NHL Ends Conferences - What About Other Sports?

[Pyser]

With the new NHL alignment (4 "conferences" - aka divisions - no "east" and "west" anymore), I got to thinking about other sports. I think it's a pretty fantastic idea overall, particularly for hockey. Purists aside, how would you like to see it in other sports?

Could the NFL go to a top 2 from each division making the playoffs, then playing each other in round 1? Or perhaps go from 8 divisions to 4, and the top 4 from each make it and battle it out? Or what if there were no conferences, and it could have given us some Colts-Patriots Super Bowls this decade? Or the Niners-Cowboys in the 90's, for example? The league is already talking of expanding the playoff format, so there wouldn't be byes anyway.

The NBA could easily go a similar route to promote divisional rivalries. Or just seed everyone 1-16 and let them all go at it. Lakers - Mavs finals? Heat - Celtics? It doesn't necessarily preclude Lakers - Celtics, either.

Baseball purists are the worst, really, but even they are talking of expanding the playoff field. Would a Yankees - Red Sox world series be interesting? More interesting than Cardinals - Rangers?

The MLS is already insane with wildcards and teams switching formats.

It's all hypothetical, but eliminating conferences or making escaping your division more important really opens up some interesting sports possibilities in my mind.

In the end, do conferences even matter?

[molson]

Hmm, I still like the order of conference 1 v. conference 2 in the finals. Maybe that's irrational, maybe I'm too set in the ways that we have, but I prefer a history where if hear "Yankees v. Red Sox", I know it was in the AL playoffs, and if I hear "Red Sox v. Rockies", I know it must have been in the world series. I could get over it, I'm sure, but I kind of like that order how history is easily defined by it.

Divisions though, ya, I hate those and would love to see them go away in every sport. Teams should be split by whatever unit you're using to seed. If you're seeding teams across a conference, than don't further split the conference into divisions, it just creates confusion. The NBA is really comical with this - at first they gave three division winners seeds 1-3, but then crappy teams got seeded #3 ahead of superior teams seeded #4, so then winning a division only guaranteed you a top 4 seed, and I don't think they necessarily get home court It makes no sense, if a division winner being bad is such a huge problem - DON'T HAVE DIVISIONS. Just have a conference and seed 1-8 if you're so concerned about teams being seeded in order of record across a conference.

In the NFL, I don't mind it as much, because a team can't play everyone, you need some system to determine who plays who. And the NFL system is great in that it's predicable year-to-year, I know where the Patriots are playing on the road next year already, and I know most of their schedule for the next 8 years. And if the Pats are going to play the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins every year - it does make some sense to group them in a division and let the best of the group go to the playoffs. So I don't mind that setup as long as it remains simple and direct. If they ever freak out and put exceptions on division champions making the playoffs (The "Seahawk rule" that was proposed last year that would require a winning record for a division record to make the playoffs), I'll hate it and they might as well just do 16-team conferences and take the top 6 to the playoffs. Divisions either matter or they don't.

Baseball, with the lack of parity, I'd love to just see divisions abolished there too. Top 3 get in, Teams 4 and 5 play-in to join the top 3. Ya, teams 1 and 2 don't necessarily have much to play for down the stretch, but the top 2 teams usually have their divisions wrapped up late anyway. Maybe let the top team choose if it wants to play #2, #3, or the winner of #4/#5 in the divisional playoffs, or let them have 4 home games out of 5.

[RainMaker]

I still think the conferences provide for good rivalries. I enjoyed having the Bulls play the Pistons or Knicks every year in the playoffs.

My idea for the NHL has been to go to 24 teams, have 12 in Canada, 12 in the US, and split the conferences by that. Have a US-Canada Stanley Cup every year.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My idea for the NHL has been to go to 24 teams, have 12 in Canada, 12 in the US, and split the conferences by that. Have a US-Canada Stanley Cup every year.

I like that a lot. NHL franchise moves, which seem to happen all the time, might screw things up here and there, but that might be a minor issue.

[Young Drachma]

I like the new conferences. Conference semi, conference finals, stanley cup semis and stanley cup finals. (Top 4 teams in each conference make the postseason) I'm totally cool with it. I think it's better than the status quo, especially since it means the Devils will get a game in Denver ever year. And while it's 16 in one and 14 in the other, Phoenix is probably moving east one of these years anyway and so there will be another shift too.

I think MLS format absolutely sucks and anything they could do to fix it would be better.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Pyser

Purists aside, how would you like to see it in other sports?

Kind of stacking the responses aren't you?

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think MLS format absolutely sucks and anything they could do to fix it would be better.

