Sunday, August 24, 2008

From The Ground Up: Divisions

Check the pollbar. You can now vote on your preferred divisional boundary alignment for the Icethetics fantasy league.

Since I can't offer higher resolution images within the poll, I'm offering them here with a list of cities available to each division. All divisions here are named by geography.











Here are some things to think about with regard to the divisional boundaries. The larger the division area, the fewer teams you get out of that area in a way. Remember, every division gets 5 teams. Smaller divisional areas have a better chance of getting a city you want, for example.

So, if you think there should be more Canadian teams and fewer southern teams, you'll probably want to pick D. If you want more eastern cities than western, go with C. A has the best geographical spread. B and E rely heavily on northern cities. Just a few observations. There are plenty of other ways to look at each setup.

Happy voting!

61 comments:

llp02 said...

I really love the way E is set up. I hope it wins.

Vic DiGital said...

For me, D is the one that emphasizes the best potential rivalries.

Cameron said...

i like b the best even though it is really similar to the nhl right now, and this is trying to promote differences, but i just like it the best
i dont really see how the northeast division would work for D or really any divisions for D, the southeast is huge
and i think the midwest for E would suck kinda

Cameron said...

b or a are the best

i think it will be cool if there is a team in ankourage

Zach said...

wtf @ sudbury... I spent one night there on my way moving from Thunder Bay to Ottawa... it is the worst city, aesthetically, that I've ever seen, lol. Hope it doesn't get a team. It's not even a big city, by any means.

:)

Richard said...

Setup D is the most pleasing, hopefully the beautiful Sault Ste. Marie gets a team.
Maybe I'll start a campaign for the Underdog, like vote Rory for All-Star!

Dave180 said...

Setup D wins in my book!!

Rochester needs a team to rival Buffalo! :]

robfrules said...

Gotta go with D! And I dunno how you decided on my city, but thanks for including Sault Ste. Marie as a choice for a possible team!

freez said...

i like D because it gives the chance of having teams higher north

Richard said...

Gotta go with D! And I dunno how you decided on my city, but thanks for including Sault Ste. Marie as a choice for a possible team!

That's what I'm talking about! Lets start a Vote for the Soo blog!

Viren said...

I gotta go with D, my town of Kelowna and my hometown of Vancouver are on it and i think i want to be apart of this finally now that i have some time to screw around on illustrator and photoshop.

Drew Bar-Fridge said...

what..no love for hawaii? im not hawaiian..but could you imagine the awesome road trip that would be for players and fans alike? lol

Sukhraj said...

Same here, I gotta go with D!

Resist The Machine. said...

I'm with the consensus, gotta go with D.

Here's to a team in Yellowknife or Whitehorse!!!

zk said...

D and E are the most interesting to me. went with D only because i like all of CA in one division

swooshfinn said...

I think option D is the way to go, I think it divides the areas up nicely; not too big, not too small, and keeps travelling costs realistic for most of the divisions except for northwest, southwest, and south east divisions

Atownjacket said...

I think you should put cities that don't have NHL teams like - Roswell, Georgia - gwinnett, Georgia - columbus, Georgia

MrDolomite said...

E, I like that east coast metro areas are in the same division, i.e. Boston, Philly, NY, NJ, etc. Also puts TN in the Southeast, where they belong.

demondg1 said...

This site has totally lost it's direction. I'm so disappointed. Will make a note to visit less often.

Chris said...

This site has totally lost it's direction. I'm so disappointed. Will make a note to visit less often.

And I'll make a note to remind myself of your disappointment. It's not a lost direction, it's a new one.

Brandon said...

I like D and the 2 all Canadian Divisions(exception for anchorage, which should be part of Canada)!!!!!! It would be awesome!!!!!!!

sens fan said...

lets go sault ste marie!!

krudmonk said...

Did San Jose kick your grandmother?

silentnoise1780 said...

As an Edmontonian (and Canadian), it's between A and D.

I chose A for these four reasons though:

1.) It still has the Canada/US rivalry thing happening for what would be my team's division.

