13 minutes ago, belowthegoalline said:

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.

I agree.   My preference would be bringing the Oilers and Flames to Division 4 and moving Colorado and Dallas to Division 3.   Makes sense for Dallas but not as much for Colorado.   

Wait a minute.  I screwed it up altogether.  I had Colorado in two divisions (maybe they'd have a better shot if they played in two?). I forgot Vancouver.  Hope they don't burn any buses over it.  Try this again:

I kind of wanted to keep Arizona out west because of Vegas, but it really doesn't matter.   You have two Mountain Time Zone teams in Division 3 and two in Division 4.   Not ideal but not a horrible thing.   I guess 4 divisions/conference gets around that, but I really don't like 4x4.  The divisions are too shallow and become pointless after awhile.   And, really, having a division of just the 4 Mountain time zone teams really doesn't cut down on travel much for any of them.  Edmonton to Phoenix is about the same flight time as Edmonton to LA and as Winnipeg to Phoenix.   So, I think the travel works.

On 3/18/2018 at 12:48 PM, 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 don't have any problem with this.

Or...This idea kind of stinks in the sense there will be some teams and, therefore, some players you don't get to see every year, but in the NFL, a team only plays one division in the other conference each year--which rotates.  I'm not sure with television and streaming if it's as big a deal anymore if you don't see a team every year.  YMMV.

So, 

Interconference - ONE division:   2 x 8 = 16

Intraconference, Interdivision:  3 x 8 = 24

Intraconference, Intradivision:  6 x 7 = 42

Total of 82.   It's one more game than currently, but I don't know that the owners will be upset about 1 extra game receipts.

The 3 versus the intraconference/interdivision (just like yours) makes it that you have a different number of away games than home games against certain opponents, but that would be flipped every other year, as well (in theory).    And the bulk of your points (or lack of) would  come against teams in your division.   Under this set up, I would keep the current 3 x 3 + 2 playoff format we currently have, but I wouldn't be opposed to straight up division winners get top seeds and the rest of the 6 at large seeded 3-8.

On 18/03/2018 at 10:15 AM, ruxpin said:

 

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.

Thanks.  I thought about the same thing. The difficulty is, you practically have to make a division out of the New York area teams because they have so many. Someone gets pushed out.   

If you put the Devils back in, then it's bye bye Capitals. 

On 18/03/2018 at 10:04 AM, WordsOfWisdom said:

How about this:

 

Division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Boston, Ottawa

Division 2: Montreal, Rangers, Islanders, Devils

Division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Buffalo, Capitals. 

Division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

The new eight division format would get the NHL primed and ready for expansion to 40 teams.  

On 18/03/2018 at 11:10 AM, 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.

That's the main problem with having too many divisions. You get weak division leaders. However, given the parity in the NHL today, I don't think it really matters any more.

With an 8-division format, you could have the division leaders get in automatically, and be seeded 1-4 (home ice), and then fill out the remaining spots with wild card teams. 

On 3/19/2018 at 6:09 PM, ruxpin said:

I kind of wanted to keep Arizona out west because of Vegas, but it really doesn't matter.   You have two Mountain Time Zone teams in Division 3 and two in Division 4.   Not ideal but not a horrible thing.   I guess 4 divisions/conference gets around that, but I really don't like 4x4.  The divisions are too shallow and become pointless after awhile.   And, really, having a division of just the 4 Mountain time zone teams really doesn't cut down on travel much for any of them.  Edmonton to Phoenix is about the same flight time as Edmonton to LA and as Winnipeg to Phoenix.   So, I think the travel works.

4 divisions would cut down on travel if you change how many games you play against your division and other divisions. (Hint: that topic is coming up soon)

Also, how does having eight divisions make things shallow? It would all depend on how the playoffs are structured. (Again, a topic I will talk about soon). If they give every division two teams in the playoffs, yeah you are going to screw someone over. But if every team gets one, and then you have 4 wild card teams, that would make it a little easier for teams in deep divisions to get in, and it keeps a bad team out of the playoffs. Like @WordsOfWisdom  said.

I agree the four division system makes sense. I just don't agree it's the best solution.

1 hour ago, belowthegoalline said:

how does having eight divisions make things shallow?

Opinion statements, of course, but shallow because only 4. At 4, why bother even having divisions? And why not the absurdity of 32 divisions.  I like the heavy division play and the best among them moving on to play the best of the others. At 4, it's frankly by definition shallow. As in number of teams shallow. 

