Re-Alignment Decision Expected Tonight

[Slimpikins]

i would like to see top 3 teams from each conference make it and then the next 4 spots are wildcards. i think it would help reduce the chance that a team with a shitty record gets into the playoffs.

I agree there should be some sort of wild card to keep bad teams from making the playoffs.

The only problem is if the first two rounds are divisional match ups what do you do if one division gets six out of eight teams in? Match them up against a team completely across the country?

The old conferences solved that problem but with the elimination of divisions and conferences taking the place of the divisions there would be no set formula with whom to match up those extra teams.

I can hear the conspiracy theorists folding up new tin foil hats already

 

[Ties5o11]

Theyll fuck it up, big time.

So stupid, all they had to do was Jets to the Central and Preds to the SE.

I dont think that was the point. The point wasnt how to figure out how to re-align with Winnipegs move- the point was to create an entirely new system.

I like it, for the most part. Easier to qualify from the 7 team divisions, but then again, if you finish 5/8 in a division you probably don't deserve to be in the playoffs anyways. My worry is that I highly suspect some real mediocre teams from the 7 team divisions would end up playing in the playoffs on a fairly consistent basis.

 

[sherbert1421]

I agree there should be some sort of wild card to keep bad teams from making the playoffs.

The only problem is if the first two rounds are divisional match ups what do you do if one division gets six out of eight teams in? Match them up against a team completely across the country?

The old conferences solved that problem but with the elimination of divisions and conferences taking the place of the divisions there would be no set formula with whom to match up those extra teams.

I can hear the conspiracy theorists folding up new tin foil hats already

that's true. i guess there's no perfect answer on how to set up the playoff matchups.

but just to divulge more into how the wildcards could possibly work. you could have it to where the team with the best overall record plays the worst record of the wildcard team and so on. but then you might get into a bunch of tiebreakers with the wildcards if they have the same amount of points and that could just make it more confusing

i just don't like the thought of a team with say 50 points getting in and a team with 80 points not getting in because they are in a tougher conference

 

[Ties5o11]

This is certainly going to take some time Getting used to. It would be really weird to see teams like San Jose and Detroit playing against each other in the cup finals

FYP!

 

[devs30rko]

I'm actually a big fan. I love the thought if potentially having an all east/west final.

Watching garys presser, it was one of the few times I ever actually saw logic behind what he was saying. There are chances this could help.certain teams overall attendance and revenue and it didn't sound like there was as quick a fix as was once thought. Basically every option just left one or more teams pissed off where as most see to be pretty happy with this

I like the possibilities of this

 

[Ties5o11]

Also, on the taking the Pens lightly, I'm never sold on my team until the Cup is in their hands...ever...and this conference could be the most brutal in the league. Could be because some of the younger teams out West could change my mind on that. But a collective 18 games against Philly/Washington/NYR is really harsh. Throw in the Devils who always trap the life out of the Pens, and yikes.

Im not sure but I think the Pacific is actually tougher. Not only is there one extra team (thus harder to qualify for playoffs), there are a lot of strong teams.

And this is all before we bring up the travel issue.

 

[Ties5o11]

To add on (cannot edit 10 mins after post??)... I have not run the numbers but I highly suspect the new Pacific has had a higher points per team than the new Atlantic over the last handful of years. Of course anything can change moving forward.

 

[TiLoBrown]

I hate the idea of an all east final, worse is the idea of an all west one. The NHL is potentially taking away the only reason I'll watch the finals when the Devil's aren't play, seeing the west lose. Its a fake rivalry I know, but just like I hate the AL in MLB, I hate the west in the NHL.

 

[dboy97]

I like the new format. As a hockey fan that can remember the days of the Addams, Patrick, Smythe, and Noris Divisions in the Wales and Campbell conference, I can remember some playoff wars between the Bruins and Buffalo, Quebec, Montreal and every once and a while Hartford. The absolute hatred was unbelieveable playing these teams so many times then again in the playoffs absolute fucking war is what it was.

 

[TiLoBrown]

I just had another thought, the awesome Sportshoopla NHL banner has to be changed now.

 

[falconski]

bring back the diques (or some other team they can throw in the east) and whalers and I'm fine with it, really don't like the uneven conferences thing though

or get rid of the yotes and one of the florida teams, but I'd rather see the whalers return

 

[Bizzle McDizzle]

OMFGZ!!!1111ONE1!!!


HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE ALL STAR GAME??????

 

[LeaderOCola]

this sucks.

 

[LeaderOCola]

LMAO

 

[Ho_Brah]

Sort of like if MLB decided to have the Dodgers play most of its games against the American League? From a Kings fan perspective some quick thoughts:

The Kings will play its conference rivals "5 or 6" times. 7 times 5 is 35. The other 22 teams are each played twice. That's 44 games. 35 plus 44 is 79. So either we're moving off the 82 game format, or the Kings will play three of its conference rivals 6 times, and four of them 5 times.

However, here's something I don't get. In the East, where there are only 7 teams per conference, there are at most 6 games against 6 conference opponents (36 games) and -- oh, I get it. There are 23 non-conference teams (22 if you're in the West), so that's 46 games. 46 plus 36 equals 82. Never mind.

The Kings will only play the Wings and Blackhawks twice each per season, instead of four times. The same is true of (but less important regarding) the Blue Jackets, Predators, Wild and Blues.

