Report: NHL eyes divisional, playoff overhaul

[Telemundo219]

If I had things my way,this is how the NHL would look from here on in.

THE "NEW" OL'-SKOOL NAT'L HOCKEY LEAGUE ALIGNMENT

EASTERN/WALES Conference

ATLANTIC/PATRICK

1).New Jersey

2).New York(Long Island)

3).New York(Manhattan)

4).Philadelphia

5).Carolina

6).Atlanta

7).Tampa Bay

8).Florida

What are ya gonna do?not much else I had to do.

NORTHEAST/ADAMS

1).Boston

2).Buffalo

3).Montreal

4).Ottawa

5).Pittsburgh-NHL won't let them go trust me.

6).Toronto

7).Washington,DC-I know they belong in the Atl.,but I had no choice.

I have strong feelings about this division-pretty sweet though.

WESTERN/CAMPBELL Conference

CENTRAL/NORRIS

1).Chicago

2).Columbus

3).Dallas/Ft.Worth

4).Detroit

5).Minnesota

6).Nashville

7).St.Louis

FYI,this is gonna be may fav. division if things work out as they planned.

PACIFIC/SMYTHE

1).Anaheim

2).Calgary

3).Colorado

4).Edmonton

5).Los Angeles

6).Phoenix

7).San Jose

8).Vancouver

see...the ATLANTIC-this division is 1/2 way decent as well.

FYI-in a perfect world,if the NHL expands again,they should give towns like Hartford,Winnipeg

Quebec City another "shot",but it's not nor it will ever be.TPTB(The Powers That Be)are going

to give Kansas City,Houston,Portland or even Salt Lake a glance over the 3 previous towns

that had teams before.That's all for today.THE END.

How bout doin it NFL Style by having dallas in the east with Washington and bring back the Black-And-Blue Norris Division

Also, three Original Six teams will be in one division (Rangers, Boston, Habs in Adams, Toronto, Detroit, Chicago in Norris)

Patrick-Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Carolina, Florida, Tampa Bay, Washington

Adams-Philly, Pittsburgh, Rangers, Isles, Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, New Jersey

Norris-Ottawa, Toronto, Detroit, Columbus, Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis

Smythe-Vancouver, LA, San Jose, Phoenix, Colorado, Anaheim, Calgary, Edmonton

If the Pens move to KC or Hamilton, they switch places with Ottawa

If they move to Houston, they just move to the Patrick thanks to the hatred of Dallas vs. Washington

If they go to Oregon, they go to Smythe, Ottawa goes to Adams, Colorado goes to Norris

How about this idea..........

DON'T CHANGE A DAMN THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Milo Meningocele]

If the NFL's overtime format was changed to teams alternating field goal or hail mary attempts, fans would burn down the league offices. And regarding overtime losses, I'm keeping my hard line stance: if you lose a game under any circumstances, you shouldn't get a single point.

Really? Cause everyone I know would like to see the NFL's overtime changed to something more similar to the NCAA with alternating chances at fieldgoals/touchdowns. (Kinda like a shootout, huh?)

And if the game is even after regulation, why shouldn't both teams get rewarded? So a team that loses in the dying seconds of overtime is no better than a team that got blown out 9-0? Makes no sense to me. If extra time is needed to settle a game, then both teams are worthy of points in my opinion.

Intentionally or not, I think you misconstrued the parallel I made with the NFL changing its overtime format. The current NFL overtime is played exactly like the four quarters preceding it, except it is sudden death. There is a coin toss, and then teams try to drive for a touchdown or field goal, just as they did the entire game. The NCAA version that you weakly tried to compare to a shootout is largely similar to its regulation as well. It's still 11 on 11, with no silly gimmicks like a QB and 3 WRs trying to convert long bombs against a few DBs. In the NBA, the game is exactly the same in OT as it was in regulation. In baseball, same deal--nothing changes, they just play until someone wins. So why in hockey do the rules have to change completely after regulation? Why 4 on 4 when the previous 3 periods were 5 on 5? And then if nobody scores, a team game is decided by some stupid 1 on 1 dog and pony show? That's ludicrous. I realize that hockey is an extremely physical game where teams play several times per week, making it unfeasible to adopt in the regular season the playoff format where they play until someone wins. But there was nothing wrong with regular season ties, it was only changed in Bettman's NBA-ization of the league.

