FIRST LOOK: NEW CONFERENCES
| CONFERENCE A | CONFERENCE B |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| CONFERENCE C | CONFERENCE D |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
According to the NHL "In the seven-team Conferences, teams would play six times -- three home, three away -- for a total of 36 inter-division games. In the eight-team Conferences, teams would play either five or six times in a season on a rotating basis -- for a total of 38 inter-division games.
The teams in the seven-team Conferences will have 46 out-of-conference games, including 23 at home and 23 on the road. The teams in the eight-team Conferences will have 44 out-of-conference games evenly split between home and away."
In short this is a great idea for the regular season, because it allows everyone to play each other twice. However, this is clearly a excuse to make sure certain NHL teams stay in the same division or conference as their rivals. There was a ton of talk the Red Wings for example was going to try and move to the Eastern Conference, which would of really hurt the Western. How so? Because if you are a Eastern team you easily get more exposure on TV and if you take a team as polarizing as the Red Wings out of the West, the West would lose a ton of luster. I think it got to a point where certain teams like Detroit, Minnesota, Columbus, just started complaining that they had to play a 9pm game on the West Coast too often and it could also mess them up during the playoffs. Also if you look at the teams in the West, you can tell they were separated geographically. However when you look at the east... it was all about rivalries. Some I question, like Washington not being in there with Tampa and Florida, but of course it's just to have more Crosby v. Ovechkin.
My biggest problem comes in the playoffs and it's format. One of the things I like the most at the end of the season is to watch those 2-4 teams fight it out for that last playoff spot. You always know the teams that are in the top 8 deserve it. Problem is you get the top 4 from each conference, but you could have a stronger conference team in 5th place with 95 points and lost out to a team in another conference with 90. In other worlds you'll start having teams with no business being there. Truthfully, I think that would be a little bit of a turn off come playoff time. Also I think the NHL is trying to "force rivalries" again. In my experience growing up rivalries aren't about teams playing each other over and over again... rivalries are built from two teams evenly matched, bad blood, and from intense playoff match ups. Look at all the non-divisional rivalries that have occurred over the years...
Colorado - Detroit
Chicago - Vancouver
Detroit - Vancouver
Dallas - Colorado
Dallas - Minnesota
Carolina - New Jersey
Anaheim - Nashville
It just feels like the NHL wants certain teams to have certain rivals... and it's just not something you can make happen, they just happen. They grow over time but you don't force them. Otherwise it would be like when the NHL got out of lockout and we played our division 8 times. That wasn't fun hockey... it was boring. Also there is a concern about the Stanley Cup Finals to. The worst case that could happen is that you end up with two teams from the East or the West playing for the cup. I think in terms of viewership that would really hurt the game. Will the west care at all if the Sabers played the Pens for the Cup? I don't think so... diehards might watch but the casual sports fan could be turned off.
I think you should at least separate the conferences by East and West... have conference A play B then C play D for a chance for the cup. This way you don't alienate one side of the country from the Finals.
I'll defiantly have more to say on the matter later on. Also I know it's been a long time since I updated, but with the Realignment, the World Juniors coming up and more time on my hands... expect more updates from me. In fact I think I'll even start my own, "You know what grinds my gears" articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment