NHL realignment

[spndnchz]

Radical realignment of grilled cheese? You put the bread on the inside?

 

Nobody knows.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

And that is what my proposed playoff matrix solves (for the most part). It doesn't address letting a 5th place team into the playoffs - as if you can't finish in the top 4 in your division a case can definitely be made that you don't legitimately deserve a shot at the SC as there are at least 4 other teams that have played at a higher level all season long.

 

What it does do is allow those strong teams the ability to not beat the snot out of each other all playoffs long. They just have to play in that tough division in the 1st round (and by virtue of having had a better regular season theoretically get to face the weakest of the remaining strong teams in the division) and then they get theoretically weaker opponents there on out. If a particular division is truly stacked relative to the other divisions, then their reward at the end of the day is having the 2 best from that division duke it out in the SC Finals.

 

You'd always have the stronger remaining teams (on paper) playing the weaker remaining ones each round.

 

By playing an unbalanced schedule, the relative strengths of each team in the division should be reflected in their in-division standings. Give each team 5 games in division and 2 against non-division opponents; this would leave 3 extra games to be distributed across teams in the East and 6 extra against teams in the West.

 

Yes, (until Bettman gets his wish and the league expands by 2 teams) it's easier to get into the playoffs out of the West, but it wouldn't be any easier to get to the finals than it would be from the East. This proposed realignment also gives Bettman the cover of not giving Quebec City or Windsor an expansion team, as the open vacancies are all out west. Can you say KC and Portland?

That completely does away with parity though.

 

I'm standing firm that the 16 best teams in the league are the teams that should be the one's making the playoffs, and i don't think anyone can logically disagree with that. The idea behind playoff hockey is that its a completely new game, and an entirely new season.

 

Simply assuming that a team that couldn't make it in the top 4 is not deserving of a playoff berth is extremely short sighted. I'm sorry if you take offense of that but it's what i believe.

 

What if two teams have the same point total in 4th place? Both teams played at the same level, and both teams are clearly better than 4th seeds in other divisions, one of them won't make it, even though they should.

 

What if a team loses a star player to an injury, battles through, and maintains a spot that would be top 8 in their conference but not top 4 in their division. If they get their man back in time for the playoffs, they have just as good of a chance as any other team. But they won't get that chance in a top 4 system.

 

If they could, i would make a change to a bracket playoff system where the top 16 teams make the playoffs regardless of conference, but the west and east do indeed keep the travel costs lower, so i understand it.

 

Changing to this proposed system is unfair to the underdogs, and i think the underdogs are one of the many things that make the NHL playoffs so great.

 

Boston just proved that it's not just about having hte best team, it's whoever has the most heart. On paper, Vancouver should have won it all, but boston had other plans. You do anything other than the current system or a pure top 16 system, and you're taking the heart out of the longshots.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Grilled cheese.

 

mm sounds good...I hate missing lunch!

[shrader]

The idea that the top 16 should get in regardless is great in theory, but until you find a system where everyone plays the same exact schedule, it is still flawed. That kind of schedule is always going to be a logistical nightmare, which creates the need for conferences/divisions.

 

The one thing I do find interesting about a new system where you have to finish top 2 is that it gives more meaning to the regular season. Those 82 games should not be so heavily outweighed by a maximum of 28 games.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

The idea that the top 16 should get in regardless is great in theory, but until you find a system where everyone plays the same exact schedule, it is still flawed. That kind of schedule is always going to be a logistical nightmare, which creates the need for conferences/divisions.

 

The one thing I do find interesting about a new system where you have to finish top 2 is that it gives more meaning to the regular season. Those 82 games should not be so heavily outweighed by a maximum of 28 games.

While that's all good in theory, you're going to have players running themselves into the ground during the regular season, and i think playoffs would be less exciting with half of each teams regular roster players on IR.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

Essentially i suppose my question is, with as it stands right now, what is the problem with the system we have in place?

 

Other than the occasional team in one conference making it over a team with more points in the opposing conference, not much.

 

There's no need to change anything, especially by adding new divisions that would serve as the equivalent versions of conferences today, just on a smaller scale.

[Taro T]

That completely does away with parity though.

 

I'm standing firm that the 16 best teams in the league are the teams that should be the one's making the playoffs, and i don't think anyone can logically disagree with that. The idea behind playoff hockey is that its a completely new game, and an entirely new season.

 

Simply assuming that a team that couldn't make it in the top 4 is not deserving of a playoff berth is extremely short sighted. I'm sorry if you take offense of that but it's what i believe.

 

What if two teams have the same point total in 4th place? Both teams played at the same level, and both teams are clearly better than 4th seeds in other divisions, one of them won't make it, even though they should.

 

What if a team loses a star player to an injury, battles through, and maintains a spot that would be top 8 in their conference but not top 4 in their division. If they get their man back in time for the playoffs, they have just as good of a chance as any other team. But they won't get that chance in a top 4 system.

 

If they could, i would make a change to a bracket playoff system where the top 16 teams make the playoffs regardless of conference, but the west and east do indeed keep the travel costs lower, so i understand it.

 

Changing to this proposed system is unfair to the underdogs, and i think the underdogs are one of the many things that make the NHL playoffs so great.

 

Boston just proved that it's not just about having hte best team, it's whoever has the most heart. On paper, Vancouver should have won it all, but boston had other plans. You do anything other than the current system or a pure top 16 system, and you're taking the heart out of the longshots.

There hasn't been "parity" since 1981. The only way you get "parity" is if every team plays the same schedule. And you can't get there from here (3 games against 29 others -> 87 games and the regular season is already too long). Nor from a travel standpoint would you want to get there.

 

You say the 16 best should be in the playoffs. How do you determine who the 16th best is rather than the 17th best? Do you believe that currently the best 16 are in the playoffs? I don't.

 

The best 8 should be in the playoffs and the rest can be filled w/ teams that had injury issues and didn't appear to be in the top 8 but really are, teams that started strong but faltered for some reason, better yet - teams that started poorly but got their act together, and a few that had decent seasons but no real chance to win it all.

 

If you can't stay in the top 5 in your division over 6-1/2 months, then you should not be considered to be good enough to show that you're the best of the best over the next 2-1/2 months.

 

Yes, the system I proposed is unfair to underdogs. When's the last time an underdog won the Stanley Cup? (And I mean a true underdog, not the division winning Baaahston Bruins beating a team that they beat in the regular season and had a better record having played an unbalanced regular season schedule?) The B's beat the 'Nucks 5 times this season - they won 2 in BC; a case could be made that THEY were the better team. Considering the 2 teams played unbalanced schedules this year, how do you know that Vancouver WAS in fact the better team as you claim?

 

Out of curiosity, do you support the proposed revamping of the playoff format proposed by the Eulers every couple of years that would add 2 teams to each conference's playoffs? I don't, and probably not for the reasons I'd suspect you'd expect.

[carpandean]

The idea that the top 16 should get in regardless is great in theory, but until you find a system where everyone plays the same exact schedule, it is still flawed. That kind of schedule is always going to be a logistical nightmare, which creates the need for conferences/divisions.

Totally agree. Unless someone proposing a system like dropping to 26 teams and playing all other teams 4 times, alternating home and away, with one match-up in each block of 25 games, then it is impossible to say who the "best X teams" are. In fact, I would argue that, even under that system, the middle group of just makes and just misses would be statistically indistinguishable (i.e., you couldn't prove with any certainty that one is better.) Lengthen or shorten the season by 10 games and you'd change who makes it.

 

In this day and age, you would never have such a strong conference that multiple truly deserving teams will miss out.

 

Other than the occasional team in one conference making it over a team with more points in the opposing conference, not much.

And if they're playing in different conferences, then "more points" doesn't necessarily mean that they are the better team; they could have just had an easier schedule.

[Taro T]

Essentially i suppose my question is, with as it stands right now, what is the problem with the system we have in place?

 

Other than the occasional team in one conference making it over a team with more points in the opposing conference, not much.

 

There's no need to change anything, especially by adding new divisions that would serve as the equivalent versions of conferences today, just on a smaller scale.

They ARE going to move 2 teams into the East and only 1 is going back to the West. The problem w/ that is you now have nearly 3 of every 5 (57%) of the teams in the West making the playoffs and only 50% of the teams in the East getting there. This will create an unholy racket.

 

By having the playoffs work up through the divisions, they can go w/ unbalanced schedules to have the 4 top from each division get determined and then they will likely have a winner work its way out of division. While it still has the same issue of 57% v 50% making the playoffs, it resolves that by having only 1 from each division in the Semi-finals.

