The Pointless Realignment Outpost

[McCall]

Until such time as the MLB inevitably expands, I think the best course of action is to do away with the divisions entirely. By moving to an East/West ?conference? alignment, which I?ll refer to as the National and American Leagues, respectively, and with baseball playing multi-game series throughout the year, divisions really aren?t needed to save on travel costs.

Instead, I?d divide the teams as follows:

National League- Seattle Mariners, Oakland Athletics, Houston Astros, Anaheim Angels, Texas Rangers, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Colorado Rockies, San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks, St Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs and Milwaukee Brewers

American League- New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, Toronto Blue Jays, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Baltimore Orioles, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Miami Marlins, Tampa Bay Rays, Atlanta Braves, Cincinnati Reds, Washington Nationals and Pittsburgh Pirates

Each team would play each other team in its league 9 times, with either two home series and one away series, or vice versa. It would switch each year for each team, so if the Yankees play 6 games in Boston in 2012, the Red Sox would have to play 6 games in the Bronx in 2013. This accounts for the vast majority of the schedule, and 126 games in total.

The other 36 games each year would be comprised of twelve 3-game series against opponents from the other league. As such, in any given year, each team would play against 26 of the 29 other MLB teams, and by rotating between home series, away series and no series, each city would be visited by each team at least twice in any given five-year period.

As an example, say the Toronto Blue Jays were to play in San Francisco in 2012, then the Giants played in Toronto in 2013, then the Jays played in SF again in 2014, then the teams didn?t play each other in 2015, and then the Giants came back to Toronto in 2016. Which teams do and don?t play would just rotate through until each team has played twice in a given city, had that team visit their city twice, and had one year with no series in every five-year span.

The simplest way to do this to save on travel would be to divide the inter-league games into packages of 9 games for each team. As an example, you could have the Yankees head out West in May and August in two separate road trips, where they'd play 3 games against three teams each time. By doing this, it limits the amount of cross-continental travel, but still creates some variety in the schedule for the fans, who would get to see a lot of different teams.

By doing this, I think there would be a strong balance between travel distances, interleague play and fair competition, and each team would be given a fair and equal opportunity to make or miss the playoffs, with much less emphasis being put on strength of schedule or being in a particularly strong division.

History has suggested that with more divisions comes more unfairness in regards to which teams make the playoffs. For the past 15 years or so, this has occured in the AL East, and at time, it has affected each of the NL divisions. For a very long time, too, the AL Central was terrible from top to bottom, and perhaps none of the teams deserved to qualify for the postseason some years. It certainly appears that over the next 5 years, very good teams could miss the playoffs in the NL East and AL West, too, simply because all the strongest teams are packed into one division.

By returning to single-table leagues, this problem is erased. Blue Jay fans won?t be able to complain that they didn?t get a fair shake against the Rays, Yankees and Red Sox, and a terrible team won?t qualify for the playoffs by winning a division when they?d amass a losing record in a stronger division. Instead, the 8 best teams would qualify for the postseason.

My proposal would include an eight-team playoff, where the top four teams from each league qualify. The playoffs would work just like they did up until and including the 2011 MLB season, with a 5-game Division Series (or League Semifinal now), a 7-game League Championship Series, and a 7-game World Series to decide the champion.

As a side note, it is difficult to divide up the Midwest teams, but I did the best I could. I had to choose between the White Sox and Brewers to be the odd team out, and I went with the White Sox. I felt that, despite being in the same city as the Cubs, they weren?t currently in the same league as the Brewers/Cardinals/Cubs anyways, so they wouldn?t be losing their chief rivals in the realignment.

Also, there is the issue of the Designated Hitter Rule. With a lot of teams crossing 'leagues', but obviously there being a constant divide between NL and AL baseball minds when it comes to the value of the DH, I think the best solution would be to just let each team decide at the time of the realignment whether they want to adopt the DH rule at their home park, and are locked into whichever decision they make.

A. Other than Bud Selig, East-West seperation of MLB doesn't really fly with most fans. It's basically taking the tradition of the NL and AL and chucking it into an old, burning trash can and then putting the flames out by pissing on it.

B.The DH rule you've suggested makes absolutely no sense and would never work. You can't leave it up to individual teams. You may end up with like 21 non-DH and only 9 with the DH or vice versa. It has to be one way or the other for each league or for both, not based on each team's preference.

[aci]

Until such time as the MLB inevitably expands, I think the best course of action is to do away with the divisions entirely. By moving to an East/West ?conference? alignment, which I?ll refer to as the National and American Leagues, respectively, and with baseball playing multi-game series throughout the year, divisions really aren?t needed to save on travel costs.

Instead, I?d divide the teams as follows:

National League- Seattle Mariners, Oakland Athletics, Houston Astros, Anaheim Angels, Texas Rangers, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Colorado Rockies, San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks, St Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs and Milwaukee Brewers

American League- New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, Toronto Blue Jays, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Baltimore Orioles, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Miami Marlins, Tampa Bay Rays, Atlanta Braves, Cincinnati Reds, Washington Nationals and Pittsburgh Pirates

Each team would play each other team in its league 9 times, with either two home series and one away series, or vice versa. It would switch each year for each team, so if the Yankees play 6 games in Boston in 2012, the Red Sox would have to play 6 games in the Bronx in 2013. This accounts for the vast majority of the schedule, and 126 games in total.

The other 36 games each year would be comprised of twelve 3-game series against opponents from the other league. As such, in any given year, each team would play against 26 of the 29 other MLB teams, and by rotating between home series, away series and no series, each city would be visited by each team at least twice in any given five-year period.

As an example, say the Toronto Blue Jays were to play in San Francisco in 2012, then the Giants played in Toronto in 2013, then the Jays played in SF again in 2014, then the teams didn?t play each other in 2015, and then the Giants came back to Toronto in 2016. Which teams do and don?t play would just rotate through until each team has played twice in a given city, had that team visit their city twice, and had one year with no series in every five-year span.

The simplest way to do this to save on travel would be to divide the inter-league games into packages of 9 games for each team. As an example, you could have the Yankees head out West in May and August in two separate road trips, where they'd play 3 games against three teams each time. By doing this, it limits the amount of cross-continental travel, but still creates some variety in the schedule for the fans, who would get to see a lot of different teams.

By doing this, I think there would be a strong balance between travel distances, interleague play and fair competition, and each team would be given a fair and equal opportunity to make or miss the playoffs, with much less emphasis being put on strength of schedule or being in a particularly strong division.

History has suggested that with more divisions comes more unfairness in regards to which teams make the playoffs. For the past 15 years or so, this has occured in the AL East, and at time, it has affected each of the NL divisions. For a very long time, too, the AL Central was terrible from top to bottom, and perhaps none of the teams deserved to qualify for the postseason some years. It certainly appears that over the next 5 years, very good teams could miss the playoffs in the NL East and AL West, too, simply because all the strongest teams are packed into one division.

By returning to single-table leagues, this problem is erased. Blue Jay fans won?t be able to complain that they didn?t get a fair shake against the Rays, Yankees and Red Sox, and a terrible team won?t qualify for the playoffs by winning a division when they?d amass a losing record in a stronger division. Instead, the 8 best teams would qualify for the postseason.

My proposal would include an eight-team playoff, where the top four teams from each league qualify. The playoffs would work just like they did up until and including the 2011 MLB season, with a 5-game Division Series (or League Semifinal now), a 7-game League Championship Series, and a 7-game World Series to decide the champion.

As a side note, it is difficult to divide up the Midwest teams, but I did the best I could. I had to choose between the White Sox and Brewers to be the odd team out, and I went with the White Sox. I felt that, despite being in the same city as the Cubs, they weren?t currently in the same league as the Brewers/Cardinals/Cubs anyways, so they wouldn?t be losing their chief rivals in the realignment.

Also, there is the issue of the Designated Hitter Rule. With a lot of teams crossing 'leagues', but obviously there being a constant divide between NL and AL baseball minds when it comes to the value of the DH, I think the best solution would be to just let each team decide at the time of the realignment whether they want to adopt the DH rule at their home park, and are locked into whichever decision they make.

