NHL Realignment 2012-13 – Part III

[Jnr78]

Continuing with the Red Wings' Western burden and a six division league. Detroit stays in the Central (whoever you want goes to the Southeast, and for instance Dallas to Central, Winnipeg to Northwest, Colorado to Pacific or something like that).

But the whole Central Division plays only three times against every other team in the Northwest and Pacific. Instead the Central teams play an extra game against the Northeast and Southeast teams (in total 10 less games against Western teams and 10 more games against Eastern teams). The Atlantic Division keeps the current schedule while the Northeast and Southeast teams only face eachother three times. Also the Northwest and Pacific teams play eachother five times instead of four.

This gives Detroit (and the other Central teams) five less away-games in the West. Enough to make the Red Wings happy?

I have also been thinking about a format where the Central becomes a six-team division (Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis) and the Northwest becomes a four-team division (four Canadian teams) but I haven't figured out a good scheduling format yet.

 

[MoreOrr]

New topic, new place for me to bring out my "path of least resistance" view on realignment:

Winnipeg to the NW
Minnesota to the Central
Columbus to the SE

No major rivalries upset, a struggling Columbus gets a boost, divisions still make sense geographically, more or less (all SE teams are to the SE of Detroit ), and the only teams that would really be against this would be Detroit and Dallas (maybe Nashville and Colorado, too).

In other words, the NHL has 26-28 yes votes right off the bat. Seems like a no-brainer.

But again, you, like a few others, are missing point that it's not all about "not upsetting" rivalries but also about fixing existing alignment problems if fitting Winnipeg in presents a possibility to do so. And yes, no matter what is done, certain teams won't be happy with the result, but then it's a matter of what's worse... the current grievance or the grievance that could be created by an alignment modification. Realignment is not just a case of doing the simplest thing, but it's also case of how much can be fixed with the current alignment problems.

This^

Yes, don't fix anything, just do the simplest thing, even a potential for fixing something, or at least making it better, exists.

 

[MoreOrr]

Continuing with the Red Wings' Western burden and a six division league. Detroit stays in the Central (whoever you want goes to the Southeast, and for instance Dallas to Central, Winnipeg to Northwest, Colorado to Pacific or something like that).

But the whole Central Division plays only three times against every other team in the Northwest and Pacific. Instead the Central teams play an extra game against the Northeast and Southeast teams (in total 10 less games against Western teams and 10 more games against Eastern teams). The Atlantic Division keeps the current schedule while the Northeast and Southeast teams only face eachother three times. Also the Northwest and Pacific teams play eachother five times instead of four.

This gives Detroit (and the other Central teams) five less away-games in the West. Enough to make the Red Wings happy?

I have also been thinking about a format where the Central becomes a six-team division (Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis) and the Northwest becomes a four-team division (four Canadian teams) but I haven't figured out a good scheduling format yet.

This gives Detroit and Columbus the potential of "five less" games against far-western opponents:

B)
24 = 6 x 4 games vs Div opponents
20 = 4 x 5 games vs 5 Conf opponents
10 = 2 x 5 games vs 5 Conf opponents
26 = 2 x 13 games vs 13 other Conf teams
2 = 1 x 2 games vs 2 other Conf teams

 

[ur almost right]

Well, it is pretty apparent that this thread enjoys the Twitter (a la Roc&Manuch, etc) so, because it is possibly related to the Coyotes (as Phoenix is mentioned in related tweets) here goes...

And, as an aside, it seems pretty unrealistic to post all the Tweets so if you are interested, follow, or check out his account: Adam Proteau, @proteautype

as Re-tweeted by Jim Gintonio 22mins ago:


@Proteautype
Adam Proteau An NHL player agent predicts the next CBA will result in the contraction of 2 teams & the relocation of 2 teams to Quebec City & S. Ontario.

Let the speculation begin... Good grief.

 

[MoreOrr]

Well, it is pretty apparent that this thread enjoys the Twitter (a la Roc&Manuch, etc) so, because it is possibly related to the Coyotes (as Phoenix is mentioned in related tweets) here goes...

