina
Nashville (6 games against Tampa Bay, 4 games against Toronto)

ATLANTIC
New Jersey (6 games against Rangers, 4 games against Tampa Bay)
Philadelphia
Washington
Florida
Tampa Bay (6 games against Nashville, 4 games against New Jersey)

But with Flex-Divisions, at least in the East, a few teams could potentially be rotated around and still be workable.

Understanding also that each team would get 4 or 5 teams that they would play against 4 times in a Season, in the case of New Jersey and Tampa, both are just one of those 4/5 teams.
 

Walnut

Registered User
Jun 20, 2007
710
0
Basingstoke, UK
With the time zone differentials currently favouring the teams in the east maybe it's time for the NHL to think slightly differently about North American geography

So I'd propose the following
Canadian - Van, Edm, Cgy, Wpg, Ott, Tor, Mtl & (room for an expansion side, with the NHL seemingly wanting to move to 4 divisions it makes expansion to 32 feel more inevitable)
Northern - Min, Det, Buf, Bos, NYI, NYR, NJ & (Seattle or Portland expansion team when ready to accommodate).
Central - SJ, Col, Chi, Stl, Clb, Pit, Phi & Wsh
Southern - Ana, LA, Phx, Dal, Car, Nsh, Fla & TB
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
With the time zone differentials currently favouring the teams in the east maybe it's time for the NHL to think slightly differently about North American geography

So I'd propose the following
Canadian - Van, Edm, Cgy, Wpg, Ott, Tor, Mtl & (room for an expansion side, with the NHL seemingly wanting to move to 4 divisions it makes expansion to 32 feel more inevitable)
Northern - Min, Det, Buf, Bos, NYI, NYR, NJ & (Seattle or Portland expansion team when ready to accommodate).
Central - SJ, Col, Chi, Stl, Clb, Pit, Phi & Wsh
Southern - Ana, LA, Phx, Dal, Car, Nsh, Fla & TB

Don't have to be so drastic. You can put eastern and western Divisions in both Conferences, keeping the Divisions TZ compact (no more than 2 Time Zones in any Division).
 

46zone

Pass me the soft pretzels
Feb 5, 2007
2,662
730
Philadelphia
Atlantic Division

Carolina Hurricanes
Florida Panthers
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Philadelphia Flyers
Tampa Bay Lightning
Washington Capitals

Great Lakes Division

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Detroit Red Wings
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Pittsburgh Penguins
Toronto Maple Leafs

Midwest Division

Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche
Columbus Blue Jackets
Dallas Stars
Minnesota Wild
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Winnipeg Jets

Pacific Division

Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Phoenix Coyotes
San Jose Sharks
Vancouver Canucks

I guess 8-7-8-7 is only way to do it. It breaks up Detroit-Chicago and Philly-Pittsburgh, but keeps Philly and the NY/NJ teams together and groups Washington back to their original rivals. I also don't think it's possible to get both Columbus and Detroit into the East...it's either one or the other.
 

Bucky Katt

Registered User
Aug 30, 2005
1,444
0
Vancouver
Nevertheless, I'm happy I made you laugh. :sarcasm:

I didn't mean it to be derogatory, this thread gets pulled in all sorts of directions. do understand where you are coming from in terms of how some people overemphasize the importance of rivalries.



Now, the other side of the comparison:
In a 4-Division setup (assuming without flex-Divisions), Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton are all forced to play 6 games against Los Angeles, Anaheim, and Phoenix. To use your argument: Rivalries don't exist between those teams! Why have larger Divisions with even more teams that don't have rivalries, and force 6 games against them all?

And then in the 4-Division Central... Winnipeg without any Canadian rivals, but forced to play 6 times against Dallas, Nashville, St. Louis, and perhaps Columbus. Minnesota forced to play 6 times against Nashville and Columbus (or Detroit which you say has no rivalry with Minnesota). Sure, the Wild gets Chicago and St Louis, no doubt, and that's why Leipold is certainly one owner who wants the 4-Division setup. And then Dallas, happy to be in the Central, but forced to play 6 times against Winnipeg and possibly Columbus.

No matter how the alignment breaks, there are likely to be teams in the same Division which people will say they don't have rivalries with. Or teams that aren't in the same Division but that people say should be.

