Sure, why not, it's only been a year (The W) since it was shot down by the NHLPA - if at first you don't succeed...
Originally posted by TSN (tsn.ca)NHL REALIGNMENT INCLUDES FOUR DIVISIONS, WILD CARD TEAMS TSN.CA STAFF 2/26/2013 2:25:47 PM
The National Hockey League's new realignment plan, being worked on with the NHL Players' Association, includes four divisions in two conferences with wild-card spots for the playoffs.
The plan was laid out in a league memo that was sent to all 30 teams on Tuesday and obtained by TSN.
Instead of going to four conferences as was the original plan in December 2011, the new plan calls for two conferences containing two divisions each.
Western Conference
Eastern Conference
Pacific Div.
Mid-West Div.
Central Div.
Atlantic Div.
Anaheim
Chicago
Boston
Carolina
Calgary
Colorado
Buffalo
Columbus
Edmonton
Dallas
Detroit
New Jersey
Los Angeles
Minnesota
Florida
NY Islanders
Phoenix
Nashville
Montreal
NY Rangers
San Jose
St. Louis
Ottawa
Philadelphia
Vancouver
Winnipeg
Tampa Bay
Pittsburgh
Toronto
Washington
The playoff format calls for the top three teams in each division to earn post-season berths. The remaining four spots would go to wild-card teams, the top two records remaining in each conference. That means there's a possibility five teams make it from one division and only three from another.
It would be divisional playoffs, not conference playoffs, so 1 vs. 4, 2 vs 3 in the first round. The two fourth seeds would be made up of the wild-card teams. The top division winner based on regular-season points in the standings would face off against the lower-ranked wild-card team. The other division winner would play the higher-ranked wild-card.
First-round winners then meet in second round in the division championship; Third round sees Pacific winner vs. Mid-West winner in Western Conference finals; Central winner versus Atlantic winner in Eastern Conference finals; Eastern and Western Conference champions meet in Stanley Cup finals.
The regular season schedule would see teams play every team in the other conference home and away.
This plan is tentative as it still requires approval from both the NHL Board of Governors and the NHL Players' Association.
The NHL and the NHLPA have been working on this together for three weeks.
I kinda doubt the NHL will EVER get their dream Finals of Chicago/Detroit, so why put them in different conferences?
I think the NHLPA shot the realignment down last year as more of a show of force going into the lockout than anything else.
That said, I hate change, so I hate this. It also doesn't help to look at the Winnipeg Jets and see we'll be hosting a ton of games from St. Louis! Nashville! Dallas! and Colorado! with breaks inbetween to get destroyed by Chicago. Then again, I fully expect no other team to be thrilled that they have to try to hype tickets to "see Winnipeg come to town" either.
Playoffs seem more confusing to figure out (once you add wildcards in) than the current setup, which should give Sportscenter about 10 minutes of extra talking time per night heading into the playoffs just to explain the possibilities.
I think in the interest of fairness they need to ditch the Eastern/Western conference format and go more like baseball and football and have teams in each conference spread out across the continent. It is an unfair advantage that the Eastern teams have much less travel costs/fatigue than the Western conference (1 time zone vs three time zones once Winnipeg is swapped into the west).
I would also be a fan of division names and conference names being brought back into the fold since that was something cool that hockey had when I was growing up (admittedly this is more for nostalgia, but I always thought it was cool).
Lisa: Poor predicatble Bart, always picks rock Bart: Good ole rock, nothing beats that
• I thought the rotating conference thing was stupid so I'm glad they've tabled it.
DISLIKES
• Playoff wild cards. With unbalanced schedules there would seem to be no reason for this. If an eight-team division gets three crap teams that is more likely going to create a 5th-place team having more points than a team from a more balanced-division. So you are going to reward that fifth-place team because of other teams' collective ineptitude?
• An Atlantic Division with no Canadian teams. I mean, it should at least be possible to have an all-Canada final four.
Personally, if they are hitting a reboot I still think they need to go three points for a regulation win.
Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....
*snip*
Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus
I just saw an article by a guy who figured out the best divisional alignment from the perspective of cutting down on travel distance. Obviously there are more things to worry about than travel distance, but from the standpoint of contiguous regions it made sense at least.
"I'm pretty sure [Andre Caldwell]'ll do a lot more with Manning than he did with Andy Dalton." - StaggerLee
Too bad this is all going to get gummed up when the Coyotes move to Quebec City.