A. Other than Bud Selig, East-West seperation of MLB doesn't really fly with most fans. It's basically taking the tradition of the NL and AL and chucking it into an old, burning trash can and then putting the flames out by pissing on it.

B.The DH rule you've suggested makes absolutely no sense and would never work. You can't leave it up to individual teams. You may end up with like 21 non-DH and only 9 with the DH or vice versa. It has to be one way or the other for each league or for both, not based on each team's preference.

I don't think the DH rule would cause any trouble as long as teams couldn't change year-to-year. Odds are, it'd stay mostly as old NL teams with no DH, and mostly AL teams with the DH. In a perfect world, the designated hitter wouldn't exist, but I think the MLBPA would flip their lids if anyone suggested the DH be abandoned.

As far as the AL/NL separation goies, we're already travelling down that slippery slope... first with interleague, plus two teams switching leagues, and then starting in 2013 interleague games being played every day of the year. The sanctity is gone, the names are relics, and the leagues are already merged anyways. Swapping half a dozen more teams to create a more geographically logical layout hardly seems out of the realm of possibility.

[sportstar1212]

I'm not crazy about turning the AL and NL into East and West. Why fix something that isn't broken?

[McCall]

Until such time as the MLB inevitably expands, I think the best course of action is to do away with the divisions entirely. By moving to an East/West ?conference? alignment, which I?ll refer to as the National and American Leagues, respectively, and with baseball playing multi-game series throughout the year, divisions really aren?t needed to save on travel costs.

Instead, I?d divide the teams as follows:

National League- Seattle Mariners, Oakland Athletics, Houston Astros, Anaheim Angels, Texas Rangers, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Colorado Rockies, San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks, St Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs and Milwaukee Brewers

American League- New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, Toronto Blue Jays, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Baltimore Orioles, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Miami Marlins, Tampa Bay Rays, Atlanta Braves, Cincinnati Reds, Washington Nationals and Pittsburgh Pirates

Each team would play each other team in its league 9 times, with either two home series and one away series, or vice versa. It would switch each year for each team, so if the Yankees play 6 games in Boston in 2012, the Red Sox would have to play 6 games in the Bronx in 2013. This accounts for the vast majority of the schedule, and 126 games in total.

The other 36 games each year would be comprised of twelve 3-game series against opponents from the other league. As such, in any given year, each team would play against 26 of the 29 other MLB teams, and by rotating between home series, away series and no series, each city would be visited by each team at least twice in any given five-year period.

As an example, say the Toronto Blue Jays were to play in San Francisco in 2012, then the Giants played in Toronto in 2013, then the Jays played in SF again in 2014, then the teams didn?t play each other in 2015, and then the Giants came back to Toronto in 2016. Which teams do and don?t play would just rotate through until each team has played twice in a given city, had that team visit their city twice, and had one year with no series in every five-year span.

The simplest way to do this to save on travel would be to divide the inter-league games into packages of 9 games for each team. As an example, you could have the Yankees head out West in May and August in two separate road trips, where they'd play 3 games against three teams each time. By doing this, it limits the amount of cross-continental travel, but still creates some variety in the schedule for the fans, who would get to see a lot of different teams.

By doing this, I think there would be a strong balance between travel distances, interleague play and fair competition, and each team would be given a fair and equal opportunity to make or miss the playoffs, with much less emphasis being put on strength of schedule or being in a particularly strong division.

History has suggested that with more divisions comes more unfairness in regards to which teams make the playoffs. For the past 15 years or so, this has occured in the AL East, and at time, it has affected each of the NL divisions. For a very long time, too, the AL Central was terrible from top to bottom, and perhaps none of the teams deserved to qualify for the postseason some years. It certainly appears that over the next 5 years, very good teams could miss the playoffs in the NL East and AL West, too, simply because all the strongest teams are packed into one division.