I agree with all that - but the reason I don't like the fixed flex scheduling is that you then take away some of the opportunities for divisional rivalries to develop by reducing the number of games played. If you are in a four division format, and you play each time twice, any flex games are going to be taken from divisional games. Do VAN/PHX or WIN/DAL have a rivalry? No, but teams don't have rivalries with all the teams in a 5 team division.

I could see a scenario where there were a few extra games or flex games that could be played with other teams within the conference if the league decides to keep two conferences (which it appears it wants). If there were to be 14 Western Conference teams and 16 Eastern Conference teams you could see something similar to:

East
vs West 14*2=28
vs other division 8*2=16
vs division 7*5=35
flex games 3

West
vs East 16*2=32
vs other division 7*2=14
vs division 6*5=30
flex games 6

I think that is quite reasonable. The number of games is so small that it is insignificant to scheduling integrity yet it is enough of a difference to allow some broken up rivalries to get an extra game or two in each year.
 

RandR

Registered User
May 15, 2011
1,901
411
I found a story from yesterday from the Columbus Dispatch talking about Columbus GM Scott Howson:

Blue Jackets: Realignment has its rewards

Howson is working on a proposal to present to the league's board of governors this fall.

"I'm in favor of anything that puts us in the East," Howson said.
I would assume that this would be one of at least a few proposals to be put forward to the BoG, each providing somewhat different details within the parameters (4 divisions, more interconference play, etc.) of the proposal Bettman presented to the board in June.

I wonder about a couple of things...

Is potentially every team going to submit their own proposal (I would assume not) or is the league expecting only a handful of teams to submit proposals (for example, from teams like Detroit and Columbus who want to change conference or have some other major grievance)?

The Dispatch article mentions "this fall" when supposedly the realignment vote was going to take place in December. I wonder if what happens this fall is that the governors will debate and then trim down all the proposals to a (very) short list for teams to study and ultimately vote on in December.
 

piratessabres08

Registered User
Jun 2, 2008
134
0
Buffalo/Detroit
My realignment idea is kinda long but bear with me.
The rumor from last month was that baseball was going to scrap divisions and just go with two conferences (leagues) so I wanted to play off of that.
Here are the baseball equivalents, as close as I could get. I listed the Diamondbacks as being in the AL west because they are one of 3 teams rumored to switch.
Advantages: balances travel so that there are east and west teams in each conference.
NBC's teams ie; major TV markets, winter classic prefered teams are split up evenly.
Other stats are balanced evenly: see chart below.
Disadvantages: Almost all the big rivalries are split up, however based on a flex scheduling, each team could have 1 or 2 preferred "interleague" opponents which wouldn't totally erase the rivalries.

AHC|American League|National League|NHC
Rangers|New York Yanks|New York Mets|Islanders|
Bruins|Boston|Philadelphia|Flyers|
Maple Leafs|Toronto|Atlanta|WPG Jets|
Lightning|Tampa Bay|Florida|Panthers|
CAR Hurricanes|Baltimore|Washington|Capitals|
Red Wings|Detroit|Pittsburgh|Penguins|
Wild|Minnesota|Milwaukee|NSH Predators|
Blue Jackets|Cleveland|Cincinnati|MTL Canadiens|
BUF Sabres|Chicago Whitesox|Chicago Cubs|Blackhawks|
NJ Devils|Kansas City|St. Louis|Blues|
Stars|Dallas|Houston|EDM Oilers|
Ducks|Anaheim|Los Angeles|Kings|
VAN Canucks|Seattle|San Diego|OTT Senators|
CGY Flames|Oakland|San Francisco|Sharks|
Coyotes|Phoenix|Colorado|Avalanche|

CAR=Close to Baltimore
BUF= Patrick Kane, Great Lakes
NJ=Former KC Scouts
VAN=Close to Seattle
CGY=???
WPG=Former ATL Thrashers
NSH=Milwaukee AHL
MTL=Cincinnati ECHL
EDM=Houston Oilers
OTT=???

