|
Post by hacky666 on Jan 7, 2012 11:51:28 GMT -6
I wonder if more people will now take notice and support the NHLFA now... www.nhlfa.com/
|
|
|
Post by JimmyMann on Jan 7, 2012 11:59:10 GMT -6
I kind of like the cross-over too. Pretty simple thing to implement... The cross over does have a downside but no different than the downside to an NFL wildcard. For example, for simplicity everyone in the NHL plays home and homes and then either 3 or 4 games against conference rivals. Those playing in a "weaker conference" should have better records. Could a 5th place team in an 8 team conference takes the place of a 4th place team in a 7 team conference? I am sure it will all get settled in due time and really couldn't be happier as a fan of the Jets spending another year in the SE. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ric O. on Jan 7, 2012 12:03:52 GMT -6
I actually kind of like the SE division too. To me it's the next best thing to the central conference. As of right now, the SE gives us our best chance to make the playoffs and that sure counts for something.
|
|
|
Post by the_jaf on Jan 7, 2012 12:09:49 GMT -6
I dont mind the SE, honestly we are not affected as much compared other teams since we are Central, majority of the games are +/- 1 hour time zone. Ideally, like to be either in a NW type division or Central conference as proposed.
|
|
|
Post by IantheD on Jan 7, 2012 12:47:52 GMT -6
There's not even going to be a season next year for the Jets to be in SE division...
|
|
|
Post by Grumpz on Jan 7, 2012 12:52:25 GMT -6
I kind of like the cross-over too. Pretty simple thing to implement... The cross over does have a downside but no different than the downside to an NFL wildcard. For example, for simplicity everyone in the NHL plays home and homes and then either 3 or 4 games against conference rivals. Those playing in a "weaker conference" should have better records. Could a 5th place team in an 8 team conference takes the place of a 4th place team in a 7 team conference? I am sure it will all get settled in due time and really couldn't be happier as a fan of the Jets spending another year in the SE. ;D Yes but it the long run, weaker conferences will equal out. 1 yr, 1 is stronger, the next yrs, the other is stronger... In an 8 team conference, the way it's set up right now, 50% of the teams will only ever make, vs. 57.1% in a 7 team conference, with no chance for that to ever level out, unless things got realigned. I know if I was an owner, I wouldn't support 7 vs. 8 team conferences. The opportunity to make the playoffs must be equal ever yr, and considering 1 extra team is left out every yr, in the 8 team conference, that's not even close. From a players standpoint, it's no different. No playoffs, less money/bonus'.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 7, 2012 13:29:24 GMT -6
But it's still the top 4 no matter how many teams you have in the conference. The conference with one less team doesnt have an extra team make the playoffs.
It is level. You still have to hit a certain points total to make the playoffs and it matters not how many teams are behind you.
|
|
|
Post by Ric O. on Jan 7, 2012 14:29:19 GMT -6
But it's still the top 4 no matter how many teams you have in the conference. The conference with one less team doesnt have an extra team make the playoffs. It is level. You still have to hit a certain points total to make the playoffs and it matters not how many teams are behind you. Technically, if everything else were equal (which they never are), your odds of making the playoffs are slightly better in a 7 team conference than in an 8 team conference. Example, if the NHL put all 30 teams into a single conference and still said that only the top 4 teams make the playoffs, you couldn't say that your odds haven't changed because it's only the 3 teams if front of you that matter. How many teams you're competing with for those 4 playoff spots (your points relative to their points) does make a difference to your mathematical chances of making it. Put another way, for the same reasons it's mathematically more difficult to finish in the top 4 out of 30 than top 4 out of 8, it's mathematically more difficult to finish in the top 4 out of 8 than top 4 out of 7. Still, I think this is a red-herring by the NHLPA and an opportunity make a point and set a tone.
|
|
|
Post by Grumpz on Jan 7, 2012 14:38:16 GMT -6
But it's still the top 4 no matter how many teams you have in the conference. The conference with one less team doesnt have an extra team make the playoffs. It is level. You still have to hit a certain points total to make the playoffs and it matters not how many teams are behind you. Percentage wise, yes they do. 57.1% of the teams in a 7 team conference make it, vs. 50%. It's got nothing to do with points, and everything to with how many teams are competing for how man spots. Like Ric said, if more teams make the playoffs in one conference vs. another, you have a better chance of making the playoffs in a 7 team conference.
