Let's Go Blues

PGABluesFan wrote:Brilliant point results for STL amd Detroit in that example.

agreed, I laughed.

I'm torn. I like the fact that playoff rivalries will be a bit more intense and I also like that it forces the Eastern-based teams to actually travel West for games, since you play each team outside of your conference twice, once home and once away.

But I also know that there will be a 5th place team with a high point total that won't make it, and a 4th place team in another conference will have a lower point total and sneak in.

But it's like that in baseball with division winners and I don't really have too many complaints about that.

Overall, I'm glad they kept Chicago, St. Louis, and Detroit together and I like that we're going to have Minnesota and Winnipeg in our conference/division now. I'm hoping the rivalries spark back up.

dmiles2186 wrote:I'm torn. I like the fact that playoff rivalries will be a bit more intense and I also like that it forces the Eastern-based teams to actually travel West for games, since you play each team outside of your conference twice, once home and once away.

But I also know that there will be a 5th place team with a high point total that won't make it, and a 4th place team in another conference will have a lower point total and sneak in.

But it's like that in baseball with division winners and I don't really have too many complaints about that.

Overall, I'm glad they kept Chicago, St. Louis, and Detroit together and I like that we're going to have Minnesota and Winnipeg in our conference/division now. I'm hoping the rivalries spark back up.

The "unfairness" of the playoffs bothers me a little, but playoff rivalries will probably be more intense from year to year because of carryover from playing the same teams in the playoffs each year. So, I think that balances that part out a bit. And baseball is a good comparison in that regard.

I would have liked Colorado instead of Winnipeg. But I guess they wanted to keep Winnipeg with other teams in the same time zone, so that makes sense I guess.

All this makes my head hurt

STLADOGG wrote:Makes the games against the conference teams a lot more important...btw ProngerBlues44 did you have any scenario exactly like this on your website?

I had a few people that are close - I was kind of close to it (except I made a "Great Lakes" Division to put some of those teams together), and I had STL in with the southern teams.

Come to think of it, I wasn't close at all

I still have some that weren't posted. I bet someone was very close to this one.

F Keenan wrote:

WaukeeBlues wrote:I'll be honest: I DO hate it.

First off and most importantly: Why do the "Western" two conferences have 16 teams and the East has 14? Yea that's fair. It's like in the MLB National Central with 6 teams when a Division out West has 4. So the Blues (and everyone in the West) has essentially two more teams to beat out to make the playoffs than the Eastern teams do? Any way you slice it, two conferences have an extra team than everyone else. I f*cking hate it in baseball and I hate it here. That's a crock of sh*t. You have an even number of teams. Make it fair. Sorry for the language but that just burns me.

Baseball has fixed it with Houston joining the American League in 2013. Keep in mind, your beloved Brewers caused that mess.

Your reference to it as a "fix" just proved my point. If it's a problem, why start out that way? And it's not the Brewers' fault that the MLB didn't re-structure immediately at the birth of a 6 team division!

F Keenan wrote:

WaukeeBlues wrote: All in all I don't know they should even be making this drastic of a change with Phoenix still on the ropes. So what happens if Phoenix packs up and moves to (just an example to demonstrate my point) Quebec next season? We get to do this all over again? That's fantastic. Sweet. Good job NHL. Shoulda just swapped Nashville for Winnipeg, Winnipeg for Minnesota and called it a day

</negative nancy>

The whole point of leaving the conferences lopsided is so that when the Coyotes leave, and they most likely will (Either Quebec City or Toronto), they can join Montréal, Toronto, Ottawa, Boston, Buffalo, Florida, and Tampa Bay in the same conference.

Even assuming that's true (which I would doubt), that doesn't fix anything: you'd still have two conferences with two more teams than the other two. Fundamental problem doesn't change, just moves.

cardsfan04 wrote:

WaukeeBlues wrote: Second: What's with the alignments in the east? It's some disgusting hybrid of the Southeast Division + Atlantic and SE/NE for the two conferences. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Why even bother aligning geographically? F*ck it, let's put LA in the same conference against Florida to encourage cross-country rivalries. It's the same thing putting Tampa and Ottawa in the same conference. This is BLATANT NHL favoritism to their pretty-boy teams and rivalries that they want to develop: Philly, Pitt, NY and Washington. Only way they could make sure Pitt and Washington got in the same conference was to have it make no sense. Well, congratulations Bettman, mission accomplished. I'm shocked they didn't throw Detroit in there. I really am. Detroit, Pitt AND Washington in the same conference? That's like Bettman's wet dream. I'm just thrilled that I'm going to be force-fed the Washington/Pittsburgh rivalry for the remaining careers of Crosby and Ovechkin. Although I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

I would have made that conference exactly the same as they did. If you're doing realignment into 7-8 team conferences, it makes sense to put 7 teams that are that close together geographically in the same conference. Sure, it makes the Florida teams go way north which is unfortunate. But, I think that makes more sense than splitting up the teams that are all real close geographically.

