View Single Post
Old
02-07-2013, 10:13 AM
  #373
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Therein lies a huge problem with the way the League does things. Certain solutions or options are negated because a certain number of teams will vote against them just because they don't address their individual complaints; it doesn't matter that that option would be a general improvement and doesn't effect them negatively,.... if it doesn't address my complaint then I'm voting against it.
To be fair, without going into the specifics:

The last time the league voted in a "realignment", it was to add the four newer teams added from 1998-2000, which was approved in December 1997. Prior to that, a realignment vote had to be held to move the Nords to Colorado, to add the Ducks and Panthers, to add the Lightning and Senators and to add the Sharks. That was an eight years with four realignment votes.

This alignment has been in place for fifteen years without a single change, although a couple of votes were made approving changes to the scheduling matrix. Anyone that felt the need to have alignment addressed had to wait for the first reason for it to be addressed, and that was the move of the Thrashers to Winnipeg.

And let's get a bit real on this: there were rumors that Ed Snider of the Flyers would block any realignment that didn't keep the Rangers and the Penguins within his playing circle. So about half the league is for the status quo, and the other half wants a signficant change.

Swapping Winnipeg for Columbus might be a "general improvement". It still requires all teams to vote. And of course, if that swap is a general improvement, so would Vancouver to the Pacific - Dallas to the Central - Winnipeg to the Northwest - Columbus to the Southeast be a general improvement. It still requires all teams to vote.

And there would still be some teams that would be generally unhappy.

Grudy0 is online now