Dan O'Mac wrote:

Thehealthiestscratch wrote:

I saw in the Phoenix vote there was Scorpions twice and no Roadrunners?

Phoenix has two options for Scorpions, one as the Phoenix Scorpions and one as the Arizona Scorpions.

I however can't speak to the Roadrunners not being there. I didn't see my nomination of the Tennessee Black Bears under Nashville, and I don't know why. In the grand scheme of things, there's so many names, I can see how something gets missed, and why we may not have needed that many names in the first place.

Roadrunners wasn't listed because it's been the name of many pro hockey teams in Phoenix (WHA, IHL, ECHL)...if it weren't for the Roadrunners' success, there'd be no Coyotes.

Rugrat wrote:

I like the aligments but Charlotte or Philly's traveling schedule will be a nightmare regardless of what division they are in

Exactly...that's why I hope that whenever we expand, Washington or Baltimore is one of these expansion teams.

Thehealthiestscratch wrote:

I saw in the Phoenix vote there was Scorpions twice and no Roadrunners?

Two people nominated Scorpions.  One did it for Phoenix the other for Arizona.  As for Roadrunners, it has been the name for a number of different teams in the region.  Mostly teams in Phoenix but even now the Coyotes farm team are the Tucson Roadrunners.  

Gritty wrote:

Dan O'Mac wrote:

Thehealthiestscratch wrote:

I saw in the Phoenix vote there was Scorpions twice and no Roadrunners?

Phoenix has two options for Scorpions, one as the Phoenix Scorpions and one as the Arizona Scorpions.

I however can't speak to the Roadrunners not being there. I didn't see my nomination of the Tennessee Black Bears under Nashville, and I don't know why. In the grand scheme of things, there's so many names, I can see how something gets missed, and why we may not have needed that many names in the first place.

I didn't miss the Black Bears. The rules said no NFL names and we have the Chicago Bears. And while one can argue Black Bears is different than just Bears we would undoubtedly shorten that team name to the Bears.  It was a tough call but since we had to filter out other names I figured it would only be fair. 

That makes sense. I knew Tennessee and Black Bears were a thing, I made sure there were no real teams with that name, so I just didn't know.

I thought I'd chime in on the alignment stuff as well.

A - Mostly good except for Philly in the coastal. The 5 NE teams really give the biggest headache, since you don't want to split them up but a 5-team division wouldn't really work. Overall, this one is nice but I can't help but think Philly's travel would be rough. With Charlotte as their closest divisional opponent and trips to Miami and Orlando this one gets hurt by its own formatting.
B - I like the decision to have 4 divisions of 6, it keeps the 5 NE teams in tact together while not creating a weird East/West split. Charlotte in the North Division doesn't make much sense a face value but I think it's probably the best option between Charlotte and Louisville given Louisville fits better with Chicago, Milwaukee, etc. 
C - Again, hurt by the 4-team 6-division structure. The Atlantic Division with Philly, Charlotte, Miami, and Orlando is hurt by the distance and having Birmingham in the West but Chicago in the West is also kinda rough. Additionally, Minnesota misses out on being with Chicago and Milwaukee and is even in another conference, which is rough.
D - Mostly makes sense, but grouping Charlotte with the NE teams and Buffalo and Toronto with Chicago and Milwaukee is strange, especially since Minnesota is yet again left out of the Great Lakes party. Other than that it looks okay, but Louisville in the Central seems off to me.
E - No thanks. I understand the reasoning, but I think the NFL's and MLB's divisions are kind of awful. I'd rather go for geographic sense than a conference split.
F - I like this one, with one issue - the Texas teams have it kinda rough with their closest divisional opponent being Phoenix. I'd rather avoid that and try to create a solid travel schedule for each team, which would mean grouping Texas with the other Deep South teams.

For me personally the rankings are B, F, D, A, C, E. My own preference is to try and group teams close together and maximize efficiency and minimize travel. I think the 4-division, 6-team style is the way to go here and it achieves my goals of close teams and geographic sense while preserving traditional rivalries.