2.) For maintaining a solid Canadian rivalry as well (I'd kill to see an Edmonton/Winnipeg match again... even if it's in a made up league)

The last two are biggest reasons I didn't chose D:

3.) Vancouver's natural rival, and someone they should play regularly is Seattle... hell, let's include Spokane as well (this includes at the NHL level... you hear that Bettman? Forget about friggin Vegas!). Having these teams in the same division is one of the best things you could do for any of them.

4.) I firmly believe in mixing the two countries. Hey, if it was possible to break divisions into time zones, I'd be happier than hell (but the East would be overloaded with teams).

SeahawksSam said...

I didn't like D for a few reasons. Detroit is not a Western Conference city. The NHL has Detroit in this conference because there are barely any teams on the west.

Another reason was that the Pacific shouldn't branch out all the way to Colorado. They're like, 1000 miles from the coast?

Finally, the Southeast was way too large. There would need to be at least 7 teams for this division.

I went with A, I think all of the regions are fairly balanced, and there will be some great rivalries in each division. I'm looking forward to this project :)

Stefan said...

I went with D. I think it allows for more Canadian cities which a hockey league should have. In A the NorthEast has too many "hockey" cities, and thus we would end up with many cities that are in the NHL now. For example, look at it and pick 5 cities and we'll probably have Toronto, Montreal, New York, Philly, and Pittsburgh. Or Buffalo or Ottawa would get in. To me that would result in too many cities that have NHL teams (currently) and stunt our level of creativity.

Vlad said...

I chose 'D' because its the closest to the real sub-cultural divisions that exist in North America: where people travel by car, where relatives live, where people have the same accents, etc.

DP v2.0 said...

I'll vote for C because it's different, and if we had a league playoff setup like what the NHL has, there'd be a better chance of getting more Canadian teams in instead of having them all beat each other up during the regular season. It also is the only one to have Madison, WI, where there is a bunch of tradition on the college hockey level, but sadly lacks the population for an NHL team.

Glovesave29 said...

On a different note - I mentioned on the Hockey News Logo Tournament blog that they needed to give credit to Icethetics / NHL TOL and they removed my comment. Sad, taking credit for someone elses idea...

yukon_brotha said...

Gotta go with D

I can just envision that huge Anchorage vs Whitehorse Rivalry!

James said...

I would have liked to see an option for Victoria to have a team, but that's nitpicking.

I really like how this is starting to shape up, and it'll be really cool to see what has been created in a few months. Awesome stuff.

Mike said...

I do like A, but how do you pick only 5 from all the teams in the Northeast? There are 8 existing NHL cities in the list.

D gets my vote.

Chris said...

I do like A, but how do you pick only 5 from all the teams in the Northeast? There are 8 existing NHL cities in the list.

You just said it. EXISTING cities. The NHL already exists. I don't know how to get you guys to stop thinking of this project in terms of the NHL. Why are we bothering with all these steps if you just want to recreate the NHL?

x8799 said...

i like d because tthen the will be one canadian team omnly division in each conference

Resist The Machine. said...

Although a lot of fans have chosen Map D, I feel the need to take it a step further by predicting the cities per division and conferences that I hope will be represented. Please note that this is just a fun speculation on my part. My aim is to avoid using current NHL cities. So enjoy:

Northeast: Halifax, NS; Quebec City, QC; Sault St. Marie, ON; St. Johns, NL; Thunder Bay, ON.
Atlantic: Hartford, CT; Portland, ME; Providence, RI; Rochester, NY; Scranton, PA.
Southeast: Baltimore, MD; Greenville, SC; Houston, TX; New Orleans, LA; Orlando, FL

Midwest: Cleveland, OH; Indianapolis, IN; Kansas City, MO; Milwaukee, WI; Wichita, KS.
Pacific: Albuquerque, NM; Las Vegas, NV; Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA.
Northwest: Anchorage, AK; Kelowna, BC; Saskatoon, SK; Whitehorse, YT; Yellowknife, NT.

Resist The Machine. said...

…and for Map A:

Central: Cincinnati, OH; Grand Rapids, MI; Indianapolis, IN; Kansas City, MO; Sudbury, ON.
Northeast: Halifax, NS; Hartford, CT; Providence, RI, Quebec City, QC.
Southeast: Baltimore, MD; Birmingham, AL; Greenville, SC; Hampton Roads, VA; Orlando, FL.

Pacific: Anchorage, AK; Kelowna, BC; Las Vegas, NV; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA.
North: Bismarck, ND; Omaha, NE; Regina, SK; Winnipeg, MB; Yellowknife, NT.
South: Albuquerque, NM; Houston, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Salt Lake City, UT; Wichita, KS.

Note: only four chosen for the Northeast.

paploo said...

I agree with most of your choices for both map sets. I would just change a few things like giving London On. and Winnipeg MB. teams over Sault ST. Marie ON. and Anchorage AK. respectively in map D. And maybe switch up one of the Portland's.

On another note, I fear for the Atlantic division (D) and the Northeast Divisions (A) for there are many current NHL cities in them and we may end up with 4 of 5 teams being from the NHL in those divisions because people will want their city represented in this Fantasy league. I for one will vote for Kalowna over Vancouver in my divisional area so I hope others will do the same and not make this the NHL with new boundaries.

Cameron said...

i honestly dont know how the sault could every have a nhl franshise, let alone sudbury (but i hate sudbury)
that would be sick if we got one for this league
GO SOO!!

Hockey Week said...

i think the problem is that too many people want to see new ideas for their hometown. Personally, i'd love to see Pittsburgh chosen, for many reasons including simple hometown pride. however, that does stray from the notion that we want a completely new league, devoid of NHL ideas.

i think from here on out, you should try to avoid having the "NHL current situation" not be an option. if you tweak what we can choose, then you'll have a lot of new things with only minor complaining when the choices are posted.

I also agree with a lot of the guys, after this is finished (but i'd announce it far ahead of time to appease the masses), set up a "minor league" for this venture. The minor league would be nothing more than this: anyone who wants to submit a team for a city that wasn't included, or even a second team for a city that was included, they can, and it will be posted and recorded. If you have multiples for a city, you can even have a poll to pick just one (keeping in line with what the site is all about). For instance, if Pittsburgh doesn't make the cut for this league, after this league is finalized, i could send you a Pittsburgh team concept. you post it, if someone else has another Pittsburgh team concept, put the two against each other in a poll, the winner gets put on the big board, or whatever becomes of this, as a "minor league team"

everybody wins!

Hockey Week said...

i meant to say "not have the 'NHL current situation' be an option," for example, not include 30 teams as an option next time. you get the idea.

ogre39666 said...

voted for option D because:
1) It has a very balanced spread.
2) Includes the most options for a very weak SE (in terms of "hockey cities").

and I would like to make the suggestion that D include cities like Tulsa OK, and Richmond VA instead of Tampa and Orlando FL in the SE.

chrismacdonald16 said...

ummm. i dont think sudbury is the greatest choice as a second ontario team. cities like london and hamilton are way better choices. id personally go with london because they have sold out every single game for the knights for the past like 5 years

Warrior19 said...

i would really like to see colorado springs get a team. it is one of the most overlooked cities in the country and imo, with evidence of colorado college, they could field an nhl team. Denver vs the Springs, Battle of Colorado

Im from denver by the way

a or d is fine with me

Jefferi said...

I believe in geographical rivalries.
With that said I wanna see DC and Baltimore both with teams.

Actually label the DC team DMV (DC, MD, VA)

Darrell Sharpe said...

Ok, maybe it's just me, but it's annoying when the province you live in is completely cut off the map. Especially considering it's the most easterly point in north america and also contains north america's oldest city.

nogoodbye said...

This would be a whole lot better if we could all just forget about the NHL and it's current cities. I'm totally on board to create this league completely from current non-NHL cities, even to no include original 6. Heck, this league should have its own original 6!

ogre39666 said...

@ Darrell Sharpe
I could see how that could get irritating...

Vic DiGital said...

I REALLY like the idea of having our own "Original Six" (or Original Four, if you want to be different). I think Chris should be the one that gets to choose and create those. And then we're allowed to 'expand' into his league.

freez said...

GReat idea Vic we should chose wen they got extended!!!!
if u didnt make it up the other person who said it good job :)

jondp_83 said...

I didn't vote D because I am a Southeastern fan and would like to see as many teams from hicktowns as possible.

Also, after adamently arguing for a "no NHL cities" plan for the league, I think Chris has come up with a good idea. I can still be disappointed if it's a Canada heavey league; but, if most of the participants are Canadian, well, that's democracy. I'll vote my opinion and live with whatever results.

S.D. said...

I went with "D"...it was really a second choice, but my first choice is so far behind in the voting that it would probably be a wasted vote.

If it was all up to me, though, I'd take Map E, split the Northeast into two divisions, and merge the Southeast and Southwest into one. Sorry if this offends anyone but the South should have few if any teams. There's just not that much interest down here.

mrwillborn said...

I voted for B but I guess there's no chance it will catch up. I don't get why A is winning-- the Southeast and North divisions seem kinda weak. Of course B doesn't do anything different for Southeast, but I don't care about the Southeast. Sorry. I think B's Central div is better than A's North.

One thing I miss from the "old" NHL is the division and conference names from the league's history (Prince of Wales Conference; Adams Division; etc). Can we have some non-lame, same-as-every-sports-league names? Maybe the Gretzky Division? The Lemieux Division?

Chris said...

One thing I miss from the "old" NHL is the division and conference names from the league's history (Prince of Wales Conference; Adams Division; etc). Can we have some non-lame, same-as-every-sports-league names? Maybe the Gretzky Division? The Lemieux Division?

No, because this isn't the NHL or a derivative of it. I should be clear in that I'm not saying no to more unique division names. I'm saying no to naming them in any way that relates to the NHL.

roohockey0023 said...

awesome job chris -- may i note that i was the originator of the non-nhl cities idea. i think you should name a division after me.

Vlad said...

C'mon people voting for "A"...

Please notice it DOESN'T include Hamilton or Thunder Bay. I think there would be very few Canadian teams in choice "A".

Vote "D".

Chris said...

Please notice it DOESN'T include Hamilton or Thunder Bay. I think there would be very few Canadian teams in choice "A".

Just wanted to point something out with regard to that. In D, there's a possibility of up to 10 Canadian teams in the league. With A, there could be 13. So while Hamilton and Thunder Bay aren't options in A, there are still more Canadian cities available in D with them being spread across 4 divisions instead of 2.

paploo said...

"Just wanted to point something out with regard to that. In D, there's a possibility of up to 10 Canadian teams in the league. With A, there could be 13. So while Hamilton and Thunder Bay aren't options in A, there are still more Canadian cities available in D with them being spread across 4 divisions instead of 2."

Although theoretically Map A has more Canadian options to choose, I highly doubt that in the NorthEast division there will be 5 Canadian teams picked. I even doubt there will be more then two, which sucks cause Halifax will get the short end of the stick there and Toronto and Montreal will probably be the two. Option D guaranties that there will be at least 9 Canadian teams, while option A has a possibility 13 at most and 0 at least. So in that regard I don't see why it would hurt to have Thunder Bay or Hamilton instead of maybe Sudbury and Cincinnati (although I don't know if Hamilton would be in that division). I am not really complaining because I have done all that I ca do and that is vote for what I think will be the most unique, I'm just pointing out that the argument of there is more in A is not altogether sound, because of the guaranty in D.

Cameron said...

theoretically d wouldnt work
i just hope atleast a or b wins

Darrell Sharpe said...

I would love to see D, as it appears to be the only map with the possibility of including St. John's!

Grant Young said...

What ever one has Des Moines in it.

I'd take the Des Moines team.

Vlad said...

I would like to stress again...

choice 'A' offers a whole division of "confederate" teams AND a whole division of "desert" teams,

... but NOT a whole division of Canadian teams! Boo hiss.

I don't think it's appropriate for a hockey league.

Post a Comment