Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Owners Vote to Change Trade Deadline

Pardon the InterDucktion: Debating Realignment

We don't have to travel to Dallas as much!

ROBBY:

In case you haven't heard yet, the NHL's Board of Governors has adopted a radical new league alignment that abolishes the existing Western and Eastern conferences and instead creates four smaller conferences that consist of seven or eight teams. I'll save all of the gory details, but the relevant info for the Ducks is that they will now be in an 8-team conference (with Los Angeles, San Jose, Phoenix, Colorado, Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton) and that only the top four teams in each conference make the playoffs. The other big talking point is that every team will now play a game in every other team's barn.

I have three words to describe this: Do. Not. Like.

Star-divide

The biggest issue I have with this new conference alignment is that it limits the Ducks' chances to make the playoffs moving forward. The Ducks currently enjoy a 53.33% chance of making the playoffs in today's format. Under the revised alignment, the Ducks will only have a 50% chance of making the playoffs. These odds are sttill better than most other professional sports, but what really pisses me off is that existing Eastern Conference teams (save Winnipeg) get an unfair boost in their odds of making the playoffs. Instead of the same 53.33% chance that every team currently has, the realigned structure will give clubs in the seven-team conference a 57.14% chance of making the playoffs. So while the Ducks' odds of making the playoffs decreases by 3.33%, Eastern Conference teams actually see their odds raise by 3.81%. That's just not fair.

One of the arguments I've seen in favor of the new alignment is that Western Conference teams will somehow benefit by forcing every team to visit their arena at some point during the year. While that's true, this new alignment will only further exacerbate the already-biased media coverage of teams like the Ducks. If you think Montreal or Boston having to play in Anaheim once a year is somehow going to counteract the fact that every team in our conference plays in either the Pacific or Mountain timezone, you're insane. If you're a fan of baseball, you're familiar with this concept. The NL West and the AL West both receive significantly less attention and promotion than their brethren throughout the rest of the country. It was bad enough being in the Western Conference as it is. We're now going to be completely ignored, especially since the revised alignment lacks any meaningful TV draw (sorry Los Angeles and San Jose, but nobody really considers you all that important on a national scale). At least now we have four games a year against the likes of Detroit and Chicago to remind people that hockey exists on the West Coast.

The other argument I've seen supporting this new alignment is that it will create meaningful rivalries in the conferences. We've discussed rivalries here at AC, and I don't think this new structure is going to help our existing rivalries at all. For one, we'll be playing San Jose and Los Angeles the same amount we currently do (there's actually a chance under the new format that we will only play them five times a year instead of six) and our games against the hated Red Wings will be cut in half. I also don't necessarily buy that it's a good thing for the Ducks that the Penguins will come to town every year. I think the fact that you DON'T play every team at home every year adds to some of that mystique. Again, I use baseball as an example, but it makes it special when you play the Yankees at home because it only happens every so often. Now that this will be a yearly affair, I think it sort of cheapens that idea. When combined with the fact that Anaheim will actually lose some games against their existing rivals, I just don't see the positives.

But hey, I guess there is one silver lining. Instead of hearing from Predators fans four times a year how dirty and cheap we are, we'll only have to hear it twice. So there's that.

Chris, what do you think?

CHRIS:

Well Robby, when you proposed this post to me, the first prerequisite was that we disagree. While I disagree in general, I can't COMPLETELY disagree with the points you make. Of course there is no arguing that there is inequity inherent in the fact that the conferences aren't evenly divided. But I've made peace with that by considering the benefits the new alignment will have on the league as a whole, especially when it comes to travel.

The teams from the East will always travel less than the West, but the current system only exaggerates the problem. Under the new four conference format, the Eastern teams will travel more and the Western teams will travel less. For example, this season Toronto has to take two trips to Florida to play the Panthers. After the realignment they'll have to take two extra trips south. Conversely, the Ducks will only have to make one trip to Dallas instead of their usual three. Also the relative distance for each trip is cut down for the West Coast teams. While the Ducks replace trips to Detroit with trips to Vancouver, Montreal has to go all the way to Tampa rather than a short jaunt to Philly.

