New Divisional Alignment With Seattle Franchise

[Reign of Fire]

I don't usually create threads. There are others' with much better contributions than I can provide. But something has been bugging me for a while so I figure I'll bring it up. As the race for the Pacific gets tight between San Jose and Calgary, I hear people say how much they hate San Jose or even Vegas. It probably because we are competing for the first place with these teams. Personally, I hate the Oilers and the Canucks and nothing comes close for me. I only hated the Ducks, cause we couldn't win there and cause of Kesler and Bieksa (ex-Canucks). But I don't really care enough about Vegas or San Jose to use the word hate.

So I was wondering with Seattle joining the league and the league going to 32 teams; why not adopt the NFL divisional system? Use those natural rivalries.

So I would have Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Seattle in one division. San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles and Vegas in another and so on...

As for scheduling, you play your division rivals 6 times each (18 games total), conference rivals 4 times each (48 games total) and remaining 16 games are for teams in the other conference (8 home games against 2 divisions, 8 away games against other 2 divisions), alternating home/away every other season. With this method, I would assume there would be a reduction in the miles western teams travel throughout the year as well.

As for playoffs, 4 divisional leaders from each conference get in, with 4 wild card spots. With the wild card teams getting in due to their records, you rearrange the seeding to get much closer to 1 playing 8 then you do now.

Just my two cents...thoughts?

[oldschoolcalgary]

its an interesting idea, that deserves a look...

though, i guess it depends on whether playing the divisional rivals more than others is appealing to people... its beneficial in that there is less travel for your team (and lowered operational costs for the owners)...

i definitely like the playoffs to be more aligned with a 1-8 eight strategy and the idea of having division winners + 4 wild cards would ensure the best teams get in

getting to 32 teams does open the door to some tinkering with the scheduling and playoff format tho

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

I don't usually create threads. There are others' with much better contributions than I can provide. But something has been bugging me for a while so I figure I'll bring it up. As the race for the Pacific gets tight between San Jose and Calgary, I hear people say how much they hate San Jose or even Vegas. It probably because we are competing for the first place with these teams. Personally, I hate the Oilers and the Canucks and nothing comes close for me. I only hated the Ducks, cause we couldn't win there and cause of Kesler and Bieksa (ex-Canucks). But I don't really care enough about Vegas or San Jose to use the word hate.

So I was wondering with Seattle joining the league and the league going to 32 teams; why not adopt the NFL divisional system? Use those natural rivalries.

So I would have Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Seattle in one division. San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles and Vegas in another and so on...

As for scheduling, you play your division rivals 6 times each (18 games total), conference rivals 4 times each (48 games total) and remaining 16 games are for teams in the other conference (8 home games against 2 divisions, 8 away games against other 2 divisions), alternating home/away every other season. With this method, I would assume there would be a reduction in the miles western teams travel throughout the year as well.

As for playoffs, 4 divisional leaders from each conference get in, with 4 wild card spots. With the wild card teams getting in due to their records, you rearrange the seeding to get much closer to 1 playing 8 then you do now.

Just my two cents...thoughts?

This format would see a guy like Crosby in Calgary once every 4 years.

Likely not appealing to the league and its marketing arm.

[Reign of Fire]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This format would see a guy like Crosby in Calgary once every 4 years.

Likely not appealing to the league and its marketing arm.

Every two years. The proposed schedule would have Calgary go to Pittsburgh one year, and Pittsburgh comes to Calgary the next season. You play 8 home games against two Eastern divisions one season, and 8 away games against two Eastern divisions. Alternating the following season.

If you think about it, Eastern swings can actually be accomplished by one or two road trips, significantly reducing travel time for all teams.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

Every two years. The proposed schedule would have Calgary go to Pittsburgh one year, and Pittsburgh comes to Calgary the next season. You play 8 home games against two Eastern divisions one season, and 8 away games against two Eastern divisions. Alternating the following season.

If you think about it, Eastern swings can actually be accomplished by one or two road trips, significantly reducing travel time for all teams.

Ahhh...right you are, i was going full NFL there where it is every 4.

Still though. you would have a hard time convincing them that its OK to parade McContagious through New York and Toronto every other year only. The NHL loves its marquee match up between names after all...and rightfully so as it matters for them.

Im personally not opposed to your lay out at all because of the amount of times teams play the "hate" games. It was awesome back through the 80's when Cgy/Edm would play 8 times a year and every single game was must view because SOMETHING was going to happen.

[Coach]

Isn't this pretty much what they tried right after the 05 lockout?

It's nice in theory, but when you see Minnesota for a seemingly endless amount of games while Sid and OV come to town once every two years, it gets old fast. Rivalries grow naturally mostly through playing against each other in the playoffs IMO. And they change as teams go through the ebs and flows of success.

I think whatever they do with the scheduling, what they seem to have done is have you play your 2 games against the other conference relatively close together (within a couple weeks). It helps build heated games between teams that don't see each other much.

[DeluxeMoustache]

I would personally prefer to keep minimum 2 games against every team.

Having had season tickets, and sharing them, we would draft games and there were often a bunch of games against lousy West teams picked last (Minnesota, Phoenix, etc.).

(Also about hate being a strong word, don’t go near the game threads. You will find some psychos that use the words rage and fury when a bad goal happens)

[Flamenspiel]

Yep, minimum 2 games with each eastern team. As a STH I am not interested in seeing Arizona, Anaheim, and even San Jose 3 times and Minnesota and St.Louis twice. They had this format before and it was big failure, the status quo is very good and they should simply adjust the mix for the number of games in the west to accommodate the new team.

