February 13th, 2013, 11:22 PM #41
People in Montreal and Toronto like their trips to Florida. I think it will actually help attendance for those teams, but it will be annoying as hell for their true fans.
Originally Posted by gescom
Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
February 13th, 2013, 11:44 PM #42
Ahh, leave it to the NHL to make things more complicated and ridiculous than they need to be. Uneven divisions? Divisions called conferences? Florida together with Canada?
1) Move Detroit or Columbus into Eastern Conference
2) Move Winnipeg into Western Conference
3) Change schedule so every team plays in every building at least once per season.
4) Pizza Party
February 14th, 2013, 12:24 AM #43
Rangers/Islanders, Pens/Flyers, Caps/Pens, Bruins/Habs - these are rivalries that the league cannot afford to break up.
Splitting up the Wings/Leafs rivalry years ago was a huge goof, and I don't think they want to repeat that mistake.
Regarding Phoenix moving, I would say it's far more likely that they move to Quebec or Markhamilton (see what I did there?) than Seattle.
Reason being that the arena in Seattle isn't getting started until Hansen gets a basketball team. It won't be a problem for Key Arena to house
an NBA team for 2 years while that gets built, but the viability of the Key for hockey is questionable at best, or so I'm told.
I would send the Coyotes to NHL-ready Quebec, and then expand into both Ontario and Seattle in 2 years when both arenas are done.
Quebec goes into the Adams division now. Seattle brings the Smythe division back to 8 teams, and Ontario brings the Patrick divison up to 8.
Norris division already has 8 I think. Yeah, I know. I just like seeing the old division names again.
But I will say that it ought to be a law that you cannot have more than 2 "conferences" within a league. Once you hit 3, they should be called divisions.
And also, I agree that contraction would be better than expansion, but Gary's gonna fight that like hell after losing Atlanta and Phoenix.
Besides, expanding into healthy northern markets isn't going to make things any worse.
February 14th, 2013, 05:42 AM #44
Geographically, I would switch Pittsburgh and Washington, but it will never happen. Based on this very reasonable suggestion by BDTR and my geograpical flip, either the Caps or the Pens wont be happy, and for whatever reason, the Caps would end up on the short end of the stick if placed in the old Norris Division. In my version, the Pens wont be happy, but mine is based solely on geopgraphy
Originally Posted by tocchet4prez
Last edited by Bluejay; February 14th, 2013 at 05:52 AM.
February 14th, 2013, 10:31 AM #45
LeBrun: Realignment is coming
Hmm need new conference names...
On the rise with hope and a side of massive failure
Kicking ass and a couple of us are collecting social security
Cubans and Canadians
Most of our players say "We hate flying **** YOU WESTERN CONFERENCE!"
February 14th, 2013, 06:15 PM #46
I thought I read somewhere that if the Coyotes moved to Seattle and played in Key Arena for a year or two, they'd still lose less money than if they stayed in Glendale.
Originally Posted by Goon Squad
February 14th, 2013, 11:06 PM #47
You know that's probably true, actually.
Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti
Thing is, simply losing less money than Glendale the first 2 seasons may not be all that attractive to a potential owner.
I had just heard that there was an issue with capacity, and that the sight lines are very badly obstructed for hockey in that building.
But I've never been in there, so it's hard for me to say.
February 15th, 2013, 10:05 AM #48
How about NO divisions, just two conferences of 15 teams each. PLay each team in the conference 4 times (2 home, 2 away) that leaves 26 games left....play 11 teams in the opposite conference 2 times (1 home, 1 away) that makes 78 games total, then play the other 4 teams 1 time...2 in the east, 2 in the west....there ya go. You play everyone at least 1 time, but really you play all but 4 teams at least twice. Then you rotate the 4 single games each year, etc...then the top 8 teams in each conference make playoffs.
You don't have teams with lesser records getting home ice cause they won a division. The conference games became way more important....you will have different matchups in the playoffs every year cause realistically the same teams wont' end up in the same positions.
Just my 2 cents.
Also if a team moves, unless it's from East Coast to West Coast, you can keep them in the same conference.
Right now you only play 1 time vs other conference, this way you get to see most teams each year. Haven't done the math but with only 4 teams you'd play 1 time and with 2 of those at home, and rotating I would assume that you'd only miss out on a team 1 time in maybe 8 years....I failed math.
Last edited by eskymi; February 15th, 2013 at 10:15 AM.
February 15th, 2013, 10:29 AM #49
I've liked this as well but it won't fly. Here is where the geography poses a problem. The reason I've never cared for sequestering teams into divisions was as you stated. There is always weaker teams that get in. Eventually, what will happen is the league will start adding teams to the playoffs to make up for this further watering it down (and making the regular season even more meaningless that it already is). It'll happen... guaranteed.
Originally Posted by eskymi
As to the geography, you have to strike a balance here which I think the league has tried with this proposal. The NHL seems to be favoring TIME ZONES more than geography though...it's a TV thing.
February 15th, 2013, 12:52 PM #50
I say realign the teams with a supporting schedule so all the teams travel as close to equal as possible.
Spread them out east to west.
4 games vs. your conference-60 games
2 games/ home and home vs. 10 rotating other conference teams-20 games.
2 additional rivalry games, so LA would play Anaheim 6 games.
Make the crybabies in the East travel