Another thing I like about the new system is that it is essentially divided by time zone. One division includes Pacific and Mountain teams, one includes Central and Eastern teams, and the other two are entirely contained in the East. Columbus, Dallas and Detroit in particular will see increases in their local television ratings with more of their games in more accessible timeslots. Detroit may not need it a whole lot, but Columbus and Dallas will take any help they can get in marketing their product, especially to kids who wouldn't necessarily be able to watch a game that starts at 9 or 10 pm. Those kids become fans; they have their parents bring them to the games; they buy merchandise; they become future season ticket holders the possibilities are endless. Fewer late night games won't solve all of Columbus' problems, but strengthening a struggling market by any increment is good for everyone.

You claim this is a negative, because the Ducks will get less national coverage, but I don't see much changing. The biggest national coverage they've got recently was the coaching change and Bobby Ryan on the trading block. How much less could the national media cover the Ducks? It might even turn out to be beneficial to the Ducks exposure, as they'll be guaranteed to play under the media spotlight of, say, New York every year whereas under the current organization it's hit or miss.

Not only will the Eastern teams be able to see us more, they'll be in our building more which brings fans in. When I looked at the schedule this season the only game that stood out was Philadelphia. There was no Pittsburgh or Washington, not even the Rangers and we played them twice. There was nothing to circle on my calendar. While I understand that keeping their appearances in Anaheim rare makes them all the more special, one out of 41 is rare enough for me. Also, as annoying as it may be, the Ducks could use an extra sellout or two per season, when the opposing fans invade.

As far as rivalries are concerned, it's all about the playoffs. This new system enhances geographic rivals by making it twice as likely that they'll face each other in the playoffs, when the games take on a whole new meaning. I've heard the argument made that the divisional playoffs can become predictable and boring, but with the salary cap and the shootout, there is much more parity in the league now than there was in 1993, the last time the NHL saw a divisional playoff structure.

One of the aspects of the new system that doesn't get talked about a lot is the flexibility that it affords the league going forward. Phoenix is still up in the air, but it won't be long before something gives. If the league had gone with a simple one for one swap of Winnipeg for Detroit or Columbus, we'd be right back in the same place we are today if Phoenix is forced to move east. This way there is a simple solution. Only if they move to a city in the central time zone will another team be displaced, and even then, there is a buffer of two eastern time zone teams that are ready, willing and able to move over at a moment's notice. Then there's always the possibility of expansion in the (hopefully distant) future.

The new structure is certainly not perfect. I for one would have put Columbus in with Pittsburgh and the rest of the former Patrick Division, to maximize their gain. But it makes so much more sense in terms of geography and time zones, it has the potential for growth of the game on many fronts and like it or not, it's a reality.

Comment 40 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I’m buying canned goods. Robby and I agree about something.

I know we aren’t fans of Nashville, but the budding rivalry could have blossomed, and maybe it would have been fun. The new format crushes non traditional rivalries, like us and Detroit and us and Nashville. I think the Puck Daddy critiques of the system have also been pretty accurate in terms of the impacts of this new alignment.

by Daniel AC on Dec 6, 2011 12:28 PM PST reply actions  

It might create bigger rivalries, it’ll force teams in the same conference to play against each other in the playoffs. There is a higher likelihood that teams will play against each other in the playoffs in consecutive years. The Yankee argument doesn’t make sense to me, the Yankees come to Anaheim at least once every year, and sometimes twice. Every American League team travels to Anaheim at least once a year. I’m not sure if I like the idea, but I do like having at least one home game against every team.

by fastat3m on Dec 6, 2011 1:05 PM PST reply actions  

I wrote the Yankees thing as an NL fan

My bad that wasn’t clear.

