If that happens they should still get rid of divisions but instead go to four conferences. If there's no extra regular season games against the other division in your "conference" then why do you have to play their champion instead of being re-seeded in the semifinals?I'm not sure, but I think the schedule will go to home/away with everyone, and all the rest on division. That would be 20 games different, then
If that happens they should still get rid of divisions but instead go to four conferences. If there's no extra regular season games against the other division in your "conference" then why do you have to play their champion instead of being re-seeded in the semifinals?
Are the west really gonna have 2 more teams than the East? How's that gonna play out in terms of playoff seeding?
Still 8 teams from each side? West teams would be at a disadvantage
Are the west really gonna have 2 more teams than the East? How's that gonna play out in terms of playoff seeding?
Still 8 teams from each side? West teams would be at a disadvantage
what exactly are you talking about? its currentl 15/16 with eastern conference having one more team. Seattle makes it 16/16.
17 per conference? Then division would be uneven, unless you want to go without it.And if Houston and Quebec were added, it would be 17/17. Quebec was "deferred" and the only real reason cited was geographic imbalance.
I doubt the NHL would do that.
I'll go ahead and chime in my two cents noting that TSN's Frank Seravalli (https://www.tsn.ca/seattle-one-vote-away-from-becoming-nhl-s-32nd-home-1.1184804) is suggesting that the realignment would be AZ to Central and keeping CGY/EDM in Pacific. And that's what I think you'll see too. Tommy is correct - CGY/EDM are closer destinations to SEA than AZ/COL, and while having both of them would be OK, too, the league might be better off from a $$$ perspective to have CGY and EDM in the division with SEA because that will mean extra Canadian national TV broadcasts from here. You'd have to think that Seattle will become a significant destination for Rogers for West Coast games because of the shortness of the trip from Vancouver, so the more Canadian team games on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday nights the better for them from a $$$ perspective. Fenway, care to comment?
17 per conference? Then division would be uneven, unless you want to go without it.
Divisions are already uneven...so history is there.
Besides, I don't see the league adding 4 teams at once (so going 18-18), so inevitably we may see in a future 17 conferences, and even on short term uneven conferences (16-17, 17-18).
Who is paying the expansion fee?
Seattle will be an instant rival with Edmonton & Calgary. Edmontonians and Calgarians often fly to Seattle for Seahawks games, there will be an even larger contingent when you have weekends where the Oilers and Flames are in town. I think from a $$$ perspective it makes sense to have Seattle in the same division. It is only about 1.5 hour direct flight from both Edmonton & Calgary.
Here's how I look at the alignment question....
We all know it's about money to the owners. There is no question about that.
However....I think it's actually about LOCAL money, not national money. There will always be enough national games that the league doesn't need to make the alignment for the sake of having enough such games.
The Alignment is so that every team has enough same time-zone start times. That's where the local media $$ comes from. That's especially why no one likes to have lots of games 2 time zones away....The TV audience is much less, and broadcasters know that.
With that in mind, I suggest that the league won't care how many times Seattle plays Edm/Cgy. What the league will care about is....Is there a significant difference in local revenue depending on how we re-align?
And, considering how HOT the Seattle market seems to be, I don't think that 'What's best for Seattle?' is going to be a consideration.
What will happen to Calgary's local TV MIGHT be.... Edmonton...I doubt it because the fandom there is fairly rabid.
And, along with all of that, the other factor is...6:00 start times for MTZ zone teams are better than 8:30 starts, because of how late the game runs.
Put all of that together and it's a 50/50 proposition.
Moving AZ to the Central kills the Coyotes for 1/3 of the season, and it's an important 1/3 (start and finish). Now, it's true that you COULD mitigate that somewhat by playing their road games on the West Coast during the first month of the season. You COULD do that. But, it doesn't change the circumstances for the other Central teams, who are going to play road games TWO time zones to the west of their home. That will make it more difficult for those teams to negotiate their local broadcast contracts.
On the other hand, the only two problems I can see with moving Calgary and Edmonton are travel (And, KevFu is correct. Arena availability is for more important for the actual amount of travel than pure geography.) and rivals. But, to me, the 'rivals' part is mostly mitigated because Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Seattle are already going to be sold out. What about road games? Well, no one will have to play any division games two time zones away, so it's best for them as well.
Tommy, you keep saying that moving the Alberta teams is a horrible thing for 5 teams. I'm sorry. I just don't see it.
Very fair points, MNN. I however think that it will be a TV decision entirely, and not NBC's call either.
That's what I'm saying. NBC isn't going to care, because in the first place, their national games usually involve teams from the Northeast or Chicago. They don't need a whole bunch of Seattle v Edmonton games to get their value out of their national contract.
Rogers and Bell probably don't care (at least I can't see why they would) if it's Calgary v Vancouver or Calgary v Edmonton.
So, it comes down to LOCAL TV money. That's the reason everyone is in close time zone proximity already.
I can't see where it is any disadvantage to the local TV contract of any of these teams if CGY/EDM move to the Central... Cgy, Edm, Van, Col, Sea. I just can't see it. The local TV viewer is going to watch his/her team no matter the opponent. The CGY viewer is more likely to watch a whole game in played in Winnipeg compared to LA for time zone reasons.
However, ALL of the Central Time Zone teams, and Arizona itself, are going to have fewer viewers for any games played on the road between Arz and a CTZ team in October or in March. That's because it's 2 hours away. It either starts too early or too late.
That's the reason that the 'easy thing' doesn't look so easy to me.
Here's how I look at the alignment question....
We all know it's about money to the owners. There is no question about that.
However....I think it's actually about LOCAL money, not national money. There will always be enough national games that the league doesn't need to make the alignment for the sake of having enough such games.
The Alignment is so that every team has enough same time-zone start times. That's where the local media $$ comes from. That's especially why no one likes to have lots of games 2 time zones away....The TV audience is much less, and broadcasters know that.
With that in mind, I suggest that the league won't care how many times Seattle plays Edm/Cgy. What the league will care about is....Is there a significant difference in local revenue depending on how we re-align?
And, considering how HOT the Seattle market seems to be, I don't think that 'What's best for Seattle?' is going to be a consideration.
What will happen to Calgary's local TV MIGHT be.... Edmonton...I doubt it because the fandom there is fairly rabid.
And, along with all of that, the other factor is...6:00 start times for MTZ zone teams are better than 8:30 starts, because of how late the game runs.
Put all of that together and it's a 50/50 proposition.
Moving AZ to the Central kills the Coyotes for 1/3 of the season, and it's an important 1/3 (start and finish). Now, it's true that you COULD mitigate that somewhat by playing their road games on the West Coast during the first month of the season. You COULD do that. But, it doesn't change the circumstances for the other Central teams, who are going to play road games TWO time zones to the west of their home. That will make it more difficult for those teams to negotiate their local broadcast contracts.
On the other hand, the only two problems I can see with moving Calgary and Edmonton are travel (And, KevFu is correct. Arena availability is for more important for the actual amount of travel than pure geography.) and rivals. But, to me, the 'rivals' part is mostly mitigated because Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Seattle are already going to be sold out. What about road games? Well, no one will have to play any division games two time zones away, so it's best for them as well.
Tommy, you keep saying that moving the Alberta teams is a horrible thing for 5 teams. I'm sorry. I just don't see it.