Division Realignment & Scheduling Thread

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I can’t see anyway the Flames vote to realign divisions. We are going to suck, they need to fill seats still. You won’t do that with the Wild coming in on a cold Tuesday night.

Not to mention opening a new arena and not even having Vancouver in our division.

Seriously could turn me away from the NHL.

What makes you think the Flames get a vote in realignment? That as far as I can tell is a league decision.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What makes you think the Flames get a vote in realignment? That as far as I can tell is a league decision.

Wait
This doesn’t make sense, aren’t the Flames 1/32 of the league? And therefore some kind of a voting member?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

Wait
This doesn’t make sense, aren’t the Flames 1/32 of the league? And therefore some kind of a voting member?

Why would this be a voting issue though? I can't find anything that says the league has to consult with teams to realign divisions.

[All In Good Time]

Wow
Not saying you’re wrong but if something that influences profitability so greatly can be arbitrarily decided by an entity that doesn’t have the same investment as club members, then, this “league” is incredibly dumb. Dumber than I thought at least.

[transplant99]

EVERY change gets voted on by the board of governors, of which, every NHL team has a member.

So, yes, the Flames would most certainly have a vote on any re-alignment proposal.

And here is the list of who could be making that vote.

Governor: N. Murray Edwards
Alternate Governors: John Bean, Craig Conroy, Alvin Libin, Don Maloney

[powderjunkie]

What is the voting threshold? I feel like changes used to need 23 yay votes (75% of 30 teams) so it's probably 24 or 25 now (depending on if it's >75% or =>75%).

It doesn't affect the 16 EC teams at all.

I think 7 teams would like it (SJ/LAK/ANA/VGK/COL/WPG/Utah), plus SEA who would probably slightly prefer COL/UT in their division

8 teams would likely oppose CGY/EDM/VAN/DAL/STL/NAS/CHI/MIN.

[Sylvanfan]

The travel thing is overstated. Right now the Flames play 4 road games against Central teams and 5 road games in their own Division. So it's going to result in one extra road game vs the Central and one less vs the Pacific.

I can see why Vegas and the California teams would rather have Utah and Colorado in their Divsion as there is some better rivalry potential than with Calgary, and let's face it is there anyone outside Edmonton who would hate the idea of less trips to Edmonton?

Realistically if the league adds expansion in Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, and let's say Quebec City for fun...it's going to likely go to 6 Divisions of 6 or 4 Divisions of 9 which will rearrange things again. So for that I don't think making a move that might be in place for 3 years is worth it. The Division setup to cut down travel really has not done much anyways, so they might as well go back to 1 to 8 playoff seeding.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What is the voting threshold? I feel like changes used to need 23 yay votes (75% of 30 teams) so it's probably 24 or 25 now (depending on if it's >75% or =>75%).

It doesn't affect the 16 EC teams at all.

I think 7 teams would like it (SJ/LAK/ANA/VGK/COL/WPG/Utah), plus SEA who would probably slightly prefer COL/UT in their division

8 teams would likely oppose CGY/EDM/VAN/DAL/STL/NAS/CHI/MIN.

Yeah, that's how I see it too. Excluding the Eastern Conference, who shouldn't care one way or the other, I don't see any way there would be more than 8 votes in favour of realignment, and potentially only 6.


I'm not sure if Colorado would be in favour of moving. Denver is actually quite far east. It's basically due south of Regina. SLC is due south of Brooks by comparison, so both are further east than Calgary and Edmonton.

Basically, Denver is the same distance from Nashville as it is from Seattle. The same is true for Dallas and Vegas. After Vegas, LA/Anaheim are the closest Pacific teams to Denver. Winnipeg, Minnesota, and St. Louis are all closer to Denver than LA/ANA are.


I'm also not sure if Seattle would vote for the switch either. Seattle is closer to both Edmonton and Calgary than either SLC or Denver.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by getbak

I'm also not sure if Seattle would vote for the switch either. Seattle is closer to both Edmonton and Calgary than either SLC or Denver.

I think they'd rather be associated with a lot of their old Pac12 rivals than 3 remote Northern outposts.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I think they'd rather be associated with a lot of their old Pac12 rivals than 3 remote Northern outposts.

The NHL is taking orders from college football now?

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

What is stopping the NHL from the NFL model. Calgary Edmonton Vancouver Seattle division. Los Angeles Anaheim San Jose and Vegas in the other. 1-8 get in.