|
|
|
Post by jval07 on Jan 7, 2012 14:54:57 GMT -6
The big problem (again) with this league was a failure to communicate. The boys at IC made a good point. The league hashed out this plan and made it public. Only then was the NHLPA given the opportunity to respond. I'm not defending the NHLPA, but the prudent course of action would have been for the BOG to come up with their plans....... then present it to the NHLPA for their feedback with any revisions etc. This should have been done completely out of public eye. I think that realignment wasn't so much the sticking point as was the new playoff format. I do believe that GB will have met his match with Donald Fehr. Pierre Lebrun outlined what happened pretty well lastnight and lessened my outrage towards Donald Fehr. First off, the NHL gave the NHLPA a deadline of Jan. 6th to say "yay or nay". The NHLPA wasn't convinced that travel would be lessened and asked for a draft of a possible schedule instead of just taking the NHL's word for it being less. To me the NHL should have provided the NHLPA with a draft instead of asking them to "trust" them. NHL said draft was not possible and so NHLPA said well we can't just take your word for it. We need numbers. That's a legitimate request by the NHLPA that wasn't met. Second I always thought the playoff structure was unfair to the conferences with 8 teams and evidently so did the players which should have been fully expected.
|
|
|
Post by swervinmervin on Jan 7, 2012 15:02:07 GMT -6
The big problem (again) with this league was a failure to communicate. The boys at IC made a good point. The league hashed out this plan and made it public. Only then was the NHLPA given the opportunity to respond. I'm not defending the NHLPA, but the prudent course of action would have been for the BOG to come up with their plans....... then present it to the NHLPA for their feedback with any revisions etc. This should have been done completely out of public eye. I think that realignment wasn't so much the sticking point as was the new playoff format. I do believe that GB will have met his match with Donald Fehr. Pierre Lebrun outlined what happened pretty well lastnight and lessened my outrage towards Donald Fehr. First off, the NHL gave the NHLPA a deadline of Jan. 6th to say "yay or nay". The NHLPA wasn't convinced that travel would be lessened and asked for a draft of a possible schedule instead of just taking the NHL's word for it being less. To me the NHL should have provided the NHLPA with a draft instead of asking them to "trust" them. NHL said draft was not possible and so NHLPA said well we can't just take your word for it. We need numbers. That's a legitimate request by the NHLPA that wasn't met. Second I always thought the playoff structure was unfair to the conferences with 8 teams and evidently so did the players which should have been fully expected. IMO, the idea of asking for a "draft" schedule is disingenuous at this point. Sure, the NHL could have given them a draft schedule - but it is meaningless until the nitty details of real life scheduling get in the way. Any Tom Dick or Harry could design a schedule. They could even make it look like it would be marvelous for the players. Unfortunately, it would be meaningless. It only has meaning once it deals with the real life difficulty of creating a schedule with real dates and real venues, competing with thousands of real life bookings in those arenas. To me, that is the best factual indication of how much the NHLPA is really about grandstanding at this point. Mark Chipman said it perfectly. They have real work to do, and they don't have time to wait for Fehr and the NHLPA. (Those are my own words, paraphrasing his very diplomatic communication of the same idea).
|
|
|
Post by lukemiguez on Jan 7, 2012 16:27:40 GMT -6
Relevant question; do the players get paid for playoff games? My understanding was that NHL teams loved making the playoffs partially because it was extra revenue that wasn't being split with the players on contract with playoff teams.
|
|
|
Post by David Elliott on Jan 7, 2012 16:33:29 GMT -6
Guys don't panic: you'll move when Quebec will come into the equation...
|
|
|
Post by NHLWinnipeg on Jan 7, 2012 16:34:26 GMT -6
Relevant question; do the players get paid for playoff games? My understanding was that NHL teams loved making the playoffs partially because it was extra revenue that wasn't being split with the players on contract with playoff teams. Players are not individually compensation for playing in playoff games beyond the team bonuses paid by NHL and split by the players. Not really significant money for the stars. I think the SC winning team receives $1 million to be split by all the team's players. However, as the players receive a % of all revenues, as a group they do in fact receive the majority of the money the league earns in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Ric O. on Jan 7, 2012 16:36:36 GMT -6
Relevant question; do the players get paid for playoff games? My understanding was that NHL teams loved making the playoffs partially because it was extra revenue that wasn't being split with the players on contract with playoff teams. I'm not sure if the players get paid extra or how much (I trust NHLWinnipeg on this), but it raises an interesting point. You'd think the owners of the 16 teams in the two 8 team divisions would be the ones most concerned about their teams' odds of making the playoffs and the huge potential financial implications. This can make or break some franchises. Yet those owners were willing to compromise in order to get a generally acceptable realignment done. 26 out of 30 teams voted to accept the arrangement but Hainsey seemed to indicate that this was the players' biggest issue.
|
|