NHL Conference Realignment

[Icon]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

To keep it fair, if there are 30 teams, have 6 divisions. If there are 32 teams, have 4. Why mess with the 4 divisions right now when we can't divide all the teams up evenly? Just realign but keep it 6. Vancouver and Dallas swap; Winnipeg and Detroit or Columbus swap. Done. They're making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

I don't think they want to have to realign more than once though, for whatever reason... really it just affects the schedule-maker.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Why would you move a team drawing 19,000 fans per game?

Because they're bleeding money like a sieve!

Tickets can be discounted, rolled into promotions or simply given away, I wouldn't rely too much on those stats when operating incomes losses are close to 15M per season.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Because they're bleeding money like a sieve!

Tickets can be discounted, rolled into promotions or simply given away, I wouldn't rely too much on those stats when operating incomes losses are close to 15M per season.

I think he was being sarcastic.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The benefits of this conference realignment is that it limits travels for teams. The NHL wants to reduce it, rather than increase it.

It also keeps more games in prime time for both teams playing.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

It also keeps more games in prime time for both teams playing.

This is the exact reason for the re-alignment. Check out the conferences again:

Conference A - Pacific and Mountain time zone
Conference B - Central time zone
Conference C - Eastern time zone
Conference D - Eastern time zone

I suppose that would give some room for shuffle in C and D based on location, but it is really all about the time zones. The NHL wants to avoid teams in the eastern time zone playing games that would start at 9 or 10 EST.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

This is the exact reason for the re-alignment. Check out the conferences again:

Conference A - Pacific and Mountain time zone
Conference B - Central time zone
Conference C - Eastern time zone
Conference D - Eastern time zone

I suppose that would give some room for shuffle in C and D based on location, but it is really all about the time zones. The NHL wants to avoid teams in the eastern time zone playing games that would start at 9 or 10 EST.

The likely re-alignment will actually result in Eastern teams playing more games in the West.

Under the current alignment (and an 82 game schedule), you play your own Division 6 times (24 games); the other teams in your Conference 4 times (40 games); and 18 games against the other Conference (9 home, 9 road). So, for any Eastern Conference team, the maximum number of games on the road in the Pacific or Mountain time zones is 8 per year (although, the would mean playing every team in those time zones, so the realistic maximum is probably lower).

Under the proposed re-alignment, every team will play one road game against every team outside their own Conference (22 for the teams in the 8-team Conferences, and 23 for the teams in the 7 team Conferences).


So, for example, let's look at the road schedules in 2011-12 for the Flyers (who visited Western Canada); and the Bruins (who didn't visit Western Canada):

In 2011-12, the Flyers 9 western road games were in: Anaheim (PT), Phoenix (MT), Colorado (MT), Dallas (CT), Nashville (CT), Detroit (ET), Edmonton (MT), Calgary (MT), San Jose (PT). 2 Pacific Time Zone (3 hour difference), 4 Mountain (2 hour difference), 2 Central (1 hour difference), and 1 Eastern (no difference).

In 2011-12, the Bruins 9 western road games were in: Chicago (CT), Columbus (ET), Phoenix (MT), Dallas (CT), Minnesota (CT), St. Louis (CT), San Jose (PT), L.A. (PT), Anaheim (PT). 3 Pacific Time Zone, 1 Mountain, 4 Central, and 1 Eastern.


So, for the Flyers, that was 6 games in the Mountain or Pacific Time Zones; and for the Bruins, it was 4.

Under the proposed re-alignment, it will always be 4 games in the Pacific Time Zone; 4 in the Mountain (unless/until Phoenix moves); and 6 in the Central.

The only Eastern Time Zone teams who will greatly benefit from the re-alignment are Detroit and Columbus, who will have their trips to the Pacific and Mountain time zones cut in half.

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

This is the exact reason for the re-alignment. Check out the conferences again:

Conference A - Pacific and Mountain time zone
Conference B - Central time zone
Conference C - Eastern time zone
Conference D - Eastern time zone

I suppose that would give some room for shuffle in C and D based on location, but it is really all about the time zones. The NHL wants to avoid teams in the eastern time zone playing games that would start at 9 or 10 EST.

The problem with that is Pacific and Mountain owners won't like that set up. Why should they be the only division to have 2 timezones? Have some Mountain and Central or Central and Eastern.

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

I'm very critical of what Bettman has done but the proposal realignment is not one of them. It is the most logical way to move forward considering where teams are located throughout the continent. Bringing back divisional playoffs is a great idea because it will create stronger rivalries. And when you've got stronger rivalries increasing the number of divisional games per season will increase interest. It has teams playing more games within an hour of their time zone.

Moving Winnipeg out for a team in the Central is not the best solution. Why should Winnipeg be in the Central instead of Minnesota or Dallas? Why would Vancouver want to be moved out of the same division as their long time rivals in Alberta? And if you keep the four Western Canadian teams in the same division it would be make the only American team in that division (Colorado) unhappy.

