Re-alignment

[eva unit zero 271]

But a North/South alignment does make more sense, though I have no idea why you'd mess up the divisions like that.

Philly should be in the same division as the Rangers if possible. That's pretty much why I changed them.

[joshy207 156]

I also have a 4-division alignment I've been kicking around for a while... here it is, with the teams we have today:

Smythe/West division:

Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Phoenix, Colorado.

Norris/Great Lakes division:

Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Toronto.

Patrick/Southeast division:

Florida, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Carolina, Nashville, St. Louis, Dallas.

Adams/Northeast division:

Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, NY Rangers, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Washington.

Divisions with 7 teams play each other 6 times for 36 games, and play all other teams twice for 46 games. 82 total.

Divisions with 8 teams play each other 5 times and play 3 of the teams a sixth for 38 games, and play all other teams twice for 44 games. 82 total.

No conferences, just the divisions. Top 4 in each make the playoffs, first 2 rounds are played within the division. Top point-getting divisional playoff champ will play the bottom, middle 2 play each other. Winners of those series play for the Cup.

Realignment would have worked better had Phoenix moved to Winnipeg rather than Atlanta, but it can be done.

[martyrme19 73]

There HAS to be a mathematical logorithm or something that can be applied to calculate the FAIREST traveling distances among teams. I mean, seriously - can't some Excel wiz bang something out here?

When it comes down to it, the ONLY factor that should be taken into consideration is travel distance. I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that travel expenses (High plane fuel cost, hotel cost - more nights in a hotel than for teams with shorter plane rides home - misc. costs) come out of the Red Wings expense budget. If I were Illitch, I would demand there to be revenue sharing in favor of teams with more travel expenses.

NOT TO MENTION the wear and tear of traveling, jet lag and all that jazz that a team has to suffer more than other teams.

[Donaldjr2448 43]

What does everyone think of no conferences?? Rank the league 1-30 and the top 16 make the playoffs. You could play everyone twice (54 games) and then fill the rest in with the teams in your division. The top 4 division winners get seeds 1-4 and the rest fills in after that! Even travel in the regular season and even travel during the playoffs! This obviously needs some work, but I think it could work out in the long run!!!

[martyrme19 73]

What does everyone think of no conferences?? Rank the league 1-30 and the top 16 make the playoffs. You could play everyone twice (54 games) and then fill the rest in with the teams in your division. The top 4 division winners get seeds 1-4 and the rest fills in after that! Even travel in the regular season and even travel during the playoffs! This obviously needs some work, but I think it could work out in the long run!!!

I know what you're saying is unconventional, and because of that many poeple would probably shoot it down - but I think there is such a difference in travel demand between certain teams, and because the NHL is so sporadically spread apart in the country - the solution probably is something unconventional such as this.

[55fan 5,133]

What does everyone think of no conferences?? Rank the league 1-30 and the top 16 make the playoffs. You could play everyone twice (54 games) and then fill the rest in with the teams in your division. The top 4 division winners get seeds 1-4 and the rest fills in after that! Even travel in the regular season and even travel during the playoffs! This obviously needs some work, but I think it could work out in the long run!!!

That got me thinking. What about no divisions or conferences? Rank the teams 1-30 by last season's standings. Group into groups of 6. Play each team in your group twice and all others thrice and it should come out to 82 games. I think. I might be off.

Anyway, top 16 make the playoffs (ranked 1-16) and Thor's your uncle. There's the playoffs.

Downside: Division/conference rivalries would be diluted.

Upside: Would be the best two teams standing for Stanley.

I'm sure there are more pros and cons than these, but those were what came off the top of my head.

[Nhurdi 42]

Lets just axe a few teams, scratch conferences and divisions and have everyone play each other 3 times. One year one team would get two at home and one away next it would swap.

Take top 16 teams for playoffs. done.

I'm joking but it's just as possible as most the stuff being mentioned here.

[Datsyerberger 279]

Repost from HF, regarding a 3 conference system:

Since a 3 conference idea has been mentioned, I thought I'd fiddle with that:

Scenario 1: All O6 in one

Northern Conference

Great Lakes Division

Detroit

Chicago

Toronto

St. Louis

Ottawa

Northeast Division

Montreal

Boston

New York R

New York I

New Jersey

Southern Conference

Atlantic Division

Buffalo

Columbus

Pittsburgh

Philadelphia

Washington

Southeast Division

Carolina

Dallas

Tampa Bay

Nashville

Florida

Western Conference

Northwest Division

Edmonton

Calgary

Colorado

Minnesota

Winnipeg

Pacific Division

Vancouver

San Jose

Anaheim

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Still some travel issues, but not near as bad as now. At least I managed to work it out so noone travels more than 1 TZ in their own division and no more than 2x in their own conference (and this only happens in the WC because of Minnesota and Winnipeg). Swapping Vancouver and Colorado is arguable based upon your opinion of distance travel (north-south) vs TZ travel (east-west). In a Pacific scenario, Vancouver could actually do division games where they start at home, play in SJ, then LA, then ANA, then PHX, then PHX again, then ANA, then LA, then SJ, then back at home. This would greatly cut down on travel and arguably result in a lesser travel schedule than being in the Northwest.

