Chicago Blackhawks 2012 Playoffs

[brinoch]

It's interesting. I never really felt comfortable with playing the west coast teams twice at their place per year. We are 2,000 miles away from those teams. It's quite radical with the idea of 4 conferences. I am assuming that each conference will have their own playoffs and then the 2 "western" league winners will play and same with the East. It's almost like the playoffs with the division playoffs followed by conference finals and stanley cup.

 

I'm glad Detroit remains in our conference so that we still play them 6 times a year. I also like playing every team in the league at least twice.

 

So the schedule would look like this for the Hawks.... 6 games against 3 teams in the "conference" (18 games) and 5 games against the other 4 (20 games). Then a home and home against the remaining 22 teams (44 games).

 

They are re-seeded after the "conference" playoffs, rather than locked into Norris vs. Smythe and Patrick vs. Adams.

[UMFan83]

It's interesting. I never really felt comfortable with playing the west coast teams twice at their place per year. We are 2,000 miles away from those teams. It's quite radical with the idea of 4 conferences. I am assuming that each conference will have their own playoffs and then the 2 "western" league winners will play and same with the East. It's almost like the playoffs with the division playoffs followed by conference finals and stanley cup.

 

I'm glad Detroit remains in our conference so that we still play them 6 times a year. I also like playing every team in the league at least twice.

 

So the schedule would look like this for the Hawks.... 6 games against 3 teams in the "conference" (18 games) and 5 games against the other 4 (20 games). Then a home and home against the remaining 22 teams (44 games).

 

They are re-seeded after the "conference" playoffs, rather than locked into Norris vs. Smythe and Patrick vs. Adams.

 

So there's a possibility that the Hawks and Canucks, for example, could play for the Stanley Cup?

 

That's kind of cool. The crappy thing about this is that there is going to be a lot of unfamiliarity with the majority of the league. Unless you get to the old conference finals round, you will only play the other 22 teams a maximum of 2 times per season.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's interesting. I never really felt comfortable with playing the west coast teams twice at their place per year. We are 2,000 miles away from those teams. It's quite radical with the idea of 4 conferences. I am assuming that each conference will have their own playoffs and then the 2 "western" league winners will play and same with the East. It's almost like the playoffs with the division playoffs followed by conference finals and stanley cup.

 

I'm glad Detroit remains in our conference so that we still play them 6 times a year. I also like playing every team in the league at least twice.

 

So the schedule would look like this for the Hawks.... 6 games against 3 teams in the "conference" (18 games) and 5 games against the other 4 (20 games). Then a home and home against the remaining 22 teams (44 games).

 

They are re-seeded after the "conference" playoffs, rather than locked into Norris vs. Smythe and Patrick vs. Adams.

 

So there's a possibility that the Hawks and Canucks, for example, could play for the Stanley Cup?

 

That's kind of cool. The crappy thing about this is that there is going to be a lot of unfamiliarity with the majority of the league. Unless you get to the old conference finals round, you will only play the other 22 teams a maximum of 2 times per season.

 

The playoff set-up is a horrible idea. It's all about keeping travel costs down and completely ignores everything else. What's the point of an 82 game season with a heavy emphasis on a 7 team conference schedule and then having to play those same conference foes in the first two rounds of the playoffs. It will create and/or build on already established rivalries (Detroit could play Chicago every year in the playoffs, same with Devils/Rangers or San Jose/Vancouver), but you are making it wide open for lesser teams to advance if they are lucky to be in a weak division that year. Plenty of weaker teams will make it now, since they only have to contend with their 7 or 8 rivals. What is now called conference C could easily be filled with garbage teams.

[kujay]

It's interesting. I never really felt comfortable with playing the west coast teams twice at their place per year. We are 2,000 miles away from those teams. It's quite radical with the idea of 4 conferences. I am assuming that each conference will have their own playoffs and then the 2 "western" league winners will play and same with the East. It's almost like the playoffs with the division playoffs followed by conference finals and stanley cup.

 

I'm glad Detroit remains in our conference so that we still play them 6 times a year. I also like playing every team in the league at least twice.

 

So the schedule would look like this for the Hawks.... 6 games against 3 teams in the "conference" (18 games) and 5 games against the other 4 (20 games). Then a home and home against the remaining 22 teams (44 games).

 

They are re-seeded after the "conference" playoffs, rather than locked into Norris vs. Smythe and Patrick vs. Adams.

 

So there's a possibility that the Hawks and Canucks, for example, could play for the Stanley Cup?

 

That's kind of cool. The crappy thing about this is that there is going to be a lot of unfamiliarity with the majority of the league. Unless you get to the old conference finals round, you will only play the other 22 teams a maximum of 2 times per season.

