. . . .
Everyone is too wrapped up in keeping two conferences to realize that, at least right now, the two-conference system is ****. You have 17 Eastern time zone teams...shouldn't they all be in the same conference then?
. . . .
Yes, I've often posted about abandoning the East - West Conference structure in the NHL, but estevao's post in the Division Realignment thread gave me the idea to post this thread.
Let’s have a look at the geographical distribution of the teams in each of the 4 major leagues and see where there exists a logic for an East – West Conference structure.
NHL
Pacific = 13 %
Mountain = 13 %
Central = 17 %
Eastern = 57 %
If considering the Eastern Time Zone alone as being the “East”, then MLB and the NFL are best suited to have an East – West Conference structure, but those two Leagues don’t use that format. As for the NBA, no Eastern Time Zone teams need to be in the “West”, though Central Time Zone teams need to be split between “East” and “West”. The NHL makes the least sense of all to have an East – West Conference structure.
That’s now, but what about in the past?
From 1942 until 1967, well in fact from 1935 to 1967 there was only one team not in the Eastern Time Zone, Chicago (83 % ETZ, 17 % CTZ).
With the 1967 expansion, the percentage does shift a bit westward (58 % ETZ, 25 % CTZ, 17 % PTZ).
In 1970, (57 % ETZ, 21.5 % CTZ, 21.5 % PTZ).
In 1972, (62 % ETZ, 19 % CTZ, 19 % PTZ).
In 1974, (61 % ETZ, 22 % CTZ, 17 % PTZ).
In 1976, (67 % ETZ, 17 % CTZ, 5 % MTZ, 11 % PTZ).
In 1978, (65 % ETZ, 17 % CTZ, 6 % MTZ, 12 % PTZ).
In 1979, (62 % ETZ, 19 % CTZ, 9.5 % MTZ, 9.5 % PTZ).
In 1980, (57 % ETZ, 19 % CTZ, 14 % MTZ, 10 % PTZ).
In 1982, (62 % ETZ, 19 % CTZ, 9.5 % MTZ, 9.5 % PTZ).
In 1991, (59 % ETZ, 18 % CTZ, 9 % MTZ, 14 % PTZ).
In 1992, (62.5 % ETZ, 17 % CTZ, 8 % MTZ, 12.5 % PTZ).
In 1993, (61 % ETZ, 15.5 % CTZ, 8 % MTZ, 15.5 % PTZ).
In 1995, (57.5 % ETZ, 15.5 % CTZ, 11.5 % MTZ, 15.5 % PTZ).
In 1996, (57.5 % ETZ, 11.5 % CTZ, 15.5 % MTZ, 15.5 % PTZ).
In 1998, (55 % ETZ, 15 % CTZ, 15 % MTZ, 15% PTZ).
In 1999, (57 % ETZ, 14.5% CTZ, 14.5 % MTZ, 14.5 % PTZ).
In 2000, the percentages that still exist today.
Never has the Eastern Time Zone had less than 55.5 % of the League’s teams. And only from 1967 to 1974, and from 1993 until the present has an East – West structure been incorporated.
An East – West Conference structure simply has never fit the dynamics of the NHL, and it should be replaced by some other Conference structure.
I agree with estevao, that there should be serious consideration to change the current structure of how the teams are grouped in the League. I’ve even considered things such as having 3 Conferences, and the idea seemed to work well, at least on paper. However, I don’t think that there needs to be such dramatic change in the basic structure. A two Conference system can be made to work, and it can be done by keeping geographically based Divisions.
It costs the League more if the teams have to fly farther. That's why they did it.
I'm not saying that you should dramatically mix "eastern" and "western" teams together. I'm saying that there could be a more geographically equitable way to distribute the teams between the Conferences. If some Eastern Time Zone teams need to be put in a "Western" Conference then why not have one complete Division of ETZ teams in the "West", and a few CTZ teams in the "East". Such an arrangement would make it fairer for the ETZ teams that have to be in the West, and having a few CTZ teams in the East shouldn't be a serious disadvantage when compared to have 4 Time Zones in the West. Furthermore, having a geographically compact ETZ Division in the West would actually help with roadtrip travel in the West because there would be less travel when doing a roadtrip within that Division.
I always thought the east/west bias was in reference to media coverage, in which case, there is a bias. Its not one built on commentators being particularly fond of the eastern teams, but one that is based in population density and time zones. I.e. Population is much denser in the east and they have an earlier time zone, hence the lesser coverage of western teams.
I always thought the east/west bias was in reference to media coverage, in which case, there is a bias. Its not one built on commentators being particularly fond of the eastern teams, but one that is based in population density and time zones. I.e. Population is much denser in the east and they have an earlier time zone, hence the lesser coverage of western teams.
Using that reasoning, it could possibly help western teams if they played more games against a few more Eastern Time Zone teams. Now western teams primarily only have games against 2 ETZ teams, but imagine if there were a whole Division of ETZ teams in the "Western" Conference.