And, as an aside, it seems pretty unrealistic to post all the Tweets so if you are interested, follow, or check out his account: Adam Proteau, @proteautype

as Re-tweeted by Jim Gintonio 22mins ago:


@Proteautype
Adam Proteau An NHL player agent predicts the next CBA will result in the contraction of 2 teams & the relocation of 2 teams to Quebec City & S. Ontario.

Let the speculation begin... Good grief.

Are you sure you posted in the right thread? I for one have almost no idea what you're talking about... Are you suggesting that we should be talking about the alignment of a 28-team League with Quebec City and southern Ontario both having teams? .... No relation to the December realignment meetings nor the likely 2012-13 alignment... So No, not really!

 

[ur almost right]

Are you sure you posted in the right thread? I for one have almost no idea what you're talking about... Are you suggesting that we should be talking about the alignment of a 28-team League with Quebec City and southern Ontario both having teams? .... No relation to the December realignment meetings nor the likely 2012-13 alignment... So No, not really!

This was moved here by a mod. I had originally posted in the BoH under the Coyotes situation.

I can see how it looks out of place.

 

[drive45]

return of the designated rivals?

Give those two posts ****Stars...

Yes, that alignment seems like it would be the best compromise, greater satisfying scenario that could be applied.

If Columbus and Detroit can't both go East, it's best to just leave both together in the West. Columbus would be worse off if left as the lone ETZ team in the West, and the West would be worse off if the only great fan-draw team is put in the East. And Nashville is the logical fit in the Southeast. Detroit taking the Southeast slot would be a convoluted alignment at best, and if the other two Divisions refuse to be changed up then, well Nashville is the best alternative.

I wouldn't say it does Nashville a favor being in the Southeast, nor that it does the Southeast a favor having another not well-established hockey market there, but again it is a natural fit.

As for the West, no matter what alignment option is chosen, someone loses. But Vancouver going into the Pacific seems to be the lesser evil. It improves Minnesota's alignment, doesn't really hurt Colorado's alignment nor that of the Alberta teams because they get Winnipeg in exchange, and it's also a good alignment for Winnipeg. And of course Dallas benefits immensely.

The loser is Vancouver, but that loss of games against the Alberta teams is slightly eased by getting a better Time Zone alignment.

So no, I don't necessarily think the Alberta teams would be unhappy, they're just trading one Canadian rival for another, and Winnipeg for the moment at least gives them a weaker opponent.

Now as for the scheduling,... Yes, why not apply a somewhat changed up schedule which could ease the situation not only for Detroit and Columbus but also for some of the CTZ teams.

Any of the following scheduling matrixes could be used, keeping balance of number of Home-ice games between Conference opponents, while reducing the number of games between certain Conference opponents. (In Detroit's and Columbus' case, for instance, used to reduce the number of games against PTZ teams.)

A)
24 = 6 x 4 games vs Div opponents
24 = 4 x 6 games vs 6 Conf opponents
8 = 2 x 4 games vs 4 Conf opponents
22 = 2 x 11 games vs 11 other Conf teams
4 = 1 x 4 games vs 4 other Conf teams

B)
24 = 6 x 4 games vs Div opponents
20 = 4 x 5 games vs 5 Conf opponents
10 = 2 x 5 games vs 5 Conf opponents
26 = 2 x 13 games vs 13 other Conf teams
2 = 1 x 2 games vs 2 other Conf teams

C)
24 = 6 x 4 games vs Div opponents
28 = 4 x 7 games vs 7 Conf opponents
6 = 2 x 3 games vs 3 Conf opponents
18 = 2 x 9 games vs 9 other Conf teams
6 = 1 x 6 games vs 6 other Conf teams

D)
30 = 6 x 4 games vs Div opponents plus 1 other in-Conf opponent
20 = 4 x 5 games vs 5 Conf opponents
8 = 2 x 4 games vs 4 Conf opponents
18 = 2 x 9 games vs 9 other Conf teams
6 = 1 x 6 games vs 6 other Conf teams

But whichever matrix is applied has to be applied to all teams, not just Detroit and Columbus, and not just the Western Conference.

I like this a lot, it has many of the advantages I was shooting for with the 'designated rivals' scheme I had suggested a while back, without the unbalanced interconference play that had got me into trouble.

But what happens if/when the 'Yotes move to QC?

 

[crazyforhockey]

If travel wasnt such a concern for the west teams

it could easily go to 2 confrences with even interplay amongst the confrence....


but for the west thats alot more travel to reach (currently other divisons teams)



east doesnt matter due to closeness of each divison.



not an easy solution....................... esp with a couple of franchise in trouble and possible relocation.

 

[MoreOrr]

I like this a lot, it has many of the advantages I was shooting for with the 'designated rivals' scheme I had suggested a while back, without the unbalanced interconference play that had got me into trouble.

But what happens if/when the 'Yotes move to QC?

With Nashville being the team put in the East, it would be a logical and fairly easy adjustment to put them right back in the West.

BUT then those two great northeastern Divisions would finally have to face the music of altering their alignments to make room for QC. I'd be all smiles to see them forced to do that.

As for the West... hmmm. Hard to say.
With Nashville back in the Central, what I personally would suggest would be to put Chicago in the Northwest with Minnesota, Winnipeg, and the Alberta teams. And Colorado slides into the Pacific Division to join Vancouver and the California teams (Still no 3 Time Zone Divisions.)

 

[MoreOrr]

I was just thinking about the idea of Quebec City getting the Coyotes (Not that I think it will happen.) and the possible resulting alignment, and then I suddenly came up with this thought...

Perhaps some of us, well at least myself, have been looking at the Minnesota in an otherwise all-Canadian Division from the wrong angle. I/we have kept focusing on the idea that Minnesota/Wild fans wouldn't be interested to be in such a Division. But perhaps Leipold realizes that such a Division would almost certainly leave Minnesota as being the 5th wheel. The Canadian teams would all have rivalries with each other and none of them and their fans would really care about the Wild. That wouldn't be the best of situations for the Wild, to be in a Division where the potential of a rivalry against Division opponents would be significantly hindered.

So the same would go for Quebec City. I personally think that if Quebec gets a team then the 4 Eastern Canadian teams should be separated into different Divisions rather than leaving, let's say, Buffalo as the 5th wheel.
I'd put Quebec City and Montreal in one Division, and Toronto and Ottawa in another.
Besides, if in the West Vancouver gets separated from the Alberta teams then it seems only fair that the East has a similar alignment.

Buffalo - Toronto is an excellent example of this... Toronto is much closer to Buffalo, but do Maple Leaf fans care much about a Sabre - Leafs rivalry? Not much that I've been able to tell. Buffalo does, but not Toronto. Toronto is focused on the rivalries with Ottawa and Montreal.
In the West, it could be the same scenario with Minnesota and Winnipeg.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

This was moved here by a mod. I had originally posted in the BoH under the Coyotes situation.

I can see how it looks out of place.

Contraction will never happen, because you then have a 28 team league, with a 30 team affiliate league, which is already in 3 divisions/2 conferences of 5 franchises, after struggling for years to rid themselves of 'dormant' franchises, and the dreaded 4 division 2 conference 7/8 franchise that precipitated a 'cross-over' for 1 franchise tht's in 1 division playing in the other division's playoffs.... a la Bridgeport ('09-10), and Binghamton ('10/11)....especially if the contracted franchises are NHL-owned.....

 

[kdb209]

Contraction will never happen, because you then have a 28 team league, with a 30 team affiliate league, which is already in 3 divisions/2 conferences of 5 franchises, after struggling for years to rid themselves of 'dormant' franchises, and the dreaded 4 division 2 conference 7/8 franchise that precipitated a 'cross-over' for 1 franchise tht's in 1 division playing in the other division's playoffs.... a la Bridgeport ('09-10), and Binghamton ('10/11)....especially if the contracted franchises are NHL-owned.....