I don’t really buy the rivalry argument because we’re already rivals with the Kings and the Sharks. I don’t think we’re going to magically start hating the Oilers, though.

by PhantomPretender on Dec 6, 2011 1:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Why would we hate the Oilers?

cough* Dustin Penner offer sheet cough*

by Kevin Riach on Dec 6, 2011 2:35 PM PST up reply actions  

I meant, we would have a higher probability of playing them in the playoffs, since now there are only 7 possible teams we could play in the 1st and 2nd rounds of playoffs instead of 14 possible teams.

by fastat3m on Dec 6, 2011 2:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Chris & Robby:

Having come down from my utter stoked platform late last night (and going on more than five hours of sleep) I will say that I overall agree and disagree with both of you, but for the sake of keeping this relatively short I will pick out two points upon which I disagree. First up!

Chris said this:

Under the new four conference format, the Eastern teams will travel more and the Western teams will travel less.

This is actually far from the truth, according to Dirk Hoag As you will see the average travel for Anaheim is 743 while Toronto is only 553 and Montreal is 617. The only reason the Florida teams have so much travel is because they have to travel to Canada all the time to play within their new division. Also take a look at the total average travel distance for the western, and compare that to the three others. As you can see, the conference that the Ducks sits on top of the pile for longest distances traveled. (Keep in mind just how far south florida is, and how far north Montreal AND Edmonton are) Now, granted these are all estimated, and we have no idea what will happen with Phoenix nor what the schedule will actually look like, but I’d say it’s a pretty good estimation. Another thing you forget is that while Vancouver is a shorter distance, we also have to travel to Edmonton and Calgary, both of which are further North than Vancouver.

Robby: Chris sort of made this point in his post, but I’d like to second it here: the fact that we have Sid and Ovie, and Stamkos (etc) coming out West once a year gives us MORE chances to be on national TV, and the fact that we go back there once a years doesn’t hurt either. Also, as Chris said, a full arena, thought most may be of opposing fans, can’t hurt the Ducks. Also, the fact that we get EACH team from the East once a year gives us more chances to get on TV and increase ticket sales, which is better than what we have right now, where it’s hit or miss whether we will see the Habs, Rangers, etc. The only down side is having to play the Islanders and the Panthers once a year, those will be played in a empty and cold Ponda (unless we are good, then it will probably luke warm-just below hot).

by alex.loop on Dec 6, 2011 1:23 PM PST reply actions  

Forgive my cynicism

But I just have a hard time seeing Versus or NBC deciding to air the one game a year Boston comes out here, especially if there’s a Washington/Pittsburgh or some kind of other compelling intra-conference game in one of the eastern conferences.

Its not like the Flyers/Ducks game was televised nationally the other night. The big marquee cross-country matchups regularly happen with no national coverage. Just because there’s going to be a few more such games doesn’t mean the networks will be compelled to air them.

by PhantomPretender on Dec 6, 2011 1:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I think double headers are essentially to developing a national market. Everyone except the NHL does it. He’ll, the NFL technically does a triple header every Sunday. If we do that, then I can see the exposure going up. If it doesn’t then Robby’s pretty right on this one.

by Daniel AC on Dec 6, 2011 3:27 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

In regards to travel, will the west in general be traveling less then we are now? Will the east be traveling more. If we are still reducing our travel it doen’t hurt us. It may just help the east more.

by DavidBL on Dec 6, 2011 5:19 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I could have been clearer here

I meant that the western teams will travel less than they currently do and the eastern teams will travel more than they currently do. Also I admit to not having done any of the math to figure out how far they might actually travel. One look at the map tells you that the western teams will travel more overall than those in the east barring some serious relocation

http://district5hockey.wordpress.com/
Contributor: Anaheim Calling, Hockeytalk.biz
@district5hockey on Twitter

by Chris D-5 on Dec 6, 2011 5:26 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions  

I get your cynicism

I’m just ever the optimistic one. But if the team is good, and BB is the coach, don’t you think it might be a nice little treat to see him face off against his old team just once on NBC or Versus or hell, even the NHL network. Also, the potential is there for the networks to hype the shit outta Crosby/Malkin vs. Ryan/Perry. What I was attempting to say is that OVERALL the chances increase because now we aren’t just seeing one-three east coast teams per year, we are seeing ALL east coast teams twice a year. But, I supposed they would go Flyers/Penguins over Ducks/Leafs when all is said and done. I wish Versus or NHL network would just buck up and show a double-dip: one east coast matchup and one west coast match up, 10 ET start time be damned!