Isn't Columbus the one Eastern team in the Western Conference though? They're pretty close to all their div opponents. How would flipping an entire division out west help them? And how would flipping an entire western conf east help them?
Isn't Columbus the one Eastern team in the Western Conference though? They're pretty close to all their div opponents. How would flipping an entire division out west help them? And how would flipping an entire western conf east help them?
Detroit is also an Eastern team in the West. And Atlanta is further west than both of 'em, IIRC. (They're certainly further west than Columbus; I'm not 100% certain on Detroit.)
__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
Detroit is also an Eastern team in the West. And Atlanta is further west than both of 'em, IIRC. (They're certainly further west than Columbus; I'm not 100% certain on Detroit.)
Detroits really only a few miles west of Columbus, whereas Atlanta is like 75 miles west of Columbus
Why dont we just make it easy and say screw the divisions. 1 league, no conferences. 16 teams out of 30 make it. each team plays each team 3 times, making a total of 87 games. Add one game and make it a "Rival" game or something like that, for a grand total of 88 games to give each team 44 home and away games. Balanced Schedule, lots of travel both ways, no worrying about alignments. Done.
Why dont we just make it easy and say screw the divisions. 1 league, no conferences. 16 teams out of 30 make it. each team plays each team 3 times, making a total of 87 games. Add one game and make it a "Rival" game or something like that, for a grand total of 88 games to give each team 44 home and away games. Balanced Schedule, lots of travel both ways, no worrying about alignments. Done.
As an off-hand thought based on a study I read on efficient league structure design, it would be an interesting to see an argument that would propose teams get distributed amongst different divisions every few years. I suppose it would be done based on yearly performance taking time-zone into account. You'd end up with some pretty weird rivalries across the league and it'd make seasons a bit more interesting .
I like the idea of scrapping the East-West conferences since they don't fit the league that well. The idea of having no conferences and just an open league for competition is intriguing, but inter-division and inter-conference competition (were it better refined) would also be welcome to. I don't think divisions/conferences actually exist much for refining the competition but moreso for fans and to mitigate travel costs (for some teams -.-).
As an off-hand thought based on a study I read on efficient league structure design, it would be an interesting to see an argument that would propose teams get distributed amongst different divisions every few years. I suppose it would be done based on yearly performance taking time-zone into account. You'd end up with some pretty weird rivalries across the league and it'd make seasons a bit more interesting .
I like the idea of scrapping the East-West conferences since they don't fit the league that well. The idea of having no conferences and just an open league for competition is intriguing, but inter-division and inter-conference competition (were it better refined) would also be welcome to. I don't think divisions/conferences actually exist much for refining the competition but moreso for fans and to mitigate travel costs (for some teams -.-).
I see your reasoning for the first paragraph but you could also argue that it would deaden rivalries that already exist.
In general, I guess the travel cost is the back breaker of any realignment proposal. The only realistic option is to do 3-4 game series' like baseball does. I hate that format so I guess I'll just have to live with it as is, although I've always felt for a lot of teams in the west that have to fly all over the place.
It costs the League more if the teams have to fly farther. That's why they did it.
My crusade is against conferences, not divisions. In fact, I actually really like division rivalries, as they give a lot more flavor to the league. But the way that the divisions are crafted now actually does not optimize the travel budget or travel schedule.
The Atlantic and Northeastern divisions are always going to be super-condensed, I understand that. But why can't there be some geographical logic applied to the division(s) representing teams here on West Coast and in the Rockies? We have two divisions spanning three time zones for no logical reason. Furthermore, we have one conference spanning four time zones while the other spans one. It makes no sense - if you were crafting the league from the ground up, you just wouldn't do it this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tp71
Why dont we just make it easy and say screw the divisions. 1 league, no conferences. 16 teams out of 30 make it. each team plays each team 3 times, making a total of 87 games. Add one game and make it a "Rival" game or something like that, for a grand total of 88 games to give each team 44 home and away games. Balanced Schedule, lots of travel both ways, no worrying about alignments. Done.
Not really as much of a fan of this as you'd think...I hate that the Rangers get to travel by bus to 75% of their divisional away games, but I'm not going to ask them to stop doing so because we (the Sharks) can't do that ...it makes sense to keep nearby teams playing from each other fairly often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by estevao
My crusade is against conferences, not divisions. In fact, I actually really like division rivalries, as they give a lot more flavor to the league. But the way that the divisions are crafted now actually does not optimize the travel budget or travel schedule.
I like how the conferences are set up, but I guess that's partially because my team is in the East, and benefits from not having as tough a traveling schedule. However, I think it is cool to have teams that are somewhat geographically located near you in your divisions.
Also just wanted to point out when the East and West divisions were first produced in 1967, the divisions weren't separated geographically the teams in the East were just the new teams.
I remember I did a division-less/conference-less alignment. Teams had major and minor rivals that they would play 6 and 4 times while playing all other teams twice.
