Would the creation of an all Canadian division make sense if we went to 36 teams?

HugoSimon

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
959
263
Traval matter the most. And it's impossible to make perfect divisions.

If you split North America into 3 zones (west, middle, east) there is more teams in the eastern zone alone than there is in west and middle combined. So you will necessarily have ''weird'' conferences travel wise, but you try to make the best out of it. An all canadian division screws everything up.
If you have 3 American divisions it actually adjusts for the 2:1 ratio between the Eastern and Western United States. So you'd have way more symmetry in terms of travel and in cultural relevance. No division would span more than two time zones and each division would have a number of heavy hitter teams to make revenues relatively balanced.

Yes Canadians teams would sorta get screwed but if you cut down on the inter conference travel(which you'd almost have to do with more teams) it starts making more sense. Toronto would have to make 4 trips a year to Vancouver, but it'd make far less to the far reaches of the US. With careful scheduling(which is far easier with an all Canadian division) you can make it a three game tour(Cal/Ed/Van) and since you have 3 groupings of 3 you can always maintain this rotation.

On top of all that you're forgetting how huge the migration patterns are in Canada. It is perfectly normal for Canada to pop from BC Alberta Ontario over and over again. And it seems like this dynamic is only gonna increase. It's already a given that any leafs game his a huge draw anywhere in the country.
 
Last edited:

GindyDraws

I will not disable my Adblock, HF
Mar 13, 2014
2,835
2,116
Indianapolis
4 times? If I had the money I would in a heart beat.

The problem with this type of argument is we already have inter conference travel. It is worth it despite the absurd amount of travel due to better ticket sales and television revenue.

What would make this idea work is the potential to have less inter conference travel and more divisional travel.

It isn't unreasonable to suggest it'd be better for Las Vegas if they had more games with Seattle and LA if it meant less games in Winnipeg and Buffalo.

FYI 4 times a year would mean 36 games of away games across Canada and 36 at home. That'd leave 10 games for inter-conference travel. For Eastern teams this would be a net win. For vancouver it'd mean getting all the revenue of having 4 games with the leafs, 4 with Montreal, 4 with Edmonton and 4 with Calgary.

But you're just one man. Try doing that with a team of 40+ players, plus personnel, equipment, etc..

Of course there is inter conference travel. This is because the NHL once tried to cut down on expenses back in the mid 2000s after the 04-05 lockout by making it so teams only played each other regionally (something the AHL & ECHL do mostly by necessity nowadays), which ran for a few seasons, and fans derided the scheduling decision, which you are arguing for. Is the layout of the NHL perfect as it is? No, but how would partitioning an entire nation as its own division make things easier if only to mean less time at Customs?

Also, here's a fun fact; fans like to see opposing teams so they can see star talent or variety. In the AHL and ECHL, the fact you're stuck seeing the same local opponents 8-12 times each season is a necessary evil for cost effectiveness (do you expect Utica vs. San Diego anytime soon in regular season?), but in the NHL, that's something you don't want to happen. It's like this; I like eating hamburgers, but if I ate only hamburgers every day for a week, by Thursday, I'd be dying for a Caesar salad or a serving of chicken tenders.
 

HugoSimon

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
959
263
But you're just one man. Try doing that with a team of 40+ players, plus personnel, equipment, etc..
The point is it's not my job to do so. They already travel extensively it isn't perfect but it isn't a radical change for most teams either.

Of course there is inter conference travel. This is because the NHL once tried to cut down on expenses back in the mid 2000s after the 04-05 lockout by making it so teams only played each other regionally (something the AHL & ECHL do mostly by necessity nowadays), which ran for a few seasons, and fans derided the scheduling decision, which you are arguing for.


Is the layout of the NHL perfect as it is? No, but how would partitioning an entire nation as its own division make things easier if only to mean less time at Customs?

But it means strengthening regional viewings. Most American teams would play in similar time zones and would have regular games with the biggest regional hitters(colorado/La etc)



Also, here's a fun fact; fans like to see opposing teams so they can see star talent or variety. In the AHL and ECHL, the fact you're stuck seeing the same local opponents 8-12 times each season is a necessary evil for cost effectiveness (do you expect Utica vs. San Diego anytime soon in regular season?), but in the NHL, that's something you don't want to happen. It's like this; I like eating hamburgers, but if I ate only hamburgers every day for a week, by Thursday, I'd be dying for a Caesar salad or a serving of chicken tenders.