by alex.loop on Dec 6, 2011 2:12 PM PST reply actions  

It seems that giving both the conferences out West the maximum 8 teams,

the league isn’t looking to add an expansion team any time soon.
This is disappointing to me, I would have hoped that the league is looking to bring the kind of enthusiasm for the game that exists in the East out to the left coast by adding expansion teams.
I’ve heard of maybe a city like Portland landing an expansion team in the future, but I guess the NHL has their sights set elsewhere.

by SoCal12 on Dec 6, 2011 2:45 PM PST reply actions  

It is possible to add Portland if the Coyotes move. I think they’ll just realign if they expand, I don’t think they would put location restrictions because of the conference alignment, I think they’ll choose the best place economically for the league.

by fastat3m on Dec 6, 2011 2:49 PM PST up reply actions  

The NHL needs to either add two teams so there can be four divisions of eight or contract two so there are four divisions of seven. Not fair that 4/8 teams in the West conferences go to the playoffs while 4/7 in the East (which has been weaker than the West for years, every season there are teams in the West that don’t make the playoffs with higher point totals than some East teams in the playoffs) make the postseason.

Fight on!
EMAW!

by Shackleford on Dec 6, 2011 2:55 PM PST up reply actions  

This is one of the biggest flaws with the new system in regards to playoff seeding. Top 4 from each conference is the other.

"You keep shooting. You hope it goes in, and you smile." -Teemu Selanne

by haloduck on Dec 6, 2011 10:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Seattle and KC

are what I’ve heard, and that’s for relocation. And friggin Vegas (same reason as Seattle and KC) for some reason…. which in theory could work. There are enough odd-balls there that hockey could very well work, the only question is would they have to build an arena? Which wouldn’t be a problem, but you’d probably have to do it away from The Strip… like possibly North Vegas if you did.

But the other question arises is this: if the Yotes do happen to move to say, Quebec City and become the Nordiqus, who the hell would take their place? You wouldn’t dare shuffle Toronto, Montreal or Boston. Maybe it would be the Panthers, seeing as no one really gives a shit about them anyway. Hell, switch Yotes to Quebec City and drag the Panthers to KC, or SLC or, dear-god-in-heaven-and-on-earth-at-the-sametime: Phoenix. (last city was obviously a joke)

by alex.loop on Dec 6, 2011 2:54 PM PST reply actions  

Aaaannnndddd: I'm an idiot

I meant to tack that onto SoCal12’s thread. Sorry everyone.

by alex.loop on Dec 6, 2011 2:58 PM PST up reply actions  

The Isles are suffering and may move as well as they have some issues with Nassau coming up; time will tell with that.

I think Vegas is viable because it would probably be well-supported by corporations there.

If you imagine a salt shaker in your hand, tilt your head back
and act like you're shaking salt into your mouth; you will taste salt if you concentrate hard enough.

by brokenyard on Dec 6, 2011 11:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Another thing to take into consideration, this will now be one more thing that makes hockey different. Every major sport has two separate “conferences” and the division winners are automatically in and then the next best teams make it. Hockey’s new playoff system might scare off new sports fans who might try to pick up the sport after their teams are done in the NFL or NBA.

by Daniel AC on Dec 6, 2011 5:46 PM PST via mobile reply actions  

I’m not sure what it’ll do. Not sure if it will help or hurt the league. It will probably make the second round of the playoffs more exciting though. They can market each match up in the 2nd round, a conference championship series. 3rd round will be the battle of conference champions. Maybe it’ll work. Maybe they can sell more merchandise, 4 teams can sell conference champion gear instead of two.

by fastat3m on Dec 6, 2011 6:00 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree with Daniel

This isolates us even further. One of the hardest things about getting people I know into hockey is trying to describe the rules and how the game is played. The on ice product is hard enough, but now the way the standings and playoffs are ultra complicated? I tried to explain this to my girlfriend, who knows and enjoys hockey well enough, and she just looked at me like I was speaking chinese. Even my roommate who’s a life long hockey fan didn’t understand the point or what it meant. I think this is a huge mistake and could set the league back years. I get travel reasons, but they’ve had to deal with that for years. I don’t see how this helps, and I think this is a case of people being nostalgic instead of logical. DUMB.

by Kevin Riach on Dec 6, 2011 6:08 PM PST up reply actions  

I’m not sure, It will be easier to create playoff rivalries because it forces teams from the same conference to play each other in the playoffs. Maybe people won’t understand it. I’m truly unsure if the NHL will benefit or not. It might make the playoffs more exciting, trying to win the conference in the first 2 rounds. It really isn’t too complicated. It would be like if the Big 10, Big 12, SEC and Pac 12 each played a 4 team playoff and then the winners of each conference played in a 4 team tournament for the championship.

by fastat3m on Dec 6, 2011 6:17 PM PST up reply actions  

I might be in the minority, but the last thing I want is to play the same team every year in the playoffs. I like variety. I see the argument, but I don’t know if I buy that the rivalries will really be better. I think the hate is more boredom.

As for the complication factor, I think people who follow a ton of sports might be able to grasp the concept, but labeling is such a powerful tool. Being able to point to hockey as different is dangerous for a sport that claims to be seeking more casual fans. Hardcore NHL fans will deal with the change the same way they dealt with the lockout: they’ll get over it. However, I think this can easily be something that dissuaded someone from investigating hockey as a sport to get interested in.

by Daniel AC on Dec 6, 2011 6:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Totally agree

It’s going to get boring in a few years to see the Kings, Canucks, San Jose, and someone else in the playoffs every year. Yawn.

by PhantomPretender on Dec 6, 2011 7:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Have to disagree with you

First, I don’t think this will help rivalries AT ALL. And considering that seems to be a big reason for doing this, it makes me worried. Part of the reason people love the NHL is the amount of “Cinderella” stories that happen in the playoffs. Take two years ago, when Philly just barely makes it into the playoffs and then battles all the way to the finals. I love that I can say the NHL is the most balance professional sporting league. Its the same reason people love March Madness, because once you make it anything can happen. And also thats the way a lot of rivalries start. Think about it Nashville-Anaheim, Detroit-Anaheim, Sharks-Anaheim, Chicago-Vancouver, and there are many more I’m not thinking of. The whole idea that these top 4 teams are going to build rivalries is silly, because a 1 seed getting beat by a 4 seed is nothing. Who cares? I don’t think comparing the NHL to the bowl system is a great example either considering everyone hates that. Also tell me how its fair that some teams are competing with less teams than others for playoff spots??? Thats ridiculous!!!

by Kevin Riach on Dec 6, 2011 6:53 PM PST up reply actions  

This is so true

And it’s how you build REAL rivalries. The Wings and the Ducks have their issues because the Ducks have knocked off some seemingly unstoppable Wings teams. The same can be said of the Ducks beating the Sharks in 2008-2009.

This seems like it was a move to a) deal with Winnipeg and b) accommodate Detroit. The stupid thing is that Detroit STILL didn’t get into the eastern conferences like they wanted so badly. This seems like they’re changing things up just to change them. I know it would have pissed off Detroit but how hard is it to move Winnipeg to the West and move Nashville to the East? Sure, you could have then juggled divisional lineups (putting Colorado in the Pacific, moving Dallas to the Central, and putting Winnipeg in the Northwest. There, problem solved.

by PhantomPretender on Dec 6, 2011 7:05 PM PST up reply actions  

Not only that, but they don’t have to realign to balance the new schedule. They still could have created a schedule where everyone plays everyone once and then you rotate which division In Your conference you play more games against. Playing everyone one twice is 58 games. Play every one in your division 6 times total and that adds 16 to make it 72. Then an extra home and home with another division that rotates each year. That means everyone makes an extra trip west once every 5 years. I think that math is right.