Teams could change who they were major/minor rivals with after each season and could even choose how many of each they would want: 4 major / 4 minor, 3/6, 2/8, 5/2, 1/10, 6/0, 0/12.
Because all teams play each other at least twice, having a single table would be effective (although potentially confusing). Estevao mentioned teams picking their playoff opponents (#1 team has choice of #14, #15, and #16) so even the playoffs could be both flexible and simple.
Come on, beyond a difficult to read standing (which could be broken up after every 8 teams) what is stopping the flex-alignment?
invictus, when the NHL went to 4 divisions they actually put the 4 non "Northeastern" teams (Los Angeles, Vancouver, Atlanta, California) into each of the 4 divisions. Interestingly, the NHL also tried a bracket-less first round of the playoffs this year.
I see your reasoning for the first paragraph but you could also argue that it would deaden rivalries that already exist.
It's true and it would be a problem of the system, even if you made the games more equal. It's a big problem in sports alignment, how do you balance the empiricism behind the most efficient way to determine which team is the best in the league, the emotion behind rivalries and between cities and the economics of travel and game interest .
Luckily the NHL sort of just went about this as it came and didn't stress too much (until recently I guess) XD.
I remember I did a division-less/conference-less alignment. Teams had major and minor rivals that they would play 6 and 4 times while playing all other teams twice.
Teams could change who they were major/minor rivals with after each season and could even choose how many of each they would want: 4 major / 4 minor, 3/6, 2/8, 5/2, 1/10, 6/0, 0/12.
Because all teams play each other at least twice, having a single table would be effective (although potentially confusing). Estevao mentioned teams picking their playoff opponents (#1 team has choice of #14, #15, and #16) so even the playoffs could be both flexible and simple.
Come on, beyond a difficult to read standing (which could be broken up after every 8 teams) what is stopping the flex-alignment?
invictus, when the NHL went to 4 divisions they actually put the 4 non "Northeastern" teams (Los Angeles, Vancouver, Atlanta, California) into each of the 4 divisions. Interestingly, the NHL also tried a bracket-less first round of the playoffs this year.
I remember this and liked it, but it's a hard decision to make to say that one team is a major rival and another is minor, especially in the East. Plus, you can't just say that there's 4 major and minor apiece - the U.S. west is best as a 4 major, and western Canada is best as a 2 major (or 5 major, if you count the rest of Canada).
It's not that the concept is bad...it's very good in fact, but implementation would be a *****, from pitch to president to people. And figuring out the alignment would be tough as well.
Yeah, initial implementation would be real difficult. Teams would have to coordinate with eachother on who wants to be a rival and on what magnitude.
It might almost be best to have a third party (me, me, oh, pick me) design an initial rival alignment and allow teams to make changes on their own after the first year.
I also meant to say that teams could choose how many rivals they have independent of each other.
San Jose could have 5 major rivalries with all the other far west teams and 2 minor rivalries with Dallas and Hamilton (assuming Phoenix relocates there). St. Louis on the other hand could have a major rivalry with only Chicago and have minor rivalries with 10 various other teams.
Hmm, how to make this erratic concept seem simple...
Yeah, initial implementation would be real difficult. Teams would have to coordinate with eachother on who wants to be a rival and on what magnitude.
It might almost be best to have a third party (me, me, oh, pick me) design an initial rival alignment and allow teams to make changes on their own after the first year.
I also meant to say that teams could choose how many rivals they have independent of each other.
San Jose could have 5 major rivalries with all the other far west teams and 2 minor rivalries with Dallas and Hamilton (assuming Phoenix relocates there). St. Louis on the other hand could have a major rivalry with only Chicago and have minor rivalries with 10 various other teams.
Hmm, how to make this erratic concept seem simple...
Make them self-schedule like each NCAA football program does?
Not really as much of a fan of this as you'd think...I hate that the Rangers get to travel by bus to 75% of their divisional away games, but I'm not going to ask them to stop doing so because we (the Sharks) can't do that ...it makes sense to keep nearby teams playing from each other fairly often.
Hahaha...oh i know...it'd be slightly rediculous to do something like that, however it would be interesting to see how some teams would do playing against every team in the league...and imagine the thought of a big rival final. Im not sure who SJs big rival is...I imagine the Ducks or Kings due to region...but imagine a big rival final...thatd be pretty cool...but it wouldnt happen...i think no matter how you align the divisions, someones getting pinched...theres just no fair way to do it...you just have to try and be as fair as possible. Personally, Id just love to lose the names of east and west, and go back to their proper names. And we all know what those are. It does make sense to have the regions playing more often, builds good rivalries, as long as we dont overdue it...see 8 divisional games. I think as a leaf fan, it would be interesting seeing each team 3 times a year, I personally would love that. I love the NHL and would love to see all the players more often...and it would be a neat way to keep the schedule perfectly balanced...although I know it'll never happen lol. Good points on both sides, although it would be just so hard to see anything changing, unless say Atlanta moves to Winnepeg...might allow Columbus to move over another division.
.