You're saying two contradictory things at the same time. Travel an is insurmountable challenge and yet it has to be done. Contradictions are valuable when balance is a factor.

What you're saying made much more sense back when we had 30 teams not the potential 36, it was also when we had a ghetto of southern teams that were floundering, and western teams facing huge timezone issues. I suspect that time will create a more balanced O6/expansion balance. In addition you're also not mentioning the other big complaint made by the fans which is that there are far too many teams to follow and far to many in cities that are irrelevant to regional audiences.

It's an issue of balance and with the potential 36 teams you'd have to work on that either way.
 

Oddbob

Registered User
Jan 21, 2016
15,766
10,309
Every post made against the OP's idea has explained why this is a dreadful and terrible idea. Seems Hugo hates Canadian teams and wants to say screw you to them, with a massive and unfair travel schedule at the expense of making it easier for US teams.

Also, laughable that you think Toronto and Montreal in particular is not going to get massive ratings in the US when they are playing Boston and NY etc. Toronto games draw well everywhere as do Canadiens games, and taking away Century old rivalries is both ridiculous and the fans of those teams would hate it.

This will never happen and why on earth it is even an idea is out to lunch from my end of things. Every post the OP has made, gives more and more ridiculous arguments on why this would both work and be a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuelphStormer

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
If you have 3 American divisions it actually adjusts for the 2:1 ratio between the Eastern and Western United States. So you'd have way more symmetry in terms of travel and in cultural relevance. No division would span more than two time zones and each division would have a number of heavy hitter teams to make revenues relatively balanced.

Yes Canadians teams would sorta get screwed but if you cut down on the inter conference travel(which you'd almost have to do with more teams) it starts making more sense. Toronto would have to make 4 trips a year to Vancouver, but it'd make far less to the far reaches of the US. With careful scheduling(which is far easier with an all Canadian division) you can make it a three game tour(Cal/Ed/Van) and since you have 3 groupings of 3 you can always maintain this rotation.

On top of all that you're forgetting how huge the migration patterns are in Canada. It is perfectly normal for Canada to pop from BC Alberta Ontario over and over again. And it seems like this dynamic is only gonna increase. It's already a given that any leafs game his a huge draw anywhere in the country.

And what about Vancouver having to play their entire divisional schedule outside their time zone?
 

HugoSimon

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
959
263
A sample


Northwest Conference

Western division

Pacific
Seattle
Portland
San Jose

SoCal
LA Kings
Anaheim
San Diego

Mountain
Vegas
Phoenix
Colorado

Northern division

Northwest
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary

Hudson
Toronto
GTA2
Winnipeg

St.Lawerence
Ottawa
Montreal
Quebec city


Central(East)

Southern
Dallas
Houston(miami)
Nashville

Midwestern

St Louis
Chicago
Minnesota

Erie
Detroit
Columbus
Sabres

Metropolitan(East)

Metro
Rangers
Devils
Islanders

Eastern
Flyers
Penguins
Tampa

Atlantic
Carolina
Bruins
Washington

You'd have two conferences Northwest and Eastern

Each conference would have 2 divisions

Each division would have 3 subdivisions used primarily to make 3 game away trips.

I.e. each subdivision would travel to another subdivision at the same time.

I.e. Toronto GTA2 and winnipeg would goto Cal Van Ed all at the same time. And the three would rotate the 3 cities reducing east west travel.

When this is happening the subdivision not making inter subdivision travel would be playing it's 2 neighboring teams or taken time off. In addition each away trip would ensure that 1/3 games would be on a weekend and thus avoiding major timezone conflict.

You'd play 9 games with the other division in your conference, alternating home and away each year.

18 games with the teams in the other conference, alternating home and away each year.

36 games o&a with the other 6 teams in your own division.

10 and 9 games with the two teams in your subdivision alternating the extra game every other year.
 
Last edited:

HugoSimon

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
959
263
Winnipeg too. ;)

There would be 3 games a year in Vancouver, the rest of the time it'd only be 1 hour difference. And in turn they'd get far more games with directly relevant teams in Canada.