And your argument for overtime loss points seems half-baked to me, too. In the NFL, MLB, and NBA a loss is a loss, whether you lose by 1 at the buzzer or 100--whether it was overtime, extra innings or regulation. The losers get nothing. So why not the NHL? It's not the Special Olympics, you shouldn't get points just for participating.

[Guest]

I agree with you on some things and disagree on others, Milo. I agree that wins are wins and losses are losses, and only the NHL doesn't get this, and nobody knows why. Furthermore, 5 minutes of 4-on-4 is silly. However, I do love the shootout, whether my Blackhawks win or lose. It's some real edge-of-your-seat stuff. My proposal has always been 10 minutes of 5/5 overtime before the shootout, just to make it a rarer occasion.

Ever tried to read some people's proposals where it's like

If you win in regulation, you get three points, plus each team gets a point for the period they outscored the other team in, and everyone gets two points for a tie, plus a bonus point for winning in overtime, and a second if you win in a shootout, but the other team gets half a point for forcing the shootout, and you can get double points by spinning a giant wheel after the game and hoping it lands on DOUBLE, but you can also hit ZERO and that means you don't get any points.

Man. I know I embellished at the end there, but it's ridiculous stuff. Wins. Losses. That's it.

[Cooleyvol]

If the Penguins move to Kansas City, shouldn't Nashville be the one moved to the East?

[Fred T. Jane]

Man. I know I embellished at the end there, but it's ridiculous stuff. Wins. Losses. That's it.

Hehehe... Watch out, as the NHL's Competition Committee may catch onto that...

[Roger Clemente]

I agree with you on some things and disagree on others, Milo. I agree that wins are wins and losses are losses, and only the NHL doesn't get this, and nobody knows why.

It isn't through stubbornness, it's through tradition. The NHL has been tracking ties (even though they've phased them out for a guarenteed winner) and using points since day 1 back in 1917. Yes, that is before either the NFL or NBA were created.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[Sodboy13]

For me, this scoring makes the most sense:

Regulation: Win = 2 pts, Loss = 0 pts

Overtime: Win = 2 pts, Loss = 0 pts

Shootout: Win = 2 pts, Loss = 1 pt

In other words, an overtime win is still a full fledged win, but if it's still tied after O.T., winning in the shootout only gives you a 1 point advantage. And losing in the shootout still earns you a point for tying all the way through "regular hockey."

Think about it. It's the middle of March. Two divisional foes, both jockeying for playoff position, are going at it, and are dead-even after regulation. When one point can make all the difference, those five minutes of overtime are going to be absolutely bonkers. Plus, arranging the point system in such a fashion appeases the so-called purists who decry the shootout as a gimmick, and it simplifies the standings back to three columns: W-L-SOL.

[Milo Meningocele]

I agree with you on some things and disagree on others, Milo. I agree that wins are wins and losses are losses, and only the NHL doesn't get this, and nobody knows why.

It isn't through stubbornness, it's through tradition. The NHL has been tracking ties (even though they've phased them out for a guarenteed winner) and using points since day 1 back in 1917. Yes, that is before either the NFL or NBA were created.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

I could be wrong, but I think he was referring more to the idea of OT or shootout loss points. He didn't explicitly disagree with the idea I posted that there were nothing wrong with regular season ties.

[Fred T. Jane]

I could be wrong, but I think he was referring more to the idea of OT or shootout loss points. He didn't explicitly disagree with the idea I posted that there were nothing wrong with regular season ties.

The concept of OT loss points have been around in Europe since the 1930s or so in Sweden. Of course, I'd much rather prefer the concept of every game being worth 3 points (Also tried in Sweden, but dropped later on)... Win in regulation, you get 3 points. Win in OT (or a shootout in our case), you get 2, and the opponent gets a point.

[WJMorris3]

Why not just scrap the idea of overtime in the regular season, anyways?

[goalieboy82]

Top 4 in each division make the playoffs, 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3.

Good old days

there was also only 6 teams in the NHL then.

[Fred T. Jane]

there was also only 6 teams in the NHL then.

Er... No.