By returning to single-table leagues, this problem is erased. Blue Jay fans won?t be able to complain that they didn?t get a fair shake against the Rays, Yankees and Red Sox, and a terrible team won?t qualify for the playoffs by winning a division when they?d amass a losing record in a stronger division. Instead, the 8 best teams would qualify for the postseason.

My proposal would include an eight-team playoff, where the top four teams from each league qualify. The playoffs would work just like they did up until and including the 2011 MLB season, with a 5-game Division Series (or League Semifinal now), a 7-game League Championship Series, and a 7-game World Series to decide the champion.

As a side note, it is difficult to divide up the Midwest teams, but I did the best I could. I had to choose between the White Sox and Brewers to be the odd team out, and I went with the White Sox. I felt that, despite being in the same city as the Cubs, they weren?t currently in the same league as the Brewers/Cardinals/Cubs anyways, so they wouldn?t be losing their chief rivals in the realignment.

Also, there is the issue of the Designated Hitter Rule. With a lot of teams crossing 'leagues', but obviously there being a constant divide between NL and AL baseball minds when it comes to the value of the DH, I think the best solution would be to just let each team decide at the time of the realignment whether they want to adopt the DH rule at their home park, and are locked into whichever decision they make.

A. Other than Bud Selig, East-West seperation of MLB doesn't really fly with most fans. It's basically taking the tradition of the NL and AL and chucking it into an old, burning trash can and then putting the flames out by pissing on it.

B.The DH rule you've suggested makes absolutely no sense and would never work. You can't leave it up to individual teams. You may end up with like 21 non-DH and only 9 with the DH or vice versa. It has to be one way or the other for each league or for both, not based on each team's preference.

I don't think the DH rule would cause any trouble as long as teams couldn't change year-to-year. Odds are, it'd stay mostly as old NL teams with no DH, and mostly AL teams with the DH. In a perfect world, the designated hitter wouldn't exist, but I think the MLBPA would flip their lids if anyone suggested the DH be abandoned.

As far as the AL/NL separation goies, we're already travelling down that slippery slope... first with interleague, plus two teams switching leagues, and then starting in 2013 interleague games being played every day of the year. The sanctity is gone, the names are relics, and the leagues are already merged anyways. Swapping half a dozen more teams to create a more geographically logical layout hardly seems out of the realm of possibility.

You're going from "some changes" to "blow the whole damn thing up" in 60 seconds. None of the changes you've mentioned are anywhere near the the apocalypse of the sanctity of the game. Interleague everyday doesn't mean half the league is playing interleague games. Just one series at a time (maybe 3 here and there to meet the minium). In actuallity, interleague every series would reduce the total number of interleague games. However the league decided to maintain the total as it has been. And no, leaving teams to decide their own DH rules will not go as smoothly as you think. It's a rule that can drastically alter the make-up of each individual game and not something that can just be "however you want it ("you" meaning each team). It has to be a leaguewide rule. Either stays as is or both leaguse with or without. No individual teams.

[aci]

Until such time as the MLB inevitably expands, I think the best course of action is to do away with the divisions entirely. By moving to an East/West ?conference? alignment, which I?ll refer to as the National and American Leagues, respectively, and with baseball playing multi-game series throughout the year, divisions really aren?t needed to save on travel costs.

Instead, I?d divide the teams as follows:

National League- Seattle Mariners, Oakland Athletics, Houston Astros, Anaheim Angels, Texas Rangers, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Colorado Rockies, San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks, St Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs and Milwaukee Brewers

American League- New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, Toronto Blue Jays, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Baltimore Orioles, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Miami Marlins, Tampa Bay Rays, Atlanta Braves, Cincinnati Reds, Washington Nationals and Pittsburgh Pirates

Each team would play each other team in its league 9 times, with either two home series and one away series, or vice versa. It would switch each year for each team, so if the Yankees play 6 games in Boston in 2012, the Red Sox would have to play 6 games in the Bronx in 2013. This accounts for the vast majority of the schedule, and 126 games in total.