EDIT: I should point out the main reason an all Canadian division would be so useful is because Canadians move around so much. Unlike in the US you only have a handful of cities to live in and as a result you have fanbases spread out in large numbers across the country.
 

GindyDraws

I will not disable my Adblock, HF
Mar 13, 2014
2,835
2,116
Indianapolis
The point is it's not my job to do so. They already travel extensively it isn't perfect but it isn't a radical change for most teams either.

And my counterargument was that they already did that. People hated it. And that was during a time period where there were teams that were so strapped for cash that even the Oilers were talking about closing up shop for real. Sure, the economics are better now than they were 15-20 years ago, but that does not mean there is an infinite supply of money that'll increase simply by adding more teams. You run the risk of alienating fans by homogenizing a region and segregating them into a specific division just cause you think they'll like it.

But it means strengthening regional viewings. Most American teams would play in similar time zones and would have regular games with the biggest regional hitters(colorado/La etc)

Regional viewing may be okay for, say, soccer or minor league baseball, which live and die by the gate as most teams likely don't have decent TV deals, but you're comparing apples and dragon fruit. In those circumstances, fans are okay with, and even embrace the idea of a local rival. But in the big leagues, expectations are different. You want to see teams from far away, especially if you lack the means to travel yourself. Why do fans in the NBA get up in arms when, say, the Lakers come to town only for LeBron sits out since it's the second part of a back to back for them? It's both the allure of the exotic and also the chance to see a star you otherwise won't be able to get a glimpse of. Sure, in the Canadian Division scenario, a person living in Edmonton would still see teams from "far away", but they'd be Ottawa and Toronto. Over and over again. And with only 10 extra dates for American cities, that would mean 5 visits to your home ice. You argue they'd have preset deals with "heavy hitters", but the league would more likely opt for a rotational pattern so every market gets a chance to have a marquee team once a year and inevitably someone gets left out, meaning one year you could wind up getting Florida, Columbus, Buffalo, Carolina, & Anaheim. Not "heavy hitters", eh?

You're saying two contradictory things at the same time. Travel an is insurmountable challenge and yet it has to be done. Contradictions are valuable when balance is a factor.

What you're saying made much more sense back when we had 30 teams not the potential 36, it was also when we had a ghetto of southern teams that were floundering, and western teams facing huge timezone issues. I suspect that time will create a more balanced O6/expansion balance. In addition you're also not mentioning the other big complaint made by the fans which is that there are far too many teams to follow and far to many in cities that are irrelevant to regional audiences.

It's an issue of balance and with the potential 36 teams you'd have to work on that either way.

Travel is an insurmountable challenge! Everyone knows that. But in the long run, isn't it cheaper for Vancouver to play games against teams in California over and over than it is to fly to Ontario and Quebec? And the same for Montreal against teams in the East Coast? The issue (for this part of the topic) I see is you look at the teams in the Prairies who have always had this struggle, and, well, they're always have that struggle.

As for the number of teams' problem, it isn't that there are "too many teams". The problem is that there aren't enough teams we're supposed to give a shit about. The NHL's marketing job and NBC's scheduling department for television (not to mention punditry) would have you believe the league only has 8-10 teams and the Philadelphia Flyers is the greatest thing since sliced bread, with sliced bread having been invented the previous winter. Since Canadian teams do not factor to Nielsen ratings, which is what NBC wants, knowing that the NHL is a consistently poor ratings grabber, they tend to ignore most Canadian teams, especially the godawful Canadian teams. Due to various external factors (Canadian dollar versus American dollar, playing in remote cities like Calgary & Winnipeg, etc.), those teams often have a disadvantage compared to American teams. As for that "ghetto", the only trouble spot right now is Florida, and that's simply because South Florida is arguably the worst place to have any sports team in North America. Tampa Bay has a fanbase, Nashville has a fanbase, and Carolina is finally building its fanbase after finding its niche as the NHL's resident cattle prodders.

Plus, what makes you think the NHL will expand to 36 teams? As much as I'd love the idea of the NHL (or any hockey) in Houston, for example, the reality is 32 is a nice, even number, but also means your player pool is being stretched thin, not to mention it would mean even more teams ignored by a network, assuming the NHL is still stuck with just one primary network.
 

