NHL Conference Realignment

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The two markets for expansion will be money generators and healthy, but won't they add to the issue of the last CBA where they boost HRR moving the cap up, the floor up, and add to the woes of the bottom five teams in the league?

I keep wondering if they should fold 2 teams, and move two teams and get a healthy 14 14 conference structure and go from there.

Fold Phoenix and Columbus
Move Tampa and Florida to Quebec and Markam

Wouldn't the extra teams also increase the amount of players in the NHL, thus more to split the players share among (not affecting the cap floor or ceiling)? Or will the expansion fees count as HRR?

Or are you suggesting the 2 new teams will be in such great markets that they will post revenues beyond the current average.

[M. Szyslak]

I would just swap Nashville and Winnipeg and call it a day.

[taffeyb]

With the 4 divisions, award playoff positions to the top 3 teams in each division. The remaining two spots (7th and 8th) should be awarded to the next highest placed teams. In theory though, you could have 5 teams from one division make it. However, I would be okay with it as merit should count.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by M. Szyslak

I would just swap Nashville and Winnipeg and call it a day.

actually, this is the best idea to date..

[hwy19man]

duplicate post

[hwy19man]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

The difference is that's the third round. There's what, one of those rivalry series that make it to round three every three years? You were guaranteed anywhere from two to five top rivalry playoff series every year from 1983-84 until 1992-93 when the NHL had two divisional playoff rounds.

Heck, Montreal played Boston every single year of that format except the final year.

1983-84

Montreal vs. Boston
Rangers vs. Islanders
Montreal vs. Quebec
Edmonton vs. Calgary

1984-85

Montreal vs. Boston
Chicago vs. Detroit
Montreal vs. Quebec

1985-86

Montreal vs. Boston
Calgary vs. Edmonton

1986-87

Montreal vs. Boston
Detroit vs. Chicago
Montreal vs. Quebec

1987-88

Toronto vs. Detroit
Montreal vs. Boston
Edmonton vs. Calgary

1988-89

Chicago vs. Detroit
Vancouver vs. Calgary
Edmonton vs. Los Angeles
Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia
Montreal vs. Boston

1989-90

Boston vs. Hartford
Islanders vs. Rangers
Minnesota vs. Chicago
Montreal vs. Boston
Edmonton vs. Los Angeles

1990-91

Edmonton vs. Calgary
Boston vs. Hartford
Montreal vs. Boston
Edmonton vs. Los Angeles

1991-92

Devils vs. Rangers
Edmonton vs. Los Angeles
Montreal vs. Boston
Chicago vs. Detroit
Edmonton vs. Vancouver

1992-93

Montreal vs. Quebec
Toronto vs. Detroit

The divisional playoff format actually began in the 1982 playoffs, after the 1981-82 regular season. I am on the fence for realignment and I understand the arguments for each side. I agree that the Montreal-Boston annual playoff series is terrific. I was too young to know what was going on until the late 1980's but I know as I got older and was able to understand how the format worked, many of my father's friends were saying it would be even better if the Habs and Bruins could play each other in the semi-finals (conference finals, round 3).

There were more and more calls on Sportstalk radio wanting to change the format because it would have been epic to have the battle of Alberta played out in the conference finals. The same was said for teams in the Norris and Patrick Division such as the Islanders-Rangers. Other guests and fans had said that some other series were getting boring because it was the same teams over and over.

I remember reading in the Hockey News magazine that while the first two rounds were excellent, critics were saying that the third round was anti-climactic or the forgotten round. It lacked the earlier intensity mainly due to the lack of a rivalry. The fans wanted that round over and done with to get on with the Stanley Cup finals. The critics also pointed out that it would be nice to spark new rivalries by adopting the present format. This allowed for the Bruins-Flyers to be resurrected along with Vancouver-Chicago and Detroit-Colorado to take off. The weirdest rivalry that happened was the Oilers-Stars, five times in seven years.

During the 2010 playoffs, fans of the Bruins and Habs were hoping the Bruins could have swept or finished off the Flyers. It would have been an amazing Habs-Bruins eastern final, 31 years since Don Cherry got fired for losing to the Habs in the third round. The Flyers pulled off the impossible which set up for a less than exciting semi-final.

It would be nice to have some of those series again but, looking back at the divisional playoff format for the Smythe Division, the Canucks and Oilers only played each other twice and same with the Jets-Canucks. The Jets and Kings never did play against each other.

For the Adams Divison, the battle of New England (Whalers-Bruins) happened only twice and apparently was not that big of a deal. The Sabres and Whalers never played each other.

The Norris Division had the North Stars play Detroit and Toronto each just once.

The Patrick Division had the Islanders play the Devils once.

[lazypucker]

In my opinion it is not a true realignment if the teams don't play equal number of games against each other within the same conference. You will never get fairness in competition that way. You will just get the old SE division where Florida, Tampa, and Atlanta play each other all the times.

Yeah, and also the bonus loser point needs to go, or implement the 3-2-1 point system.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Ace

Wouldn't the extra teams also increase the amount of players in the NHL, thus more to split the players share among (not affecting the cap floor or ceiling)? Or will the expansion fees count as HRR?

