34Likescan u put this on a map for me? im a visual learner.Originally Posted by gobigred
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
IMO, playoffs should be top 4 in each conference, or division, or whatever they wanna call them. If you are going to have 3 teams from each then 2 wild card teams with best record, etc...then just get rid of the divisions, have all 14 or 16 teams in one division and take the top 8.
Although if we have to have wild cards, I guess only 2 is better than having the top team in each division make it and then have the next 6 be wild card teams.
Also, the fact that the league has moved Detroit because they have been requesting it, f((k Detroit!!!!!!!!
The wildcard system is there so you don't have a 4th place team in a division making the playoffs with a worse record than the 5th place team in the other division. Imagine, if you will, Division X 4th place team has 82 pts, while 5th place team in Division Y has 94. Which team deserves to sit out? It wasn't uncommon in the pre-conference playoffs days.
Of course, that's what gave us the Miracle on Manchester, since the Kings were lucky to make the playoffs and only did because the Colorado Rockies had the worst record in the league.
Google image search "NHL teams map."
The "Pacific" (Smythe) and "Midwest" (Norris) divisions mostly make sense. The "Central" division does not. I would do it this way:
Smythe
Kings
SJ
Anaheim
Phoenix
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Norris
Colorado
Dallas
Winnipeg
Minnesota
St. Louis
Nashville
Chicago
Columbus
Patrick
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Washington
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Florida
Adams
New Jersey
NYR
NYI
Boston
Buffalo
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
This would have 15 teams in each "conference," which I think makes more sense than a 16/14 split (although I haven't thought about how it might impact scheduling).
I don't know that I really care whether the playoffs are top 3 in each division plus 2 wildcards or top 4 in each division.
I don't think too many teams will care because they already have ___ amount of season tickets sold. If anything, being able to see teams from the other conference will be enough for them to sell out those games.
Then as for division rivals, worst case scenario, teams can use those nights as promotional giveaway nights to put butts in seats.
Which is why I didn't like it. It happened TOO often.
Basically, I like the idea of realignment in general. But I've never cared for the division playoff thing as I think it a fairer system to re-seed after each round. So I guess the wild-card thing is a compromise. I suppose even if they just went with the top 4 teams in each I could live with it....I'd be unhappy but what are ya gonna do?
HOWEVER, the bad part of all of this by FAR is the implication of expansion. IMO, the NHL has NO BUSINESS whatsoever in creating more teams. I've heard it's the "reality" of the situation. To me it just laughable...and a money grab. The league has a good number of teams who aren't stable presently (more than they'll admit) and they want to EXPAND? That is just absurd.
So ultimately we get a watered down regular season, a repetitive playoff and ultimately 50 new minor-league quality players to join the NHL. Yay.
jom
If the NHL were to go back to having the division names I think they would go with more updated names, somebody who the casual fan will recognize. If they do that, with LA and Edmonton in the same division, I would imagine that we would end up in the Gretzky division.
All that being said, my guess is that the NHL is going to keep the division names geographically based.
Sad to not have Detroit in our conference.....other than that, seems like it is set up based on $$ to me and potential "national" TV broadcasts that we all know are tilted to the East Coast anyway. That Midwest division? Who will watch any of those teams other than Chicago (till they lose their lustre)?
Glad to see Columbus out of the West.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
4/10/82
Rinkrat 