Moving to four groupings makes the most sense. And if the league expands (probably to Ontario and Quebec) then you can slots those franchises into the easternmost divisions.

Bringing back divisional playoffs is a bad idea because it does not create stronger rivalries. That's why the format changed 20 years ago, those rivalries were stale and repetitive. More div games in a season would be brutal, that's why it stopped after 3 seasons since the 2nd lockout. Variety is important and those rivlaries you like can meet in the 3rd round. The old way that you want won't allow that. There are more fans than you think that would like the Canucks in the Pacific, it would allow more games in the same timezone. That would keep the Avs and Wild together and not leave them as the only US team in a division. Expansion may not stop at 2 teams. I wouldn't be in favour of more teams but, in any expansion, there are sore losers. Those become headaches as they look to buy struggling teams and want to move them or force a league to expand again.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

The problem with that is Pacific and Mountain owners won't like that set up. Why should they be the only division to have 2 timezones? Have some Mountain and Central or Central and Eastern.

Because of how the teams and population is dispersed in the West. Balancing it for the sake of balancing is a fool's errand.

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

To keep it fair, if there are 30 teams, have 6 divisions. If there are 32 teams, have 4. Why change to 4 divisions right now when we can't divide all the teams up evenly? Just realign but keep it 6. Vancouver and Dallas swap; Winnipeg and Detroit or Columbus swap. Done. They're making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

A similar set up to what is currently working in the NHL, http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/02/13/nhl-examines-new-look-for-2013-14-season

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

Bringing back divisional playoffs is a bad idea because it does not create stronger rivalries.

Yeah, those Montreal-Quebec, Montreal-Boston, Rangers-Flyers, Oilers-Flames, Detroit-Chicago, etc playoff series all sucked.

That's why the format changed 20 years ago, those rivalries were stale and repetitive.

It changed because of expansion. Not because those rivalries were stale and repetitive.

More div games in a season would be brutal, that's why it stopped after 3 seasons since the 2nd lockout.

It stopped because the fans were whiners and the rivalries across the division which are built up during the playoffs weren't there.

Variety is important and those rivlaries you like can meet in the 3rd round.

Meet in the 3rd round? That's silly. Only four teams get that opportunity each year.

The old way that you want won't allow that. There are more fans than you think that would like the Canucks in the Pacific, it would allow more games in the same timezone

But it would increase the Canucks travel.

. That would keep the Avs and Wild together and not leave them as the only US team in a division. Expansion may not stop at 2 teams. I wouldn't be in favour of more teams but, in any expansion, there are sore losers. Those become headaches as they look to buy struggling teams and want to move them or force a league to expand again.

I highly doubt the NHL would expand by more than 2 teams for the significant future. There is not enough demand from markets to do that. And those sore losers that you talk about are not headaches to the NHL but a bargaining tool for greasy owners like Katz to use to get what he wants.

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Yeah, those Montreal-Quebec, Montreal-Boston, Rangers-Flyers, Oilers-Flames, Detroit-Chicago, etc playoff series all sucked.

Meet in the 3rd round? That's silly. Only four teams get that opportunity each year.

Yeah those silly div rivals in round 3, Detroit-Chicago, Devils-Rangers, Flyers-Rangers, Flyers-Penguins, Sabres-Leafs, etc playoff series all sucked too.

It changed because of expansion. Not because those rivalries were stale and repetitive.

Actually, there was lots of noise about the repetitiveness and fans wanting variety.

It stopped because the fans were whiners and the rivalries across the division which are built up during the playoffs weren't there.

The fans were right to whine, playing div rivals 8 times was ridiculous.

But it would increase the Canucks travel.

How much would it increase? I don't think it's that much.

I highly doubt the NHL would expand by more than 2 teams for the significant future. There is not enough demand from markets to do that. And those sore losers that you talk about are not headaches to the NHL but a bargaining tool for greasy owners like Katz to use to get what he wants.

This point, we almost agree on. Seattle, Houston, and possibly Portland could be places to expand. True about the greasy owners but those Balsille mavericks are always lurking.

[Itse]

First, the current system is pretty bad. Florida getting the 3rd seed in east with 94 points? Phoenix 3rd in the west with 97? This is dumb, and feels artificial.

The divisions are also jut not interesting in the general standings, which is easily displayed in the fact that standings are normally presented in conference format. I'm betting a lot of casual fans would be hard pressed to name all teams in their division quickly, let alone in any other division. I think getting rid of divisions is easy in this situation.

Then again big conferences do nothing to promote rivalries and not enough to limit travel, and 3 conferences has the downside that it makes planning playoffs tricky. There's just no "natural" way of setting things up, and a lot of ways to end up with tons of travel and lots of games in faraway timezones.