I wish MLS would switch to the general table that most of the rest of the world uses and get rid of the playoffs completely.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still think the conferences provide for good rivalries. I enjoyed having the Bulls play the Pistons or Knicks every year in the playoffs.

My idea for the NHL has been to go to 24 teams, have 12 in Canada, 12 in the US, and split the conferences by that. Have a US-Canada Stanley Cup every year.

Stop it Bill Simmons.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Grover

I wish MLS would switch to the general table that most of the rest of the world uses and get rid of the playoffs completely.

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

I would rather see a two conference alignment with rotating home and away games with the other conference. Playoffs aren't a problem as many Western Hemisphere leagues use them.

Yeah, I don't think getting rid of playoffs works. We're too used to them and I don't think there's any financial incentive to a single-table in MLS. It'd be a terrible idea. The changes they've made to make MLS Cup a home game to the top seed left is a great idea.

Plus, Australians are like us and have playoffs in all of their leagues too. So it's not just us and the Japanese League has done it at different times too.

[RainMaker]

The idea has been around way longer than Simmons. Even before the influx of teams that moved from Canada down to the South.

[General Mike]

Dola,

NHL needs to go back to the old "division" names

[Young Drachma]

I think divisions in baseball give the semblance of repeating the old way of doing things where you basically have a single table you're competing against. With 5 teams in each division after next year, each division will be half as large as each league was back before the first AL expansion in the 1960s. So it's not the same, but it sort of works well enough.

There's still some punch you get from winning a division in baseball and even with two wild cards, it hasn't exploded to the point to the NFL where wild cards (and frankly, even division titles) are meaningless and that it's all about the World Series.

I think in college, things have become so muddled with the BCS, that it's taken away a lot of the luster that used to come from winning your conference unless you're in the Big 10 and Pac-12 or SEC, because people spend so much time kicking dirt on teams outside of those leagues that fail to win.

I think the NBA probably needs some kind of better system, because right now the playoff race is a huge joke and this distinction is where hockey gets to further differentiate itself and to create more punch to what are already the best playoffs from start to finish in NA sports.

I think football's divisions are watered down pretty bad, but not sure what I'd do to alter them at this point. Seems they work okay save any expansion to upset the current balance of things.

[rowech]

The MLS is an attempt to Americanize soccer. Not sure why they couldn't do a basic league table but then have a tournament also throughout the course of the season ala the FA cup.

I think part of the problem with sports right now is the continual addition of playoff teams. I worry football is going to follow the suit of baseball and add more teams. NHL and NBA seem way too many teams already. Just detracts so much from the importance of the regular season in my mind.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Dola,

NHL needs to go back to the old "division" names

Yeah, I doubt they'll do it for the same reason they switched in the first place. As a friend put it when we talked today, "the only people who would have any idea would be some old guy in NYC, Boston, Chicago and Toronto." Then he made a Philly joke.

But yeah, I'd love to see something like that. I think we're going to be stuck with Atlantic, Northeast, Central and Pacific conferences instead though.

What also sucks about the NHL realignment is that we'll probably lose the Prince of Wales and Campbell trophies. Unless they give them two of the conferences and make two new trophies. Or if they give those to the Stanley Cup semi-finalists. Which would be odd...all fun things to think about though.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by rowech

The MLS is an attempt to Americanize soccer. Not sure why they couldn't do a basic league table but then have a tournament also throughout the course of the season ala the FA cup.

I think part of the problem with sports right now is the continual addition of playoff teams. I worry football is going to follow the suit of baseball and add more teams. NHL and NBA seem way too many teams already. Just detracts so much from the importance of the regular season in my mind.

MLS already takes part in the US Open Cup. It's just not as sexy as the FA Cup, but it is our version of that. I think an MLS Cup playoff "tournament" would be really lame.

Euro-izing MLS for the sake of claiming some kind of international cred with our friends across the Atlantic might be cute for about 15 minutes, but we should be who we are. And if the league is gonna get mainstream popularity, it'll get it having playoffs and letting fans have some feeling they're in the race late in the season or else, most years there will be no drama at all.

We're a playoff country, not a single table satisfied one. (Well, except for college football where we seem content to let dolts, partisans and computer geeks determine the winner on the field. But I digress...)

[Grover]

For me it's a matter of personal preference. I don't like the playoff system in soccer, I'd much rather see a table. I hate the way MLS is currently set up and its one of the reasons why I don't watch many games (that and the product still has a long way to go to being truly entertaining... DP system, etc are flawed).

Perhaps I'm just stuck in my ways from watching European football for as long as I have.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Grover

For me it's a matter of personal preference. I don't like the playoff system in soccer, I'd much rather see a table. I hate the way MLS is currently set up and its one of the reasons why I don't watch many games (that and the product still has a long way to go to being truly entertaining... DP system, etc are flawed).

Perhaps I'm just stuck in my ways from watching European football for as long as I have.

The majority of casual American fans don't and didn't watch Euro football. If MLS only catered to you fans, they'd persistently be a minor league in this country that would never generate the sort of revenue to compete as anything resembling a top league.

But by trying to slow-growth it and cater gradually to casual fans in big cities, coupled with the die-hards, I think it gives them a better blueprint to long-term success. So doing more counterintuitive Euro things to appeal to people who don't really support the sport's long-term growth would be signing their death warrant.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yeah, I don't think getting rid of playoffs works.

This is where the joke about it working for college football goes, right?

/thinks this is where the joke about it working for college football goes

[Grover]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

The Eurosnob fan doesn't watch MLS anyways. They're busy frontrunning with whatever top team they latched on to and can't be bothered to watch the lowly MLS. They still say the quality of play isn't good enough despite also claiming to not watch. They worship at the alter of tradition that they have essentially no part in. Basically, they're sports hipsters.

Just smack them in the face with their own tweed, dismiss them, and move on.

I'm a West Ham supporter. Clearly I'm front running.

Also, I've been to several MLS games in the past 2-3 years (granted the Revs have sucked) and I just don't enjoy the overall quality of the games. I never said I didn't watch, I said I don't watch many games. If I were a "sports hipster" I would like MLS ironically.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Grover

I'm a West Ham supporter. Clearly I'm front running.

Haha

[RainMaker]

A European system would never work because a league can't thrive here when only a few teams matter. We like competing for championships and having parity or a postseason that allows for more parity is a huge part in it. I understand people enjoy the EPL and the tradition or whatever, but only 3-4 teams even matter in the whole league and the rest are just fodder for them. That wouldn't fly for an up-and-coming league here trying to gain new supporters.

[EagleFan]

They should just change to a system where an arbitrary system picks which two teams will play for the title after the season.



Actually, I like the 4 conference idea, or at least the return of division style playoffs. That could create some intense playoff rivalries.

[Critch]

Is there any reason why the 4 new NHL conferences are vaguely geographic, but they've smacked the two Florida teams in with the north eastern teams? It's like "East Coast - North and South" and "East Coast - Middle". Why aren't Rangers and Islanders in with the Conference C and the two Florida teams in Conference D?

I'm going to assume it's because the two Florida teams will eventually fail and move to Canada.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Critch

Is there any reason why the 4 new NHL conferences are vaguely geographic, but they've smacked the two Florida teams in with the north eastern teams? It's like "East Coast - North and South" and "East Coast - Middle". Why aren't Rangers and Islanders in with the Conference C and the two Florida teams in Conference D?

I'm going to assume it's because the two Florida teams will eventually fail and move to Canada.

Tampa is probably safe, Florida will probably go someday. But no, the actual reason is because the league wanted to keep Pittsburgh and Philadelphia together in the same division. So they swapped them for Tampa Bay and Florida.

Those two teams didn't mind being in the Northeast division because as it turns out, they draw extremely well from Montreal and Toronto fans who can't get tickets to games locally, but can fly to Florida for a holiday and get cheap tickets to see games of their teams, especially in Sunrise with the Panthers.

So for them, it was a gate thing that offset the fact that they got the short end of the travel stick.

This is from 2010: The Panthers were directly marketing to Canadiens fans.

This one is just a bit odd, not only because it's geared toward fans of the visiting team, but also because it's a game on the schedule that shouldn't require much marketing as the Canadiens fans usually show up in droves, anyway. Looking at last year's two trips to Miami and the Canadiens games drew crowds (well, the listed attendance) of 19,851 (an over capacity sell out) and 17,104, both of which were well above the average of a typical Panthers home game.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Australia, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina also have playoffs. Mexico and Brazil have had divisions as well. It's not as much Americanizing as it's not simply going along with what the top Euro leagues do.

Argentina and Brazil do not currently have playoffs in their top divisions. Argentina has a weird setup, with two championships awarded each year. The top division in Brazil has a 38 game calendar with no playoffs. Some of the Brazilian State Championships have playoffs.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A European system would never work because a league can't thrive here when only a few teams matter. We like competing for championships and having parity or a postseason that allows for more parity is a huge part in it. I understand people enjoy the EPL and the tradition or whatever, but only 3-4 teams even matter in the whole league and the rest are just fodder for them. That wouldn't fly for an up-and-coming league here trying to gain new supporters.

