NHL realignment

[will]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the top 8 in each Conference to make the playoffs, not the top 4 in each division.

 

yup, but that's not what i've read so far.

[Taro T]

i read the top 4 teams in each division go to the playoffs with the first round being divisional, followed by reseeding for the second.

 

and yeah, detroit will definitely be in the east.

If they do go to 4 divisions next year, I would really like to see the playoff format go 1v4, 2v3 in division in the 1st round and then reseed w/ each division's #1 playing the other division w/in conferences' #2.

 

Then for the semis, reseed again and have 1 play 2 from the other conference. And the finals are, obviously, the 2 winners of the semifinals.

 

As an example, lets say that this year's top 4 Northeast, Atlantic, Central, and Pacific teams were the 8 that went to the playoffs the 1st round matchups would have been:

 

Baahston - TO

Moe-ray-all - Sabres

 

Filly - Joisey

Pitts - Strangers

 

and

 

Detroit - Columbus

Nashville - Chicago

 

SJ - Ducks

LA - Yotes.

 

Let's say, for sake of example, that the top 2 teams in the league are Baahston and Buffalo and the top 2 teams in the West are Detroit & SJ.

 

1st round, you have Baahston, Buffalo, Joisey in an upset, and Pitts from the East and Detroit, Chicago, SJ, and LA moving on from the West.

 

2nd round, you get Baahston over Joisey and Buffalo over Pitts in the East and Detroit & SJ in the West. If SJ had more points in the regular season than Detroit, then the 3rd round sets up as:

 

Baaahston - Detroit, and SJ - Buffalo. Buffalo - Baaahston win and that's the final.

 

 

While I know there will be a LOT of naysayers to the plan, primarily because in some way, shape, or form it doesn't 'respect' the divisions &/or conferences; it accounts for the possibility that the 2 best teams may come from the same division or conference and gives the league the possibility of having those 2 teams in the finals against each other.

 

It also doesn't reward teams (as much as a system where you have 1 team emerge from each division) for getting to play in a lousy division / conference as they only play w/in their division in the 1st & (possibly) 4th round.

 

It also makes the regular season more important as the teams get reseeded each round and if you end up 4th in your division, you WILL have to play the arguably strongest team coming out of the other side each time and if you win the Presidents Trophy you WILL play arguably the weakest team remaining in your bracket each time.

 

This plan could have a battle of Alberta or a battle of Pennsyltucky in the Finals if those teams are the tops in the league. And if LA and Moe-ray-all are the top 2 teams, they can meet in the finals. And I'd expect that the league would want the 2 BEST teams in the finals regardless of which conference they play in.

[Eleven]

If they do go to 4 divisions next year, I would really like to see the playoff format go 1v4, 2v3 in division in the 1st round and then reseed w/ each division's #1 playing the other division w/in conferences' #2.

 

Then for the semis, reseed again and have 1 play 2 from the other conference. And the finals are, obviously, the 2 winners of the semifinals.

 

As an example, lets say that this year's top 4 Northeast, Atlantic, Central, and Pacific teams were the 8 that went to the playoffs the 1st round matchups would have been:

 

Baahston - TO

Moe-ray-all - Sabres

 

Filly - Joisey

Pitts - Strangers

 

and

 

Detroit - Columbus

Nashville - Chicago

 

SJ - Ducks

LA - Yotes.

 

Let's say, for sake of example, that the top 2 teams in the league are Baahston and Buffalo and the top 2 teams in the West are Detroit & SJ.

 

1st round, you have Baahston, Buffalo, Joisey in an upset, and Pitts from the East and Detroit, Chicago, SJ, and LA moving on from the West.

 

2nd round, you get Baahston over Joisey and Buffalo over Pitts in the East and Detroit & SJ in the West. If SJ had more points in the regular season than Detroit, then the 3rd round sets up as:

 

Baaahston - Detroit, and SJ - Buffalo. Buffalo - Baaahston win and that's the final.

 

 

While I know there will be a LOT of naysayers to the plan, primarily because in some way, shape, or form it doesn't 'respect' the divisions &/or conferences; it accounts for the possibility that the 2 best teams may come from the same division or conference and gives the league the possibility of having those 2 teams in the finals against each other.

 

It also doesn't reward teams (as much as a system where you have 1 team emerge from each division) for getting to play in a lousy division / conference as they only play w/in their division in the 1st & (possibly) 4th round.