Although I prefer no divisions, if you wanted to split them into divisions, it still could work. Each team is listed as across from one of it's "interleague" opponents.
Division|AHC|NHC
East|Boston|Montreal|
|NY Rangers|NY Islanders|
|New Jersey|Philadelphia|
|Toronto|Ottawa|
|Buffalo|Pittsburgh|
Central|Detroit|Chicago|
|Columbus|Nashville|
|Minnesota|St Louis|
|Tampa Bay|Florida|
|Carolina|Washington|
West|Anaheim|Los Angeles|
|Dallas|Colorado or SJ|
|Phoenix|San Jose or COL|
|Vancouver|Winnipeg or EDM|
|Calgary|Edmonton or WIN|

Splits
Category|#|AHC Teams|#|NHC Teams
Timezones||||
East|9||7||
Central|2|MIN/DAL|4|WIN/CHI/STL/NSH|
Mountain|2|PHX/CGY|2|EDM/COL|
Pacific|2|ANA/VAN|2|LA/SJ|
NBC/Winter Classic|4|BUF/BOS/NYR/DET|4|PHI/PIT/WAS/CHI|
Divisions|||||
Atlantic|2|NJ/NYR|3|PHI/PIT/NYI|
Northeast|3|BOS/BUF/TOR|2|MTL/OTT|
Southeast|2|TB/CAR|3|FLA/WAS/WIN|
Central|2|DET/CLB|3|CHI/NSH/STL|
Northwest|3|MIN/VAN/CGY|2|EDM/COL|
Pacific|3|DAL/ANA/PHX|2|SJ/ANA|
East|7||8||
West|8||7||
Original 6|4|NYR/BOS/DET/TOR|2|CHI/MON|
Canadian|3|TOR/VAN/CGY/(BUF)|4|WIN/MTL/OTT/EDM|
Stanley Cups|10|NYR/BOS/CAR/TB/TOR/DET/NJ/DAL/ANA/CGY|7|NYI/PHI/MTL/PIT/CHI/COL/EDM|
Dynasties*|2|DET/NJ|3|EDM/MTL/NYI|
90s Teams|7|TB/CAR/CLB/MIN/DAL/ANA/PHX|6|FLA/WIN/NSH/COL/SJ/OTT|
*subjective

Still working out a better scheduling system but with flex scheduling, it could look like this
Buffalo's schedule
Division (24)
TOR (3,3)
BOS (3,3)
NYR (3,3)
NJD (3,3)
Conference (30)
DET (2,2)
CLB (2,2)
MIN (2,2)
TBL (2,2)
CAR (2,2)
ANA (1,1)
DAL (1,1)
PHX (1,1)
VAN (1,1)
CGY (1,1)
Interleague (28)
OTT (3,3)*
MON (3,3)*
PIT (1,1)
PHI (1,1)
NYI (1,1)
CHI (1,0)^
STL (1,0)^
NAS (0,1)^
FLA (0,1)^
WAS (0,1)^
LA (0,1)^
SJ (0,1)^
COL (1,0)^
EDM (1,0)^
WIN (1,0)^

*Could schedule between 2 and 6 games vs preferred opponents, which could allow for shifting a few more games to other non-conference teams ie; WAS, FLA, etc.
^ would rotate each year from home to away
 
Last edited:

piratessabres08

Registered User
Jun 2, 2008
134
0
Buffalo/Detroit
Here is my map, if divisions were to be used, as opposed to just two big conferences.

It's kinda busy, but you get the general idea.
attachment.php
 
Last edited:

RandR

Registered User
May 15, 2011
1,901
411
Here is my map, if divisions were to be used, as opposed to just two big conferences.

It's kinda busy, but you get the general idea.
attachment.php
Interesting idea for discussion sake, but the NHL doesn't have a history of 2 leagues coming together the way that football and baseball do. So it would be a non-starter to split up longstanding divisional rivals into rival conferences/leagues such as the way you have with the Rangers/Islanders, Kings/Ducks, Oilers/Flames, etc.

If anything, it would make more sense for MLB to go the way of the NHL or NBA and have 2 geographic-based conferences with rival teams from the same city or state in the same divisions as each other. Of course, that would be a non-starter too due to the ties between NL or AL teams that sometimes go back a hundred years.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
I agree with all that - but the reason I don't like the fixed flex scheduling is that you then take away some of the opportunities for divisional rivalries to develop by reducing the number of games played. If you are in a four division format, and you play each time twice, any flex games are going to be taken from divisional games. Do VAN/PHX or WIN/DAL have a rivalry? No, but teams don't have rivalries with all the teams in a 5 team division.

