Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Re-alignment


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#21 wingsownnhl43

wingsownnhl43

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 26 March 2010 - 01:47 PM

I like it... but



As long as that guy is involved, its not gonna be happen.

#22 rick zombo

rick zombo

    Grit

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,944 posts

Posted 26 March 2010 - 01:59 PM

Not bad, but yeah, Montreal, Chicago, and Colorado are definitely at a disadvantage.

Otherwise, I agree that in this new league of revenue sharing, and the salary cap, ALL expenses should be equal. This includes travel.
"In Detroit, every day is a good day to win"

#23 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,882 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 26 March 2010 - 02:35 PM

Montreal is totally screwed. Forget the travel issues, all their divisional opponents are a couple time zones away.

#24 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,608 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 26 March 2010 - 03:43 PM

I like it... but

As long as that guy is involved, its not gonna be happen.


He's aged well; hair is the same colour, same length, same style.
I'm talking about Marv Albert.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#25 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

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

Posted 26 March 2010 - 04:45 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.

Chicago already makes all those trips with the current format... however, they would play the other divisions in conference more, and that would even it out - Plus, once again, someone is going to feel that they get the short end of the stick...

As I already explained too, only 10 of their in division games would be against these teams and 4 more for the other conference, so that's a total of 14 West Coast games for them... out of a schedule of 82 (same applies to Montreal) - Under the current format, they play at least 16...

Edited by stevkrause, 26 March 2010 - 04:45 PM.

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.


#26 donfishmaster

donfishmaster

    steviesteenie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 776 posts

Posted 26 March 2010 - 04:50 PM

Doesn't address the fact that too many teams are in crappy markets. We need to eliminate worthless, parasitic, "who-gives-a-good-frog-fart" teams that nobody want to see play.
Such as colorado, anaheim, and chicago.

#27 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

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

Posted 26 March 2010 - 04:52 PM

Montreal is totally screwed. Forget the travel issues, all their divisional opponents are a couple time zones away.

not true, no moreso that almost every other team...

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.

Also, as explained in my other post, they only play about 14 West Coast games under this format, whereas even teams that aren't in division, still have to play 10 West coast games... pretty even if you ask me... at least this way only 2 teams get a little boned, as opposed to the 6 or so now (also remember that they could give these teams scheduling leeway and send them out there for something like 3, 4-5 game trips - so it'd lessen the travel, then make other teams make at like 3, 3-4 game swings) basically ends up being the same - don't look at it so much like one way travel, as much as the overall travel each team will incur...

Not bad, but yeah, Montreal, Chicago, and Colorado are definitely at a disadvantage.

Otherwise, I agree that in this new league of revenue sharing, and the salary cap, ALL expenses should be equal. This includes travel.

only to an extent... once again, look at it from the broad perspective...

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.


#28 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 26 March 2010 - 06:31 PM

... once again, look at it from the broad perspective...


First of all, I don't really buy the premise that travel during the regular season is that much of a hassle. Playoffs maybe, but re-alignment doesn't solve that anyway. Only moving more teams out West would really help.

Secondly, your proposal makes travel worse for just about everyone. Most of all the SW teams. Basically trading games against the closest teams for games against the furthest.

Alignment isn't the problem. The problem (if it really is a problem) is that the East is so much more densely packed. Not much to be done about that, considering that the majority of good hockey markets are in the NE.

If they were to re-align. A North/South split would make the most sense. Divisions would still be regional, but the travel burden would be more evenly distributed East to West.

#29 SouthernWingsFan

SouthernWingsFan

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 24,609 posts
  • Location:Mandeville, Louisiana (Greater New Orleans area)

Posted 27 March 2010 - 12:18 AM

Just some division ideas I pulled out of my rear end real quick without much thought/logic, based on proximity/geography.

Phoenix
Anaheim
Los Angeles
San Jose
Vancouver

Calgary
Edmonton
Dallas
Colorado
St. Louis

Nashville
Atlanta
Tampa Bay
Florida
Carolina

Chicago
Columbus
Detroit
Minnesota
Pittsburgh

Ottawa
Montreal
Boston
Buffalo
Toronto

New York Islanders
New York Rangers
New Jersey
Philadelphia
Washington

#30 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 27 March 2010 - 08:39 AM

First off, I know most people here are younger and are used to the Campbell/Wales setup. But if you look at history, from 1967 (the beginning of the 'modern era', aka divisions, to 1997, the NHL spent more time in the East/West format. From 1967 until now, it isn't even close.