 

The playoff set-up is a horrible idea. It's all about keeping travel costs down and completely ignores everything else. What's the point of an 82 game season with a heavy emphasis on a 7 team conference schedule and then having to play those same conference foes in the first two rounds of the playoffs. It will create and/or build on already established rivalries (Detroit could play Chicago every year in the playoffs, same with Devils/Rangers or San Jose/Vancouver), but you are making it wide open for lesser teams to advance if they are lucky to be in a weak division that year. Plenty of weaker teams will make it now, since they only have to contend with their 7 or 8 rivals. What is now called conference C could easily be filled with garbage teams.

 

Like the Seahawks making the playoffs last year. It happens. You can't look at it now and say a certain conference will be garbage. Who knows what those franchises will look like in 10 years. The divisional playoffs "back in the day" were great. I love the idea of playing St. Louis and Detroit in the first couple rounds of the playoffs instead of playing Phoenix or Dallas.

 

And the intra-conference schedule won't be emphasized any more than division matchups are now. The difference is instead of going to SJ, LA and ANA twice, we get to go to Toronto, Montreal and Philly every year. That's a huge positive.

[jersey cubs fan]

Like the Seahawks making the playoffs last year. It happens. You can't look at it now and say a certain conference will be garbage. Who knows what those franchises will look like in 10 years.

 

Your answer completely ignores the point.

 

A division winner can make the playoffs in the NFL (just like the NHL and every sport), but in this case 4 teams from each conference are guaranteed to make the playoffs, that's dumb. You play your "conference" all year long, and then play them in the first two rounds of the playoffs, that's dumb. A weak conference will happen probably every year, and possibly a couple times a year, and those weak conferences will not only be able to produce the occasional Seahawks team, but will regularly put weak teams into the semi finals. The fact that the identity of that weak conference might change from year to year is pointless. It will exist.

[kujay]

Like the Seahawks making the playoffs last year. It happens. You can't look at it now and say a certain conference will be garbage. Who knows what those franchises will look like in 10 years.

 

Your answer completely ignores the point.

 

A division winner can make the playoffs in the NFL (just like the NHL and every sport), but in this case 4 teams from each conference are guaranteed to make the playoffs, that's dumb. You play your "conference" all year long, and then play them in the first two rounds of the playoffs, that's dumb. A weak conference will happen probably every year, and possibly a couple times a year, and those weak conferences will not only be able to produce the occasional Seahawks team, but will regularly put weak teams into the semi finals. The fact that the identity of that weak conference might change from year to year is pointless. It will exist.

 

You play 1/2 of the schedule against the conference. It's not like they are playing 60 or 70 games against these same teams. They are playing the same (or less) against these teams than they are against division opponents now.

 

7 and 8 seeds regularly advance in the NHL playoffs. There's a lot of parity, hot goalies, etc. It's not that big of a deal. And most importantly, the benefits of this new plan far outweigh the possible downsides.

[jersey cubs fan]

Like the Seahawks making the playoffs last year. It happens. You can't look at it now and say a certain conference will be garbage. Who knows what those franchises will look like in 10 years.

 

Your answer completely ignores the point.

 

A division winner can make the playoffs in the NFL (just like the NHL and every sport), but in this case 4 teams from each conference are guaranteed to make the playoffs, that's dumb. You play your "conference" all year long, and then play them in the first two rounds of the playoffs, that's dumb. A weak conference will happen probably every year, and possibly a couple times a year, and those weak conferences will not only be able to produce the occasional Seahawks team, but will regularly put weak teams into the semi finals. The fact that the identity of that weak conference might change from year to year is pointless. It will exist.

 

You play 1/2 of the schedule against the conference. It's not like they are playing 60 or 70 games against these same teams. They are playing the same (or less) against these teams than they are against division opponents now.

 

7 and 8 seeds regularly advance in the NHL playoffs. There's a lot of parity, hot goalies, etc. It's not that big of a deal. And most importantly, the benefits of this new plan far outweigh the possible downsides.

 

The only benefit is cutting down on travel costs.

 

7 and 8 seeds regularly advance a round or two. But this system will have what would be 9 or 10 seeds advancing, and every year you will have lesser teams making it as far as the semifinals. You are increasing the amount of good teams that won't make it and replacing them with lesser teams who are lucky to play in a weak division.

 

And as for your previous comment about how they did this in the "back in the day", how long did that last, 5 years? It's a bad plan.

[kujay]

Like the Seahawks making the playoffs last year. It happens. You can't look at it now and say a certain conference will be garbage. Who knows what those franchises will look like in 10 years.