by Daniel AC on Dec 6, 2011 7:39 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Completely agree

I also wouldn’t mind as much if they didn’t mess with the playoffs. Why not just keep in where two of the conferences are in the “west” and two in the “east” and each sends 8. As long as that stays I really don’t care. But you are ruining one the best selling points I give to people when I try to sell them on hockey: “Its not like the NBA or NFL where the same teams are always good and high seeds almost always make the finals”. I HATE THAT ABOUT OTHER SPORTS, please don’t ruin hockey for some theory’s you THINK might improve the game. Because I know that they will do harm that no “better rivalries” can help with. Look at the Kings-Ducks rivalry if you want to see how successful contrived rivalries are.

by Kevin Riach on Dec 6, 2011 10:00 PM PST up reply actions  

I think the NFL has fairly decent parity, but nothing marches the NHL. Even if a lot of the same teams make the playoffs a few years in a row, it feels like the same team doesn’t always win.

The Stanley Cup Playoffs are the most exciting thing in all of sports. Why would anyone tamper with them?

by Daniel AC on Dec 6, 2011 11:48 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I’m not sure what a Cinderella team, and an 8 beating a 1 create rivalries. Those rivalries might last a couple of years with the top team being embarrassed. However, usually rivalries are teams that play each other often and important games. Having them play each other in the playoffs will make them play more important games. The good rivalries, like Michigan-Ohio State, Duke-North Carolina, Red Sox-Yankees are usually with good teams playing each other, and not a cinderella team winning. I agree that it is unfair with the amount of teams. Hopefully they can fix it. Baseball was kind of inbalanced, with the AL west having 4 teams, and NL Central with 6 teams. That was pretty unfair, but I never complained as I was an Angels fan. You guys might be right, maybe it’ll be an epic fail. However, maybe it’ll work out. Some people may say it might get boring if the same team plays each other in the playoffs, but it seems like ratings were fine in Baseball when the Yankees played the Red Sox many times in the playoffs.

by fastat3m on Dec 6, 2011 7:40 PM PST up reply actions  

Part of the Yankees/Red Sox thing results from the fact

that they get so routinely pimped by the media. If you think Los Angeles/Anaheim is going to draw better ratings than Anaheim/Chicago or Los Angeles/St. Louis, you’re crazy.

by PhantomPretender on Dec 6, 2011 9:02 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd still like to know

how the hell hockey has worked in Carolina? That ALMOST makes less sense than Phoenix/Atlanta.

by alex.loop on Dec 6, 2011 9:43 PM PST up reply actions  

The Yankees and Red Sox represent two of the three largest sports markets in the USA. It’s hard to compare them constantly playing versus Anaheim and San Jose playing all the time.

There’s certainly the potential for it to work, but I think the drawbacks are too numerous. Chasing a playoff spot will be a thing of the past, as will the Cinderella team. The non-traditional rivalries will die as well, which is a shame for us especially. I’ll always believe that the league should have done a better job hyping Anaheim-Detroit.

by Daniel AC on Dec 6, 2011 9:44 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

You bring up another great point

Playoff races are almost guaranteed to be less exciting. It’s cconceivable that the matchups could be set a week before the season ends, instead of having several teams playing for their lives over that last weekend.

It’s one of the things I hate about baseball. If you’re having a mediocre season, you could still run out of meaningful games by early September. I like having games that matter down the stretch.

Finally, it’s also bullshit that you can be penalized for being in a strong division. As has been repeated elsewhere, the Kings would have been held out of the playoffs last year despite having a better record under the Stars under this new system.

by PhantomPretender on Dec 7, 2011 6:51 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Exactly. And with the 8/7 teams issue and the uneven division scheduling, the word that comes to mind is “sloppy”. If Bettman gives the conferences the names Smythe, Patrick, Norris, and Adams, (or perhaps “updated” names) I think it will be pretty clear this was a move for Bettman to regain favor with hockey fans who think he has ruined the sport. For the glory of one man.

