HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHL to Expand 2 teams in Canada - THN

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-14-2012, 05:19 PM
  #426
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
The thing is... if York Region gets a team in Markham, why can't Peel Region get a team in Mississauga?

There's a larger population in Peel region. It would draw fans from Mississauga, Oakville and Brampton.

Someone should get on that and make an arena in Mississauga.

Move the Panthers there and call 'em the Peel Panthers. Money in the bank, shawty what you think? etc.

That'd be great. Every single night of the NHL regular season, there'd be a game to see somewhere in the GTA. Until the playoffs, of course. Then no games.
Missasauga is a bedroom community, out of the GTA cities Markham makes the most sense besides another city in Toronto proper. Besides, the Leafs draw as far east as Kingston, as far north as Barrie and as far west London, a team in Markham likely would too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFactor View Post
Having 32 teams would be terrible. We already have too many goons in the league. Adding another 50 players to the league would dilute the skill level severely.
I really don't understand this, because it makes no sense. The talent level in the league is as great as it's ever been and pugilist only players have all but disappeared because of it. The league talent wise is ready for two more teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
I hope Markham, Hamilton, Quebec City and Seattle get teams.

Two through expansion, two through relocation.

Then you'd still have Omaha, Portland and Houston available in case a team starts struggling financially and needs to be relocated.
If Markham get's a team there is no way Hamilton will get a team any time soon. There will then be 3 teams who can object (Bufflao, Toronto, and Markham). When this happens there will be only 2 cities who can get away with having a team and avoiding being in another cities market. Waterloo region and London.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 05:22 PM
  #427
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Hamilton will get an NHL. team within the decade & Markham will not because out of the 2 Hamilton has the path of least resitance to get an NHL. team with it being cheaper & MLSE. would be more open to supporting an NHL. team in Hamilton just to keep a 2nd one out of Toronto & would give up there teritory rights to Hamilton for little or no compensation to do it . Also with Copps Coliseum going to be run by Global Spectrum & Live Nation starting in the spring & with them saying there main goal is to bring an NHL. team to Hamilton its only going to be a matter of time before it happens .

JMROWE is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 05:45 PM
  #428
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
That'd be great. Every single night of the NHL regular season, there'd be a game to see somewhere in the GTA. Until the playoffs, of course. Then no games.
.... yepp. Good one saffron. Nice shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
IF there is in fact an expansion that puts a team in Quebec and another in Ontario, there will certainly be many who argue that finally Bettman and the League have backed away from the movement southward. However, I'd look at such an expansion as furthering of an already east-heavy, if not more specifically northeast-heavy League.
... well, when does the matter of consolidating your existing fan base & growing those revenues in the so called Hockey Heartland for a stronger & wealthier league nationally & internationally finally supercede matters of alignment or realignment? Had the NHL ever had a conscious & proactive rhyme to their reason in growing to an optimum size of 30 teams, "Footprint" as Gary like to say, why then didnt they proactively work with the new franchises in actually doing something about it rather than just expecting it to "happen" through osmosis? These guys dont care about the game, there not "visionaries & custodians". Their businessmen interested in one thing & one thing only. Making a buck, keeping costs to an absolute minimum. I say Expand. Go for it, adding Seattle & Portland if possible, Houston, QC & Toronto X's 2, Long Island & Phoenix have to move then just get it done & over with.

Killion is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 06:11 PM
  #429
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
Missasauga is a bedroom community, out of the GTA cities Markham makes the most sense besides another city in Toronto proper. Besides, the Leafs draw as far east as Kingston, as far north as Barrie and as far west London, a team in Markham likely would too.
Huh?

As of the 2006 census (2011 numbers not yet available), 45.5% of Mississauga's labour force worked within the City of Mississauga. 38% worked outside of it, the majority of whom presumably work in Toronto.

As of the same year, only 25% of Markham's labour force worked within Markham. 57.5% worked outside of it, once again, the majority of whom presumably work in Toronto.

By comparison, 66% of Toronto's labour force works within the City of Toronto. Only 16% work outside of the city.

Both cities are bedroom communities of Toronto. Both border Toronto. Neither would have developed at all if it weren't for their proximately to Toronto. However, Mississauga is a much more mature city than Markham is and has more than double the population.

The ideal city in the GTA to host the second NHL team , if not in north Toronto (Downsview), would have been Mississauga (IMO). Markham took the initiative though so good on them.

htpwn is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 06:21 PM
  #430
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Huh?