 

I'd prefer to see teams from the same division be able to meet in the Finals of the SC. And believe that going w/ 2 teams coming out of each division, the discrepancy in representation is now minor enough (28.5% v 25%) that while there will be whining it will be kept to a dull roar.

 

I also see the division realignment as a 1st step towards expansion. As there is now an unbalanced playing field and it MUST be fixed. (Or so the big wigs will now state.)

[shrader]

I also see the division realignment as a 1st step towards expansion. As there is now an unbalanced playing field and it MUST be fixed. (Or so the big wigs will now state.)

 

This random thought just popped into my head with the mentioning of expansion. I wonder what role this modern age of no movement clauses would play on an expansion draft.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

There hasn't been "parity" since 1981. The only way you get "parity" is if every team plays the same schedule. And you can't get there from here (3 games against 29 others -> 87 games and the regular season is already too long). Nor from a travel standpoint would you want to get there.

 

You say the 16 best should be in the playoffs. How do you determine who the 16th best is rather than the 17th best? Do you believe that currently the best 16 are in the playoffs? I don't.

 

The best 8 should be in the playoffs and the rest can be filled w/ teams that had injury issues and didn't appear to be in the top 8 but really are, teams that started strong but faltered for some reason, better yet - teams that started poorly but got their act together, and a few that had decent seasons but no real chance to win it all.

 

If you can't stay in the top 5 in your division over 6-1/2 months, then you should not be considered to be good enough to show that you're the best of the best over the next 2-1/2 months.

 

Yes, the system I proposed is unfair to underdogs. When's the last time an underdog won the Stanley Cup? (And I mean a true underdog, not the division winning Baaahston Bruins beating a team that they beat in the regular season and had a better record having played an unbalanced regular season schedule?) The B's beat the 'Nucks 5 times this season - they won 2 in BC; a case could be made that THEY were the better team. Considering the 2 teams played unbalanced schedules this year, how do you know that Vancouver WAS in fact the better team as you claim?

 

Out of curiosity, do you support the proposed revamping of the playoff format proposed by the Eulers every couple of years that would add 2 teams to each conference's playoffs? I don't, and probably not for the reasons I'd suspect you'd expect.

If you can't determine the 16th from the 17th then how do you determine the 8th from the 9th? teams shouldn't have a shot at the playoffs if another team has had a better season. It's a simple philosophy. The cutoff at 16 teams provides a pretty large pool to ensure that the teams who are deserving are in. more so than the "top four make it" idea.

 

are the lower seeded teams likely to win it all? no. But who are you, or the league for that matter, to tell the fans of those teams that they aren't deserving of a chance to try. From what you seem to make it sound like, regarding the whole 5th team in a division deserve it because 4 other teams played better train of thought, then why do the second place teams deserve to be there? there was clearly a team better than them as well. Maybe we should just change the presidents trophy to the stanley cup and leave it at that?

 

Hell no.

 

from a purely ethical standpoint, the top 16 teams in the standings should make it. Everyone plays different schedules, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to gauge potential until we make that 87 game season. It's not right for one team with more points to watch as a different team who finished worse off than they did move on, while they are sitting there polishing their golf clubs.

 

And no, i am not for expansion teams. Until the NHL grows it's support so that ALL 30 teams flourish, the NHL has no business expanding with more teams.

 

I think an 87 game season is too much, but as i see it, it's not necessary. If you played every team in your conference as many times as everyone else, i would be happy. It would keep rivalries in tact, while truely bringing out the best in each conference. It's not perfect, and i'm not trying to pretend it is, but it's a helluva lot better than shafting teams in deep conferences under the recently proposed system.

 

Top 8 in each respective conference is the best option the NHL has right now. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

They ARE going to move 2 teams into the East and only 1 is going back to the West. The problem w/ that is you now have nearly 3 of every 5 (57%) of the teams in the West making the playoffs and only 50% of the teams in the East getting there. This will create an unholy racket.

 

By having the playoffs work up through the divisions, they can go w/ unbalanced schedules to have the 4 top from each division get determined and then they will likely have a winner work its way out of division. While it still has the same issue of 57% v 50% making the playoffs, it resolves that by having only 1 from each division in the Semi-finals.

