If teams in a division play six times against teams in its division and only two times against teams in the other division in the conference, then I think it would be better with the strict 1st round division playoff. However if the 5th or 6th placed team in a division also would happen to have a very good record against the teams in the other division in the conference I guess you would have an argument...
Realignment II: Well, why not, we've got another year to kill
- Thread starter kdb209
- Start date
- Status
If teams in a division play six times against teams in its division and only two times against teams in the other division in the conference, then I think it would be better with the strict 1st round division playoff. However if the 5th or 6th placed team in a division also would happen to have a very good record against the teams in the other division in the conference I guess you would have an argument...
LadyJet26
LETS GO BLUE!!!!!
Why do people keep putting Pittsburgh in a different division then Philly? Those two teams hold one of the roughest rivalries in the NHL. The NHL would be stupid to move those two away from each other.
Teams already play 6 times against Divisional opponents; with a 4 Division setup, they'll simply have 2 or 3 more teams to play those 6 games against. And if there are 2 or 3 very weak teams in the Division, then it's certainly possible for at least 5 teams to have have good records.
The proposed schedule lends itself more than any other for a strict divisional first round, because teams don't play opponents outside of their division more than twice (compared to 4 times in current conferences).
That being said, I don't think it is enough of a reason to do a strict divisional first round.
My Solution:
Free up divisions for sending 3-5 teams and you keep a balance better than today (a team outside the Top 16 would get in less often than currently), and you could still have 6, 7, or 8 series be divisional.
That being said, I don't think it is enough of a reason to do a strict divisional first round.
My Solution:
Free up divisions for sending 3-5 teams and you keep a balance better than today (a team outside the Top 16 would get in less often than currently), and you could still have 6, 7, or 8 series be divisional.
I would go the other way. Have the first 2 rounds strictly divisional, followed by a conference round (West vs Central and also East vs Great Lakes). That question of whether a team is in the top 16 is a total canard, unless all teams play a balanced schedule. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges.
I think reseeding within the conference is good for the second round. It keeps series fresh and eliminates the potential of the top two teams in a conference meeting before the conference final.
Of course, then travel would be a bore out West if we get Vancouver vs. Nashville and San Jose vs. Detroit. I'd also open up the possibility for 1v3 and 2v4 to keep a divisional second round while still avoiding a pairing of the top two in the conference (not that it would have helped out west this year).
Alternatively, if we are crowning divisional champions in the playoffs, reseeding for the Stanley Cup Semifinals would be my call; these new divisions are truly conferences anyway. Have the Campbell Trophy ready for the winner of the series involving the Pacific champion, and the Wales Trophy ready at the other series. This would also eliminate the angst concerning who stays in the Central and who moves East, and we would just divide the Eastern 22 by rivalries.
East
MTL, BOS, OTT, TOR, PHI, NYI, NYR, NJ, WSH, CAR, TB, FLA
Central
WPG, MIN, CHI, DET, CBJ, STL, NSH, DAL, PIT, BUF
West
VAN, CGY, EDM, COL, PHX, L.A., ANA, S.J.
East Plays:
4 X own conference = 44 Games
2 X other conferences = 36 Games
+ 2 Rivalry Games within conference
82 Games
Central Plays:
4 X Own Conference = 36 Games
2 X Other conferences = 40 games
+ 6 Rivalry Games within conference
82 Games
West Plays:
5 X Own Conference = 35 Games
2 X Other Conferences = 44 Games
+ 3 Rivalry Games within conference
82 Games
Playoff Structure
Top 4 in each Conference Qualify.
5th seed in Central Conference Qualifies.
5th & 6th seed in Eastern Conference Qualify.
The next best seed in overall points between West, Central & East Qualifies. (In most years this will be a Western team)
First Round always starts like this
1 E v 6 E
2 E v 5 E
3 E v 4 E
1 C v 5 C
2 C v Best Qualifier
3 C v 4 C
1 W v 4 W
2 W v 3 W
Second Round the 8 remaining teams are re-ranked based on total points for the season.
My reasoning:
- Think it makes the most sense Geographically.
- All teams have a 50% chance of making the playoffs + a wildcard.
- The rivalry schedule should be fairly easy to create and maintain a balance.
