Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Realignment decided - 4 Conferences


  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#81 greenrebellion

greenrebellion

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 05 December 2011 - 11:52 PM

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.

#82 paul19010

paul19010

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 66 posts

Posted 05 December 2011 - 11:53 PM

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.

#83 Barrie

Barrie

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,920 posts

Posted 05 December 2011 - 11:57 PM

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.
Lets Go:
Red Wings
Tigers
Roughriders
Lions
Spartans
Pistons

#84 DatsyukianDangles122

DatsyukianDangles122

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 86 posts

Posted 05 December 2011 - 11:58 PM

Infinite playoff appearances confirmed.

#85 Red Wings Addict

Red Wings Addict

    This is how I watch Wings games

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 12:08 AM

If you could hand select any teams to be in the same 8 or 7-team division as Detroit, which ones would they be?

#86 redwings8831

redwings8831

    redwings8831

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 272 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 12:56 AM

So will the Wings be in the Legends or Leaders conference?

#87 vangvace

vangvace

    no such thing as overkill

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • Location:Swansea, IL

Posted 06 December 2011 - 12:58 AM

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.
I make 1 or 2 posts a week tops. Sometimes they're gold, sometimes they're crap, but the end weight is the same.

http://www.letsgowin...tion=boardrules

#88 DyingAlive

DyingAlive

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 856 posts
  • Location:Bruins Territory

Posted 06 December 2011 - 01:03 AM

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.
Posted Image

#89 Kindl Surprise

Kindl Surprise

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 138 posts
  • Location:Nova Scotia

Posted 06 December 2011 - 01:19 AM

too early for me to say if I like it or not but it could certainly be good!

#90 redwingfan19

redwingfan19

    On a mission

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,523 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 01:21 AM

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?
You may not like tough hockey, but it's winning hockey.

Mitch Callahan: 48GP, 6G, 3A, 9PTS,+/- -3, 103PIMS

14 Fighting Majors

#91 JasonNewEra

JasonNewEra

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 270 posts
  • Location:Westland

Posted 06 December 2011 - 01:27 AM

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?

Attached File  NHLRealignment.jpg   195.77KB   61 downloads

12412215175_9591987538_o.jpg


#92 roboturner

roboturner

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 01:29 AM

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.

This might be getting a little heated. Just know I don't hate any of you guys.

 

That doesn't mean that I respect ideas & opinions. Some ideas & opinions are ridiculous.

 

In fact, if you confront my ideas & opinions, that will lead to a discussion. (We're on a discussion board after all. Don't forget that!)

 

  :bye1: :bye1: :bye1: :bye1: :bye1: :bye1: :bye1: :bye1:


#93 AceInTheSleeve

AceInTheSleeve

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 01:32 AM

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.

#94 wingsfan4795

wingsfan4795

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,651 posts
  • Location:Libertyville Illinois

Posted 06 December 2011 - 01:51 AM

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

Good rule of thumb is always take an octopus everywhere. Better to have one and not need it than find yourself thinking, "Damn, I wish I had that octopus".

 

-Buppy


#95 drumnj

drumnj

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 755 posts
  • Location:Iowa

Posted 06 December 2011 - 02:01 AM

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

Got FSD setup with all it's glory.  Plan to have pre and post game coverage along with Wingspan and 24/7.  Youtube page: RedWingsLive1

Red Wings and Griffins Live Games Check my profile
Always looking for people to help with the site, be it coding (PHP & JS) or design work. PM me if you'd be interested.

 

Cleary on, Mike!
Cleary on, Ken!
Dan's World, Dan's World... Mediocrity!... Excellent!


#96 CanadaBoy

CanadaBoy

    The Red Wing Ring

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,593 posts
  • Location:McMaster University (Ontario, Canada)

Posted 06 December 2011 - 02:15 AM

If the NHL was going to use a 8,8,7,7 split, this makes the most sense to me:
Don't want the Western teams to lose revenue from the Wings? Fine. Swap em with Columbus.
http://i.imgur.com/hJ6FT.png

Posted Image

Edited by CanadaBoy, 06 December 2011 - 02:15 AM.

But my most coveted thing is a high self-esteem
And a low tolerance for them telling me how to lean
See the most important parts are the ones that are unseen
The Wings don't make you fly and the Crown don't make you king
Now God don't like ugly, ain't too happy bout pretty
I am ignorance's enemy so stay out of the vicinity of...
~ Lupe Fiasco - Gold Watch

#97 8 Legged RedWing

8 Legged RedWing

    Arms... Legs... Whatever.

  • Bronze Booster
  • 1,280 posts
  • Location:Farmington Hills, MI

Posted 06 December 2011 - 02:48 AM

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.

#98 IllinoisRedWingsFan

IllinoisRedWingsFan

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Location:Downers Grove/Charleston, IL

Posted 06 December 2011 - 03:05 AM

When I first read about this I was like WHY???? But as I read more about this the more I like it.

#99 crotty99

crotty99

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 06 December 2011 - 03:49 AM

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.

Posted Image


Thanks TeeMan!


#100 13dangledangle

13dangledangle

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,803 posts
  • Location:Port Hope, Ont.

Posted 06 December 2011 - 05:44 AM

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.
....Ladies and Gentlemen Jimmy "F%$*ing" Howard.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users