bbb Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 Does anybody know how many games would be played within division vs. each team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Days Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 I'm only ok with realignment if there is a fair playoff system in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 @Aportzline Told #NHL realignment plan has been approved, will be announced within next couple hours. #CBJ will join Eastern Conference next season. Retweeted by Greg Wyshynski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Why not just have it Eastern and Western Conference, with no seperate divisions, and the top 8 teams in the East and top 8 in the West make the playoffs. Then you can keep the top team plays the last, second plays the second last, etc? The schedule can consist each season of playing each team in the other conference twice (home and away) and the rest of the games split amongst the teams in your conference? Or, if you want to keep the seperate divisions in the conferences, just say the top teams in each division get the 1 and 2 seeds, then the remaining 6 spots are determined by points in the standings. No need for 'Wild Cards' and 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Why not just have it Eastern and Western Conference, with no seperate divisions, and the top 8 teams in the East and top 8 in the West make the playoffs. Then you can keep the top team plays the last, second plays the second last, etc? The schedule can consist each season of playing each team in the other conference twice (home and away) and the rest of the games split amongst the teams in your conference? Or, if you want to keep the seperate divisions in the conferences, just say the top teams in each division get the 1 and 2 seeds, then the remaining 6 spots are determined by points in the standings. No need for 'Wild Cards' and 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, etc. Going conference-only increases the travel budget for every team. The benefits of geographic divisions is (at least) two-fold: 1) Foster intense rivalries between geographically close fan bases. 2) Save the teams serious travel money by weighting the schedule in favor of more intra-division play with closer teams. As for playoffs, they want to bolster #1 by starting the playoffs with intradivision play. The Stanley Cup Playoffs will still consist of 16 teams, eight in each conference, but it will be division-based and a wild-card system has been added as a new wrinkle. The top three teams in each division will make-up the first 12 teams in the playoffs. The remaining four spots will be filled by the next two highest-placed finishers in each conference, based on regular-season points and regardless of division. It will be possible, then, for one division to send five teams to the postseason while the other sends three. The seeding of the wild-card teams within each divisional playoff will be determined on the basis of regular-season points. The division winner with the most points in the conference will be matched against the wild-card team with the lowest number of points; the division winner with the second-most points in the conference will play the wild-card team with the second fewest points. The teams finishing second and third in each division will play in the first round of the playoffs. The winners of each series will play for berths in the Conference Championship series. The two divisional champions in each conference will then play in the conference finals to advance to the Stanley Cup Final. This bolded part has the potential to bite them in the ass: if one division in a conference is stronger than the other, the wildcard teams could easily have more points than the other division's automatic entries, meaning that the division leaders (perhaps the leaders of the tougher division) play a tougher opponent in the first round. Another way to view that is that the wildcard teams in a strong division that have higher points than the automatic qualifying teams of a weak division are punished. The upside is the higher ratings generated by first round divisional playoff rivalries, if that's any sort of upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 http://www.nhl.com/ice/m_news.htm?id=660138 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Else? Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Not that it matters now. And I know the reasons why, but moving Detroit from that central division to the east is going to prove to be a mistake. First of all, the whole 16 vs. 14 team system is ridiculous. Second, this leaves no room for expansion or relocation to the east. Third and most important it leaves a major interest problem. Without Detroit this division, Chicago is the only team that has widespread appeal outside of its immediate market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Four of the original six are in our division now. Pretty cool that we get to play Detroit more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Going conference-only increases the travel budget for every team. The benefits of geographic divisions is (at least) two-fold: 1) Foster intense rivalries between geographically close fan bases. 