NeedlesslyCanadian: Good, four conferences is a farking stupid idea.
.


I guess the Norris, Smythe, Adams, Patrick divisions never worked

sno man: I think the smart money is on Phoenix to Quebec City, but there are a few teams that could be shuffling around in the next while.
Top 3 x 4 + the next best four eliminates the discrepancy wherever it may be.

There was a group in Seattle trying to get an NHL team I read about recently. He's willing to help pay for a stadium (and already has bought land) near the baseball and football stadiums where there are some warehouses now. He has an investment group lined up to get an NBA team back there to share the same stadium.

If Portland could find an owner there's two more west coast teams ready to go. The Winter Hawks have great attendance already.

I wasn't a fan of the realignment, so I'm glad it's at least been put on hold.

There wasn't enough of a change to justify the shuffling they did. Swap Nashville with Winnipeg and be done with it for the time being. Yes, travel sucks for some teams. Yes, Detroit thinks they belong in the East and Dallas hates the Pacific, but the fix for that isn't gerrymandering the Florida teams into the Northeast or giving an unfair advantage to half the league in terms of their chances to make the playoffs.

NeedlesslyCanadian: Good, four conferences is a farking stupid idea.

So Atlanta's move to Winnipeg unbalanced east/west, big damn deal. Here's an easy solution: just move Chicago into the Eastern Conference. Having them in the west never made a ton of sense in the first place.

This four conferences shiat, jesus tapdancing christ. That's like fixing an empty gas tank by replacing the muffler, seat upholstery, dipstick, and fuel pump.

And how exactly does it make sense to move Chicago to the East but leave Detroit (which, btw is farther east than Chicago) in the West?

I'm glad the plan was rejected and I agree with the simpler solution of moving Winnipeg west and moving someone (Columbus, Detroit, Nashville) to the East.

The new plan had a few flaws

- it didn't improve travel times for everyone
- it didn't do too much to solve the playoff timezone mishmash because the timezone issues are only out of whack for the Stanley Cup Finals (move games to CST/MST instead of PST/EST)
- the plan was incomplete as the 3rd round of the playoffs was not figured out (which you'd think based on the above they would have done Conf A vs Conf B and Conf C vs Conf D

I don't see why they still couldn't come up with a better plan and enact it for next year. At least fix the Winnipeg problem for next year.

That all said, it would have been good to see a counter-proposal by the NHLPA.

/perhaps i didn't RTFA closely enough

ytterbium: The main reason I liked the 4 divisions/conferences plan is to ease travel schedules for the teams. You'd think the players would prefer that, guess not.

Do you mean like having the two Florida teams fly OVER Nashville and Columbus to go play half of their division games in Canada?

This was a great plan. It would have created great first and 2nd round matchups every single year with strong rivalries.

The 'unbalanced' objections are moronic. If you cannot finish in 4th place out of 8 teams, you don't belong to fight for the cup. 4th out of 8 and 4th out of 7 are not very much different.

If you put last year's standings into this format, only 1 playoff team changes. Dallas in instead of LA.. They had a 3 pts separate them. LA lost in the first round.

Same thing the year before. StL instead of Colorado gets in. Colorado lost in the 1st round.

NeedlesslyCanadian: Good, four conferences is a farking stupid idea.

So Atlanta's move to Winnipeg unbalanced east/west, big damn deal. Here's an easy solution: just move Chicago into the Eastern Conference. Having them in the west never made a ton of sense in the first place.

This four conferences shiat, jesus tapdancing christ. That's like fixing an empty gas tank by replacing the muffler, seat upholstery, dipstick, and fuel pump.

Why Chicago when there are teams further east like the Blue Jackets? It's the same logic for Detroit. So you're also just as stupid as the four conference plan. Also, I bet it was the Red Wings holding this back as they're the ones biatching about having to travel to the west coast.

GAT_00: GAT_00: sno man: GAT_00: The conferences are fine, but make then balanced for fark's sake. The two non-East Coast divisions get screwed since they have more teams and the same number of playoff bids.

The fix for that is to have the top three from the four, and then the next best four to make up the 16 for the playoffs.

Or just do it pretty much like it is now and group the east coast teams into one conference and everyone else into the other and then take the division winners plus the next 6 top point teams.

Wait, shiat. That doesn't fix the unbalanced alignment. Move one of the "west" teams over to the east. I vote Detroit because fark the Red Wings.

No you vote the Blue Jackets because otherwise you're breaking up one of the oldest rivalries in hockey in Hawks and Red Wings.

I'm glad the realignment failed for selfish reasons, because it would have sucked for the Hurricanes. Going from the Southeast, where they can compete with a small budget, to a conference with PIT, PHL, NYR, NYI, NJD, and WAS would have sucked.

Thudfark:


/Kill the national anthems as well

And kill off one of the best renditions of the anthem? (new window)

thefireandpassion: NeedlesslyCanadian: Good, four conferences is a farking stupid idea.

So Atlanta's move to Winnipeg unbalanced east/west, big damn deal. Here's an easy solution: just move Chicago into the Eastern Conference. Having them in the west never made a ton of sense in the first place.

This four conferences shiat, jesus tapdancing christ. That's like fixing an empty gas tank by replacing the muffler, seat upholstery, dipstick, and fuel pump.

Why Chicago when there are teams further east like the Blue Jackets? It's the same logic for Detroit. So you're also just as stupid as the four conference plan. Also, I bet it was the Red Wings holding this back as they're the ones biatching about having to travel to the west coast.