If the NHL came down to a situation where it had to choose contraction over relocation - inconveniencing the AHL would be the last of it's worries.

 

[Crayton]

Who wants to be stuck with the Western Canada teams? Who fills in the Southeast's 5th spot? How about no one.

Northwest:
VAN/EDM/CGY/WPG

Pacific/Southwest:
SJ/ANA/LA/COL/PHX

Central:
DAL/MIN/CHI/STL/NAS/DET

Southeast:
FLA/TB/CAR/WAS

Atlantic:
PIT/PHI/NJ/NYR/NYI

Northeast:
BOS/MTL/OTT/TOR/BUF/CBJ

Schedule:
6 games in division
4 games in conference
6-team division and 4-team division only play 3 conference games vs. each other, opening up more cross-conference play for those divisions.

Cross-conference games:
4-team division: 1 vs. all 15 + 11 extra games
5-team division: 1 vs. all 15 + 3 extra games
6-team division: 1 vs. all 15 + 7 extra games

This amps up the number of all-Canada games from 69 to 96 (East Canada teams use 6/7 of extra games vs. West Canada). Except for teams in the Pacific and Atlantic, who will keep the current schedule, each American teams will visit each other American team.

EDIT: unintended consequence, teams in the Northwest and Southeast will also play a home-and home against each other. Oops. But, I am sure the idea could be refined by adding back select conference games like MIN-WPG and BUF-CAR so that the NW-SE games are reduced.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

If the NHL came down to a situation where it had to choose contraction over relocation - inconveniencing the AHL would be the last of it's worries.

False, if you shut down 2 NHL Teams, it's the trickle down effect, add to that the possible legalities of those member players on said contracted franchises, Are they or are they not also members of the NHLPA?

 

[kdb209]

False, if you shut down 2 NHL Teams, it's the trickle down effect, add to that the possible legalities of those member players on said contracted franchises, Are they or are they not also members of the NHLPA?

Players under NHL SPCs are members of the NHLPA and the CBA has terms covering the default on their SPCs - they will either become UFAs or the NHL may assume their contracts and assign them via a dispersal draft.

Any contraction will either be done by the League - in which case it will likely be negotiated with the NHLPA - or simply by a team declaring bankruptcy with no local owner or relocation sale on the horizon and the League not stepping in (a la Phoenix). In that case the team will either voluntarily or involuntarily withdraw from the NHL, reject any affiliate agreements in BK, and default on it's SPCs - which the NHL has the option of assuming and assigning or not.

 

[knorthern knight]

Contraction will never happen, because you then have a 28 team league, with a 30 team affiliate league, which is already in 3 divisions/2 conferences of 5 franchises, after struggling for years to rid themselves of 'dormant' franchises, and the dreaded 4 division 2 conference 7/8 franchise that precipitated a 'cross-over' for 1 franchise tht's in 1 division playing in the other division's playoffs.... a la Bridgeport ('09-10), and Binghamton ('10/11)....especially if the contracted franchises are NHL-owned.....

28 teams in 4 divisions comes out to 7 teams per division, with no "dreaded crossovers". The fate of AHL teams is the least of the NHL's worries. Howsabout the fate of the BlueJackets/Coyotes/Devils/Islanders/Stars? Take a look at home attendance at http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance BTW, the Coyotes' home attendance is deceiving, because the tickets are way underpriced.

Right now the only feasable option for relocation is QC. That leaves 4 of the above unaccounted for. I'm sure that Bettman has been begging/pleading with Alexander in Houston and Allen in Portland to take a team, and nothing has happened. KC has an arena, but is facing an anti-Scruggs of a mayor who's not willing to throw money at the NHL. Assuming that 2 of the 5 teams get stabilized, and 1 relocated to QC, that still leaves 2 teams contracted.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Players under NHL SPCs are members of the NHLPA and the CBA has terms covering the default on their SPCs - they will either become UFAs or the NHL may assume their contracts and assign them via a dispersal draft.

