Proposal on new divisions.

This has been discussed before but last night CBC talked about it and reckon right now its about 50/50 that this might happen. Bettman needs 20 of the 30 GM's to agree to this for it to get any go ahead apparently.

Eastern	Conference	Western	Conference
Flyers	Wings/Jackets	Wings/Jackets	Canucks
Capitals	Leafs	Jets	Oilers
Rangers	Canadiens	Blackhawks	Flames
Islanders	Bruins	Stars	Ducks
Devils	Penguins	Predators	Kings
Hurricanes	Sabres	Blues	Sharks
Lightning	Senators	Wild	Coyotes
Panthers			Avalanche

Personally I love this idea and hope the Wings get put into the same conference as the Stars. Not entirely sure how the spread of games will be done but apparently it will involve home and home with teams in the other 3 divisions with the remaining games being in your own division. First round of the playoffs are also likely to stay within the division as they had back in the early 90's. Bring it on if you ask me

If this really is the most likely outcome of the realignment then I see it being the Wings rather than the Jackets coming East. They have so much influence I think they will get their own way. As much as I would love to see the Wings in the Leafs division I have to honesty say that it makes much more sense geographically for Columbus to just take Atlanta's place in the south-East and be done with it.

The arguments at the moment are that the Wings want to go East but the league wants them West. The Wings are one of the biggest teams and therefore are worth a fortune to rival teams when they come to town and teams like the Stars and Predators in particular could use that more than teams like the Leafs, Habs.

I love seeing the Stars play the Wings as on a personal level that matchup holds more meaning to me than any other team. The Jackets would prove the easier team however

I am very sure there is no way they will keep the current layout. There are a lot of teams in the West particularly who are not happy with the current layout due to excessive travel so the league will almost certainly use the Jets relocation to completely over haul it.

The Stars have been one of the biggest in favour of realignment due to the distance to pacific teams and according to CBC near enough all of the West seem in favour of a change. It is the Eastern teams who are objecting for the most part.

not only that but i think for the west it would be great if they could keep the D(ir)etroit and Chicago rivalry. On a personal note i like the fact that the Toronto division has a few tasty matchups.

But one glaring ommission that has been rasied is that the penguins/flyers rivalry would be negated with them in seperate divisions. I would not be surprised if they shift flyers to the other division in the east. (unless someone more informed can tell me why the flyers would like to stay where they are.)

Yeah the Penguins/Flyers thing was brought up on CBC. I expect there will be some changes to this before is all said and done. I hope something along these lines are done though.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. From what you are suggesting, Homer all teams in a division could play the same fixture list - and then play-off against each other? If so it does seem a bit daft to play for 7 months, finish top of your division only to get dumped out by a club that's finished below in the standings. I hope the NHL doesn't muck it up in this respect.

How is that different to how they play now?

mc_homer wrote:How is that different to how they play now?

Because each team plays a slightly different schedule from others. It's enough to blur the final standings and their meaning. And although it's possible to get inter-division play-off match-ups it isn't fixed. It would be a fairly small change but in my eyes it's enough to spoil a little of the integrity of the competition. As things are now I think it's great but two teams playing an identical schedule only for one team to dump the other out when they've possibly finished 20 points behind is slightly farcical. The team that tops the division has already spent 7 months proving themselves the best. It's the type of thing that makes a European football fan snort at the Yanks and their obession with play-offs...

I'm wondering if this more of Homer and HLAB!

The pens local reporter also commented that each team would play everyone outside your division twice a season, with the other games made up by inter division games. Apparently both the pens and the flyers are completely against this as it would mean that a great interstate rivalry only gets two games a season. This would also get rid of the pens rivalries with the caps and the isles. I know this is only looking at my team point of view, and I would love to be in a division with the red wings, but I just don't see it being agreed on at the moment.

ronnie pander wrote:

mc_homer wrote:How is that different to how they play now?

Because each team plays a slightly different schedule from others. It's enough to blur the final standings and their meaning. And although it's possible to get inter-division play-off match-ups it isn't fixed. It would be a fairly small change but in my eyes it's enough to spoil a little of the integrity of the competition. As things are now I think it's great but two teams playing an identical schedule only for one team to dump the other out when they've possibly finished 20 points behind is slightly farcical. The team that tops the division has already spent 7 months proving themselves the best. It's the type of thing that makes a European football fan snort at the Yanks and their obession with play-offs...

In the current format teams within the same division play the same schedule as each other no? In the new format teams within the same division play their own division more than the other 3 exactly the same as in the current format where teams play their own division more than any other so not sure I see where the difference is.

We already have the ability for teams to dump out better teams in the playoffs based on the regular season, that has and always will be the case, realignment or not. In 2008 the Stars beat the Ducks and the Sharks in the playoffs after finishing behind both in regular season standings and all 3 of these teams had identical schedules.

mc_homer wrote:

In the current format teams within the same division play the same schedule as each other no? In the new format teams within the same division play their own division more than the other 3 exactly the same as in the current format where teams play their own division more than any other so not sure I see where the difference is.