The idea is to have a mix of both. So again, to demonstrate with a Flex-Pacific Division:
PACIFIC
Vancouver (4 games against Phoenix, 6 games against either Calgary)
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix (4 games against Vancouver, 6 games against Dallas)

It could easily be said that Vancouver doesn't have a rivalry with any of those teams, and to "flex-out" Phoenix still leaves the 3 California teams, while flexing-in Calgary allows for PTZ Vancouver to maintain a rivalry schedule with at least the one Alberta team. While on the other hand, still keeping 4 games against Phoenix and most certainly also Edmonton, plus 2 other teams (in an 82-game Season), one likely being Winnipeg.
The same could be said for Phoenix; even though they're currently in the Division with the California teams, a rivalry still really hasn't developed there, primarily due to the Coyotes short time of having a truly competitive team.
So there is still room for rival development there, even with the Flex-Division.

I think the same can be said, to varying degrees, for most of the other Flex-Divisions that I proposed.

I could see a scenario where there were a few extra games or flex games that could be played with other teams within the conference if the league decides to keep two conferences (which it appears it wants). If there were to be 14 Western Conference teams and 16 Eastern Conference teams you could see something similar to:

East
vs West 14*2=28
vs other division 8*2=16
vs division 7*5=35
flex games 3

West
vs East 16*2=32
vs other division 7*2=14
vs division 6*5=30
flex games 6

I think that is quite reasonable. The number of games is so small that it is insignificant to scheduling integrity yet it is enough of a difference to allow some broken up rivalries to get an extra game or two in each year.

There would almost certainly be that, but with 7 and 8 team Divisions there's not a whole lot of reason for it for one thing, since there is much more likely a lot of teams in any Division that will likely never develop rivalries (too many Divisional opponents) and few cases where a team outside the Division is a rival with a team inside the Division. But more problematic is the number of "flex-games" because either the Conferences are unbalanced or it's just the Divisions that are unbalanced and as such there are different numbers of flex-games depending on the size of the Division a team is in.
 
Last edited:

CBCnutcase

Registered User
Sep 11, 2007
1,849
1
Why's that? If you're going to [disagree with] someone's opinion, at least [mod del] back it up with your own take on things.

I like the divisional format because it helps build and foster rivalries. Your divisional opponents represent the teams you play the most during the regular season, and more often than not, the teams that are geographically closer to you. Those are typically key components in a rivalry. Conference opponents are only played a fraction of the times division opponents are, and geography at that point is a non-issue. Opening up with at least one round of divisional play in the playoffs is better than taking two teams separated by a thousand miles and little hisotrical friction between one another, isn't very riveting.

Would rather see Toronto-Boston, Toronto-Montreal, Toronto-Buffalo....than Toronto-Carolina, Toronto-Tampa Bay, Toronto-New Jersey. Most people who aren't a fan of divisional playoffs, probably don't even REMEMBER them. Read that again. I said MOST.
Did you read my post below it? It was post 90 and did explain why I think the conference playoff setup is the best. Similar to what you have said, if you're going to slam a poster's opinion, then read all the posts especially when all are on the same page before you start venting out of control.

The conference format also builds and fosters rivalries. Conference opponents play each other 4 times a season instead of 6 against a div rival. The totals are close and not "a fraction." What you posted about div teams making up a rivalry makes sense but it is teams playing each other in the playoffs is what makes a rivalry regardless if they are in the same div or not. Playoffs between teams far apart can be exciting, Chi-Van and Dal-Edm are two examples where historical friction has grown.

The first 3 matchups you mention with the Leafs would be great but with the div format, the problem is that they can't play each other in the conf. final. A 3rd round matchup between those teams would be awesome. The conf. setup increases the chances of the Leafs, Habs, Bruins, and Sabres playing the Rangers, Penguins or the Capitals in the playoffs. Slim chances having that happen under the div format. Sure, the other matchups you talk about are less flashy but they can grow as some div pairings never live up to expectations in the regular season or playoffs. I have read what you said about most people and remembering the div playoffs so capitalizing words isn't necessary. ;) There are some who really enjoy the div. format and want it back. In my readings and chatting on the net along with sports radio, most like the playoffs the way it is because of the variety of playoff pairings and not knowing who plays who in the 2nd round until the 1st round was completed. The previous way became too much of the same teams playing each other year after year and knowing who would play who in the 2nd round in some ways was less exciting. It was getting tedious.
 