 

It also makes the regular season more important as the teams get reseeded each round and if you end up 4th in your division, you WILL have to play the arguably strongest team coming out of the other side each time and if you win the Presidents Trophy you WILL play arguably the weakest team remaining in your bracket each time.

 

This plan could have a battle of Alberta or a battle of Pennsyltucky in the Finals if those teams are the tops in the league. And if LA and Moe-ray-all are the top 2 teams, they can meet in the finals. And I'd expect that the league would want the 2 BEST teams in the finals regardless of which conference they play in.

 

The NHL had that system for years, and it isn't a bad one, but when the conferences are uneven (and they will be), the divisions will be uneven. Frankly, if the league is goin' to four divisions, I'd like to see contraction (and there are teams ripe for it--I'm lookin' at you, Florida, and you, Phoenix, and even you, C- Bus and LA) rather than this. Four seven-team divisions is unwieldy but ok; two eight-team divisions and two seven-team divisions is NOT ok.

[Taro T]

The NHL had that system for years, and it isn't a bad one, but when the conferences are uneven (and they will be), the divisions will be uneven. Frankly, if the league is goin' to four divisions, I'd like to see contraction (and there are teams ripe for it--I'm lookin' at you, Florida, and you, Phoenix, and even you, C- Bus and LA) rather than this. Four seven-team divisions is unwieldy but ok; two eight-team divisions and two seven-team divisions is NOT ok.

They had the system for 4 years and pretty much only implemented it to keep from having Chicago get an automatic berth in the finals after they agreed to switch to the Western Conference. The NHL has never used the system I proposed when they've had a 4th round of playoffs.

 

I agree that 2x7 w/ 2x8 isn't a good situation long term, but I'd far more expect to see that as the driving force for expansion rather than contraction.

[Eleven]

They had the system for 4 years and pretty much only implemented it to keep from having Chicago get an automatic berth in the finals after they agreed to switch to the Western Conference. The NHL has never used the system I proposed when they've had a 4th round of playoffs.

 

I agree that 2x7 w/ 2x8 isn't a good situation long term, but I'd far more expect to see that as the driving force for expansion rather than contraction.

 

I must be misunderstanding your construct. I remember decades of top four in the division make the playoffs.

[Taro T]

I must be misunderstanding your construct. I remember decades of top four in the division make the playoffs.

Yes they did. And they played 2 rounds amongst themselves to find out who would play the 'winner' of the other division in their conference, and then that conference winner played the other one for the Stanley Cup.

 

With my system, the teams play 1 round in division, 1 round cross division but w/in conference, then a round of cross conference, and the 2 top teams regardless of geographical location battle each other for the Stanley Cup.

 

From '82-'93 the Isles could never battle the Phlyers in the Finals, the Sabres could never battle the Habs there, and the Flames could never take on Gretzky and the rest of the Eulers winner takes all. Which, to me, was (and still is) assinine.

 

The league encourages rivalries, if the 2 best teams in the league are huge rivals, let's see them battle in the Finals, not in the 2nd round. I'm probably going to vomit a little writing this, but can you imagine how stoked the guys at NBC and Vs would be for a Pens - Caps final?

 

Me, I'd love to see Buffalo - Moe-ray-all.

 

My system would probably reduce the %age of upsets in the playoffs a bit, but it would also all but guarantee we'd never get another Detroit - Carolina or Colorado - Florida or Isles - Vancouver again. Cruddy teams couldn't just luck their way to a clear path to the Finals.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

The concern i have would be the enourmous concentration of good teams in the north east (geographically speaking) 4 out of 8 would be an improbable position for teams in the same division as Detroit pittsburg Boston Buffal Philly etc. Many teams in this area who deserve to go would not be able to while southern teams who are, let's face it, not nearly as good (however with ATL gone there's really only florida) many teams that deserve to get in may not.

 

I think the system is fine, and if the league wants to maintain it's credibility, it should just swap nashville and winnipeg. I don't understand why a complete restructuring of the league is necessary. All it proves is that detroit holds power over the NHL, and not the other way around.

[Braedon]

Yes they did. And they played 2 rounds amongst themselves to find out who would play the 'winner' of the other division in their conference, and then that conference winner played the other one for the Stanley Cup.

 

With my system, the teams play 1 round in division, 1 round cross division but w/in conference, then a round of cross conference, and the 2 top teams regardless of geographical location battle each other for the Stanley Cup.

 

From '82-'93 the Isles could never battle the Phlyers in the Finals, the Sabres could never battle the Habs there, and the Flames could never take on Gretzky and the rest of the Eulers winner takes all. Which, to me, was (and still is) assinine.

