Realignment of divisions next season?

PredDave · December 22nd, 2006, 12:05 PM

NHL considering significant overhaul

TSN : NHL - Canada's Sports Leader

The NHL has been trying for weeks to tinker with its schedule configuration, but is now considering a significant overhaul of the face of the league that includes realignment and a reduction in the number of divisions from six to four.

* A reduction in the number of divisions from six to four. There would still be an Eastern Conference and a Western Conference, but there were would one eight-team division and one seven-team division in each conference.
* The top two teams in each division would be guaranteed the top four playoff seeds within the conference with four wild card playoff berths going to the teams with the next highest point totals.
* The four new divisions would be configured primarily along the lines of time zones. The theory is not only would this benefit teams in terms of travel, but could also boost TV ratings because game times in the same time zone would be more favorable.
* The current Northeast Division (Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo and Boston) would remain intact and add two other teams to form a seven-team division. Sources say Pittsburgh is one of those teams that would join the Northeast teams.
* The current Atlantic Division (the three New York area teams plus Philadelphia) would be melded together with four teams from the current Southeast Division (all but one of Washington, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa Bay and Florida).
* The eight-team division in the Western Conference would feature all teams in Pacific or Mountain time zones (Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Colorado and Phoenix).
* The seven-team division in the Western Conference would feature teams that are in either the Central or Eastern time zones.
* As for the schedule, it is said to be a little more complicated than it currently is, because of the uneven number of teams in the divisions, but each team will apparently play its division rivals six times each and its conference rivals either three or four times each and non-conference teams once each.

The theory is there will be some reduction in travel because of the geographic alignment by time zone, but every team will see every team at least once over the course of the season.

John F · December 22nd, 2006, 01:07 PM

The eastern/western conference alignment is stupidity to begin with -- as is the hyper-regionalism of the divisions.

You can't grow the sport by keeping the new regions entirely seperate from the old. The only time the southern teams matter to the northern teams are when the playoffs come around (and I don't even mean seeding).

I want two conferences with east/central/west alignments. No more of this ridiculous rust-belt "Western" status...

euthy · December 22nd, 2006, 04:33 PM

Won't this plan be immediately screwed up if, as the other big story is saying, Pittsburgh moves west?

BigBadBlueBird · December 23rd, 2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John F

The eastern/western conference alignment is stupidity to begin with -- as is the hyper-regionalism of the divisions.

You can't grow the sport by keeping the new regions entirely seperate from the old. The only time the southern teams matter to the northern teams are when the playoffs come around (and I don't even mean seeding).

I want two conferences with east/central/west alignments. No more of this ridiculous rust-belt "Western" status...

Umm, this plan does exactly what you want - it mingles the southern teams with the northern.

An East/Central/West alignment, aside from being pointless, will never fly. The 20 teams in the Eastern time zone will vote it down in a heartbeat.

euthy · December 23rd, 2006, 12:34 PM

Here's a solution. I think the problem is not with the new divisions per se, but with the conferences. I don't think it's a big deal to have Atlanta in a division with Chicago and Nashville instead of Washington and Tampa. The problem is putting Atlanta (and any other Eastern time zone team) in a CONFERENCE with Edmonton, Vancouver, etc. There is no more reason for Atlanta, or Central time zone teams for that matter, to be in a conference with true western teams than there is for Buffalo, Toronto, Philly, etc. The reason is simple: if you get on a plane in Calgary, it doesn't really matter whether you're going to Chicago, Atlanta, or Buffalo, or almost anyplace else in the Eastern or Central time zones. It's gonna be a pain in the neck one way or the other.

But as we said, divisions are OK, so what to do? I say, keep the divisions, DROP THE CONFERENCES. Just have 4 divisions. Scheduling the season and the Stanley Cup Final pairing based on conference affiliation has NO historical precedent in hockey. They've only been doing it since 1982, and nothing begun in 1982 can possibly be traditional!

Go ahead and switch Clb and Atl. Then probably Pittsburgh will move to Houston or KC. Then move Det to the Northeast as well. Now we're looking at a league like this:

Atlantic: you know which 8
Northeast: the current 5, plus Clb and Det
Central: Chi, Min, StL Dal, Hou, Nas, Atl
Pacific: the 8 true western

Require all teams to play all interdivision teams twice, with the remainder being spread across the teams in the division. This eliminates the problem of the Atlantic, NE, and SE teams having a tremendous travel advantage over the Central teams merely because of a few degrees of longitude.