- Each conference has a solid mixture of Original 6 / Canadian teams.
MTL, BOS, OTT, TOR, PHI, NYI, NYR, NJ, WSH, CAR, TB, FLA
Central
WPG, MIN, CHI, DET, CBJ, STL, NSH, DAL, PIT, BUF
West
VAN, CGY, EDM, COL, PHX, L.A., ANA, S.J.
East Plays:
4 X own conference = 44 Games
2 X other conferences = 36 Games
+ 2 Rivalry Games within conference
82 Games
Central Plays:
4 X Own Conference = 36 Games
2 X Other conferences = 40 games
+ 6 Rivalry Games within conference
82 Games
West Plays:
5 X Own Conference = 35 Games
2 X Other Conferences = 44 Games
+ 3 Rivalry Games within conference
82 Games
Playoff Structure
Top 4 in each Conference Qualify.
5th seed in Central Conference Qualifies.
5th & 6th seed in Eastern Conference Qualify.
The next best seed in overall points between West, Central & East Qualifies. (In most years this will be a Western team)
First Round always starts like this
1 E v 6 E
2 E v 5 E
3 E v 4 E
1 C v 5 C
2 C v Best Qualifier
3 C v 4 C
1 W v 4 W
2 W v 3 W
Second Round the 8 remaining teams are re-ranked based on total points for the season.
My reasoning:
- Think it makes the most sense Geographically.
- All teams have a 50% chance of making the playoffs + a wildcard.
- The rivalry schedule should be fairly easy to create and maintain a balance.
- Each conference has a solid mixture of Original 6 / Canadian teams.
Curious how you choose Pittsburgh and Buffalo for the Central but not Toronto. What's your reasoning there?
Add in:
I should curse myself for posting a 4 Division alignment, but another way of splitting those east teams, which I don't think has yet been suggested, is simply to do a strict east-west split of the ETZ teams.
That would put...
Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, Islanders, Rangers, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Washington
in one Division, and...
Detroit, Columbus, Tampa Bay, Florida, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Toronto
in the other Division.
Last edited:
No, what's totally "canard" is this Top-4 Divisional Playoff. You say that Top-16 is canard because all teams don't play every team in a completely balanced schedule... Well can you guarantee that all 4 Divisions (if the League goes that way) will be completely balanced? Some Divisions are going to be stronger, as a whole, than others, so punishing a team that finishes 5th with 5 strong teams in the Division, and with a better record than a weak 4th place team in the other Division... well simply, that's "canard".
Purely Geographical. 2 of the 3 mentioned teams must play in the Central Conference. You can take your pick, but I chose Pittsburgh as it is the most westerly of the current Atlantic teams. Buffalo & Toronto are 50/50, either or could be put in the Central Conference.
Distance in miles by driving:
PIT - DET = 286 Miles
PIT - CBJ = 185 Miles
PIT - BUF = 215 Miles
PIT - PHI = 304 Miles
PIT - CHI = 462 Miles
PIT - NYC = 372 Miles
etc.
TORONTO
to Buffalo 96 km (sE of Tor)
to Detroit 332 km (W of Tor)
to Ottawa 353 km (E of Tor)
to Pittsburgh 361 km (sW of Tor)
to Montreal 505 km (E of Tor)
BUFFALO
to Toronto 96 km (nW of Buf)
to Pittsburgh 290 km (sW of Buf)
to Detroit 352 km (W of Buf)
to Ottawa 380 km (nE of Buf)
to Philadelphia 448 km (sE of Buf)
PITTSBURGH
to Columbus 260 km (W of Pit)
to Buffalo 290 km (nE of Pit)
to Washington 306 km (sE of Pit)
to Detroit 336 km (W of Pit)
to Toronto 337 km (nE of Pit)
OK...What I was trying to point out is that Pittsburgh should be in a division with CBJ, DET & BUF because all 3 are closer than their current closest divisional rival PHI. I also wanted to show that driving PIT-CHI was comparable to PIT-NYC.
Would you prefer the 3 Conference setup if TOR moved to the Central. Leaving 11 in the East, 9 in the Central & 8 in the West?
