76 replies to this topic

[Icesurfer]

To make the proposed format balanced and fair I think for the regular season the proposed four divisions can be as they had planned. But once the playoffs are ready to start all 30 teams are reseeded from ONE to THIRTY. The top 16 seeds make the playoffs. The winners of the four divisions are ranked from seed 1 to seed 4. The remaining 12 seeds are ranked behind like they are now. Seed 1 plays seed 16. Seed 2 plays seed 15. Seed 3 plays seed 14… etc. That way each team in the NHL has the EXACT SAME CHANCE of making the playoffs even though they may be in an 8 team division vs 7 team division. And actually it would be more exciting because there is a better chance of facing a team that is not in your division in any round of the playoffs and each team in the NHL has the same chance. The whole idea is that the travel during the regular season is balanced so that by the time the playoffs come around the travel is much less fatiguing. I think playing a team that you played five or six times during the regular season in the first AND second round of the playoffs would get really boring year after year. It would result in a team trying to get by a nemesis year after year to make it to the finals.

[cusimano_brothers]

Welcome to "Cape Fehr".

[haroldsnepsts]

I've highlighted a couple key parts from the NHLPA's statement that shows the NHL definitely has a hand in this rejection of the realignment.

January 06, 2012

Toronto (January 6, 2012) – National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) Executive Director Don Fehr issued the following statement this evening regarding the League’s realignment proposal:

“On the evening of December 5, 2011, the NHL informed the NHLPA that they proposed to put in place a four-conference format beginning with the 2012-13 season.

I believe that's the same day they announced it to everyone. So you tell the players union the same day you announce it to the public?

As realignment affects Players’ terms and conditions of employment, the CBA requires the League to obtain the NHLPA’s consent before implementation. Over the last month, we have had several discussions with the League and extensive dialogue with Players, most recently on an Executive Board conference call on January 1. Two substantial Player concerns emerged: (1) whether the new structure would result in increased and more onerous travel; and (2) the disparity in chances of making the playoffs between the smaller and larger divisions.

I think those are two pretty legit concerns for the players.

In order to evaluate the effect on travel of the proposed new structure, we requested a draft or sample 2012-13 schedule, showing travel per team. We were advised it was not possible for the League to do that. We also suggested reaching an agreement on scheduling conditions to somewhat alleviate Player travel concerns (e.g., the scheduling of more back-to-back games, more difficult and lengthier road trips, number of border crossings, etc.), but the League did not want to enter into such a dialogue. The travel estimation data we received from the League indicates that many of the current Pacific and Central teams, that have demanding travel schedules under the current format, could see their travel become even more difficult. On the playoff qualification matter, we suggested discussing ways to eliminate the inherent differences in the proposed realignment, but the League was not willing to do so.

Obviously this is a one sided account, but at the very least not even providing a proposed schedule is pretty ridiculous. The league must have worked up something to that effect in their planning and consideration of the whole thing.

The League set a deadline of January 6, 2012 for the NHLPA to provide its consent to the NHL’s proposal. Players’ questions about travel and concerns about the playoff format have not been sufficiently addressed; as such, we are not able to provide our consent to the proposal at this time. We continue to be ready and willing to have further discussions should the League be willing to do so.”

So the NHL gave the NHLPA a whole month to consider this? How long has the NHL been working this up?


It's not all on the league either, but Bettman is very good at making the player's union look like the enemy. By not involving them earlier and making the unions only recourse to ask for more time, he did exactly that.

It doesn't bode well for another CBA negotiation. If they lose any games because of a lockout, it will be the third such work stoppage Bettman has forced in his tenure.

Edited by haroldsnepsts, 08 January 2012 - 04:12 PM.

[Electrophile]

I have a fool-proof solution to the alignment issue.

First, pick up af****** map.

Then, look at where on the map all the teams play.

If you play east of Illinois, you're in the Eastern Conference. If you play west of Illinois, you're in the Western Conference. For Canadian teams, it's real simple. Toronto, Montreal, soon to be Quebec City team = East. Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Edmonton = West.

This solves travel problems, it's geographically drawn up, and it eliminates the obvious absurdity of why the f*** the Red Wings aren't in the Eastern Conference where they damn well belong.

Edited by Electrophile, 08 January 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[Wing Across The Pond]

With regards to the playoff, I can't think why no one likes/has suggested the idea that almost all other world sports use: have a blind draw. All the qualified names go into a hat, and each series is drawn blind. Pick up a ball, it reads 'Detroit'. Pick out another ball, it reads 'Buffalo'. Something like that. They throw up some good match-ups and evens the playing field completely. Plus there's the excitement come draw day (not to mention increased revenue from TV. Heck they could even sponsor the draw if they wanted - as long as they didn't sponsor the actual playoffs in the same way).

