[NHL] Not liking division battles

[Erich]

Well over all, I'm loving most of the new changes to the NHL. One i'm having a tough time with is the weight put on divison battles.

Take a look at the Central division, 3 of the teams there are DEADLAST in the entire NHL. Nashville is competent and Detroit is good. But Detroits record is grossly overexagurated compared to what it would be had it not should they have to play outside their division more often.

Continuing with the detroit example, their interdivision record is 8-0-0, outside their division, they are 7-4-2... a little more accurate to where they should be.

Now look at divisions like the Northwest and the Northeast. Practically every team in both of those divisions should be making it to the playoffs. All very good teams, but odds are ALTEAST 1, probably atleast 2 teams are gonna be dropped from the list because nearly 50% of the games they're playing against teams that are all cup contenders and aren't the easy wins like playing most of the Central or Southeast division.

Also as a fan, I find it rather boring to watch my team play the same teams that are within driving distance ALL THE TIME. I wanna see games against the penguins and the senators more often, none of this colorado, colorado, vancouver, colorado, nashville, vancouver, colorado crap. How boring.

Otherwise, I'm enjoying the season thus far. Just had to put that out there on a public forum ;)

[Ayepecks]

I agree to an extent, but it won't even matter come playoffs -- chances are even without more divisional play, the teams making it to the playoffs would be roughly the same. Playoffs are all that matter.

[bayrider]

Ive been saying that all year. The wings are #1 in the NHL with 31 points but 14 of those points came from back to back to back games vs the Hawks, Blues and Blue Jackets. I don't mind division rivalries, but what becomes so special about a riavlry when the Canadiens play the Laffs and the Sens 8x each a year? Thats not a rivalry, thats just another damn game. I'd love for the Red Wings to come to town, or the Canucks, Flames, Kings and especially the Avalanche... The NHL should mix things up a bit instead of having Western Conf. teams play in the East once every 2 years. These games just beome all too common and there becomes a lack of excitement... "Oh the Panthers are in town again!!"

[R-Flex]

I wouldn't look into points too much. For example, Western teams like Detroit, Nashville, Vancouver, and Dallas, may seem just as good as Eastern teams with similar points, but the Eastern conference is far better.

Divisional rivalries are supposed to become special because repeated matches will cause competitiveness between teams after so many times playing. However, it's not exactly working, as bayrider points out.

[Ayepecks]

The Eastern Conference is much better? :unsure: How exactly do you gather that? Both conferences look rather even to me. :blink:

[R-Flex]

The Eastern Conference is much better? :unsure: How exactly do you gather that? Both conferences look rather even to me. :blink:

586833376[/snapback]

Well, the Northeast division leads the East, with five strong teams. Ottawa, Boston and Montreal are among the best (Ottawa being the best in the league in my opinion, and I hate them, no bias), and Toronto and Buffalo are no pushovers. They are good teams that suffer from being in that division.

The Atlantic also has good representation. Pittsburgh is a weak team, yes, but they have some talent, while they play against heavyweights Philadelphia (in the top five teams in league), Rangers (have emerged as a strong team), New Jersey (still very good despite Brodeur struggles), and even the Islanders have shown skill this year.

The Southeast, while traditionally the weakest in the league, has success in Tampa Bay and Carolina, two of the best. Atlanta goes between great and terrible, so they are often dangerous, while Florida is a not bad team. Washington is the only team, other than Pittsburgh, that is definitely among the worst.

Points cannot dictate how good a team is, esapecially because they are only playing their own conference. Detroit and Nashville play in a division that includes St. Louis, Columbus, and Chicago, three of the worst in the league. That inflates their points from repeatedly defeating the worse teams.

Pacific, with a lineup of Anaheim, Dallas, San Jose, Phoenix, and Los Angeles, has no real contender, only mid level teams. Arguably, Dallas and Los Angeles could do well, but they are not beating Ottawa, Philadelphia, or Carolina.

The Northwest is the strongest Western division, very competitive. However, Minnesota has suffered because they don't have enough talent to drive them. Colorado is a good team, but do not dominate. Calgary is in the top Western teams, a contender, but Edmonton has struggles at goal. Vancouver is also among the best (Despite my bias), but it struggles to win inside it's own division while they can win against the weaker divisions.

The East just has better teams and better talent (see the scoring race. Almost all Eastern players, such as amazing talents Jason Spezza, Daniel Afredsson, Eric Staal, Alexander Ovechkin, and Sidney Crosby) . Ask hockey experts, I believe that they would agree with me.

[Ayepecks]

So the East has a strong division -- big whoop. In the west you have the Pacific and Northwest divisions, both of which are strong. Does that mean the West is better than the east? Not really, no.

I like how you basically throw your opinions out there and try to make facts out of them. Like how the Pacific division has teams with lots of points, but no real contenders -- we'll see on that, buddy, but don't make such bold statements like that if you can't back it up.

99% of your post was opinions without backing it up. I can ask hockey experts, and I would say they all would say it's pretty even. Of course if I were to put a gun to their head they may say the East, but I'll bet good money that it'd be split between the east and west even then.

Talent has nothing to do with it... the team that is better gets it, and you can't say that because a team has a scoring leader means they'll go anywhere. Washington isn't going anywhere barring a miracle, even with Ovechkin.

[R-Flex]

So the East has a strong division -- big whoop. In the west you have the Pacific and Northwest divisions, both of which are strong. Does that mean the West is better than the east? Not really, no.

I like how you basically throw your opinions out there and try to make facts out of them. Like how the Pacific division has teams with lots of points, but no real contenders -- we'll see on that, buddy, but don't make such bold statements like that if you can't back it up.

99% of your post was opinions without backing it up. I can ask hockey experts, and I would say they all would say it's pretty even. Of course if I were to put a gun to their head they may say the East, but I'll bet good money that it'd be split between the east and west even then.

Talent has nothing to do with it... the team that is better gets it, and you can't say that because a team has a scoring leader means they'll go anywhere. Washington isn't going anywhere barring a miracle, even with Ovechkin.

586833741[/snapback]

No, I'd say all three divisions in the East are fairly strong. Northeast being the strongest in the league with the other two competing for 3rd and 4th.

Yes, it is my opinion. Don't claim that there are facts of hockey, that can always predict who will win. As a hockey fan, that is what I believe. You asked why I think that, and that's what I responded with. Don't be so hostile.

And yes, I think talent has a lot to do with it. Teams with better talent generally do better. I didn't say that Ovechkin would carry Washington, but I do think that teams like Ottawa, Boston, Philadelphia, Montreal, Tampa Bay, and Carolina, who are among the best contenders, are staffed by excellent players who lead the league. I'd say that there are better players in the East, and that there are more serious contenders in the East. That's why I think the East is better.

That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.

[Ayepecks]

I know it's your opinion, but you never gave me any reason to believe why the east was "much" better than the West. I expected with such a strong conviction that you'd have some concrete reasoning behind it. I mean, it seems like you made a post and figured out the flaws with your own argument and tried to use them against the Western Conference, because all you gave were generalities.