You are not connected. Please login or register

 » The other NHL teams » General Hockey talk » NHL Realignment

NHL Realignment

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

What do you think of the realignment?

NHL Realignment Vote_lcap240%NHL Realignment Vote_rcap2 40% [ 4 ]
NHL Realignment Vote_lcap230%NHL Realignment Vote_rcap2 30% [ 3 ]
NHL Realignment Vote_lcap20%NHL Realignment Vote_rcap2 0% [ 0 ]
NHL Realignment Vote_lcap210%NHL Realignment Vote_rcap2 10% [ 1 ]
NHL Realignment Vote_lcap220%NHL Realignment Vote_rcap2 20% [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 10

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1NHL Realignment Empty NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:45 am

spader

spader
All-Star
All-Star
I'm sure you all know by now, but here's the skinny on the NHL realignment. The league will now hold four conferences and no divisions. The conferences are broken up like this:


Conference A
Anaheim
Calgary
Colorado
Edmonton
Los Angeles
Phoenix
San Jose
Vancouver

Conference B
Chicago
Columbus
Dallas
Detroit
Minnesota
Nashville
St. Louis
Winnipeg

Conference C
Boston
Buffalo
Florida
Montreal
Ottawa
Tampa Bay
Toronto

Conference D
Carolina
New Jersey
NY Islanders
NY Rangers
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington


Top four in each conference will make the playoffs. That makes things considerably more difficult for the two western conferences. Of course, the rumours started right away. From everyone's favourite rumour site:
The NHL is about to expand to 32 teams.
This is from Richard Cloutier, who clearly has a sense of humour, but does make an interesting case:
Before you all bash me and laugh off what I am saying just because I have no sources and make things up, think about this situation and apply logic. Why put 16 teams in the West (where there aren't many opportunities for new teams) and 14 in the East (where there are opportunities a plenty)? Even if a few Eastern teams needed to move for financial reasons, there are plenty of other cities the NHL can try. Consider the Toronto area alone. Isn't there a new rink going up in Markham? Or the league could think Hamilton instead. See? Options. Could a team go to Baltimore? Hartford? A third Florida team? Options, options, options.
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Richard-Cloutier/THE-TRUTH-About-NHL-Realignment/131/40285

Whatever the reasons, the NHL has approved the switch, and it's expected that it'll be implemented next season.

Thoughts?

2NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:02 am

stempniaksen

stempniaksen
Veteran
Veteran
I'm slowly getting used to the the idea, and think this could do wonders for rivalries (Can we finnally get Montreal in the playoffs please!?).

My major issue is that we end up with Florida, who is literally the most boring team for me to try and tune into, but I completely understand why they broke it down the way they did.

3NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:19 am

tim1_2

tim1_2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Well this paves the way for Phoenix to easily slide to somewhere else (Quebec City).

The alignment makes sense, but I'm not so sure about the playoffs. Only the top 4 teams in each conference make it, meaning that some really good teams could miss out just because of the conference they're in. Not a fan of that, it should be based on overall points, not standing within the "conference".

4NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:33 am

Cap'n Clutch

Cap'n Clutch
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
From what I heard on Team1200 it would appear that any combination is possible for the Stanley Cup final. That I gotta say I really like.

5NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:36 am

stempniaksen

stempniaksen
Veteran
Veteran
Cap'n Clutch wrote:From what I heard on Team1200 it would appear that any combination is possible for the Stanley Cup final. That I gotta say I really like.

Teams within the division won't be able to play for the cup final as far as I know (i.e Boston vs Montreal) but it does allow for teams on the same coast to face off (Philadelphia vs Buffalo).

6NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:53 am

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Playoff setup: The top 4 in each of the 4 conferences now make the playoffs, which will make up the 16 playoff teams. For the first 2 rounds of the postseason, the teams in your own conference play each other to determine a champion and then go on to play the other conference champions.

Interesting. So, the first two rounds you'll be facing only teams in your own "conference".

7NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:06 am

tim1_2

tim1_2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
shabbs wrote:Playoff setup: The top 4 in each of the 4 conferences now make the playoffs, which will make up the 16 playoff teams. For the first 2 rounds of the postseason, the teams in your own conference play each other to determine a champion and then go on to play the other conference champions.

Interesting. So, the first two rounds you'll be facing only teams in your own "conference".

The playoff format is where this "realignment" falls flat. They should've kept the East and West conferences, and just named these new "conferences" the new divisions. Then the top 8 from each conference makes the playoffs, just as we have now. The NHL gets all the new travel and scheduling benefits, while maximum competition is still ensured for the playoffs.

8NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:04 am

wprager

wprager
Administrator
Administrator
That's not the playoff format I was hoping for, but that may change -- playoff format and divisional re-alignment, while they go hand-in-hand, do not have to all change on the same day. Some ideas thrown about included having 20 teams qualifying for the playoffs (short bet-of-five round for the 8 teams, while 12 top teams get a bye); another one included re-seeding after the first or second round -- that one had possibilities for the top two teams in a conference (I really hate the use of that word for divisions) to meet up in the finals.

I get it how they didn't want to have an East and West Conference because the league is so skewed to the East; but there were other options -- give the conferences names, or make it North/South. For years the "Conference" was the big division, while the "Division" was the smaller one, and I really don't like that they call these Conferences (7 or 8 teams is too small IMO for "Conference").

One round within your "Conference" is enough IMO; then re-seed. I *want* the possibility of Boston/Montreal or Toronto/Montreal in the Finals, just as much as you may want Philly/Pittsburgh or Ranger/Philly and so on.

Anyhow, I'm hoping that they will expand the playoffs to 20 teams (remember back in the 21-team league we had 16 teams in the playoffs, then the league expanded by 43% and the number of playoff teams did not change. That's like 2 home playoff games for 8 more teams -- gotta be good for revenues. And the top teams get a week to heal up.

Oh,and I voted wait and see.


_________________
Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
- Dicky Fox

9NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:12 am

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
LeBrun outlines how he would have done the realignment...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/12752/lebruns-plan-what-i-would-have-done

10NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:16 am

tim1_2

tim1_2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
wprager wrote:That's not the playoff format I was hoping for, but that may change -- playoff format and divisional re-alignment, while they go hand-in-hand, do not have to all change on the same day. Some ideas thrown about included having 20 teams qualifying for the playoffs (short bet-of-five round for the 8 teams, while 12 top teams get a bye); another one included re-seeding after the first or second round -- that one had possibilities for the top two teams in a conference (I really hate the use of that word for divisions) to meet up in the finals.

I get it how they didn't want to have an East and West Conference because the league is so skewed to the East; but there were other options -- give the conferences names, or make it North/South. For years the "Conference" was the big division, while the "Division" was the smaller one, and I really don't like that they call these Conferences (7 or 8 teams is too small IMO for "Conference").

One round within your "Conference" is enough IMO; then re-seed. I *want* the possibility of Boston/Montreal or Toronto/Montreal in the Finals, just as much as you may want Philly/Pittsburgh or Ranger/Philly and so on.

Anyhow, I'm hoping that they will expand the playoffs to 20 teams (remember back in the 21-team league we had 16 teams in the playoffs, then the league expanded by 43% and the number of playoff teams did not change. That's like 2 home playoff games for 8 more teams -- gotta be good for revenues. And the top teams get a week to heal up.

Oh,and I voted wait and see.

The extra playoff teams and short "wildcard" series' was Jim Rutherford's idea...just one guy...it didn't gain any traction with the league, and it won't happen (despite the fact that it's a good idea).

11NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:22 am

Hoags

Hoags
All-Star
All-Star
tim1_2 wrote:
The alignment makes sense, but I'm not so sure about the playoffs. Only the top 4 teams in each conference make it, meaning that some really good teams could miss out just because of the conference they're in. Not a fan of that, it should be based on overall points, not standing within the "conference".

That's what I don't like, ie. last season if this system was in place LA would have missed the playoffs.

12NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:26 am

tim1_2

tim1_2
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
My idea is still the best-ever for the playoffs:

Top 8 teams from each conference (only 2 conferences) make the playoffs. The #1 seed gets to PICK their opponent for round one. #2 picks from the leftovers, and so forth. This creates instant animosity, great storylines, and rewards the higher seeds even more by letting them pick their best matchup.

After the first round, this selection process repeates itself, with the higher seeds getting to pick their opponents for round 2. The conference finals would obviously determine themselves.

13NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:02 am

SeawaySensFan

SeawaySensFan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Should be a 20 team playoff with teams seeded 18 - 21 having a short play-in for the final 2 spots.

14NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:14 am

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
tim1_2 wrote:My idea is still the best-ever for the playoffs:

Top 8 teams from each conference (only 2 conferences) make the playoffs. The #1 seed gets to PICK their opponent for round one. #2 picks from the leftovers, and so forth. This creates instant animosity, great storylines, and rewards the higher seeds even more by letting them pick their best matchup.

After the first round, this selection process repeates itself, with the higher seeds getting to pick their opponents for round 2. The conference finals would obviously determine themselves.
Gotta say, I'm not a fan of teams picking their opponents. Seems to "commercialized" to me. Something that screams "made for TV". With that said, Bettman will make this happen.

Wink

15NHL Realignment Empty Re: NHL Realignment on Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:03 am

Riprock

Riprock
All-Star
All-Star
So even if Phoenix moved East, the two western conferences would have 8 and 7 teams respectively, same with the east. Doesn't make sense really.

I actually think 32 teams, adding two more to the east, is the most logical.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum