NHL Realignment and Division Names

[ruxpin]

First, "Metropolitan" sounds very dumb to me.

But "Atlantic" for that division sounds extremely dumb too.

The problem is the Florida teams. You can't (appropriately) name a division the "northeast" division when you have two Florida teams in it.

So here's an idea that admittedly will NEVER work in reality (or as long as Buttman is around and intent on destroying the sport):

1. Eliminate the Florida teams. Just contract them. They are both worthless in terms of competitiveness and gate, so just eliminate them.

2. Move Columbus into the division with Detroit, Toronto, et al.

This gives both eastern divisions 7 teams and, therefore, gives both conferences 14 teams.

You name the Columbus, Detroit, Toronto, etc. division the "Northeast Division."

You name the Philly, NY, Pitt, etc. division the "Atlantic Division."

All problems solved. (Well, you still have the death of the Minny/Detroit rivalry, but I'm honestly not sure that Wings fans were aware that there was one)

[ruxpin]

How can the names Smythe, Adams, Norris, and Patrick identify a location to a new fan? Essentially then they have no meaning.

This.

I completely agree. I realize the above names were quaint and all that way back in the day, but I think going back to these would be incredibly goofy for a sport that wants to be mainstream and continental. The above is nice for a Bush league. Not for a sport that wants to be major league.

[JR Ewing]

Oh, this is really a shame. I hoped they would take their chance to come back with names that would be a throwback to the game's greatest players and/or builders, and wasn't so far removed from newer fans they've picked up: Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, etc. The NHL has an amazing history which the league run towards, not away from.

JR

[JR Ewing]

How can the names Smythe, Adams, Norris, and Patrick identify a location to a new fan? Essentially then they have no meaning. If you first look at the NHL is divided between the East and the West. The Atlantic ocean lines the East from North to South, the metropolitan division is the center of that north / south region, just as a city is the center of the suburbs and surrounding countryside. Anyway that is just how I can relate to the names.

If they kept the Atlantic division the same for the most part what would they call the combined divisions of the northeast and southeast?

I do prefer the name "Metro" as opposed to "Metropolitan" chances are most on TV and radio will shorten the name also.

Not to be overly sarcastic, but I would guess the location of the city would be the dead giveaway... We don't really need a divsion name like "Pacific" to tell us where Los Angeles plays.

JR

[ruxpin]

I really don't want to name the divisions/conferences after people. Again, I think that's Bush league.

Name trophies after people if you must, not divisions/conferences . It sounds like a local bowling league or little league or somethng.

By the way, to the Flyers fans who want to go back to the "old titles:"

They only existed from 74-93. I know that's twenty years and it's the "good old days" for a lot of you. I also know that many of you don't even remember that the Flyers were in the CAMPBELL CONFERENCE, not the Prince of Wales Conference, when they won their last cup (they were actually in the "West" division when they won their first--and you think it's goofy NOW!). They've never won a Cup while playing in the Prince of Wales,reached the finals twice, were one round and done 5 times and MISSED the playoffs 4 times in the 12 years they were in the Prince of Wales Conference. I don't think I get the love for the Prince of Wales Conference from Flyers' fans.

It's been East/West as long (or longer if you count prior to 1974) as it was the goofy names. Let's get over it. The geographic names make much more sense (that's why every other sport does it). Now, if we could just get the right geographic names!

[ruxpin]

Not to be overly sarcastic, but I would guess the location of the city would be the dead giveaway... We don't really need a divsion name like "Pacific" to tell us where Los Angeles plays.

JR

You know what? Not to be insulting, but I think that's just dumb. Just name it geographically and be done with it.

The "new" players/builders that people want to name divisions after (Lemieux, Gretzky, etc) have been out of the game awhile. Even Lemieux is already 8 years (Gretzky 14). And going back to the old names would make people spend more time on Wikipedia than on the standings page.

I'm sorry, but as a kid and even into my teens, I had no idea who Jack Adams or James Norris, etc. were. I didn't care, to be honest. I looked at the standings and, being a Flyers fan, I knew to look for the Patrick Division standings to see how they were doing, etc. I couldn't possibly have cared less who was behind the names of the divisions. They were before my time. Much as Gretzky, Lemieux, etc. are before the time of 10 year olds learning the game.

Most of them will be looking to see where their favorite team is in the standings and many won't care what they're named after.

For adults just learning the game, they may vaguely recognize the Gretzky or Lemieux names, but again, it's before their realm of exposure. They do, however, know pacific, midwest, east, etc. because presumably they've had some geography. Maybe they are even fans of other sports and because every other major sport does it by geography, that's what they're looking for. I know they scan down a list of 30 teams, but if they're from California and are looking for local teams, it helps that they can just scan for "Pacific" and not get out their decoder ring to figure out what the hell "Lemieux Division" has to do with California.

It's been geography for more years than bizarrely named divisions. Let's keep it that way.

[JR Ewing]

-This is a league that locks out its players more often than MIchael Jordan places bets.

-This is a league where discipline is handled in a way that doesn't do the word "inconsistent" justice.

-This is a league where the Director of Hockey Operations is sending nasty emails to the head of officiating, complaining about calls made/not made in reference to his own son, who plays in the league.

-This is a league that allows a man to be named as an All-Star at two positions, one of which he doesn't even play.

-This is a league that, carte blanche, gave complete control of the expansion process to one GM (Sam Pollock) who then wrote the rules to benefit his team above all others, completely hosing competitive balance for the next decade.

We could go on.

The NHL is already a bush league, and is already seen that way. Many people openly consider fighting being allowed to be a joke, to be bush league.

Division names, whether they be geographic or historic, don't draw fans in and they sure as hell don't keep them away. I don't think it's the end of the world that they went geographic, and I sure as hell don't think they should have gone back to Norris/Smythe/etc, but I don't see the harm, either.

JR

[JR Ewing]

You know what? Not to be insulting, but I think that's just dumb. Just name it geographically and be done with it.

LOL

Whenever somebody says "not to be insulting" the insult comes right after, just like "not to be sexist" is followed by something that would make Larry Flynt blush . Say it for real, own up to it: you think what I said is dumb. That's fine. It wasn't; you just disagree with it. I honestly think people can disagree without breaking it down to that level, but let your flag fly.

The "new" players/builders that people want to name divisions after (Lemieux, Gretzky, etc) have been out of the game awhile. Even Lemieux is already 8 years (Gretzky 14). And going back to the old names would make people spend more time on Wikipedia than on the standings page.

I'm sorry, but as a kid and even into my teens, I had no idea who Jack Adams or James Norris, etc. were. I didn't care, to be honest. I looked at the standings and, being a Flyers fan, I knew to look for the Patrick Division standings to see how they were doing, etc. I couldn't possibly have cared less who was behind the names of the divisions. They were before my time. Much as Gretzky, Lemieux, etc. are before the time of 10 year olds learning the game.

Most of them will be looking to see where their favorite team is in the standings and many won't care what they're named after.

For adults just learning the game, they may vaguely recognize the Gretzky or Lemieux names, but again, it's before their realm of exposure. They do, however, know pacific, midwest, east, etc. because presumably they've had some geography. Maybe they are even fans of other sports and because every other major sport does it by geography, that's what they're looking for. I know they scan down a list of 30 teams, but if they're from California and are looking for local teams, it helps that they can just scan for "Pacific" and not get out their decoder ring to figure out what the hell "Lemieux Division" has to do with California.

It's been geography for more years than bizarrely named divisions. Let's keep it that way.

For what it's worth, I also think that placing the Pacific teams in the "Lemieux Division" isn't the best idea. Then again, nobody ever has a hard time finding their team, no matter what the division is named. After all, you seemed to find the Flyers in the Patrick Division even though you never heard of Lester Patrick.

Anyway.

This is all fine, and I don't think that it's the end of the world either way. The league won't do better or worse based on how they name their divisions.

And we'll probably need to agree to disagree.