He was talking about the Expansion Era, specifically from 1980-1993 where division teams played each other in order to advance in the playoffs.

As to why Overtime, well, let's just say us North Americans like a winner.

[cappital92]

there was also only 6 teams in the NHL then.

Er... No.

He was talking about the Expansion Era, specifically from 1980-1993 where division teams played each other in order to advance in the playoffs.

As to why Overtime, well, let's just say us North Americans like a winner.

In goalieboy82's defence, that was the way it worked when there were only the Original Six.

[Fred T. Jane]

In goalieboy82's defence, that was the way it worked when there were only the Original Six.

I'm perfectly aware of that, but Chris specifically said...

Top 4 in each division make the playoffs, 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3.

You don't have an each when you're only talking about a singular object in a statement...

[Telemundo219]

If the Penguins move to Kansas City, shouldn't Nashville be the one moved to the East?

hmmmm............. Makes a lot of sense to me instead of moving Atlanta to the West when it's further east then a lot of the eastern conference teams or putting Washington in the Northeast when New York, New York or a lot more northern than it. Trying to make sense of this will just cause a person to go insane. So like I said before.................

Don't change anything!!!

[CC97]

In goalieboy82's defence, that was the way it worked when there were only the Original Six.

I'm perfectly aware of that, but Chris specifically said...

Top 4 in each division make the playoffs, 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3.

You don't have an each when you're only talking about a singular object in a statement...

Thank you.

And actually, back in the Original 6 days it was 1 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4.

[Fred T. Jane]

And actually, back in the Original 6 days it was 1 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4.

Yes it was, and it was almost considered sacrilegious in 1971-72 when the playoff went to 1-4 and 2-3... almost as sacrilegious was the fact that a few years earlier the playoff format switched from a completely intradivisional playoff format to one where the winners of the 1-3 matchup faced the 2-4 winner from the other division. The possibility of an Original 6 team being knocked off by an expansion team before the Stanley Cup Finals... that's horrible!

[HedleyLamarr]

For me, this scoring makes the most sense:

Regulation: Win = 2 pts, Loss = 0 pts

Overtime: Win = 2 pts, Loss = 0 pts

Shootout: Win = 2 pts, Loss = 1 pt

In other words, an overtime win is still a full fledged win, but if it's still tied after O.T., winning in the shootout only gives you a 1 point advantage. And losing in the shootout still earns you a point for tying all the way through "regular hockey."

Think about it. It's the middle of March. Two divisional foes, both jockeying for playoff position, are going at it, and are dead-even after regulation. When one point can make all the difference, those five minutes of overtime are going to be absolutely bonkers. Plus, arranging the point system in such a fashion appeases the so-called purists who decry the shootout as a gimmick, and it simplifies the standings back to three columns: W-L-SOL.

That's a nice idea in theory, but you're sadly mistaken.

That overtime game in March is going to be the opposite of bonkers. If they're in dire need of points, they'll play more of a "not-to-lose" game instead of "playing-to-win" and get the game to a shootout, where they'll collect a point and not lose as much ground should they lose the shootout. You don't quite remember how boring OT's were right before they changed the rule, did you? The only time you'll see an aggressive team in the overtime period is either if they're in 9th place and needing two points desperately, or a team that's been eliminated from postseason contention, and is just playing out the schedule.

[jkrdevil]

It should be interesting to note that the World Juniors are using the NHL overtime format (5 min. 4 on 4, followed by a 3 round shootout) with the 3-2-1 point format for round robin play. Although it's a short tournament and thus overtime play is different it should be interesting to see how the point system works out and how OT is played. There has already been 1 OT game with Germany beating the US 2-1.

Personally I like the 3-2-1 format because it makes each game worth in total the same amount of points but doesn't punish a team if they end up losing the gimmick.

[NJTank]

It should be interesting to note that the World Juniors are using the NHL overtime format (5 min. 4 on 4, followed by a 3 round shootout) with the 3-2-1 point format for round robin play. Although it's a short tournament and thus overtime play is different it should be interesting to see how the point system works out and how OT is played. There has already been 1 OT game with Germany beating the US 2-1.

Personally I like the 3-2-1 format because it makes each game worth in total the same amount of points but doesn't punish a team if they end up losing the gimmick.

Oooh I like that idea