I think I also demonstrated that Toronto is closer to Buffalo and Detroit than it is to Ottawa; is actually west of Buffalo; and is closer to Pittsburgh than it is to Montreal. That was my point.
I agree.
Given that and also given my proposed alignment which of the 3 teams should stay in the Eastern Conference?
How about this: Flip Pittsburgh out, and add Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal in.
CENTRAL
Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, Dallas, St Louis, Chicago, Minnesota, Winnipeg.
EAST
Bruins, Islanders, Rangers, Devils, Flyers, Penguins, Capitals, Hurricanes, Lightning, Panthers
There are too many interests to to satisfy in a massive or even moderate change in the conferences. I propose to move Dallas into Atlanta's old spot and Winnipeg into Dallas' position. It's just a 2 team change and so no one team feels screwed (except perhaps Dallas). As for Winnipeg, they will pile up the frequent flier miles no matter what. Multi-team deals mean multi-interest and multi-ego issues. I just can't see a major shift with Nashville and Chicago complaining about a Detroit move, and Detroit complaining about a Nashville move. Screwing around with Eastern rivalries such as Pitt - Phil or Pitt-DC would be just stupid.
The reason it hasn't been suggested is because there would be howls of outrage at breaking up the Toronto-Montreal rivalry, and even the Toronto-Ottawa rivalry. It'd one thing to put Winnipeg in the Central, away from its Alberta and BC rivals, because the of the 2 timezone travelling. There is no such excuse with Toronto, and its rivalries with Ottawa and Montral have been going on a lot longer. If anything, as long they're all in one timezone, a north-south split cuts down on travelling, so that makes more sense.
But yet Oleg Petrov is talking about separating Pittsburgh from Philadelphia and Buffalo from Toronto. My suggestion with Toronto just completed the package. But then my last post above suggested an alternative idea (for his 3 Conference format).
-For schedule purposes a 12, 10, 8 team format is the most logical (even amount of teams).
-Given that, two teams of (Pittsburgh, Buffalo or Toronto) must move to the Central Conference.
-If your looking at putting Montreal or Ottawa in the Central you might as well scrap the whole thing.
This idea is based on Geography & ease of scheduling. Two teams will get slightly screwed here for the overall team travel of the league to be reduced. However, I do think Pittsburgh & Buffalo might actually have less team travel this way, but haven't done all of the math behind it.
Two things, Oleg,...
One, I don't think the 3 Conference idea is a bad one, though I've never considered it with unbalanced Conferences.
Two, I don't see how Ottawa and Montreal in your Central Division destroys the whole idea. Your still talking only two Time Zones within the Division. The greatest distance would be Montreal to Dallas, which yes is considerable but that's mostly because of the remoteness of Dallas (not the extra distance between Buffalo and Montreal). Furthermore, you're thinking is focused on sort of a strict east-west split of those teams in the ETZ, but if you look at the actual map of NHL teams you see that there's a natural divide which has Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo, Detroit, Columbus, Chicago, Minnesota, and St Louis on one side, and Boston, the NYC area teams, Philadelphia, Washington, and Carolina on the other side. Pittsburgh and Nashville are both sort of in the middle of the divide.
I think you create less resistance, for your 3 Conf idea, if you follow that divide and keep the eastern Canadian teams together and the Pennsylvania teams together. You still get resistance for splitting Montreal and Boston, but many people do at least recognize the more natural association of Boston with New York.
And again, Montreal and Dallas in the same Conference (of a 3 Conference setup):
- The Eastern Conference (1 TZ) would stretch from Boston to Florida (1990 km).
- The Central Conference (2 TZs) would stretch from Montreal to Dallas (2438 km), Montreal to St Louis only 1572 km, Dallas to Buffalo 1932 km (Dallas is the outlier).
- The Western Conference (2 TZs) would stretch from Edmonton to Phoenix (2234 km).
ADD IN: Oh, by the way, I'd still divide each of those Conferences into two Divisions (2 Divisions of 4, 2 Divisions of 5, and 2 Divisions of 6).
Last edited:
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
Expansion may not be part of the plan now, but if the league is planning a large scale re-alignment it would stand to reason that they will want an alignment that makes it easy to slide one or two expansion teams into if need be.