RandR

Registered User
May 15, 2011
1,901
411
I wish people would stop proposing a Canadian Division
If you don't like the idea, at least say why.

Personally, I would love a Canadian division. Even more good HNIC double-headers on Saturday nights, and a Canadian regular-season champion every year. And with 2 rounds of divisional playoffs ... thus every year we would have 3 series of Canadian playoffs with a champion and league semi-finalist. It would be HUGE for TV ratings and bragging rights in Canada.

If the league goes to 4 divisions, then a Canadian division would fit nicely right now, with room to add another team in case Phoenix moved to Quebec City (or Ontario).
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
If you don't like the idea, at least say why.

Travel & Time Zones - as simple as that.

Do you think fans in Ontario or Quebec will like that half of their divisional road games will start at 9/9:30 or 10/10:30 EST, or that fans in Vancouver will like that 2/3's of theirs will start at 4/4:30 or 5/5:30 PST?.

Do you think that the Canucks, Flames, & Oilers, who are typically among the top 5 or 6 in total travel miles, want to make it worse?

I won't get into injecting nationalism into sports where it does not belong.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
Two 4-Division alignment Options

1) With balanced Conferences:
PACIFIC | MIDWEST | | NORTHEAST | SOUTHEAST
Edmonton | Winnipeg | | Montreal | Pittsburgh
Calgary | Minnesota | | Ottawa | Philadelphia
Vancouver | Chicago | | Toronto | Washington
San Jose | Detroit | | Buffalo | Carolina
Los Angeles | Columbus | | Boston | Nashville
Anaheim | St Louis | | NY Islanders | Tampa Bay
Phoenix | Dallas | | NY Rangers | Florida
Colorado | | | New Jersey |

2) With a 14/16 split, both Detroit and Columbus in the East, no anticipated eastern Expansion or Relocation sites:
PACIFIC | MIDWEST | | NORTHEAST | SOUTHEAST
Edmonton | Winnipeg | | Montreal | Columbus
Calgary | Minnesota | | Ottawa | Pittsburgh
Vancouver | Chicago | | Toronto | Philadelphia
San Jose | Nashville | | Buffalo | Washington
Los Angeles | St Louis | | NY Islanders | Carolina
Anaheim | Dallas | | NY Rangers | Tampa Bay
Phoenix | Colorado | | New Jersey | Florida
| | | Boston/Detroit | Detroit/Boston

Detroit and Boston are variables in the 2nd Option.
 
Last edited:

Crayton

Registered User
Feb 18, 2008
681
1
FLORIDA
Here is a proposal that doesn't incorporate the "play everyone twice" mentality, but it does work well with uneven conferences and allows Central teams to play Eastern teams more often while still emphasizing conferences.

6 games against your division
4 against teams in the other divisions
1 game against teams in the other conference

WESTERN CONFERENCE
**Pacific Division**
Anaheim
Calgary
Colorado
Edmonton
Los Angeles
Phoenix
San Jose
Vancouver

**Central Division**
Chicago
Dallas
Minnesota
Nashville
St. Louis
Winnipeg

EASTERN CONFERENCE
**Erie Division**
Detroit
Columbus
Pittsburgh
Buffalo
**Northeast Division**
Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
**Atlantic Division**
Philadelphia
New Jersey
NY Islanders
NY Rangers
**Southeast Division**
Carolina
Florida
Tampa Bay
Washington

Each Central team would have 4 flex games while each Eastern team would have 2 flex games (mostly completing a home-and-home between two Central teams and one of the Eastern divisions).