 I hate the idea, to be honest. 

I know the NFL has small divisions but it works due to the small number of games.  

With the large number of games, only 4 becomes pointless. To me it weakens the regular season. At four, don't even bother with divisions. It's silly. 

Not as silly as 6 uneven divisions when that isn't remotely necessary, but still silly. 

On 20/03/2018 at 9:33 PM, ruxpin said:

Opinion statements, of course, but shallow because only 4. At 4, why bother even having divisions? And why not the absurdity of 32 divisions.  I like the heavy division play and the best among them moving on to play the best of the others. At 4, it's frankly by definition shallow. As in number of teams shallow. 

 I hate the idea, to be honest. 

But what about my newly retooled eastern conference divisions?  

(shown below)

On 20/03/2018 at 2:22 AM, WordsOfWisdom said:

How about this:

 

Division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Boston, Ottawa

Division 2: Montreal, Rangers, Islanders, Devils

Division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Buffalo, Capitals. 

Division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

Divisions of 4 seems small, but I don't see it as an issue. The 1st place team in each division would get home ice in the playoffs. Everyone else would fight over the remaining 4 wild card spots. (Assuming you want to keep 8 teams in the playoffs per conf.)

Using the division format above, this would be the playoff picture today:   

Division 1:

- Bruins

- Leafs

- Red Wings

- Senators

Division 2:

- Devils

- Rangers

- Islanders

- Canadiens

Division 3:

- Capitals

- Penguins

- Flyers

- Sabres

Division 4:

- Lightning

- Blue Jackets

- Panthers

- Hurricanes

Team seeds would be:

1. Lightning

2. Bruins

3. Capitals

4. Devils

5. Leafs

6. Penguins

7. Blue Jackets

8. Flyers

The Devils (being the product of an exceptionally weak division), would be seeded 4th. That would be the value of winning your division.

28 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

But what about my newly retooled eastern conference divisions?  

(shown below)

 

On 3/20/2018 at 2:22 AM, WordsOfWisdom said:

How about this:

 

Division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Boston, Ottawa

Division 2: Montreal, Rangers, Islanders, Devils

Division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Buffalo, Capitals. 

Division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

28 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Divisions of 4 seems small, but I don't see it as an issue. The 1st place team in each division would get home ice in the playoffs. Everyone else would fight over the remaining 4 wild card spots. (Assuming you want to keep 8 teams in the playoffs per conf.)

A couple of things.   Your team selection isn't horrible.   With only four teams in a division, I don't think you can avoid issues like this, but I think you probably want to keep Montreal in a division with at least Boston.   I like your division one and it makes sense--except, for me, the absence of Montreal.   The 8-team divisions avoid some (probably not all) of this.

My problem with 4-team divisions isn't just the playoff format/seedings.   The four division winners plus 4 at large would be the way to go if you went the 4-team division route.   That part makes enough sense.    It's the inter vs. intra division (and then the inter-conference) play of the schedule.    I'd want to weight the schedule so that intra-division teams play each other more often than they play others, but with only four, how many times do you really (as a Flyer fan, for example) really want to play Pitt, Buffalo (ew) and Washington before that becomes a bit boring or absurd (or absurdly boring?)   "Oh, it's Thursday, must be one of Pitt, Buffalo, or Washington!"   

For divisions to work -- for me (YMMV) -- it should be the teams in that division rising to the top or bottom largely due to playing each other and being the best among that grouping...and then going on to play the best of the others.    I think 4 is too shallow a pool for this to be done effectively (and with an eye to some entertainment value).  To me, it wouldn't be.   It's also why I keep using the word "shallow," because I'm not just thinking in terms of playoffs.  

I think 8 is too many, actually, and may be why @hf101 was trying to cut the baby in half with a 5-5-6 format.    But 8 at least gets a larger pool of intra-division play while still allowing for teams to play the other divisions.  And the number of times a team plays each intra-division opponent doesn't reach the level of the fans thinking, "oh, THEM again!"  

