"

Division #3: Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, Ottawa Senators, and Montreal Canadiens.

Division #4: Columbus Blue Jackets, Detroit Red Wings, Toronto Maple Leafs, and Pittsburgh Penguins.

"

That would suck so hard for Toronto. Would never fly. You're basically keeping the current division mostly intact but removing the Leafs from all of their current division rivals. Leafs fans would want to see Boston, Buffalo, Ottawa, and Montreal.

Columbus would be of no interest to Leafs. Pittsburgh generates no intrinsic interest other than being a good team. Detroit is a classic rival of Toronto but they're rebuilding now and don't hold much appeal. Plus you could never split Pittsburgh and Philadelphia into separate divisions. Wouldn't fly. 

I think fewer divisions is the way to go. Four divisions. Shift someone out to make room for Seattle if needed but no other re-alignment please. 

@WordsOfWisdom 

I agree that this is not ideal for the Leafs. I'm not saying that this will be the final setup. I think they will ultimately end up being with Montreal, Ottawa, and Buffalo. There are so many different ways you could align everything (like the Pacific Division).

Maybe what looks better is putting Boston with the New Yorks and then putting DET, CBJ, PIT, and PHI together. I like that, too.

Let's stop pretending that Columbus is a joke of a team for five minutes here. Everyone goes up and down. Detroit will be a solid team in say five years, and the Leafs have been awful for how long? Toronto gets a lot of say, but they're not above any other team in this league.

Who do you shift out of the Pacific for Seattle? There will be 9 teams in the Pacific Time Zone. Vegas would be the eastern-most team. They would have a ridiculous amount of travel to Nashville and Chicago numerous times every year.

Either way, I think the 8-division format is better because it alleviates some of those issues.

Let's have 32 divisions and be done with it.     8 divisions are entirely too many but it may be the only reasonable way to manage it.   I think there are entirely too many teams.

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Let's have 32 divisions and be done with it.     8 divisions are entirely too many but it may be the only reasonable way to manage it.   I think there are entirely too many teams.

32 is perfect for me. There is conference and division balance. The talent pool is big enough for 32 teams. I would not add any more for any reason. I thought 30 was fine, but 32 is good with me too.

20 minutes ago, belowthegoalline said:

I agree that this is not ideal for the Leafs. I'm not saying that this will be the final setup. I think they will ultimately end up being with Montreal, Ottawa, and Buffalo. There are so many different ways you could align everything (like the Pacific Division).

How about this:

Division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Boston, Ottawa

Division 2: Montreal, Rangers, Islanders, Capitals

Division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Columbus, Buffalo. 

Division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Devils

Quote

Division #1: Tampa Bay Lightning, Florida Panthers, Carolina Hurricanes, and Washington Capitals.

Division #2: Philadelphia Flyers, New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, and New York Islanders.

Division #3: Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, Ottawa Senators, and Montreal Canadiens.

Division #4: Columbus Blue Jackets, Detroit Red Wings, Toronto Maple Leafs, and Pittsburgh Penguins.

 

The first two divisions are easy to put together. You can use the geography to put Division 1 together, and you maintain the rivalry of Tampa/Florida. The second division also makes sense, since all of those teams are basically right on top of each other.

 

It gets a little trickier after that, but in keeping a “northeast/west” theme here would make sense. You can lump the Sabres and Bruins together, as well as the Jackets and Wings. So then it’s about putting the other four teams in good spots, but those could easily be flipped around a bit.

I often do this too.   Why?   What about Buffalo and Boston makes them go together other than that they both start with B?   I'm actually asking because I tend to do it too.

The more I'm thinking about this the less I like four divisions in each conference.   The way you have the above makes sense on many levels, but I don't like a scenario that has Pitt and Philly in two separate divisions.   But I don't have a way that makes sense in order to compensate for that.   I feel like somehow Buffalo geographically makes more sense with Division #4 but I don't know who from #4 I'd put in #3 to make that move possible.   Although, I think maybe flip Toronto to 3 and Sabres to 4 so that you have a Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal thing going on.   Boston makes sense with most of them from a historical perspective.   I agree that #1 and #2 just make sense geographically.   

Ultimately, I think I like  two divisions of 8 (well, I like it better.  As I already said, there are too many teams.).

It's admittedly not ideal.   And I still don't get Pitt and Philly in the same division.   But you can't split up the NYC-area teams.  The only other option--which is poor--is flipping the Capitals for the Penguins.    So, I guess it is what it is.      There may be developing a situation, too, that east and west conference don't play each other every year.  With 8 teams in a division, even if you just play ONE division from the other conference twice, it's already 16 games (20% of the season).  The other intraconference division 4 times gets you 32 games.   We're up to 48 games with 34 games left for your own division.   They would never lop 2 games off of the schedule and go to 80 games, but that would certainly make the math easier.