The other 36 games each year would be comprised of twelve 3-game series against opponents from the other league. As such, in any given year, each team would play against 26 of the 29 other MLB teams, and by rotating between home series, away series and no series, each city would be visited by each team at least twice in any given five-year period.

As an example, say the Toronto Blue Jays were to play in San Francisco in 2012, then the Giants played in Toronto in 2013, then the Jays played in SF again in 2014, then the teams didn?t play each other in 2015, and then the Giants came back to Toronto in 2016. Which teams do and don?t play would just rotate through until each team has played twice in a given city, had that team visit their city twice, and had one year with no series in every five-year span.

The simplest way to do this to save on travel would be to divide the inter-league games into packages of 9 games for each team. As an example, you could have the Yankees head out West in May and August in two separate road trips, where they'd play 3 games against three teams each time. By doing this, it limits the amount of cross-continental travel, but still creates some variety in the schedule for the fans, who would get to see a lot of different teams.

By doing this, I think there would be a strong balance between travel distances, interleague play and fair competition, and each team would be given a fair and equal opportunity to make or miss the playoffs, with much less emphasis being put on strength of schedule or being in a particularly strong division.

History has suggested that with more divisions comes more unfairness in regards to which teams make the playoffs. For the past 15 years or so, this has occured in the AL East, and at time, it has affected each of the NL divisions. For a very long time, too, the AL Central was terrible from top to bottom, and perhaps none of the teams deserved to qualify for the postseason some years. It certainly appears that over the next 5 years, very good teams could miss the playoffs in the NL East and AL West, too, simply because all the strongest teams are packed into one division.

By returning to single-table leagues, this problem is erased. Blue Jay fans won?t be able to complain that they didn?t get a fair shake against the Rays, Yankees and Red Sox, and a terrible team won?t qualify for the playoffs by winning a division when they?d amass a losing record in a stronger division. Instead, the 8 best teams would qualify for the postseason.

My proposal would include an eight-team playoff, where the top four teams from each league qualify. The playoffs would work just like they did up until and including the 2011 MLB season, with a 5-game Division Series (or League Semifinal now), a 7-game League Championship Series, and a 7-game World Series to decide the champion.

As a side note, it is difficult to divide up the Midwest teams, but I did the best I could. I had to choose between the White Sox and Brewers to be the odd team out, and I went with the White Sox. I felt that, despite being in the same city as the Cubs, they weren?t currently in the same league as the Brewers/Cardinals/Cubs anyways, so they wouldn?t be losing their chief rivals in the realignment.

Also, there is the issue of the Designated Hitter Rule. With a lot of teams crossing 'leagues', but obviously there being a constant divide between NL and AL baseball minds when it comes to the value of the DH, I think the best solution would be to just let each team decide at the time of the realignment whether they want to adopt the DH rule at their home park, and are locked into whichever decision they make.

A. Other than Bud Selig, East-West seperation of MLB doesn't really fly with most fans. It's basically taking the tradition of the NL and AL and chucking it into an old, burning trash can and then putting the flames out by pissing on it.

B.The DH rule you've suggested makes absolutely no sense and would never work. You can't leave it up to individual teams. You may end up with like 21 non-DH and only 9 with the DH or vice versa. It has to be one way or the other for each league or for both, not based on each team's preference.

I don't think the DH rule would cause any trouble as long as teams couldn't change year-to-year. Odds are, it'd stay mostly as old NL teams with no DH, and mostly AL teams with the DH. In a perfect world, the designated hitter wouldn't exist, but I think the MLBPA would flip their lids if anyone suggested the DH be abandoned.

As far as the AL/NL separation goies, we're already travelling down that slippery slope... first with interleague, plus two teams switching leagues, and then starting in 2013 interleague games being played every day of the year. The sanctity is gone, the names are relics, and the leagues are already merged anyways. Swapping half a dozen more teams to create a more geographically logical layout hardly seems out of the realm of possibility.

