|
Hotstove, Ed. 38: Realignment Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the Hotstove! As always, I'm your host, Travis Yost.
After the suits of the National Hockey League decided to shake-up the structure and format wholesale, the roundtable - including John Jaeckel, Bill Meltzer, Aaron Musick, and Richard Cloutier - convened to discuss the various moves.
The questions posed to the roundtable: Are you a fan of realignment under the four-conference proposal? Why or why not? And, do you think it was a welcomed change, or an unnecessary move by the league that's going to do more harm than good.
Make sure to voice your thoughts from your team's perspective, too. Always great to hear how it's affecting those on a team-by-team basis. I've asked our bloggers to do the same.
--
John Jaeckel: I like realignment and was a proponent of the more "radical" four-conference plan, as opposed to letting Mr. Pizza-Pizza (not to be confused with Herman Cain), Mike Ilitch, just stomp his feet and get his way.
Why do I like it?
1) Geographical rivalries are preserved and/or re-created (Winnipeg in conference B, for example) and it alleviates travel problems for a lot of current Western Conference teams—not just Detroit— Chicago, Columbus, Nashville and even Dallas and Minnesota.
2) It leaves flexibility for a couple of "Western" franchises to go East, Phoenix and perhaps eventually Columbus.
3) And because of the above, it was the smarter move, made by a league that has not typically opted for the smarter move. By replacing Colin Campbell with Brendan Shanahan and going with this realignment plan, the indicators are trending upward.
Now get rid of the shootout and the instigator and we've really got something.
Bill Meltzer: The playoffs are all about matchups and attrition, and I think the road to the Stanley Cup got harder for teams in the expanded Atlantic Division (with Washington added in) rather than easier by virtue of having a 4-in-7 shot of making the playoffs.
Under the new format, the Philadelphia Flyers and the other Conference D teams are virtually guaranteed to have extremely tough matchups in both the first and second rounds of the playoffs.
How much will the team that comes out of the former Atlantic have left in the tank by the time the Stanley Cup semifinals comes around?
On the flip side, I think the playoff road in the Conference consisting of the expanded Northeast Division and collapsed Southeast minus Washington got a little easier because the "middle class" of that grouping is weaker.
In terms of travel, game scheduling, start times etc., there really won't be all THAT much change for the former Atlantic clubs.
There will be a bit more travel to the central and western parts of country, but not a huge difference. There will also be one fewer trip to each of the eastern Canadian cities, Buffalo, Boston and southestern US.
The trade-off doesn't balance, but it's not like there will be three multiple Pacific coast and two western Canada trips per season, the way the Dallas Stars have to travel as a member of the current Pacific Division and Western Conference.
Schedule wise, the new format is a bit fairer to everyone. Hockey wise, life got a bit tougher in the former Atlantic -- basically the old Patrick Division is back with Carolina added into it.
Richard Cloutier: My thoughts on NHL Realignment are as follows:
Obviously the plan is to move to a 32 league team in the next couple of years. Perhaps Phoenix moves to Quebec City. If so, the west will add one more team (perhaps in Seattle, Portland or Houston) and the east will add one more too (2nd TO-area team is most likely, but Hartford is also a strong possibility). If Phoenix can find a way to stay alive, the east will get two expansion franchises and the world will keep on spinning.
Anything that increases the number of teams in Canada is fine with me. The economy is strong here, and so is the passion for the game. I do worry the NHL is watering down the product too much by having so many teams, but I'd rather there be too many than too few.
As for other changes that will come with realignment, I completely support the idea of the playoff format being changed so two teams from the same side of the conferences could end up in the finals. I also really like every team will play each other at least twice per season from now on. I hated the fact the Oilers only got teams like the Penguins once per season. Every team should visit every other team's barn at least once per year, for the fan's sake.