Maybe there is a schedule where we are guaranteed at most one home game against Minnesota and St. Louis. I would add Nashville as another trapping team I am not excited about.

[the2bears]

I don't know, nothing says natural to me about a rivalry between Seattle and Calgary. Per your NFL reference, nothing says natural to me about a rivalry between the NY Giants and the Cowboys... built up over years.

As has been said, I like seeing every team home and away at least once each year.

[SmoggyFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I would personally prefer to keep minimum 2 games against every team.

Having had season tickets, and sharing them, we would draft games and there were often a bunch of games against lousy West teams picked last (Minnesota, Phoenix, etc.).

(Also about hate being a strong word, don’t go near the game threads. You will find some psychos that use the words rage and fury when a bad goal happens)

Guilty as charged.

[Brewmaster]

I like the idea for the playoffs (4 division winners + 4 wildcards) but I think 6 games against divisional rivals is too much. The quality of competition in each division would have a huge impact on the standings.

[Sylvanfan]

Yeah after 05-07 they decided to go away from this less intractable conference play. The idea of Minnesota coming in for 2 straight games at the expense of seeing Ovechkin or the Canadiens was not popular.

The other issue is that with more Divisions you increase the chance of a lesser team getting a higher seed.

I also think this would actually benefit the teams out East for travel the most. If they only had to leave the Eastern time zone twice a year things would be pretty easy. Whereas Calgary going to Nashville or Dallas...tack on another 90 minutes and you're in New York.

I favor doing away with Divisions playing 32 non Conference games. 15 Conference opponents 3 times and 3 teams you would play 4 times to end up with an 80 game season. So essentially your 4 Divisions of 4 teams. Playoff Seeding is 1-8.

[powderjunkie]

Not sure Seattle would be stoked about being in a mini-division with three Canadian teams?

I'd rather they just shortened the season to 76 (7x4 and 24x2) and added some wildcard play in games. If it has to stay at 82, I'd make 'mini-divisions' within each division to facilitate those extra 6 games, and still do play in rounds - the 'mini division' winners and next highest points in the full division are in, the 4th and 5th highest point getters have a one game playoff.

Ensures the top 5 out of 8 in each division get a crack, and removes any need for division crossover. Also makes Monday and Tuesday between reg season and playoffs more interesting.

This may be unnecessarily complicated, but I'd consider re-seeding the 4 playoff teams in each full division based on their records against the other 24 NHL teams (ie. a totally balanced comparison). Divisional games retain huge importance for placing in the top 3 or top 5 in your division, but a team doesn't get rewarded for having a dumpster fire like Ottawa give them 12 free points, while the worst team in the other 'mini-division' might be a lot tougher.

Once down to the conference finals, I'd determine seeds based on each team's record against the other conference (again, totally fair and balanced comparison). I don't like the idea of re-seeding all final 4 and eliminating conferences...there's a good chance you end up with something like Calgary vs. Tampa and Chicago vs. Pitt in the other...compelling series, but the winner of Calgary vs. Tampa will be screwed for the finals after flying back and forth across the continent a few times.

[FlamesAddiction]

I know this would never get majority owner or player support and has a zero percent chance of happening, but I would be in favour of geographically distributed conferences with divisions changing yearly.

Make travel an even playing field and introduce new rivalry possibilities that ignore geography.

It's a moot point I know, as it would never happen.

[Canada 02]

I like the current division structure, but would change playoff format to top 2 from each division plus 4 wildcards
Division winners are 1, 2, 3, 4 playing WC teams in first round. Division winners maintain home ice advantage through to the conference finals

[Reign of Fire]

Originally Posted by Brewmaster

I like the idea for the playoffs (4 division winners + 4 wildcards) but I think 6 games against divisional rivals is too much. The quality of competition in each division would have a huge impact on the standings.

I agree, six games against one opponent may be too many. Playoffs are my main concern. I am not a fan of the current format.

[SeanCharles]

Every team should play in every building at least once in a season.

The league fixed this a few years back and it should stay that way.

[lazypucker]

Here are my proposals:

With the 8 divisions "NFL" system:
Other conference 16 x 2 = 32 games
Other divisions 12 x 3 = 36 games
Same division 3 x 4 = 12 games
-----------------------------------------
Total = 80 games + add 2 games within same division

4 divisions (current alignment)
Other conference 16 x 2 = 32
Other divisions 8 x 3 = 24
Same division 7 x 4 = 28
----------------------------------
Total = 84 games (cut 2 games somewhere, probably from same division)


My proposal (Just 2 conferences, no divisions, every team plays everyone about the same number of games, more balanced schedule, supposedly more fair as there no longer will be "weak" divisions anymore)
Other conference 16 x 2 = 32
Same conference 15 x 3 = 50
---------------------------------
Total = 82 games

[CsInMyBlood]

So 18 games a season vs. Vancouver, Edmonton and Seattle?

What Flames fan wouldn't want this?

[FireGilbert]

Removing the one home and one away game against every team should be non-negotiable full stop. I still remember that horrible scheduling. Only one game a year against Crosby and Ovechkin while it seemed like the Flames were playing the Wild once a week.

I like the alignment the way it is especially with the current playoff format. Yeah we could go to 4 team divisions with the winners and 4 WCs getting the playoff spot but I don't see it being worth the effort. While the Pacific is easy to divide in half the Central will be tougher. Also how do you divide up the East? You'd need to put the Rags, Isles, and Devils in the same division right so who goes with them? Philly? Then they are in a different division that Pittsburgh? Boston? Then they are in a different division from Montreal. Leave it the way it is.