My Plan for League Reorganization

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

The NHL's current division of Eastern and Western conferences does fit with its demographics. There are large gaps in timezone play and distance between teams (especially in central and western areas of Canada and the U.S.). My plan is simple:

Re-institute the Wales and Campbell conferences with a MLB like division of teams. Where the Nucks and the Panthers could be in the same conference, as could the Wings and Rangers. The conferences would still be 15 teams each and have 3 divisions apiece (West, Central, East).

All teams would have travel to the east coast and the west coast. San Jose could travel to Vancouver to take on its division rivals and then travel to Boston to take on its conference rivals. Detroit could take on its division rival Toronto and then take on conference rival Anaheim. Of course due to the grouping of teams in the east (NYR, NYI, BUF, PHI, NJ, PIT, WAS) there would have to be some creative usage of the East and Central divisions.

All teams would have to deal with travel, all fans would deal with timezone changes. There would be the obvious inter-conference play with all teams having a home and home. There could be a shortening of the schedule to allow for increased travel, which would mean less division play (5 games as opposed to 8, so there would be clear winners of division matches).

Thoughts?

Edited May 16, 2008 by Wings_Dynasty

[lfd250 1]

Ugh. My biggest concern isn't who is where anymore, it's how much are they raising ticket prices due to gas going up. The owners aren't going to pay out of their pocket to have their team fly all over this country. We are. If this is the case, I'm not wild about your plan.

[eva unit zero 271]

Terrible plan. I understand your motivation, but the divisions are the way they are in baseball due to historical alignment with either the National League or the American League. That's the same reason for the division in the NFL. It works in the NFL because you see a team play two games against their own division, which makes up half their schedule, plus a handful of conference opponents and non-conference opponents. As the NFL schedule is not a complete sampling of teams (32 teams playing 16 games) they can avoid scheduling unreasonable travel. Tt works in baseball because baseball is the only major sport that uses a series schedule in regular season play, where the team will play in the same city for 2-4 games in a row, before moving on to the nextcity and doing the same thing, or going home and having a few teams come in for 2-4 games in a row each. Baseball probably has actually less arduous travel than the NHL despite having more games and more widespread teams over a shorter period.

A better plan would be the one I have been pushing for years. Using current teams only, we would see six divisions of five teams each, but they would instead be divided into THREE conferences of two divisions. Playoff seeding would see all division champions guaranteed a spot, but either no guaranteed seeding, or at most a guaranteed top eight seed rather than top six.

Teams would play two games, home and away, vs all non-conference opponents (40 games)

Teams would play four games, two home and two away, vs all non-division opponents within the conference (20 games)

Teams would play six games, three home and three away, vs all divisional opponents (24 games)

Total 84 game schedule.

The other option is to add two teams to the league and realign to something similar to this; eight divisions of four teams, in two conferences. Divisions would be tied together in pairs for scheduling purposes

This would require expansion, of course. Scheduling would be as follows:

Teams would play two games, home and away, vs all non-conference opponents (32 games)

Teams would play three games, two home and one away, vs one specific division within their conference on a two-year rotation (12 games)

Teams would play three games, one home and two away, vs one specific division within their conference on a two-year rotation (12 games)

Teams would play four games, two home and two away, vs their 'paired' division within their conference (16 games)

Teams would play four games, two home and two away, vs divisional opponents (12 games)

Total 84 game schedule.

For example, we'll say the Western conference has divisions A,B,C, and D. Divisions A and B would contain the eight westernmost team, and would be 'paired' together. Divisions C and D would contain the next eight westernmost teams, and would be paired. Division A would play two home games against Division C, while Division B would play two home games against Division D. Division C would play two home games against Division B, and Division D would play two home games against Division A. The next season, the relationship would reverse, with each team seeing more homes against a certain division now playing more on the road against that division. Teams in Division A would play four games against seven other teams; the other three members of Division A as well as the four teams in Division B.

Yes, this schedule does somewhat tone down the direct divisional competition...but the other option was to play two games against a conference rival, or to have four conferences and play two games each against 24 teams. Which, based on recent optionon, would NOT be popular.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Pshaw. My plan kicks both your plans' ass

Since we are promoting ideal plans, this one is better:

Expand to 32 teams.

