Improving the NHL

[jkrdevil]

Some of this has some merit, but there are six HUGE obstacles: the names of the divisions and conferences.

Nobody outside the diehard NHL fans knew who was where back when they used these names. With the exception of MLB having the AL and NL and the NFL having the NFC and AFC, people just don't know where teams fit in, and that's why they have geographical divisions and conferences.

Norris, Adams, etc., mean very little to the average sports fan.

What's wrong with selling the games history? Baseball has done this and I think it has worked very well. The more people learn about the past the more likely they will become more interested in the game and become fans. Every postseason with historical names the announcer of the game on tv can say something about Lester Patrick and ect and their contribution to the games. I seriously doubt the average viewer won't watch because of the names and I'm sure they already know where LA, Atlanta, Montreal, Toronto, New York and other places are. Hockey shouldn't hide it's past it has a rich history and should try to promote it.

I like the current leagues emphasis on rivalries it creates more interest in the game and makes it more fun for fans. You can't possibly say that Yankees-Red Sox have been bad for baseball the last couple of years. As for places that don't have that natural rival new rivalries can be created. 8 games against a divisional opponent goes along there. Especially since it's hard to build one through the playoffs now.

[buzzcut]

How about 5 divisions of 6, no conferences?  Playoffs are seeded 1 to 16, regardless of geography.  Prince of Wales Trophy and Clarence S. Campbell Bowl awarded to the two finalists.  (Has the weird as hell benefit of having two division rivals facing each other for the Stanley Cup!)

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Stealing from Roger Clemente's post, I hereby produce this 5-division idea:

Edit note: This has been modified out of concern for travel

NORTHEAST: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, New Jersey, Ottawa, Toronto

ATLANTIC: Carolina, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

SOUTHERN: Atlanta, Dallas, Florida, Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa Bay

CENTRAL: Chicago, Colorado, Columbus, Detroit, Minnesota, Phoenix

PACIFIC: Anaheim, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Vancouver

Note: There are other possibile way to make five divisions work, but this is the most logical.

Schedule format: 6 games vs. division teams; 2 games vs. everybody else plus a third game vs. 4 selected opponents(not from same division) for a total of 82 games.

[Stampman]

The problem with that is travel.

DO you know how far it is from Vancouver to Montreal?

So while the US teams get reduced travel the Canadian teams increase it significantly.

[spyboy1]

What do you think? I think this would be better for the league as it would create more interest in the first couple of rounds. Does anyone have any other ideas?

I think this is brilliant, partly because I proposed the same plan to my firends this past season.

The NHL really does not understand the concept of rivalries being made in the playoffs and have put waaaaaay too much emphasis on games in your division during the regular season, at the cost of each team playing every other team home and away.

As a season ticket holder, I want a chance to see each team every year.

With this 4 division set up, you can play each team home and away and then fill out the rest of the schedule in your division, which works out almost perfectly to 6 inter-division games each year, instead of 8, and against more teams so there's more variety on your schedule.

You can argue all day about what teams go in which division, but it wouldn't be too hard to swap St. Louis and Columbus if you were concerned about separating St. Louis and Detroit. It's great to think of Minnesota back in the same group with Chicago and Detroit as well.

Someone raised concerns about a weak division, but with 7 or 8 teams in each division instead of 5, the chances of that happening are greatly reduced and should not be a reason to scuttle any plan like this.

And who cares what the divisions are named, as long as the 4 divisions play an intelligent schedule. Hell, call 'em 1, 2, 3 and 4 for all I care, as long as I get to see Crosby, Kovalchuk, Brodeur and Sundin more than once every three frickin' years!!

The one thing I think could be cool is to abandon the Conference concept, usually divided East and West. Radical, I know, but once you have four division winners, reseed them 1-4 based on regular season points. You could end up with some great finals matchups under your plan, like Boston vs. New York, that are not possible if you stick with East/West.

[The Nation]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

[VitaminD]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

FACT 1. The last 2 Stanley Cup champs came from the Southeast Division.

FACT 2. The last 2 Stanley Cup winners defeated Canadian teams.

FACT 3. Canada hasn't won a Stanley Cup since 1993, and only 1 since the 1990s started.

I'm as big a fan of all things Canadian as you're going to find south of the border , but that's an asinine statement to make. Is it jealousy? There are far more tenuous markets right now north of the Mason-Dixon Line (*ahem* Pittsburgh *ahem*) that need attention.

I am enthusiastically in favor of the 4-division plan. I love watching the Devils and Rangers come to town more these days, because there is a genuine dislike for them. But much of that has been forged through playoff competition, and won't be forced into existence by making division rivals play more often. But I do miss getting to see the "exotic" West Coast teams come into town, even if it's once a season. We miss Detroit, Colorado, Calgary, Edmonton around here more years than not, which sucks (although I did get to the Flyers/Vancouver game last season, which was awesome despite the OT loss).

[Stampman]

FACT 3. Canada hasn't won a Stanley Cup since 1993, and only 1 since the 1990s started.

Ahem--where are most of the winning players from?

Canadians win the Cup every year--as do Americans & Europeans--and sometimes others as well.