No, I think they did it that way so that the NHL didn't have to split the Eastern Seaboard. Any ACTUAL geographical alignment for the East would mean a North and a South. Inevitably, the dividing point would be around the NY teams, NJ, Pitt, Philly, etc.

That's a completely intolerable scenario for the NHL, as this alignment shows. So, they threw a big "f*ck you" to Tampa and Florida by forcing them (and the Canadian teams in their conference) to fly across half a hemisphere so that they could keep their precious favored franchises together in the same conference (NY, Pitt, Philly, Washington). That's why they did it. I'd bet money on it.

Also: assuming you're right, how is that fair? You keep the 7 teams that are within a bus ride of eachother together and then split the remainder across two countries and thousands of miles? We've talked frequently on this board and in general that lengthy travel schedules CAN BE detrimental to a team. With this alignment, Conference D is at a distinct advantage with their travel schedule than the entire rest of the NHL.

Now I understand teams like Vancouver, etc, will always face that problem (and as last season showed, can play through it successfully) but why highlight it or make travel worse by purposefully splitting the conferences like they did? I think it's BS.

Oh and apparently, we've debated this realignment more on this message board than the Board of Governors did. Look at this gem:

NHL.com wrote:Bettman said the discussion on realignment lasted only about an hour.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=604852

BS

WaukeeBlues wrote:

cardsfan04 wrote:

WaukeeBlues wrote: Second: What's with the alignments in the east? It's some disgusting hybrid of the Southeast Division + Atlantic and SE/NE for the two conferences. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Why even bother aligning geographically? F*ck it, let's put LA in the same conference against Florida to encourage cross-country rivalries. It's the same thing putting Tampa and Ottawa in the same conference. This is BLATANT NHL favoritism to their pretty-boy teams and rivalries that they want to develop: Philly, Pitt, NY and Washington. Only way they could make sure Pitt and Washington got in the same conference was to have it make no sense. Well, congratulations Bettman, mission accomplished. I'm shocked they didn't throw Detroit in there. I really am. Detroit, Pitt AND Washington in the same conference? That's like Bettman's wet dream. I'm just thrilled that I'm going to be force-fed the Washington/Pittsburgh rivalry for the remaining careers of Crosby and Ovechkin. Although I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

I would have made that conference exactly the same as they did. If you're doing realignment into 7-8 team conferences, it makes sense to put 7 teams that are that close together geographically in the same conference. Sure, it makes the Florida teams go way north which is unfortunate. But, I think that makes more sense than splitting up the teams that are all real close geographically.

No, I think they did it that way so that the NHL didn't have to split the Eastern Seaboard. Any ACTUAL geographical alignment for the East would mean a North and a South. Inevitably, the dividing point would be around the NY teams, NJ, Pitt, Philly, etc.

That's a completely intolerable scenario for the NHL, as this alignment shows. So, they threw a big "f*ck you" to Tampa and Florida by forcing them (and the Canadian teams in their conference) to fly across half a hemisphere so that they could keep their precious favored franchises together in the same conference (NY, Pitt, Philly, Washington). That's why they did it. I'd bet money on it.

Also: assuming you're right, how is that fair? You keep the 7 teams that are within a bus ride of eachother together and then split the remainder across two countries and thousands of miles? We've talked frequently on this board and in general that lengthy travel schedules CAN BE detrimental to a team. With this alignment, Conference D is at a distinct advantage with their travel schedule than the entire rest of the NHL.

Now I understand teams like Vancouver, etc, will always face that problem (and as last season showed, can play through it successfully) but why highlight it or make travel worse by purposefully splitting the conferences like they did? I think it's BS.

I mean, that's a big downside, and I get why those teams could feel upset over it. But, it allows for that regional rivalry to really take off. It would be nice if they take travel into account for those teams too. Like, 2 days off in between games when they fly from North Canada to Florida, or something like that.

I like how all the teams in each conference are in close in distance..with two exceptiona. They should have divided the two East Coast conferences better by North and South.

Check this out:


* New Jersey, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Washington and Carolina

* Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Buffalo, Florida and Tampa Bay

Buffalo is in New York and should be in the same conference as the other two New York teams. Boston is fairly close to New York aand NJ and should be in the conference with them.

Carolina is the oddball out here - it is South yet it's in the same conference as the NY teams...Carolina would make more sense to go in with the Florida teams.

If nothing else, Switch Carolina and Buffalo for sure...

-

That ridiculous patch of green is appropriately colored. Money (by marketing PIT/WAS/NYR/PHI) is the only reason for putting TB and FLA in with the northern teams.

Yeah, that makes sense.

gaijin wrote:

That ridiculous patch of green is appropriately colored. Money (by marketing PIT/WAS/NYR/PHI) is the only reason for putting TB and FLA in with the northern teams.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Man, seeing it laid out like that makes me roll my eyes a bit. They said 26 voted yes for this, voted no. My guess on the no's were Detroit, Columbus, TB, and Florida. I'm going off nothing other than Detroit and Columbus' wish to face more Eastern teams and the absurdity of TB and Florida being so split off from their conference-mates.