The only thing I don't like about expansion is the stupidity being shown with the whole, "these are conferences, not divisions" discussion. Who cares? There are four groups of teams. And who cares what the names are? Want my solution? Sell the names. How much would it cost to have the Coke Conference? A few million? Do it. Make some cash. The NHL is a business. Does it make any difference if teams play in the "Gretzky" or the "Coke"? No one cares about the names, so make money with it.
Travis Yost: With so much change, even the strongest advocates and staunchest adversaries are bound to like some of the variables while hating others. I tend to be of the polarizing variety when it comes to hockey debates, but on this issue, I sit squarely on the fence.
Why? Well, to me, it's a mixed bag of success and failure alike. On the positive side, I love the idea that divisional - check that, conference - rivalries are being emphasized. Rivalry (read: hatred) drives sports, and now, we're going to see plenty of that, especially come playoff time.
Secondly, I like that there's a balance with the scheduling now. Teams will see one another out-of-conference with a higher frequency, which is great for expansion of the culture of hockey and game in general.
Lastly, at some point, you had to concede some sacrifices for central and western U.S/Canada. The travel was absurd, as was the variance in start times on a game-to-game basis.
Negatively speaking, it certainly looks as if the league's preparing for expansion of sorts, which is pretty much the worst idea of all-time. Many speak of the superb talent in juniors, overseas, and at the AHL level, but I simply don't see it. And, with a few franchises already floundering financially, I just can't see how the league is ready to add two more franchises.
Perhaps the worst part, though, is that the old Northeast division easily got the raw end of the deal. While each new conference has benefited from the addition of others, whether it be through added marketability or new geographic rivals, the 'Northeast' was forced to take on Tampa Bay and Florida, which is about as bizarre as it gets.
Listen, I've got nothing against the Tampa Bay Lightning or Florida Panthers. I'm definitely not 'Hate Hockey in the South Guy' - no one likes that guy. But, I'm absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt against this idea of a Snowbird conference, mostly because two teams in Florida have absolutely no business playing in a grouping that features teams from Toronto, Montreal, Boston, Buffalo, and Ottawa. Notice the specific geographic locale of each? Notice the already-built rivalry between the collective? It's just weird.
I know there may not have been a better place to put the two Floridian teams, and it's probably going to help the two southern hockey franchises with big hockey fan bases buying their tickets up at home games. Still, this grouping certainly isn't better from what it was a week ago - that much is certain.
Aaron Musick: When Atlanta moved to Winnipeg, it necessitated some sort of realignment. You just could not have a team from Canada playing teams in Washington D.C., Carolina and Florida. Furthermore, the rickety bridge that is the Phoenix Coyotes is not on stable ground either so the general managers needed to find a solution that would work even if Phoenix moves.
As for the alignment, the NHL had better work on establishing rivalries around the divisions so that the fans of the teams around the league don't get bored seeing the same team five or six times a year. Seeing every team come to the Pepsi Center every year is going to be fun but seeing the Blackhawks, Red Wings and Blues only once a year will not be.
Those three teams are a lot of fun to watch play and games between the Avs and them are always fun and having it at home only once a year is going to be hard to swallow. However, being put into a division full of young offensively-gifted teams- Kings, Oilers, Sharks, etc- is going to be a blast, provided the Avs don't totally get destroyed.
This could also set up more road trips around Los Angeles and Canada which would be perfect for fans to follow their team through a road trip, if they so wish.
However, with this conference, there might be a problem of lack of National interest. In this conference, there is no Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Washington or Tampa Bay. The Canadian networks will pick up the Canadian teams on national TV but with Versus air games from this conference?
The only problem with the alignment is the playoffs. They need to insitute something where if team 5 from West 1 has more points than team 4 from West 2, the team from West 1 should make the playoffs in the other conference's divisional playoffs. It would mix up the playoffs and bring more equality to the playoff system.
Perhaps in that scenario, the two teams play in a one-game play-in game for a chance at the playoffs.
Realignment is not perfect and no solution will but this one has potential as long as the playoff picture is balanced and the in-conference games remain intriguing.
--
Thanks for reading!
Join the Discussion:
»