Or are you suggesting the 2 new teams will be in such great markets that they will post revenues beyond the current average.

Relocation and expansion fees are not included in HRR.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Ace
Wouldn't the extra teams also increase the amount of players in the NHL, thus more to split the players share among (not affecting the cap floor or ceiling)? Or will the expansion fees count as HRR?

Or are you suggesting the 2 new teams will be in such great markets that they will post revenues beyond the current average.

The NHL had done a study around the time of the Phoenix bankruptcy and they said another team in S. Ontario would be among the leaders in revenue. I think they said it would be 4th or 5th.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

In my opinion it is not a true realignment if the teams don't play equal number of games against each other within the same conference. You will never get fairness in competition that way. You will just get the old SE division where Florida, Tampa, and Atlanta play each other all the times.

Yeah, and also the bonus loser point needs to go, or implement the 3-2-1 point system.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The NHL had done a study around the time of the Phoenix bankruptcy and they said another team in S. Ontario would be among the leaders in revenue. I think they said it would be 4th or 5th.

Was it the NHL? Or some group from Markham? I forget.

[Tsawwassen]

Here are the first 2 years of the divisional playoffs.

1981-82

Round 1
Montreal vs. Quebec
Boston vs. Buffalo
Islanders vs. Penguins
Rangers vs. Flyers

Minnesota vs. Chicago
Winnipeg vs. St. Louis----Jets were in the Norris Divsion until the Rockies became the Devils
Edmonton vs. Los Angeles
Vancouver vs. Calgary

Round 2
Quebec-Boston
Islanders-Rangers
Bhawks-Blues
Kings-Canucks

1982-83

Round 1
Boston-Quebec
Montreal-Buffalo
Flyers-Rangers
Islanders-Capitals
Bhawks-Blues
Minnesota-Toronto
Oilers-Jets
Canucks-Flames

Round 2
Boston-Buffalo
Rangers-Islanders
Bhawks-Stars
Oilers-Flames

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by taffeyb

With the 4 divisions, award playoff positions to the top 3 teams in each division. The remaining two spots (7th and 8th) should be awarded to the next highest placed teams. In theory though, you could have 5 teams from one division make it. However, I would be okay with it as merit should count.

Make it simple and just take the top 8 teams and eliminate the divisions, just 2 conferences.

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

The difference is that's the third round. There's what, one of those rivalry series that make it to round three every three years? You were guaranteed anywhere from two to five top rivalry playoff series every year from 1983-84 until 1992-93 when the NHL had two divisional playoff rounds.

Heck, Montreal played Boston every single year of that format except the final year.

The difference is that the rivalries that you like have a chance to meet in any of the first 3 rounds. Boston-Montreal and others are great but every year knowing where teams will finish and who they will play 2 weeks before the season ends isn't exciting. The current way is fun because of all the possiblities of who will play who 3 days before the season ends.

[Tsawwassen]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/02/14/puck-stops-here---expansion-then-realignment

Pretty good argument there.

[calgaryred]

to be honest id rather play Edmonton Winnipeg or Vancouver in divisional playoffs then St.Louis, Nashville or Detroit. I found the playoffs were more fun when you played rivals in the first two rounds then how it is now. It's not like the classic rivals have really played in the third round as some hoped. Anaheim vs Minnesota, Los Angeles vs Phoenix, Vancouver vs San Jose not exactly new rivalries. I admit there have been some good series in the last 20 years but I still think the first and second rounds are better games, and I'd rather see them against divisional rivals. I sure wasn't upset to see the Flames play the Oilers Canucks and Jets in the 80's. I still think that was the best exciting playoff hockey ive ever seen.

[hwy19man]

Watching the NHL Network and hearing other media outlets, many have said that tonight's Vancouver-Chicago is an excellent western conference rivalry along with some others. Some have said that this is why the status quo should remain. On the other hand, do we need to see the Coyotes-BJs play each other four times per season?

[hwy19man]

A look back at the recent events between the Blackhawks and the Canucks.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...s-rivalry.html

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by hwy19man

Watching the NHL Network and hearing other media outlets, many have said that tonight's Vancouver-Chicago is an excellent western conference rivalry along with some others. Some have said that this is why the status quo should remain.

Actually to me this is the exact reason why we should go back to Divisional playoff formats. Why is this a great rivalry? Because they have played each other a few times recently in the playoffs; with both teams having won series.

So if a good rivalry is based on teams repeatedly playing each other in the playoffs; then why not go back to the system that breeds those rivalries?

[hwy19man]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Actually to me this is the exact reason why we should go back to Divisional playoff formats. Why is this a great rivalry? Because they have played each other a few times recently in the playoffs; with both teams having won series.

So if a good rivalry is based on teams repeatedly playing each other in the playoffs; then why not go back to the system that breeds those rivalries?

I do not disagree with what you are saying. In an earlier post, I said that I am on the fence on realignment.

It is true that a divisional playoff format does breed great rivalries, however, the present format does breed great rivalries as well. Furthermore, the division format will thankfully avoid a Coyotes-BJs playoff series in the first or second round.

Another good reason to go back to the divisional format is that the divisions will be composed of seven or eight teams instead of five or six. The larger groupings should ensure a variety of playoff pairings over the course of a decade.