Another moment of omniscience from our glorious Commissioner, on two conferences having 8 teams and the other two having 7:

NHL.com wrote:"Frankly it's not the seventh and eighth teams that are competing for a playoff spot,"

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=604852

No $hit Bettman... if the "extra" team is a bottom feeder. If the extra team that would've been in the East if not for this realignment is in position #4 in the West instead, that means they take a playoff spot from a team in the West that would've otherwise clinched it

The logic. I swear to God...

dmiles2186 wrote:

gaijin wrote:

That ridiculous patch of green is appropriately colored. Money (by marketing PIT/WAS/NYR/PHI) is the only reason for putting TB and FLA in with the northern teams.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Man, seeing it laid out like that makes me roll my eyes a bit. They said 26 voted yes for this, voted no. My guess on the no's were Detroit, Columbus, TB, and Florida. I'm going off nothing other than Detroit and Columbus' wish to face more Eastern teams and the absurdity of TB and Florida being so split off from their conference-mates.

Well thats a little queer. They could fix that easily. Take Tampa and Florida out of that 'Northeast' conference and replace them with both new york teams.

In all seriousness, just looking at the map makes me realize that the NHL is rigged. The people in the NHL higher escelon aren't trying to run a league, they're trying to milk as much money in one corner of the league and screw the rest. Seriously, lopsiding the deck and then making retarded comments that Bettman is famous for? I'll go watch the AHL. Screw them.

dmiles2186 wrote:

gaijin wrote:

That ridiculous patch of green is appropriately colored. Money (by marketing PIT/WAS/NYR/PHI) is the only reason for putting TB and FLA in with the northern teams.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Man, seeing it laid out like that makes me roll my eyes a bit. They said 26 voted yes for this, voted no. My guess on the no's were Detroit, Columbus, TB, and Florida. I'm going off nothing other than Detroit and Columbus' wish to face more Eastern teams and the absurdity of TB and Florida being so split off from their conference-mates.

Living in Cincinnati, I know that Howson (Columbus GM) was pretty happy about the alignment. I heard Detroit say that they were happy as well. I think the Rangers were one team that voted against it, not sure about the other three.

I think that Florida and Tampa are exactly where they need to be with the realignment. One thing to consider is that these guys aren't riding on trains anymore. Anywhere on the Eastern seaboard is within 3-4 hours away on a plane, which is not that bad. Also consider that Florida and Tampa are probably happy with the alignment. There are so many old bastards living in that state who are from New England, and that's the demographic they're trying to get. Ideally they would have preferred New York and Boston to be in the same division, but you can't really separate PHI, NYI, NYR, and NJ. Boston fits better with Toronto and Montreal.

As I said, I love the realignment, but I hate the execution of it. I don't like the idea of "conferences" as opposed to divisions. I also hate the way the third round of the playoffs will be presented. To me, there was nothing wrong with the pre-1993 way of doing things. Frankly, I think it's retarded that I'll get to see Edmonton, LA, etc the same amount of times that I get to see NYR and NJ in my arena. I grew up watching the Campbell/West, and I have an attachment to those teams. I will watch any game, but I really don't care about the Eastern conference teams at all. Why couldn't they just make 4 divisions under a 2 conference banner like they used to? Would have been perfect.

Ruutu15 wrote:Why couldn't they just make 4 divisions under a 2 conference banner like they used to? Would have been perfect.

Which is exactly why it won't be allowed to happen.

It's total BS that the east coast big market teams get a 14% greater chance of making the playoffs every year. That's an additional playoff appearance once every 7 years. That also translates to dollars. I wonder if any additional revenue sharing is going to the west to compensate? No I don't. The sad thing is I would actually like the format if the conferences were balanced. Teams getting a double digit statistical advantage on making the playoffs just makes this a terrible plan.

Hmm. Seems a little bit fishy to me. There's a logical way to do this and they started out alright, but didn't go all the way through with it. It's like they realized they were late for a tee-time and just threw that last few teams in wherever.

Hopefully the conferences all get named after old Penguins/Red Wings players too...

First 2 playoff rounds are within the conferences...1st vs. 4th and 2nd vs. 3rd...and the winners play each other in round 2.

That's a big win there. That's the way it should be.

I like the fact the Stars are back in our division, er, conference...and I'm happy about the rest of the conference...except Winnipeg, which I don't care about...but whatever.
I'm happy Detroit stays.

Our chances of playing Detroit and/or Chicago in the playoffs just improved by leaps and bounds.

The Florida team situation is messed up. Money seemingly got in the way of that decision. Whatever.

What would have been interesting, and I hope got some consideration, was putting all Canadian teams in the same conference.


Also, do the teams get reseeded after round 2? So winner from Conferences A-D play where top points plays least points in round 3?