As a mild alternative for the NC and SC, you could put Buffalo in the GL division, St. Louis in the Southeast division, and Carolina in the Atlantic division. I think that works just as well; it becomes a matter of losing St. Louis vs Chicago/Detroit or Buffalo vs Toronto/Ottawa, but all of those rivalries are small potatoes (or at least, St. Louis and Buffalo are small potatoes, BOG-wise).

I'd imagine this would run on either an 84 game schedule where teams play each div rival 6x, conference rival 4x and extra-conference 2x, or 82 game with each div rival 8x, conference rival 6x and extra-conference 1x

Here's a map, because we like MS paint drawn maps:

[evilmrt 636]

Repost from HF, regarding a 3 conference system:

Since a 3 conference idea has been mentioned, I thought I'd fiddle with that:

Scenario 1: All O6 in one

Northern Conference

Great Lakes Division

Detroit

Chicago

Toronto

St. Louis

Ottawa

Northeast Division

Montreal

Boston

New York R

New York I

New Jersey

Southern Conference

Atlantic Division

Buffalo

Columbus

Pittsburgh

Philadelphia

Washington

Southeast Division

Carolina

Dallas

Tampa Bay

Nashville

Florida

Western Conference

Northwest Division

Edmonton

Calgary

Colorado

Minnesota

Winnipeg

Pacific Division

Vancouver

San Jose

Anaheim

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Still some travel issues, but not near as bad as now. At least I managed to work it out so noone travels more than 1 TZ in their own division and no more than 2x in their own conference (and this only happens in the WC because of Minnesota and Winnipeg). Swapping Vancouver and Colorado is arguable based upon your opinion of distance travel (north-south) vs TZ travel (east-west). In a Pacific scenario, Vancouver could actually do division games where they start at home, play in SJ, then LA, then ANA, then PHX, then PHX again, then ANA, then LA, then SJ, then back at home. This would greatly cut down on travel and arguably result in a lesser travel schedule than being in the Northwest.

As a mild alternative for the NC and SC, you could put Buffalo in the GL division, St. Louis in the Southeast division, and Carolina in the Atlantic division. I think that works just as well; it becomes a matter of losing St. Louis vs Chicago/Detroit or Buffalo vs Toronto/Ottawa, but all of those rivalries are small potatoes (or at least, St. Louis and Buffalo are small potatoes, BOG-wise).

I'd imagine this would run on either an 84 game schedule where teams play each div rival 6x, conference rival 4x and extra-conference 2x, or 82 game with each div rival 8x, conference rival 6x and extra-conference 1x

Here's a map, because we like MS paint drawn maps:

Those are pretty cool, I like the division you put the Wings in...it keeps the Chicago rivalry and brings back Toronto. Awesome!

I might swap Colorado and Vancouver in the Northwest and Pacific, but I see what you're doing...putting Vancouver in the Pacific works as far as time zone issues, etc.

[xtrememachine1 795]

3 Conferences is a neat idea, but the NHL would never think that far outside the box.

[Datsyerberger 279]

3 Conferences is a neat idea, but the NHL would never think that far outside the box.

Actually, I only got the idea because I read some article or another that said that the NHL might delay any divisional changes this upcoming season (keeping the Peg in the SE a year), because they were considering more sweeping changes, including possibilities of a 3 conference system.

Otherwise, it would have never come up for me But just looking at it, it definitely makes a lot more sense with the current layout of teams.

[sandyeggo wingnut 19]

Just tryin to think how the playoffs would work out...throw out conferences I guess..

[Datsyerberger 279]

Another observation... someone argued that if the league went with a 15/15 Northern/Southern conference scenarion, the SC would essentially be a weakass semi-relegation conference. I decided to explore this on HF boards:

South (organized by seed this year):

Was 1

Sj 2

Phi 2

Pit 4

Ana 4

Nsh 5

Tb 5

La 6

Phx 6

Dal 9

Car 9

Stl 11

Clb 13

Col 14

Fla 15

Avg: 7.07; elaboration: only 4 teams that were bottom 5 in their respective conferences, 2 teams that missed the playoffs by a game, and 9 of this year's playoff teams with 2/4 of the teams of the conference finals, 4/6 the teams of the teams of the conference semi finals. 6 of HF's top 10 for org depth.