2) Save the teams serious travel money by weighting the schedule in favor of more intra-division play with closer teams. As for playoffs, they want to bolster #1 by starting the playoffs with intradivision play. If that was true, then why are the 2 teams in Florida in the same division as the teams in the North East?Theres no interest in saving teams travel money, you can't justify that when you have Montreal/Ottawa/Boston traveling down to Florida more then Carolina/Pittsburgh/Philly By not having divisions, the difference in travel might be playing 2 more games against one of the teams that wouldnt be in your division Four of the original six are in our division now. Pretty cool that we get to play Detroit more often. and 5 of 6 are in the Eastern Conference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 If that was true, then why are the 2 teams in Florida in the same division as the teams in the North East? Theres no interest in saving teams travel money, you can't justify that when you have Montreal/Ottawa/Boston traveling down to Florida more then Carolina/Pittsburgh/Philly By not having divisions, the difference in travel might be playing 2 more games against one of the teams that wouldnt be in your division and 5 of 6 are in the Eastern Conference I tried to make this point back around page one somewheres, noting that this alignment was silly. I won't defend the league, I'm just posting what I think they're thinking (apologies). Others believed that many of the other priorities were more important than strictly travel costs: namely keeping existing eastern divisional rivalries and bringing Detroit and CBJ eastward. Florida and TBL got the short end of the travel stick, probably more than anyone in the league with this realignment. If it consoles anyone, Southwest Airlines flys to both Tampa and Ft Lauderdale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 I think those third jerseys are the best in the NHL. I love they way they captured an old school feel, considering the team isn't nearly that old. Not quote colonial, though; the stylings come from the Civil War era. Yeah, Montreal's about an hour north of Plattsburgh. Used to live there! My Dad was in the Air Force and we spent a few years there. Loved the place. Very beautiful. Got to watch their college hockey team kick a little butt. I got to play in a couple of baseball tournaments in Montreal when I was a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 I just want to chime in that I don't like this re-alignment at all. Firstly I hate the wildcard idea. I thought (amongst saving money on travel etc.) the beauty of the four conferences was to place big emphasis on playoff rivalries. By adding a wildcard team in now there is a decent chance a wildcard team will be playing another 'conference' winner. Also, it's obviously unfair the 'east' has 2 additional teams than the 'west.' I could live with the east having two more teams if they did way with the wildcard. Now, not only is their 8 teams in our conference but only 3 teams might make it to the playoffs. EDIT - Just read a good point from Nashville's GM David Poile 'If we made it as the wild card and, say, were the fifth place team in our division and, say, Vancouver was the first place team, you're going to Vancouver for the first round -- which is also not fair to Vancouver, who is the overall best team.' 'You can't cover off for every situation.' I get you can't cover every situation but I'd much rather them have the 4-5 teams in the east divisions have a one game play-in game to even out the additional two teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 I tried to make this point back around page one somewheres, noting that this alignment was silly. I won't defend the league, I'm just posting what I think they're thinking (apologies). Others believed that many of the other priorities were more important than strictly travel costs: namely keeping existing eastern divisional rivalries and bringing Detroit and CBJ eastward. Florida and TBL got the short end of the travel stick, probably more than anyone in the league with this realignment. If it consoles anyone, Southwest Airlines flys to both Tampa and Ft Lauderdale. Not trying to say your at fault or I blame you. My points just that if they try to use that as the excuse, its more BS to cover up their real reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Divisions remain unnamed for now. Whew. We can't be the Central Division. We just can't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Divisions remain unnamed for now. Whew. We can't be the Central Division. We just can't be. WGR just suggested the "Spring Break" division -- cities that leave for Spring Break and the destination cities for Spring Break. I guess we could also be the "Winter Bird" division. If the two expansion teams (that are definitely on the way now), go to Seattle (Division A) and Toronto (Division B), I guess that makes sense. If Phoenix moves to Quebec, though, how do we have to shuffle things around to get them into Division C? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Divisions remain unnamed for now. Whew. We can't be the Central Division. We just can't be. The Snowbird division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Divisions remain unnamed for now. Whew. We can't be the Central Division. We just can't be. Maybe it's the central as in just about every city (except for the Florida ones) thinks they're the center of the hockey universe. It's weak, I know, but it is the only thing I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Not trying to say your at fault or I blame you. My points just that if they try to use that as the excuse, its more BS to cover up their real reason TV ratings, I know. But apparently as David Poille said, 'You can't cover off for every situation.