NHL realignment on the table again.

[slappybrown]

I don't really disagree with you Slappy. Perhaps I am over-valuing "fairness" and perhaps further I am ignoring the anecdotes you provide. The second half of your most recent long post is also spot on. The current system is also not fair under my scenario. But that a more-fair option is not the most-fair option is not a reason to choose a less-fair option.

I think one thing you ignore is it doesn't just matter who wins the Cup---I think it also matters who gets to the Cup, who gets to the Conference finals, and who gets the second round. There is significant disutility from your team losing earlier than they should.

Moreover, that "one of the best teams in the NHL" always wins the Cup ignores my central point: I suggest that the proposed system will make it significantly harder for certain teams to win the Cup. Suppose the West is fairly divided between a 7 and 8 team conference, but the East is divided into a stacked 8-team conference (NJ, NYR, Pittsburgh, Boston, Philly, Montreal, Toronto, Washington). Under a divisional playoff system (and unequal sized divisions), you would undoubtedly expect that conference to win fewer Stanley Cups. Yet, you would also expect a top-six team to always win the Cup. Presumably every Stanley Cup will be played between a top team from the West and a top team from the East, both whom are top-six NHL teams. That the Cup produces a "good team" as champion, doesn't mean the playoff system doesn't unfairly eliminate good teams too early.

"But that a more-fair option is not the most-fair option is not a reason to choose a less-fair option."

Of course. There is a point on the axis where unfairness outweighs the benefits it provides -- money, TV value, rooting interest, whatever -- where the structure is not one we should choose. My point on that axis is further away from a purely fair model compared to where you are, which is fine. I just don't think the proposed model is so "unfair" that its negatives outweigh its positives, but obviously to each their own. Your view is hardly unreasonable.

Also, your hypothetical conference isn't what they've done, and with a cap/reverse order of standings draft, no I don't even see your hypothetical conference dominating. Toronto hasn't won a cup in nearly 50 years. The Rags have one in 94, and before that, 1940. Boston hadn't won in 30 years prior to 2011. Philly is at nearly 40. Those places are hockey-mad, phenomenal markets, but particularly in the current economic structure, not guaranteed of success.

[shmenguin]

Hammer's complaint -- and to use his hypothetical -- is that in a world where PGH and PHI are top 2 in the East, they shouldn't play until the conference finals. In a divisional world, they play in the second round instead. Sorry?

see, i think that matters quite a bit, actually.

Fair enough. It has consequences, no doubt (in this hypothetical world where chalk holds, less playoff revenue compared to what one might otherwise have chief among them). I think the benefits -- primarily increased viewership and TV money where there is a significantly higher chance of seeing PIT v. PHI, NYR v. PHI, TOR v. DET, LA v. ANA, EDM v. CGY, the matchups that guarantee heat and eyeballs -- outweigh the decreased "fairness" and potential lost tickets. I personally root for us to play one of our traditional rivals every year, no matter what, so far fans like me, it also has that intangible value.

i'll take "path of least resistance" over "rivalry" any day.

[slappybrown]

Hammer's complaint -- and to use his hypothetical -- is that in a world where PGH and PHI are top 2 in the East, they shouldn't play until the conference finals. In a divisional world, they play in the second round instead. Sorry?

see, i think that matters quite a bit, actually.

Fair enough. It has consequences, no doubt (in this hypothetical world where chalk holds, less playoff revenue compared to what one might otherwise have chief among them). I think the benefits -- primarily increased viewership and TV money where there is a significantly higher chance of seeing PIT v. PHI, NYR v. PHI, TOR v. DET, LA v. ANA, EDM v. CGY, the matchups that guarantee heat and eyeballs -- outweigh the decreased "fairness" and potential lost tickets. I personally root for us to play one of our traditional rivals every year, no matter what, so far fans like me, it also has that intangible value.

i'll take "path of least resistance" over "rivalry" any day.

The current model isn't the "path of least resistance" though. Such a model has never been used.

[TheHammer24]

I don't really disagree with you Slappy. Perhaps I am over-valuing "fairness" and perhaps further I am ignoring the anecdotes you provide. The second half of your most recent long post is also spot on. The current system is also not fair under my scenario. But that a more-fair option is not the most-fair option is not a reason to choose a less-fair option.

I think one thing you ignore is it doesn't just matter who wins the Cup---I think it also matters who gets to the Cup, who gets to the Conference finals, and who gets the second round. There is significant disutility from your team losing earlier than they should.

