Let's Go Blues

glen a richter wrote:

theohall wrote:

glen a richter wrote:The reason MLB had 14/16 was to limit the amount of stupid interleague bullshit, which will now be every franking day because of moving Houston to the AL which is complete and total bullshit. Anyway, this isn't a problem in the NHL obviously since east and west play each other plenty of times. If they're going to go with 16/14 they may as well make east only play east and west only play west until the Cup.

Teams like Colorado, Tampa Bay .and Florida would never approve a plan that did not include every team playing every team. They draw large crowds based on transplant fans and need those crowds.

Well of course they could just make sure everyone gets to play Washington and Pittsburgh because we all know those are the only two teams that matter.

You forgot the Red Wings.

Honestly though it's just whatever teams are hot in any given decade. Only difference with Pitt and Washington are that they've been and (will be) on a roll for as long as Ovechkin and Crosby are playing which will probably be the better part of 20 years. I remember in the 90's that every other Saturday game that NBC showed was Colorado vs Detroit and nobody really talks about Colorado anymore and I don't know that ANYBODY was talking about Pitt or Washington in the 90's.

I'm just pissed that it looks like they structured the entire "Conference D" around the precious Atlantic Division + Washington. Oh and the one extra team thing

glen a richter wrote:

theohall wrote:

glen a richter wrote:The reason MLB had 14/16 was to limit the amount of stupid interleague bullshit, which will now be every franking day because of moving Houston to the AL which is complete and total bullshit. Anyway, this isn't a problem in the NHL obviously since east and west play each other plenty of times. If they're going to go with 16/14 they may as well make east only play east and west only play west until the Cup.

Teams like Colorado, Tampa Bay .and Florida would never approve a plan that did not include every team playing every team. They draw large crowds based on transplant fans and need those crowds.

Well of course they could just make sure everyone gets to play Washington and Pittsburgh because we all know those are the only two teams that matter.

Wait, hold the phone... I'll get to see the Blues play (Anaheim) twice a year? So what about the free wins that we will be missing out on... oh wait you said the Red Wangs are still in our confere-divisi-o-mo-bobby?

Basically, we will get 38 conference games and 44 games against the rest of the league.

Example:
St Louis faces Chicago, Columbus and Detroit (18 games); Winnipeg, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville (20 games).

Which teams play 5 or 6 times is supposed to rotate season to season within the 8 team conferences.

So West 1 and West 2 currently play 38 conference games while East 1 and East 2 only play 36 conference games. As long as the league goes with unbalanced conferences, this will always be an issue.

One big advantage for the Blues to this re-alignment - only ONE West Coast trip. In the past, the Blues have had multiple West Coast trips often playing games on back-to-back nights - Edmonton/Calgary or Anaheim/SJ. While they still may have a West Coast trip with b2b game nights, it can only happen once per season, unless they break up all of the Western swing games, which I don't see happening. A big reason for the re-alignment is to reduce travel. We might actually see rested players consistently and more intense play in those conference matchups.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned much is that while we're doubling down on our rivalries with a bunch of teams... we're losing our rivalries with the Sharks, Canucks, Avs, etc...

I dunno. The more I think about this realignment, the less I like it, and I've never really liked it.

I propose we rename the central division's new conference as a welcoming to the renewed Winnipeg Jets, by honoring their all time points leader in the playoffs... The Tkachuk Conference.

kodos wrote:One thing that hasn't been mentioned much is that while we're doubling down on our rivalries with a bunch of teams... we're losing our rivalries with the Sharks, Canucks, Avs, etc...

I dunno. The more I think about this realignment, the less I like it, and I've never really liked it.

The Avs are a rival of ours?
The Sharks and Canucks rivalry will be diminished somewhat...but we'll still play them each twice and maybe in the playoffs every so often.
Meh...I'd rather keep Detroit in the division than have San Jose or Vancouver in our division...and like I said, the divisonal playoffs for the first 2 rounds alone make this a great plan. The divisional playoffs will be even better 3, 4, 5+ years from now when teams face each other in the playoffs often. If some playoff teams aren't rivals now, they will be down the road.