JR

[ruxpin]

Whenever somebody says "not to be insulting" the insult comes right after, just like "not to be sexist" is followed by something that would make Larry Flynt blush . Say it for real, own up to it: you think what I said is dumb. That's fine. It wasn't; you just disagree with it

Agree. In this case, though, it was done to mimic your "not to overly sarcastic" in your post I was responding to. I thought what you said was dumb (not because YOU said it. Clearly, you're not the only one saying it).

But to your point above, I sometimes do it deliberately. It's harder on this site because of the tone and also because of the censor, but I'm not above "no offense, but you're a dumb ass" or "You may be the dumbest person I've ever met. No offense."

I just find that funny.

No offense.

[ruxpin]

Division names, whether they be geographic or historic, don't draw fans in and they sure as hell don't keep them away. I don't think it's the end of the world that they went geographic, and I sure as hell don't think they should have gone back to Norris/Smythe/etc, but I don't see the harm, either.

I think we pretty much agree here. No offense.

I don't think there's any "harm" in the old names. I have to agree. I just think it's dumb.

[ruxpin]

And we'll probably need to agree to disagree.

Nah, I actually pretty much agree with you.

I mean, I still think naming the divisions after obscure people (especially if you go with the old names) is silliness, but you don't seem to be hanging your hat on that either. You *seem* to be saying it's not that big a deal either way. I actually agree, so what my point comes down to (I guess) is just leave it as is if it's not a big deal either way.

[JR Ewing]

Now that we have that settled.

JR

[JR Ewing]

Agree. In this case, though, it was done to mimic your "not to overly sarcastic" in your post I was responding to. I thought what you said was dumb (not because YOU said it. Clearly, you're not the only one saying it).

But to your point above, I sometimes do it deliberately. It's harder on this site because of the tone and also because of the censor, but I'm not above "no offense, but you're a dumb ass" or "You may be the dumbest person I've ever met. No offense."

I just find that funny.

No offense.

No, I definitely hear you. Text doesn't always convey meaning. For what it's worth, I wasn't mad. I've been doing this since the days of dial-up BBs, and pre-web usenet discussions on rec.sport.hockey, and I have yet to get mad during one of these.

JR

[Haliax]

Thought that this breakdown of travel was pretty cool.

Of note to me: how did Vancouver only play 5 back to back games in 2010-11 and 2 in 2011-12 when the league average was 17 and 15? This coming year it will be 17 for them. On the opposite side of that coin, Carolina had a crazy amount of back to back in 2010-11 with 33. Why is that? If you look at the past 2 full seasons you see that this number varies by a much greater margin among teams than it will in 13-14. At least they seemed to have gotten that figured out.

The amount of travel is interesting too. Detroit will do less travelling in the coming season than they have in at least the last 6 years, according to the writer of the article, despite the inclusion of the Florida teams in their division.

Overall, it seems like the Rangers have the easiest schedule in the league, at least going by travel/ back to back games.

Also of note to all you Flyers fans, despite travelling quite a bit more the last full season and this coming season than in 2010-11, the number of back to back games has also dropped significantly, less than half what it was in 2010-11.

[radoran]

I really don't want to name the divisions/conferences after people. Again, I think that's Bush league.

So, then. Glen it is, then?

[J0e Th0rnton]

You know what? if the NHL wants to really bring back division rivalry and playoff rivalry, I think the schedule should be heavily clustered with only teams in your division. Almost along the lines of 80% vs Division, 18% vs other teams in your conference and 2% vs the other conference. That would work out to 65 game vs division rivals, 15 games vs the rest of the conference, and 2 game vs the other conference.

I also think that for any First round matchups, they should default to playing teams in their own division if possible.

[hf101]

The geographic names make much more sense (that's why every other sport does it). Now, if we could just get the right geographic names!

Ok here is one. Atlantic and MiddleEast. Pretty much identifies location right? :unsure:

You couldn't really use East and MidAtantic unless they change the name of the Conferences.

I wouldn't mind going back to the "Prince of Wales" and the "Campbell" conferences, it keeps a history nostalgia to it. Then keep the divisions geographical. East, MidAtlantic, Central and Pacific.

[hf101]

You know what? if the NHL wants to really bring back division rivalry and playoff rivalry, I think the schedule should be heavily clustered with only teams in your division. Almost along the lines of 80% vs Division, 18% vs other teams in your conference and 2% vs the other conference. That would work out to 65 game vs division rivals, 15 games vs the rest of the conference, and 2 game vs the other conference.

But I don't think that is what the league wants. Fans want to see the best players in the NHL. I like the idea that every team will come to Philly for a home game.

[ruxpin]

I wouldn't mind going back to the "Prince of Wales" and the "Campbell" conferences, it keeps a history nostalgia to it

I guess it doesn't hurt anything (like JR said). I just don't see the point and it actually kind of bothers me. I mean, I'll watch hockey either way and who really cares in the end, but I just don't like it.

[ruxpin]

But I don't think that is what the league wants. Fans want to see the best players in the NHL. I like the idea that every team will come to Philly for a home game.

I'm kind of on board with this.

On the other hand, I still don't like interleague play in baseball and miss the days when the leagues in MLB were completely separate. With Centre Ice packages and the like, it's not like the old days when you could go only see Marcel Dionne once or maybe twice a year because games weren't televised and you had to wait to see them live or when they happened to play your team.

I think I might be okay with east playing east exclusively and west playing west exclusively. I think it would be unfortunate, though, for teams like Chicago and Detroit who do have history against each other to suddenly be entirely segregated from one another.

As you can tell, I could probably argue this either way and still help whomever I'm arguing against.

[hf101]

I guess it doesn't hurt anything (like JR said). I just don't see the point and it actually kind of bothers me. I mean, I'll watch hockey either way and who really cares in the end, but I just don't like it.

Yeah, me too, but then why call the trophy for the Eastern conference champion ..... the "Prince of Wales" trophy?

Renaming the Conferences gives more latitude to better labeling the divisions.....imo, but then the league didn't ask me.

[J0e Th0rnton]

I'm kind of on board with this.

On the other hand, I still don't like interleague play in baseball and miss the days when the leagues in MLB were completely separate. With Centre Ice packages and the like, it's not like the old days when you could go only see Marcel Dionne once or maybe twice a year because games weren't televised and you had to wait to see them live or when they happened to play your team.

I think I might be okay with east playing east exclusively and west playing west exclusively. I think it would be unfortunate, though, for teams like Chicago and Detroit who do have history against each other to suddenly be entirely segregated from one another.

As you can tell, I could probably argue this either way and still help whomever I'm arguing against.

Marcel Dionne makes Joe Thornton look like a Conn Smythe winner

[DAXflyer]

Pacific, Central, Metropolitan, Atlantic......

What say you? Do you like it?

The easiest thing they could have done after figuring out which teams would jump to the eastern conference is go strictly by geography. NORTHEAST: CANADIENS, SENATORS, MAPLE LEAFS, SABRES, BRUINS, RED WINGS, RANGERS, DEVILS and the SOUTHEAST: ISLANDERS, PENGUINS, BLUE JACKETS, FLYERS, CAPITALS, HURRICANES, LIGHTNING, PANTHERS. Take all the teams, line them up by latitude, and cut it down the middle. The only downside I see is the loss of division rival Flyers/Rangers games. However, I don't think the "division" games will be as important as before because of only having 2 divisions. What is the breakdown for the games played against the different divisions/conference?

[ruxpin]

Yeah, me too, but then why call the trophy for the Eastern conference champion ..... the "Prince of Wales" trophy?

Renaming the Conferences gives more latitude to better labeling the divisions.....imo, but then the league didn't ask me.

For me, I have no problem giving the trophies names. Like Vince Lombardi Trophy for the Super Bowl winner, or Conn Smythe, or Cy Young, or whatever.

I'm not sure what the difference is for me (I honestly cannot articulate it in any rational way), but naming divisions and conferences after people is just goofy. Even the NCAA doesn't name their conferences after people. Granted, a "Big 10" with 11 teams is probably WORSE than the Calvin Coolidge Conference, but I just don't like conferences, divisions, and leagues named after people at the pro level. I associate named divisions with pee wee and little leagues or church basketball leagues, etc.

[ruxpin]

Marcel Dionne makes Joe Thornton look like a Conn Smythe winner

Ouch.