Comments on: A Philly Fan's Wisdom

By: uncatim

uncatim — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:42:57 +0000

I like the idea, but if it comes from a flyers fan there must be something wrong.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:47:39 +0000

I like the idea, but the East (I like Wales, but come on, they won’t go back to that for at least the conferences) is going to benefit a ton. The Smythe division looks atrocious on paper. Dallas and Colorado might get excited at the competitive prospects, but I think their fans would really hate it (not unlike the Caps’ for being stuck in the Southeast).

By: pelle31lives

pelle31lives — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:27:10 +0000

I like the return to the four-division system. I like the historical names to return (but in their proper places) and I like the playoff system to be tweaked.
With 30 teams divided unequally, no matter what, some team is going to get screwed with travel within its own division. That’s what happens when you open up geographic possibilities by reducing the number of groupings. Also, there will be a wickedly unbalanced schedule trying to shoehorn 30 teams in four divisions within 80, 82, or even 84 games a year.
Currently, I’d be in favor of a 1-8, 2-7 playoff seeding within each conference based on record and not division standing. I’d even go for a 1-16 seeding regardless of conference to spice things up.

By: pelle31lives

pelle31lives — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:26:28 +0000

I like the return to the four-division system. I like the historical names to return (but in their proper places) and I like the playoff system to be tweaked.
With 30 teams divided unequally, no matter what, some team is going to get screwed with travel within its own division. That’s what happens when you open up geographic possibilities by reducing the number of groupings. Also, there will be a wickedly unbalanced schedule trying to shoehorn 30 teams in four divisions within 80, 82, or even 84 games a year.
Currently, I’d be in favor of either a 1-8, 2-7 playoff seeding within each conference based on record and not division standing. I’d even go for a 1-16 seeding regardless of conference to spice things up.

By: Schultz

Schultz — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:37:52 +0000

While I certainly would love to see the return to the classic names, I think we’re all deluding ourselves that this would ever happen. Having a “Smythe Division” instead of a “Pacific Division” (another quibble, the two division names in the Campbell are backwards, IMHO.) repels new fans. Its makes hockey seem more mysterious to those who don’t already follow the game (and its not like its the most popular sport in the “Smythe Division” terrtitory anyway).

By: The Peerless

The Peerless — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:31:52 +0000

With a little tweaking, you could even accommodate expansion and make for a 4×8 arrangement…
Move Buffalo to the Patrick (makes for a complete NY set of rivalries) and complete their eight-team division.
Move St. Louis and Minnesota to the Adams to complete that eight-team group.
Add Kansas City franchise to the Smythe; move Colorado to the Smythe.
Add Las Vegas to the Norris.
The result:
Prince of Wales Conference (14 teams)
Patrick Division (8 teams)
Philadelphia Flyers
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey Devils
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitals
Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Adams Division (8 teams)
Montreal Canadiens
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs
Detroit Red Wings
Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
St. Louis Blues
Minnesota Wild
Clarence Campbell Conference (16 teams)
Norris Division (8 teams)
San Jose Sharks
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Anaheim Ducks
Phoenix Coyotes
Vancouver Canucks
Las Vegas Ice Scorpions (humor me)
Smythe Division (8 teams)
Nashville Predators
Atlanta Thrashers
Tampa Bay Lightning
Florida Panthers
Dallas Stars
Carolina Hurricanes
Kansas City Scouts
Colorado Avalanche
Is it perfect?…no. But is the current distribution of teams and the antiseptic geographic nomenclature better?

By: jen

jen — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:28:26 +0000

I like this plan simply because it brings back the historic names that made hockey so different and personal. Expansion wasn’t the trouble. Realignment wasn’t the trouble. Ignoring Messrs. Adams, Campbell, Norris, Patrick, and Smythe (and the prince of Wales) was the true disgrace.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:15:29 +0000

Biggest problem, florida gets screwed on travel, other than that, it is almost completely geographic still.

By: OrderedChaos (Mike Rucki)

OrderedChaos (Mike Rucki) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:33:39 +0000

I see no problem with 7 teams in one division and 8 in the other — MLB seems to deal with it just fine, and far fewer teams make the playoffs in baseball than in hockey.
Josh’s point is a good one though, and one I hadn’t thought of: all Original Six in one conference would be pretty rough on the other conference, and offhand there’s no easy solution for that problem.

By: Stratocaps

Stratocaps — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:54:42 +0000

I really struggle to consider this suggestion with a rational mind.
I’ve never been able to embrace the Southeast division, and I’d break the sound barrier to get back some of that old Patrick division venom.