If you imagine a salt shaker in your hand, tilt your head back
and act like you're shaking salt into your mouth; you will taste salt if you concentrate hard enough.

by brokenyard on Dec 7, 2011 12:01 AM PST up reply actions  

My own thoughts

Though I don’t post here too much I read a bunch of it, I wanted to weigh in on this.

The major flaw of this system: Western teams need to beat out 4 others in their conference to advance to playoffs, Eastern teams only need to beat 3. It’s not fair since they somehow think it was a good idea to pull evenly from each conference. It should be the 2 leaders from each “half” (Conference A/B being one half, C/D being the other) make the playoffs and the last 6 spots are to the next 6 best teams of each respective half. Or, shocking as this may sound, just take the best 8 teams from each half! Do away with automatic seeding completely, you should make the playoffs because you earned it and are among the top teams when compared against the rest of the league, not an arbitrary handful of teams. The more you automatically give spots to leaders of divisions, the more chances to have better teams miss the playoffs because they are in a better arbitrary group.

Imagine the current system sending the top 2 from each division to the playoffs for only 2 wildcard spots for everyone else. That’s kind of what you’re getting with the new system, except worse because there are zero wildcards. The only reason I can see this passing so favorably among the GMs is that this was primarily the re-aligning vote. I’m hoping these playoff seeds are only preliminary ideas and not set in stone.

The re-aligning itself I like, but playoffs is the most important and I fear they may have screwed that up.

"You keep shooting. You hope it goes in, and you smile." -Teemu Selanne

by haloduck on Dec 6, 2011 10:19 PM PST reply actions  

I agree. The thing I like least is the playoff structure. The argument for division winners is that it justifies the division system. There’s no point of breaking teams into divisions if winning your division doesn’t give you anything.

Still I love the current playoff statement. So many of the last few games of the year had playoff implications. I hope you’re right and they do visit the playoff structure.

by Daniel AC on Dec 6, 2011 11:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

It just bugs me

If people think it’s bad now that a team is left out once in awhile because they’re in a strong division and beat out by the leader of an inferior division, it’s only going to get worse. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the first season sees the 5th place team in Conference A miss the playoffs but have a better record than 4th place in Conference B, 2nd in Conference C, and 3rd in Conference D. With any luck it will be Detroit or a Canadian team and they’re raise enough hell to fix it.

Don’t even get me started on the whole 4/8 for the West and 4/7 for the East thing which was mentioned by Robby. I can’t wait until Buttman Bettman is gone.

"You keep shooting. You hope it goes in, and you smile." -Teemu Selanne

by haloduck on Dec 7, 2011 12:24 AM PST up reply actions  

I think Bettman is a businessman and I think he has trouble making hockey decisions. He’s doen a few things that have really helped the league, like expansion to solid, nontraditional markets like Anaheim and Nashville. But I think this realignment really is pandering to the old school hockey regime. It’s a structure that doesn’t work with as many teams as we have in the league now. Something like this works with less than 20 teams when taking the top couple of teams means you’re eliminating teams that have essentially been dominated by the rest of the league, and everyone has a fairer chance of making to the playoffs. In a larger field, there’s too much space for good teams to slip through the cracks.

by Daniel AC on Dec 7, 2011 7:40 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Anaheim calling to the hockey world...

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Dirty players?
Small
The Real Controversy
Small
Ducks Fail at NHL Draft Lottery; Will Still Pick 6th Overall
Jered-weaver_small
Mock Draft
Small
Random Crunch update
Jiraya_small
Weekend of Must
Small
OC Register's Jeff Miller is learning the value of magumbo

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

CK Photo Galleries

Anaheim Calling

site stats


Coach Bombay

Image_small Jen Neale

Hans

Lincecum_basewars_small Arthur from Anaheim Calling

Ducks_small SK eleven

Flying V

Small Daniel AC

Tumblr_ljh6axc0sp1qftewzo1_500_small JuMowbray

Bloody-jersey_small PhantomPretender

Bobble_small Chris D-5

Selanne-kariya_small Kevin Riach

Small light_the_lamp

Bash Brothers

Hail_ants__small Floyd Gondoli

Small MoralesHomers