OT-Nhl Approves New Four-conference
According to ESPN, this is what the Red Wings’ “conference” would look like in that case:
Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Detroit, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis and Winnipeg.
ESPN also reported that the other conference likely would have this setup:
Conference 1: Boston, Buffalo, Florida, Montreal, Ottawa, Tampa Bay, Toronto
Conference 2: Carolina, New Jersey, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
Conference 3: Anaheim, Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver
Thoughts?
http://www.thedetroitsportssite.com/2011/12/05/nhl-realignment-a-look-a…
TSN is Reporting it has been approved
http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2011/12/report_nhl_approves_mov…
EDIT***
December 5th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^
Home and home at least once with every team...most of the rivalries are held within "conference" and will only get better with playoff matchups. This set up is awesome...it is weird to think the NHL might have finally made a good decision
December 5th, 2011 at 9:29 PM ^
Then, no.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:30 PM ^
Would have liked Toronto in there.
December 6th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
Switch Dallas and Toronto and it makes sense geographically (somewhat).
I don't see why that one was overlooked.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
They probably didn't want to break up Montreal and Toronto.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:31 PM ^
I see it now.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:30 PM ^
December 5th, 2011 at 9:32 PM ^
what do you think is so bad about it?
December 5th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
December 5th, 2011 at 9:40 PM ^
20/30 teams were required to pass this. This was the best they could get passed. Now each team plays every other home and home, only one trip to the west coast a year for the Wings, at least the first two rounds of the playoffs will have games starting no later than 830...all things considered...I think this is a big improvement and that in it self is an accomplishment since the NHL fails at pretty much everything it tries
December 5th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
...how is Nashville a worthless franchise?
December 6th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
Not sure if serious...
December 6th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
Nashville is in no way a worthless franchise. Up and coming team with great attendance and support.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
I live in Nashville and attended a ton of games over the years. I don't really root for them regardless of team now that they are actually good, but when they tried to move the team the fans/community really responded. Plus there are a ton of Michigan transplants here that enjoy having hockey available to them (it's a Wings neutral game at worst when they are here).
I have been to numerous hockey games in other cities and while it's not Detroit or Chicago, it's not Atlanta or Phoenix either.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:58 AM ^
Conference 2 seems more brutal than the rest, Don't know how I feel about this.
We can criticize the names, but our Big Ten Divisions mantained competitive equality between them.
December 6th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
On the competitive balance point... they intentionally did not consider the current competitiveness of the teams.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:33 PM ^
No more 10pm start times. Isnt Winnipeg in the central time zone?
December 5th, 2011 at 9:35 PM ^
Yes they are.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:41 PM ^
December 5th, 2011 at 9:34 PM ^
Looking forward to a few more decades of dominance :)
December 5th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
the 1st 2 rounds of the playoffs will be within the division...correct? Im not sure I like that....because 1 vs 2 possibly wouldnt be played in the Conference Finals...if they are in the same Conference.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:37 PM ^
Well the NHL already re-seeds now anyway, so they'd probably figure out a way to make sure 1 and 2 didn't play too early.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:00 PM ^
I like it. Back to the way it used to be.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
This would be awesome! Only thing that would make it better, as someone posted, is having Toronto in our conference.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:38 PM ^
I think you could easily distribute teams from conference two to make it even. Five playoff teams in a group of seven is way too much.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:24 PM ^
16 total teams in playoffs divided by 4 'conferences' equals 4 teams per conference in the playoffs....but even 4 out of 7 teams seems like a high percentage making the playoffs.
Additionally, if the first two rounds are all intra-conference, that means that only one team from each 'conference' can advance to the semi-finals...totally ok to me as a Wings fan because I think we have the second easiest conference, but it should be interesting between the Caps, Pens, and even Devils/Flyers/Rangers, in this 7-team conference.
The seeding for the playoffs will be interesting, though, because the second round matchups in each conference will simply be the two winners of the first round with no opportunity to re-seed since there will only be two teams per conference that have to play each other by default.
It will be interesting to see how they handle the seeding of the semi-finals, though, to determine the two semi-final matchups. Overall record? Conference record?
December 5th, 2011 at 11:41 PM ^
"It will be interesting to see how they handle the seeding of the semi-finals, though, to determine the two semi-final matchups. Overall record? Conference record?"
Points (with the usual tie breakers), I believe.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:43 PM ^
Living in Chicago and being a Blackhawks fan, I believe this worked out as well as it could have. I know many Wings fans would have loved to move out east and see more of Toronto and Montreal, but the Hawks-Wings rivalry means too much to scrape, especially with the renewed hockey interest in Chicago. Losing that rivalry would admittedly be harder on the Blackhawks fans, but I still think there's enough interest on both sides to keep it going strong.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^
Title is extremely misleading, as it makes it sound like a decision had already been made.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:51 PM ^
Pretty much kept all the rivals together, dealt with Detroit's aversion to the west coast, and I think they may actually have made everybody happy...Way to go, Bettman?
December 5th, 2011 at 9:51 PM ^
anything that reduces the number of Columbus, Minnesota and Nashville tickets I have to try and peddle each year is a good thing.
Would prefer to be out east, but this is better than the current situation.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:57 PM ^
Isn't this worse for you then?? We will play them more.
December 6th, 2011 at 8:28 AM ^
How is 6 or 5 more than 6? Or 8? They were playing divisional foes 8 times a year a couple years ago. They had just changed to playing more games against teams in the other conference two? years ago and going to playing divisional team 6 times instead of 8 times.
Don't really like playing the Jets 6 times a year, but what are you going to do? At least there will be two games a year against every original 6 team except chicago, and there will be 5/6.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
it is only slightly better. We currently play Nashville/Columbus 6 times per year (feels more like 12) and Minn 4 times per year. Under the new system we will play Nashville/Columbus and Minn 5 1/2 times per year (6 one year, 5 the next).
The advantage now is getting to see each of the east coast teams (Toronto, Montreal, Boston and the Rangers, in particular) at the Joe once per year.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:52 PM ^
so i haven't really been following hockey lately. This conference thing is Fucky
December 5th, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^
You called the shit fucky.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:01 PM ^
Conference 1 & 2 make no sense whatsoever.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:06 PM ^
It's probably an attempt to keep the Canadian and Mid-Atlantic teams together, with the Southeast division being split up to make the conferences even. The NHL probably wants to keep Pittsburgh and Washington together as well.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:35 PM ^
Tampa and Florida for the two NY teams then?
<br>
<br>It's like they did the divisions vertically.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:54 PM ^
I'm guessing because they wanted to keep the Devils with the two NY teams, and switching it otherwise would be a problem. I have no idea what the rationale is, however.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
They were never going to split up the three NY teams and Philadelphia. Those four teams were staying together no matter what.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:16 AM ^
Then add Pittsburgh as a team that has to be with Philly, and Washington with the Penguins (though it seems silly to base a potentially long-standing alignment on a recent and temporary personal rivalry), and throw in Carolina to get to 7. That's why the Florida teams have to end up in the Canadian/Boston/Buffalo conference.
Kind of like how the Wisconsin is randomly in the East division, away from Iowa and Minnesota.
December 6th, 2011 at 1:46 AM ^
Well, the issue with the NY teams and Philadelphia is one of proximity more so than rivalry, but yes, the rivalry component is also true.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "recent and temporary personal rivalry" if you are talking about Pittsburgh and Washington. Those two teams have a pretty incredible playoff rivalry running 2+ decades now, although it's been decidedly one-sided in terms of series outcome. That's a real rivalry and one that isn't just based on the perception of Crosby v. Ovechkin, although I can see how it might appear that way from the outside. Pittsburgh has strong traditional ties with the rest of the teams in that grouping (aside from Carolina) from the old Patrick Division.
Geographically, Pittsburgh would have far preferred to have been in a grouping with Buffalo, Columbus and Detroit (all of whom are closer than NYR, NYI, NJ and Philadelphia), but that wasn't going to happen. The real problem was the determination to keep the two Florida teams together and not move any west teams to the east, which meant that you were either going to have to (1) have the Florida teams go to the (more or less) northeast grouping or (2) split up traditional rivalries in the (more or less) atlantic grouping.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:03 PM ^
They need to bring back the old-school names: Wales, Campbell, Adams, Norris, etc.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:05 PM ^
Cut the fat! Cut out Columbus, Nashville, Phoenix, and Florida (Panthers). All of these franchises are failing. If you cut these and maybe two more the talent level will rise and the wings and Chicago could all go to the east. Who has a problem with this?
December 6th, 2011 at 12:27 AM ^
Nashville is more successful than probably 6-8 teams you didn't list.
December 6th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
I don't get the hate on Nashville or the Predators.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:05 PM ^
West coast trips blew like Sid the kid. Don't tell Sandusky Crosby's nickname. F
December 5th, 2011 at 10:09 PM ^
You absolutely have to give the NHL credit for going outside the box. I think this is decent stuff here. I'm a traditionalist about damn near everything and I can't find a good reason to dislike this at all. Thumbs up, even considering the Wings are in an 8-team group instead of 7.
Watch out, though: I smell expansion on the horizon. I wouldn't hate that either because I like symmetry, but I'll tell you now, keep a weather eye for it in a couple years.