You're going from "some changes" to "blow the whole damn thing up" in 60 seconds. None of the changes you've mentioned are anywhere near the the apocalypse of the sanctity of the game. Interleague everyday doesn't mean half the league is playing interleague games. Just one series at a time (maybe 3 here and there to meet the minium). In actuallity, interleague every series would reduce the total number of interleague games. However the league decided to maintain the total as it has been. And no, leaving teams to decide their own DH rules will not go as smoothly as you think. It's a rule that can drastically alter the make-up of each individual game and not something that can just be "however you want it ("you" meaning each team). It has to be a leaguewide rule. Either stays as is or both leaguse with or without. No individual teams.

What would you say if the season structure was used with the 2013 leagues (same as 2012 except with Houston in the AL), and no divisions?

[The_Admiral]

Sending two teams each way with a Quebec move so it's not just Winnipeg moving west only for QC to take their old purgatory slot:

Pacific: Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Colorado, Dallas

Northwest: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Winnipeg

Central: Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Columbus, Toronto

Northeast: Montreal, Quebec, Boston, Buffalo, Ottawa

Atlantic: NY, LI, NJ, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia

NASCAR: Washington, Nashville, Florida, Tampa, Carolina

Not perfect, but you're never going to get it perfect when most hockey teams are east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon. Minnesota and Winnipeg should be in the Central over Columbus, but what are you gonna do.

Incidentally, with an 84-game season you can get a nice little scheduling rotation: 24 games with the division, 40 with the rest of the conference, and 20 with the other conference. From there, you can play one division at home, one division away, and the third division home and away, rotating every three years. Just shorten the preseason. No one cares about the preseason.

[Norva]

Not bad, but must you call it the NASCAR division in every post you make? That joke has run it's course.

Here is what I would do assuming PHX heads east:

Pacific: Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Colorado, Dallas

Northwest: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Winnipeg

Central: Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Columbus, Pittsburgh

Northeast: Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa

Atlantic: Boston, NYR, NYI, NJ, Philadelphia

Southeast: Washington, Nashville, Florida, Tampa Bay, Carolina

Toronto should be in the same division with Montreal and Ottawa imo, plus they go well with Buffalo. I also say they should scrap the current playoff format and do this:

6 division winners get top 6 spots

Next best 10 teams regardless of conference affiliation

All seeded 1-16

So basically there would be no guaranteed East Conference vs West Conference Stanley Cup Finals anymore. It would open the door to even more Finals match-ups including great rivalries like cross-state/provincial ones.

[The_Admiral]

I'd be more inclined to stop making fun of them if they didn't put forth a division leader with a -16 goal differential. hey, at least it's up from the -26 they had a week or so ago!

I can't see Pittsburgh agreeing to go west after they flipped their crap about maybe not playing the Rangers and Flyers six times a year. I figured at least the Maple Leafs might go for increased Hawks/Wings games.

[Norva]

I just didn't like Toronto being in a separate division from the Ontario teams and Buffalo. It would probably work fine though.

And since they already dumped the East vs West All-Star format, if they adopted my playoff format they could drop the conference distinction all together. I am not sure how they would do the schedule, math is not my forte, but I am sure they could find away to give the Penguins more games against NY and Philly.

[DaytonBlue]

My NHL with PHX to QUE

Pacific: VAN, SJ, LA, ANA, COL

Plains: CAL, EDM, DAL, MIN, WPG

Central: STL, CHI, DET, CBJ, NAS

Northeast: BOS, QUE, MTL, TOR, OTT

Atlantic: NYR, NYI, NJ, PHI, BUF

Southeast: PIT, WAS, CAR, TB, FL

I would change the season format to the format of the NBA. This would ensure everyone travels to every arena, minimize the west coast travel for DET/CBJ, and reduce the complaining for teams separated from old division rivals.

Division teams: 4 games=16

Interconference: 2 games=30

Intraconference: 36 games (3 or 4 times each on rotating basis)

I imagine VAN, PIT, and maybe BOS would have complaints.

[JH42XCC]

Assuming the Phoenix Coyotes stay put...

Pacific: Anaheim, Colorado, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose

Northwest: Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Vancouver, Winnipeg

Central: Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Detroit, St. Louis

Northeast: Buffalo, Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto

Atlantic: New Jersey, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

Southeast: Carolina, Florida, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Washington

[DaytonBlue]

Assuming the Phoenix Coyotes stay put...

