NHL Conference Realignment

[calgARI]

Originally Posted by HOOT

87 games, everyone plays each other 3 times, top 16 make it. Done!

Not sure about 87 games but love the idea of taking the top 16. Get legitimate rivals in the Finals.

[GGG]

This realignment is great if you keep the first two rounds of the playoffs in conference. Epic rivalries are based on geography and post season battles. In the 8 team playoff seeding you dont het enough repeat matchups year to year. 16 would be worse.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by calgARI

Not sure about 87 games but love the idea of taking the top 16. Get legitimate rivals in the Finals.

I'm all in favor of that as well, but it'd be weird watching a Flames/Panthers first round matchup or something of that ilk. Sure I could get used to it though.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by GGG

This realignment is great if you keep the first two rounds of the playoffs in conference. Epic rivalries are based on geography and post season battles. In the 8 team playoff seeding you dont het enough repeat matchups year to year. 16 would be worse.

87 games was a bit of a joke just trying to make it 3 games per team. I'm basically in favour of that type of playoff system regardless of system. Even if they did something like these current conferences (which is bush league IMO) and take the top 2 from each conference and then the next 8 teams in the standings.

And since the East already has the travel advantage you would think they would make it 8 teams in the East per conference to even that out a little.

[Flamescat]

And can we go back to the original names? Adams, Norris, Smythe and Patrick? Also Wales and Campbell?

A team moving East seems to remedy a lot of headaches..

[timun]

Originally Posted by troutman

Don't like the conferences having different numbers of teams. Not equitable.

They're already inequitable by virtue of one conference being stronger than the other. If the Flames played in the East they probably would have made it to the playoffs the last three seasons. Some teams have worse schedules, are forced to play more difficult opponents more often, while other teams get to cruise into the playoffs (see: every Southeast Division champion, ever).

Hockey was at its best when the top four out of four divisions made the playoffs. Some teams had it easier (Norris Division), some had it harder (Smythe), and some by virtue of the number of teams in the division had to "beat out" more teams to make it (Patrick Division, which had one more team than the other divisions did). Sometimes this made for less than exciting conference finals because the second best team in the conference lost to the best team in one of the division finals series.

You know what? **** happens. Whether you're in a division of seven or eight teams you still need to be one of the top four. It could be that you end up fifth and miss out on the playoffs even though one or more of the fourth place teams in the other divisions was worse. Tough titty. It happens now with the conferences, there is no "crossover rule" as it is anyway, so I don't see why you'd bitch about it as it relates to this alignment plan.


Frankly I couldn't care less if realignment goes ahead or not but either way the scheduling must change. It's complete and utter BS that eastern teams make trips out here once every three years. At the very least the teams should play each other at least twice (home & away) every single year. It's equally ridiculous how often teams play division 'rivals'. Are the Avalanche and Wild some of the Flames' biggest 'rivals'? No, and no matter how many times you force them to play each other in the regular season it won't make it so.

The Canucks and Oilers are rivals because the Flames used to play them in the playoffs, when the Stanley Cup was on the line.

[FurnaceFace]

I don't have a problem with 3 divisions. They won't do it but I'd do something like this:

VAN, SJ, LA, ANA, PHO - make the pacific a real pacific division. Dallas in there didn't make much sense.
DAL, STL, CHI, CLB, DET - Gives DAL a closer rival in STL.
CGY, EDM, WPG, MIN, COL - yes, we're still stuck with Minny but it's about the best travel as we could get.
An alternative is swapping VAN and COL to keep the Canadian teams together and sending COL to the pacific. They are closer to the coast than DAL.

The east is mostly the same
TOR, OTT, MTL, BUF, BOS
NYI, NYR, NJ, PHI, PIT
FLA, CAR, TBL, NAS, WAS - Nashville is the change here. They are more a "southern" team than any of the others. An alternative is swapping CLB and NAS since CLB is further east. Detroit will of course lobby to be in the east which just messes with everything so I left them to rot in the west.

More than realignment for the playoffs I'd like to see the top 8 in each division seeded according to points. The three division winners get in, but they aren't guaranteed the top 3 seeds.

[Matty81]

I think it's kind of a joke that two conferences you only have to beat 3 teams to get in the playoffs and 2 you have to beat 4. Its a huge inequity.

Also our proposed conference there has two of the most boring teams to play ever in Phoenix and Anaheim, not on the ice but off it, no fans, rivalry or atmosphere.

But at least phoenix and anaheim will probably be close to the cap floor most years.

[TurnedTheCorner]

I can't wait to see which Conference playoffs the Flames fail to qualify for next!

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by troutman

Don't like the conferences having different numbers of teams. Not equitable.

So very, very inconsequential.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

So very, very inconsequential.

Could be huge... Early talk was that the playoffs would go back to divisional (now conference) so only 4 teams from each grouping make it. If you end up in an 8 team conference you've got a 50 percent chance, more like 57/58 in a 7 team conference. (if they go that way)

[TurnedTheCorner]

No, it couldn't be huge.

[Ace]

It's strange to me that they don't just send Winnipeg west and Detroit east...at least until expansion

[Vulcan]

I don't think that old re-alignment will work, it didn't fly last time and it won't this time unless say Phoenix moves east. I heard somewhere Detroit will get their long awaited move east, probably wishful thinking though.

[SuperMatt18]

NHL is leaving those two "East" spots open for Markham AND Quebec expansion teams.

They will hold off with Phoenix long enough to get them to Seattle.

They will put Markham in the non-Canadian East division to suffice the Leafs. Since not having the major rivals (Montreal, Boston) in the same conference will protect the leafs popularity.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I think it's kind of a joke that two conferences you only have to beat 3 teams to get in the playoffs and 2 you have to beat 4. Its a huge inequity.

Except standings are not based on the number of teams that are below you. They are based on the top 4 teams. So as long as you have enough points for 4th; it doesn't matter if there are 3, 4, or even 5 teams worse than you.

Put in a crossover rule in case 5th in one division is better than 4th in the other; and this all goes away.

Back in the 80s and early 90s one division always had 6 teams. It just meant it had 2 really crappy teams instead of just one.

[Lil Pedro]

I remember last year they discussed the idea that two teams from the same conference could potentially play in the SC finals...this would be a travesty if it occurs

[SofaProfessor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Put in a crossover rule in case 5th in one division is better than 4th in the other; and this all goes away.

I like the idea of cross over. Maybe it's because the Flames (tentatively) are in an 8 team conference and they could use any extra chance to make the playoffs.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Except standings are not based on the number of teams that are below you. They are based on the top 4 teams. So as long as you have enough points for 4th; it doesn't matter if there are 3, 4, or even 5 teams worse than you.

Put in a crossover rule in case 5th in one division is better than 4th in the other; and this all goes away.

Back in the 80s and early 90s one division always had 6 teams. It just meant it had 2 really crappy teams instead of just one.

The whole thing is that they wanted divisional rivalries in the playoffs again (at least in the earlier discussions) so they wouldn't do crossovers but I dunno why the teams going into the 8s would agree.

There are lots of scenarios based on divisional strength but on average the teams in the smaller divs are going to make the playoffs more often just based on simple math and probability. An "average" team will make the playoffs about 3 more times in a 20 year span in a 7 team division vs an 8. Given the $ associated with home playoffs dates maybe the will have to put in a crossover to get agreement.

[vilzeh]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Conference A looks so boring. San Jose, Phoenix, Anaheim... all boring teams to watch.

I'm sorry, what?