[ColeJ]

How about 5 divisions of 6, no conferences?  Playoffs are seeded 1 to 16, regardless of geography.   Prince of Wales Trophy and Clarence S. Campbell Bowl awarded to the two finalists.  (Has the weird as hell benefit of having two division rivals facing each other for the Stanley Cup!)

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Stealing from Roger Clemente's post, I hereby produce this 5-division idea:

Edit note: This has been modified out of concern for travel

NORTHEAST: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, New Jersey, Ottawa, Toronto

ATLANTIC: Carolina, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

SOUTHERN: Atlanta, Dallas, Florida, Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa Bay

CENTRAL: Chicago, Colorado, Columbus, Detroit, Minnesota, Phoenix

PACIFIC: Anaheim, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Vancouver

Note: There are other possibile way to make five divisions work, but this is the most logical.

Schedule format: 6 games vs. division teams; 2 games vs. everybody else plus a third game vs. 4 selected opponents(not from same division) for a total of 82 games.

i like that southern division... more banners for us

[YELDARBfield]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

Not even gonna dignify that with an answer... Wait...CRAP I DID!!

Anyway, my way to improve the NHL: Goalies in Shoot-outs! (BTW, in this discussion, I am predneck731.)

[BB61]

While the old-school divisional playoff format did and would continue to add coal to geographical and divisional rivalries, the fact is that it takes away from the overall concept of the playoffs -- the best two teams in the conference should meet in the finals, not in the semis. Of course, the problem with the three division format is that if the two best teams are in the same division, and the top seeds win their first playoff round, then they play each other in the second round anyway (because they'll be seeded 1 and 4).

Now, some people may not remember this, but there was a time when the Conferences / Divisions were not geographically aligned. Consequently, you had a few Boston-Montreal Stanley Cups and a Flyers-Islanders one.

I'd really like to see the five division format in use. It's diffrent, it fosters more rivalries, and the top two teams would have a chance at meeting for the cup no matter where they're located.

The only difference I would make would be to the number of teams and the format itself. In 1999, the Rugby World Cup used a five-group format, and I really liked how they did their playoff qualifications...

- 5 division champions, 6 wild card teams

- Division champs get bye in first round, six wild card teams seeded 6-11 and play best of 3 (or 5) first round

- Winners (three of them) join Division champs in quarterfinals for Best of 7, teams are reseeded

- Teams reseeded after each subsequent round.

[Stampman]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

Not even gonna dignify that with an answer... Wait...CRAP I DID!!

Anyway, my way to improve the NHL: Goalies in Shoot-outs! (BTW, in this discussion, I am predneck731.)

My idea to improve the NHL--scrap shootouts...

[FrankCostanza]

How about 5 divisions of 6, no conferences?  Playoffs are seeded 1 to 16, regardless of geography.   Prince of Wales Trophy and Clarence S. Campbell Bowl awarded to the two finalists.  (Has the weird as hell benefit of having two division rivals facing each other for the Stanley Cup!)

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Stealing from Roger Clemente's post, I hereby produce this 5-division idea:

Edit note: This has been modified out of concern for travel

NORTHEAST: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, New Jersey, Ottawa, Toronto

ATLANTIC: Carolina, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

SOUTHERN: Atlanta, Dallas, Florida, Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa Bay

CENTRAL: Chicago, Colorado, Columbus, Detroit, Minnesota, Phoenix

PACIFIC: Anaheim, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Vancouver

Note: There are other possibile way to make five divisions work, but this is the most logical.

Schedule format: 6 games vs. division teams; 2 games vs. everybody else plus a third game vs. 4 selected opponents(not from same division) for a total of 82 games.

I like your alignment. But as an alternative this could also work:

CANADIAN: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver

PACIFIC: Anaheim, Colorado, Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose

CENTRAL: Buffalo, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Minnesota, St. Louis

ATLANTIC: Boston, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey, Pitsburgh, Philadelphia

SOUTHERN: Atlanta, Carolina, Florida, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Washington

Note: Buffalo and Pittsburgh could easily be swapped and it would have essentially have the same effect.

Schedule format: 6 games vs. division teams; 2 games vs. everybody else plus a third game vs. 4 selected traditional rivals, not from same division (example:TOR-DET, MTL-BOS, BOS-BUF) for a total of 82 games. Also with no conferences, it would be the perfect excuse for the NHL to scrap the All-Star Game.

Playoffs would see the top 16 qualify (the five division winners will be seeded 1-5). In an effort to cut down on the time it takes to play the playoffs the teams would play back to back for games 1 & 2 and games 3 & 4 of each series.

[BrianVlietDesign]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

Not even gonna dignify that with an answer... Wait...CRAP I DID!!

Anyway, my way to improve the NHL: Goalies in Shoot-outs! (BTW, in this discussion, I am predneck731.)

My idea to improve the NHL--scrap shootouts...

Why get rid of shootout? It's better than having a worhtless tie at the end of the game. It's so stupid. You sit there all night watching a game, especially if it's an exciting one and it ends in a tie!? Keep the shootout, the NHL is fine. I just think the divisions need to be realigned and they need to put themselves out more as far as advertising. They've done a good job so far I give them that. But, more can be done.

[CC97]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

FACT 1. The last 2 Stanley Cup champs came from the Southeast Division.

FACT 2. The last 2 Stanley Cup winners defeated Canadian teams.

FACT 3. Canada hasn't won a Stanley Cup since 1993, and only 1 since the 1990s started.

All three of those points have nothing to do with those clubs ability to survive in those markets... sure they're successful on-ice, but that doesn't mean they are a success off-ice and financially.

Not that I'm saying all the southern clubs are failures, i'm just saying your points got nuttin to do with how his dream won't happen.

[Stampman]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

Not even gonna dignify that with an answer... Wait...CRAP I DID!!

Anyway, my way to improve the NHL: Goalies in Shoot-outs! (BTW, in this discussion, I am predneck731.)

My idea to improve the NHL--scrap shootouts...

Why get rid of shootout? It's better than having a worhtless tie at the end of the game. It's so stupid. You sit there all night watching a game, especially if it's an exciting one and it ends in a tie!? Keep the shootout, the NHL is fine. I just think the divisions need to be realigned and they need to put themselves out more as far as advertising. They've done a good job so far I give them that. But, more can be done.

Scrap the shotout becuase it's a lousy way to decide a game.

Hockey is a team sport--yes there are times when there is individual effort that results in a great play--but it still grew out of the natural play of the game.

A breakway or penalty shot comes out of the natural play of the game--and that's what makes them exciting.

Shootouts are just lineups and individual effort to decide a team game.

And what's wrong with a tie?

I have no problem with them in regular season.

Sometimes that's the best result--both teams battled fiercely--toe to toe--and they came out of it with something.

[-Helix-]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

I've never really considered Pittsburgh a southern market. But from a Canadian point of view I guess it works.

Besides, less interest in the league isn't really an improvement. But for ignorant nationalist morons maybe it is.

Contracting teams = shows instability in the league (like it has a very good reputation as it is) = losing fans of those contracting teams = showing the league to be 2nd rate small time by not even attempting to compete with the major leagues = not much sense at all.

[Your Name Here]

I don't have a big problem with ties either, but when every fourth game is ending that way, it's time to do something. I thought that if they could increase scoring, the ties would sort themselves out over the season. But, they wanted to do something for the fans and the shootout was their move. I don't mind it, but I wouldn't miss it if they scrapped it.

[HedleyLamarr]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

Not even gonna dignify that with an answer... Wait...CRAP I DID!!

Anyway, my way to improve the NHL: Goalies in Shoot-outs! (BTW, in this discussion, I am predneck731.)

My idea to improve the NHL--scrap shootouts...

Why get rid of shootout? It's better than having a worhtless tie at the end of the game. It's so stupid. You sit there all night watching a game, especially if it's an exciting one and it ends in a tie!? Keep the shootout, the NHL is fine. I just think the divisions need to be realigned and they need to put themselves out more as far as advertising. They've done a good job so far I give them that. But, more can be done.

Scrap the shotout becuase it's a lousy way to decide a game.

Hockey is a team sport--yes there are times when there is individual effort that results in a great play--but it still grew out of the natural play of the game.

A breakway or penalty shot comes out of the natural play of the game--and that's what makes them exciting.

Shootouts are just lineups and individual effort to decide a team game.

And what's wrong with a tie?

I have no problem with them in regular season.

Sometimes that's the best result--both teams battled fiercely--toe to toe--and they came out of it with something.

$20 says you're sitting on the edge of your chair or on your feet when your team is involved in a shootout....

[jkrdevil]

how bout we wait til all the southern teams fold, and then go to the 4 division format.

Not even gonna dignify that with an answer... Wait...CRAP I DID!!

Anyway, my way to improve the NHL: Goalies in Shoot-outs! (BTW, in this discussion, I am predneck731.)

My idea to improve the NHL--scrap shootouts...

Why get rid of shootout? It's better than having a worhtless tie at the end of the game. It's so stupid. You sit there all night watching a game, especially if it's an exciting one and it ends in a tie!? Keep the shootout, the NHL is fine. I just think the divisions need to be realigned and they need to put themselves out more as far as advertising. They've done a good job so far I give them that. But, more can be done.

Scrap the shotout becuase it's a lousy way to decide a game.

Hockey is a team sport--yes there are times when there is individual effort that results in a great play--but it still grew out of the natural play of the game.

A breakway or penalty shot comes out of the natural play of the game--and that's what makes them exciting.

Shootouts are just lineups and individual effort to decide a team game.

And what's wrong with a tie?

I have no problem with them in regular season.

Sometimes that's the best result--both teams battled fiercely--toe to toe--and they came out of it with something.

$20 says you're sitting on the edge of your chair or on your feet when your team is involved in a shootout....

I am but I always come away with a feeling of "that was it?" afterwards. If my team my team loses the shootout it doesn't bother me like a regular loss or OT loss botheers me and If my team wins I come away with the we got a cheap win feeling.

[Roger Clemente]

Actually, with a 5 division format, you could still have an All-Star Game, just go back to the North America vs. World format perhaps.

The more I hear about the 5 division format, the more I am seriously liking it.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.