We already have the ability for teams to dump out better teams in the playoffs based on the regular season, that has and always will be the case, realignment or not. In 2008 the Stars beat the Ducks and the Sharks in the playoffs after finishing behind both in regular season standings and all 3 of these teams had identical schedules.

Let's take the Stars and Ducks. Within the conference they'll play the same schedule but they won't when you include the Eastern teams. For example the Ducks play the Rangers twice this season - do the Stars? The Ducks are playing their only season match-up with the Caps tonight in Washington - yes the Stars will play the them too but do will they play them on the road or at home? You can see where I'm going with this. No team will play the same schedule as another in the league.

As a European I'd always be hyper sensitive to competition integrity - at least on the field (or rink) or play. I think on this side of the Atlantic the North Americans play-offs are often viewed with an element of artificiality anyway. Yeah, fair enough a team at the moment can emphatically prove themselves better than another over the course of an 82 game season but this proposed re-alignment removes any grey area and it's a move in the wrong direction. Team A finishes 20 points ahead of Team B after playing identical fixtures - why does Team A then need to play an inferior team that it's already proved itself better over an entire season. Seems a bit silly really. No, scratch that...it is silly.

Let's face it, if the Yanks ran the English Premier League they'd introduce play-offs. And thus a 9 month season could be reduced to meaningless as 8th placed Stoke City are crowned the Champions....

ronnie pander wrote:
Let's take the Stars and Ducks. Within the conference they'll play the same schedule but they won't when you include the Eastern teams. For example the Ducks play the Rangers twice this season - do the Stars? The Ducks are playing their only season match-up with the Caps tonight in Washington - yes the Stars will play the them too but do will they play them on the road or at home? You can see where I'm going with this. No team will play the same schedule as another in the league.

Those few differences will not make a huge impact in my opinion. Not as much as the difference in teams you play in the division compared to a team in a different division.

ronnie pander wrote:
As a European I'd always be hyper sensitive to competition integrity - at least on the field (or rink) or play. I think on this side of the Atlantic the North Americans play-offs are often viewed with an element of artificiality anyway. Yeah, fair enough a team at the moment can emphatically prove themselves better than another over the course of an 82 game season but this proposed re-alignment removes any grey area and it's a move in the wrong direction. Team A finishes 20 points ahead of Team B after playing identical fixtures - why does Team A then need to play an inferior team that it's already proved itself better over an entire season. Seems a bit silly really. No, scratch that...it is silly.

Let's face it, if the Yanks ran the English Premier League they'd introduce play-offs. And thus a 9 month season could be reduced to meaningless as 8th placed Stoke City are crowned the Champions....

I guess this is where we differ, in your example I don't see it as silly. Team A has proven themselves the better team over the course of the season but there will have been teams in that run that have been able to dominate them. There are a tons of different styles in the NHL, some work well against some teams while others don't. A team may be able to use their system to beat the majority of teams but if they can't adjust to the challenge that is put in front of them are they really the better team? It isn't like it is a single game knockout, it is a best of 7 series, the stronger team should really show over that course of time and if Stoke City managed to upset Manchester United over the course of 7 games then they have deserved it.

On the flip side I could say that a Brit could go to the NHL and completely scrap the playoffs and simply award the Stanley Cup to the team finishing top of the league even if it meant a team winning it a month before the season ended and making the final games a bit pointless. To me comparing the Premier League and the NHL are like comparing Apples and Oranges. European leagues in ice hockey also play a playoff format, it always has and always will be a part of it and in my opinion I prefer the excitement of a team having the chance to take down a stronger team as well as the excitement of those teams that are fighting tooth and nail to get that chance by finishing in the top 8, difference in schedule or not.

I would have agreed with you, Ronnie, right up to this weekend. Without the play-offs the MLB wouldn't have had the biggest story in their history.

The St Louis Cardinals were 10.5 games back from a wild card spot at the end of August. They then embarked on an amazing run that saw them snatch the wild card berth on the last innings of the regular season. They then beat the Phillies, Brewers and finally Rangers to win the World Series, thus giving the sport its biggest ever come back story!

mc_homer wrote:

Those few differences will not make a huge impact in my opinion. Not as much as the difference in teams you play in the division compared to a team in a different division.

Yeah, I agree. They're small differences but at least at the moment they're there. Removing them makes the play-offs, at least the early inter-divisional rounds that bit more frivolous.

mc_homer wrote:

I guess this is where we differ, in your example I don't see it as silly. Team A has proven themselves the better team over the course of the season but there will have been teams in that run that have been able to dominate them. There are a tons of different styles in the NHL, some work well against some teams while others don't. A team may be able to use their system to beat the majority of teams but if they can't adjust to the challenge that is put in front of them are they really the better team? It isn't like it is a single game knockout, it is a best of 7 series, the stronger team should really show over that course of time and if Stoke City managed to upset Manchester United over the course of 7 games then they have deserved it.