We have never played Columbus, Nashville, Minnesota, or Winnipeg in the playoffs. Wait a minute... aren't all these the 4 expansion teams from '99-'00?.. ... ... how did this happen?

cprice12 wrote:The Avs are a rival of ours?

Not so much the last few years, but a few years back, yeah.

kodos wrote:

cprice12 wrote:The Avs are a rival of ours?

Not so much the last few years, but a few years back, yeah.

Somebody may have mentioned this already, but I would be in favor of moving Colorado to our conference and moving Winnipeg to the other conference. That way, Detroit and Colorado could rekindle their old rivalry and Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Winnipeg could all be in one conference, creating a lot of buzz in Canada over new rivalries formed there.

kodos wrote:

cprice12 wrote:The Avs are a rival of ours?

Not so much the last few years, but a few years back, yeah.

Maybe for a short time...but only because both teams were good...and because we played them in the playoffs one year...which brings me back to the idea that playing teams in your division in the playoffs more often makes for better rivalries over the long run.

cprice12 wrote:

kodos wrote:

cprice12 wrote:The Avs are a rival of ours?

Not so much the last few years, but a few years back, yeah.

Maybe for a short time...but only because both teams were good...and because we played them in the playoffs one year...which brings me back to the idea that playing teams in your division in the playoffs more often makes for better rivalries over the long run.

I like them better when they are "naturally occurring."

Pens and Red Wings in the Cup Finals two years in a row? Granted, every two teams that face eachother in the finals end up hating each other by the end of it but still.

Hawks & Canucks?

Oilers and Stars in the late 90's, early 00's?

Way better when they just happen.

WaukeeBlues wrote:

cprice12 wrote:

kodos wrote:

cprice12 wrote:The Avs are a rival of ours?

Not so much the last few years, but a few years back, yeah.

Maybe for a short time...but only because both teams were good...and because we played them in the playoffs one year...which brings me back to the idea that playing teams in your division in the playoffs more often makes for better rivalries over the long run.

I like them better when they are "naturally occurring."

Pens and Red Wings in the Cup Finals two years in a row? Granted, every two teams that face eachother in the finals end up hating each other by the end of it but still.

Hawks & Canucks?

Oilers and Stars in the late 90's, early 00's?

Way better when they just happen.

Naturally occurring? What does that mean exactly?

The two most common things (but not the only things) that will create a fierce rivalry are, in my opinion...
1) Both teams being at least somewhat good (playoff teams).
2) Teams frequently meeting in the playoffs over a short period of time.

New rivalries may occur "naturally" among the teams in the division. But rivalries already exist between Detroit-Chicago, Chicago-St. Louis, St. Louis-Detroit. They should just get more intense, like in the good old days...as long as those teams remain competitive.

Back in the day, when hockey in St. Louis was the most fun to watch, in my opinion, was in the old Norris division days, when they had divisional playoffs. The Blues-Hawks rivalry was at an all-time high...it was nasty.
Some of the most exciting playoff hockey series' I remember the Blues being involved in, occurred during the Norris division days against the Leafs, Hawks and Wings.

Blues playoff opponents the last 6 years of the Norris division, before realignment and the elimination of divisional playoffs:

87-88:
Round 1: vs. Blackhawks
Round 2: vs. Red Wings

88-89:
Round 1: North Stars
Round 2: Blackhawks

89-90:
Round 1: Maple Leafs
Round 2: Blackhawks

90-91:
Round 1: Red Wings
Round 2: North Stars

91-92:
Round 1: Blackhawks

92-93:
Round 1: Blackhawks
Round 2: Maple Leafs

Can you imagine playing the Blackhawks 5 out of 6 years in the playoffs?
THAT, is how an intense rivalry is born... or re-born.

Here are my name ideas for the new conferences:

Twink Conference
Pansy Conference
Nancy Conference
Fairy Conference

Until we get more hatred going in this league, my names stand.

cprice12 wrote:

WaukeeBlues wrote:

cprice12 wrote:

kodos wrote:

cprice12 wrote:The Avs are a rival of ours?

Not so much the last few years, but a few years back, yeah.