Any contraction will either be done by the League - in which case it will likely be negotiated with the NHLPA - or simply by a team declaring bankruptcy with no local owner or relocation sale on the horizon and the League not stepping in (a la Phoenix). In that case the team will either voluntarily or involuntarily withdraw from the NHL, reject any affiliate agreements in BK, and default on it's SPCs - which the NHL has the option of assuming and assigning or not.

which has been denied hasn't it, Isn't for all intents and Purposes , the League is running the Coyotes, just as they did the Sabres w/ the Rigas fraud, the 2 BK's in PIT, THE ejection of Boots, in NSH, EVEN AS A MINORITY owner, it is highly unrealistic.....

 

[RandR]

Who wants to be stuck with the Western Canada teams? Who fills in the Southeast's 5th spot? How about no one.

Northwest: VAN/EDM/CGY/WPG

Pacific/Southwest: SJ/ANA/LA/COL/PHX

Central: DAL/MIN/CHI/STL/NAS/DET

Southeast: FLA/TB/CAR/WAS

Atlantic: PIT/PHI/NJ/NYR/NYI

Northeast: BOS/MTL/OTT/TOR/BUF/CBJ

Schedule:
6 games in division
4 games in conference
...

I like this idea!

The size of a division has little bearing on one's chances of making the playoffs due to seedings being 1-8 within conferences, so I see no problem having unequal divisions. I would just switch Columbus and Detroit since the Wings are currently rumoured to be more likely to move East.

The realignment then becomes:
Winnipeg --> Northwest
Detroit --> Northeast
Colorado --> Pacific
Minnesota --> Central
Dallas --> Central

That way, nobody in the Northeast or Atlantic has to be pushed out of their current division, and at least 4 teams get their grievances settled instead of just 2 with a switch of Winnipeg and Detroit. Only Columbus is really left out (Nashville is Central time zone), and it would then be their "turn" in being "next" to move East.

I think something could be figured out regarding inter-conference play... after all it is isn't equal now anyway. (Each team plays 3 teams in the other conference twice, the rest once.)

(I still like 4 divisions the most, but it doesn't sound like that has much of a chance of happening.)

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

28 teams in 4 divisions comes out to 7 teams per division, with no "dreaded crossovers". The fate of AHL teams is the least of the NHL's worries. Howsabout the fate of the BlueJackets/Coyotes/Devils/Islanders/Stars? Take a look at home attendance at http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance BTW, the Coyotes' home attendance is deceiving, because the tickets are way underpriced.

Right now the only feasable option for relocation is QC. That leaves 4 of the above unaccounted for. I'm sure that Bettman has been begging/pleading with Alexander in Houston and Allen in Portland to take a team, and nothing has happened. KC has an arena, but is facing an anti-Scruggs of a mayor who's not willing to throw money at the NHL. Assuming that 2 of the 5 teams get stabilized, and 1 relocated to QC, that still leaves 2 teams contracted.

that's why the 4 team 2 conference 2 division format was eliminated, one of the options here, isn't being supported if at all by anyone, knorthern...... because if you drop to 28 then you have to implement a new divisional alignment, which is wht this is all about, isn't it, which is why no one is in favor of a 7 or 8 team division.....

I wish ppl would stop bringing up Quebec City, Les Alexander or Paul Allen as a solution, bc if it were plausible, it would've already happened well before the relocation of Quebec to Colorado ('95), Hartford TO Greensboro/Raleigh aka CAR ('97); Winnipeg fans have stopped whining now TSNE has given them a franchise.

we also dropped from 80 to 76 games, income from those 4 games may or may not have an impact on the overall viability of any franchise, regardless of league....

Isn't 4 7 team divisions the NFL Model with 4 divisions, instead of the 3 divisions we now have?