The playoffs would involve the top four in each division, with first and second round play within the division, and then reseeding for the semifinals.

Then put a NE expansion team in southern Ontario, and a Central one in whichever of Hou or KC doesn't get the Pens. Now you've got 4 divisions of 8. The schedule could be: 4 games vs. each division team, 2 games against each interdivision team, for 76 games.

Now you've got a shorter season, higher attendances, and a hopefully more crisply-played postseason, but being in the same division as your rival still means something because you play twice as often as other teams, and regardless, the division rivalries that count will be guaranteed to come out in the postseason, because of the playoff structure.

Nor should the playoff pairings be so repetitive as the last time they used the top 4-format. In those days, 3 of the 4 divisions had only 5 teams, so there were only 10 possible playoff matchups. With 8 teams in a division, there are 28.

John F · December 23rd, 2006, 02:54 PM

a two-divisions-per-conference format still reeks of NBA-wanna-be.

That's got Bettman's fingers all over it. Marketing the NHL like the NBA is, and has been, one nail in the coffin for the league for the last decade.

PredDave · December 24th, 2006, 07:47 AM

I read that Bettman's ultimate dream is to add 2 more teams (bringing the league up to 32 total) while having 2 divisions of 8 teams per conference.

I personally don't think the league is ready to be a 32 team league...

GerryInCS · December 24th, 2006, 10:17 AM

Heck the league wasn't ready to be a 24 team league much less the 30 teams that are around now.

MNSOTA · December 26th, 2006, 06:04 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but switching Atlanta and Columbus makes absolutely no sense at all...especially if you're going on a regional format. I haven't been online much lately...can anyone tell me what the justification for this switch would be?

The Eastern teams have no leg to stand on when it comes to voting this down...they're not the ones having to play a DIVISIONAL home and home like Minnesota and Vancouver.

John F · December 31st, 2006, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNSOTA

The Eastern teams have no leg to stand on when it comes to voting this down...they're not the ones having to play a DIVISIONAL home and home like Minnesota and Vancouver.

This is part of the reason why I hate the East/West alignment so much. Teams in the east or midwest (and Minnesota is one of them) are aligned with the western time zones, making them play more games at greater distances than their eastern conference counterparts.

And while watching Columbus and Atlanta (or any of the other expansion/relocation teams of the past decade plus) might turn your stomach -- isn't it important for the sake of the NHL that they get these teams assimilated into the league so they turn your stomach in the rival sense instead of the "could care" sense?

Going ultra-regional and stressing regional rivalries is part of the drawback of the NHL's marketing. Yeah, there are some great regional rivalries in the NHL... But come on -- it's an overkill to put an emphasis on these divisional games when you have to grow the entire league.

December 22nd, 2006, 12:05 PM	#1 (permalink)
PredDave Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 832	Realignment of divisions next season? NHL considering significant overhaul TSN : NHL - Canada's Sports Leader The NHL has been trying for weeks to tinker with its schedule configuration, but is now considering a significant overhaul of the face of the league that includes realignment and a reduction in the number of divisions from six to four. * A reduction in the number of divisions from six to four. There would still be an Eastern Conference and a Western Conference, but there were would one eight-team division and one seven-team division in each conference. * The top two teams in each division would be guaranteed the top four playoff seeds within the conference with four wild card playoff berths going to the teams with the next highest point totals. * The four new divisions would be configured primarily along the lines of time zones. The theory is not only would this benefit teams in terms of travel, but could also boost TV ratings because game times in the same time zone would be more favorable. * The current Northeast Division (Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo and Boston) would remain intact and add two other teams to form a seven-team division. Sources say Pittsburgh is one of those teams that would join the Northeast teams. * The current Atlantic Division (the three New York area teams plus Philadelphia) would be melded together with four teams from the current Southeast Division (all but one of Washington, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa Bay and Florida). * The eight-team division in the Western Conference would feature all teams in Pacific or Mountain time zones (Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Colorado and Phoenix). * The seven-team division in the Western Conference would feature teams that are in either the Central or Eastern time zones. * As for the schedule, it is said to be a little more complicated than it currently is, because of the uneven number of teams in the divisions, but each team will apparently play its division rivals six times each and its conference rivals either three or four times each and non-conference teams once each. The theory is there will be some reduction in travel because of the geographic alignment by time zone, but every team will see every team at least once over the course of the season.

