• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Majsheppard

Realignment decided - 4 Conferences

Rate this topic

187 posts in this topic

Florida and Tampa Bay got jipped!

I wonder why the NHL didn't go with

Florida, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Washington, Philly, Pittsburgh, New Jersey

Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Buffalo, Boston, New York, New York

You could throw Detroit in the northeast and Columbus in the southeast and it would be perfect to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Eastern conferences have a 7% better chance of making the playoffs? EFF THAT BS.

It's not random selection, so it's not really 7% better chance. Larger pool size just means a better chance of the larger conference having more good teams. It's about as likely that the 5th-place team in one of the 7-team conferences will be better than the 4th in one of the 8-team.

I'm kind of torn. I liked divisional playoffs and the rivalries created, and I like playing the first two rounds close to home (or at least no further than Dallas/Winnipeg). But this method creates such a large chance of someone getting screwed.

Much better if they just went with the 4 conference winners + 12 wildcards.

syntax likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the argument about teams getting screwed out of the playoffs. You're goal year in and year out should be to win the stanley cup (i.e. be #1 out of 30). If you can't manage being #5/8 than you don't deserve a shot to be #1/30. I know playoffs are different animal and upsets happen, but under the current system #9 in the west could (and actually might) have more points than #7 in the east and they aren't in the playoffs. Its the same concept. If you can't be #9/15 you shouldn't have the right to compete for the Stanley Cup! Dallas's 95 points last season would've been good enough for 8th in the east. St. Louis's 90 in 2010 would've put them in 7th in the east. Florida's 93 in 2009 would've made them #6 in the west. How is that any different?

Edited by stevie for president

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for fun I did a quick and dirty comparison of the 2010-2011 season's final standings and re-grouped the teams into the new conference format to see how the playoffs would have developed last year.

Conference 1

Vancouver 117 pts

San Jose 105

Anaheim 99

Phoenix 99

Los Angeles 98

Calgary 94

Colorado 68

Edmonton 62

So - first round has Vancouver vs Phoenix (because Anaheim & Phoenix had the same points I was not sure who would be higher so just went with this) and San Jose would play Anaheim.

2nd round would probably be Vancouver vs San Jose.

Conference 2

Detroit 104 pts

Nashville 99

Chicago 97

Dallas 95

St. Louis 87

Minnesota 86

Columbus 81

Winnipeg 80

So - first round has Detroit vs Dallas and Nashville vs Chicago.

2nd round would probably be Detroit vs Chicago.

Conference 3

Boston 103 pts

Tampa Bay 103

Montreal 96

Buffalo 96

Toronto 85

Ottawa 74

Florida 72

So - first round has Boston vs Buffalo and Tampa Bay vs Montreal. (Again I did not know the tie breaker system so just placed the teams as is).

2nd round would probably be Boston vs Tampa Bay.

Conference 4

Washington 107 pts

Philadelphia 106

Pittsburgh 106

NY Rangers 93

Carolina 91

New Jersey 81

NY Islanders

So - first round has Washington vs NY Rangers and Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh. (Again I do not know the tie breaker system so just placed the teams as is.)

2nd round would probably be Washington vs Philadelphia.

Now comes the reseed:

Conference 1

Vancouver 117 pts

Conference 2

Detroit 104 pts

Conference 3

Boston 103 pts

Conference 4

Philadelphia 106 pts

If you reseed based upon points, then you would have Vancouver vs Boston and Philadelphia vs Detroit for the semi-finals.

Finals could have been Boston vs Detroit!

Interesting to note the following:

Conferences 3 & 4 (mainly eastern teams) appear in the playoffs with no change from the current format.

Conferences 1 & 2 (mainly western teams) are the same EXCEPT Los Angeles (conference 1) does not make the playoffs in the new format, while Dallas (conference 2) did not make the playoffs in the old format but does under the new format.

Discuss.

Edited by Behind Enemy Lines in CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about most hockey fans, but I personally don't like the whole playing against rivals every year in the 1st&2nd round of the playoffs. I could see it getting pretty boring playing STL and CHI every year in the playoffs. Also, this means that rivals like Det/CHI will never play each other beyond the 2nd round. I perosnally would keep whatever geographically-based schedule they have come up with and have no divisions/conferences and top 16 make the playoffs. You would get unique playoff matches and rivals could wind up playing each other in the finals. You could potentially have Det and CHI playing each other in the finals-I think that enhances the rivalry a lot more than playing in the opening rounds each year.

That's only fair to do if all teams play each other the same amount of times. Outside of a completely balanced schedule, this is not a fair approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like the fact that they are taking 4 from each conference, I think the top 8 in the east and top 8 in the west should make the playoffs.

So now if you have a really competitive conference, the 5th team in that conference could have 98 points and miss the playoffs, but in the other conference the 4th team can have 95 points. thats bulls***.

thats like when in the NFL the Pats went 11-5, but because of division winners getting an automatic, the chargers at 8-8 went in instead.

right now the races in the east and west are epic, why would you change that? i dont get it.

Rick D and syntax like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. Whats the last great Wings/ Rangers game you can remember? Wings / Toronto? They always play each other hard, but its nothing like it used to be. Its hard to build hate for a team when you only see them once a year (if the planets align right). I think a fair statement would be bettman created new rivalries and the old ones limped along despite his interference.