Maybe for a short time...but only because both teams were good...and because we played them in the playoffs one year...which brings me back to the idea that playing teams in your division in the playoffs more often makes for better rivalries over the long run.

I like them better when they are "naturally occurring."

Pens and Red Wings in the Cup Finals two years in a row? Granted, every two teams that face eachother in the finals end up hating each other by the end of it but still.

Hawks & Canucks?

Oilers and Stars in the late 90's, early 00's?

Way better when they just happen.

Naturally occurring? What does that mean exactly?

The two most common things (but not the only things) that will create a fierce rivalry are, in my opinion...
1) Both teams being at least somewhat good (playoff teams).
2) Teams frequently meeting in the playoffs over a short period of time.

New rivalries may occur "naturally" among the teams in the division. But rivalries already exist between Detroit-Chicago, Chicago-St. Louis, St. Louis-Detroit. They should just get more intense, like in the good old days...as long as those teams remain competitive.

Back in the day, when hockey in St. Louis was the most fun to watch, in my opinion, was in the old Norris division days, when they had divisional playoffs. The Blues-Hawks rivalry was at an all-time high...it was nasty.
Some of the most exciting playoff hockey series' I remember the Blues being involved in, occurred during the Norris division days against the Leafs, Hawks and Wings.

Blues playoff opponents the last 6 years of the Norris division, before realignment and the elimination of divisional playoffs:

87-88:
Round 1: vs. Blackhawks
Round 2: vs. Red Wings

88-89:
Round 1: North Stars
Round 2: Blackhawks

89-90:
Round 1: Maple Leafs
Round 2: Blackhawks

90-91:
Round 1: Red Wings
Round 2: North Stars

91-92:
Round 1: Blackhawks

92-93:
Round 1: Blackhawks
Round 2: Maple Leafs

Can you imagine playing the Blackhawks 5 out of 6 years in the playoffs?
THAT, is how an intense rivalry is born... or re-born.

You explained it perfectly and that's exactly what I meant: good teams that face each other a lot in the playoffs. The difference under this realignment plan is that they are doing the 1 v. 4, 2 v. 3 repeat for each conference and I think that's just pushing the rivalries too much. It's so much cooler when the same teams just happen to face each other in the playoffs a lot year after year, which, if you're a really good team, will be happening a lot anyway. I was just critiquing the NHL trying to control its teams too much.

WaukeeBlues wrote:

cprice12 wrote:

WaukeeBlues wrote:

cprice12 wrote:

kodos wrote:

cprice12 wrote:The Avs are a rival of ours?

Not so much the last few years, but a few years back, yeah.

Maybe for a short time...but only because both teams were good...and because we played them in the playoffs one year...which brings me back to the idea that playing teams in your division in the playoffs more often makes for better rivalries over the long run.

I like them better when they are "naturally occurring."

Pens and Red Wings in the Cup Finals two years in a row? Granted, every two teams that face eachother in the finals end up hating each other by the end of it but still.

Hawks & Canucks?

Oilers and Stars in the late 90's, early 00's?

Way better when they just happen.

Naturally occurring? What does that mean exactly?

The two most common things (but not the only things) that will create a fierce rivalry are, in my opinion...
1) Both teams being at least somewhat good (playoff teams).
2) Teams frequently meeting in the playoffs over a short period of time.

New rivalries may occur "naturally" among the teams in the division. But rivalries already exist between Detroit-Chicago, Chicago-St. Louis, St. Louis-Detroit. They should just get more intense, like in the good old days...as long as those teams remain competitive.

Back in the day, when hockey in St. Louis was the most fun to watch, in my opinion, was in the old Norris division days, when they had divisional playoffs. The Blues-Hawks rivalry was at an all-time high...it was nasty.
Some of the most exciting playoff hockey series' I remember the Blues being involved in, occurred during the Norris division days against the Leafs, Hawks and Wings.

