There's no real reason why the NHL should go the route of other leagues and create almost unchangeable Divisions. The NHL has gone through a great evolution, mostly the result of expansion, over the past 40 years, and during that time both Divisions and Conferences have been restructured. But somewhere during that time a few teams started getting League preference to keep their Divisions in tack, regardless of the geographical spread of the League and its new teams or teams in new cities.
It would be better and more interesting all around if the League put some flexibility into Division groupings, and in so doing also opened the door for some better alignment situations for those teams disadvantaged by the current alignment structure.
For that matter, the Conferences could use a shake up as well, perhaps even more than the Divisions.
Ultimately, most fans really want formats that lead to the best team in each Season winning the Cup. So it ultimately shouldn't matter too damn much which Division or Conference a team is in, as long as the opportunity is open for the best teams to succeed.
Yeah, it sort of irks me that Dallas is still in the Pacific and Vancouver isn't, probably for the sole reason that the 3 Western Canadian teams, for whatever reason, must remain together.
__________________
If you're telekinetic and you know it, clap my hands!
Seriously the conference and division names were chosen to honour those important to the game and they are replaced with geographic locations??!? It's always sad to lose a piece of the historic nature of the game.
I really think the NHL should take a tip from the MLB and NFL.. have two conferences that span the continent.. I mean you could easily do it and fans of the NW and Pacific wouldn't have to worry about only their teams spanning 3 time zones.. It could be done easily too.
But it could pretty much be
Conf 1: NW (add Chicago - gives the Wild a 'close' rival)
Atlantic (add DC - closer to teams than Pitts)
Central (add Pitts - close to Det and CBJ)
This rearranges it a little but atleast Pitts, Philly, DC are still in the same Conf.. Plus no heavy traveling for the NW Canadian teams like if they had the SE in the same Conf.
Conf 2: Pacific(add Colorado - closer to the rest of the teams than Van)
NE (no changes, perfect already)
SE (add Dallas keeps the whole division in the dirty south)
Doesn't change the NE which is fine as is.. A little harder for traveling for the Pacific, but still probably the best bet for the NHL if they didnt wanna screw with everything too much.
OR
just have a lotto for whose in what division and just make up cool names for each one
I am a traditionalist and would like to see incorporation of some of the old names again.
Conferences: Wales/Campbell
Division: Adams/Patrick/Norris/Smythe + 2 others
Divisional structure: sure, realign or make them as avant-guarde as you please. But eponymous non-geographic names please.
This is something I would love to have back. But, its sad that it isnt even being discussed at GM Meetings so sadly it wont ever happen unless a traditionalist ever becomes NHL commisioner.
Travel means that it's geography for good. You can tweak how often you play teams in the other conference, in-conference but out of division, and in-division; and you can expect realignment of a couple of teams as needed whenever there is expansion and/or relocation, but it's geography for good.
The East clubs won't give up their current modest travel burden. The West clubs are always going to have a crappy travel schedule, and there is virtually no way to improve their lot in that respect.
Now a very real possibility could be a future move to four divisions of eight each, should the NHL expand to 32 teams. That would permit a return to a format wherein four teams from each division qualify for the playoffs, with divisional semi-final and divisional final playoff rounds.
Yet the conferences would still be more or less intact, and the northern and southern divisions in the east and west would still follow geographical lines.
I really think the NHL should take a tip from the MLB and NFL.. have two conferences that span the continent.. I mean you could easily do it and fans of the NW and Pacific wouldn't have to worry about only their teams spanning 3 time zones.. It could be done easily too.
But it could pretty much be
Conf 1: NW (add Chicago - gives the Wild a 'close' rival)
Atlantic (add DC - closer to teams than Pitts)
Central (add Pitts - close to Det and CBJ)
This rearranges it a little but atleast Pitts, Philly, DC are still in the same Conf.. Plus no heavy traveling for the NW Canadian teams like if they had the SE in the same Conf.