[F.Michael]

I have a fool-proof solution to the alignment issue.

First, pick up af****** map.

Then, look at where on the map all the teams play.

If you play east of Illinois, you're in the Eastern Conference. If you play west of Illinois, you're in the Western Conference. For Canadian teams, it's real simple. Toronto, Montreal, soon to be Quebec City team = East. Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Edmonton = West.

This solves travel problems, it's geographically drawn up, and it eliminates the obvious absurdity of why the f*** the Red Wings aren't in the Eastern Conference where they damn well belong.

under your plan - 18 teams in the eastern conference, and 12 teams in the wesrtern conference...Sumthin' tells me the league/NHLPA won't like your idea

[Electrophile]

under your plan - 18 teams in the eastern conference, and 12 teams in the wesrtern conference...Sumthin' tells me the league/NHLPA won't like your idea

They can get over it. There's no intelligent reason for why Winnipeg plays in the Southeast Division. They only thing they're south of is the North Pole.

[F.Michael]

They can get over it. There's no intelligent reason for why Winnipeg plays in the Southeast Division. They only thing they're south of is the North Pole.

And to think...The league approved 4 conferences had both Florida franchises in the North East conference

There's always gonna be an issue with this re-alignment.

[Electrophile]

I agree, someone is going to be pissed off no matter what, but I think realignment should be as geographically correct as possible. If splitting North America down the middle isn't feasible because there'd be too many teams in one conference, then find a way to make it as close to even as possible. I mean, if you're going to use geographical designations for your conference/division names, don't do something stupid like putting freakin' Winnipeg in the Southeast division. I don't think Canada even has a southeast to their country.

[cusimano_brothers]

With all the other more important issues needing to be addressed by the League, why is Bettman and his henchmen focusing on this? Because they can.

[AceInTheSleeve]

I dont know why anyone is mad that the PA said no to this. The realignment was kinda f***ed up in the first place.

The reasons the PA didnt like it were a) disparity in playoff chances between divisions, and b) travel

I think that is totally acceptable, and I think were kidding ourselves if we believe that bettman's proposed realignment was the BEST the NHL could come up with. It was garbage to begin with and Im glad the NHLPA is blocking the plan. Maybe the NHL will get their heads out of their ass and come up with something that is fair for all teams. Thats what they want anyway isnt it? 'parity'

[vladdy16]

Thats what they want anyway isnt it? 'parity'

Then parity should apply to the travel as well, shouldn't it?

[ami]

I have better solution for equality-seeking unions.

Find maximum out of minimal distances that nhl teams have to travel and make all teams travel the same distance. If Rangers plays Islanders they should take red-eye flight from La-Guardia to Kansas and then from Kansas to Kennedy.


Such a 'common sense' would be very well in line with 'common sense' shown by unions, any union.

[AceInTheSleeve]

Then parity should apply to the travel as well, shouldn't it?

Yeah I think it should, I think its possible too

[F.Michael]

I have better solution for equality-seeking unions.

Find maximum out of minimal distances that nhl teams have to travel and make all teams travel the same distance. If Rangers plays Islanders they should take red-eye flight from La-Guardia to Kansas and then from Kansas to Kennedy.


Such a 'common sense' would be very well in line with 'common sense' shown by unions, any union.

I'd rather seem them walk barefoot from Manhattan to Long Island.

In all seriousness - travel standards for these players is impeccable; union advocate Glenn Healy even mentioned how nice the players have it when compared to his playing days, and felt their objective was more or less letting the owners know it'll be a long summer.

[cusimano_brothers]

The rest of the story: Sportsnet.

[Hockeytown0001]

I agree, someone is going to be pissed off no matter what, but I think realignment should be as geographically correct as possible. If splitting North America down the middle isn't feasible because there'd be too many teams in one conference, then find a way to make it as close to even as possible. I mean, if you're going to use geographical designations for your conference/division names, don't do something stupid like putting freakin' Winnipeg in the Southeast division. I don't think Canada even has a southeast to their country.

The only reason Winnipeg is in the Southeast division is (was going to be for one season only) due to the Atlanta move.....this season was supposed to be the only one, as there apparently wasn't time to draw up new conferences/divisions/playoff formats. I was fine with that as long as it was for one season....now Winnipeg (and Detroit and other western teams that travel far too much) are getting bent over because the player's union is fussing about it.