HisIceness

This is Hurricanes Hockey
Sep 16, 2010
40,119
70,066
Charlotte
All Canadian division? Nah. What the NHL really needs is the power of an all SEC division.

We already have Carolina and Nashville, and Tampa Bay and Florida for good measure. Expand to New Orleans, Atlanta, Mississippi, and Birmingham. Winter Classics/Stadium Series in Oxford, Baton Rouge, Starkville, Athens, Auburn, and Tuscaloosa.

I'm already working with Gary Bettman on this idea and he is fully on board. This will be a reality. :yo:

SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC! SEC!
 

GuelphStormer

Registered User
Mar 20, 2012
3,808
497
Guelph, ON
There would be 3 games a year in Vancouver, the rest of the time it'd only be 1 hour difference. And in turn they'd get far more games with directly relevant teams in Canada.

EDIT: I should point out the main reason an all Canadian division would be so useful is because Canadians move around so much. Unlike in the US you only have a handful of cities to live in and as a result you have fanbases spread out in large numbers across the country.
thanks for your summary. i guess i just don't buy into your basic premise that mobility of fanbase should affect variety of available product in a bunch of markets. i think folks would be more upset about seeing less of boston or chicago or the kings or whoever is the big draw in their division than being happy about seeing more oilers or senators. i dont even know if there would be all that much costs savings for the teams too.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
what Hugo also seems to forget is, the AHL is going to 32, but how do you expand the ECHL TO 32, or convince more NHL Teams or individual owners to invest in the affiliate leagues, where it's a struggle to get to 32, notwithstanding what has happened with franchise leases in the affiliated leagues.... see Wilkes-Barre and Luzerne County, and the ongoing battles that have now been quelled between SJSE and Newfoundland over pro hockey/basketball there that has been somewhat settled.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
Because you say so? 10 years out is not a long period of time when we are talking about constructing new arenas and developing an expansion bid. 15-25 years is very reasonable and modest in my opinion.
The NHL went from 21-30 in 9 years, during an period of intentional expansion (largely driven by owners chasing expansion fees more than actual long-term strategic planning). When Seattle joins, it will have taken 20 years to add another two (2) teams.

You think we're going to add four (4) more in another 10 years? I'll take that bet and take the over on how long it takes.


I'm speculating about the future as does anyone who is interested in business.
I speculate about a lot of things. I also try to keep it grounded in reality whenever possible and admit disclaimers and self-critique when it's not.

I'm simply asking what would and wouldn't make sense about that type of arrangement. Speculation is about the what ifs. For this to work what would be needed and what wouldn't. The answer you don't want to think about it isn't useful, if so don't post.
1. What would be needed to get to 36 teams? Well, among other things,
  • Four (4) owners willing to fork over the requested expansion fees and have sufficient financial resources to pass vetting by the league
  • Four (4) locations with NHL-suitable arenas and sufficient availability for NHL games
  • Four (4) more locations with AHL-suitable arenas and potentially up to four (4) owners for those franchises (in the event the NHL owner doesn't also want to be the AHL owner) and sufficient availability for AHL games
  • Four (4) more locations with ECHL-suitable arenas and potentially up to four (4) more owners for those franchises and sufficient availability for, ... well, you know.
That doesn't get into local/state assistance that might be needed to build or refurbish arenas, any municipal infrastructure improvements needed to support those arenas, etc. etc. etc. etc.

2. Unless TPTB decide otherwise, I have the ability to post on whatever I wish here. If you don't like the answer I'm giving you [which matches what others are trying to tell you], ignore it and move on.

Bigger tv contract for the US, better revenue sharing for Canadian teams, and a bigger national contract in Canada. You're also forgetting how much hockey can be a political pawn in Canadian politics. Having an entity like the CBC going all out for Hockey isn't unimaginable. And in that case government wants Canadian games on that contract. FYI the CBC is truly struggling for its survival at the moment.
1. I don't know where this belief started that a bigger TV contract will cause more teams to show up out of the woodwork, but it couldn't be more misleading. Demand dictates price and drives supply, not the other way around. If it did work the other way around, the NFL could easily be at 40 teams ... except, you know, the things I cite above as obstacles to getting the NHL to 36.