Conf 2: Pacific(add Colorado - closer to the rest of the teams than Van)
NE (no changes, perfect already)
SE (add Dallas keeps the whole division in the dirty south)
Doesn't change the NE which is fine as is.. A little harder for traveling for the Pacific, but still probably the best bet for the NHL if they didnt wanna screw with everything too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake1588
Travel means that it's geography for good. You can tweak how often you play teams in the other conference, in-conference but out of division, and in-division; and you can expect realignment of a couple of teams as needed whenever there is expansion and/or relocation, but it's geography for good.
Certainly geography and keeping travel costs within reason is the biggest limiter to having a radically different alignment with a very flexible Division format. But a modified MLB-style alignment format could certainly work.
The biggest limitation to making any kind of significant adjustment to the Divisions within the current alignment structure (not including the powers within the NHL that wouldn't want to change) is having to work within the confines of an East-West Conference structure. Removing that structure would open up things to at least a bit more flexibility.
A modified MLB-style Conference structure, one that forms Divisions based on geographical proximity, but has Conferences that span the continent then opens the door to more flexibility in putting Divisions together. One can look at a map and easily see that there are a variety of ways in which many NHL teams could be grouped into Divisions, at least with respect to the eastern 2/3 of the continent. And without a strict East-West divide, there would be no reason why the 17 Eastern Time Zone teams, more than 1/2 the teams in the League, couldn't be divided almost equally between the two Conferences, 8 in one and 9 in the other. Thus dividing also the grand expanse of the far west between the two Conferences.
Another of the ultimate objectives would be to 'open' the system in order to make it easier to slot future new teams into appropriate Divisions, again based on their geographical proximity. The more 'closed' the system, the more disruptive changes seem to be, or some teams just end up with poor alignment conditions.
Seriously the conference and division names were chosen to honour those important to the game and they are replaced with geographic locations??!? It's always sad to lose a piece of the historic nature of the game.
I thought they were ordered by which when teams joined the league?
I don't even see the point of having divisions anymore, aside from scheduling. The conferences are the only thing that matters. I can't tell you the last time I looked at the division standings.
I don't even see the point of having divisions anymore, aside from scheduling. The conferences are the only thing that matters. I can't tell you the last time I looked at the division standings.
Oh, and also for seeding purposes. Still, I don't see the point. Just have the 2 conferences, and be done with it
I agree they shouldn't be carved in stone. In fact, the league should re-invision the divisions in terms of competitiveness. Based on the previous years record (and possibly taking into account up to 5 past years, weighted) the league should establish a "champions" division for the entire league, with the best teams in that division, re-made each offseason, and then work down from there...Champions, Ace, Select, etc, all the way to the "Southeast" division at the bottom.
That way we can just watch the good teams play each other and don't have to bother with those crappy teams no one likes
Living in Mexico, the OP must not get that same sense of geographic rivalry the rest of us Canadians do. The day the Canucks don't have a Canadian rival in their division is the day I stop watching NHL hockey.
I don't even like the idea of conferences. I would prefer something similar to College Basketball/Football. Teams would be able to choose who they play and how often while being required to play their divisional opponents a set # of times per year.
At the end of the season teams would than be ranked by points/schedule strength. Top 20 teams make it into the playoffs. #1 plays #20 and so on.
Reduce the # of regular season games to 70 to make way for an extra playoff series.
Certainly geography and keeping travel costs within reason is the biggest limiter to having a radically different alignment with a very flexible Division format. But a modified MLB-style alignment format could certainly work.
The biggest limitation to making any kind of significant adjustment to the Divisions within the current alignment structure (not including the powers within the NHL that wouldn't want to change) is having to work within the confines of an East-West Conference structure.
Removing that structure would open up things to at least a bit more flexibility.
Right, and that is something that the teams in the East will not agree to, given the benefits that those Eastern teams enjoy from minimal travel to divisional foes.
That's just in the East. In the west, the Canadian clubs in the Northwest would never agree to a restructuring that reduced the number of games between the three Western Canadian clubs, as those divisional rivalries are goldmines. The Central Division is also a hotbed of rivalries. In both divisions, rivalries mean revenues.