NW - CGY, EDM, VAN, SEA

Pacific - SJ, ANA, LA, VGS

Central - NAS, CHI, STL, DAL

Other West - COL, SLC, WIN, MIN

NE - MTL, TOR, OTT, BOS

Metro - PIT, PHI, CLB, DET

Atlantic - NYR, NYI, NJ, BUF

SE - TB, FLA, CAR, WAS

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

NW - CGY, EDM, VAN, SEA

Pacific - SJ, ANA, LA, VGS

Central - NAS, CHI, STL, DAL

Other West - COL, SLC, WIN, MIN

NE - MTL, TOR, OTT, BOS

Metro - PIT, PHI, CLB, DET

Atlantic - NYR, NYI, NJ, BUF

SE - TB, FLA, CAR, WAS

I like it but

Central - CHI, STL,WIN, MIN

Other West - COL, SLC, DAL, NAS

would make more sense for travel.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

NW - CGY, EDM, VAN, SEA

Pacific - SJ, ANA, LA, VGS

Central - NAS, CHI, STL, DAL

Other West - COL, SLC, WIN, MIN

NE - MTL, TOR, OTT, BOS

Metro - PIT, PHI, CLB, DET

Atlantic - NYR, NYI, NJ, BUF

SE - TB, FLA, CAR, WAS

How would you for the calendar?

Division: NW 6 games
Conference: Pacific 5 games
League: Other West + Central 4 games
NHL: All Others 2 games

= 81 games, plus 1 random game in against someone.


My thought a couple years ago was to do a West, a North East, a Central East, a South East. All spread over 2 timezones each. then have each of the 3 east teams rotate through who would be conferenced up with the west each season. 2 problems, they've now added too many western teams for that to work out well, and there is 0 chance the NY region teams would ever go for something like that. But in terms of travel fairness, it would level the league out a lot.

[#-3]

OK after looking at it for a minute, I like;

West: Van, Sea, Edm, Cgy, SJS, LAK, Ana, LVK,

South: Uth, Col, Dal, Stl, Nas, Car, TBL, Fld

North: Win, Min, Tor, Otw, Mtl, Det, Chi, Buf

Central: CBJ, Pit, Phi, Bos, NYR, NYI, NJD, Was

4 Games in division
2 Games in league = 76 games.
Rotate through each other division annually, year 1 is 6 extra games vs North, year to 6 extra vs Central...

First 2 rounds in division, no crossovers
3rd round vs the Div you had 6 bonus gms vs.
SCF is the SCF.

Florida teams are a little upset about time zones but it's not extra travel.

Eastern Canadian teams are a little upset about having Winnipeg instead of Boston, but at least it's a Canadian team, that will move to QC when they realize there isn't enough corporate money in Winnipeg to support a team long term at a $0.60 dollar. (just kidding). and Chi/Det is much better travel than Florida

New York teams, are marginally annoyed that 1 of them will have to play 2-4 games further west once every 3 years, but super happy you kept the no hotels division together.

All of the west teams are generally pretty happy with this.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I like it but

Central - CHI, STL,WIN, MIN

Other West - COL, SLC, DAL, NAS

would make more sense for travel.

I figured Nashville had a rivalry going with St. Louis and Chicago so didn’t want to mess with it.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by #-3

How would you for the calendar?

Division: NW 6 games
Conference: Pacific 5 games
League: Other West + Central 4 games
NHL: All Others 2 games

= 81 games, plus 1 random game in against someone.


My thought a couple years ago was to do a West, a North East, a Central East, a South East. All spread over 2 timezones each. then have each of the 3 east teams rotate through who would be conferenced up with the west each season. 2 problems, they've now added too many western teams for that to work out well, and there is 0 chance the NY region teams would ever go for something like that. But in terms of travel fairness, it would level the league out a lot.

I think you have it pretty close. 6 inter-division, 2 against the East and 4-5 for the other western teams.

[butterfly]

West:

Smythe North:

CGY
EDM
SEA
VAN

Smythe South:

ANA
LAS
LA
SJ

Norris North:

COL
MIN
SLC
WPG

Norris South:

CHI
DAL
STL
NSH

East:

Adams North:

BOS
MTL
OTT
TOR

Adams South:

BUF
CLS
DET
PIT

Patrick North:

NJ
NYI
NYR
PHI

Patrick South:

CAR
FLA
TB
WSH

4 games vs. 3 teams in division = 12
4 games vs. 2 teams in conference = 8
3 games vs. 10 teams in conference = 30 (rotate with the 4-game group every year)
2 games vs. 16 teams in the other conference = 32

Divisions only matter for scheduling. Playoffs is pure 1-8.

Bonus: 2 points for winning in regulation, 1 point for winning in OT/SO, 0 points for losing at all. I think it would lead to teams trying to win in regulation and the OT becoming more competitive with both teams going for it to try to salvage a point.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Adams South:

BUF
CLS
DET
PIT

Patrick North:

NJ
NYI
NYR
PHI

You can’t split up Philly and Pittsburgh

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

You can’t split up Philly and Pittsburgh

You could flip Buffalo in there for Philadelphia then. I think this works better for travel.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by butterfly

You could flip Buffalo in there for Philadelphia then. I think this works better for travel.

So you agree with me fully from my post (#31) then ?

Edit: except for the division names I guess LOL