2a. Revenue sharing is not intended to be a cure-all for the inability to generate revenues. It's intended to ensure all teams get to some baseline level of revenue in order to ensure the ability to spend to the cap floor and maintain some level of competitiveness.
2b. Any team added via expansion is likely to be in a location with the potential for high revenues and to generate high revenues for at least a few years; thus, revenue sharing will be irrelevant.

3. I suspect Canada's government has many, many issues more important to the nation and its citizens to worry about than getting hockey on a Canadian network and ensuring that eleventy billion dollars are spent to make it happen.


4. Rogers is bleeding money like a stuck pig because of the contract it signed with the NHL. [See the thread here covering all the layoffs going on.] If the CBC is "truly struggling for its survival at the moment" it makes absolutely no sense for it to fork over some massive amount of money for hockey when Rogers is losing money hand over fist on a $5.2 billion deal, just because it's hockey and it's Canada.

The worst affected team is Vancouver and in turn they get a higher number of teams already quite popular in this countries in their arenas. Due to very high migration rates in Canada it makes sense that oil's will have a massive following in Vancouver and vice versa. This is the reason tampa is in the "Atlantic" division after all.

The reason that Tampa is in the "Atlantic" division is because
  1. The NHL attempted to best preserve traditional rivalries in realigning the Eastern Conference,
  2. That meant Florida and Tampa Bay needed to be grouped together in any alignment,
  3. The group of the then-existing Atlantic + Columbus was considered to be the best grouping of traditional rivals,
  4. None of MTL-BOS-BUF-TOR-OTT-DET had strong enough rivalries with the then-Atlantic + Columbus to warrant moving anyone out of #3, nor did FLA-TB have a strong enough rivalry with anyone in #3 to warrant moving anyone out,
  5. That meant Florida and Tampa Bay needed to go somewhere and the only open spot was with the 6 teams in #4,
  6. Calling that group the Northeast was clearly not geographically accurate,
  7. That meant renaming the Atlantic to the Metropolitan [which was a fairly accurate representation of the grouping of teams] to
  8. Rename the Northeast to the Atlantic to make it at least mostly geographically accurate [even if only 3 of the teams are on or remotely near the Atlantic Ocean].
Otherwise, see comments made by others here in regards to travel.

Yes for American teams absolutely but there are different things at play in Canada. For starters the leafs alone have a massive following coast to coast.
That doesn't change the fact that your idea causes Canada-based teams to incur significantly more difficult travel than their American counterparts, for no gain other than "all us Canada teams are all together." Again, that's going to be woefully insufficient to get them to agree to be lumped together. I might even make the argument that putting them all together guarantees a few of the teams will be on the weak end of the league, which doesn't maximize Canada's ability to compete for the Stanley Cup - and none of those teams want to be put in the position of being a near-guaranteed weakling simply by virtue of being grouped together for the convenience of making some small group of the hockey fans in Canada happy.
 

garbageteam

Registered User
Jan 7, 2010
1,403
641
Because you say so? 10 years out is not a long period of time when we are talking about constructing new arenas and developing an expansion bid. 15-25 years is very reasonable and modest in my opinion.

Heck you have player contracts that are almost that long.

Hah, I thought you were joking but then I realized that there are two MLB contracts that expire at 2030-31 and NHL has seen its fair share of 10+ year contracts so... you are indeed correct, 2030 may not necessarily be too far to start speculating/planning for.
 

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,841
20,903
Toronto
No. Rogers paid a fortune for the Canadian broadcasting rights, and the last thing they want is a bunch of Habs and Leafs games starting from 9 to 10:30, which they will have to if games are played on weekdays. That's before even getting into the travel burden. I live in Toronto, I can with relative ease drive to Detroit and Buffalo (faster than Ottawa or MTL, baring border issues), Toronto is the closest NHL team to Buffalo, and pretty much tied for 2nd closest to Detroit (with Columbus being slightly closer). So, it makes the most sense to play those two teams often.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I mean, creating an All-Canada division would make total sense if the goal was ensuring a minimum of 3 of the 4 final teams in the playoffs being from the USA.