The only division with an outright problem is the Pacific, but those clubs are never going to be close to their divisional opponents, no matter how realignment occurs. The idea that if the Southwest and Northwest teams have a crappy travel schedule, then every team should have an equally crappy schedule will never fly.
Support for this conference realignment so that conferences span the continent would be frostily received and summarily dismissed. Tweaking of a club here or there is always possible, and necessary in the event of expansion/relocation, but that's about it.
It's always about the money. Come up with a sound economic reason for such a realignment scheme. That would be the only chance that it would have of success.
Living in Mexico, the OP must not get that same sense of geographic rivalry the rest of us Canadians do. The day the Canucks don't have a Canadian rival in their division is the day I stop watching NHL hockey.
So all hockey is to you then is the Canucks playing against the Oilers and the Flames? That's a rather limited appreciation of the game, if you don't mind me saying. So did you like the NHL more when Divisional rivals had to play each other 8 times in a Season? I would imagine so.
And do teams really have to be in the same Division in order to be rivals?
I don't even like the idea of conferences. I would prefer something similar to College Basketball/Football. Teams would be able to choose who they play and how often while being required to play their divisional opponents a set # of times per year.
At the end of the season teams would than be ranked by points/schedule strength. Top 20 teams make it into the playoffs. #1 plays #20 and so on.
Reduce the # of regular season games to 70 to make way for an extra playoff series.
You must not watch much NCAA football if you think a voter ranking system would actually be effective in the NHL. Could you imagine the *****ing that would go on around here if certain teams weren't voted over others?
Not to mention the inevitable "X-team is overrated!" calls.
I really think the NHL should take a tip from the MLB and NFL.. have two conferences that span the continent.. I mean you could easily do it and fans of the NW and Pacific wouldn't have to worry about only their teams spanning 3 time zones.. It could be done easily too.
But it could pretty much be
Conf 1: NW (add Chicago - gives the Wild a 'close' rival)
Atlantic (add DC - closer to teams than Pitts)
Central (add Pitts - close to Det and CBJ)
This rearranges it a little but atleast Pitts, Philly, DC are still in the same Conf.. Plus no heavy traveling for the NW Canadian teams like if they had the SE in the same Conf.
Conf 2: Pacific(add Colorado - closer to the rest of the teams than Van)
NE (no changes, perfect already)
SE (add Dallas keeps the whole division in the dirty south)
Doesn't change the NE which is fine as is.. A little harder for traveling for the Pacific, but still probably the best bet for the NHL if they didnt wanna screw with everything too much.
OR
just have a lotto for whose in what division and just make up cool names for each one
I would agree, but the difference is:
MLB has series of 3 or 4 games in a row. Teams can fly to a city and stay there for half a week before going to the next. You can play LAA & SEA right after each other but end up being there for 9 or 10 days.
NFL teams play once a week, you fly to the city, you play your game and then fly home.
NHL play a different team approximately every other day.
There's a huge difference there. It would mean more opposite coast trips, and much more travel in general. You couldn't play LA then SJ, then come home play a few games and then go back out to MIN and CHI.
Right, and that is something that the teams in the East will not agree to, given the benefits that those Eastern teams enjoy from minimal travel to divisional foes.
. . .
Support for this conference realignment so that conferences span the continent would be frostily received and summarily dismissed.
Well of course that is unfortunately the case. Heaven forbid that two "eastern" Divisions in a Conference might have one far western Division in the same Conference with them.
Because no matter how you slice it (the NHL map), most of the Central Time Zone teams are fairly close to the east, so having one truly western Division in each Conference would still mean that two of the Divisions in both the Conferences would be very compact geographically. For those "eastern" teams, 2/3 of their Conference rivals would be relatively nearby; and for the one western Division in both Conferences, out-of-Division road trips would be made easier because once you arrive then most of teams your visiting could potentially all be within a relatively small geographical area.
No matter how you slice it... 2/3 of the League is in the east!