December 22nd, 2006, 01:07 PM	#2 (permalink)
John F Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida Posts: 2,510	The eastern/western conference alignment is stupidity to begin with -- as is the hyper-regionalism of the divisions. You can't grow the sport by keeping the new regions entirely seperate from the old. The only time the southern teams matter to the northern teams are when the playoffs come around (and I don't even mean seeding). I want two conferences with east/central/west alignments. No more of this ridiculous rust-belt "Western" status...

December 22nd, 2006, 04:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
euthy New Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2	Won't this plan be immediately screwed up if, as the other big story is saying, Pittsburgh moves west?

December 23rd, 2006, 12:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
euthy New Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2	Here's a solution. I think the problem is not with the new divisions per se, but with the conferences. I don't think it's a big deal to have Atlanta in a division with Chicago and Nashville instead of Washington and Tampa. The problem is putting Atlanta (and any other Eastern time zone team) in a CONFERENCE with Edmonton, Vancouver, etc. There is no more reason for Atlanta, or Central time zone teams for that matter, to be in a conference with true western teams than there is for Buffalo, Toronto, Philly, etc. The reason is simple: if you get on a plane in Calgary, it doesn't really matter whether you're going to Chicago, Atlanta, or Buffalo, or almost anyplace else in the Eastern or Central time zones. It's gonna be a pain in the neck one way or the other. But as we said, divisions are OK, so what to do? I say, keep the divisions, DROP THE CONFERENCES. Just have 4 divisions. Scheduling the season and the Stanley Cup Final pairing based on conference affiliation has NO historical precedent in hockey. They've only been doing it since 1982, and nothing begun in 1982 can possibly be traditional! Go ahead and switch Clb and Atl. Then probably Pittsburgh will move to Houston or KC. Then move Det to the Northeast as well. Now we're looking at a league like this: Atlantic: you know which 8 Northeast: the current 5, plus Clb and Det Central: Chi, Min, StL Dal, Hou, Nas, Atl Pacific: the 8 true western Require all teams to play all interdivision teams twice, with the remainder being spread across the teams in the division. This eliminates the problem of the Atlantic, NE, and SE teams having a tremendous travel advantage over the Central teams merely because of a few degrees of longitude. The playoffs would involve the top four in each division, with first and second round play within the division, and then reseeding for the semifinals. Then put a NE expansion team in southern Ontario, and a Central one in whichever of Hou or KC doesn't get the Pens. Now you've got 4 divisions of 8. The schedule could be: 4 games vs. each division team, 2 games against each interdivision team, for 76 games. Now you've got a shorter season, higher attendances, and a hopefully more crisply-played postseason, but being in the same division as your rival still means something because you play twice as often as other teams, and regardless, the division rivalries that count will be guaranteed to come out in the postseason, because of the playoff structure. Nor should the playoff pairings be so repetitive as the last time they used the top 4-format. In those days, 3 of the 4 divisions had only 5 teams, so there were only 10 possible playoff matchups. With 8 teams in a division, there are 28.

December 23rd, 2006, 02:54 PM	#6 (permalink)
John F Administrator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida Posts: 2,510	a two-divisions-per-conference format still reeks of NBA-wanna-be. That's got Bettman's fingers all over it. Marketing the NHL like the NBA is, and has been, one nail in the coffin for the league for the last decade.

December 24th, 2006, 07:47 AM	#7 (permalink)
PredDave Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 832	I read that Bettman's ultimate dream is to add 2 more teams (bringing the league up to 32 total) while having 2 divisions of 8 teams per conference. I personally don't think the league is ready to be a 32 team league...

December 24th, 2006, 10:17 AM	#8 (permalink)
GerryInCS New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 635	Heck the league wasn't ready to be a 24 team league much less the 30 teams that are around now.

December 26th, 2006, 06:04 PM	#9 (permalink)
MNSOTA Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 101	I don't know about anyone else, but switching Atlanta and Columbus makes absolutely no sense at all...especially if you're going on a regional format. I haven't been online much lately...can anyone tell me what the justification for this switch would be? The Eastern teams have no leg to stand on when it comes to voting this down...they're not the ones having to play a DIVISIONAL home and home like Minnesota and Vancouver.