If the best seven teams in the league were all Canadian franchises, you'd have a first round of:
Pacific: CAN vs USA, CAN vs CAN
Central: CAN vs USA, USA vs USA
Adams: CAN vs USA, CAN vs CAN
Patrick: USA vs USA, USA vs USA

And if the top seeds all advanced:
WCF: CAN vs CAN
ECF: CAN vs USA
SCF: CAN vs CAN

Or you can be in one division, and even if you're the top seven teams in hockey... two are stuck in the draft lottery, two are eliminated in the first round and you can't have an All-Canada SCF ever.



NHL should go to an MLB/NFL style format and maybe get a TOR/MON or EDM/CAL SCF sometime.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Something like this:

Wales Conference
East: NYR, NJD, BOS, CAR | MON, TOR, FLA, DET
West: CHI, MIN, DAL, COL | ANA, SJ, EDM, SEA

Campbell Conference:
East: NYI, PHI, WAS, PIT | OTT, BUF, TB, CBJ
West: STL, NASH, WIN, ARZ | LA, VGK, CAL, VAN

4 vs Conference (60)
4 vs rival division (16)
1 vs half the other teams (6), alternating years, four years to see everyone.

It looks screwy, but the schedule is better; and you could end up with a SCF of: CAL/EDM, SEA/VAN, LA/ANA, NYR/NYI, CHI/STL, etc.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
Something like this:

Wales Conference
East: NYR, NJD, BOS, CAR | MON, TOR, FLA, DET
West: CHI, MIN, DAL, COL | ANA, SJ, EDM, SEA

Campbell Conference:
East: NYI, PHI, WAS, PIT | OTT, BUF, TB, CBJ
West: STL, NASH, WIN, ARZ | LA, VGK, CAL, VAN

4 vs Conference (60)
4 vs rival division (16)
1 vs half the other teams (6), alternating years, four years to see everyone.

It looks screwy, but the schedule is better; and you could end up with a SCF of: CAL/EDM, SEA/VAN, LA/ANA, NYR/NYI, CHI/STL, etc.
I don't see the NHL splitting up traditional rivals like that. MLB didn't do it even when it sent Milwaukee to the NL and Houston to the AL, the NFL hasn't done it since flipping Pittsburgh, Baltimore [now Indianapolis] and Cleveland [now Baltimore ... or, Cleveland] to the AFC in the 1970 merger. Both leagues have tried like hell to preserve traditional rivals whenever possible.

The easiest way to accomplish what you want is to cross-match the conference teams for the playoffs at some point, and then it's a question of when you do that. IMO, the best shot to make it happen is to do it right off the bat; I don't think it makes much sense to do it after the 2nd round, and by the semis you've likely wiped out at least one of the teams if the first two rounds are still divisional play.
 

Digital Kid

Registered User
Jun 5, 2015
284
213
Calgary
It's tough enough having Canadian teams accepted in American markets as it is (ticket sales, awareness of players) without further separating them.
 

Wolf357

Registered User
Jul 16, 2011
1,194
484
As a Jets fan living in Manitoba I used to love it when we played in the South East.. majority of games started at 6:00pm...
I’m a bit of a princess now that I’m in my late 40s and need to be in bed by 10:00 (also gotta be up for work at 4:30am). West Coast games starting at 9:00.. sometimes 9:30 freakin kill me...it would be brutal to be in a division with teams in the Mountain and Pacific time zones..
How you guys living on the East Coast let alone Newfoundland stay up to watch west coast games is beyond me...
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I don't see the NHL splitting up traditional rivals like that. MLB didn't do it even when it sent Milwaukee to the NL and Houston to the AL, the NFL hasn't done it since flipping Pittsburgh, Baltimore [now Indianapolis] and Cleveland [now Baltimore ... or, Cleveland] to the AFC in the 1970 merger. Both leagues have tried like hell to preserve traditional rivals whenever possible.

The easiest way to accomplish what you want is to cross-match the conference teams for the playoffs at some point, and then it's a question of when you do that. IMO, the best shot to make it happen is to do it right off the bat; I don't think it makes much sense to do it after the 2nd round, and by the semis you've likely wiped out at least one of the teams if the first two rounds are still divisional play.

