Realignment Done Right
by Gould Old Days on Mar 13, 2010 2:17 PM EST
46 comments
There's been a lot of talk about realignment ever since the NHL threw out decades of tradition and gave us the boring geographically-named divisions and conferences we live with today. While almost every hockey fan agrees that the current situation is not ideal, most of the realignment plans that you see out there are heavily skewed in favor of one team because of whatever bias the writer has. This is my attempt at a fair realignment, taking each team's particular situation and goals into account.
I believe the biggest problem with the current setup (apart from losing those historic names) is that many natural rivalries have been broken up -- some before they were ever allowed to get started. My philosophy is that cities that have something in common should be together in the same division, whenever possible. As a Caps fan, I am obviously particularly sensitive to this. Good rivalries should be the #1 consideration in any divisional structure.
But rivalries are not the only consideration. Travel is not just very expensive -- it's a competitive concern. Western Conference teams spend many more days on the road and many more hours in the air than Eastern Conference teams, and these extra burdens can have an effect on the standings. So here's my attempt at a realignment that balances the benefits and burdens on all of the teams:
|
|
Prince of Wales Conference |
||
|
Smythe |
Norris |
Patrick |
Adams |
|
Tampa Bay Lighting |
|||
Credit goes to What Juneau About That for the awesome map.
Here's my thinking, division by division:
There simply has to be a far west division. It's the only way to make travel make sense. So there's not much to be said about the new Smythe. The Battle of Alberta is perhaps the best rivalry in hockey, and it's preserved, but it's hard to come up with a realignment that doesn't preserve that rivalry. Likewise the California rivalries.
This new Adams was built to reestablish natural rivalries. We've all lived with Detroit in the West so long, it probably seems normal. But if you drive due south from Detroit across the Ambassador Bridge, you end up in Windsor, Ontario. Historically, Detroit as a hockey town was more closely aligned with Toronto than Chicago. And Toronto-Buffalo-Boston-Montreal-Ottawa are such a good set of natural rivalries, they can't be broken apart.
The new Norris is born from my belief that Atlanta-Nashville-Carolina-Dallas is a natural rivalry that needs to happen. Today, those teams aren't just in different divisions -- they're in different conferences. I think St. Louis has a lot in common with those cities as well, and Chicago is a great rival for St. Louis. And Minnesota naturally belongs there as well.
The Patrick division should of course look familiar, except that the Florida teams have been added. I don't have to sell this audience on the importance of regrouping the mid-Atlantic region into one division. The #1 "a-ha!" moment I had when putting this together was when it occurred to me that in many ways the Florida cities share more in common culturally with the mid-Atlantic than with cities like Nashville, Dallas, Atlanta and Raleigh. That made everything come together, because (1) I wanted Atlanta-Nashville-Carolina-Dallas together; (2) Dallas had to be in the Campbell Conference for travel logistics reasons, and (3) you just can't put Vancouver and Miami in the same conference. The solution was to split Florida and Tampa from the rest of the southern USA teams.
There are a few tweener teams. I put Colorado in the Norris because I think the next expansion is more likely to come on the west coast (Seattle, Vegas, or Portland) or in western Canada (Winnipeg) than in the middle of either country. But if a city in the middle like Kansas City joins the league, Colorado would be moved to the Smythe.
Columbus is another tweener team. I originally had them in the Patrick division because in other sports Ohio and Pennsylvania have such great rivalries. But there's no space in the Patrick for them, and Ohio-Michigan is a great rivalry in college football, so this seemed to make sense. I also considered having the New York teams in the Adams, so that Columbus could be in the Patrick, but I wanted to leave room in the Adams for expansion because it seems likely that the greater Toronto/Hamilton area is going to gain another hockey team one of these days.
My focus has been on the rivalries, but I think travel is improved as well. The Campbell Conference has two teams in the Eastern time zone (Atlanta and Carolina) -- the same number that the Western Conference has today (Detroit and Columbus). That's a necessity because there are 18 teams in the Eastern time zone, and 16 slots in a conference. Vancouver may not be thrilled to travel more often to Atlanta and Carolina, but for rivalries reasons I think the change is worth it. And I think Atlanta and Carolina would be willing to travel more often to California and to Western Canada if it meant they could be in a division with their natural rivals Nashville and Dallas. The big winners in terms of travel are, of course, Detroit and Columbus, who will suddenly start playing a lot more games against cities within 500 miles. When you think about it, it's crazy that Columbus currently plays more games against Anaheim than Pittsburgh.
Most importantly, I don't think any team gets screwed. Chicago will be upset that its rivalry with Detroit is broken, but I think Detroit will welcome the change. Likewise, the Western Canada teams will gripe over travel to Atlanta and Raleigh instead of Detroit and Columbus, but I think Atlanta and Carolina will welcome joining a division with Nashville and Dallas even though it means more travel.
One more advantage is the shift to four divisions instead of six. Every year it seems unfair that the third playoff seed in each conference goes to a team that has a worse record than the fourth seed, just because they won a weak division. Having only two division winners per conference makes winning those divisions seem a lot more meaningful.
So what do you think?
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's authors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
17 recs |
46 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Great work, love the logos in the country map from you and WJAT, really lays it out well.
What’s your proposed playoff system be? If there was the traditional 1 v. 4 division games (for the first round of the playoffs) then it’d be easier for Adams/Smythe teams to make the playoffs and get that all important playoff revenue, which would cause a stink around the league.
The elephant in the room is expansion. Most everyone agrees tha the league is over-extended (in terms of viable markets and/or talent spread too thin) but with that new building in Kansas City, and further Canadian expansion, it seems likely it’ll be a 32 team before it’s a 26 team league.
If KC joins, they’d have to be in your Norris division, geographically shifting Colorado to the Smythe division makes sense.
Then if Hamilton/Windsor/Kitchener/Waterloo gets a team — which could be supported (not thinking about any TOR/BUF complaints), they would naturally slide into the Adams division.
The situation in Phoenix throws a huge wildcard, depending on what happens to that franchise could alter things that you’ve drawn up, obviously, but I don’t think it throws a huge monkeywrench into the overall plan.
It all makes a lot of sense, and bringing back the traditional division/conference names is such a great touch. There are so many shifting parts that it may be too drastic for the BoG to ever approve, but it still doesn’t detract that it’s a great idea and some really solid work on your part.
Wayne Gretzky had it wrong: 100% of the shots Gary Roberts doesn't take DO go in.
Cheers — thanks. Playoff system is that the division winners are #1 and #2 in each conference. Division doesn’t matter for anything else. Top 8 teams in the conference make the playoffs. #1 plays #8, #2 plays #7 and so on. Simple.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Mar 13, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
That makes perfect sense then, guess I was anticipating how the AHL playoffs work with the divsion winner playing the #4 seed in the division and that winner meeting the winner of the #2 v. #3 division teams with conference championship being whoever comes out of the division.
That would work perfect with 32 teams and help to develop rivalries, but it remains to be seen whether expanding the game and even further diluting the talent level would be a good idea. But the game is growing and players are coming from everywhere, maybe in 5-10 years hockey players from places in the South (including around here in the DC area) will push the game to new heights. That would be awesome.
Wayne Gretzky had it wrong: 100% of the shots Gary Roberts doesn't take DO go in.
Do you really think the talent pool is that dilute? I don’t. You look around and there are plenty of teams that have too much skill to even keep them together, especially in a cap world. Guys like Radulov and Filpula maybe wouldn’t have to have gone to the KHL because there would be 2 more teams to bid on their services. There’s so much checking line depth that I don’t think that would be an issue. You look at the teams that have had problems on the ice and it’s almost universally because of their terrible management, not lack of talent. ATL, PHX, FLA, TBL have all had a lot of skill on their teams, they just didn’t have management/ownership teams that were capable of building the rest of the team around those guys. And I think if you look at the last few drafts it appears that the depth is ever-increasing.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Mar 13, 2010 6:50 PM EST up reply actions
I love the idea of having the top four teams in each division make the playoffs and play each other in the first two rounds. That’s the fastest way to build rivalries. I agree though that it is problematic with uneven divisions. If/when the league goes to 32 teams that is definitely what I want to see though.
Awesome job, Gould. I like this set up.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Mar 15, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Great job man, I like the divisions and the splits you made.
Smythe divisions is good, and pretty easy to pick. I like that the battle for california and for alberta are preserved. Powerhouses: San Jose and Vancouver
Norris: Colorado’s geographic isolation is tough to work around, but i think they should be put in the Smythe. I like the idea of NSH, ATL, and STL being in the same division, that would create some good rivalries and attendence. The only problem with COL joining the Smythe would be that they only have 1 true powerhouse: the Blackhawks
the Patrick division is great geographically; however, Florida does get the short end with the travel. I like the Penguins, Devils, Capitals, Flyers, Islanders, Rangers in one division. Seems like every division game would be an intesne rivalry game. Only problem with this division is how much better it is then every other one Powerhouses: Capitals, Penguins, and Devils
The Adams kind of gets the geographic advantage, but there will be some great rivalries from the Northeasters. Powerhouses: Detroit, Buffalo, Boston
The only problem i have is how competitive the Patrick would be. . .
this my be my bias, but that division would be the best by far. And they have the extra team.
Bah-Ram-Ewe, Ovechkin will wreck you. Fear the Furious Fleece!
That’s the one thing. Seems like every team in the Patrick has a rivalry with the others, moreso than in any other division. But for realignment, I can’t think of any system that would work better, except maybe working a swap with Chicago/CAR and TBL/FLA
CИДHИ KPOCБИ: АЛEKCAHДP OBEЧKИH, OH CEЙЧAC TBOЙ ПAПA
by red army line on Mar 14, 2010 4:21 AM EST up reply actions
rectacular
Well done. The Norris Division has me licking my chops.
On the Forecheck: a blog that's more productive than a Predator power play!
Follow me on Twitter
To both you and kingzman, I say be careful with that line of thought. The worst teams of the 1980s were the Detroit Red Wings and New Jersey “Mickey Mouse” Devils. Edmonton has gone from the greatest powerhouse in the league to the bottom; the Penguins came close to moving because they were basically the worst team in the league for parts of the last decade. Powerhouses change, and they change quickly. I consciously ignored competitive balance when putting this together, because especially in the salary cap era it’s just impossible to predict.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Mar 13, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well that’s because your only real threat at the moment would be the Hawks
Cheers, Complaints, homerism and bashing of mediocre pop musicians in 140 Characters
"DO NOT get stuck behind Kyle Wellwood in the buffet line. This isn't really etiquette, but it will prevent you from starving to death"- Down Goes Brown on Etiquette for Jason Spezza's wedding
by Kevin Sellathamby on Mar 14, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
It would feel really weird cheering the Caps towards a Campbell Trophy instead of the Prince Of Wales. That’s my only weirdness to it.
I should have saved my old signature. Oh well!
Why, Whiter Mage, whatever could you possibly be talking about? Because with a handle like “Gould Old Days,” I can’t possibly have forgotten which divisions belong in which conferences when I originally posted this.
[Sheesh, that was embarrassing. Well, it’s fixed now]
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Mar 13, 2010 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
Great stuff but I hate breaking up CHI/DET/STL. I’d move FLA/TBL to the Norris, then move CHI/STL to the Adams, and move CBJ to the Patrick.
I also think that the first round of the playoffs should be divisional to spur rivalries. I don’t like doing the first two rounds as divisional because that guarantees 4 teams per division, and I think that’s too much.
Count me in the group that thinks the travel concerns are overblown. They fly on first class charter planes and stay at 5 star hotels. They aren’t taking buses from Regina to Vancouver in the middle of the night in a snow storm.
Down the road I’d like to expand to 32. Put a team in Vegas in the Smythe division, and then put another team in Southern Ontario in the Norris and move Boston to the Patrick. But the NHL needs to sort out the ownership situations in some of these other cities first (ATL, TBL, PHX, etc.). It’s my belief that there is plenty of talent to fill out 2 more NHL teams, but there aren’t plenty of quality owners.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Mar 13, 2010 5:02 PM EST reply actions
I’d move FLA/TBL to the Norris, then move CHI/STL to the Adams, and move CBJ to the Patrick.
I thought about it. If you also put MIN in the Adams and CBJ in the Norris, then you can put the Smythe and Adams divisions together in one conference, and the Norris and the Patrick are the other conference. That puts Boston in the same conference with LA and, more importantly, puts all of the Canadian teams in the same conference. It’d be some fun matchups, but for all that you think travel issues are overblown, I think that might be unmanageable logistically.
If you put the Adams and Smythe together that way, you basically have to set up the schedule so each team plays about half its games within the division (3 home and 3 away against each division rival makes 42 games for teams in an 8-team division; 36 games for teams in a 7-team division). The travel just gets unmanageable otherwise. But then again, with divisions this good, maybe hockey fans wouldn’t mind seeing division rivals half the time.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Mar 13, 2010 6:41 PM EST up reply actions
I think also if you are trying to build/re-hash rivalries then more divisional games is better. I do agree that logistically the travel may be tough, I just don’t think it would be a big competitive concern. I think there may end up being longer “divisional/conference road trips” if you had BOS and LA in the same conference (or even COL with FLA, e.g.). Maybe lengthen the season in terms of calendar time but cut it down to 80 games (if the owners and players will live with it) and make sure there is a travel day between all the road games. Even as inept as the NHL is, I imagine they could figure out a way to make the logistics work.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Mar 13, 2010 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
The NHL tried more divisional games after the lockout.
Eight games against each divisional opponent. It didn’t go well. You guys should remember that weird set at the end of 05-06 where the Caps played the Canes in something like five of seven straight games — it seems like that created a spike in the Back-to-the-Patrick movement among Caps fans.
You can’t force rivalries.
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
Agree with most of this, but the big problem with 8 divisional games was that it didn’t leave enough games for every team to meet every year; not that 8 was necessarily too much. The owners/GMs just wanted to go back to seeing every team at least once, so they had to cut divisional games.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Mar 16, 2010 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I want to love this simply because you’ve restored the historic names, as is proper. And that map is brilliant.
I’m not sold on Carolina over in the West. I might keep Columbus there instead. But that would mean kicking one of the former Patrick Division teams out of that division again, and that wouldn’t be right at all. So I guess you’ve made the best possible arrangment here.
"Camaraderie, that's what the Washington Capitals are all about."
Honestly...
I don’t like unbalanced divisions. I don’t see 4 divisions unless there are 32 teams. That said, I’d rather have 8 divisions of 4 if there are 32 teams. This is a pretty good approach although the folks who run Carolina and Atlanta would scream bloody murder with this alignment. Yes, Nashville is a rival, but extra trips to Denver would not be something they would go for.
In a four division set up with the existing teams, you are right there should be a far west division (I won’t get into the name debate) and in that division would be all of the Pacific and Mountain Time zone teams: Anaheim, LA, San Jose, Vancouver, Phoenix, Colorado, Edmonton, Calgary
The rest of the West would be located in the East or Central Time Zones:
Minnesota, Chicago, St.Louis, Dallas, Nashville, Columbus, Atlanta
The East would be divided along North/South alignment:
North: Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa, Boston, Montreal, Pittsburgh
South: Rangers, Islanders, New Jersey, Washington, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida
Philly can fit into either division, in that they have the natural rivalry with Pittsburgh, and they are also closer geographically to the NY and DC areas. It might be up to them which division they are put in.
Of course, if there is an expansion to the most logical US City: Kansas CIty, and the most logical Canadian CIty: Winnipeg, both of those teams join the Western conference. The alignment would then be:
Far West: VAN, EDM, CAL, COL, LA, SJ, ANA, PHX
Mid West: MIN, CHI, DAL, STL, NSH, KC, WIN, CBJ
North East: MON, TOR, OTT, BOS, DET, BUF, PIT, PHI
South East: NYR, NYI, WAS, ATL, CAR, FLA, TB, NJ
And if Phoenix moves… it changes again…. oy.
Let's go Caps!
I think the NHL would rather go back to Winnipeg without losing a top 10 USA market like Phoenix. The league is really going to make an effort to make pucks work in Arizona.
The best thing the Coyotes could do to start is change their name to the Arizona Coyotes. Don’t just be Phoenix’s team, be the team for Tucson, Glendale, Scottsdale, Flagstaff, etc.
Let's go Caps!
That’s probably the best idea.
Kinda like how the Orioles removed “Baltimore” from their road jerseys after the Senators left D.C. to appeal to not just Baltimore and MD but the District and VA.
Or kind of like the NFL’s cardinals…
Didn’t know that Phx was a top 10 population market. It’s definitely not a hockey market, team needs to go
No. Phoenix can work. Give it some time.
by sixsevenfiftysix on Mar 14, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Phoenix was a decent hockey market until they made the horrible decision to move from an accessible, downtown arena out to Glendale.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Mar 15, 2010 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m sure there are those who benefited from the move, but for me personally, I was a 10-15 game a year guy at AWA, but 0 games at the new place. I found it hard to make the 90-minute drive from Ahwatukee to see a team that wasn’t even my favorite.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Mar 15, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok, I can understand not wanting to make the drive to see a team that you don’t love…but obviously you used to go a fair bit and now they are just playing great hockey. And it is not even close to a 90 minute drive from Ahwatukee to Glendale (unless you are in the Foothills region south of South Mountain). We lived in Ahwatukee for years and had season tickets…took us about 50 minutes to get to a game from home and then 35 minutes to get home after the game…it’s really not that bad.
Support Coyotes Hockey - Five For Howling
(Oh, and go Philly teams as well!)
by Jordan Ellel on Mar 17, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Why is Winnipeg the most logical Canadian city? They don’t have an arena, corporate sponsorship, and they already lost a team. I’d say Hamilton/Kitchener/Toronto are all more sensible spots for a new Canadian team than Winnipeg is.
And obviously I support a team in Vegas over KC although KC does already have an arena. Is there any reason to believe there would be much support in KC? Have they had any minor league success there or is it just the fact that it’s considered a “real” city and they have an arena?
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Mar 13, 2010 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
Winnipeg is the largest city in Canada that doesn’t have an NHL team within 50 miles. Hamilton is bigger, but there’s a team there that will do whatever it takes to make a move there cost-prohibitive.
KC has an arena which the owner has said the NHL could play there rent free. In addition the city was able to draw over 10,000 fans to two meaningless preseason games in the middle of the week involving random NHL teams. If the game was on the weekend they would draw more, if it was a regular season game it would draw more, and if the team was representing KC it would draw more. Since it would be an expansion team, they would be near the floor of the salary window, so they’d be able to make $$ selling fewer tickets than a top team.
Vegas needs the arena… Thomas and Mack center and the MGM Grand arenas are too small…
Let's go Caps!
KC fans also knew it was a “try out” for an NHL team. That and the fact that they had 2 chances to watch likely inflated attendance.
Vegas needs an arena, but that’s not even a problem. If they got an NHL team they’d have the arena up in no time.
Killer_Carlson and Steckel Me Elmo are like brothers to me. And when I say brothers I don't mean like actual brothers. I mean it like how black people use it, which is more meaningful, I think.
by Fehr and Balanced on Mar 14, 2010 1:49 AM EST up reply actions
KC has had an NHL team, although it wasn’t for very long. Does that make them better candidates for wanting a team back, or worse candidates for losing their team after two seasons?
"Camaraderie, that's what the Washington Capitals are all about."
by CapitalCentre on Mar 14, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know, ask Atlanta and Minnesota how their franchises are doing.
I should have saved my old signature. Oh well!
In 1975-76, P.G. County was a great place for a hockey arena.
Using Kansas City’s NHL readiness around the same timeframe as a basis to judge their fitness for a hockey team in 2010+ is probably a bad idea.
(I’m not convinced they’re a good market, but that’s more because an NHL team would have to compete for mid-sized market corporate dollars with the Chiefs, Royals and Wizards. Cities change in 35 years, and so do the financial requirements of pro sports.)
That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
Awesome job
I think the losers would be the Avalanche though, traveling back and forth between the Central and Mountain time zone would be a little rough.
I also feel like the Patrick should have Carolina and Nashville and the Norris have the Florida teams. Or at least split them Florida in Patrick and Tampa in Norris for Carolina.
IMO.
Thanks for the hat tip, and nice work!
Check out FFODC.COM and DCSportsPlus.blogspot.com!
by what Juneau about that? on Mar 13, 2010 5:51 PM EST reply actions
Thanks for the map!
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Mar 13, 2010 6:31 PM EST up reply actions
Good stuff. I like the four divisions, and in general, I like the approach.
The one thing I’d do is switch Detroit with either Carolina or Atlanta. To me, there’s six teams in the league that no one wants to share a division with – there’s no historical rivalries, and they don’t draw well when they’re in town: Tampa, Florida, Carolina, Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus. So you have to split up those six teams evenly.
It makes most sense, as you point out, to put the Florida teams with the New York ones, so that’s taken care of. Columbus getting throw in with the bitter NE rivals also makes sense. But while Atlanta-Carolina-Nashville might sound like it should be a good regional rivalry, this is hockey, not NASCAR, and so it wouldn’t be, and none of these teams would draw well in each others’ barns or rouse up playoff-tempo games.
Also, I think you can’t ignore the Detroit-Chicago rivalry, nor Detroit-Colorado, or Detroit-Dallas. Those exist, you can’t just throw them out – in fact, every team in the West guns for the Wings, and they sell out their arenas. So I’d keep Detroit in the Norris here, and instead put probably Atlanta in the Adams. Sticks the NE with another non-traditional rival like Columbus, but it’s only fair, and anyway, all the NE teams draw well in Atlanta.
So that’s the only tweak I’d make.
As far as playoffs, I agree you take the top 2 division winners and the next 6. One thing I would like to see, which I am sure I never will, is that you then re-seed after the 2nd round, ignoring conference. So, of the final four, you go 1-4 and 2-3. Result is that you could get intra-conference Stanley Cup finals, which would be awesome, and take us back to the day of Islanders-Flyers or Montreal-Boston for the Cup.
This is a great idea and line-up; it also makes it real easy for two expansion teams that make sense: either Edmonton or Las Vegas fits easily in the Smyth and either Quebec or Hamilton fits in the Adams
by markbona-capsfan99 on Mar 14, 2010 3:45 PM EDT reply actions
I’m weirded out by Carolina being in what’s still essentially going to be viewed in the prism of a “Western” conference, and I thought one of the few benefits of the renaming is that casuals didn’t have to scratch their heads about individual awards having the same names as divisions, but being unrelated.
It’s not a bad realignment.. certainly a lot better than the ones ESPN proposed some time back.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
82 | 54 | 15 | 13 | 121 |
|
Atlanta
|
82 | 35 | 34 | 13 | 83 |
|
Carolina
|
82 | 35 | 37 | 10 | 80 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
82 | 34 | 36 | 12 | 80 |
|
Florida
|
82 | 32 | 37 | 13 | 77 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Trending Topics: Odd arbitration decisions; more NHLers Tweeting
- Ovechkin wins fifth Kharlamov Trophy, talks Talbot
- Puck Headlines: Witt hits waivers; Kovalchuk grievance details set
- Jersey Fouls: Sharks get creatively awful; hockey movie pass/fail
- White, Flames agree to one-year deal; Bruins sign Wheeler
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
