Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Z-Man

Latest on realignment

219 posts in this topic

I'd actually like to see this tried out. also i heard them say that the imbalance of teams (16 "west" vs 14 "east") is temporary, for the reasoning that if phoenix moves to say quebec, they would be placed in one of the "eastern conferences" evening out 15 each

if that PHO--> QUE move happened, then they could move Pitt up with the other 3 Canadian teams, Boston, Buffalo

And move Tampa/Florida into "our" conference of the 3 NY, Philly, Wash, Carolina teams

But what if the Isles then end up moving ?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the new divisions/Conferences too much, but I hate the idea of having the first 2 rounds within the divisions/Conferences. You can beat rivalries to death and if the 80’s Oilers happen to be in your division/Conference, you will never get past the 2nd round even if you are the 2nd best team in the NHL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't like this at all- its trying to fix what isn't broken imo.As I've said a hundred times- Wiinnipeg to the Northwest, Colorado to the Pacific, Dallas to the Central, and Nashville or Columbus to the East. That's the best solution, so it doesn't surprise me that the NHL is looking to do something like this that makes no sense. That's just how Bettman rolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the new divisions/Conferences too much, but I hate the idea of having the first 2 rounds within the divisions/Conferences. You can beat rivalries to death and if the 80’s Oilers happen to be in your division/Conference, you will never get past the 2nd round even if you are the 2nd best team in the NHL

But having to beat the best team is what the playoffs are all about. If you're the second best team, and you upset the best, that makes you the best. That's the beauty of divisional playoffs. I mean Calgary upsetting Edmonton in Game 7 in 86 because of Steve Smith's own goal is still talked about in that rivalry today.

You really can't beat a good rivalry to death if it's real. The Rangers-Isles series of the 70's and early 80's are legendary. As are all of the Boston-Montreal series because they still seem to play each other every year even without divisional playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But having to beat the best team is what the playoffs are all about. If you're the second best team, and you upset the best, that makes you the best. That's the beauty of divisional playoffs. I mean Calgary upsetting Edmonton in Game 7 in 86 because of Steve Smith's own goal is still talked about in that rivalry today.

You really can't beat a good rivalry to death if it's real. The Rangers-Isles series of the 70's and early 80's are legendary. As are all of the Boston-Montreal series because they still seem to play each other every year even without divisional playoffs.

There was a reason they didn’t continue the format where you played 8 games against the division teams. Its starts getting old very quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the new divisions/Conferences too much, but I hate the idea of having the first 2 rounds within the divisions/Conferences. You can beat rivalries to death and if the 80’s Oilers happen to be in your division/Conference, you will never get past the 2nd round even if you are the 2nd best team in the NHL

There won't be another 80's Oilers so I don't think this is a concern. Nor do I think a playoff rivalry can be beaten to death.

Don't like this at all- its trying to fix what isn't broken imo.As I've said a hundred times- Wiinnipeg to the Northwest, Colorado to the Pacific, Dallas to the Central, and Nashville or Columbus to the East. That's the best solution, so it doesn't surprise me that the NHL is looking to do something like this that makes no sense. That's just how Bettman rolls.

If every team in the West votes for this, it's clear that they think something is wrong with the current system.

There was a reason they didn’t continue the format where you played 8 games against the division teams. Its starts getting old very quick.

They discontinued this because under that system, teams would not play each other even once some years. Western teams were upset at the East hogging Crosby and Ovechkin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I am the only who enjoys games against teams from outside the tristate area every once in a while

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I am the only who enjoys games against teams from outside the tristate area every once in a while

There will be more games outside the tri-state area. The playoffs will just start with divisional playoffs before moving to conferences and Stanley Cup Finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be more games outside the tri-state area. The playoffs will just start with divisional playoffs before moving to conferences and Stanley Cup Finals.

But only one team from the division will make it there, no matter how dominant the division is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so messed up since we don't know if Phoenix has a team next year or not. And Buttman doesn't want that city to know it until the season is over, not after these meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But only one team from the division will make it there, no matter how dominant the division is.

So what's wrong with that? It means more games outside of the tri-state are if the Devils made it out of the division.

For example, using last year's standings, we'd have Wash-NYR and Phi-Pit, Bos-TB and Mon-Buf, Det-Dal and Nash-Chi, Van-Phx and SJ-Ana coming out of the divisions and playing in the 1st round.

