What would the league table look like without conferences?

In a switch from my normal blogging, I'm getting back on my own personal soapbox, and taking a look at what the table would look like without the conference bias.

We all know that in the 16/17 season we play 8 games against our in-conference pals, but only 4 games cross-conference, and I wondered how the league positions might be impacted if we averaged out the results so that we played each team an equal number of times.

For ease I've just used the in-conference point % and cross-conference point % and multiplied by four or five dependant on how many teams we might face in the two conferences. I could have extended this to look at exact face-to-face records against each team, but that seemed like too much hard work.

So what does it look like? The first table shows the final table, and then in-conference, and then cross-conference results (e.g. Cardiff got 81 points, 45 in-conference, and 36 cross-conference)

The final table shows a re-stated table sorted by column 'B' where the points have been flexed based on a hypothetical even number of games against each other team based on conference point % - I've left the figures 'unrounded' to indicate their calculated nature.

It looks pretty similar,with Cardiff still winning the league (congratulations again, but no this doesn't further add to your trophy cabinet) but has some interesting twists:

• In my world Coventry make the play-offs, whilst Dundee lose out. It's a bit harsh that Coventry are the 7th equal best team and yet have to pack-up early don't you think?
• Also Braehead lose 9 points because of their poor record cross-conference and fall behind Fife in the league. Congrats to Fife, and shows the true value of those purple conference t-shirts doesn't it.

Looking at the points % in the conferences:

• Cardiff, Sheffield, Belfast & Nottingham (as expected) have much better records cross-conference than they do in-conference.
• Braehead, Dundee & Manchester have much better records in-conference than cross-conference.
• So everyone likes playing against Gardiner opposition then?
• Strangely no - it's pretty marginal but Fife, Coventry and Edinburgh all have slightly better records against the Erdhart's - but with much less of a difference from playing Gardiner teams.

We can all argue about the conference system pros and cons, and I get the travel arguments, and the benefit this systems gives to the Gardiner teams who generally don't have the budgets to compete with the Erdhart teams, but it shouldn't be allowed to bias our main trophy this much surely?

Braehead seem happy enough with their conference win, but does it spur them on to semi-final Challenge Cup, or Play-off final four appearances? The latter two ambitions are surely more valid - but even then they get a leg up with the play-off seedings!

It's time to drop this bizarre system before we need to award out the *'s to denote 'won under the conference system' or just go whole hog and just give out a handicap points deduction at the start of the system dependant on budget spend?

But with two new teams arriving, both with large travel, and probably medium or low budgets, then I guess we'll be sticking with it for another few years yet.

Anyway, enough ranting - enjoy your hockey!

Tony.