You can't have this many parties involved in the same thing.
So McDavid interviews Babcock and loves him, but Bowman doesn't. Who's making the decision? There are so, so many dynamics wrapped up in this that open up pandora's box as it pertains to problems:
Will new coach hold the stars accountable? Or let them do what they want because they picked him. Even if he tried to, do they brush him off knowing that they hold the reins?
If it's Babcock, and Babcock does the normal routine of letting the stars walk on water as he shits on the bottom of the roster - with this now being public that the leadership endorsed Babcock, what kind of division is that going to create in the room as the 4th liner that hates showing up to the rink every day looks across at his teammates that picked his bully?
If Babcock fails, and needs to be fired, is Bowman allowed to do that? Does he need to consult 97/29 first? What if they say no, because they were the ones that picked him anyways?
This decision process has created an outcome where there will be nothing but uncertainty and conflict. If it's Babcock, and Babcock selectively picks on players that aren't 97/29 - there will be division in the room and above the room, and nobody will know who's responsibility it is to fix this.
The fact that we have our f***ing players interviewing coaches is more offensive to me than Babcock coming here to coach, although it shouldn't be surprising that this is the outcome when you have people that should never be in a position to make this decision making it, then this is what you get.