That's about right. If you are trying to grow a league, the best thing to do is to root for uber-parity so all the fans have something to root for. Maybe after the foothold has been acheieved, then you can tinker with that. Also the mentions of this being a playoff country is quite right.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Dola,

NHL needs to go back to the old "division" names

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yeah, I doubt they'll do it for the same reason they switched in the first place. As a friend put it when we talked today, "the only people who would have any idea would be some old guy in NYC, Boston, Chicago and Toronto." Then he made a Philly joke.

But yeah, I'd love to see something like that. I think we're going to be stuck with Atlantic, Northeast, Central and Pacific conferences instead though.

What also sucks about the NHL realignment is that we'll probably lose the Prince of Wales and Campbell trophies. Unless they give them two of the conferences and make two new trophies. Or if they give those to the Stanley Cup semi-finalists. Which would be odd...all fun things to think about though.

I'd like to see them name the conferences after stars who are still alive, but are well past playing. So the conferences could look like:
A - Gretzky (Easy choice, best ever, played for the Oilers and the Kings in his prime)
B - Tougher choice (Mikita? Savard? Yzerman? Howe?) I'd go with Howe because well he's Mr. Hockey and was a huge star.
C - Orr (Argument for LaFleur or maybe Beliveau or mahovlich but I think Orr would be the run away for this)
D - Lemieux - Bossy would be a great second choice but I think Super Mario would be the better one.

So the idea would be these guys would present the trophy after the conference playoff games to the champion and we'd go from there. The deal is (and why Richard isn't in the conversation for C) that once they've died or hit 75 (with the exception for Howe) the conference gets a new name. So now Sid and Ovy have something else to play for. And you know naming the conference after a Bruin is going to make the Habs - Boston rivalry that much more insane. Same with other major rivalries across the hockey universe. Of course this means that they would need to do 1 v 4, 2 v 3 then the winners playoff for the conference title (which I don't think they are currently planning) but I think it'd be pretty exciting move. Thoughts?

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

I can't fathom playing for a used ashtray with Lemieux whining mug plastered on the bottom. No way should someone who is generally hated in several rival markets be the name of the trophy those teams are playing for.

I'm in Pittsburgh and I'll agree.

Lemieux and Gretzky are still too "new" I think. Gretzky isn't nearly as hated (in he US anyway) but there are enough people who dislike him.

Orr and Howe, have been out of the game long enough that they are more revered.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

I can't fathom playing for a used ashtray with Lemieux whining mug plastered on the bottom. No way should someone who is generally hated in several rival markets be the name of the trophy those teams are playing for.

DOLA

Also, insert joke here about the Caps never needing to worry about playing for any trophy for a division winner.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yeah, I doubt they'll do it for the same reason they switched in the first place. As a friend put it when we talked today, "the only people who would have any idea would be some old guy in NYC, Boston, Chicago and Toronto." Then he made a Philly joke.

I missed this part. Joked that what, we wouldn't know the divisions?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by nilodor

I'd like to see them name the conferences after stars who are still alive, but are well past playing. So the conferences could look like:
A - Gretzky (Easy choice, best ever, played for the Oilers and the Kings in his prime)
B - Tougher choice (Mikita? Savard? Yzerman? Howe?) I'd go with Howe because well he's Mr. Hockey and was a huge star.
C - Orr (Argument for LaFleur or maybe Beliveau or mahovlich but I think Orr would be the run away for this)
D - Lemieux - Bossy would be a great second choice but I think Super Mario would be the better one.

So the idea would be these guys would present the trophy after the conference playoff games to the champion and we'd go from there. The deal is (and why Richard isn't in the conversation for C) that once they've died or hit 75 (with the exception for Howe) the conference gets a new name. So now Sid and Ovy have something else to play for. And you know naming the conference after a Bruin is going to make the Habs - Boston rivalry that much more insane. Same with other major rivalries across the hockey universe. Of course this means that they would need to do 1 v 4, 2 v 3 then the winners playoff for the conference title (which I don't think they are currently planning) but I think it'd be pretty exciting move. Thoughts?

The plan as I've read it is to have 1 v 4 2 v3 in each conference as conference semis, then conference final, then a final four type playoff between the 4 conference winners. So it would be plausible.

I just think altering the names all of the time would get old. And as the Big Ten taught us, naming stuff after living people gets tricky.

[Pyser]

i don't have a problem with hockey losing the wales and campbell trophies. i mean, no one touches them anyway. no one says the next year "wales trophy winner" if they made the finals and lost.