So 4 conferences it is, and I think that has a lot of potential. I'm guessing one of the big things the NHL is looking for is that the fans of each team in the playoffs could see all "meaningful" playoff games of the first two rounds in their timezone or maybe 1 timezone away.

I also think 4 team playoffs to decide 4 conference winners who go on to play another set of 4 team playoffs is easier and more interesting to follow than 8 teams battling for 2 spots, even if there is a lot of repetition with your opponents. (Then again, that would require your team making the playoffs repetitively. I think I might live with that.)

Next I'm going to go into stuff which is very much just my opinion.

Sports is about winning things, and the current setup of the league makes it hard for a team to win anything at all that matters.

As things are, conference banner is either heavily connected to losing the cup finals, or completely overshadowed by winning the cup. Neither situation is good for creating an emotional experience of "this is a thing we won". Also, on average you get one every 15 years, which is a really long time. And most teams will not win them that often.

And the division banners, who remembers fondly the division championship of '06? Which is more talked about, that or not getting out of the first round? Who got bragging rights for '04 season, us or Vancouver?

I think having a cup winner + 3 conference winners would be an improvement.

I'm also sure the conference winner playoffs will have a new name created by NHL marketing, a'la "Frozen Four" to play up that difference between the two stages of the playoffs.

Or maybe they'll just call it the Stanley Cup playoffs

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Because they're bleeding money like a sieve!

Tickets can be discounted, rolled into promotions or simply given away, I wouldn't rely too much on those stats when operating incomes losses are close to 15M per season.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think he was being sarcastic.

I'm not actually. I do think it is silly to propose the relocation of a team that is top ten in NHL attendance. And if you are going to base relocation on financial losses, why not a team like St. Louis or Anaheim, who are losing as much and drawing fewer fans?

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm not actually. I do think it is silly to propose the relocation of a team that is top ten in NHL attendance. And if you are going to base relocation on financial losses, why not a team like St. Louis or Anaheim, who are losing as much and drawing fewer fans?

Revenues matter more than attendance and Tampa has dirt cheap prices to get their numbers up. But moving the Lightning isn't going to pay for that freaking gorgeous scoreboard they just put in their rink.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

Yeah those silly div rivals in round 3, Detroit-Chicago, Devils-Rangers, Flyers-Rangers, Flyers-Penguins, Sabres-Leafs, etc playoff series all sucked too.

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

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm not actually. I do think it is silly to propose the relocation of a team that is top ten in NHL attendance. And if you are going to base relocation on financial losses, why not a team like St. Louis or Anaheim, who are losing as much and drawing fewer fans?

Anaheim is in serious trouble. I'm predicting they move in the next five years. Consider:

(1) Owner wants out.
(2) Team is losing boatloads of money.
(3) Owner owns building so team is not tied to the lease.

I think if the Sacramento Kings would have ended up there, the Ducks would have been jettisoned. If Samueli ever does get that NBA tenant, they're gone.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Anaheim is in serious trouble. I'm predicting they move in the next five years. Consider:

(1) Owner wants out.
(2) Team is losing boatloads of money.
(3) Owner owns building so team is not tied to the lease.

I think if the Sacramento Kings would have ended up there, the Ducks would have been jettisoned. If Samueli ever does get that NBA tenant, they're gone.

I know very little about the NBA but why wouldn't the Clippers move there instead of being the third tenant at Staples Center? And does Samueli want to own the NBA team or just have someone else own it in his building?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

I know very little about the NBA but why wouldn't the Clippers move there instead of being the third tenant at Staples Center? And does Samueli want to own the NBA team or just have someone else own it in his building?

I don't know if the lease has changed since, but back in the day, the set up for the three teams in LA was much like it is for the Bulls/Hawks in Chicago. The luxury suite revenue (and other streams, iirc) was split evenly across the teams. That meant that the Clippers (and Kings) were benefiting from the Lakers, who were driving luxury suite sales. (Likewise, the moribund Blackhawks were raking it in off the backs of the Bulls, though that may have reversed in the last few seasons)

[_Q_]

Here is my prediction of how this goes down in a few weeks:

4 Divisions and 2 Conferences:

Division A
Vancouver
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Edmonton
Calgary
Phoenix
Colorado

Division B
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Chicago
St. Louis
Detroit
Nashville
Dallas

Both Div A & B in Western Conference, so 15 teams total in the West.

Division C
Toronto
Ottawa
Montreal
Boston
Buffalo
New York
Brooklyn
New Jersey

Division D
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Florida
Columbus

Both Divisions C and D in Eastern Conference for a total of 15 teams.

Playoff format is as follows:
4 teams from each division make the playoffs. If 5th place team in 8 team division has more points than the 4th place team in the other division within the same conference, then they cross over into other division's playoffs.
After division playoffs are completed, each Conference playoffs between division champions occurs with the Campbell/Wales trophies on the line.
Conference champs then compete for Stanley Cup.