North:

Van 1

Bos 3

Det 3

Mtl 6

Buf 7

Chi 8

Nyr 8

Tor 10

Cgy 10

Nj 11

Wpg 12

Min 12

Ott 13

Nyi 14

Fla 15

Avg 8.86; elaboration: With the exception of 3 decent teams in the top 3nd, the other 4 playoff teams were bottom end this year, with 2 that made it in by the game. The rest of the conference is a collection of teams that are either on the rise or decline, but were solidly out of the playoffs in any case this year. It would be an opportunity for some of them to finally start make the playoffs regularly.

Holy crap, the South is stacked.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Datsyerberger

[pjgj13 30]

I say we get rid of the conferences altogether!! Have either 5 - 6 team divisions or 6 - 5 team divisions.

5 - 6 team divisions

Play each divisional team 6x (30 games)

Play the remainder of teams 2x (48 games)

Play 4 games based on traditional rivalry (4 games)

6 - 5 team divisions

Play each divisional team 6x (24 games)

Play the remainder of teams 2x (50 games)

Play 8 games based on traditional rivalry

The playoffs would be bracketed just like the NCAA tourney. No guaranteed playoffs for winning division!! If you division sucks ass and you can't finish in top of the league, you do NOT deserve to play in playoffs (see SE division for several years).

[St. Michael (the Red Wing) 422]

Divisions that make sense include the highlighted Northwest, and Southwest, a Central where Dallas replaces Detroit, and an Eastern conference where Detroit moves into the Northeast, Buffalo to the Atlantic, and Pittsburgh to the Southeast. The divisions you have here are neat, but ridiculous. Regular games between Florida and Western Canada? Seriously? That's a nightmare trip. Chicago to Montreal is the longest "Eastern" conference trip, and it's shorter than Dallas to Miami, which is an IN-DIVISION trip in the "Western" conference. Completely ridiculous.

Cutting them up North/South instead, including the bottom two divisions plus Carolina, Chicago, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Washington would make for much more equal travel. It also preserves most rivalries, although the Pens/Flyers, Wings/Blues, and Wings/Hawks are cut apart by it. It does bring back the Wings/Leafs rivalry, which most Wings fans would be more than happy to trade for. If the Atlanta sale falls through, Pittsburgh or Chicago ends up in the North, and a rivalry is saved.

I really like this. Puts travel way into perspective. The NHL needs to do this imo.

[Datsyerberger 279]

Another take by me on N/S, this latest one is my favorite of the N/S options. Yet another repost from HF.

Worth pointing out that the conference names probably make a little more sense if they're reversed.

[Jusek 437]

It would be so awesome to have three other O6-teams (Leafs, Hawks, Habs) in the same division with Wings.

[xtrememachine1 795]

Nashville Predators could have chance to move to NHL Eastern Conference

A Detroit move could mean trouble for Nashville. The Predators have built a rivalry with the Red Wings amongst their home fans. This past season, the Predators sold out all three home games with Detroit.

When asked last week about looking into a move into the Eastern Conference, Poile sounded slightly open to the idea.

“I think we should at least explore it,” Poile said. “I think, now we’ve built up 13 years of strong division rivalry. I think our fans identify strongly with teams in our division, but tell me Detroit is going to the East, then that changes things.”

So in other words, if Nashville moves to the East, losing the rivalry with Detroit is okay. But if Detroit leaves that will really hurt. Talk about your double standards.

So we can't go to the East because Nashville can't sell out their arena without us? You've had a rivalry with the Wings for 13 years? Uhh, the Wings have a rivalry with the Rangers, Bruins, Canadiens and Maple Leafs that extends back to 1932. Yeah, why reconnect several 79 year old rivalries when you can have a rivalry with a franchise that can't sell out their own building unless they're playing against you?

[HankthaTank 1,100]

So we can't go to the East because Nashville can't sell out their arena without us?

Pretty much the same old argument we expected though. Also have to look at the teams out West like Anaheim, Phoenix, or LA that consistently can't sell their barn out unless it's a Wings West home game. Just the breaks of being such a well traveled team.

[xtrememachine1 795]

Pretty much the same old argument we expected though. Also have to look at the teams out West like Anaheim, Phoenix, or LA that consistently can't sell their barn out unless it's a Wings West home game. Just the breaks of being such a well traveled team.

Yeah, its an old argument that simply won't die and it should. If the Wings moved East, that would drastically increase the chances for Nashville, St Louis and Columbus to make the playoffs or have a higher seed. Look at it this way, if you're a Nashville fan, would you rather:

1) Guaranteed at least three sell outs as Wings fans fill your arena.

or

2) Have a better chance of winning the division, getting a higher seed and playing at least 2 additional home games. If they're a higher seed, it'll probably be more like 2-5 more home games. The fan base grows as the team has a more realistic shot at a championship.