You know, the red wings are really coming off as pussies in this whole thing (what else is new?). Everyone has to travel, the nw teams do it more than anyone and never complain.

STFU and GBTHockey

pregerstheHobo: thefireandpassion: NeedlesslyCanadian: Good, four conferences is a farking stupid idea.

So Atlanta's move to Winnipeg unbalanced east/west, big damn deal. Here's an easy solution: just move Chicago into the Eastern Conference. Having them in the west never made a ton of sense in the first place.

This four conferences shiat, jesus tapdancing christ. That's like fixing an empty gas tank by replacing the muffler, seat upholstery, dipstick, and fuel pump.

Why Chicago when there are teams further east like the Blue Jackets? It's the same logic for Detroit. So you're also just as stupid as the four conference plan. Also, I bet it was the Red Wings holding this back as they're the ones biatching about having to travel to the west coast.

You know, the red wings are really coming off as pussies in this whole thing (what else is new?). Everyone has to travel, the nw teams do it more than anyone and never complain.

STFU and GBTHockey

QUIT TALKING HOCKEY!

/Talk more hockey!

cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: The conferences are fine, but make then balanced for fark's sake. The two non-East Coast divisions get screwed since they have more teams and the same number of playoff bids.

Yeah, with 30 teams, there's no damn reason for there to be unbalanced divisions/conferences/whatever.

The easy fix is to let everyone in the playoffs.

Get rid of the Panthers and Coyotes. Go to four divisions of seven teams. Done.

GAT_00: Wait, shiat. That doesn't fix the unbalanced alignment. Move one of the "west" teams over to the east. I vote Detroit because fark the Red Wings.

Yes, fark the Red Wings by giving them exactly what they want. That'll show 'em!

Thudfark: Two conferences.


This.

I'm glad it got cock-blocked for now.

And for the love of god, stop rewarding teams in weak divisions (and punishing decent teams in strong ones) with the silly home ice ranking in playoffs as well.

I didn't mind the reorganization of conferences (though I can't say I loved the unbalanced conferences, but it wasn't a huge deal to me). I do not like the idea of divisional playoffs, though. Yes, it would create big rivalries -- between the same two or three teams that make the playoffs every year. In the current system, you get more surprise matchups, which often lead to great series (Washington Montreal 2010 anyone?).

Basically I agreed with a lot of this (new window).

Adolf Oliver Nipples: *Reads article*
*Sees the name "Donald Fehr"*

Yeah, the next go-round for the NHL CBA is going to be a trainwreck. Hold on to your asses, hockey fans.



I'm worried about that as well. The last thing the sport needs is another set back when it's starting to regain momentum.


So is this gonna be the Bruins/Nucks thread for today?

The NHLPA can eat my ass.

/Go Stars
//Fark 9:30pm starts and midnight OT. Fark it right in the ass.
///With a splintery broom and no lube

Two conferences, Detroit, Toronto, Dallas, Colorado, Chicago, Minnesota in one conference. Everyone else in the other.

MugzyBrown: This was a great plan. It would have created great first and 2nd round matchups every single year with strong rivalries.

The 'unbalanced' objections are moronic. If you cannot finish in 4th place out of 8 teams, you don't belong to fight for the cup. 4th out of 8 and 4th out of 7 are not very much different.



It also eliminates good potential rivalries that wouldn't be possible with the new alignment. All rivalries are relegated to within conference. Great 1st round matchups is debatable as weak 4th place teams may make the playoffs at the cost of other, more deserving teams making the playoffs. A good team could still easily finish 5th in their conference (where they are a good team is because they are in a tough conference, but having winning records in non-conference games [ie: the rest of the league]).

4th out of 7 and 4th out of 8 are different, no matter how you slice it. "Not very much different" is a matter of opinion, but statistically, it's 50% vs 57%. The NHLPA cited this, so it stands to reason that since the player's think this is significant, then I'd say your opinion does not match consensus.

..meanwhile, MLB/MLBPA approved their new CBA (which also included a realignment) no problem, and is currently the league that has gone the longest without a labor dispute. Not bad for a game everyone said would never recover from 1994.

The Bestest: ..meanwhile, MLB/MLBPA approved their new CBA (which also included a realignment) no problem, and is currently the league that has gone the longest without a labor dispute. Not bad for a game everyone said would never recover from 1994.

Yeah but MLB's realignment made things more fair. Under the old system, the AL West had 4 teams and the NL Central had 6. I'd say the NL Central had a way bigger gripe under that system than the 8-team divisions have under the proposed NHL plan.

The Bestest: Not bad for a game everyone said would never recover from 1994.

*

fatalvenom: Adolf Oliver Nipples: *Reads article*
*Sees the name "Donald Fehr"*

Yeah, the next go-round for the NHL CBA is going to be a trainwreck. Hold on to your asses, hockey fans.



I'm worried about that as well. The last thing the sport needs is another set back when it's starting to regain momentum.


So is this gonna be the Bruins/Nucks thread for today?

A second lockout this soon after the last one will either kill the league, or do some serious collateral damage, as in loss of multiple teams. Hockey can't afford another labor dispute, but I'm worried that with Fehr involved we're going to see that regardless.

There won't be another lockout coming. The last CBA was good for everyone. Both sides will want to tweak the new one to their advantage, of course, but no one is going to be exploring a nuclear option.

Ok, I'll get this started...

Donald Fehr?

Oh geez, here we go.

swahnhennessy: There won't be another lockout coming. The last CBA was good for everyone. Both sides will want to tweak the new one to their advantage, of course, but no one is going to be exploring a nuclear option.


"Hm? What was that you say?"