True, but I think if you're trying to determine the overall best team (as in theory a good competition does) then you have to look at the overall results across the entire league and not just a particular fixture. The 8th seed Ducks beat the Sharks in the play-offs in 2009. The Sharks couldn't answer Hiller's performance in net. So were the Sharks really the better team if they couldn't meet the challenge? Well actually of course they were...

mc_homer wrote:

On the flip side I could say that a Brit could go to the NHL and completely scrap the playoffs and simply award the Stanley Cup to the team finishing top of the league even if it meant a team winning it a month before the season ended and making the final games a bit pointless. To me comparing the Premier League and the NHL are like comparing Apples and Oranges. European leagues in ice hockey also play a playoff format, it always has and always will be a part of it and in my opinion I prefer the excitement of a team having the chance to take down a stronger team as well as the excitement of those teams that are fighting tooth and nail to get that chance by finishing in the top 8, difference in schedule or not.

Put it this way, if you have an NHL where everyone plays an identical fixture list i.e. the other 29 teams home and away and then you still have the play-offs then yeah, that's simply ridiculous in my book. As I said, the play-offs are almost an artificial way of generating excitement. Sure the Premier league title might be wrapped up a month to go before the end of the season but then that's just it way it goes. Truly the best team on the field of play emerges as the Champions. Of course off the field English football as a competition has been ruined by the flow of vast amounts of money towards a handful of elite but that's another issue!

Don't get me wrong - I'm not entirely against the concept of play-offs. And I understand the vastness of America as a continent makes regional divisions a neccessity and ipso facto some sort of play-off. I'm just saying...

DRIZ wrote:I would have agreed with you, Ronnie, right up to this weekend. Without the play-offs the MLB wouldn't have had the biggest story in their history.

The St Louis Cardinals were 10.5 games back from a wild card spot at the end of August. They then embarked on an amazing run that saw them snatch the wild card berth on the last innings of the regular season. They then beat the Phillies, Brewers and finally Rangers to win the World Series, thus giving the sport its biggest ever come back story!

Ha, fair enough, Driz. Sounds like quite a story. But that's America isn't it? Rather than obtaining true sporting excellence the number 1 priority is entertainment - the Hollywood factor.

Artificial or not it is still excitement and I would take that any day over the same old result day in day out. Of course there is an element of luck in a team hitting a hot streak at the right time but I would also argue that as is the case certainly in recent years that the difference between 1st and 8th seeds is fairly minimal. Just look at last season and with a couple of days to go 3-4 teams could have finished anywhere between 4th and 12th. If the lower placed team were able to come out on top over 7 games of direct competition with that team then yes I would consider them the better team.

I've never been a fan of the Premier League and always preferred the unpredictability of the World Cup. Different tastes and all that I guess.

mc_homer wrote:

I've never been a fan of the Premier League and always preferred the unpredictability of the World Cup. Different tastes and all that I guess.

The World Cup is a great event but at the end the overall winners are rarely if ever unpredictable. Still, maybe a no hoper like England could win it one day!

I think you're a little too young to remember pre-Premiership football but it was a very different landscape to the procession it has become now. Where the NHL has moved towards greater parity and the elimination of dynasties, our own football league has gone the opposite direction. The league system worked brilliantly for over a 100 years but money has simply corrupted the competition. I do admire the way NHL works to ensure the playing field is as even as possible. It's undeniably exciting.

ronnie pander wrote: I think you're a little too young to remember pre-Premiership football but it was a very different landscape to the procession it has become now. Where the NHL has moved towards greater parity and the elimination of dynasties, our own football league has gone the opposite direction. The league system worked brilliantly for over a 100 years but money has simply corrupted the competition. I do admire the way NHL works to ensure the playing field is as even as possible. It's undeniably exciting.

I may of been born in 1990, but i do remember pre-premier leauge football with guys like Chopper Harris, Tommy Smith etc where players did not dive around looking for free kicks and a strong hard challenge was celebrated. As a defender myself, i long for days when u can get a good hard centre-back challenge and not have the possibility of a red, although im pessimistic that will happen.


Also as a fan of scottish football, it is one of the most predictable leauges on the planet (il admit im a Glasgow Rangers fan here). All the money just goes to the two teams (Glasgow Celtic being the other for those who do not know) and it is not enough anymore to compete with the premier leauge, Ligue 1 or Eredivise, also the last time a team in scotland to win the top flight outside the Old Firm was Aberdeen in the early 80s under a certain Alex Ferguson.

That is why i like the NHL, players who dive are scorned at and probably punished by the ref for unsportsmanlike conduct. There are big hits and every team has at least one stand out player i.e. the blue jackets have Rick Nash for petes sake!!!! and due to the salary cap it makes it fairer(ish) overall

Back to the re-alignment question, I heard there was an idea that Nashville should take the south-east position of Atlanta and just stick Winnipeg in the central...... when is the whole thing going to be finalised anyway? But i also understand the plight of Dallas travelling as texas is MAHOOSIVE!!!!