A team like Columbus, that only made the playoffs once, should want the Wings out. Yeah, they probably sell out their arena when the Wings come to town too, but how does having the Red Wings beatdown the Jackets improve the fan base there?

I guess my point is: playoff games/extra home games > 3 home games against the Red Wings

[Datsyerberger 279]

Pretty much the same old argument we expected though. Also have to look at the teams out West like Anaheim, Phoenix, or LA that consistently can't sell their barn out unless it's a Wings West home game. Just the breaks of being such a well traveled team.

In this case the NHL should really like my North/South scenario, since it moves all of the southern and struggling expansion markets into the same conference as the NHL's golden boy and his arch nemesis. One of the crappiest markets even gets to be in their shared division, joy of joys.

[MulesWillFly93 199]

You know, looking at it from the angle of what would take the least travel time and preserve the current set-up most closely, the thing that makes the most sense to me would be to move Nashville to the Southeast (and have Minnesota take its spot in Central so Winnipeg can fit into the Northwest). Everybody's been talking about Detroit and Columbus because they're in the Eastern Time Zone, but it'd be more of a pain in the butt to have to realign every single division in the East to let in Detroit/Columbus somewhere in the Northeast/Atlantic than just to tell Nashville, "So you're an hour off - deal with it." I know most of us want the Wings to go to the East, but if I had to guess what was on the League's mind, I'd bet on moving Nashville.

[VM1138 1,921]

I would love to see the Conference system abandoned altogether. I find it disappointing that western teams can never compete directly for the Cup.

[Datsyerberger 279]

You know, looking at it from the angle of what would take the least travel time and preserve the current set-up most closely, the thing that makes the most sense to me would be to move Nashville to the Southeast (and have Minnesota take its spot in Central so Winnipeg can fit into the Northwest). Everybody's been talking about Detroit and Columbus because they're in the Eastern Time Zone, but it'd be more of a pain in the butt to have to realign every single division in the East to let in Detroit/Columbus somewhere in the Northeast/Atlantic than just to tell Nashville, "So you're an hour off - deal with it." I know most of us want the Wings to go to the East, but if I had to guess what was on the League's mind, I'd bet on moving Nashville.

Actually, no. The best option for travel all-around (calculated travel distances) with current conferences and roughly similar divisions is:

East:

NE: Det, Tor, Mtl, Ott, Buf (1 move, Det for Bos)

Atl: Phi, Nyr, Nyi, Njd, Bos (1 move, Bos for Pit)

SE: Pit, Was, Car, Tbl, Fla (1 move, Pit for Atl)

West:

Cen: Cbj, Nas, Dal, Chi, Stl (1 move, Det for Dal)

NW: Min, Wpg, Edm, Cgy, Col (1 move, Wpg for Van)

Pac: Van, Sjs, Phx, Lak, Ana (1 move, Van for Dal)

or

NW: Min, Wpg, Edm, Cgy, Van (1 move, Wpg for Col)

Pac: Sjs, Phx, Lak, Ana, Col (1 move, Col for Dal)

The first one is better for travel, the second one is better for whiny northwestern canadians.. I mean divisional rivalries.

NAS-> SE is a way worse option travel-wise. DET and CLB are the best option for all but 3 of the East teams, with them splitting it roughly even (slightly in CLBs favor). However, the BJs are a significantly better option for the Cen/majority of the West, and so is Nashville, and them together are a better option for the rest of the division than Detroit.

Based purely on travel, Detroit should be the one to move. It's also the only option that gives the NHL a good reason to put Crosby and Ovy (and Stamkos and Malkin) in the same division.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Datsyerberger

[eva unit zero 271]

Posted this on HF, I think it would bring many benefits to the league and a number of teams. Among them include:

1. Better ratings for Phoenix

2. Marquee players in the West for media attention

3. Crosby, Ovy, and Toews all in the same division

4. Many struggling (be it on-ice or financial struggle) expansion teams given a better chance to compete, most notably in the Southeast

5. All of the NYC area and New York teams together, plus with Philly.

Northwest:

EDM

CGY

VAN

WPG

MIN

Pacific:

SJS

LAK

ANA

COL

DAL PHX

Central:

PIT

WAS

CHI

NSH CLB

STL

EAST

Southeast:

TBL

CAR

CLB NSH

FLA

OTT DAL

Atlantic:

NJD

NYI

NYR

BUF

PHI

Northeast:

DET

MTL

BOS

TOR

PHX OTT

Fixed. Sort of; Dallas ends up in the East because they're a logical fit for the Southeast if you take Washington away.