Moreover, that "one of the best teams in the NHL" always wins the Cup ignores my central point: I suggest that the proposed system will make it significantly harder for certain teams to win the Cup. Suppose the West is fairly divided between a 7 and 8 team conference, but the East is divided into a stacked 8-team conference (NJ, NYR, Pittsburgh, Boston, Philly, Montreal, Toronto, Washington). Under a divisional playoff system (and unequal sized divisions), you would undoubtedly expect that conference to win fewer Stanley Cups. Yet, you would also expect a top-six team to always win the Cup. Presumably every Stanley Cup will be played between a top team from the West and a top team from the East, both whom are top-six NHL teams. That the Cup produces a "good team" as champion, doesn't mean the playoff system doesn't unfairly eliminate good teams too early.

"But that a more-fair option is not the most-fair option is not a reason to choose a less-fair option."

Of course. There is a point on the axis where unfairness outweighs the benefits it provides -- money, TV value, rooting interest, whatever -- where the structure is not one we should choose. My point on that axis is further away from a purely fair model compared to where you are, which is fine. I just don't think the proposed model is so "unfair" that its negatives outweigh its positives, but obviously to each their own. Your view is hardly unreasonable.

Nor is yours. And if the Penguins were in an easier division, surely my opinion would be different. I'm not even sure I'm right and you're wrong in the cost-benefit analysis.

Also, your hypothetical conference isn't what they've done, and with a cap/reverse order of standings draft, no I don't even see your hypothetical conference dominating. Toronto hasn't won a cup in nearly 50 years. The Rags have one in 94, and before that, 1940. Boston hadn't won in 30 years prior to 2011. Philly is at nearly 40. Those places are hockey-mad, phenomenal markets, but particularly in the current economic structure, not guaranteed of success.

My hypo was an extreme example to show why my argument matters. They've not done that, which suggests to "fairness" costs are lower than I present, bolstering your assessment of that trade-off.

[shmenguin]

Hammer's complaint -- and to use his hypothetical -- is that in a world where PGH and PHI are top 2 in the East, they shouldn't play until the conference finals. In a divisional world, they play in the second round instead. Sorry?

see, i think that matters quite a bit, actually.

Fair enough. It has consequences, no doubt (in this hypothetical world where chalk holds, less playoff revenue compared to what one might otherwise have chief among them). I think the benefits -- primarily increased viewership and TV money where there is a significantly higher chance of seeing PIT v. PHI, NYR v. PHI, TOR v. DET, LA v. ANA, EDM v. CGY, the matchups that guarantee heat and eyeballs -- outweigh the decreased "fairness" and potential lost tickets. I personally root for us to play one of our traditional rivals every year, no matter what, so far fans like me, it also has that intangible value.

i'll take "path of least resistance" over "rivalry" any day.

The current model isn't the "path of least resistance" though. Such a model has never been used.

well i don't like the current model either. i like it better than the proposed one, but that's not much of a compliment.

[Rylan]

What would you propose shmenguin?

[slappybrown]

What would you propose shmenguin?

I'm interested as well.

[shmenguin]

What would you propose shmenguin?

I'm interested as well.

i've generally thought the current set up, while flawed, is acceptable, particularly compared to the new proposal. i haven't spent much thought thinking of alternatives, but if pressed...

east and west are still split apart for the playoffs and there are still 6 total divisions. each conference is still seeded 1-8, but division winners are not guaranteed a top 3 spot. by winning your division, you clinch a playoff birth and that's it. i would be ok if they didn't even get that, but for the sake of keeping all the regions at least a little engaged in the playoffs, i'll allow this allotted spot.

for "re-alignment", i'd move columbus to the SE, winnepeg to the northwest and minnesota to the central.

nothing earth-shattering here. detroit still gets a little screwed, but what can you do?

[slappybrown]

What would you propose shmenguin?

I'm interested as well.

i've generally thought the current set up, while flawed, is acceptable, particularly compared to the new proposal. i haven't spent much thought thinking of alternatives, but if pressed...

east and west are still split apart for the playoffs and there are still 6 total divisions. each conference is still seeded 1-8, but division winners are not guaranteed a top 3 spot. by winning your division, you clinch a playoff birth and that's it. i would be ok if they didn't even get that, but for the sake of keeping all the regions at least a little engaged in the playoffs, i'll allow this allotted spot.

for "re-alignment", i'd move columbus to the SE, winnepeg to the northwest and minnesota to the central.

nothing earth-shattering here. detroit still gets a little screwed, but what can you do?