Because they are torn from their current divisions, Pittsburgh's two flex games would be against Philadelphia while Buffalo's two flex games would be against Toronto, playing a full division complement of 6 games against each other. While all of these flex games could rotate, here is a static option:

DAL+NAS vs. Southeast
WIN+CHI vs. Northeast+DET
STL+MIN vs. Atlantic+CMB

This could easily be made more complex, like Boston and Chicago switching for Minnesota and Columbus, respectively, for annual home-and-homes. At any rate, these are only a few games and the static option for the flex games at least gives most teams in the same Eastern Division an identical schedule.
 

Crayton

Registered User
Feb 18, 2008
681
1
FLORIDA
Oh, and playoffs... (while you could go very well go for the traditional 8-8 format we currently enjoy...)

They would be divisional in the West to save on travel and conference-based in the East. Half of each set of teams (8 Pacific, 6 Central, 16 Eastern) would make the playoffs with a league-wide wild-card being seeded into the centrally-located Central bracket.

Division winners get top seeds (lower opponents), but home-ice goes to the team with a greater record in any given series.

Example from this year:

PACIFIC
1 Vancouver vs. 4 Phoenix
2 San Jose vs. 3 Anaheim
CENTRAL
1 Nashville vs. 4 Dallas
2 Los Angeles vs. 3 Chicago
EASTERN
1 Washington vs. 8 Buffalo
2 Philadelphia vs. 7 Montreal
3 Pittsburgh vs. 6 Tampa Bay
5 Detroit vs. 4 Boston

ROUND 2
Vancouver vs. San Jose
Nashville vs. Chicago
Washington vs. Tampa Bay
Philadelphia vs. Boston

The proposal is not very flexible when it comes to relocation or expansion. But, it is fine-tuned to the current NHL realities. And that is the part I like.

EDIT: To make sure the Central Bracket isn't a perennial downer, you could choose an equitable team from the home bracket where the league-wide wild card came from (ie pick the appropriate team from the Pacific, the home bracket of Los Angeles) to move to the Central Bracket. Division winners will stay in their home brackets and maintain top seeds.

Revised Western First Round (with hypothetical conference seeds):
1 Vancouver vs. 6 Los Angeles
2 Nashville vs. 8 Dallas
3 San Jose vs. 7 Chicago
4 Anaheim vs. 5 Phoenix

EDIT2: I decided this post is mostly needless. An 8-8 split would be sufficient. Maybe a quazi-divisional format we discussed earlier for the West.
 
Last edited:

piratessabres08

Registered User
Jun 2, 2008
134
0
Buffalo/Detroit
I love this idea. Although not strongly in favor of 16/14 this setup works. I like the lake Erie division, the fact that colorado isn't being placed in the central and Chicago still gets to play Detroit at least 5 times. This also is better for tv because all divisions have 1 timezone except pacific. Minnesota and Winnipeg should be able to flex west though not east because their rivalries will be with COL EDM CGY and VAN.
 

RandR

Registered User
May 15, 2011
1,901
411
Travel & Time Zones - as simple as that.

Do you think fans in Ontario or Quebec will like that half of their divisional road games will start at 9/9:30 or 10/10:30 EST, or that fans in Vancouver will like that 2/3's of theirs will start at 4/4:30 or 5/5:30 PST?.

Do you think that the Canucks, Flames, & Oilers, who are typically among the top 5 or 6 in total travel miles, want to make it worse?

I won't get into injecting nationalism into sports where it does not belong.
I would bet that the 7 Canadian teams would all choose to go into an all-Canadian division with 2 rounds of divisional playoffs at the drop of a hat. Actually before the hat even hit the ground. ;)

The Leafs and Canadians are easily a bigger draw in western Canada compared to any western (or any other) American team, regardless of start times both at home and on the road.

And flight connections across Canada are better than most transborder connections. There are multiple daily direct flights between every single pair of Canadian NHL cities on Air Canada alone.

So even though the answer to some of your questions may be a qualified no, those considerations are easily trumped by television ratings, both local and especially on HNIC. The league already schedules plenty of all-Canadian matchups to fill HNIC's doubleheaders each Saturday night; the more the merrier for the CBC.
 

DeathToAllButMetal

Let it all burn.
May 13, 2010
1,361
0
Still think it's crazy to put WPG in a division with no other CDN teams. You can slide them in with either the eastern CDN clubs one timezone east, or the western ones two timezones west. Leaving them alone in a crap division like this proposed Central is going to hurt the team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->