The Wings-Rangers haven't played a memorable hockey game against each other since the 1950 final!

Personally I think the love affair with the "Original 6" is overrated. Detroit, Toronto, and Montreal dominated Boston, NY, and Chicago. The best thing that ever happened in the history of the NHL was in 1967-68 when they finally expanded the league. It should have happened 15-20 years earlier, but the corrupt owners liked their 6 team monopoly.

Frozen-Man and Jenny like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Board has made a decision and the details will be reported soon... Standby for the end of days...

The stupid as hell four division alignment has been passed. Thus ends the greatest playoff system ever and begins the era of divisional playoffs...

I think they finally killed the best game ever.

Divisional playoffs are not new to the NHL. Matter of fact, I think that is why the Blues hates us so much to this day.

I don't know about most hockey fans, but I personally don't like the whole playing against rivals every year in the 1st&2nd round of the playoffs. I could see it getting pretty boring playing STL and CHI every year in the playoffs. Also, this means that rivals like Det/CHI will never play each other beyond the 2nd round. I perosnally would keep whatever geographically-based schedule they have come up with and have no divisions/conferences and top 16 make the playoffs. You would get unique playoff matches and rivals could wind up playing each other in the finals. You could potentially have Det and CHI playing each other in the finals-I think that enhances the rivalry a lot more than playing in the opening rounds each year.

Have a team knock you out three years in a row and watch the sparks fly. I'm not a fan of racking 1-16 only because it makes divisions pointless and take some of the passion out of the game. What is the point of playing Chicago 3-6 times during the season if you have a booger-flinging shot of seeing them in the playoffs?

Our original 6 rivalries are nothing like they used to be. We have a good thing going with the Avs, sharks, and ducks, and now we'll only see any of these teams twice a year - trade the new for old, fine, but stop forcing the rivalries. Other than the hawks, we don't have s*** in this division which puts us in the same boat as before, but gives us less conference rivals. I get the arguments that forced the restructure, but this is poor execution.

Avs died 5 or 6 years ago.

Sharks and Ducks are more of a playoff thing imo. Second round at that. Let the teams build the rivalries and the fans ride that train all the way to the blood soaked locker room.

Why is it that they have to have 4 different conferences and not 2 conferences with 2 divisions each?

I think that is because the semifinals aren't decided yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the two conferences of 8 and two of 7. This just gives the teams in the two "Eastern" Conferences a better shot at making the playoffs each year.

Why don't they just have two conferences always pair up in the playoffs and do 1 v 8.

I'm not sure how I feel about this realignment. I wanted the Wings in the East, but I'm not sure if this is what I wanted.

It sounds like a good alignment plan in place if the 'Yotes move in the next couple years though. It would be a lot simpler to just plug them into any conference except the Central.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why oh why couldn't they just put Detroit in the Toronto division. Couldn't they just have an 8-7 split in both west and east conferences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I like it, it makes for interesting playoffs and possible Rivalry Finals. I enjoy playing our division more as well.

Names for the Conferences?

post-14502-0-96855100-1323152855_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really thing the whole 8 vs 7 teams in a division is that big of a deal, to be honest. Everybody will still play 82 games.

I mean, lets say you were racing in a marathon that was giving out medals for 1st, 2nd, & 3rd place, and you came in 4th. It doesn't really matter if there were 5 people in the race or 100, you still didn't place high enough for a medal.

Get Rid of Mickey likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need conferences at all? IMO every team should play every other team an equal amount of games and the top 16 in the LEAGUE should advance to the playoffs. That way travel is completely even across the board so nobody can complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the other comments on this topic but Detroit makes out so well from this system! Their only competition in the conference from a long term standpoint is Chicago. Also they get to play their first two playoff rounds near hone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the big deal, the NHL is going back to what it was starting in 74-75 season until the 93-94 season. It used to be in this proposed alignment for 20 years, prior to Gary Bettman ever being associated with North American hockey. So instead of divisions under a conference it's just 4 conferences. The (divisional) playoff structure was around from the 81-82 season until 93-94...we watched the game for 12 years in pretty much the exact same format that is being set now.

Oh and just fyi, other playoff formats you had (- teams making playoffs):

79-80 through 80-81: 1-16 league seeding - 16 teams, 4 each div

74-75 through 78-79: first round bye - 12 teams, 3 each div

67-68 Expansion to East & West (no divisions) - 8 teams, 4 each conf

Original 6 "alignment" - 4 teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally am very happy with these changes. I couldn't care less about the 7 or 8 teams in our conference. I think we have as good a chance of being in the top 4 in that conference as we do being in the top 8 in the western conference this year or any other. It's also pretty neat to think of the possibility of a Red Wings - Sharks final or something of that sort. The travel will certainly be reduced for both playoffs and regular season and that was pretty much my number one concern as to why I wanted us to move east. Plus we still get to be rivals with Chicago. Seriously? Who gives a s*** what round we play them in if it helps us win a Stanley Cup because we travel less in the first two rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually Bettman will rename conference D to "The NHL" and be done with it..

But seriously, I'm pretty excited about this, if only because it is something different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also one hoping to end up in the same conference as Toronto. Im really not sure how I feel about it, the travel is great but we have the most boring conference there.

lil Wing's fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now