spndnchz Posted December 7, 2011 Report Posted December 7, 2011 No time to look for it. Have the BOG actually agreed on anything but who's in what division and if so, what?
Taro T Posted December 7, 2011 Report Posted December 7, 2011 But you're not crossing over in the 1st round, right? I just don't get it. You have built in all this structure and then suddenly you just throw it all away. I think you're just introducing a way to completely confuse the fans (especially with the idea of weighting things, but I get the feeling you weren't all that committed to that idea). I do like the idea of reseeding to get the most favorable matchups for the teams that earned that right, but deep down, a part of me also enjoys the "anything can happen" aspect of a locked in bracket. But there is nothing getting thrown away by having the teams start in their own division. If you'd prefer to only have 8 teams make the playoffs, we can go right to the conference v conference stuff. You have to get down to 8 teams total somehow, and this does make the intradivisional games important. Teams don't want to have to face the Bruins in the playoffs; by not finishing in 4th in the division, then they don't have to face them until the finals. It's obviously just an opinion, but I don't see why we need this big rivalry final like you suggest with a Sabres-Bruins or Canadien-Bruins final. It just feels wrong to me. Then again, that thought is easily impacted by the fact that every single sport I pay attention to during my life has always gone the conference vs. conference route for a final, whether it's east/west, AFC/NFC, or AL/NL. We don't NEED to have a rivalry final, but if the 2 rivals are the top 2 teams in the league, why force them to meet in Round 2? That seems wrong to me. If the top 2 teams (at least at playoff time) AREN'T from the same division, it isn't likely that we'll end up with the rivalry final as the 2nd place team coming out of a particular division has a very tough row to hoe to get to the Finals.
frissonic Posted December 7, 2011 Report Posted December 7, 2011 What this means for me is at least one road trip to Denver a year. :) And Phoenix. And San Jose. And SoCal. Probably twice a year. Yah, I'm okay with this new alignment. Hell, I might even try a road trip to Vancouver.
Cereal Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 No time to look for it. Have the BOG actually agreed on anything but who's in what division and if so, what? Yes, the regular season schedule format. Each team plays one home and one away against each non-conference opponent (copied from a previous post): The seven-team conferences: (6 teams x 6 conference games) + (23 teams x 2 interconference games) = 82. The eight-team conferences: ((4 teams x 5) + (3 teams x 6) (rotate the 3 and 4 year to year) conference games) + (22 teams x 2 interconference games) = 82. Playoff format TBD. What this means for me is at least one road trip to Denver a year. :) And Phoenix. And San Jose. And SoCal. Probably twice a year. Yah, I'm okay with this new alignment. Hell, I might even try a road trip to Vancouver. The Sabres will have EXACTLY one trip per year in all those cities. One thing Bettman was saying is that scheduling of western road trips gets a lot simpler, because you have to hit every team, rather than jump around here and there. Edit: I'd bet you're closer to Dallas than Vancouver!
frissonic Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 Yes, the regular season schedule format. Each team plays one home and one away against each non-conference opponent (copied from a previous post): The seven-team conferences: (6 teams x 6 conference games) + (23 teams x 2 interconference games) = 82. The eight-team conferences: ((4 teams x 5) + (3 teams x 6) (rotate the 3 and 4 year to year) conference games) + (22 teams x 2 interconference games) = 82. Playoff format TBD. The Sabres will have EXACTLY one trip per year in all those cities. One thing Bettman was saying is that scheduling of western road trips gets a lot simpler, because you have to hit every team, rather than jump around here and there. Edit: I'd bet you're closer to Dallas than Vancouver! not sure without opening google earth or something, but even if i am, i'd *much* rather go to vancouver than dallas. hands down. :)
Cereal Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 not sure without opening google earth or something, but even if i am, i'd *much* rather go to vancouver than dallas. hands down. :) :D I'm moving to Austin, TX soon, and Dallas will be my only city even CLOSE. Edit: Yeah I've got to make it out to Vancouver someday, I've only heard great things. Well, except everyone b*itching about who was rioting downtown after the Finals last season. :lol:
frissonic Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 :D I'm moving to Austin, TX soon, and Dallas will be my only city even CLOSE. Edit: Yeah I've got to make it out to Vancouver someday, I've only heard great things. Well, except everyone b*itching about who was rioting downtown after the Finals last season. :lol: yah, not sure i would have wanted to be there this past june, but any other time, yah. it just has the mystic "twin peaks" look to it. all moody, broody and gray. that's awesome.