The 5-5-6 that HF advocated probably fits this part of my criteria nicely provided they go the route  of the NFL and only play one inter-conference division each season.   ie., weighted first for intra-division, then intra-conference, and then 2 games (or maybe three, I haven't yet given a lot of thought about how to allocate the games in this set-up) against one inter-conference division.   The obvious problem with this is that Toronto, for example, would only see Winnipeg once every three years.  That may not be palatable for either market (especially for Winnipeg since Toronto would be a gate draw).   Plus, I'm not a fan of the uneven divisions when there are obvious ways to balance them.  And let's not give the league the excuse to add 4 more teams just to make it even.

8 keeps most natural "rivalries" in tact.  I agree with HF that this has been overly-abused.   But, again to use the NFL comparison (sorry), Eagles, Giants and Cowboys fans get up for games against each other far more than other games (unless in context of playoff positioning, etc.).   An Eagles-Cowboys game gets people charged regardless of context.   And there's clearly no geographic reason why Dallas & Philly should be grouped together, right?  Pitt-Philly in hockey the same way (regarding people getting up for the game, not the geographic oddness) -- although waning due to recent Pitt success and Philly ineptitude.   Contrarily, in baseball when they realigned the divisions years ago, Pitt-Philly went from being a huge draw to "meh,"  only to be replaced by other other rivalries (although I don't think Florida-Philly has ever been on the same level).

I just like 8 better due to the depth of intradivision play and the ability to keep more "rival" cities (for lack of a better term--I don't mean to over-exaggerate this) together in groups.

As you have them, they're okay, if not particularly exciting.   I don't think I'd hate them.  My biggest problems are the Montreal thing (more important of the two) and not being terribly excited about the division the Flyers would be stuck in.  I'm not at all interested in Buffalo and never have been.  But they have to be in someone's division, right?

Oh, real quick.  No one answered me about the typical desire to have Buffalo and Boston together.   Why is that?  Are you aware of people in those cities actually thinking that's a thing or is it just that they both start with B or that they have simply usually been in the same division? 

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

A couple of things.   Your team selection isn't horrible.

Thanks. 

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I think you probably want to keep Montreal in a division with at least Boston.

Now that I think about it,  Boston is a long way from Toronto. How about this:

Revised division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

My problem with 4-team divisions isn't just the playoff format/seedings.   The four division winners plus 4 at large would be the way to go if you went the 4-team division route.   That part makes enough sense.

Actually I just discovered a major flaw that sinks it:  You can't have all four teams in the division making the playoffs. That's just not right, even with a strong division. It ruins division based rivalries if everyone gets in. 

Although the system is sunk, here were my revised divisions anyway:

Revised division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa

Revised division 2: Boston, Montreal, Rangers, Islanders

Revised division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Capitals, Devils.

Revised division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

That truly nails it I think. 

Yes I know about the Devils, but the New York area has too many teams. Someone gets left out no matter what. I think Rangers and Islanders fans would trade New Jersey for Boston and Montreal any day of the week. 

In baseball, the Yankees and Mets are in separate leagues. 

Actually, wait....... now that I think about it: I'd do this:

Revised division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa

Revised division 2: Boston, Montreal, Rangers, Devils

Revised division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Capitals, Islanders.

Revised division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

There. That covers all the rivalries.  

1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Revised division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa

Revised division 2: Boston, Montreal, Rangers, Islanders

Revised division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Capitals, Devils.

Revised division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

Of the two, I like this better but either is the best to date.   I'd settle for either one if we're going with 8 4-division teams (an alignment which would, in general, not be my preference for reasons stated earlier).

I'm starting to move to HF's "cut the baby in half" idea as a fallback despite the dislike of uneven divisions when there are two options that make them even.    WoW, I hadn't actually thought of the possibility you raised of all one division making the playoffs until you raised that issue.  I suppose that's happened in the NFL (I can't think of a specific example at the moment, but I think it's happened), but it really isn't a preferred result.

I think it would happen in the above scenario, wouldn't it?    Toronto would be the only team from Division 1, Boston the only one from Division 2,  All 4 teams from division 3 are currently in, and then 2 from Division 4.    I actually prefer that, though, to the idea that the top 2 teams from each get in and you have a situation where a Detroit or Ottawa get in by default despite having horrible seasons.   Same with division 2, although the Islanders or Rangers could still possibly make it in the current format (mathematically, if not realistically).  

I still prefer the 2 x  8 in each conference, though.  (Ironically, I was against that concept when they first introduced it!)