As of the 2006 census (2011 numbers not yet available), 45.5% of Mississauga's labour force worked within the City of Mississauga. 38% worked outside of it, the majority of whom presumably work in Toronto.

As of the same year, only 25% of Markham's labour force worked within Markham. 57.5% worked outside of it, once again, the majority of whom presumably work in Toronto.

By comparison, 66% of Toronto's labour force works within the City of Toronto. Only 16% work outside of the city.

Both cities are bedroom communities of Toronto. Both border Toronto. Neither would have developed at all if it weren't for their proximately to Toronto. However, Mississauga is a much more mature city than Markham is and has more than double the population.

The ideal city in the GTA to host the second NHL team , if not in north Toronto (Downsview), would have been Mississauga (IMO). Markham took the initiative though so good on them.
Those numbers sound wrong. Anyways, my experience of Missasauga is sprawling suburbs and occasional dots of shopping complexes meant to serve the population who lives there. Missasauga has grown so much because it's a cheap alternative to living in Toronto.

Besides, the point is Markham is the most centrally located place, equal distance from all drawing areas.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 07:09 PM
  #431
Seamus1982
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Habs View Post
The problem no one ever seems to bring up about a second team in Toronto is that Toronto is a horrible sports city. The only team they support is the Leafs (maybe their soccer team too, can't say I have ever seen anything about them). They don't support the Raptors, Argos, Jays, Marlies, and their yearly Bills game is horrible. If they only support one team out of all these leagues why would a fanbase worth of people jump ship to some expansion team? They already have a local team they have been cheering for their whole life, will they cheer for someone else because the league asks them to?
This really isn't accurate.

The Blue Jays have had some weak years with attendance in the last decade, but they haven't made the playoffs (or really been in a race) in 20 years. There's only a handful of teams in any league that would pack the place after a run like that (plus, there is plenty of evidence that a big fanbase is there - their TV ratings are huge, and the last time they were good they set attendance records).

The Raptors have been garbage on the court most of their existence and are usually middle of the pack in attendance, and have been top 10 here and there.

The Argos and Marlies aren't really a factor in the city anymore.

I think a fanbase of a potential second NHL team would come from the vast number of NHL fans in the region who hate the Leafs. The Jays and Raptors have their own fanbases (a fair number of whom aren't hockey fans), so I'm not sure you'd see those teams suffer too much.

Toronto is a very big market. 5th biggest in North America, and only has 3 teams in the 'Big 4'. Far smaller cities (in worse economic shape) support 4 teams. Toronto should be able to support a 4th without too much trouble (be that a second NHL or NFL).

Seamus1982 is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 07:09 PM
  #432
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
Those numbers sound wrong.




Quote:
Anyways, my experience of Missasauga is sprawling suburbs and occasional dots of shopping complexes meant to serve the population who lives there. Missasauga has grown so much because it's a cheap alternative to living in Toronto.
Welcome to the suburbs. Markham is no different than Mississauga in that regard. The vast majority of both cities are covered in detached, double garage, single family homes.

However, as I said in my previous post, Mississauga is a much more mature city. Unlike Markham, it does have some patches of serious density, mostly along Hurontario Street. Take Port Credit or Mississauga City Centre for example.

Mississauga also has the advantage of having Pearson Airport within its border. The airport has a massive amount of office and industrial lands surrounding it.

Quote:
Besides, the point is Markham is the most centrally located place, equal distance from all drawing areas.
That's debatable to say the least. The arena is too far north and east to be considered centrally located. It isn't a terrible location but it is far from the best.

htpwn is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 07:19 PM
  #433
Seamus1982
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Toronto is a great NHL city, though. You could literally fold every other team in the city but keep the Leafs and people would be OK.

Add a 2nd NHL team and all the other sports will lose revenues to Toronto2. A second team in Toronto would be as successful as a second NFL team in NY.
You're really underestimating the fan bases of the Jays and Raptors (plus NFL and soccer). They obviously don't compare to the Leafs, but they're far too significant to dismiss like that.

Toronto is a very different sports market than the rest of Canada. It's not 'hockey, and nothing else matters' like most of the rest of the country. Maybe it was at one point, but the city is so multicultural now, I think those days are gone.

All that said, I totally think a 2nd NHL team would work.