 

[mucker*]

MoreORR

Give me your opinion on these proposals:


Option A:
-Nashville to SE
-Winnipeg to NW
-Minnesota to C

Atlantic:
PIT
PHI
NYR
NJ
NYI

NE:
BOS
MON
TOR
BUF
OTT

SE:
WAS
CAR
FLA
TB
NASH


C:
DET
CHI
STL
COLUMBUS
MIN

NW:
VAN
EDM
CAL
WIN
COL

W:
LA
ANA
PHO
SJ
DAL

Option B:
-Nashville to SE
-Winnipeg to NW
-Vancouver to Pacific
-Dallas to Central

Atlantic:
PIT
PHI
NYR
NJ
NYI

NE:
BOS
MON
TOR
BUF
OTT

SE:
WAS
CAR
FLA
TB
NASH


C:
DET
CHI
STL
COLUMBUS
DAL

NW:
MIN
EDM
CAL
WIN
COL

W:
LA
ANA
PHO
SJ
VAN

Option C:
-Nashville to SE
-Winnipeg to NW
-Colorado to Pacific
-Dallas to Central

Atlantic:
PIT
PHI
NYR
NJ
NYI

NE:
BOS
MON
TOR
BUF
OTT

SE:
WAS
CAR
FLA
TB
NASH


C:
DET
CHI
STL
COLUMBUS
DAL

NW:
VAN
EDM
CAL
WIN
MIN

W:
LA
ANA
PHO
SJ
COL

Any of these options, I think, are best.
Why?

1) NO rivalries *(aside from VAN's) are disturbed
-All the NY-NJ are intact
-NY-PHI intact
-PIT-PHI intact
-BOS-MON intact
-CHI-DET intact

2) Balance of conference power maintained
-Still have big market DET and CHI with LA out west
-2 original sixes (Chi is not left out to dry)

3) Time zones more respected
-Option A...Minnesota is with CST
-Option B and C....Dallas is in CST

4) No team is left out to dro
-If DET moves to the east...CHI is the only original 6 out west and Columbus is the only EST in the west

5) No crazy mis-alignments (WIN in the Central, but MIN in the NW as some have proposed would do this).

Possible complaints:
1) VAN in Option B is removed from their "rivals" (but is given much better travel and time zone, especially if PHO goes to SEA)
2) Option A and C...COL is the sole US team in the NW and in C MIN is the sole US team in the NW
(But...really...COL...who cares...they have no natural rival as stands in the NW and having WIN over MIN is not a big deal, ratings would likely not be hurt)
(Also...option C...MIN would have nearby WIN).


To me, these make sense because they try to address legit complains from MIN/DAL/WIN without really disrupting current big rivalries.

 

[mucker*]

Hey folks, what are the odds my proposals:

A, B, C pass?

 

[No Fun Shogun]

But again, you, like a few others, are missing point that it's not all about "not upsetting" rivalries but also about fixing existing alignment problems if fitting Winnipeg in presents a possibility to do so. And yes, no matter what is done, certain teams won't be happy with the result, but then it's a matter of what's worse... the current grievance or the grievance that could be created by an alignment modification. Realignment is not just a case of doing the simplest thing, but it's also case of how much can be fixed with the current alignment problems.

Yes, don't fix anything, just do the simplest thing, even a potential for fixing something, or at least making it better, exists.

I'm not denying that my idea does nothing to address some of the problems addressing the NHL alignment-wise, but as I said before it was, what I believe, to be the path of least resistance for the league moving forward. Any other move to realign the NHL would undoubtedly step on far more toes than what I brought up, and therefore would likely face more opposition from the BoG even if it was good for the NHL at large.

Take moving Detroit to the East, for instance.... I'm sure that Chicago wouldn't want to be the only Original Six team in the West, multiple struggling western teams probably wouldn't like to see a big road draw for them suddenly gone, and I'm sure that a handful of middle of the pack Eastern teams might be slightly hesitant at the idea of directly competing with a team as consistently strong as Detroit for a handful of playoff spots.

Or Dallas to the Central.... okay, who replaces them in the Pacific? Vancouver? Riiight... I'm sure that Calgary and Edmonton would love losing them. Also, holy crap.... Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Minnesota, and Colorado in one division? Might as well rename that the Scrub Division for the next couple years (no offense to fans of the teams, but c'mon... that would be a horribly weak division and you know it).