The point is that Expansion apparently isn't being considered for any time very soon, so then why change to an unbalanced 4 Division structure significantly before there are actually 32 teams to fit nicely into such a structure?
And from my perspective, if they can live with an unbalanced structure now, then they can equally live with unbalance even when there is eventually expansion and just keep the League at 6 Divisions... the unbalance coming later.
King Woodballs
Captain Awesome
expansion isnt in the cards in the near to mid term future
guaranteed.
They need to figure something out with what teams they have.
If Phoenix moves then it gets even easier.
But who knows if that happens this year... or ever
guaranteed.
They need to figure something out with what teams they have.
If Phoenix moves then it gets even easier.
But who knows if that happens this year... or ever
Hollywood3
Bison/Jet/Moose Fan
- May 12, 2007
- 6,480
- 983
There will be two conferences with two divisions in each. They won't be able to do much until they know what Phoenix is doing. IMO Phoenix will move east and Winnipeg west.
In the west the Smythe* will have Vancouver, LA, Anaheim, San Jose, Colorado, Edmonton, Calgary.
The Norris* will have Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, Dallas, Columbus, Nashville.
The eastern alignment is up for heavy negotiations. They will have to divide one existing division and I believe it will be tHe Southeast.
For playoffs they will use last year's AHL format. 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 in each and 5 in one can bump 4 in the other and cross-over.
In the west the Smythe* will have Vancouver, LA, Anaheim, San Jose, Colorado, Edmonton, Calgary.
The Norris* will have Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, Dallas, Columbus, Nashville.
The eastern alignment is up for heavy negotiations. They will have to divide one existing division and I believe it will be tHe Southeast.
For playoffs they will use last year's AHL format. 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 in each and 5 in one can bump 4 in the other and cross-over.
KevFu
Registered User
After watching yet another baseball season in which my team played the hardest schedule in their league and be well out of the pennant race; I really just want them to do two conferences of 15, have an 84-game schedule where you play everyone in your conference six times and take the top eight.
In baseball, your current AL playoff teams are:
NYY 77 wins
BOS 77
TEX 73
DET 68
and here's who's outside:
TBR 69
LAA 69
In the NL
PHI 81
ATL 76
MIL 76
ARZ 69
WAS (61) and NYM (60) have been eliminated for a month because they play PHI/ATL 36 times (and in the Mets case, add NYY for 42 games). And yet, they have a winning records against the Central, the West, and the AL (and are each .500 vs Arizona this season)
Screw geography and play a balanced schedule and Tampa's a playoff team. The Nats and Mets are in the race with ARZ/SF.
And the playoff seeding isn't jacked up. The wild card winners are both going to be second in their leagues. Yet they'll play the #3 team in their league on the road.
I hate this "zip code" determines whether or not you make the playoffs. If you put any of the other 20 teams in baseball in the East divisions, they'd be fighting for third place. If you put TB, TOR, WAS, NYM in the Central or West, they'd be competing for the division.
In baseball, your current AL playoff teams are:
NYY 77 wins
BOS 77
TEX 73
DET 68
and here's who's outside:
TBR 69
LAA 69
In the NL
PHI 81
ATL 76
MIL 76
ARZ 69
WAS (61) and NYM (60) have been eliminated for a month because they play PHI/ATL 36 times (and in the Mets case, add NYY for 42 games). And yet, they have a winning records against the Central, the West, and the AL (and are each .500 vs Arizona this season)
Screw geography and play a balanced schedule and Tampa's a playoff team. The Nats and Mets are in the race with ARZ/SF.
And the playoff seeding isn't jacked up. The wild card winners are both going to be second in their leagues. Yet they'll play the #3 team in their league on the road.
I hate this "zip code" determines whether or not you make the playoffs. If you put any of the other 20 teams in baseball in the East divisions, they'd be fighting for third place. If you put TB, TOR, WAS, NYM in the Central or West, they'd be competing for the division.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Game 6 Cleveland Monsters @ Hershey Bears - Hershey Bears leads series 3-2Wagers: 2Staked: $740.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 2 Edmonton Oilers @ Florida Panthers - Florida leads series 1-0Wagers: 13Staked: $12,389.00Event closes- Updated: