Divisional Disparity

Note how we are competing for a playoff spot with teams from weaker
divisions. While we get to play Col, Van, Cal, Minny, 6 times each our
competitors play decidedly weaker teams 6 times each. We have 3 teams with
more pts than us in our division. Nashville is in a lousy division and has
only one better team. St Loo 2 including Nashville. LA only has to play 2
teams better than they are. With St Loo currently playing hapless Chicago 2
times in a row the timing of this post is certainly significant.

Interdivisional disparity is very significant please note the following:

Northwest Division: 46games above .500 for an average of 9.2 games above
500/team certainly a strong division and also no gimme games. All 5 teams
are competitive. Minny is only 2 below .500 and are a reasonable team.

Central Division: 0games above .500. What a joke division considering if
OTL losses were factored in it would be 17 below .500. Lots of gimme games
against 2 hapless teams Chicago, and Columbus.

Pacific Division: 21games above .500. For an average of 4.2 games above
..500. Better than Central but not close to us. 2 good teams, 1 so-so team
and 2 struggling teams. If you Count OTL's as losses the ducks are a lousy
13 games below .500. Definitely some easy games in this division.

Whats the significance you say? Well in any other division in our conference
we would have 12/24 games against Easy opposition. In our Division we
essentially have 0/24 games against Easy opposition. You think this isn't
worth pts? We only play Chicago and Columbus for instance 4 times while
Nashville and St Loo get to play those EASY teams 6 times. Essentially were
talking about them getting 4 extra games in which pts. are EASY to come by
while we play the likes of Calgary and Minny instead. While St Loo,
Nashville, LA, collect easy pts against easier opposition we struggled
against Calgary who are anything but easy.

The NHL. in its infinite wisdom totally ignores divisional disparity being
ANY kind of issue and at the end of the season whoever has more pts. gets in
as if everythings fine and equal in the schedule. At the very least the 1st
tiebreaker should not be wins it should be TOTAL divisional pts of your
division as the team that has played a harder schedule and is tied with
another team SHOULD by rights get in.

Course I'm just pissed we lose all the currently established tiebreakers but
I feel this is a solid point and its a point being made in other ngs as
well.


ps this is the 1st season where the top placing team in a division getting a
plum spot is NOT an issue. Normally I would rant about that too but I don't
have to this year although many are figuring that Tampa Bays pt. total is
exagerrated by a dozen pts.due to lack of divisional competition. ALL their
divisional games are easy 24/24, nice! The Oil would get over a 100pts in
that division.

comments?

The thing is though, Mario, that whatever division happens to be stronger or
weaker isn't set in stone. Over years, teams and divisions will wax and
wane. Just because the Oilers are getting screwed this particular year
doesn't mean the system is therefore broken; in five years we could see
things completely reversed (Nashville and Columbus have the seeds of some
very good teams in the near future, if they play their cards right).

Divisional weighting is only still around because the NHL wants to try to
maintain regional rivalries (Edmonton/Calgary, NY Rangers/NY Islanders/NJ
Devils, Penguins/Flyers). This sounds like a reasonable desire, to me.

As to why the 1st tiebreaker isn't total division points, the problem with
that scenario is that one or two teams could completely skew the results in
a division, if they're the two teams at the very top or bottom.

Why, you ask, are W's the first tiebreaker? C'mon, Mario, that's an obvious
one isn't it? :) I think that's a fair first tiebreaker.

Don't get me wrong--I see your point about the divisional inequities. But
you know something? I'm not sure I want a "perfectly fair" system. Part of
the fun of rooting for teams is watching them (hopefully) overcome slightly
unfair factors. If we start trying to address divisional inequities because
it's not perfectly fair, then don't teams like Vancouver have a legit beef
because the fact they have more travel than anyone else isn't "fair"? Then
you'll get people who say they want the total travel mileage of each team to
be equal...etc etc.

There'll never be a perfect solution...nor should there be, in my opinion.
The current system isn't horribly flawed, IMO. It's one of the few things
that I think the "new" NHL got right (but don't get me started on how
Bettman renamed the divisions! I can rant against that for hours.)

Cheers,
Dave