So here's another proposal that would make travel more equal on teams, in general, while still trying to maintain rivalries as much as possible:

West:
Anaheim, Colorado, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Jose, Phoenix, Vancouver

North:
Boston, Buffalo, Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto

East:
Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

South:
Atlanta, Carolina, Florida, Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Washington

To further equalize travel, the North and South would be considered one conference, while the East and West would be considered another. Perhaps "Coastal" and "Central" or something might be appropriate, but I'm sure there are better names out there. There are two potential openings for expansion teams, preferably in the West and South, but Columbus could be moved to the South if necessary for an East team which is more suited to that division, or Minnesota could be moved West for a North team more suited to the North.

Top two teams in each division would make the playoffs, with division winners guaranteed a home seed. Playoffs would be seeded 1-16 based on overall league results, meaning one entire division could theoretically make it as far as the second round of the playoffs.

As for scheduling:

4 games vs all conference opponents
2 games vs all non-conference opponents

Total 86 games. Remove 2-3 preseason games, perhaps extend schedule by 2-3 days as well.

Perhaps not perfect, but better than a lot of suggestions that kill rivalries.

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#31 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

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

Posted 27 April 2010 - 09:00 AM

First off, I know most people here are younger and are used to the Campbell/Wales setup. But if you look at history, from 1967 (the beginning of the 'modern era', aka divisions, to 1997, the NHL spent more time in the East/West format. From 1967 until now, it isn't even close.

So here's another proposal that would make travel more equal on teams, in general, while still trying to maintain rivalries as much as possible:

West:
Anaheim, Colorado, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Jose, Phoenix, Vancouver

North:
Boston, Buffalo, Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto

East:
Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

South:
Atlanta, Carolina, Florida, Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Washington

To further equalize travel, the North and South would be considered one conference, while the East and West would be considered another. Perhaps "Coastal" and "Central" or something might be appropriate, but I'm sure there are better names out there. There are two potential openings for expansion teams, preferably in the West and South, but Columbus could be moved to the South if necessary for an East team which is more suited to that division, or Minnesota could be moved West for a North team more suited to the North.

Top two teams in each division would make the playoffs, with division winners guaranteed a home seed. Playoffs would be seeded 1-16 based on overall league results, meaning one entire division could theoretically make it as far as the second round of the playoffs.

As for scheduling:

4 games vs all conference opponents
2 games vs all non-conference opponents

Total 86 games. Remove 2-3 preseason games, perhaps extend schedule by 2-3 days as well.

Perhaps not perfect, but better than a lot of suggestions that kill rivalries.

I could definitely get on board with this too... the point is, something needs to drastically change...

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.


#32 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,451 posts

Posted 27 April 2010 - 10:09 AM

not true, no moreso that almost every other team...

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...

How so? Average one-way distance to Van/Edm/Cgy/SJ = 4,213km, average one-way to Atl, Fla, Tb and Car = 2,110km.

#33 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

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

Posted 27 April 2010 - 10:15 AM

How so? Average one-way distance to Van/Edm/Cgy/SJ = 4,213km, average one-way to Atl, Fla, Tb and Car = 2,110km.

distance is not that drastic via plane and you also don't have to stop over at customs for international air travel regulations...

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.


#34 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,882 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 27 April 2010 - 10:42 AM

not true, no moreso that almost every other team...

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.

Also, as explained in my other post, they only play about 14 West Coast games under this format, whereas even teams that aren't in division, still have to play 10 West coast games... pretty even if you ask me... at least this way only 2 teams get a little boned, as opposed to the 6 or so now (also remember that they could give these teams scheduling leeway and send them out there for something like 3, 4-5 game trips - so it'd lessen the travel, then make other teams make at like 3, 3-4 game swings) basically ends up being the same - don't look at it so much like one way travel, as much as the overall travel each team will incur...


The issue for me in this case isn't how much a team travels, but the fact that Montreal is the only team in its time zone. That means continuously having to adjust to games at different times than what your biological clock is used to and for a team that far East versing teams that far West, that's a big difference that's sure to affect play. At least how its set now, many of the games that a team plays are within their own time zone, so no adjusting schedules and getting used to jet-lag for a good percentage of the season. That concept flies out the window with this set-up, and disproportionally so with some teams.

#35 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

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

Posted 27 April 2010 - 10:48 AM

The issue for me in this case isn't how much a team travels, but the fact that Montreal is the only team in its time zone. That means continuously having to adjust to games at different times than what your biological clock is used to and for a team that far East versing teams that far West, that's a big difference that's sure to affect play. At least how its set now, many of the games that a team plays are within their own time zone, so no adjusting schedules and getting used to jet-lag for a good percentage of the season. That concept flies out the window with this set-up, and disproportionally so with some teams.

