Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Re-alignment


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#1 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 10:37 AM

**EDIT - UPDATED ON 5/20/11 to allow for Winnipeg**

We've gone over this several times, but this time I did some geographic research, travel distances, etc...

I'm in the mindset that all teams should travel equally and I would split it basically on a North East to South West type bend and then separate it back into Wales and Campbell Conferences and divisions (division names are just ideas and subjective) - Spread out original 6 teams, 3 per conference, equal West Coast teams split per conference - EVERYONE TRAVELS

**DISCLAIMER** - Below are just suggestions and NOT the guts of the post, the real thought is into the re-alignment into an even travel schedule for all teams - take the suggested conferences for what they are.

WALES CONFERENCE
ADAMS DIVISION
Edmonton
Vancouver
Calgary
San Jose
Colorado

PATRICK DIVISION
Minnesota
Toronto
New York Islanders
Buffalo
Chicago

HOWE DIVISION
Columbus
Nashville
St Louis
Detroit
Ottawa

CAMPBELL CONFERENCE
SMYTH DIVISION
New York Rangers
Philadelphia
Washington
Florida
Tampa Bay

NORRIS DIVISION
Anaheim
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Dallas
Winnipeg

ORR DIVISION
Boston
Pittsburgh
Carolina
Montreal
New Jersey

Everyone travels, all teams have ABOUT equal travel all the way around

In Division games - 5 games a team = 20 games
Out Of Division/In Conference - 3 games a team = 30 games
Opposite Conference - 2 games(home and home) = 30 games
2 flex games against opposite conference, geographic relevance/rivalry games = 2 games

82 game schedule.

I realize that some teams MAY get boned the most on travel IN division, but put it in perspective, only 10 games of these 20 against these teams will be on the road and it could be part of a west coast swing... also, all other teams in the division, essentially have to make the swing at least 5 times a season, plus the extra 2 or 3 for out of conference, so it comes very close to evening out... it still screws them less than the current schedule screws quite a FEW teams (Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, Columbus, Nashville, etc...)

Edited by stevkrause, 20 May 2011 - 08:14 AM.

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#2 chuklz

chuklz

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 140 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO

Posted 26 March 2010 - 10:46 AM

Yeah... so how do we get rid of Bettman and get you appointed?

#3 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 10:47 AM

Yeah... so how do we get rid of Bettman and get you appointed?

I send the NHL a resume at least once a year, haha
:beerbuddy:

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#4 Travis

Travis

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,460 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 10:47 AM

But then the Wings only play the Whalers twice and I won't see enough Keith Primeau.

cc_champs-5_zps34057ff0.png


#5 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 10:49 AM

But then the Wings only play the Whalers twice and I won't see enough Keith Primeau.

that's where we can add one of the flex games :thumbup:

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#6 Travis

Travis

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,460 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 10:52 AM

that's where we can add one of the flex games :thumbup:


I'm sold.

Honestly, though. I know realignment has been brought up a lot, but it wouldn't be bad to look into something like this. Not bad at all.

cc_champs-5_zps34057ff0.png


#7 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 10:56 AM

I'm sold.

Honestly, though. I know realignment has been brought up a lot, but it wouldn't be bad to look into something like this. Not bad at all.

thank you, I really tried to remove my Red Wing love and look at it from every team in the leagues best interest, while keeping things even between cost and frequency of travel, as opposed to the current system which drastically favors the East in terms of travel

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#8 DesertWing

DesertWing

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 184 posts
  • Location:Someplace Hot

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:02 AM

Sucks for Les Habs to be traveling so much intra-division (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and San Jose? YIKES!)
You're going to separate the Islanders-Rangers-Devils? Doesn't make sense to me.
Chicago also gets screwed by having to travel to Anaheim, L.A. and Phoenix for divisional games.

#9 CaliWingsNut

CaliWingsNut

    PeeWee Bettman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Location:Sonoma County, CA

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:04 AM

Not changing crap every year could probably help too.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. - Mark Twain


#10 Travis

Travis

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,460 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:08 AM

Sucks for Les Habs to be traveling so much intra-division (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and San Jose? YIKES!)
You're going to separate the Islanders-Rangers-Devils? Doesn't make sense to me.
Chicago also gets screwed by having to travel to Anaheim, L.A. and Phoenix for divisional games.


Let's be honest, so long as the Rangers and Devils play each other a relatively fair amount - no one cares about the Isle. OP already mentioned that some teams get boned, but that's going to happen no matter how you break down the divisions.

cc_champs-5_zps34057ff0.png


#11 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:10 AM

Sucks for Les Habs to be traveling so much intra-division (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and San Jose? YIKES!)
You're going to separate the Islanders-Rangers-Devils? Doesn't make sense to me.
Chicago also gets screwed by having to travel to Anaheim, L.A. and Phoenix for divisional games.

Most of that East to West travel for the Habs is still less time on the plane than for current games that the play against teams of the likes of Atlanta, Florida, Tampa, Carolina... they actually travel about the same or less and face more Canadian teams - good for media.

The Rangers and The Devils would still face each other about the same and lets be honest, the Isles rivalry there hasn't been the same in a long time - new blood for that franchise would be a blessing... plus, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet, same thing with the Wings and Hawks playing less... but we get Toronto more... gotta take the good with the bad...

Chicago would travel no more than they currently do. They're already screwed in the current format, at least this format strengthens match-ups as a whole.

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#12 mmamolo

mmamolo

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:11 AM

I totally agree with your idea in princple but there are other factors involved that I dislike and the NHL (and franchises) probably dislikes them as well. For one, the increased cost of all this additional travel. Yes, it's fair that everyone would travel more and an equal amount but travelling more equals more money spent and for a league that is still rebuilding financially increasing spending (even somewhat marginally) isn't necessarily a great idea. Now, you might say that's not a big deal, and I'd even agree with you in a lot of cases. But to me, the second problem I have with this is the biggest. The increased fatigue on players league wide the increased travel would bring would bring down the quality of games throughout the course of the season and especially come playoff time. I know, these are professional athletes, but sooner or later everyone gets tired and the more travel the sooner ppl get burnt out. I think it would bring down the on ice quality and we'd see a drop in product.

Agree or disagree with those points I'd imagine those would be two major sticking points for league executives to dispute such a league realignment.
Posted Imagewww.unsportsmanlike.ca

#13 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:13 AM

I totally agree with your idea in princple but there are other factors involved that I dislike and the NHL (and franchises) probably dislikes them as well. For one, the increased cost of all this additional travel. Yes, it's fair that everyone would travel more and an equal amount but travelling more equals more money spent and for a league that is still rebuilding financially increasing spending (even somewhat marginally) isn't necessarily a great idea. Now, you might say that's not a big deal, and I'd even agree with you in a lot of cases. But to me, the second problem I have with this is the biggest. The increased fatigue on players league wide the increased travel would bring would bring down the quality of games throughout the course of the season and especially come playoff time. I know, these are professional athletes, but sooner or later everyone gets tired and the more travel the sooner ppl get burnt out. I think it would bring down the on ice quality and we'd see a drop in product.

Agree or disagree with those points I'd imagine those would be two major sticking points for league executives to dispute such a league realignment.

Fair enough arguments, but I think only the East Conf teams would object... I don't think there's a single West team that would have a problem with it... if the league truly wants parity - it should be parity across the board... including costs of operation.

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#14 Barrie

Barrie

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,917 posts

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:18 AM

To make travel equal between the teams sounds very interesting, I like it! If the League tries something like this and puts it to a vote, I'm sure the West would be for it, but the East wouldn't.
Lets Go:
Red Wings
Tigers
Roughriders
Lions
Spartans
Pistons

#15 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:21 AM

To make travel equal between the teams sounds very interesting, I like it! If the League tries something like this and puts it to a vote, I'm sure the West would be for it, but the East wouldn't.

That's kind of what I was thinking too... but I wonder if a couple Eastern teams like Toronto or Ottawa would vote for it, as it would give them more marketability? maybe just a slight edge in a vote which could put it over the top?