 

I'd prefer to see teams from the same division be able to meet in the Finals of the SC. And believe that going w/ 2 teams coming out of each division, the discrepancy in representation is now minor enough (28.5% v 25%) that while there will be whining it will be kept to a dull roar.

 

I also see the division realignment as a 1st step towards expansion. As there is now an unbalanced playing field and it MUST be fixed. (Or so the big wigs will now state.)

Where are you getting this from? Why would they move teams to the east and purposefully keep the conferences unbalanced. That makes no sense at all. If the teams are the reason then gary bettman needs to grow a pair or step down and give the job to someone with some real cojones.

[Taro T]

If you can't determine the 16th from the 17th then how do you determine the 8th from the 9th? teams shouldn't have a shot at the playoffs if another team has had a better season. It's a simple philosophy. The cutoff at 16 teams provides a pretty large pool to ensure that the teams who are deserving are in. more so than the "top four make it" idea.

 

are the lower seeded teams likely to win it all? no. But who are you, or the league for that matter, to tell the fans of those teams that they aren't deserving of a chance to try. From what you seem to make it sound like, regarding the whole 5th team in a division deserve it because 4 other teams played better train of thought, then why do the second place teams deserve to be there? there was clearly a team better than them as well. Maybe we should just change the presidents trophy to the stanley cup and leave it at that?

 

Hell no.

 

from a purely ethical standpoint, the top 16 teams in the standings should make it. Everyone plays different schedules, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to gauge potential until we make that 87 game season. It's not right for one team with more points to watch as a different team who finished worse off than they did move on, while they are sitting there polishing their golf clubs.

 

And no, i am not for expansion teams. Until the NHL grows it's support so that ALL 30 teams flourish, the NHL has no business expanding with more teams.

 

I think an 87 game season is too much, but as i see it, it's not necessary. If you played every team in your conference as many times as everyone else, i would be happy. It would keep rivalries in tact, while truely bringing out the best in each conference. It's not perfect, and i'm not trying to pretend it is, but it's a helluva lot better than shafting teams in deep conferences under the recently proposed system.

 

Top 8 in each respective conference is the best option the NHL has right now. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it.

I don't have to determine the league's 8th best from 9th as I've got 16 teams in my playoff bracket. :doh:

 

And, for the record, when you have the top 4 making it from 4 different divisions, you again have 16 teams in the playoffs. :doh:

 

You keep making the case that the 16 best teams should be in the playoffs. Once again, how do you tell #16 from #17?

 

You advocate an unbalanced schedule (teams play predominantly w/in their conference) and then try to state that it's ethically better for the 9th place team in one conference (that might have had 5 Ottawa's and Edmontons in it) to be in the playoffs over the 8th place team in the other one because it managed to get to 1 more OT than the other one did? You have a seriously warped view of what the term 'ethical' means, no offense.

 

I didn't ask your view on LEAGUE expansion. I asked for your view on PLAYOFF expansion. :doh:

I'll assume based on your last sentence that you are opposed to it.

 

Where are you getting this from? Why would they move teams to the east and purposefully keep the conferences unbalanced. That makes no sense at all. If the teams are the reason then gary bettman needs to grow a pair or step down and give the job to someone with some real cojones.

It was in one of the links in one of the MINIMUM FOUR threads maintaining this discussion. (I am not about to go searching through them all to find that particular link.)

 

WHY would they do that? Here's why.

 

1 - There are 3 teams that want to be in the East that are in the West and only 1 that is in the East and wants to be in the West.

 

2 - The most logical team to move to the East has the least clout of any of the 3.

 

3 - By overloading the east w/ teams, they dampen the push to put a team back into Hartford or QC.

 

4 - By creating unbalanced conferences, they create a problem that is readily solved by EXPANSION.

 

5 - By expanding into KC and Portland, the NHL increases (on paper at least) it's value to a major US network.

 

6 - By expanding, the league owners get to split probably $200MM amongst themselves in expansion fees.

 

7 - By expanding, the total league pie grows and short term more money goes into owners and players' pockets.

 

And you do not seem to understand much about Gary Bettman nor the role a Commissioner plays w/in a sports league based upon your final statement.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

I don't have to determine the league's 8th best from 9th as I've got 16 teams in my playoff bracket. :doh:

 

And, for the record, when you have the top 4 making it from 4 different divisions, you again have 16 teams in the playoffs. :doh:

 

You keep making the case that the 16 best teams should be in the playoffs. Once again, how do you tell #16 from #17?

 

You advocate an unbalanced schedule (teams play predominantly w/in their conference) and then try to state that it's ethically better for the 9th place team in one conference (that might have had 5 Ottawa's and Edmontons in it) to be in the playoffs over the 8th place team in the other one because it managed to get to 1 more OT than the other one did? You have a seriously warped view of what the term 'ethical' means, no offense.

 

I didn't ask your view on LEAGUE expansion. I asked for your view on PLAYOFF expansion. :doh:

I'll assume based on your last sentence that you are opposed to it.

No you're putting words in my mouth. Ethically the top 16 teams make it. that doesn't make it practical. But they should do their best. Like i said, top 8 in each conference should make it. top 4 is Bull and honestly i'm surprised you're advocating it when it looks like your team is going to land in the most heavily stacked of all.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

I respect you have your own viewpoint, and even though i doubt you respect mine, i don't really care.

 

i have better things to do other than arguing with someone who has no influence on the matter at hand over the internet. i just want whats best for the league and my team.

[Taro T]

No you're putting words in my mouth. Ethically the top 16 teams make it. that doesn't make it practical. But they should do their best. Like i said, top 8 in each conference should make it. top 4 is Bull and honestly i'm surprised you're advocating it when it looks like your team is going to land in the most heavily stacked of all.

And I have yet to read from you how you determine who the 16th best team is? I will guarantee you that simply having the 16th most points overall having played an UNBALANCED schedule will not necessarily get you there.

 

And no, putting the top 8 from each conference doesn't get you to the top 16 best teams overall as the talent in each conference will not automatically fall that way.

 

So how do you 'ethically' put the top 16 teams in? And I do not believe that word means what you think it means. ;)

 

You state having the top 4 teams from a division make the playoffs is unfair relative to having the top 8 from a conference. Please explain the logic behind that.

[shrader]

So in wanting a balanced schedule, you're proposing 87 games? I know where it's coming from, but you don't see the big problem in that number?

[LastPommerFan]

I like the 14 team western conference even beter when you consider the income that playoffs generate. It would give Phoenix, Winnepeg, Nashville, Dallas, etc a better chance to break even with better odds at hosting a couple playoff games. The eastern confernce teams would, as you've said, fill the rinks more during the regular season with those teams fans travelling well, so the decrease in playoff spots per team would be felt even less. This setup also avoids the pesky AHL issue of comparing the 5th best team in one division with the 4th best team in the other and then having to start with cross divisional matches.

[Eleven]

Personally, I'd rather they just eliminate the divisions all together. Rivalries can still exist without them and the divisions really only exist for the purpose of scheduling. I'm sure they could make things work without them.

 

Oh, and as for bringing back the old names, I know there's a nostalgia thing there, but would you object to more modern names?

 

As long as Don Cherry doesn't get a division named after him, I'm open to the idea.

[Eleven]

 

 

And if they're playing in different conferences, then "more points" doesn't necessarily mean that they are the better team; they could have just had an easier schedule.

 

And it looks like that's what's going to happen. The Sabres will be in the equivalent of the SEC.

[X. Benedict]

Can we just get an Adams division again? :beer:

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

And I have yet to read from you how you determine who the 16th best team is? I will guarantee you that simply having the 16th most points overall having played an UNBALANCED schedule will not necessarily get you there.

 

And no, putting the top 8 from each conference doesn't get you to the top 16 best teams overall as the talent in each conference will not automatically fall that way.

 

So how do you 'ethically' put the top 16 teams in? And I do not believe that word means what you think it means. ;)

 

You state having the top 4 teams from a division make the playoffs is unfair relative to having the top 8 from a conference. Please explain the logic behind that.

because a division of Detroit Pitt Buff Boston Montreal Toronto Ottawa and Columbus has more talent (5 established, and TO is on the rise as well.) than any other potential confrence. Talent is condensed in this region moreso than anywhere else on the continent. If my favorite team was vancouver, or San jose, i wouldnt have a problem with this. But if your going to take an already strong northeast division and throw in detroit and pittsburgh into the mix, then that, as a sabres fan, seems like an ill fated circumstance at the worst possible time.