I don't see them doing it, but it's the smartest way to maximize the inventory of the schedule.

Baseball gets it (although, for some stupid reason they want to move away from it).

The most important games in the standings are: Division, League, and non-league games are the least important. The significance of the game (usually down the stretch run) is a significant factor in ticket sales. As the pennant race heats up, and you're facing your biggest rival for a division title, you're going to sell more tickets.

Some interleague games have a massive significance that transcends that:
I don't see the NHL splitting up traditional rivals like that. MLB didn't do it even when it sent Milwaukee to the NL and Houston to the AL, the NFL hasn't done it since flipping Pittsburgh, Baltimore [now Indianapolis] and Cleveland [now Baltimore ... or, Cleveland] to the AFC in the 1970 merger. Both leagues have tried like hell to preserve traditional rivals whenever possible.

The easiest way to accomplish what you want is to cross-match the conference teams for the playoffs at some point, and then it's a question of when you do that. IMO, the best shot to make it happen is to do it right off the bat; I don't think it makes much sense to do it after the 2nd round, and by the semis you've likely wiped out at least one of the teams if the first two rounds are still divisional play.

I don't see them doing it, but it's the smartest way to maximize the inventory of the schedule. Baseball gets it (although, for some stupid reason they want to move away from it).

The most important games in the standings are: Division, League, and non-league games are the least important. The significance of the game (usually down the stretch run) is a significant factor in ticket sales. As the pennant race heats up, and you're facing your biggest rival for a division title, you're going to sell more tickets.

Some interleague games have a massive significance that transcends that: New York Mets vs New York Yankees, Dodgers vs Angels, As vs Giants, Cubs vs White Sox; and before Houston switched leagues, Astros vs Rangers.

Most interleague matchups that aren't geographically based are basically lame, low-interest games (unless they have novelty implications. NL teams visiting Fenway Park for the first time, or old World Series matchups).

Compare the 6-division NHL to 6-division MLB.
MLB: NYY-BAL-BOS-TOR-TB and NYM-PHI-WAS-ATL-MIA
NHL: NYR-NYI-NJD-PHI-PIT and WAS-CAR-ATL-TB-FLA

Baseball (divided by 2) had 39 Division/Regional Rival Interleague games
Hockey had at most 26 Division/Regional Rival (only WAS vs the NE teams; CAR/ATL/TB/FLA aren't regional with anyone in the NE).

So the baseball way of doing it is the maximum amount of significance you can have when you add up the importance of all the games.



The idea that what I listed "Splits up" rivals is based only on visuals, not a reality. Schedule wise, it's exactly the same: You're playing your rivals 4x each, even though four of them are no longer in your conference. That schedule basically fakes a a 12-team division/20 team league, with six games against 12 teams you rarely see.

EDM/CAL would still be playing the same amount and their fans still view each other as rivals and that's never going to change unless we move one of them out of Alberta. But now they have a new division opponent who ALSO becomes a rival.

As for meeting in the playoffs, who cares? Just being in a playoff series against someone brings the animosity and sell out crowds. You think Islanders fans said "Well, we're not really 'Rivals' with Carolina, I'm not going to watch the Second Round?" It's the playoffs. It's sold out, it's intense and it doesn't matter who you play. And long-time regional rivalries in the playoffs are not that common at all.

Calgary and Edmonton haven't faced each other since 1991. Edmonton has faced the DALLAS STARS (since their move to Texas) six times, and Calgary five times ever.


Essentially, people are making business decisions about alignment/schedule matrix that SOUND logical, but the data of these things actually supports the opposite:

Scheduling everyone home/away so you get Crosby/Ovechkin coming to town sells tickets!
Well, no. You 500 more fans for PIT/WAS (+1000), but -400 PER GAME for OTT, NYI, CAR, FLA, CBJ and NJD (-2400), you're selling less.

Putting local rivals in the same division = more sellout games!
Well, no. Astros-Rangers averaged 10,000 more fans per game over six games when they were interleague opponents (while Houston was LOSING 100 games a year), but as AL West rivals, even when they were in a pennant race together, the average attendance was 8,000 lower. Because interleague games fans circled the calendar for the ONLY VISIT, but in the same division, they said "I can go anytime since we play 19 times."
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->