Personally, I'd like to completely revamp the whole league, but my ideas are pretty much guaranteed to never be taken seriously. What I've suggested is, imho, nothing more than the simple and most likely outcome. Call it the Occam's Razor plan.

 

[MoreOrr]

I'm not denying that my idea does nothing to address some of the problems addressing the NHL alignment-wise, but as I said before it was, what I believe, to be the path of least resistance for the league moving forward. Any other move to realign the NHL would undoubtedly step on far more toes than what I brought up, and therefore would likely face more opposition from the BoG even if it was good for the NHL at large.

Take moving Detroit to the East, for instance.... I'm sure that Chicago wouldn't want to be the only Original Six team in the West, multiple struggling western teams probably wouldn't like to see a big road draw for them suddenly gone, and I'm sure that a handful of middle of the pack Eastern teams might be slightly hesitant at the idea of directly competing with a team as consistently strong as Detroit for a handful of playoff spots.

Or Dallas to the Central.... okay, who replaces them in the Pacific? Vancouver? Riiight... I'm sure that Calgary and Edmonton would love losing them. Also, holy crap.... Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Minnesota, and Colorado in one division? Might as well rename that the Scrub Division for the next couple years (no offense to fans of the teams, but c'mon... that would be a horribly weak division and you know it).

Personally, I'd like to completely revamp the whole league, but my ideas are pretty much guaranteed to never be taken seriously. What I've suggested is, imho, nothing more than the simple and most likely outcome. Call it the Occam's Razor plan.

I can't disagree with that post, other than the "Occam's Razor" reference. Certainly there are going to be obstacles, I wouldn't expect otherwise. But that doesn't mean that the League shouldn't make the attempt to see how much of the alignment can be made better in some way. This current alignment was made, what more than a decade ago, so perhaps certain opinions have changed since then. Certainly the teams effected directly will have their specific negative or positive opinions regarding certain options of change, but perhaps the majority (2/3) view in favor of one option over another may have altered or be open to change. I'm just saying that the League needs to make a stab at it. If it doesn't succeed then it doesn't succeed, and they end up making nothing more than whatever the Winnipeg realignment forces them to do.

 

[danishh]

to address some of that:

- detroit to the east = 14 western teams pissed off. With the current requirement of 2/3 approval, detroit to the east is just impossible.

- vancouver to the pacific can be approved as long as enough other teams get what they want, mainly detroit staying in the west and the NE+ATL staying the same. As moreorr pointed out above, calgary and edmonton actually gain canadian matchups with winnipeg coming west.

- dallas, colorado, winnipeg, calgary ,and edmonton as a scrub division: have you seen the southeast for the past 15 years? This "scrub division" would probably pull out just as many stanley cups as the southeast has.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

to address some of that:

- detroit to the east = 14 western teams pissed off. With the current requirement of 2/3 approval, detroit to the east is just impossible.

- vancouver to the pacific can be approved as long as enough other teams get what they want, mainly detroit staying in the west and the NE+ATL staying the same. As moreorr pointed out above, calgary and edmonton actually gain canadian matchups with winnipeg coming west.

- dallas, colorado, winnipeg, calgary ,and edmonton as a scrub division: have you seen the southeast for the past 15 years? This "scrub division" would probably pull out just as many stanley cups as the southeast has.

tht depends if they allow Dallas to change, it seems to be the concensus tht if VAN is the team tht replaces the Stars in that division, I'll bet 2/3 will vote for DET to the East if at minimum WPG goes West, why deny DET wht they were promised when we went to the 3 division format and when TML went East? You wouldn't change the NE/Atlantic, all we want/are asking for is 2 equal conferences of 15, not 14/16, or 16/14. DAL can replace DET in the Central, can't it? It solves what the Stars are asking for, and DET gets wht they are asking for, you might ignite a rivalry between the Stars & Wild....