| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 18:42:24
From TSN again:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=189350&hubname=nhl
They're thinking of changing a lot of random stuff--there's a whole list of it in the article.
[img]http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20050722/gbettman_64803.jpg[/img]
I swear, Bettman reminds me of Dracula. Anyone else think so or is it just me? |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Novie |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 07:37:53
And just for comparison's sake:
Vancouver: 123 west
San Jose: 121 west
LA: 118 west
Anaheim 117 west
Go Sens |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 07:32:49
Hahaha LOL 
Longitudinally they're closer than they look |
| Novie |
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 07:06:40
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhailova
Edmonton in the Pacific? That's a little far east, so is Colorado, but I guess it doesn't really matter. I don't think the NHL's gonna get too picky with the geography 
haha, I'm such a dork: Here are the longitudes for 4 of those teams...I left out San Jose/LA/Anaheim/Vancouver for obvious reasons.
Edmonton 113 deg west
Phoenix 112 deg west
Denver 104 deg west
Calgary 114 deg west
What's 10 degrees between friends? LOL
Now if you want to talk about how far NORTH Edmonton is compared to the others....yeah it's a long flight from Phoenix!
Go Sens |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 20:17:40
The thing about the top teams in each division atomatically getting ranked in the top 3(or 4 in the new set up) is it punishes a team like San Jose or Dallas today. Both are having better years than the teams in the North West but will finish behind them. That part is not cool to me. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 17:53:19
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
How good of a division would the newly created Pacific be::
Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Colorado and Phoenix
Edmonton in the Pacific? That's a little far east, so is Colorado, but I guess it doesn't really matter. I don't think the NHL's gonna get too picky with the geography |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 17:51:07
quote:
Originally posted by Blubberboy
I agree he does look like Dracula?!?!?!
Freaky!!
LOL
[IMG]http://i16.tinypic.com/2hi2v5s.png[/IMG] |
| leigh |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 12:54:03
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
...The one thing I would also like to see is to toss the division leaders taking the top 4 playoff seeds. Also, stop re-seeding each playoff round.
What is wrong with the top teams in each div getting the top spots? I think it is the right thing to do. It is a balancing thing, not all divs are created equal. For example, a team may just barely make top spot in their div because it is a tougher div. But yet in another div they could easily get first. So what this means is that a second place team in a weaker div could end up having more points than a first place team in a tougher div. So if we were to apply your scenario of just going solely on points, the better team would be seeded behind a weaker team and be forced to play a tougher match up in the playoffs.
The only way that a fully "points based" system would be fair is to do-away with divisions and conferences entirely, and have all teams play each other equally. But that will never happen. |
| Blubberboy |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 12:28:15
I agree he does look like Dracula?!?!?!
Freaky!!
Go Vancouver |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/23/2006 : 07:18:14
I think these changes would be awesome. It solves some issues with travel and it also makes sure everyone plays everyone else at least once.
How good of a division would the newly created Pacific be::
Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Colorado and Phoenix
I say make it happen. The one thing I would also like to see is to toss the division leaders taking the top 4 playoff seeds. Also, stop re-seeding each playoff round.
|