On 3/18/2018 at 10:32 AM, 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

By the way, if we're going to go with 6 divisions, this is exactly the way I'd break up the teams.  I'd still be in favor of somehow scheduling so that intra-division is weighted, and then intra-conference, and then inter-conference.   I *think* (without going through the iterations) that this would be difficult -- at least the weighted intradivision -- with unbalanced divisions.   But I think I actually prefer it to 8 divisions.

I suppose in the interest of travel that you could flip San Jose and Colorado, but I really don't like breaking up the California teams.  Oddly, I was okay with WoW splitting up the New York Metro teams but that's kind of weird, too.    I like yours because, especially in the east but for the most part in the west, your arrangement keeps traditional rivalries in common divisions.  

In the effort to at least weight intra-conference games, what would your thoughts be of an eastern division only playing two of the western divisions in any given year and then rotating them?   It would keep teams like Winnipeg or Edmonton, etc., from going 2 years without playing Toronto like a true rotation would have, but they would miss Toronto 1 out of every three years.  What would that look like mathematically?

So, the east divisions would play 2 divisions in the west (home and away).  That would be either 20 or 22 games depending upon which division they matched up with.   Oh man, this is getting unwieldy already. 

So, if you continue with the above and just play every intraconference team 4 times, that gets you 60.   You'd have a total of 80 or 82 games depending which interconference divisions you play.   You could potentially just randomly add 2 games for teams at the 80 threshhold.  i don't know how  to allocate those.  I guess an extra home and away against someone?   Say it were this year, though.   Would it be fair that Pittsburgh played Washington two extra times while the Flyers play Buffalo?   I'm not sure.

The other possibility is that you play each intrerconference team twice.   That gets 32.

Intra-division 6 times.   (Either 24 or 30 games depending upon size of division)

That's either 56 or 62.

Then, 2 times against the other intra-conference teams.  22 or 20 depending upon the division again. 

If my math is right, that gets 78 or 82 games.     I guess you have to randomly add 4 games somewhere but I'm not sure how that's done that no one's whining about playing the Caps or Pens or Lightning extra times while someone else plays Ottawa or Buffalo (just using this year as an example).  

I've had a bit of rum, so the above may be off, but I think it's right.

Maybe the eastern team plays the western division with the 6 teams every year and rotates the 5-team divisions?    That way it's always 22 games.     

And then they play each of the other 15 intra-conference teams 4 times for 60.

That gets you a schedule of 82 games for everyone.

The problem with this is that 6 teams in each conference get to see the other conference every single year.   It's probably okay for those of us in Philly or Washington (except for those who get to see each team).  The lucky thing is that in your set up above, all Canadian teams are in 6 team divisions so at least the Canadian teams all get to see each other every year.

I don't know.  I still think 4 divisions of 8 is easiest but I'm at least coming around to entertaining this.

7 hours ago, ruxpin said:

 

In the effort to at least weight intra-conference games, what would your thoughts be of an eastern division only playing two of the western divisions in any given year and then rotating them?   It would keep teams like Winnipeg or Edmonton, etc., from going 2 years without playing Toronto like a true rotation would have, but they would miss Toronto 1 out of every three years.  What would that look like mathematically?

As a fan who goes to about 10 home games a year, I personally like to see the teams we don't play as often.  I wouldn't like the idea of having to wait a couple of years to see McDavid, or the Wild or Johnny Gaudreau.  Granted there are teams I wait until the next year to go watch them play, but I would rather go to one of those games vs multiple games vs the Rangers or Islanders.  

For me the next alignment is less about playing mostly the divisions and building rivalries as it is about parity throughout the league and with that mindset playing the rest of the league as often as possible beyond your conference.  So the  ( East vs West play 2 x) is just a little less important than ( Inter conference - 3 x) which is a little less important than Division play 4 x or 4x +1)  I believe this is essentially what the league has now with 2 Conferences and 2 divisions within each conference and not playing every team in a division 4 x)

I think the above is a better measure for League parity than playing the few teams in a division 6 times if we went with less play throughout the East vs West.  So when teams like Tampa Bay and Nashville post over 50 wins in a season they basically won vs every team in the League at least once throughout the season, we know that these two teams are truly the best in a given year.

2 hours ago, hf101 said:

 

As a fan who goes to about 10 home games a year, I personally like to see the teams we don't play as often.  I wouldn't like the idea of having to wait a couple of years to see McDavid, or the Wild or Johnny Gaudreau.  Granted there are teams I wait until the next year to go watch them play, but I would rather go to one of those games vs multiple games vs the Rangers or Islanders.  

