Official Hockey discussion thread

I'm not too concerned about divisional playoffs, to be honest. I don't mind the way it's done now, especially with more parity, the team from the Southeast tends to actually be good!

It wouldn't be bad, but I'm pretty "meh" on changing the system. Put Columbus or Nashville east. That's all that really needs doing.
 
The Jets will start next season as part of the Southeast division, they won't move west until the after that. They'll worry then about what team to move East.

I don't mind the current system at all. Makes sense.
 
My ideal, short of a 32 team league:

Abolish conferences.  4 divisions, named after famous builders in hockey.  Two of 8 teams, two of 7 teams.  Each 8-team division is paired with a 7-team division, based on geography (in this sense, the conferences would remain in spirit).  Top four in each division go to the playoffs, with a cross-over rule (if the 5th team in an 8-team division has more than ~5 points than the 4th in its 7-team partner, it "crosses over" and takes that spot).  After the first round, teams get reseeded 1 to 8 based on regular season performance, no concern for geography.  Playoffs continue as a bracket until the final.
 
I like the system the way it is now, it may make sense to re-balance some of the divisions on occasions for geography ... it is not a perfect system, but it does allow for geographic rivals to play each other more and accounts a division having a poor year. 
 
I think something like this would be good:

Division #1:
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Detroit
Buffalo
Minnesota
Chicago
Winnipeg

Division #2:
Boston
NYR
NYI
New Jersey
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Washington

Division #3:
Columbus
Carolina
Nashville
Florida
Tampa Bay
Dallas
Colorado

Division #4:
Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix
 
For alignment, that is not a bad idea, but I still like the idea of conferences to guard against one divisions having a great/terrible year.  I do like the idea of going back to named divisions, I liked the ones they had before.  I do not quite get why they got rid of them, it was a nice unique thing to Hockey.
 
Where's st louis?
I'd prefer St louis and Chicago in the same division.

Also, division winners on on top, but everyone else in by points, not where they finish inm a division.
 
I wouldn't say "baffled," but it is... sooner than expected.

Back to division vs. conference. Personally I have never liked states having more than one team. For example, the New York Islanders were solely created to keep the WHA at bay. While they were  dynasty in the 80's I've always felt like they could move. Maybe bring back the Whalers. California DOES NOT need three teams, one could go to Seattle... etc. I understand that is VERY unrealistic and unlikely, but nice to think about. There are plenty of rivalries and new ones get created all the time (Det v. Col, anyone?)

The current format works just fine. It is sad that they have favored geographic names v. traditional honorary ones. But again, it keeps things straight. I still can't make sense of baseball or American Football with their NFCs AFCs ALs NLs and wildcards... w...t...f?
 
I think California can support 3 teams, the Sharks cover a huge markey, as do the Kings and Ducks ... despite how close they look on a map, Orange Country (Ducks) and LA (Kings) are really separate entities. 

Re: Baseball and the NL/AL, those names have been around for over 100 years, they are pretty traditional .. Baseball is probably the most tradition-based sport around (with Hockey being second)
 
Onhell said:
I wouldn't say "baffled," but it is... sooner than expected.

Back to division vs. conference. Personally I have never liked states having more than one team. For example, the New York Islanders were solely created to keep the WHA at bay. While they were  dynasty in the 80's I've always felt like they could move. Maybe bring back the Whalers. California DOES NOT need three teams, one could go to Seattle... etc. I understand that is VERY unrealistic and unlikely, but nice to think about. There are plenty of rivalries and new ones get created all the time (Det v. Col, anyone?)
Click to expand...

wut

By that logic, Ontario and Alberta shouldn't have more than one team each.  Let's pack Ottawa off to Halifax, nevermind if there's demand or not.

Teams should be located where they are financially viable.  No other factors should take priority.
 
GuineaPig said:
wut

By that logic, Ontario and Alberta shouldn't have more than one team each.  Let's pack Ottawa off to Halifax, nevermind if there's demand or not.

Teams should be located where they are financially viable.  No other factors should take priority.
Click to expand...

SIGH

*AHEM*

Onhell said:
I understand that is VERY unrealistic and unlikely, but nice to think about.
Click to expand...


bearfan said:
Re: Baseball and the NL/AL, those names have been around for over 100 years, they are pretty traditional .. Baseball is probably the most tradition-based sport around (with Hockey being second)
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against the names of the leagues or how traditional they are. I'm complaining about the structure of the MLB. See, the NFL is the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE which consists of two CONFERENCES, like the NHL has operated since 1994, when they dropped the traditional names for the geographic ones.

However the MLB houses two LEAGUES. and that is the extent of the organizing of the sport that I am aware of as I have NEVER liked baseball and don't intend to start any time soon. From my limiting understanding of it this is what I gather. Let us say the WHA is still around competing with the NHL for players, fans, cities, etc. The WHA and the NHL are then governed by an additional body called the... hmm... MLH (Major League Hockey). each league has it's season, you have inter-league play and finally, the playoffs pit off the champion of the NHL against that of the WHA.

Except. THAT ALREADY HAPPENS under the current system of ONE league. Same in Basketball, which is why I just don't understand the MLB system.
 
In baseball, the National League and American League were separate entities that later merged (the Federal League folded), they play under a different set of rules (even today, even though they are becoming more alike).  In football, the AFC came from the AFL which was a separate league that merged with the NFL. 

In the NFL, the conferences are around if anything to keep rivalries, but until recently, the AFC teams played a different style of football than the NFC (more pass oriented, less defense from the AFL days)

But in any case, conferences are just a way of logically separating teams
 
Bahahahaha!!!!

The Score just did a bit on the worst free agent signings, and it was basically "The Glen Sather Show, w/special guest appearance by Brian Burke." Holik, Gomez, Drury, Redden, and I missed the beginning of the segment.
 
LOL. Right now I'm hoping Jagr chooses to play in Pittsburgh rather than detroit or some other team.
Spoke too soon, he decided to go to philly... I will feel sorry for him when the pens knock them out of the playoffs :p
 
Capitals get Vokoun for 1 year, $1.5 million.

There are no words to express how great a deal that is for Washington. An utter steal. Best goalie of the past 5 years, and they get him for a quarter of Bryzgalov, and for eight years less.
 
That is a fantastic deal. Good For Vokoun, Glad to see a good player escape the sand trap that is Florida.
 
Onhell said:
LOL. Right now I'm hoping Jagr chooses to play in Pittsburgh rather than detroit or some other team.
Spoke too soon, he decided to go to philly... I will feel sorry for him when the pens knock them out of the playoffs :p
Click to expand...
It continues...Rangers sign Brad Richards. Now we have an elite puck distributor for are elite sniper on the wing. *FacePalm* I am really not all that excited about it. Maybe, it is because of the last 12 or so years, my mind has built a self defense mechanism to not expect anything but trouble for the Richards' signing. So when he only only produces 30 points a season or his maligned by injury, my psyche won't be further damaged.

I wonder why Jagr decided to come back to the NHL? As someone who bleeds Ranger Blue, I don't begrudge him and he had some productive seasons in New York. Even at 39, he still showed he still has something left at the World Championship. But, even with Jagr, I believe Philly fucked up big time by letting Richards and Carter go.
 
I too am wary of the Richards siging in NY... Gaborik is still made of glass, so who cares what center he has if he's always hurt.

As for Jagr, why come back if you are not going to retire a Pen? Plenty of elite players have done full circle, why shouldn't he? specially when he could have had either Crosby or Malkin as his center. But whatever, Philly won't amount to much next season... again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top