Blues playoff opponents the last 6 years of the Norris division, before realignment and the elimination of divisional playoffs:

87-88:
Round 1: vs. Blackhawks
Round 2: vs. Red Wings

88-89:
Round 1: North Stars
Round 2: Blackhawks

89-90:
Round 1: Maple Leafs
Round 2: Blackhawks

90-91:
Round 1: Red Wings
Round 2: North Stars

91-92:
Round 1: Blackhawks

92-93:
Round 1: Blackhawks
Round 2: Maple Leafs

Can you imagine playing the Blackhawks 5 out of 6 years in the playoffs?
THAT, is how an intense rivalry is born... or re-born.

You explained it perfectly and that's exactly what I meant: good teams that face each other a lot in the playoffs. The difference under this realignment plan is that they are doing the 1 v. 4, 2 v. 3 repeat for each conference and I think that's just pushing the rivalries too much. It's so much cooler when the same teams just happen to face each other in the playoffs a lot year after year, which, if you're a really good team, will be happening a lot anyway. I was just critiquing the NHL trying to control its teams too much.

Good teams don't face each other "a lot" in the playoffs year after year under the current system...and the odds are against it happening. Sure, it might happen a couple times, but teams from different divisions are all tossed in to the top 8 and reseeded. The chances you'd play a division rival a lot in the playoffs every year are far less with the current system. When was the last time the Hawks played the Wings in the playoffs? I didn't look it up...but it's been a long, long time.

With the divisional playoffs, the teams that you are battling for playoff spots against, you will play in the first and/or 2nd round every year.
When was the last time a team faced another team 5 out of 6 years in either round 1 or 2 in the current system? It hasn't happened.
And sure, the really good teams may face each other in the playoffs a few times over the spam of 5 or 6 years...but that's only a couple teams out of 15 or 16 teams. And to be honest, the really good teams are going to be rivals anyway, they don't need playoffs to create a rivalry.

It's not like the NHL is trying something new...they are going back to a system that worked much better in fueling rivalries by pitting teams against each other that are very familiar with each other.

I don't think the league is forcing anything. They're allowing more rivalries to happen by letting the teams that play each other the most during the season, play in the early rounds of the playoffs...just like they used to.

The two rounds of intra-division playoffs will be awesome. I'm just wondering what they are going to do once the four division/conference champs are decided. Will they "seed" them according to their record? Or will they be divided by the two "western" and two "eastern" teams? If they do that, they will still have to use each team's record to determine home ice for each series, and the Cup Finals. But watch Bettman award home ice to the winner of the All-Star Game.

As long as the league is willing to adapt this as it goes to perfect it, I like it. The divisional playoffs are going to be great. So great IMO, that they outweigh any other negatives.

Sure, it sucks for some conferences to have 7 and others 8. But, that really only impacts the bubble teams. And, if you take 5th out of 8, I'm not going to be up in arms that you didn't make it. Legit Stanley Cup contenders will make it regardless of 7 or 8 teams.

And, it sucks to put Florida teams with Ottawa. But, that's their problem, not mine. Maybe it's not fair, but it doesn't impact the Blues, so I don't really care. I will say that splitting up the teams in close proximity doesn't really make much sense either though. I think developing rivalries among teams within a bus ride of each other is more important than worrying about the Panthers having to take a 6 hour flight or whatever it is.

As Curt and others have pointed out, let's not forget that the divisional playoff is exactly how it used to be before Bettman became commissioner. When he changed it to the current format, people (myself included) were upset about it. I've been hoping for a return of 4 divisions and divisional playoff since 1994.

As for forced rivalries, I think that the playoffs are going to be awesome. Go back and watch video of the 1991 or 1992 seasons (for example) and watch some Blues and Hawks games. Did that hatred look forced? Not at all, because it was genuine. Chris Chelios, Dave Manson, and Ed Belfour would have rather stabbed a Blues player than talk to him, and vice-versa. Obviously, the rules and social aspect of the game is completely different now, and as much as we all want them to, those days are never coming back. But some of that hatred will be restored.

With that said, the regular season will seem forced (in my opinion). For purposes of this argument, I'll refer to the other Western division as the Smythe. There's no reason that Norris teams should only be playing Smythe teams twice per season. Also not a fan of how the playoffs will re-seed after the first 2 rounds. The realignment isn't exactly what I wanted (pre-94), but it's a step in the right direction.