The Kings will play the Stars twice instead of six times.

Something that can never happen in the new format: playing Detroit or Chicago in the first two rounds of the playoffs. Because the first two rounds stay within the conference (which is really more like a division, after all).

Similarly, the Sharks and Canucks will never play Chicago or Detroit in the first two rounds. That kind of sucks for their rivalries. The Avalanche and Wings also have bad blood that won't get sorted out until some future third round.

Teams who are going from weak divisions to tougher competition: Canucks and Capitals.

I'm not really sure what to make of the unbalanced playoff seed issue (eight of sixteen teams make the playoffs in the west; eight of fourteen make the playoffs in the east).

One thing that means: conferences with eight teams have more access to lottery picks, so they should get marginally better prospects. Small consolation.

I wonder what effect the new format will have on how many points it will take to make the playoffs. Currently (thanks to the Bettman point), the threshold (in the west) is about 96-97 points. But one of the reasons for this is that only the first place team in each division is guaranteed a spot. It's possible for entire divisions to make the playoffs while others only have one team making it.

But now, with the first two rounds staying entirely within the division (I mean, conference), it means that there are four guaranteed playoff spots in your division (I mean, conference).

For the last several years, the 3rd through 12th seeds have been bunched together for most of the season. Ten teams fighting for six spots. Starting next year, the competition will be tighter -- eight teams fighting for four spots -- and fiercer -- since those eight teams will spend more time playing each other.

However: currently if you have a couple of terrible teams in your conference, it doesn't affect the overall playoff picture much (since things reduce to 12 teams fighting for 8 spots, with two or three teams being doomed after the first few weeks)...starting next year, if you have a couple of crappy teams in your division (conference), and you happen to be in the east, you're looking at essentially five teams fighting for four spots. I have to say that sounds like a pretty likely scenario .

One thing I really like: with four conferences instead of two, it will now be possible for the Bruins and Flyers to meet in the finals, or the Wings and the Kings, or the Canucks and the Hawks (etc.).

There will be a lot fewer "four point games." Currently, the Kings (for instance) play four teams 6 times and ten teams 4 times. That's 64 games against teams the Kings are in competition with for playoff spots. And 18 against the 15 teams in the east. Starting next year though: the Kings will have 44 games against non-conference teams, and only 38 against their conference rivals.

That means that whether a team makes the playoffs or not will depend mostly on how it does against teams outside the conference.

More than double the non-conference games, and almost half the number of games against your direct competition.

That's odd, isn't it?

 

[mooger_35]

One thing I really like: with four conferences instead of two, it will now be possible for the Bruins and Flyers to meet in the finals, or the Wings and the Kings, or the Canucks and the Hawks (etc.).

Oooh there will be blood.

 

[Ho_Brah]

This just occurred to me. We often complain about the fact that the "Bettman point" (the point awarded to the loser in OT/SO games) makes games less exciting because teams have an incentive to play more conservatively just to get to overtime, where "everybody wins." However, so far, one force that keeps this in check is the fact that teams play within the conference 64 out of 82 games, and nobody wants to hand out extra points to rivals in their conference. And we have all observed the "who cares" attitude that takes over when playing out-of-conference games (i.e. it doesn't matter if we give away extra points to out-of-conference teams, because it doesn't affect our own playoff race).


But starting next year, out-of-conference games go from 18 to 44 (46 in the 7 team conferences). And games within the conference go from 64 to 38 (36 in the 7 team conferences).

This means that, instead of 18 out of 82 games with the "who cares" attitude, we'll be looking at 44 of them. Forty-four games in which there will be a strong incentive to play conservative, dull, prevent-defense hockey.

Get rid of the Bettman point. It's bad now, and it's about to be twice as bad. Or, 44/18ths as bad, to be exact. (My suggestion for how to do that is still the best in my humble opinion, but of course no one will ever do it.)

 

[dboy97]

This just occurred to me. We often complain about the fact that the "Bettman point" (the point awarded to the loser in OT/SO games) makes games less exciting because teams have an incentive to play more conservatively just to get to overtime, where "everybody wins." However, so far, one force that keeps this in check is the fact that teams play within the conference 64 out of 82 games, and nobody wants to hand out extra points to rivals in their conference. And we have all observed the "who cares" attitude that takes over when playing out-of-conference games (i.e. it doesn't matter if we give away extra points to out-of-conference teams, because it doesn't affect our own playoff race).


But starting next year, out-of-conference games go from 18 to 44 (46 in the 7 team conferences). And games within the conference go from 64 to 38 (36 in the 7 team conferences).

This means that, instead of 18 out of 82 games with the "who cares" attitude, we'll be looking at 44 of them. Forty-four games in which there will be a strong incentive to play conservative, dull, prevent-defense hockey.

Get rid of the Bettman point. It's bad now, and it's about to be twice as bad. Or, 44/18ths as bad, to be exact. (My suggestion for how to do that is still the best in my humble opinion, but of course no one will ever do it.)

I just read your idea for the OT tie. Wow that rocks teams would go balls to the wall to try to win that freaking game.

 

[SLY]

I like this idea.

 

[filosofy29]

It's already hard as hell to make it into the Western Conference playoffs.....well, it just got harder as they've added one more team to contend with.

Travel is still shitty for WC teams. Oh well. I fucking LOATHE how easy the Atlantic Division has it.