As a more-than-casual yet less-than-avid fan of hockey, I am vaguely aware of the kerfuffle between the National Hockey League (NHL) and the NHL Players Association (the union) over the proposed realignment of the current six divisions into four division/conferences. Apparently, the NHL tried to rush a plan for realignment through the approval process, and the union, as led by Donald Fehr, objected. The story goes that the union requested more time to study the issue, and the NHL responded by figuratively throwing up its hands in exasperated defeat, postponing and possibly canceling the plan.
The issue of realignment revolves around two concepts on which the NHL and players seem to agree. The NHL and its team’s owners want to lessen travel costs for teams that have to cross time zones to play road games, especially teams in the current Western Conference, where teams are located in cities that geographically further apart than those in the Eastern Conference. The players in the union want to ease the burdens of time involved in traveling, frequency of travel, and the physical & emotional wear and tear from frequent travel. Therefore, both sides agree that, in theory, realignment is a good idea.
Unfortunately, both sides seem to have forgotten how to discuss the logistics of how to make realignment happen without a lot of hand waving, posturing, and shouting. All of this sound and fury, signifying nothing, seems to be the early stages of the long, arduous process of renegotiating the soon-to-expire Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and the union signed after the lockout in 2004 which cost the teams, the players, and especially the fans the pleasure of the entire 2004-2005 season.
As a fan who has no interest in enduring another frustrating and pointless lockout, I gave this issue approximately fifteen minutes of serious thought, and came up with a compromise. This plan is obviously not without flaws, but should solve the vast majority of the travel and expense concerns of the interested parties, while avoiding the awkwardness of placing the two Florida teams in a conference with a bunch of teams north of Interstate 90, while there is whole separate conference in between.
West | North | South | East |
Anaheim | Chicago | Carolina | Boston |
Calgary | Columbus | Dallas | Buffalo |
Colorado | Detroit | Florida | New Jersey |
Edmonton | Minnesota | Nashville | New York Islanders |
Los Angeles | Montreal | St. Louis | New York Rangers |
San Jose | Ottawa | Tampa Bay | Philadelphia |
Vancouver | Toronto | Washington | Pittsburgh |
Winnipeg |
There are a few points about my plan that need to be addressed:
First, the NHL’s original plan is for each team to play a pair of games, home & away, with all the teams outside their conference. This would account for 42-46 games on each team’s schedule, leaving 36-40 games to be played against conference rivals. The point of this is to give less financially successful teams guaranteed home games hosting extremely popular teams like Detroit, Toronto, Pittsburgh, etc., which will drive revenues for those less financially secure teams. On the other hand, a guaranteed six games annually against conference rivals should enhance those rivalries, while overall, reducing travel time & frequency out of a team’s home time zone.
Second, the plan for the playoffs involves a tournament amongst the top four teams in each conference, followed by a “Final Four” of the four conference playoff survivors, with the last team standing hoisting the coveted Stanley Cup. So far, everything I have read states that, in principal, the two sides agree on these first two points. Apparently, the sticking point is that the union has concerns regarding the placement of certain teams in certain conferences. The NHL placed older, more established teams in certain conferences to maintain older, more established rivalries.
Third, some rivalries may have to be sacrificed to salvage the plan. In my plan, the entire Atlantic division stays together in the East Conference, joined by two geographically close teams from the Northeast division. Bye-bye Boston/Montreal rivalry. On the other hand, the rivalries between Boston and the teams from New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia will get really good really fast. Montreal, conversely, will get to continue long-standing rivalries with Toronto and Ottawa while rekindling ancient rivalries with mutual enemies Detroit and Chicago. Some rivalries get sacrificing so that others may thrive.
Fourth, some may have noticed that I did not include the Phoenix Coyotes in my realignment plan. This is because every sports writer I have read agrees that the owner of the team, the NHL, is likely to sell the team shortly to a new owner who is likely to move the team, probably to Quebec City, although possibly to Hamilton, Ontario or Kansas City (will never happen). In the unlikely event that the team stays in Arizona, just slot the team in the West Conference snugly in the empty space below Vancouver. Once the team moves to Quebec City, place the team carefully in the empty space below Pittsburgh in the East Conference. If the team moves somewhere else, that may require more thought. My instincts tell me it’s going to be Quebec City residents participating in a team naming contest hosted by a local radio station in the near future.
In conclusion, most, but not all, historical rivalries are maintained, the Canadian teams are shared amongst three conferences, and the Florida teams (and their fans) are treated with a little respect by placing them in a conference that makes sense geographically while maintaining current rivalries against Carolina and Washington. It all makes sense. Perhaps too much sense. Which is why it will probably never go down this way. On the other hand, if the NHL and the union like my plan, all I ask in payment is their thanks. Their thanks, and a complimentary pair of tickets to one New Jersey Devils home game annually in perpetuity. Go Devils.
No comments:
Post a Comment