You could play your own division 4 times and each of the other divisions twice to get the same effect.   But the Flyers, Devils, Caps, Rangers, and Islanders each only playing the Penguins twice (once at home) would be tough to swallow.

Quote

Division #1: Anaheim Ducks, Los Angeles Kings, Arizona Coyotes, and Dallas Stars.

Division #2: San Jose Sharks, Seattle, Vancouver Canucks, and Vegas Golden Knights.

Division #3: Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames, Colorado Avalanche, and Winnipeg Jets.

Division #4: Minnesota Wild, Chicago Blackhawks, St. Louis Blues, and Nashville Predators.

I think if we're staying with 4 divisions that I flip the Coyotes and Stars for the Sharks and Vegas just as a matter of geography.   Vegas wouldn't have been my first choice there, but you can't split up Seattle and Vancouver.  I think that natural geographic rivalry will be pivotal especially early for Seattle.

In fact, now that I'm looking at it I get the reasoning behind divisions #1 and #2 as is.   I'm not a huge fan of San Jose in a different division than LA and Anaheim, but it may be necessary.    

The other two divisions make sense to me as is.

They again make more sense to me as two divisions of 8 teams, though.

The presence  of the Alberta teams in division 3 make travel there a beast, but it's really the only way this format makes sense.     And you keep the California teams together but still lend San Jose to a possible rivalry with the Seattle/Vancouver teams.

Unless sticking Dallas and Arizona in division 3 and moving Edmonton & Calgary to division 4 makes sense.   I'm not sure that it does.

Eight teams in a division is not ideal.   But it stays in line with what they already have set up.  It's too many in a division, IMO, but 8 divisions is too many and 4 in each is too few.    I don't see anywhere to go in between.   So of two not-so-great choices, I'd prefer the 4 divisions of 8 format.  YMMV.

Really cool topic, btw.

9 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

How about this:

 

Division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Boston, Ottawa

Division 2: Montreal, Rangers, Islanders, Capitals

Division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Columbus, Buffalo. 

Division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Devils

I prefer this, to be honest.   But I don't think you can break up the NY metro teams.   It doesn't make sense to me for the Rags and Isles to be in one division and the team immediately on the other side of the river in another.   With that exception, it's okay.   Although as a Flyers fan, stuck in a division with Columbus and Buffalo is a snoozefest.  I like that it keeps Pitt, but the other two teams will not be a gate draw in Philly.

Here's my guess to solve the 32 team mess which is to go back to 3 divisions per conference.  

EASTERN CONFERENCE: (16 teams)

Northeast Division: Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, Buffalo
Atlantic Division: N.Y. Rangers, N.Y. Islanders, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia
Southeast Division: Washington, Columbus, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida

WESTERN CONFERENCE: (16 teams)

Northwest Division: Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Seattle, Colorado
Pacific Division: San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Vegas, Arizona
Central Division: Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis, Nashville, Dallas
 

Dallas and Colorado have the most travel but that kinda has always been.  And the Southeast isn't so weak anymore which was an issue before.

Top 2 teams from each Division make the playoffs and Wild cards are the next two best in points records.

@hf101

The reason I don't like the 3 divisions/conference is that you now have unnecessarily unbalanced divisions.  You have 4 divisions with 5 teams and 2 with 6.    I don't know that they have to be equal number of teams, but I do it unless there's some compelling reason that I can't.  

Personally, I think the whole six division idea would be a huge mistake.

Once again, you are diluting the talent within the divisions...spreading it too thin across too many divisions, and, while it may not show right away, it WILL lead to weak division leaders getting in, and a weaker second place team getting in too.

Then people will complain about THAT, and the NHL will sit there scratching their heads saying, "Man we gotta change this again".

I still do like the two Conference set up (East-West) and keep FOUR divisions! Less divisions means each one is deeper, which in turn means the weaker teams will sink to the bottom and will have almost zero chance claim a playoff spot!

And for the love of puck, just go back to the top 8 teams in each Conference getting in with the two division winners getting seeds 1 and 2!! Everyone else, by points, goes 3-8, and then you go 1v8, 2v7 etc.

With 32 teams (once Seattle joins), again, division leaders should be strong, while 3-8 SHOULD be teams above .500 with seeds 7 and 8 being, at minimum, .500 teams (with less teams in the league before, some sub 500 teams seeded 7th or 8th).

And if anyone is concerned about "Seattle is Pacific, they should go in the Pacific...that will create too many teams in that division!"

Not a problem.

Move the Coyotes to the Central.

They are in Mountain Time (just like the Avs are), have no natural rivals in the Pacific anyways, and due to how bad they have been, are basically a "clean slate" team moving forward that could settle in nicely with current Central teams.

And yes, I know Edm and Cgy are Mountain Time teams also, but not only do they have a natural rivalry with each other, but also with the Pacific Time Vancouver Canucks.....those three teams should stay together.

Sometimes the best answers are the simplest. I find it extremely difficult to understand why "professionals" in the NHL have such trouble with things like setting up proper and long lasting alignments and playoff formats.

It's almost as if they are "overcooking the steak" or "over seasoning the soup".... ya know?  

30 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

@hf101

 

The reason I don't like the 3 divisions/conference is that you now have unnecessarily unbalanced divisions.  You have 4 divisions with 5 teams and 2 with 6.    I don't know that they have to be equal number of teams, but I do it unless there's some compelling reason that I can't.  

I think that could be balanced by the number of games played in each conference vs divisions.

Eastern teams play Western teams 2x  = 32 games

Each team plays other 15 conference teams 3 times.  45 games

Each team plays their division 1 or 2 extra times total - 5 additional games.

Out of the 82 games in a season, the only difference here basically in a conference is the divisions with 5 teams would play one extra random divisional game.  Otherwise, it is equal.

14 minutes ago, hf101 said:

Each team plays their division 1 or 2 extra times total - 5 additional games.

 

Out of the 82 games in a season, the only difference here basically in a conference is the divisions with 5 teams would play one extra random divisional game.  Otherwise, it is equal.

But it's not equal except in ways that begs the question, "Why bother having divisions?"

The 1 or 2 extra games versus intradivision opponents is different for the divisions with 6 that it is for those with 5.     You have 8 playoff seeds across 3 divisions, one of them having an extra team.   This is all something to go ahead and swallow if it were necessary, but it isn't.

Go with 2 divisions of 8 per conference and there's no "otherwise, it's equal."  It just IS equal.   The 4 x 2 is equal, too, but now we're just into a ridiculous number of too-shallow divisions.

16 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

Personally, I think the whole six division idea would be a huge mistake.

Once again, you are diluting the talent within the divisions...spreading it too thin across too many divisions, and, while it may not show right away, it WILL lead to weak division leaders getting in, and a weaker second place team getting in too.

I dunno.  I think it really comes down to playing all the teams in the conference as balanced as possible vs concentrating on divisional play as the league has now.

What's really the difference between the top two of 6 or 5 teams making the playoffs vs 3 of 8?

2/6 = 0.333 chance of making the playoffs

2/5 = 0.40 chance of making the playoffs

3 / 8 = 0.37 % chance of making the playoffs

You are still going to have 2 Wild card teams per conference so the best teams will still make it in.  And to say that any of the 6 Divisions are weak ??  That is going to constantly change as the League has made significant improvements with the Cap / Draft etc to balance the league of talent.

And when are we going to give up on Florida?  Good, bad, or mediocre they draw no one.   Can we just move them someplace sensible and be done with it?  Arizona, too.

36 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

Personally, I think the whole six division idea would be a huge mistake.

Once again, you are diluting the talent within the divisions...spreading it too thin across too many divisions, and, while it may not show right away, it WILL lead to weak division leaders getting in, and a weaker second place team getting in too.

 

Then people will complain about THAT, and the NHL will sit there scratching their heads saying, "Man we gotta change this again".

 

I still do like the two Conference set up (East-West) and keep FOUR divisions! Less divisions means each one is deeper, which in turn means the weaker teams will sink to the bottom and will have almost zero chance claim a playoff spot!

This.  Completely this.  All day every day this.   I really dislike the 6 division idea, primarily because there are two other options that cut the cake in equal portions and this does NOT.   

7 minutes ago, hf101 said:

vs concentrating on divisional play as the league has now.

 

If you're not going to concentrate on divisional play --something I would advocate on principle--there's no point to having divisions.   Neither for competition/rivalry sake nor for the idea of cutting down travel.   The only purpose to them at that point is for sorting.  No other.  So unless you're going to concentrate on divisional play and build rivalries, cut down on travel, etc., don't bother.  Go back to the 1982 version (that was the year, wasn't it?) of simply ranking teams 1-32  and the top 16 get into the playoffs.

36 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

And for the love of puck, just go back to the top 8 teams in each Conference getting in with the two division winners getting seeds 1 and 2!! Everyone else, by points, goes 3-8, and then you go 1v8, 2v7 etc.

I could argue this either way, but I'm okay with this.

6 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

But it's not equal except in ways that begs the question, "Why bother having divisions?"

I'm not a big fan of an emphasis on divisional ( rivalry ) play of the so-called Wed night rivalry night.  The reality is that all games are worth 2 points for a win.  

Basically, the difference is a division is a team plays a team in the division 4x, and other conference teams 3x.  The division with 5 would play only one extra team in their division 5x.  We are talking about 1 game here over the 82 games in a season.

If the lines were drawn as stated above the SE division  ( Columbus, Washington, Carolina, Florida, and Tampa Bay)  can you really state there is a difference in playing one extra game vs a divisional rivalry for the Southeast or Northwest Divisions?  