 

The league encourages rivalries, if the 2 best teams in the league are huge rivals, let's see them battle in the Finals, not in the 2nd round. I'm probably going to vomit a little writing this, but can you imagine how stoked the guys at NBC and Vs would be for a Pens - Caps final?

 

Me, I'd love to see Buffalo - Moe-ray-all.

 

My system would probably reduce the %age of upsets in the playoffs a bit, but it would also all but guarantee we'd never get another Detroit - Carolina or Colorado - Florida or Isles - Vancouver again. Cruddy teams couldn't just luck their way to a clear path to the Finals.

 

 

I like this idea, but I don't hate the current system with exception of the 3rd seed garbage. I think if they bring back the Adams Division, it will solve everything.:thumbsup:

[BuffaloFansR_Crazy]

The concern i have would be the enourmous concentration of good teams in the north east (geographically speaking) 4 out of 8 would be an improbable position for teams in the same division as Detroit pittsburg Boston Buffal Philly etc. Many teams in this area who deserve to go would not be able to while southern teams who are, let's face it, not nearly as good (however with ATL gone there's really only florida) many teams that deserve to get in may not.

 

I think the system is fine, and if the league wants to maintain it's credibility, it should just swap nashville and winnipeg. I don't understand why a complete restructuring of the league is necessary. All it proves is that detroit holds power over the NHL, and not the other way around.

 

Basically the proposed realignment is just away to placate Detroit the Western Conference and Old Schoolers. In my opionion they need to either just do away with divisions and have top 8 of each conference make the playoffs, or just follow the NFL format. That league seems to know what it is doing.

[Taro T]

Basically the proposed realignment is just away to placate Detroit the Western Conference and Old Schoolers. In my opionion they need to either just do away with divisions and have top 8 of each conference make the playoffs, or just follow the NFL format. That league seems to know what it is doing.

They should cut back to 12 teams making the playoffs with a best of 1 single elimination game for each round? :huh:

[shrader]

The NHL had that system for years, and it isn't a bad one, but when the conferences are uneven (and they will be), the divisions will be uneven. Frankly, if the league is goin' to four divisions, I'd like to see contraction (and there are teams ripe for it--I'm lookin' at you, Florida, and you, Phoenix, and even you, C- Bus and LA) rather than this. Four seven-team divisions is unwieldy but ok; two eight-team divisions and two seven-team divisions is NOT ok.

 

That's my main concern. I can't see how the teams will ok an unbalanced alignment like that where the top 4 from each division make the playoffs. Every team should have the same chance of getting in but that can't happen here. If they want to get it to 4 divisions of 7 teams or 4 divisions of 8 teams eventually, then they can go to this top 4 get in system. Until then, they need to stick with keeping the top 8 teams in each conference.

[X. Benedict]

They should cut back to 12 teams making the playoffs with a best of 1 single elimination game for each round? :huh:

 

Stanley Cup playoffs could last two weeks. :lol:

[LastPommerFan]

According to My link the NHL will be considering radical reallignment of the divisions after this season. They are looking to move to 4 divisions, 2 with 8 teams and 2 with 7 teams.

 

So what sorts of divisions make sense in this format, and what should TPegs be pushing for?

[Taro T]

Stanley Cup playoffs could last two weeks. :lol:

No, not if they're following NFL protocol. They'd have to go 5 weeks (which is still shorter than what we have now.) Each team plays 1 game / week w/ an extra week off before the Stanley Cup Finals. We can't forget the 8 hour pregame show where we learn that as toddlers of 3 Henrik used to pop Daniel in the noggin' repeatedly until Moma Sedin came in and gave them both a timeout. :rolleyes:

 

Not sure if they'd move the ASG to that 'off-week' or more preferrably they could run the Victoria's Secret Lingerie Cup w/ a whole bunch of supermodels doing their best Ned Braden imitiations. :thumbsup:

[Taro T]

According to My link the NHL will be considering radical reallignment of the divisions after this season. They are looking to move to 4 divisions, 2 with 8 teams and 2 with 7 teams.

 

So what sorts of divisions make sense in this format, and what should TPegs be pushing for?

This has already been covered in at least 3 different threads. And the league has already stated that the divisions would be based upon geography (specifically by time zone).