Divide into 8 divisions of four, like in the NFL. NO conferences.

Play 2 home-and-homes with each team in the division, for 12 games.

Play one home-and-home with every other team in the league, for 56 games (68 total)

Play an extra home-and-home with a permanent out-of-division rival for 2 games (70 total). Say the Wings had a division of Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Buffalo, then Chicago could be chosen as the "permanent rival." (and Chicago's would be us.) Each team would have one.

Play three games against each team in another division on a rotating yearly basis for 12 games (82 total.)

Top two teams in each division make the playoffs. First round is within the division. Each round thereafter reseeds by record.

You get geographic rivalries, like Bettman wants (and it's not a bad idea) only built through the playoffs where it actually works.

It's not so much travel - you only have to make one trip to most places, so EST teams like the Wings would get stuck with only one West Coast swing in most years.

In Olympic years, the rotating divisional games can be lopped off the schedule.

The only issue is how to award the Campbell and PoW trophies - my suggestion would be that the higher-seeded team to make the Cup Finals gets the PoW every other year, and the other trophy goes to the other team. Then switch each year.

[eva unit zero 271]

Pshaw. My plan kicks both your plans' ass

Since we are promoting ideal plans, this one is better:

Expand to 32 teams.

Divide into 8 divisions of four, like in the NFL. NO conferences.

Play 2 home-and-homes with each team in the division, for 12 games.

Play one home-and-home with every other team in the league, for 56 games (68 total)

Play an extra home-and-home with a permanent out-of-division rival for 2 games (70 total). Say the Wings had a division of Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Buffalo, then Chicago could be chosen as the "permanent rival." (and Chicago's would be us.) Each team would have one.

Play three games against each team in another division on a rotating yearly basis for 12 games (82 total.)

Top two teams in each division make the playoffs. First round is within the division. Each round thereafter reseeds by record.

You get geographic rivalries, like Bettman wants (and it's not a bad idea) only built through the playoffs where it actually works.

It's not so much travel - you only have to make one trip to most places, so EST teams like the Wings would get stuck with only one West Coast swing in most years.

In Olympic years, the rotating divisional games can be lopped off the schedule.

The only issue is how to award the Campbell and PoW trophies - my suggestion would be that the higher-seeded team to make the Cup Finals gets the PoW every other year, and the other trophy goes to the other team. Then switch each year.

One problem; the NHL is unlikely to ever approve a schedule that sees teams playing more games against a different division than they do against their own, which happens in your plan as teams are scheduled to play five games against one other division ever year, and seven games against their 'permanent rival' if that is the scheduled division.

[betterREDthandead 58]

One problem; the NHL is unlikely to ever approve a schedule that sees teams playing more games against a different division than they do against their own, which happens in your plan as teams are scheduled to play five games against one other division ever year, and seven games against their 'permanent rival' if that is the scheduled division.

As we've seen, the NHL is unlikely to ever approve a lot of things that would improve the game.

How to schedule the regular season is always the trickiest thing, and no possible way leaves everyone happy. A way around the problem you mention: Add a third home-and-home in the division (six extra games) and then remove the extra two against the permanent rival and one of the three in the rotating division. Or remove six of the twelve against the rotating division and have the top two teams play each other twice and the bottom two teams once, and vice versa (another scheduling trick borrowed from the NFL.) Either way opens up a couple new things that make someone unhappy.

Bottom line is to have the 8 divisions of 4 and the new playoff setup. I think it's a great way to promote divisional rivalries, and the reseeding ensures the best matchups later on and makes the regular season count. And the whole thing means more old-school matchups all around - the Wings playoffs run through teams like Nashville, Anaheim, and San Jose and we aren't usually likely to see a good old-school matchup til the Finals.

[deker 0]

Wings_Dynasty, I have to say that is the same idea that I use in discussions with my friends as well! I personally like it for the reason that it levels the playing field in terms of travel, and for the return of the traditional names. I think it's a good and very simple and understandable idea that deserves further study.

