Back on May the 20th, I advanced a theoretical National Hockey League realignment (see the "Now What" paragraph) which must occur over the summer of 2012 in order to accommodate the recent move of the erstwhile Atlanta Thrashers to MTS Centre as the Winnipeg Jets. (When I wrote that piece, the new owners' advertised plan was to name the team the Manitoba Moose, rather than the Winnipeg Jets.)
THREE'S COMPANY
But now, SportsNet.ca's John Shannon has a bold and unprecented plan for NHL realignment—one that is very likely the best scenario. The more I study Mr. Shannon's proposal, the better and more equitable it looks in comparison to ideas other writers and hockey insiders have suggested. Shannon proposes three divisions or conferences of ten teams each, a vast improvement over the current six divisions. I have created the following map to give you the complete picture:
JUSTIFY MY LOVE
Shannon offers ten reasons why his idea is the best; I agree with some of them and include them among my own stated justifications, which follow in order of importance:
- Shannon's plan creates three large divisions, which would be a simple, welcome, and pleasant contrast to the NFL and pro basketball. Be honest: How many of the NBA's six (!) divisions can you accurately name? Plus, which teams are in which division?
- This alignment would finally fulfill Mike Illitch's long-standing desire to have his Detroit Red Wings grouped with other teams based in the Eastern Time Zone.
- It guarantees that every NHL team will play at least once in every building, every season. Fans of the Minnesota Wild, the San Jose Sharks, and my beloved Colorado Avalanche should never be cheated out of seeing Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin just because their home team is not in the Eastern Conference.
- Likewise, it forces teams in all three divisions (not merely in the current Western Conference) to have some major travel—the "equal sharing of misery," some might say. Boston, Montréal, and Ottawa would face two trips to Saint Louis, while the Devils, Rangers, and Islanders would play much more often in Texas and Florida, not just in their cozy tri-state area.
- Shannon's plan would give overtime games and shootouts added importance and playoff implications every night—and not merely against a team's intra-conference opponents.
- The three-division alignment puts five of the "Original Six" in the same division, while building on rivalries that fans of the NFL and other sports leagues appreciate (Dallas versus Washington, Philadelphia versus New York, Boston versus Chicago, etc.).
- Likewise, Mr. Shannon's plan maintains most of the NHL's regional rivalries, although Minnesota hockey fans' rivalry versus the Blackhawks (via the 1967-1993 North Stars) is not among them.
- Team owners very likely would not want a 76-game regular season (vice the current 82-game schedule), but Shannon's plan dangles the possibility of eight owners gaining two additional home "wild card" games if their respective teams play well enough.
- As part of a new CBA, Shannon's plan would work toward players and owners receiving an equitable portion of revenues.
THE BOLDER FRESHER TOUR
Nice post Tor,
ReplyDeleteI think this re-alignment makes a great deal of sense. With the shifting of the Thrashers to the 'Peg, I think there is a bevy of reasons for the evolution of the league into three conferences.
I struggle to understand hw the game of hockey is not better appreciated in the US. The only reason I can think of is that it isn't made for TV the way other games are. Live in person the game is unbelievably good to watch.
Another thing for me is the fights. I think it is incredibly myopic that the NHL doesn't stamp out the punch ups altogether. One can argue in favor of tradition and that they have always been part of the game. I've also heard someone say, "Well it is better for them to let their aggression out in hand to hand combat rather than with a hockey stick," suggesting that merely holding a stick means one takes complete leave of their capacity to keep one's temper in check.
What the fights do is this:
1) They delegitimize what is likely the toughest and most skillful sport on planet earth. This game is magnificent, it shows its insecurity by allowing this pathetic cowardly violence to continue. By allowing fights, the NHL is pandering to to die hard fans who will like hockey anyway.
2) By allowing fights the NHL turns away millions of new fans. It is utter lowbrow crap and should be eradicated from the game together. I think parents understand that in a contact sport, one is likely to receive contact in the spirit of the game. Picking up teeth from the ice because of a cheap shot to the face should not be in the spirit of the game. If I want to watch people beating each other to a pulp, I'll turn on MMA with all the white trash members of its audience.
Allowing fights is beneath hockey's dignity.