Fair enough, but I'm sure a whole group of people could come up with something in this same vein, while adjusting where needed... see eva unit zero's suggestion - I could get on board with that one as well... the point is, something has got to give, the current system is horrible and needs to be fixed - BADLY

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.


#36 schulzte

schulzte

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 119 posts

Posted 27 April 2010 - 05:28 PM

First off, I know most people here are younger and are used to the Campbell/Wales setup. But if you look at history, from 1967 (the beginning of the 'modern era', aka divisions, to 1997, the NHL spent more time in the East/West format. From 1967 until now, it isn't even close.

So here's another proposal that would make travel more equal on teams, in general, while still trying to maintain rivalries as much as possible:

West:
Anaheim, Colorado, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Jose, Phoenix, Vancouver

North:
Boston, Buffalo, Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto

East:
Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

South:
Atlanta, Carolina, Florida, Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Washington

To further equalize travel, the North and South would be considered one conference, while the East and West would be considered another. Perhaps "Coastal" and "Central" or something might be appropriate, but I'm sure there are better names out there. There are two potential openings for expansion teams, preferably in the West and South, but Columbus could be moved to the South if necessary for an East team which is more suited to that division, or Minnesota could be moved West for a North team more suited to the North.

Top two teams in each division would make the playoffs, with division winners guaranteed a home seed. Playoffs would be seeded 1-16 based on overall league results, meaning one entire division could theoretically make it as far as the second round of the playoffs.

As for scheduling:

4 games vs all conference opponents
2 games vs all non-conference opponents

Total 86 games. Remove 2-3 preseason games, perhaps extend schedule by 2-3 days as well.

Perhaps not perfect, but better than a lot of suggestions that kill rivalries.


I like going to four divisions again. Division titles are meaningless anyway. I don't like Detroit in the East unlike most people.

Northeast
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey Devils
Buffalo Sabres
Boston Bruins
Toronto Maple Leafs
Montreal Canadians
Ottawa Senators

Southeast
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitals
Tampa Bay Lightning
Florida Panthers
Atlanta Thrashers
Carolina Hurricanes
Nashville Predators

Central
Detroit Red Wings
Columbus Blue Jackets
St. Louis Blues
Dallas Stars
Minnesota Wild
Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche

West
Phoenix Coyotes
San Jose Sharks
Anaheim Ducks
Los Angeles Kings
Vancouver Canucks
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers

35 or 36 in division games (either 5 or 6 games against division teams, depending on size of division)
46 or 47 out of division games (2 games against the rest of the league, 3 against a couple teams)

Top four teams from each division make the playoffs

Crazy plan or sane?

#37 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

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

Posted 20 May 2011 - 08:11 AM

Especially with the Winnipeg deal going down and the league not wanting to move Detroit East due to revenues in the West... this NEEDS to happen, if they want parity, MAKE parity, the travel on the West compared to the East is BS right now and does not make an even playing field...

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.


#38 Datsyerberger

Datsyerberger

    "Dat's yer burger, Hank."

  • HoF Booster
  • 3,097 posts
  • Location:Pueblo, CO

Posted 20 May 2011 - 09:54 AM

I love this option someone on HF suggested, but the league would never have the cojones to do this.

Posted Image

All the O6 teams in the same conference with divisions that make sense? Yes please.
If some bored artist wants to make me a signature, feel free to cut loose and do so.

Of course, I could get off my lame rear and do something.

#39 HankthaTank

HankthaTank

    3rd Line Center

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,815 posts
  • Location:Warren, MI

Posted 20 May 2011 - 09:57 AM

I love this option someone on HF suggested, but the league would never have the cojones to do this.

All the O6 teams in the same conference with divisions that make sense? Yes please.

That would absolutely make the most sense. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves and who is ultimately running the show. Even aside from all of this we are regionally the most East team and should be in the East. The O6 thing doesn't come into play for Uncle Gary until some older, wiser hockey mind probably brings that fact up to him.
TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS EXPECTED.

#40 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

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

Posted 20 May 2011 - 12:09 PM

That would absolutely make the most sense. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves and who is ultimately running the show. Even aside from all of this we are regionally the most East team and should be in the East. The O6 thing doesn't come into play for Uncle Gary until some older, wiser hockey mind probably brings that fact up to him.

Agreed.

The long and the short of it is that the league needs to get away from an East/West format for conferences, however they split up the divisions after that, I'm cool with it, as long as ALL teams have a somewhat equal travel for the season. Otherwise, parity is not there.

Edited by stevkrause, 20 May 2011 - 12:09 PM.

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.






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users