When I look at how much the Western teams, especially us, have to travel compared to the Eastern teams, it's plain that something has to be done. If the league is making as much money as it claims to be (as witnessed by the constant salary cap increases), then travel expenses shouldn't be an issue (he said slightly sarcastically). Besides, for every Atlantic Division team whose travel expenses go up, there would be a Central team whose expenses go down!

I think that the last thing this league needs is more expansion, and expansion in order to facilitate a new scheduling and divisional alignment seems to be a bit of overkill.

Edited for clarification

Edited May 16, 2008 by deker

[VM1138 1,921]

I don't think a huge re-organization is possible, even beneficial.

I do, however, think he playoffs should be reorganized.

The top 16 should be seeded, regardless of conference, and then weeded out. This would eliminate the yearly problem of the Conference Finals being more exciting than the Stanley Cup finals.

Just imagine if, say, Detroit and Anaheim could play for the Cup, or Detroit and Dallas, Colorado (when they get their act together), etc.

Would also make matchups more interesting.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Wings_Dynasty, I have to say that is the same idea that I use in discussions with my friends as well! I personally like it for the reason that it levels the playing field in terms of travel, and for the return of the traditional names. I think it's a good and very simple and understandable idea that deserves further study.

When I look at how much the Western teams, especially us, have to travel compared to the Eastern teams, it's plain that something has to be done. If the league is making as much money as it claims to be (as witnessed by the constant salary cap increases), then travel expenses shouldn't be an issue (he said slightly sarcastically). Besides, for every Atlantic Division team whose travel expenses go up, there would be a Central team whose expenses go down!

I think that the last thing this league needs is more expansion, and expansion in order to facilitate a new scheduling and divisional alignment seems to be a bit of overkill.

Edited for clarification

Travel expenses would go up for teams on the coasts and down for only one group - the Central Division. Everyone else would pay more - it won't balance out.

And if in fact the league is doing well (which it is, revenue-wise) why blow it on increased travel costs? That's not sound business practice and it would lead to more labor issues as the PA would argue (and rightfully so) that the league seems to be more interested in paying for fuel than its players.

[deker 0]

Travel expenses would go up for teams on the coasts and down for only one group - the Central Division. Everyone else would pay more - it won't balance out.

And if in fact the league is doing well (which it is, revenue-wise) why blow it on increased travel costs? That's not sound business practice and it would lead to more labor issues as the PA would argue (and rightfully so) that the league seems to be more interested in paying for fuel than its players.

I think you could argue that any increase in travel expenses within this context goes to providing a better environment in which fans get to see teams they want to see, resulting in higher gate revenues. It's certainly a better business decision than choosing to show games on a cable channel that has very little distribution.

Besides, given that each Conference still has geographically located divisions, you really could come up with something to address travel. I mean, I can't come up with something in the time it takes me to create a message board post, but if I were to commission a study, I'm sure it could be thought out fairly reasonably.

[lfd250 1]

I don't think a huge re-organization is possible, even beneficial.

I do, however, think he playoffs should be reorganized.

The top 16 should be seeded, regardless of conference, and then weeded out. This would eliminate the yearly problem of the Conference Finals being more exciting than the Stanley Cup finals.

Just imagine if, say, Detroit and Anaheim could play for the Cup, or Detroit and Dallas, Colorado (when they get their act together), etc.

Would also make matchups more interesting.

Except the fact that if there's no East Coast team (where a majority or hockey is) then there's no reason for some fans to watch. Just like Canada right now. For 1/3 of their fans, hockey is over. I mean come on, do you really care what goes on out West when the wings aren't out there? Sorry no offence to the west fans.

[deker 0]

Except the fact that if there's no East Coast team (where a majority or hockey is) then there's no reason for some fans to watch. Just like Canada right now. For 1/3 of their fans, hockey is over. I mean come on, do you really care what goes on out West when the wings aren't out there? Sorry no offence to the west fans.

I'm not a big fan of Conference independant re-seeding myself, but just to play devil's advocate, what if this resulted in two East Coast teams playing for the Cup? Or two Canadian teams?