Seamus1982 is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 08:14 PM
  #434
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... well, when does the matter of consolidating your existing fan base & growing those revenues in the so called Hockey Heartland for a stronger & wealthier league nationally & internationally finally supercede matters of alignment or realignment? Had the NHL ever had a conscious & proactive rhyme to their reason in growing to an optimum size of 30 teams, "Footprint" as Gary like to say, why then didnt they proactively work with the new franchises in actually doing something about it rather than just expecting it to "happen" through osmosis? These guys dont care about the game, there not "visionaries & custodians". Their businessmen interested in one thing & one thing only. Making a buck, keeping costs to an absolute minimum. I say Expand. Go for it, adding Seattle & Portland if possible, Houston, QC & Toronto X's 2, Long Island & Phoenix have to move then just get it done & over with.
I know I'm known as the alignment fanatic. But I was referring to the objective of being a nationwide League with the potential of getting some assemblance of a national TV contract. I don't believe that the NHL has given up on TV broadcast revenue, but I also don't see how more teams in the east, especially the Canadian east, can aid in building broadcast revenue in the States. I can imagine that NBC, for instance, would be really thrilled with two new Canadian teams. But yes, there could be growth in League revenue in Canada, but again with such an expansion I don't see any potential growth in the game's actual fanbase at all. As I said in the previous post, such an expansion would be a sign that the League is entrenching in its area of strength, and appear to be backing away from further development of the US market. This especially also after just having one US team relocate to Winnipeg. And even if Seattle were to get the Coyotes, still for anyone with an eye, it looks like hockey, if not becoming a Canadian league is entrenching as a border and northward league.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 08:49 PM
  #435
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf;54975793[B
]The thing is... if York Region gets a team in Markham, why can't Peel Region get a team in Mississauga?
[/B]
There's a larger population in Peel region. It would draw fans from Mississauga, Oakville and Brampton.

Someone should get on that and make an arena in Mississauga.

Move the Panthers there and call 'em the Peel Panthers. Money in the bank, shawty what you think? etc.

That'd be great. Every single night of the NHL regular season, there'd be a game to see somewhere in the GTA. Until the playoffs, of course. Then no games.
Because nobody is building an arena there. Go ahead roll the dice and build one.

Confucius is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 10:52 PM
  #436
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,658
vCash: 500
as a sens fan, one thing i have wondered is if expansion/relocation in southern ontario would give them the opportunity to try to snatch kingston from shared territory into sens-only territory.

danishh is offline  
Old
10-14-2012, 10:55 PM
  #437
Joe Pesci
Do I amuse you?
 
Joe Pesci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
You should ask someone at CBC or TSN which is the bigger rivalry between the Habs-B's/Sens-Leafs vs Habs-Leafs. You have to remember that the Leafs and Sens have had multiple playoff series against one another. Leafs and Habs wasn't able to happen outside the Finals. If it did, it would blow everything out of the water in terms of ratings in Canada. That's why the proposed realignment was great, because you guaranteed two rounds on inter-divisional playoffs, which makes it more likely to see those natural rivals playing in the playoffs. The TV people would love it.

Makes no sense to split them up when you dont have to. Leafs, Habs, Sens should be a block of teams. Just like Isles, Rangers, Devils, Pens, and Flyers should be. You fit everyone else in where you can fit them (hence Florida and Tampa in a division with Leafs).

If you add a team to Quebec, they should be with Montreal, which means they should be with Toronto and Ottawa. If you add Toronto 2, why wouldnt you want them with Ottawa, Toronto AND Montreal and Quebec? The question becomes which is the bigger rivalry -- games between the Habs and Rangers or games between the Habs and Leafs. Its an obvious answer.
The way you want it seems to odd to me. If you have the 5 eastern Canadian teams plus Boston (because there's no way Habs-Bruins are splitting either) that's 6. The seventh one could possibly come from Buffalo, but then who's the 8th? None of the Atlantic teams are splitting up, that I agree with. Detroit and Chicago won't separate either. Washington might be an option if you don't care about separating them from the other Southeast teams.



I threw Winnipeg in with the other Canadian teams so as not to isolate them. This could work I guess, but I still prefer my 2nd version. Whether it's Washington or not you're going to be displacing a former Southeast team, which I personally would like to avoid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMROWE View Post
Toronto2 (Markham) is not going to happen because MLSE. will do everything in there power to stop another NHL. team from takking root right on there door step because it will take business away from just not the leafs but the Raptors & Marlies too in which MLSE. also owns . Besides this so called arena in Markham is far from a done deal & might not even get bulit so don't count your chickens before they hatch because if this arena dose not get bulit Markham is setting them selves up for a huge let down & if it dose get bulit they will have a huge & expensive up hill battle for an NHL. team & in my opinion no prospective owner for TO2 team would put up the money , time & fight because it would just not be worth it .
I do not doubt that MLSE would fight tooth and nail to keep a hold on their monopoly, hell I feel that the chances of a 2nd Toronto team are 1 in a million. This whole realignment idea was based off of this rumour. I'd like it, but I know how low the chances are.

