October 12th, 2011, 11:00 AM #1
Loooong McKenzie article on possible realignment scenarios
October 12th, 2011, 11:25 AM #2
I like the scraping of Conferences for 4 divisions of 8,7,7,8 teams.
I do think it is funny that so many 'Governors' are bent out of shape that two of the Divisions would have an "extra team missing the playoffs"
Top 4 is top 4, right? If you can't make the top four, does it really matter if you are 8th or 7th in the division?
October 12th, 2011, 03:26 PM #3
Personally I like Plan F - but no way Vancouver leaves the Canadian rivalries w/ the Alberta teams.
But I think Plan E is the way to go. Dallas goes to Central where they belong. Colorado to the Pacific. Nashville to Southeast. Winnipeg to Northwest.
And f*** Detroit - they've done just fine being in the West all this time.
And Plan G could work - just nix Florida and Columbus (or anaheim ). Done.
October 12th, 2011, 04:25 PM #4
Seems pointless for this to be considered too thoroughly until the Phoenix situation plays out, otherwise this is all going to have to be re-visited again. They should make a simple switch for next season, get Winnipeg to the West and one of Nashville, C-bus, or Detroit to the East (I personally think Cbus could really benefit from a fresh start) and shelve any further changes until it's known whether that 30th team is going to be in Phoenix, Quebec City, Kansas City or wherever.
That said, I also think I tend to like E of the more permanent options.
October 12th, 2011, 04:44 PM #5
He lists Divisional Playoffs as a drawback.
**** that! I WANT Divisional Playoffs!
October 12th, 2011, 06:26 PM #6
Seriously. I've always hated the conference format. The fact that the top 3 automatically goes to the division leaders sucks. Also, you spend all season playing the majority of your games against teams in your division only to play a team in another division in the first round? How does that make sense? And another thing, if they really want to eliminate the confusion with the division names, why not get rid of the geographical names?
Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay
4 divisions is the way to go as far as I'm concerned.
October 12th, 2011, 06:35 PM #7
Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti
HOWEVER............ the other thing I found interesting about the article is he seemed to be suggesting it would be "bad" if the NHL got all wacky and creative with the playoff structure. As if somehow it would be corrosive to tradition.
What tradition??? Every time a new team is added to the league (+24 by my count) there has to be a re-jiggering of the aligment and playoff structure. The current method is only what... 13 years old? 14?
If they're not going back to a two conference/four division method with divisional playoffs then they might as well get ****ing nutty!
At this point why not have cross conference playoff opponents?
Let the 1st seed choose who they play in the 1st round!
Let the 1st seed play the 8th seed in the other conference!
Let the 1st seed choose between best of 5 or best of 7 format!
Why preserve some shred of manufactured tradition if having divisional playoffs is so onerous???
Sometimes people really confuddle me.
October 12th, 2011, 09:07 PM #8
Pass on the divisional playoffs. Seems like I grew up watching a playoff series against bloody Edmonton or Vancouver every year when I was growing up. I'd rather the randomness of the current format, at this point, especially considering the battering the Kings would take trying to wade through Anaheim, San Jose, and Vancouver every year.
Oh, and **** Detroit.
October 12th, 2011, 09:09 PM #9
I like the divisional structure as well, but rather than a 1-game play-in, why not go with a wild-card for each two-division conference?
October 12th, 2011, 09:14 PM #10
I hope they don't go to the play-in gimmick. Over half the league already makes the playoffs, if you can't make the top 8 by the last day, you don't deserve to get in.