Originally posted by JayJayDean• An Atlantic Division with no Canadian teams. I mean, it should at least be possible to have an all-Canada final four.
Personally, if they are hitting a reboot I still think they need to go three points for a regulation win.
1. The Leafs, Senators and Canadiens would raise hell about being separated from each other and, to a lesser extent, from traditional rivals like Buffalo and Boston.
2. 100 percent agree on the three points for a win
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
Philly and Pitt politicked to stay with their NY-based rivals. The hook with the Floridas in the northeast is something about boosting their attendance from all the Toronto and Montreal fans traveling to see them, and probably also something about screw hockey franchises in Florida.
Originally posted by JustinShapiroPhilly and Pitt politicked to stay with their NY-based rivals. The hook with the Floridas in the northeast is something about boosting their attendance from all the Toronto and Montreal fans traveling to see them, and probably also something about screw hockey franchises in Florida.
Also, how great is the Not Adams division if Florida and Tampa move and become Quebec City and GTA #2.
Ladies and gentlemen, the following public service message is brought to you by your friends from D-Generation X, who would like to remind each and every one of you that if you're not down with that, we've got two words for you... I hated having two of four playoff rounds be divisional matchups when the first version of this was announced; I still hate it in this version. It's going to rob the playoffs of a ton of their variety and charm, and I don't see why we can't do divisional matchups for just one round, or have rotational matchups in the third round for the "conference" championships in order to improve the variety. Lord knows that this realignment will have me watching less of the early rounds of the playoffs than I normally do.
The rest of it I can live with, but with Detroit going East the Original Six allure is all but marginalized, as Chicago will be the league's only shot at an Original Six Stanley Cup matchup every year going forward, and it's saddening.
And they better have a plan for easy shifting of teams around now when places like Quebec City get their teams, whether it's because of teams like Phoenix potentially relocating or the inevitable expansion to 32 teams that this realignment hints at with all the subtlety of a Triple H sledgehammer shot.
smark/net attack Advisory System Status is: Elevated (Holds; June 18, 2006) While the switch from Cena to RVD should alleviate some complaints, the inevitability of the belt's return to Cena (note where Summerslam is this year) and the poor initial showing by the new ECW are enough to keep the indicator where it is for now. The pieces are in place, though, especially on RAW, for improvements to be made to the IWC's psyche in the near future.
I don't like conferences, personally. To be honest, I would ditch everything and merely have the top eight or sixteen teams regardless of where they play involved in one pool, 1 vs. 16, 2 vs 15, 3/14, etc. and then go from there.
As it stands, we will never get to see some dream matchups in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Edmonton/Calgary, Toronto/Montreal (hold your jokes on how back either team is, I was speaking rhetorically), or LA vs. San Jose, or whatever else.
I may be getting old, but I really don't understand the new set up. It seems too complicated.
Originally posted by OliverAs it stands, we will never get to see some dream matchups in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Edmonton/Calgary, Toronto/Montreal (hold your jokes on how back either team is, I was speaking rhetorically), or LA vs. San Jose, or whatever else.
I may be getting old, but I really don't understand the new set up. It seems too complicated.
(edited by Oliver on 26.2.13 1938)
Huh? Each of those matchups is possible, just not in the Finals. As divisional rivals, they could meet in any round prior to the Conference Finals (unless one advances by way of "cross over" wild card opportunities, in which case Conference Finals is also possible). I don't see the problem in that.
Originally posted by OliverAs it stands, we will never get to see some dream matchups in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Edmonton/Calgary, Toronto/Montreal (hold your jokes on how back either team is, I was speaking rhetorically), or LA vs. San Jose, or whatever else.
I may be getting old, but I really don't understand the new set up. It seems too complicated.
(edited by Oliver on 26.2.13 1938)
Huh? Each of those matchups is possible, just not in the Finals. As divisional rivals, they could meet in any round prior to the Conference Finals (unless one advances by way of "cross over" wild card opportunities, in which case Conference Finals is also possible). I don't see the problem in that.
I do. I want to see rivals fight for the Stanley Cup. I want to see the Islanders/Rangers. Leafs/Canadiens. Flames/Oilers. Flyers/Penguins. For the Stanley Cup. Not in the conference finals, for the Cup.
Originally posted by JustinShapiroPhilly and Pitt politicked to stay with their NY-based rivals. The hook with the Floridas in the northeast is something about boosting their attendance from all the Toronto and Montreal fans traveling to see them, and probably also something about screw hockey franchises in Florida.