Eleven Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 No time to look for it. Have the BOG actually agreed on anything but who's in what division and if so, what? Just the first two rounds of the playoffs and the who's in what division. No decisions or discussion on the third and final rounds. As for Taro's proposed playoff scheme, a coworker had the same idea, and I don't dislike it at all.
billsrcursed Posted December 8, 2011 Report Posted December 8, 2011 Just the first two rounds of the playoffs and the who's in what division. No decisions or discussion on the third and final rounds. As for Taro's proposed playoff scheme, a coworker had the same idea, and I don't dislike it at all. I was trying to decide if I liked the re-seeding idea (after the first two rounds) or the thought of "A" playing "B" and "C" playing "D" when Hradek made up my mind for me; If you re-seed, you get the best two teams in the Finals... sounds simple enough for me. I'm ok with two "East" teams or two "West" teams playing in the Finals, as long as it's the two best teams in the NHL.
spndnchz Posted December 9, 2011 Report Posted December 9, 2011 I've seen some of the ESPN and other guys saying that the GM are talking about possibly having the #4 and #5 play a series (kind of a wildcard series) before starting the top 4 series'. Maybe they do a best of three?
Taro T Posted December 9, 2011 Report Posted December 9, 2011 I've seen some of the ESPN and other guys saying that the GM are talking about possibly having the #4 and #5 play a series (kind of a wildcard series) before starting the top 4 series'. Maybe they do a best of three? Well, they talk about adding 4 more teams every year (friggin' Eulers :angry: ). As long as they're only talking about it, I'm good with it. As soon as they decide to implement it, then I'll be unhappy. The league caught heck for a lot of years for having 12 of 18 and then 16 of 21 making the playoffs. 16 of 30 is plenty.
X. Benedict Posted December 10, 2011 Report Posted December 10, 2011 12 games out of 82 against Florida teams with the potential for 14 more. Geez -----I'm kinda hating how this shakes out for Buffalo.
FolignosJock Posted December 12, 2011 Report Posted December 12, 2011 Happened last year: Vancouver was only NW team to get 2009 - 2010 & 2007-2008: Washington only SE team to get in 03-04: Tampa only SE team 01-02: SE only sent one team 98-99: SE only sent one team and then 97 - 98 had the different divisions... it happens, but rarely, and rarely was it ever a division other than the SE that only sent one (talk about a weak division)! Cvanvol, this was not meant to slight you at all, you just made me curious, so I went and looked it up (slow day at work today...slash procrastinating). I hate my life and I didn the research in our division and couldnt find a site that offered the statistics in a way easy to research. I feel stupid and apologize for that comment. I still feel that this format wont slight teams any more than it does now.
dEnnis the Menace Posted December 12, 2011 Report Posted December 12, 2011 I hate my life and I didn the research in our division and couldnt find a site that offered the statistics in a way easy to research. I feel stupid and apologize for that comment. I still feel that this format wont slight teams any more than it does now. I just looked at NHL's standings over the last 10+ years, that was all. No worries. I was curious after you said that, so I was just putting the info out there. and honestly, it won't slight any teams any more than the current setup.
LabattBlue Posted December 12, 2011 Report Posted December 12, 2011 12 games out of 82 against Florida teams with the potential for 14 more. Geez -----I'm kinda hating how this shakes out for Buffalo. On the bright side...a couple of more opportunities for a Florida visit during the season. :)
spndnchz Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 NHLPA has rejected realignment. Well, maybe not rejected. NHL gave a deadline of today and the NHLPA didn't respond. Schedule makers had to get started on it. per ESPN, NHL will NOT move forward with realignment in 2012-13 because of it. NHL statement http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=610343
Bmwolf21 Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 I just heard on the Panthers game that the NHLPA has denied the re-alignment plan for next year so as it stands next year will be no different than this year? http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=384427 NEW YORK -- The NHL's planned realignment has been blocked by the players' union. The plan to change from six divisions to four conferences for next season had been approved in December pending consent from the NHL Players' Association. But in a statement Friday the league said the union would not allow the change to be made. Instead, the NHL will maintain its current alignment and playoff format for the 2012-13 season. Deputy commissioner Bill Daly said the league was unable to address the union's unspecified concerns with the change.
JJFIVEOH Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 I had no idea they were awaiting the NHLPA's approval. That's really unfortunate, I was looking forward to the new format!
Bmwolf21 Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 I had no idea they were awaiting the NHLPA's approval. That's really unfortunate, I was looking forward to the new format! It sounded like that was merely a formality when they announced the new format. BTW, here are a series of tweets about it from Helene Elliott (read from bottom up): helenenothelen Helene Elliott NHL wouldn't agree to change playoff qualification or guarantee travel won't be tougher, so PA couldn't provide consent but willing to talk 27 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply helenenothelen Helene Elliott said PA had concerns that teams in 7-team conferences wold have better chance to make playoffs than teams in 8-team conferences. Says NHL 29 minutes ago helenenothelen Helene Elliott NHLPA boss Donald Fehr says NHL wouldn't provide info on possible travel increases and how sked would be formulated under realignment. Also 29 minutes ago helenenothelen Helene Elliott major salvo in labor dispute. this is only going to get uglier. 1 hour ago helenenothelen Helene Elliott anyone who thought nhl-nhlpa labor talks would be uneventful--that illusion just vanished. nhlpa's rejection of nhl realignment plan is 1st 1 hour ago
Taro T Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 NHLPA has rejected realignment. Well, maybe not rejected. NHL gave a deadline of today and the NHLPA didn't respond. Schedule makers had to get started on it. per ESPN, NHL will NOT move forward with realignment in 2012-13 because of it. NHL statement http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=610343 Though I was not happy at who the NHLPA hired to lead them, I honestly believed that even though they hired a hardliner as their leader that they'd be smart enough to find common ground with the owners during this next renegotiation. If they can't even find common ground on how the divisions (conferences, whatever) are aligned, I am not hopeful that they'll get all 82 games in next year. Even the dolts in MLB managed to avoid any lost games during the last negotiation and the schmucks in the NBA managed not to lose any meaningful games. (I'm told people that actually care about the NBA don't start until Christmas day so that league didn't REALLY lose any attention generating games.)
Taro T Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 It sounded like that was merely a formality when they announced the new format. BTW, here are a series of tweets about it from Helene Elliott (read from bottom up): helenenothelen Helene Elliott NHL wouldn't agree to change playoff qualification or guarantee travel won't be tougher, so PA couldn't provide consent but willing to talk 27 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply helenenothelen Helene Elliott said PA had concerns that teams in 7-team conferences wold have better chance to make playoffs than teams in 8-team conferences. Says NHL 29 minutes ago helenenothelen Helene Elliott NHLPA boss Donald Fehr says NHL wouldn't provide info on possible travel increases and how sked would be formulated under realignment. Also 29 minutes ago helenenothelen Helene Elliott major salvo in labor dispute. this is only going to get uglier. 1 hour ago helenenothelen Helene Elliott anyone who thought nhl-nhlpa labor talks would be uneventful--that illusion just vanished. nhlpa's rejection of nhl realignment plan is 1st 1 hour ago Paraphrasing FDR: we have nothing to fear but Fehr itself. This will get FAR uglier than it needs to be. They have an agreement that has seen leaguewide shared revenues increase every year since the lockout. While there are definitely modifications that need to be made to improve the deal (for both sides), the thing doesn't need to be blown up. I don't expect that Fehr believes that. I was not happy to see Fehr become the labor leader; this little negotiating ploy definitely doesn't make me appreciate him any more than previously.