 

My expectation of divisions:

 

Buffalo, TO, Detroit, Pitts, Columbus, Moe-ray-all, Otters, Baahston

NYCx3, Filly, Wash, Canes, Flax2

 

Minny, Manitoba, St. Louie, Chicago, Dallas, Avs, Preds

Phoenix, LAx2, SJ, Van, Alberta x2

 

And I'd prefer the playoffs to start out in division. Reseed after 1st round and cross w/in conference. Reseed for semis and cross again. And then last 2 teams play for the big silver trophy.

[X. Benedict]

No, not if they're following NFL protocol. They'd have to go 5 weeks (which is still shorter than what we have now.) Each team plays 1 game / week w/ an extra week off before the Stanley Cup Finals. We can't forget the 8 hour pregame show where we learn that as toddlers of 3 Henrik used to pop Daniel in the noggin' repeatedly until Moma Sedin came in and gave them both a timeout. :rolleyes:

 

wow.....the league goes to kitsch :lol:

 

Not sure if they'd move the ASG to that 'off-week' or more preferrably they could run the Victoria's Secret Lingerie Cup w/ a whole bunch of supermodels doing their best Ned Braden imitiations. :thumbsup:

 

Now that, i'd watch.

[Taro T]

wow.....the league goes to kitsch :lol:

 

 

 

Now that, i'd watch.

:lol:

Yeah, talk about 'must see' TV. (And it'd even be on NBC.)

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

Basically the proposed realignment is just away to placate Detroit the Western Conference and Old Schoolers. In my opionion they need to either just do away with divisions and have top 8 of each conference make the playoffs, or just follow the NFL format. That league seems to know what it is doing.

THIS is how it should be, and any bull about top 4 from each division making it is completely ridiculous. I like the 3 division system in each conference, there's a degree of unfairness when some divisions are smaller than others (7 vs 8).

 

In sports, symmetry is king (at least when hosting tournaments, leagues etc). And the top 4 approach would essentially make each division a conference.

 

i don't like this idea at all. Gary bettman needs to get his head out of his ass and realize that if something isn't broken, you don't fix it. This league has more important things to be worried about. Including eliminating hits to the head, the fate of the coyotes, and trying to get disciplin to be handed out on a consistent basis.

 

The swap of nashville and winnipeg geographically makes sense, and is a simple change. Anything more would prove to be catering to the team in motor city. Which, IMO, is absolute bullsh!t.

[shrader]

THIS is how it should be, and any bull about top 4 from each division making it is completely ridiculous. I like the 3 division system in each conference, there's a degree of unfairness when some divisions are smaller than others (7 vs 8).

 

In sports, symmetry is king (at least when hosting tournaments, leagues etc). And the top 4 approach would essentially make each division a conference.

 

i don't like this idea at all. Gary bettman needs to get his head out of his ass and realize that if something isn't broken, you don't fix it. This league has more important things to be worried about. Including eliminating hits to the head, the fate of the coyotes, and trying to get disciplin to be handed out on a consistent basis.

 

The swap of nashville and winnipeg geographically makes sense, and is a simple change. Anything more would prove to be catering to the team in motor city. Which, IMO, is absolute bullsh!t.

 

So why is two conferences ok but four isn't? The unbalanced issue I get, but if you eventually have 4 equal divisions, is there anything wrong with the idea of the top 4 getting in? Yes, ideally you want perfect symmetry, but there are plenty of obstacles in the way of that. In the current setup, yes, all the divisions have an equal number of teams, but those teams do not play an identical schedule. 96 points for Buffalo is not truly identical to 96 points for Detroit or for Washington.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

So why is two conferences ok but four isn't? The unbalanced issue I get, but if you eventually have 4 equal divisions, is there anything wrong with the idea of the top 4 getting in? Yes, ideally you want perfect symmetry, but there are plenty of obstacles in the way of that. In the current setup, yes, all the divisions have an equal number of teams, but those teams do not play an identical schedule. 96 points for Buffalo is not truly identical to 96 points for Detroit or for Washington.

If you go after a 4 "conference" structure with the top 4 teams in each division making the playoffs, you need to radically change who plays who how many times, because all this does is create a disadvantage for our team IMO. as you said 96 points for buffalo is not identical to 96 points for washington in the current state of things.

 

5th place for buffalo in a division with detroit, Pitt, Boston, Montreal, TO, OTT, and Columbus could probably be comparable to a third place in a couple other divisions.

 

look at the final standings this year. Dallas had more points than the rangers, but did not make the playoffs, while the NYR did make it in an 8 seed. This should not happen, but its an unfortunate side effect of the conference system. This would happen much more often if you essentially doubled the number of groups competing for a spot.

