Thanks Fugu, what you wrote here makes your earlier comment more clear. I thought that you meant they had this 'western expansion' in mind when they began the re-alignment process. I meant to point out that they clearly could not have had western expansion in mind when they did realignment 1.0 and 1.1 (one separated Pitts and Phil, and the next one put them back together) since both of those had 8 teams in each western conference.
My comment about luck (perhaps good fortune would be a better explanation) was a reference to this: What if the PA had ok'd the Realignment 1.1? The we would have something like this (If I remember the details right):
Pacific: Van, Edm, Cal, SJ, LA, Ana, Ari, Col
Central: Winn, Min, Chi, Det, Cmb, StL, Nas, Dal
Eastern: Tor, Ott, Mon, Bos, Buff, TB, Fla
Atlantic: NYR, NYI, NJ, Pitt, Phil, Was, Car
And, that does not show an inclination to a western expansion. So, if you want to put Seattle and Vegas into that, you have to have a vote to redo it.
But, to the League's good fortune (as it turned out), the PA did not sign off on that.
Now, like you say, something happened between there and ver 2.0. And, that is where I am not sure exactly what the discussion was, because there are 2 schools of thought, and each one seems logical to me:
1) Because the PA was complaining about "not equal playoff possibilities", a wildcard option had to be instituted. No matter what you do, you have to introduce that. Once there was a wild card, it seemed incorrect to not play the teams in the other 'WC' division (means Pac&Cent together, for example) an extra game. At that point, Detroit and Columbus objected to the travel from ETZ to PTZ. So, they moved to the eastern half of the alignment. And, the PA signed off on that idea. And, then, Detroit found out that playing in that division is more lucrative to them than any other combination, so they are not going back. This description would have the governors sort of with expansion on the back burner, not being a big part of the decision.
2) Since they had to re-think, someone brought up the Seattle situation, and then expansion became a big part of the decision. Now, you have to make room in the west. Neither Detroit or Columbus wanted to be over in the Central Division alone, so they both moved, Detroit to what became called the Atlantic Division, Columbus to the Metropolitan. Here, expansion became a big deal.
Like I say, both seem plausible. But, what doesn't seem plausible is that when they put out Realignment 1.1 (with Pitts and Phil together), they were thinking of making an alignment with western expansion in mind.
Unless I am missing something, in which case please enlighten me.
