Jump to content

Photo

Realignment "tweaked".


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 ghdi

ghdi

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,426 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:42 PM

http://prohockeytalk...s-been-tweaked/

In December of 2011, the NHL announced a “radical” realignment plan that split the league into four “conferences” as opposed to its current structure of two conferences with three divisions in each.

The NHLPA eventually scuttled the plan, citing concerns over travel as well as the fairness of the proposed playoff qualification system........

I don't really like it as its currently rumored, but I suppose it makes sense outside of the FL teams being in the "conference" with Boston/Toronto/etc.
  • 0

#2 Zubie#8

Zubie#8

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,612 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:44 PM

I love the current format. Why change a good thing? Just swap Nashville and Winnipeg and there you go, divisions are fine. They can have this talk if they expand and have 32 teams.


Edited by Zubie#8, 13 February 2013 - 05:46 PM.

  • 0

believe-zubrus.jpg

 


#3 ghdi

ghdi

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,426 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:47 PM

I love the current format. Why change a good thing? Just change Nashville and Winnipeg and there you go. They can have this talk if they expand and have 32 teams.

Yea, I generally agree. It doesnt need anything radical, just get Winnipeg the F out of the east. Columbus would also make a good candidate.
  • 0

#4 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:51 PM

I like the current format too.  They went to this top 8 from each conference format in order to ensure that the best 8 teams in each conference make the playoffs each season, and it has been extremely successful over the past 2 decades.  The only thing I would change is moving some teams around so the conferences make sense, and getting rid of the guarantee of at least a 3 seed for each of the division winners.  All divisions winners should be guaranteed to have home ice (4 seed at worst), but that's it. 


  • 0
Posted Image

#5 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,351 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:53 PM

Yea, I generally agree. It doesnt need anything radical, just get Winnipeg the F out of the east. Columbus would also make a good candidate.


This is why it makes no sense to me. Why mess up the whole program when you could just swap 2-3 teams around and call it a day. Move Winni to either the Central or NW Div and either CBJ or NSH comes to the SE and if Winni goes to the NW, Minn goes to Central.


  • 0

#6 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,429 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:54 PM

I cannot stand these formats.   Forcing "rivalry" series doesn't mean much when half the teams in your conference aren't natural rivals in the first place.   And while the crossover is interesting, it also means that series like last year's conference final are impossible, since the Rangers and the Devils cannot play past round 2

 

Would much rather have open playoffs.    I mean, should I get excited down the road for the Devils/Canucks NHL Semifinal?


Edited by maxpower, 13 February 2013 - 06:00 PM.

  • 0

#7 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,429 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:57 PM


This is why it makes no sense to me. Why mess up the whole program when you could just swap 2-3 teams around and call it a day. Move Winni to either the Central or NW Div and either CBJ or NSH comes to the SE and if Winni goes to the NW, Minn goes to Central.

 

It's being done for travel and TV.    To have Detriot play less 10:00PM starts local and to have say, the Kings play less 4PM-5PM starts local.   That and the Western teams have far greater travel than the Eastern teams.   Trying to isolate the teams by time zones cuts back on that.

 

I mean the Devils, last playoffs, didn't get on a plane for the entire month of May.     Were more or less at home from April 27 to June 3rd.


  • 0

#8 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,351 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:04 PM

It's being done for travel and TV.    To have Detriot play less 10:00PM starts local and to have say, the Kings play less 4PM-5PM starts local.   That and the Western teams have far greater travel than the Eastern teams.   Trying to isolate the teams by time zones cuts back on that.

 

I mean the Devils, last playoffs, didn't get on a plane for the entire month of May.     Were more or less at home from April 27 to June 3rd.

I know why they're doing it, but I think making the league unbalanced with uneven conferences/divisions/whatever the hell they want to call them and changing the playoff format is far worse than keeping the current format.


  • 0

#9 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:04 PM

It's being done for travel and TV.    To have Detriot play less 10:00PM starts local and to have say, the Kings play less 4PM-5PM starts local.   That and the Western teams have far greater travel than the Eastern teams.   Trying to isolate the teams by time zones cuts back on that.

 

I mean the Devils, last playoffs, didn't get on a plane for the entire month of May.     Were more or less at home from April 27 to June 3rd.

 

You can still change around the league and make 4 divisions (instead of conferences - Patrick, Norris, Adams, Smythe) and have 2 conferences  without F'ing with the playoff format.  That way, it cuts down on travel and late start times in the regular season, while keeping the playoff integrity.  I have no problem with the realignment if they kept the best 8 out of 15 playoff format in the newly aligned conferences.


  • 0
Posted Image

#10 MadDog2020

MadDog2020

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,755 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:13 PM

Just swap Winnipeg and Columbus and be done with it. I hated the old 4 conference plan that the players nixed, and I don't like the fact that that still seems like the format they want to go with. I agree that more drastic realignment should be saved for if/when the league expands to 32 teams.
  • 0
iq0p.pngUploaded with ImageShack.com

#11 MadDog2020

MadDog2020

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,755 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:17 PM

Of course there is the giant Phoenix elephant in the room too. Are they going to Seattle? Quebec City? Because the Phoenix to Quebec scenario makes it even easier- move the Coyotes east and Winnipeg west, and it's a done deal. If it's Seattle, than obviously the discussion is moot.
  • 0
iq0p.pngUploaded with ImageShack.com

#12 Vic Rattlehead18

Vic Rattlehead18

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:31 PM

Create Seattle and Kansas City, move Detroit and Columbus to the East. 32 teams, 16 each conference with either 2 of 4 divisions


  • 0
Devils.

#13 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,918 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:32 PM

I imagine some of the NHL GMs complained that there are too many Cup Finals between a weird team who slithered through a weakened Conference (2002, 2003, 2006 come to mind immediately - and how many Cup Finalists missed the playoffs the next year) - the idea being that a 1 seed and a 2 seed from a given Conference shouldn't have to play one another when a 6 and 7 seed get to meet in the other Conference.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#14 DH26

DH26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,730 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:58 PM

Create Seattle and Kansas City, move Detroit and Columbus to the East. 32 teams, 16 each conference with either 2 of 4 divisions

 

Kansas City's not getting a team. Markham and Quebec before that and they'd both be east 


  • 0
Follow Me on Twitter @mtorino75 I Need Followers!

Visit My Devils Blog! www.theTrapezoidConspiracy.com
Rutgers-New Brunswick '11, Rutgers School of Law-Newark '14

#15 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,429 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 07:54 PM

I imagine some of the NHL GMs complained that there are too many Cup Finals between a weird team who slithered through a weakened Conference (2002, 2003, 2006 come to mind immediately - and how many Cup Finalists missed the playoffs the next year) - the idea being that a 1 seed and a 2 seed from a given Conference shouldn't have to play one another when a 6 and 7 seed get to meet in the other Conference.

 

Most of those teams played a big part in blowing up their bracket.   They earned it.    I mean, the Kings last year took out the 1 and 2 seed themselves.

 

I just think they're playing around with the system too much.    I hate the bracketed playoff approach and there's really no "punishment" for a division 4 that beats a division 1.   I'd rather have it be 1-16 overall, but obviously there's no way that's ever going to happen.    Forcing rivalry series doesn't necessary mean the "right" teams are going to play each other, and it outright eliminates Conference Final series between rivals.   4 of our 5 have been against rivals.  (Alright, the Pens were a "soft" rival at the time, but they were in our division in 2001).


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users