Also, how great is the Not Adams division if Florida and Tampa move and become Quebec City and GTA #2.
If teams get put in Quebec City and Toronto/South Ontario it will most likely be from expansion. What the league probably should do but won't is think of contracting 2 teams to make it a 28 team league. Dallas was in bankruptcy recently and the league was running Phoenix for awhile. Contract 2 from the Dallas/Phoenix/Florida/Tampa group and move the other 2 to Toronto/Quebec. You could then have four 7-team conferences/division as this...
I'm not as big a hockey fan as some of you, but this talk of Tampa being in trouble surprised me. I was at a gsme the other night against the Sabres and the places was:
Nice
PACKED!
and Loud as hell.
maybe it was an anomaly.
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift
Originally posted by OliverAs it stands, we will never get to see some dream matchups in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Edmonton/Calgary, Toronto/Montreal (hold your jokes on how back either team is, I was speaking rhetorically), or LA vs. San Jose, or whatever else.
I may be getting old, but I really don't understand the new set up. It seems too complicated.
(edited by Oliver on 26.2.13 1938)
Huh? Each of those matchups is possible, just not in the Finals. As divisional rivals, they could meet in any round prior to the Conference Finals (unless one advances by way of "cross over" wild card opportunities, in which case Conference Finals is also possible). I don't see the problem in that.
I do. I want to see rivals fight for the Stanley Cup. I want to see the Islanders/Rangers. Leafs/Canadiens. Flames/Oilers. Flyers/Penguins. For the Stanley Cup. Not in the conference finals, for the Cup.
But rivals can't play for the championship in any pro sport. Because they're rivals from proximity, and the championships are always one side's winner vs. the other.
And even in the NFL and MLB, which both eschew straight geography due to their AFL/NFL and AL/NL roots, when you get geographic "rivals" squaring off for a championship (like Yankees/Mets or Giants/JetHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sorry let's say Steelers/Eagles) the whole "rivalry" aspect is fairly forced at most.
Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....
*snip*
Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Originally posted by OliverAs it stands, we will never get to see some dream matchups in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Edmonton/Calgary, Toronto/Montreal (hold your jokes on how back either team is, I was speaking rhetorically), or LA vs. San Jose, or whatever else.
I may be getting old, but I really don't understand the new set up. It seems too complicated.
(edited by Oliver on 26.2.13 1938)
Huh? Each of those matchups is possible, just not in the Finals. As divisional rivals, they could meet in any round prior to the Conference Finals (unless one advances by way of "cross over" wild card opportunities, in which case Conference Finals is also possible). I don't see the problem in that.
I do. I want to see rivals fight for the Stanley Cup. I want to see the Islanders/Rangers. Leafs/Canadiens. Flames/Oilers. Flyers/Penguins. For the Stanley Cup. Not in the conference finals, for the Cup.
But rivals can't play for the championship in any pro sport. Because they're rivals from proximity, and the championships are always one side's winner vs. the other.
Originally posted by OliverI don't like conferences, personally. To be honest, I would ditch everything and merely have the top eight or sixteen teams regardless of where they play involved in one pool, 1 vs. 16, 2 vs 15, 3/14, etc. and then go from there.
As it stands, we will never get to see some dream matchups in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Edmonton/Calgary, Toronto/Montreal (hold your jokes on how back either team is, I was speaking rhetorically), or LA vs. San Jose, or whatever else.
I may be getting old, but I really don't understand the new set up. It seems too complicated.
(edited by Oliver on 26.2.13 1938)
I'm with you. They will never do away with conferences, but I would love a single table. They will never do away with divisions, so a bunch of conference-less divisions (or division-less conferences) is a happy medium. Five six-team divisions and the best eight get in (division winners + three wildcard) 5 division foes x 6 games = 30 24 other teams x 2 games = 48 Total games played: 78
My five divisions if I had any say:
Hull Division (It was a toss up between him or Gretzky for naming the 5th division) Colorado Dallas Florida Nashville Phoenix Tampa Bay
Adams Division Boston Buffalo Carolina Columbus Montreal Ottawa
Patrick Division New Jersey New York Islanders New York Rangers Philadelphia Pittsburgh Washington
Norris Division Chicago Detroit Minnesota St. Louis Toronto Winnipeg
Smythe Division Anaheim Calgary Edmonton Los Angeles San Jose Vancouver
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Thread rated: 5.59
#
#