 

Your answer completely ignores the point.

 

A division winner can make the playoffs in the NFL (just like the NHL and every sport), but in this case 4 teams from each conference are guaranteed to make the playoffs, that's dumb. You play your "conference" all year long, and then play them in the first two rounds of the playoffs, that's dumb. A weak conference will happen probably every year, and possibly a couple times a year, and those weak conferences will not only be able to produce the occasional Seahawks team, but will regularly put weak teams into the semi finals. The fact that the identity of that weak conference might change from year to year is pointless. It will exist.

 

You play 1/2 of the schedule against the conference. It's not like they are playing 60 or 70 games against these same teams. They are playing the same (or less) against these teams than they are against division opponents now.

 

7 and 8 seeds regularly advance in the NHL playoffs. There's a lot of parity, hot goalies, etc. It's not that big of a deal. And most importantly, the benefits of this new plan far outweigh the possible downsides.

 

The only benefit is cutting down on travel costs.

 

7 and 8 seeds regularly advance a round or two. But this system will have what would be 9 or 10 seeds advancing, and every year you will have lesser teams making it as far as the semifinals. You are increasing the amount of good teams that won't make it and replacing them with lesser teams who are lucky to play in a weak division.

 

And as for your previous comment about how they did this in the "back in the day", how long did that last, 5 years? It's a bad plan.

 

It actually increases travel costs for most clubs, especially the eastern teams that will go to the entire west coast a couple times. I've read estimates of $500K to $1M in increased travel costs.

[NewUserName]

A lot of Wings fans seem upset and think that that Wings were promised a move to the Eastern Conference. I like this way better. Of course the Wings will be playing in arenas that a much closer to me so I will attend a couple of games a year. The first two rounds of the playoffs will be exactly what it was until the early 90s.

[kujay]

A lot of Wings fans seem upset and think that that Wings were promised a move to the Eastern Conference. I like this way better. Of course the Wings will be playing in arenas that a much closer to me so I will attend a couple of games a year. The first two rounds of the playoffs will be exactly what it was until the early 90s.

 

I figured Wings fans might be upset for that very reason, but they still get what they wanted. Fewer games that start at 10:30 eastern time.

[jersey cubs fan]

A lot of Wings fans seem upset and think that that Wings were promised a move to the Eastern Conference. I like this way better. Of course the Wings will be playing in arenas that a much closer to me so I will attend a couple of games a year. The first two rounds of the playoffs will be exactly what it was until the early 90s.

 

It was like this for about 6-7 years in the 80's, not forever.

[NewUserName]

A lot of Wings fans seem upset and think that that Wings were promised a move to the Eastern Conference. I like this way better. Of course the Wings will be playing in arenas that a much closer to me so I will attend a couple of games a year. The first two rounds of the playoffs will be exactly what it was until the early 90s.

 

I figured Wings fans might be upset for that very reason, but they still get what they wanted. Fewer games that start at 10:30 eastern time.

 

without a doubt. I think it is just the anti-Bettman crowd being anti-Bettman. I am anti-Bettman in general, but this seems to be about as good as it could get for realignment. Wings fans need to realize that the league does not revolve around the Wings. Yahoo had a good article with the winners and losers of the new format.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Winners-and-losers-in-the-NHL-8217-s-new-4-conf;_ylt=Al57uTHtOgrvm8E4tZlz.6p7vLYF?urn=nhl-wp19111

[Prizefight]

Truth is, the league doesn't necessarily need to concern itself with franchises like the Wings. No matter what happened with the realignment, fans aren't going to stop showing up to their games. It's a very strong franchise and will continue to be one.

 

The goal should have been to redo the conferences for the greater good of the league, which it more or less did.

[kujay]

It's interesting. I never really felt comfortable with playing the west coast teams twice at their place per year. We are 2,000 miles away from those teams. It's quite radical with the idea of 4 conferences. I am assuming that each conference will have their own playoffs and then the 2 "western" league winners will play and same with the East. It's almost like the playoffs with the division playoffs followed by conference finals and stanley cup.

 

I'm glad Detroit remains in our conference so that we still play them 6 times a year. I also like playing every team in the league at least twice.

 

So the schedule would look like this for the Hawks.... 6 games against 3 teams in the "conference" (18 games) and 5 games against the other 4 (20 games). Then a home and home against the remaining 22 teams (44 games).

 

They are re-seeded after the "conference" playoffs, rather than locked into Norris vs. Smythe and Patrick vs. Adams.

 

I read somewhere that this isn't decided yet.