Eleven Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 Though I was not happy at who the NHLPA hired to lead them, I honestly believed that even though they hired a hardliner as their leader that they'd be smart enough to find common ground with the owners during this next renegotiation. If they can't even find common ground on how the divisions (conferences, whatever) are aligned, I am not hopeful that they'll get all 82 games in next year. Even the dolts in MLB managed to avoid any lost games during the last negotiation and the schmucks in the NBA managed not to lose any meaningful games. (I'm told people that actually care about the NBA don't start until Christmas day so that league didn't REALLY lose any attention generating games.) There will be either a strike or another lockout; I think we can forget about hockey next year. I cannot imagine why the NHLPA would reject the realignment plan other than to send a message. And Don Fehr is a grade-A ###### who just can't resist poking a stick at a barking dog, on top of it.
Eleven Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 Paraphrasing FDR: we have nothing to fear but Fehr itself. This will get FAR uglier than it needs to be. They have an agreement that has seen leaguewide shared revenues increase every year since the lockout. While there are definitely modifications that need to be made to improve the deal (for both sides), the thing doesn't need to be blown up. I don't expect that Fehr believes that. I was not happy to see Fehr become the labor leader; this little negotiating ploy definitely doesn't make me appreciate him any more than previously. The phrase "since the lockout" will have a new meaning soon.
spndnchz Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 STATEMENT FROM NHLPA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DON FEHR REGARDING PROPOSED NHL REALIGNMENT Toronto (January 6, 2012) - National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) Executive Director Don Fehr issued the following statement this evening regarding the League's realignment proposal: "On the evening of December 5, 2011, the NHL informed the NHLPA that they proposed to put in place a four-conference format beginning with the 2012-13 season. As realignment affects Players' terms and conditions of employment, the CBA requires the League to obtain the NHLPA's consent before implementation. Over the last month, we have had several discussions with the League and extensive dialogue with Players, most recently on an Executive Board conference call on January 1. Two substantial Player concerns emerged: (1) whether the new structure would result in increased and more onerous travel; and (2) the disparity in chances of making the playoffs between the smaller and larger divisions. In order to evaluate the effect on travel of the proposed new structure, we requested a draft or sample 2012-13 schedule, showing travel per team. We were advised it was not possible for the League to do that. We also suggested reaching an agreement on scheduling conditions to somewhat alleviate Player travel concerns (e.g., the scheduling of more back-to-back games, more difficult and lengthier road trips, number of border crossings, etc.), but the League did not want to enter into such a dialogue. The travel estimation data we received from the League indicates that many of the current Pacific and Central teams, that have demanding travel schedules under the current format, could see their travel become even more difficult. On the playoff qualification matter, we suggested discussing ways to eliminate the inherent differences in the proposed realignment, but the League was not willing to do so. The League set a deadline of January 6, 2012 for the NHLPA to provide its consent to the NHL's proposal. Players' questions about travel and concerns about the playoff format have not been sufficiently addressed; as such, we are not able to provide our consent to the proposal at this time. We continue to be ready and willing to have further discussions should the League be willing to do so." Doesn't sound like they are asking for much.
Tony P Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 IMO, Fehr is posturing, setting the precedent that nothing will be easy and every little detail will be give and take. For years, this guy repeatedly beat the tar out of the MLB owners. He won virtually every showdown in negotiataions. I dislike him, but I'd want him on my side. I shuddered when I read he was the new head of the NHLPA. I think this is gonna get very ugly.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.