I agree that if the league kept the current proposal, the division winner gets a berth but nothing more -- not a guaranteed 1-3 seed.

[columbia]

I hate the automatic top 3.
That encourages a team to be just better than the rest of their division, but not necessarily to be good.

Plus the 6th seed playing a weak #3 is pure BS.

[the riddler]

I agree about division winners automatically getting the top 3 seeds. Other than that, there isn't really much to complain about with the current playoff format. This whole thing seems to be about appeasing Detroit.

[no name]

You guys are all making good points about the issues i agree with most of you, but no one is putting forth a solution that fixes these imbalance issues. With this set up (4 division) its just not easy.

I think you if you go with 4 divisions make one 8 teams and one 7 teams. Teams 1-4 in the 8 team get in 1-3 in the 7th team div. get it the last spot is by points. If the last team comes from a 8th team div. (5th place) they just cross over to the other div. for the first 2 rounds.

This would be intense cause tech. a team from our division could come out of the other division as the playoff winner.

This sounds complex but it makes it some what equal. But still no way perfect. There just isn't a easy way to do this.

[no name]

Been reading articles on this all morning to see what the latest is and.... Alot of articles say the players will reject this new alignment on the same principal that the inbalanced divisions isn't fair. Also several GMs are unhappy with their placement.

[Kovy27]

Been reading articles on this all morning to see what the latest is and.... Alot of articles say the players will reject this new alignment on the same principal that the inbalanced divisions isn't fair. Also several GMs are unhappy with their placement.

Players are probably going to reject it. They need to make it 7-8 on each side until expansion.

Tampa Bay and Florida are the two teams with major issues with the realignment. I'm not sure why they can't get this right, it really isn't rocket science.

Keep it the way it is...slide Nashville or Columbus into the SE division.

OR

Conference 1: Montreal, Boston, Ottawa, Toronto, NYI, NYR, NJ --- Expansion: QUE
Conference 2: Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Philly, Washington, Carolina, Tampa, Florida
Conference 3: Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, Winnipeg, Colorado, St Louis, Dallas, Nashville
Conference 4: LA, Anaheim, SJ, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Phoenix --- Expansion: SEA

I'm sorry Detroit, but the travel idea gets dumped on because you are playing 1 and 1 outside your conference now. So, you are only traveling 1 time zone most of the time (outside Colorado).

[no name]

I think they are better going with the confrence set up (top 3 are in) with 4 wild cards getting in. You only move teams in the 5th seed who go in. If its in another time zone or really far away you play a 2-3-2 series to limit travel.

EX.

Pitt
Carolina
Wash
NYR
Phila

LA
SJ
Van

Phila. would play LA in the first round playing a 2-3-2 series. The other 2 divisions had their top 3 make it and their 4th place teams made it in with the most points. THis would also make it fair for teams in the 8th team confrences.

[Gaucho]

Surprised that nobody posted this already:

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
Via news release, NHLPA says it has given consent to NHL on its proposed re-alignment, to be re-evaluated after the 2014-15 season

Dave Molinari ‏@MolinariPG
Penguins will be in an 8-team division with Philadelphia, Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Columbus, Carolina and Washington next season.

[MRandall25]

YESSSSSSS. Pens in CBus.

[penny lane]

patrick division + 2

[no name]

Any word on the playoff system that will be used?? I like thew 4 big divisions, but i don't like the 8 team divisions will be harfer to make the playoffs.

[newarenanow]

Boooooo. I don't like this.

[Krom]

Best possible scenario for Pens. They stay in same division and add another competitive rival (Caps) and a potential geographic rival (Jackets).

[DudeMan2766]

Best possible scenario for Pens. They stay in same division and add another competitive rival (Caps) and a potential geographic rival (Jackets).

How many rivals do you need though? Over the course of an 82 game season having rivalry games is going to take a ton out of a team. And yes i know the other guys have to do it too, but i dunno. Either every game is going to be so emotionally charged it'll be destramental to a team, or the matchups will just get watered down.

[GreenBlood10]

Me likey!!!!

[Kovy27]

Me likey!!!!

How? TB/FLA in the north & Detroit/Chicago rivalry is dead. They are morons.

[pens2005]

How many times will we play each division opponent? 4?

Because they are playing the other conference teams home and home, right?

What was it like back in the early 90s? I totally forget.