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#16 mmamolo

mmamolo

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:24 AM

Fair enough arguments, but I think only the East Conf teams would object... I don't think there's a single West team that would have a problem with it... if the league truly wants parity - it should be parity across the board... including costs of operation.


That's absolutely a good point. In a travel cost perspective, if I were Mike Illitch I would have been so pissed when the Leafs were palced in the East while the Wings got stuck in the West when the initial realignment occured just because of all the Western travel expenses he'd incur. You make a very good point.
Posted Imagewww.unsportsmanlike.ca

#17 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:29 AM

That's absolutely a good point. In a travel cost perspective, if I were Mike Illitch I would have been so pissed when the Leafs were palced in the East while the Wings got stuck in the West when the initial realignment occured just because of all the Western travel expenses he'd incur. You make a very good point.

I imagine travel costs bone a team like Columbus even more too, as they are not in as lucrative of a market as Detroit to offset the costs, whereas a team like Montreal, Toronto or New York could actually afford it quite a bit easier... like I said, someone is always going to feel they got the short end of the stick, but I think this system would level things out as much as possible...

I can't imagine how much more the cost of operation is for a team like Detroit, Columbus, St Louis, etc... compared to a team like the Devils... gotta suck for those owners...

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#18 softshoes

softshoes

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Location:Farmington Hills, Mi.

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:42 AM

I totally agree with your idea in princple but there are other factors involved that I dislike and the NHL (and franchises) probably dislikes them as well. For one, the increased cost of all this additional travel. Yes, it's fair that everyone would travel more and an equal amount but travelling more equals more money spent and for a league that is still rebuilding financially increasing spending (even somewhat marginally) isn't necessarily a great idea. Now, you might say that's not a big deal, and I'd even agree with you in a lot of cases. But to me, the second problem I have with this is the biggest. The increased fatigue on players league wide the increased travel would bring would bring down the quality of games throughout the course of the season and especially come playoff time. I know, these are professional athletes, but sooner or later everyone gets tired and the more travel the sooner ppl get burnt out. I think it would bring down the on ice quality and we'd see a drop in product.

Agree or disagree with those points I'd imagine those would be two major sticking points for league executives to dispute such a league realignment.


After all the years of getting little sleep on work nights due to west coast playoff games I could give 2 s***s if this negatively impacts other teams that basically can travel by bus to their playoff games.

Heaven forbid you bring up fatigue in a conversation with any fan from the east. It's just a whine to them. It's kinda funny, I was checking out the Pens board and many over there figure their problems lately stem from playing so many games the last 2 yrs. Imagine throwing a west coast trip or two in the mix.
"Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f***in beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then you got more punishment in store.Stand it like a man, and give some back."

- Al Swearengen


#19 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 26 March 2010 - 11:45 AM

After all the years of getting little sleep on work nights due to west coast playoff games I could give 2 s***s if this negatively impacts other teams that basically can travel by bus to their playoff games.

Heaven forbid you bring up fatigue in a conversation with any fan from the east. It's just a whine to them. It's kinda funny, I was checking out the Pens board and many over there figure their problems lately stem from playing so many games the last 2 yrs. Imagine throwing a west coast trip or two in the mix.

I think if anything, it would just make the playoffs more even as well(parity), because neither conference would have an advantage in fatigue...

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#20 DesertWing

DesertWing

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 184 posts
  • Location:Someplace Hot

Posted 26 March 2010 - 01:32 PM

Okay, but the original post states: "all teams have ABOUT equal travel".

Chicago to Los Angeles & Anaheim is approximately 1750 miles
Chicago to Phoenix is approximately 1450 miles
Chicago to Dallas is approximately 800 miles

Detroit to Ottawa is approximately 425 miles
Detroit to St. Louis is approximately 455 miles
Detroit to Nashville is approximately 470 miles
Detroit to Columbus is approximately 165 miles

Chicago's average travel to their divisional road games is over 1,400 miles one-way (right now the average is less than 300 miles)
Detroit's average travel to their divisional road games is less than 400 miles one-way.

Doesn't sound anywhere near equal to me.

Edited by DesertWing, 26 March 2010 - 01:38 PM.






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users