I'd love it though if a 2nd team did come to Toronto. Some competition may be just what MLSE need to get their ***** in gear and build a better Leafs team.

Joe Pesci is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 12:15 AM
  #438
wildthing202
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglas, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 697
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wildthing202 Send a message via Yahoo to wildthing202
A bit OT - Not sure why people keep lumping Pitt with the NY trio + Philly. Historically the Pens have always been the outsider. 1st they start in the expansion 6 division then when the NHL expands again did they put Pittsburgh with Philly? Nope. When the 2nd major realignment occurs the Pens get put with the NY trio + Philly as a marriage of convenience as there was no where else to put them. The 3rd major realignment puts the Pens in a different division as they were the "8th" wheel. The last major realignment was again a marriage of convenience alignment as there was no where else to put them.

So after that I don't see why you couldn't put the SE 4 with the NY trio + Philly then going with the NE + Pitt, Que, and Tor2/Mark.
If they can separate NY from Boston then Pitt can be separated from Philly.

wildthing202 is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 12:36 AM
  #439
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
With Markham/Quebec:

Adams: (MON, OTT, QUE, BOS) and (TOR, MARK/HAM, BUF, PIT)
Patrick: (NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI) and (WAS, CAR, FLA, TB)
Norris: (DET, CHI, STL, MIN*) and (CBJ, NASH, DAL, COL*)
Smythe: (VAN, EDM, CAL, WIN*) and (SJ, LA, ANA, PHX*)

The dividers in the divisions are for scheduling.

If the NHL wants to keep the "home and home with everyone" concept, you'd play the three others in your group 6 times, and the other group in the division 4 times each. Everyone else 2 each = 82 games.

If PHX goes to SEA, you could put them in with VAN, EDM, CAL, move COL with California, and either:
DET, CHI, STL, CBJ and NASH, DAL, MIN, WIN
or DET, CHI, STL, WIN and MIN, DAL, NASH, CBJ


With Quebec/Seattle:
Adams: (MON, OTT, QUE, BOS) and (TOR, BUF, PIT, CBJ)
Patrick: (NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI) and (WAS, CAR, FLA, TB)
Norris: (DET, CHI, STL, NASH) and (MIN, WIN, COL, DAL)
Smythe: (VAN, EDM, CAL, SEA) and (SJ, LA, ANA, PHX)

If PHX moves anywhere, COL would go with California, and adjust based on where they end up.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 02:03 AM
  #440
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,122
vCash: 500
havent read the whole thread.. but already saw a few mis concerns...

someone said expansion is silly when the franchises struggle... well this new cba is intended to make sure there is no more struggling franchises. and all new franchise teams do ok for the first decade anyhow. new blood never hurts... at least not until the honeymoon wears off.

so its all about getting the cba that the owners want... and that explains the lockout... and the benefits that can be won. Expansion also means more union jobs

so players will ultimately do ok too

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 09:17 AM
  #441
PSGJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli View Post



.
It's much better to throw Winnipeg in with the Northeast. That way you avoid having divisions that span more than two time zones and you avoid having poor Washington not getting to play with their close neighbours. Carolina could join the central because no one cares about them.

PSGJ is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 12:10 PM
  #442
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
With Quebec/Seattle:
Adams: (MON, OTT, QUE, BOS) and (TOR, BUF, PIT, CBJ)
Patrick: (NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI) and (WAS, CAR, FLA, TB)
Norris: (DET, CHI, STL, NASH) and (MIN, WIN, COL, DAL)
Smythe: (VAN, EDM, CAL, SEA) and (SJ, LA, ANA, PHX)

The dividers in the divisions are for scheduling.

If the NHL wants to keep the "home and home with everyone" concept, you'd play the three others in your group 6 times, and the other group in the division 4 times each. Everyone else 2 each = 82 games
.
I have to say that for a 4-Division setup, I like your Division-divider concept to adapt to the scheduling. That's excellent.

But another option would be to just go with 4-team Divisions to begin with, with each Division having one other Division in which it plays against all those teams 4 times.