Assuming top seeds make it, we have Wash-Phi, Bos-Mon, Det-Nash, and Van-SJ in round 2.

After round 2, there's a re-seeding. Assuming top seed makes it in each series, the 3rd round would be Van-Bos and Wash-Det, followed by a Van-Wash final.

This way you have your divisional playoffs in rounds 1 and 2, and then there's variety in rounds 3 and 4. You could have a final involving 2 eastern teams, for example. Basically, you could play anyone in the finals EXCEPT a division rival.

Edited by Devil Dan 56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's wrong with that? It means more games outside of the tri-state are if the Devils made it out of the division.

Statistically you only make the 3rd round once every 7-8 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically you only make the 3rd round once every 7-8 years

I still don't understand the issue. This new alignment allows for divisional playoffs and rivalries in the first 2 rounds. Are you saying you'd prefer to keep the right to play Tampa or Florida or Ottawa in the first or second round over the idea of divisional playoffs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the issue. This new alignment allows for divisional playoffs and rivalries in the first 2 rounds. Are you saying you'd prefer to keep the right to play Tampa or Florida or Ottawa in the first or second round over the idea of divisional playoffs?

I just believe in the long run it’s more interesting having also series against teams like Montreal, Boston, and Toronto, not just to a limited pool of teams. A series against the Flyers or Rangers is great, but if it happens every year, it loses its magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I like the divisional playoff idea, I feel like it doesn't accurately represent who the best four teams are. If one division is much better than another division, then the teams in the easier division have an easier road to the final four or league semifinals or whatever it would be called. Of course you could say the same now comparing the East to the West, but at least with only two groups it is less of a problem than with four groups. I also hate that some divisions would have more teams than others. I prefer to keep it the same and just move a team to the East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just believe in the long run it’s more interesting having also series against teams like Montreal, Boston, and Toronto, not just to a limited pool of teams. A series against the Flyers or Rangers is great, but if it happens every year, it loses its magic.

Ohhh, ok. I understand where you're coming from now. I disagree on the grounds that I felt like there was plenty of magic in the playoffs before they switched to the current format, but I can definitely see what you mean about the variety. We had great series with Toronto in 2000 and 01, and with Ottawa in 03 that probably never would have happened if divisional playoffs existed.

BTW, just for fun I did the 2003 playoffs over again using the new alignment. The Devils would have played the Isles, then Flyers, then Colorado, then Dallas in the finals assuming the Devils advanced every round and the best seed advanced in every other series.

Edited by Devil Dan 56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when Phoenix moves we do this all over again... :rolleyes:

Just switch Winnipeg to the northwest division and leave the southeast with four teams.

Edited by devlman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not like this idea. Our proposed division would have some of the best talent but only 1 of the teams would get to the 3rd round. Don't mess with the current system. Just move winnipeg west and nashville east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when Phoenix moves we do this all over again... :rolleyes:

Just switch Winnipeg to the northwest division and leave the southeast with four teams.

If the rumored 4 conference realignment takes place and Phoenix ends up moving to Quebec, I suppose they could simply add in Quebec in with the Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa, Boston, Florida, and Tampa Bay conference. Then that makes it so each Western and Eastern side has conferences with 8 and 7 teams.

I like the current system but I understand why a lot of teams out West would push hard for this. If this goes through I can live with it, plus going back to the divisional playoffs is a bit intriguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rumored 4 conference realignment takes place and Phoenix ends up moving to Quebec, I suppose they could simply add in Quebec in with the Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa, Boston, Florida, and Tampa Bay conference. Then that makes it so each Western and Eastern side has conferences with 8 and 7 teams.

I like the current system but I understand why a lot of teams out West would push hard for this. If this goes through I can live with it, plus going back to the divisional playoffs is a bit intriguing.

But why change the system to begin with if evening out really doesn't matter in the end under this proposed format. As I said, just put Winnipeg in the nw and leave the southeast at 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DarrenDreger

"Decision has been made on realignment by NHL Board of Governors. Will have full details of changes very soon."

@Real_ESPNLeBrun

"I'm not in Pebble B but a source inside BOG meeting said it took a bit less than an hour of discussion to reach agreement on re-alignment."

"For re-alignment details which will be announced soon, follow @DarrenDreger, @ESPN_Burnside and @CraigCustance. They are all in Pebble B"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0