Thread: Confirmed with Link: The Realignment Thread: Stars to "Division B"
View Single Post
Old
10-14-2011, 09:49 AM
  #68
ginblossoms
Registered User
 
ginblossoms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,216
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ginblossoms
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
Vancouver was in the Smythe with Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Los Angeles and then San Jose joined that division when they entered the league.

How much priority is everyone placing on travel and time zones when creating proposals as opposed to what would be actual good rivalries within the division ie reuniting some of the old divisions prior to all the change up back in 1993 as much as possible ? From what I'm seeing, not much of the latter. Which tells me not many of you were fans before the Stars moved to Dallas when they had the top 4 in each div make it and go through the divisional rounds, and I don't mean that to be insulting at all I'm just observing that we're coming from different places on this.
i'd also guess that most of us became fans after the move.

imo, the rivalries argument is overstated. divisional rivalries are more relevant in the east (could even exclude the southeast). in the west, off the top of my head, i'd call chi-det, cgy-edm, & la-ana worth any significance. the nhl tried this argument when they made teams play divisional foes 8 times each! when living in l.a., i could only stand watching phoenix play at staples center only so much.

years ago, wasn't toronto in the western conference?

all this said, i agree with the poster who suggested 4 divisions versus the current 6. it becomes easier to arrange teams. it also curbs the problem of the leader of a sorry division getting a higher seed than a team with more points. the main negative is that the math won't work out perfectly (7 & 8 team divisions), but i don't see that as much of an issue.

maybe they can get rid of divisions altogether?

ginblossoms is offline   Reply With Quote