Pacific: Anaheim, Colorado, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose

Northwest: Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota, Vancouver, Winnipeg

Central: Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Detroit, St. Louis

Northeast: Buffalo, Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto

Atlantic: New Jersey, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

Southeast: Carolina, Florida, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Washington

This would be good if the Coyotes stay put. I would think they would have to be staying put for awhile or going after this season. I think the NHL is about finished with owning the team. And surely they wouldn't want WPG stuck in the Southeast for another year while they sort out Phoenix.

[Still MIGHTY]

Except the NHL has already said that Winnipeg is staying in the Southeast next season. (I'm assuming they're assuming the Coyotes are still in Phoenix.)

[DaytonBlue]

did not hear about that...if PHX moves to Quebec you'd think they would at least let them switch spots and have QUE in the southeast and WPG in the Pacific.

[The_Admiral]

Except the NHL has already said that Winnipeg is staying in the Southeast next season. (I'm assuming they're assuming the Coyotes are still in Phoenix.)

They'll have to flip the Jets and Nordiques if the move goes through and call it an emergency realignment or whatever.

Seattle getting the Hornets would be like the Arrested Development episode where Tobias directs the school play but keeps dicking around with the casting until Maeby ends up playing the male lead and STEVE HOLT plays the female.

Change "Seattle getting the Hornets" to "Quebec and Winnipeg staying put"

[rams80]

Eastern Conference

Eastern Division

Quebec Nordiques

Montreal Canadiens

Ottawa Senators

Toronto Maple Leafs

Boston Bruins

Buffalo Sabres

Florida Panthers

Tampa Bay Lightning

Atlantic Division

Pittsburgh Penguins

Philadelphia Flyers

New York Rangers

New York Islanders

New Jersey Devils

Washington Capitals

Carolina Hurricanes

Western Conference

Central Division

Detroit Red Wings

Chicago Blackhawks

Columbus Blue Jackets

Nashville Predators

Minnesota Wild

Winnipeg Jets

Dallas Stars

Pacific Division

San Jose Sharks

Anaheim Ducks

Los Angeles Kings

Vancouver Canucks

Edmonton Oilers

Calgary Flames

Colorado Avalanche

Top 4 in each division make the playoffs, with first two rounds played in the division before conference championship and Stanley Cup finals.

[McCall]

Eastern Conference

Eastern Division

Quebec Nordiques

Montreal Canadiens

Ottawa Senators

Toronto Maple Leafs

Boston Bruins

Buffalo Sabres

Florida Panthers

Tampa Bay Lightning

Atlantic Division

Pittsburgh Penguins

Philadelphia Flyers

New York Rangers

New York Islanders

New Jersey Devils

Washington Capitals

Carolina Hurricanes

Western Conference

Central Division

Detroit Red Wings

Chicago Blackhawks

Columbus Blue Jackets

Nashville Predators

Minnesota Wild

Winnipeg Jets

Dallas Stars

Pacific Division

San Jose Sharks

Anaheim Ducks

Los Angeles Kings

Vancouver Canucks

Edmonton Oilers

Calgary Flames

Colorado Avalanche

Top 4 in each division make the playoffs, with first two rounds played in the division before conference championship and Stanley Cup finals.

Except for swapping Phoenix to Quebec, this is essentially what the NHLPA nixed.

[Norva]

And for good reason. If you can have all divisions with an equal amount of teams there is no reason not to. It's silly imo to have some divisions with 7 and some with 8.

[sportstar1212]

And for good reason. If you can have all divisions with an equal amount of teams there is no reason not to. It's silly imo to have some divisions with 7 and some with 8.

But with that format the league could potentially expand to 32 teams.

[Norva]

And for good reason. If you can have all divisions with an equal amount of teams there is no reason not to. It's silly imo to have some divisions with 7 and some with 8.

But with that format the league could potentially expand to 32 teams.

They could wait to do it until they expand then.