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Does anybody know how many games would be played within division vs. each team? Here is a breakdown of the new schedule matrix created for the new alignment plan: Western Conference (7-team divisions) Within Conference (Division): 29 games * 5 games vs. five teams (3 Home/2 Away vs. two teams, 2 Home/3 Away vs. three teams) AND 4 games vs. one team (2 Home/2 Away). Teams rotated on a yearly basis. * 5 X 5 =25 games * 1 X 4 = 4 games Within Conference (Non-Division): 21 games * 3 games vs. each team (2 Home/1 Away vs. four teams, 1 Home/2 Away vs. three teams). Teams rotated on a yearly basis. * 3 X 7 = 21 games Non-Conference: 32 games * 2 games vs. each team (1 Home/1 Away) * 2 X 16 = 32 games (Exception: one team from each division plays one less game inside Division and one more game inside Conference outside Division) Eastern Conference (8-team divisions) Within Conference (Division): 30 games * 5 games vs. two teams (3 Home/2 Away vs. one team, 2 Home/3 Away vs. one team) AND 4 games vs. five teams (2 Home/2 Away). Teams rotated on a yearly basis. * 5 X 2 =10 games * 4 X 5 = 20 games Within Conference (Non-Division): 24 games * 3 games vs. each team (2 Home/1 Away vs. four teams, 1 Home/2 Away vs. four teams). Teams rotated on a yearly basis. * 3 X 8 = 24 games Non-Conference: 28 games * 2 games vs. each team (1 Home/1 Away) * 2 X 14 = 28 games ---We get Detroit in the division, are able to keep a lot of the rivalries in the league (besides detroit-chicago and detroit-colorado), and we get to see every team at least once a year in Buffalo; even with Philly out of the division we still play them at least three times/year as well as the other eastern teams that make for good rivalries like carolina All in all, I'm a definite fan of this plan, especially given that two more teams should be coming into the league and they'll be in an interesting place (Kc/Seattle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 Thank you very much, Wildcard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 Here's my random thought for the day. If they do wind up moving forward with the expansion idea that has been floating around, I think our division is ripe for the picking. Quebec and Toronto are always at the top of the list when the topic of relocation/expansion comes up and they would fit in our division perfectly in place of Tampa/Florida. There would need to be a bit of reshuffling after that to even things out, but I could see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 Here's my random thought for the day. If they do wind up moving forward with the expansion idea that has been floating around, I think our division is ripe for the picking. Quebec and Toronto are always at the top of the list when the topic of relocation/expansion comes up and they would fit in our division perfectly in place of Tampa/Florida. There would need to be a bit of reshuffling after that to even things out, but I could see it happening. I couldn't disagree more. I think the fact that there are two open spaces out west means that future expansion ends up landing out there. If you look at how Bettmans league has evolved it would make sense. He's all about tv markets and I think Seattle Kansas City and Houston are the cities with the targets. I think Quebec City deserves a team but I think Toronto is on the bottom of the list among these cities when it comes to expansion. There is no way the league would want to split that market between two separate teams. Especially with the leafs on the upswing. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 I couldn't disagree more. I think the fact that there are two open spaces out west means that future expansion ends up landing out there. If you look at how Bettmans league has evolved it would make sense. He's all about tv markets and I think Seattle Kansas City and Houston are the cities with the targets. I think Quebec City deserves a team but I think Toronto is on the bottom of the list among these cities when it comes to expansion. There is no way the league would want to split that market between two separate teams. Especially with the leafs on the upswing. But that's just me. Any new western team could very easily come at the cost of moving Phoenix. Which ever way it happens, you probably get a team in Seattle but no longer have one in Phoenix, so you're still left with the same exact number. So yes, if two new teams come in, the West has to get 2 teams. I think Columbus winds up on the short list to get bumped back into that Conference. After that, maybe they wouldn't be too crazy about having the two Toronto teams in one division, so you could bump one of them out into that division that has Chicago/Minnesota. Personally, I don't think Toronto ever gets a 2nd team, but if by some chance it does happen, the current setup does look like it is open to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 On the upside, if it were 2014, we'd be 14th out of 16 rather than 14th out of 15 in conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Thats not going to get you a better TV deal or increase a fanbase to raise league revenues This will also cost a large amount of jobs for the NHLPA..... Better TV deals could come with the better competition. If you hack off a couple teams operating at losses with minimal fan interest, revenues aren't affected. As for the NHLPA, 46 NHL players are lost, improving the talent at both the NHL and AHL levels. I know this isn't the direction the league would move in, I'm just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.