[LastPommerFan]

because a division of Detroit Pitt Buff Boston Montreal Toronto Ottawa and Columbus has more talent (5 established, and TO is on the rise as well.) than any other potential confrence. Talent is condensed in this region moreso than anywhere else on the continent. If my favorite team was vancouver, or San jose, i wouldnt have a problem with this. But if your going to take an already strong northeast division and throw in detroit and pittsburgh into the mix, then that, as a sabres fan, seems like an ill fated circumstance at the worst possible time.

 

The conferences will be alligned to maximize viewership and thus revenue. Thus time-zones will be a primary factor. Fairness and Parity will play NO ROLE in the set-up.

 

Besides, remember when the SE division won "back to back: Stanley Cups (took three years, but just 2 seasons) despite being the weakest division in the league?

 

I'll take Detroit and Pittsburgh. The only worry would be wear and tear on the players, but that division means we hardly ever travel more than 350 miles for a game. one hour flights, avoid NYC, I love it.

 

But I think that PIT goes the other way and we absorb either the NYI or NJD. No way the league doesn't take the chance to have more Ovi-Crysby games. And no way all three NYC teams land in the same division again. This is a broadcasting revenue error that will not be repeated.

[Taro T]

because a division of Detroit Pitt Buff Boston Montreal Toronto Ottawa and Columbus has more talent (5 established, and TO is on the rise as well.) than any other potential confrence. Talent is condensed in this region moreso than anywhere else on the continent. If my favorite team was vancouver, or San jose, i wouldnt have a problem with this. But if your going to take an already strong northeast division and throw in detroit and pittsburgh into the mix, then that, as a sabres fan, seems like an ill fated circumstance at the worst possible time.

A couple of points.

 

1. Just because those teams seem strong today, does not mean tht they will continue to be strong tomorrow.

 

2. If you want to win the Stanley Cup, you have to be the best team around. Being the 4th or 5th best out of a talented lot should not get you there.

 

Teams out along the West Coast could be just as unhappy (except for the fact they only have 7 teams in division) as the Eulers have been stockpiling top 3 picks like the Pens nearly a decade ago, Vancouver is loaded for bear and showing no signs of dropping off, SJ always has a killer regular season team, LA is improved short term and were very solid this year, and the Ducks made the playoffs and have a very strong top line. If you are Calgary or Phoenix, you can't be happy w/ that.

 

The Isles will have to play the Phlyers, the Canes, the Caps, the Devils, the Strangers, and the Lightning to get into the playoffs. I doubt they'd be thrilled playing in that division as all those teams are either traditionally strong or have oscillated between very strong & very cruddy.

 

It's a tough row to hoe regardless of where you end up.

 

You have focused all your comments on the 4 x 4, which I'd expect is a done deal. I'm far more interested in having discussions on the tweak to the format that I proposed that could allow the Sabres and Wings to end up in the Finals against each other even though it appears they'll be in the same division. The league hasn't used a formula that would allow that since '81.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

A couple of points.

 

1. Just because those teams seem strong today, does not mean tht they will continue to be strong tomorrow.

 

2. If you want to win the Stanley Cup, you have to be the best team around. Being the 4th or 5th best out of a talented lot should not get you there.

 

Teams out along the West Coast could be just as unhappy (except for the fact they only have 7 teams in division) as the Eulers have been stockpiling top 3 picks like the Pens nearly a decade ago, Vancouver is loaded for bear and showing no signs of dropping off, SJ always has a killer regular season team, LA is improved short term and were very solid this year, and the Ducks made the playoffs and have a very strong top line. If you are Calgary or Phoenix, you can't be happy w/ that.

 

The Isles will have to play the Phlyers, the Canes, the Caps, the Devils, the Strangers, and the Lightning to get into the playoffs. I doubt they'd be thrilled playing in that division as all those teams are either traditionally strong or have oscillated between very strong & very cruddy.

 

It's a tough row to hoe regardless of where you end up.

 

You have focused all your comments on the 4 x 4, which I'd expect is a done deal. I'm far more interested in having discussions on the tweak to the format that I proposed that could allow the Sabres and Wings to end up in the Finals against each other even though it appears they'll be in the same division. The league hasn't used a formula that would allow that since '81.

i suppose i am just too set in the ways i am used to as of now. it's an interesting proposal to say the least but i suppose that the only way to tell whether or not it is a system that will improve the league will be to implement it.

 

In other news, Bieksa is official according to NHL.com