 

This league needs to either do the top 16 overall, or keep the confrences to 2. The only thing a top 4 qualification system would do, that none of the other systems could manage, would be to cause teams that are in the true top 16 to miss the playoffs more often than they do now.

 

Edit: I am not agaisnt restructuring, only the idea that qualification should be determined by the top 4 per division, rather than the top 8 per conference. The league should implement a system that makes the best effort to get the 16 best teams into the playoffs, and not a system where 13 of the best make it, and another three make it in because they lucked out by being in an extremely weak division.

[Eleven]

If you go after a 4 "conference" structure with the top 4 teams in each division making the playoffs, you need to radically change who plays who how many times, because all this does is create a disadvantage for our team IMO. as you said 96 points for buffalo is not identical to 96 points for washington in the current state of things.

 

5th place for buffalo in a division with detroit, Pitt, Boston, Montreal, TO, OTT, and Columbus could probably be comparable to a third place in a couple other divisions.

 

look at the final standings this year. Dallas had more points than the rangers, but did not make the playoffs, while the NYR did make it in an 8 seed. This should not happen, but its an unfortunate side effect of the conference system. This would happen much more often if you essentially doubled the number of groups competing for a spot.

This league needs to either do the top 16 overall, or keep the confrences to 2. The only thing a top 4 qualification system would do, that none of the other systems could manage, would be to cause teams that are in the true top 16 to miss the playoffs more often than they do now.

 

Edit: I am not agaisnt restructuring, only the idea that qualification should be determined by the top 4 per division, rather than the top 8 per conference. The league should implement a system that makes the best effort to get the 16 best teams into the playoffs, and not a system where 13 of the best make it, and another three make it in because they lucked out by being in an extremely weak division.

 

I have to agree with this. Especially where the likely division structure puts Buffalo in a division with seven other teams that are serious about hockey, while other divisions have "Chicago Cubs" style teams that just try to provide a fun sideshow (e.g. Florida, Phoenix, Columbus).

[PromoTheRobot]

I hate unbalanced divisions. Would 3 ten-team divisions work? Maybe they plan to expand to 32?

 

PTR

[Taro T]

If you go after a 4 "conference" structure with the top 4 teams in each division making the playoffs, you need to radically change who plays who how many times, because all this does is create a disadvantage for our team IMO. as you said 96 points for buffalo is not identical to 96 points for washington in the current state of things.

 

5th place for buffalo in a division with detroit, Pitt, Boston, Montreal, TO, OTT, and Columbus could probably be comparable to a third place in a couple other divisions.

 

look at the final standings this year. Dallas had more points than the rangers, but did not make the playoffs, while the NYR did make it in an 8 seed. This should not happen, but its an unfortunate side effect of the conference system. This would happen much more often if you essentially doubled the number of groups competing for a spot.

 

This league needs to either do the top 16 overall, or keep the confrences to 2. The only thing a top 4 qualification system would do, that none of the other systems could manage, would be to cause teams that are in the true top 16 to miss the playoffs more often than they do now.

And that is what my proposed playoff matrix solves (for the most part). It doesn't address letting a 5th place team into the playoffs - as if you can't finish in the top 4 in your division a case can definitely be made that you don't legitimately deserve a shot at the SC as there are at least 4 other teams that have played at a higher level all season long.

 

What it does do is allow those strong teams the ability to not beat the snot out of each other all playoffs long. They just have to play in that tough division in the 1st round (and by virtue of having had a better regular season theoretically get to face the weakest of the remaining strong teams in the division) and then they get theoretically weaker opponents there on out. If a particular division is truly stacked relative to the other divisions, then their reward at the end of the day is having the 2 best from that division duke it out in the SC Finals.

 

You'd always have the stronger remaining teams (on paper) playing the weaker remaining ones each round.

 

By playing an unbalanced schedule, the relative strengths of each team in the division should be reflected in their in-division standings. Give each team 5 games in division and 2 against non-division opponents; this would leave 3 extra games to be distributed across teams in the East and 6 extra against teams in the West.

 

Yes, (until Bettman gets his wish and the league expands by 2 teams) it's easier to get into the playoffs out of the West, but it wouldn't be any easier to get to the finals than it would be from the East. This proposed realignment also gives Bettman the cover of not giving Quebec City or Windsor an expansion team, as the open vacancies are all out west. Can you say KC and Portland?

[spndnchz]

Grilled cheese.

[nobody]

Grilled cheese.

 

Radical realignment of grilled cheese? You put the bread on the inside?