How about just get rid of all the divisions and just have 2 conferences.

The best records determine the seeding...period.

The best 8 teams in each conference are in.

The tie breakers of course will have to be figured out. 

1 hour ago, hf101 said:

EASTERN CONFERENCE: (16 teams)

Northeast Division: Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, Buffalo
Atlantic Division: N.Y. Rangers, N.Y. Islanders, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia
Southeast Division: Washington, Columbus, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida

 

WESTERN CONFERENCE: (16 teams)

Northwest Division: Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Seattle, Colorado
Pacific Division: San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Vegas, Arizona
Central Division: Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis, Nashville, Dallas

 

*****As an exercise given Seattle isn't the top two teams if they played this year.  

We would be looking at this for the playoffs if the season ended today.

Northeast Division: Boston, Toronto
Atlantic Division:  Pittsburgh, Philadelphia
Southeast Division: Tampa Bay, Washington

Wildcards... Blue Jackets / Devils     ----- No difference

Northwest Division: Colorado, Calgary
Pacific Division: Vegas, San Jose
Central Division: Nashville, Winnipeg

Wildcards.... Minnesota / Los Angeles  -----  Difference Calgary is in out is Dallas  (difference of 4 points)

This is just not that big of a change imo.

21 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

How about just get rid of all the divisions and just have 2 conferences.

 

The best records determine the seeding...period.

 

The best 8 teams in each conference are in.

 

The tie breakers of course will have to be figured out. 

The season length would have to be changed from either a 75  77 game or 90 game season.  

The owners wouldn't be happy with 75  77 games.  

5 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

The season length would have to be changed from either a 75 game or 90 game season.  

The owners wouldn't be happy with 75 games.  

Why???

1 minute ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Why???

Actually made a mistake in my above post.

 Other conference play  2 x 16 = 32 games

Same conference play 3 x 15  = 45 games

Total 77 game season.

The owners would make less money.   Or the players wouldn't be happy as their contracts would have to all be adjusted for the number of games played from 82 to 77.  Thus they would only get 93.90% of the current contracts.

19 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

Actually made a mistake in my above post.

 Other conference play  2 x 16 = 32 games

Same conference play 3 x 15  = 45 games

Total 77 game season.

 

The owners would make less money.   Or the players wouldn't be happy as their contracts would have to all be adjusted for the number of games played from 82 to 77.  Thus they would only get 93.90% of the current contracts.

It would rather be

Interconference: 2x16 = 32

Intraconference, Interdivision: 3x8 = 24

Intraconference, Intradivision: 4x7 = 28

For the total of 84, where they already had been some time ago.

40 minutes ago, More Hockey Stats said:

It would rather be

Interconference: 2x16 = 32

Intraconference, Interdivision: 3x8 = 24

Intraconference, Intradivision: 4x7 = 28

For the total of 84, where they already had been some time ago.

I'd be cool with that but how are you drawing the lines of your divisions?

8 hours ago, hf101 said:

 

I'd be cool with that but how are you drawing the lines of your divisions?

First of all, I think everyone is watching whether the Flames will be able to secure the deal for the new stadium. If not, then to Houston, or KC, or elsewhere in the Central they will go.

Second, the league may just swap Arizona out into Central.

Third, the league may relocate Arizona somewhere, too.

I can't believe Bettman will run a 9+7+8+8 league, even the MLB gave up on such a disbalance.

In a very long shot, however, I can see an NFL-like setup with 8 divisions:

* VAN, EDM, CGY, SEA

* SJS, ANA, LAK, VGK

* WPG, MIN, CHI, STL

* ARI, COL, DAL, NSH (crazy travel)

-----------------------------------

* BOS, MTL, OTT, TOR

* BUF, NJD, NYR, NYI

* PIT, PHI, DET, CBJ

* WSH, CAR, TBL, FLA

8 division winners and 2x4 best teams in each conference qualify.

Schedule:

In your own division: 4x3 = 12 games

Outside your division, select division, rotates: 4x4 = 16 games

Outside your division: 3x8 = 24 games

Outside conference: 2x16 = 32 games

Total: 84 games, too.

On 3/18/2018 at 9:13 AM, ruxpin said:

 

Division 3	Division 4
Edmonton Oilers	Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames	Los Angeles Kings
Colorado Avalanche	Arizona Coyotes
Winnipeg jets	Dallas Stars
Minnesota Wild	San Jose Sharks
Chicago Blackhawks	Seattle Whatchamahoozits
St. Louis Blues	Colorado Avalanche
Nashville Predators	Vegas Golden Knights

 

And you're going to shove Dallas from the Central Time Zone into the western most division? And bring Calgary and Edmonton over to the "Central"? Doesn't make sense to me.