 

For me the next alignment is less about playing mostly the divisions and building rivalries as it is about parity throughout the league and with that mindset playing the rest of the league as often as possible beyond your conference.  So the  ( East vs West play 2 x) is just a little less important than ( Inter conference - 3 x) which is a little less important than Division play 4 x or 4x +1)  I believe this is essentially what the league has now with 2 Conferences and 2 divisions within each conference and not playing every team in a division 4 x)

 

I think the above is a better measure for League parity than playing the few teams in a division 6 times if we went with less play throughout the East vs West.  So when teams like Tampa Bay and Nashville post over 50 wins in a season they basically won vs every team in the League at least once throughout the season, we know that these two teams are truly the best in a given year.

Thanks for the explanation.   I don't mean this as an insult in any way, and not that I'm right or you're wrong ,just an observation:  we have two diametrically opposed priorities when it comes to this subject.  I really think it's the wrong way to go to do everything in the name of parity.  That's what the cap and reverse order of draft, etc. is for.  I would firmly argue that if it's not weighted to division there's absolutely zero purpose or argument to even having divisions.    People are putting divisions together using travel arguments -- which is utter crap if we're playing everyone equally or only one more time.     Others based on rivalries.  Also crap.

Just list the 32 teams in one grouping and whatever 16 teams arbitrarily come out with the better record in this snoozefest called "parity" and made ever worse by incessant three point games and non-hockey activities like a shootout or speed grocery shopping get to go to the playoffs!    Whoohoo.  I may become exclusively a football fan before long

That said, if they're going to stay essentially the same as now (and the bolded above), I'm okay with that.  Going with more divisions and NOT weighting to divisional play renders the divisions utterly pointless, IMO.

On 23/03/2018 at 9:29 AM, ruxpin said:

I really think it's the wrong way to go to do everything in the name of parity

Amen!

On 23/03/2018 at 9:29 AM, ruxpin said:

I would firmly argue that if it's not weighted to division there's absolutely zero purpose or argument to even having divisions.

Agreed.  The divisions are intended to cut down on travel and build rivalries with your nearest teams. 

I actually hated when baseball started interleague play. Again, as a Jays fan, I have no interest in seeing any of the National League teams unless it's in the World Series. Toronto has no rivalry with any of them. 

23 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Amen!

 

 

Agreed.  The divisions are intended to cut down on travel and build rivalries with your nearest teams. 

 

I actually hated when baseball started interleague play. Again, as a Jays fan, I have no interest in seeing any of the National League teams unless it's in the World Series. Toronto has no rivalry with any of them. 

You saw my post regarding baseball in the other thread, but I completely agree with the baseball thing. 

I didn't like the interleague thing, either. I actually view it (and always have) as an interruption to the season. 

"I don't get to see certain players every year" blah blah blah.  First of all, is your television broken?  This isn't the 1970s where if they don't come to town - - or you don't go to theirs - - you don't see them. Second, so what?  I don't think that's what a team sport is supposed to be about.  I respect someone who has that opinion but I fundamentally disagree with it.  

I think some of the ideas or trends - - the balanced schedule (it's effect made worse by way too many teams), the death of the importance of regional rivalries, illogical emphasis on parity (especially in hockey where "parity" is entirely a manufactured FRAUD), emphasis on "skill" at the expense of emotion and force, ending games with dog and pony shows, etc. is castrating the sport and making it a painfully boring milktoast snoozefest. 

It's honestly increasingly difficult to watch a full game and with every "improvement" they're making that worse.  

I thought they were looking at this:

METRO: NYR, NYI, NJD, WashDC, Philly, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Carolina

ATLANTIC: Tampa, Florida, Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Boston, Buffalo, Nashville

CENTRAL: Minnesota, Dallas, Colorado, Detroit, St. Louis, Winnipeg, Chicago, Vegas

PACIFIC: Seattle, Vancouver, Arizona, LA, Anaheim, Calgary, San Jose, Vancouver

Biggest changes: Swapping Nashville and Detroit to get Red Wings back in the old "Norris Division," and with football foes Minnesota and Chicago; and moving Vegas to CENTRAL so all of us in the upper plains can escape winter for a weekend of gambling and hockey in Vegas, baby! Cheap flights, too.....