[Derwood]

Yahoo had a good article with the winners and losers of the new format.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Winners-and-losers-in-the-NHL-8217-s-new-4-conf;_ylt=Al57uTHtOgrvm8E4tZlz.6p7vLYF?urn=nhl-wp19111

 

 

Columbus Blue Jackets

 

The primary survival mechanism for the Blue Jackets as a franchise is playoff contention and advancement. It doesn't matter what time the games start if your team sucks and your fans are apathetic. But when things turn around, there won't be the multitude of games starting between 9:30-10:30 p.m. ET for the Jackets — and this is going to be essential for building a fan base. It's a huge moment for them.

 

Not to mention the fact that they are guaranteed a home game with every other team, so there will be annual home meetings with Pittsburgh, Boston, Washington, etc., which will help home attendance and (hopefully) pull them out of this financial hole they're in

[jersey cubs fan]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/chi-wirtz-nhl-realignment-great-for-the-hawks-20111206,0,7714151.story

 

"I like the idea that we don’t have to go out to the West Coast more than once. I’m sure the league will work the schedule so when we have to go out to Los Angeles and San Jose and and the teams out there you can do it on the same swing out."

 

My two favorite things about this new plan is that they will be able to have only one western swing (that's if the league allows them to do all 4 coastal teams plus the 2 Alberta teams) and they will be in every city once a year. No more worrying about whether I can see them in NY, NJ, PHI, PIT or the other cities. Hopefully they do the November/February road trips in a reasonable way, one out west and one out east, in relative proximity.

[kujay]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/hockey/blackhawks/chi-wirtz-nhl-realignment-great-for-the-hawks-20111206,0,7714151.story

 

"I like the idea that we don’t have to go out to the West Coast more than once. I’m sure the league will work the schedule so when we have to go out to Los Angeles and San Jose and and the teams out there you can do it on the same swing out."

 

My two favorite things about this new plan is that they will be able to have only one western swing (that's if the league allows them to do all 4 coastal teams plus the 2 Alberta teams) and they will be in every city once a year. No more worrying about whether I can see them in NY, NJ, PHI, PIT or the other cities. Hopefully they do the November/February road trips in a reasonable way, one out west and one out east, in relative proximity.

 

I'll bet the circus trip ends up incorporating trips to Denver/Phoenix/Dallas and there will be a separate trip to western Canada, probably tying in one of the 'Peg games.

 

I think that will be my hockey road trip with my dad next year -- to see the Hawks in Winnipeg.

[brinoch]

It's interesting. I never really felt comfortable with playing the west coast teams twice at their place per year. We are 2,000 miles away from those teams. It's quite radical with the idea of 4 conferences. I am assuming that each conference will have their own playoffs and then the 2 "western" league winners will play and same with the East. It's almost like the playoffs with the division playoffs followed by conference finals and stanley cup.

 

I'm glad Detroit remains in our conference so that we still play them 6 times a year. I also like playing every team in the league at least twice.

 

So the schedule would look like this for the Hawks.... 6 games against 3 teams in the "conference" (18 games) and 5 games against the other 4 (20 games). Then a home and home against the remaining 22 teams (44 games).

 

They are re-seeded after the "conference" playoffs, rather than locked into Norris vs. Smythe and Patrick vs. Adams.

 

I read somewhere that this isn't decided yet.

 

You are correct. I was jumping the gun -- the presumed set-up is the "re-seeding" option, but it's not determined yet.

[NewUserName]

my guess is that most teams will have to do 2 Western swings a year, a Southern one and a Northern one. I think one thing that is not mentioned is how often West Coast teams will have to come East now. They will probably have to make 3 or 4 swings East every year.

[jersey cubs fan]

my guess is that most teams will have to do 2 Western swings a year, a Southern one and a Northern one. I think one thing that is not mentioned is how often West Coast teams will have to come East now. They will probably have to make 3 or 4 swings East every year.

 

Vancouver has already done an east coast swing this year, plus they have a longer one coming up in December and again in January. In early February they have a trip where they head as far east as Nashville, then after a brief stop home head out on another trip that includes Nashville again, plus NJ. If you take away some of their Chicago/Detroit/Nashville/Columbus games, and add more LA/SJ/ANA games, it probably comes pretty close to offsetting the additional trips east.

[biittner77]

I'd really like to see the Hawks in DC once a year.

[kujay]

Is the sound awful to anyone else? Is anyone else watching?

 

I hear random fans talking and a kid yelling periodically.

[MWV]

Congrats to Hoss on 400 goals.

[Exile on Waveland]

I haven't noticed anything wrong with the sound.

[kujay]

They seem to have fixed it.