As for the actual alignment, well that's another issue.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 09:21 PM
  #443
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,671
vCash: 500
Assuming Markham and QBC:

Adams (Tor, Mtl, Ott, Qbc, Mrk, Bos or Buf, Fla, Tbay)
Patrick (NYR, NJ, NYI, Pit, Phi, Wash, Car, Buf or Bos)
Norris (Det, Chi, Min, Stl, Clb, Nas, Dal, Win)
Smythe (Van, Cal, edm, Lak, Sjs, Ana, Col, Phx)

Basically the divisions the NHL proposed, but Buffalo moves to the Atlantic-Patrick division. They lose the Toronto rivalry, but they gain the Rangers.

You could also switch Boston and Buffalo. I dont know much about Boston's ownership group, and if they would prefer to be aligned with the Atlantic teams or keep the Montreal rivalry? I would think the league, and NBC would accept a tradeoff of losing the Habs-Bruins rivalry in favour of having an increased possibility of Boston playing New York in the playoffs.

As I mentioned, I just dont see Canadian television (which will account for the majority of the NHL's national TV rights after the next round of contracts) would go back to a scenario where the Habs are isolated from the other Canadian teams, namely the Leafs. You just have to look at how CBC schedules those Leafs-Habs games to know its a big deal. Much bigger than Habs vs Bruins.

The CyNick is online now  
Old
10-15-2012, 09:22 PM
  #444
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I have to say that for a 4-Division setup, I like your Division-divider concept to adapt to the scheduling. That's excellent.

But another option would be to just go with 4-team Divisions to begin with, with each Division having one other Division in which it plays against all those teams 4 times.

As for the actual alignment, well that's another issue.
Good luck getting Pittsburgh and Philly to agree to split up.

Also, good luck getting NBC to agree to get Pittsburgh out of the NBC friendly division they are in.

These things are about more than just geography.

The CyNick is online now  
Old
10-15-2012, 09:24 PM
  #445
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I know I'm known as the alignment fanatic. But I was referring to the objective of being a nationwide League with the potential of getting some assemblance of a national TV contract. I don't believe that the NHL has given up on TV broadcast revenue, but I also don't see how more teams in the east, especially the Canadian east, can aid in building broadcast revenue in the States. I can imagine that NBC, for instance, would be really thrilled with two new Canadian teams. But yes, there could be growth in League revenue in Canada, but again with such an expansion I don't see any potential growth in the game's actual fanbase at all. As I said in the previous post, such an expansion would be a sign that the League is entrenching in its area of strength, and appear to be backing away from further development of the US market. This especially also after just having one US team relocate to Winnipeg. And even if Seattle were to get the Coyotes, still for anyone with an eye, it looks like hockey, if not becoming a Canadian league is entrenching as a border and northward league.
The league sent Atlanta to Winnipeg and then signed a $2billion deal with NBC.

I dont think NBC cares about these markets where they get something like 300 viewers.

The CyNick is online now  
Old
10-15-2012, 10:10 PM
  #446
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
as a sens fan, one thing i have wondered is if expansion/relocation in southern ontario would give them the opportunity to try to snatch kingston from shared territory into sens-only territory.
I dont quite follow. Are you thinking a Markham team would somehow "lay claim" to the Kingston market? Its like 3.5hrs, 270kms from Markham to Kingston, about 2hrs, 195kms from Kingston to Ottawa. The area, Kingston itself identifies with Ottawa regionally since before Confederation with the Rideau Waterway & Trail up through the Ottawa Valley.

Killion is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 10:15 PM
  #447
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Good luck getting Pittsburgh and Philly to agree to split up.

Also, good luck getting NBC to agree to get Pittsburgh out of the NBC friendly division they are in.

These things are about more than just geography.
I wasn't commenting on his specific alignment but on his scheduling idea. I said that the alignment itself was another issue.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 10:29 PM
  #448
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I wasn't commenting on his specific alignment but on his scheduling idea. I said that the alignment itself was another issue.
gotcha

The CyNick is online now  
Old
10-15-2012, 11:31 PM
  #449
DJ Omnimaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Québec City area
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Assuming Markham and QBC:

Adams (Tor, Mtl, Ott, Qbc, Mrk, Bos or Buf, Fla, Tbay)
Patrick (NYR, NJ, NYI, Pit, Phi, Wash, Car, Buf or Bos)
Norris (Det, Chi, Min, Stl, Clb, Nas, Dal, Win)
Smythe (Van, Cal, edm, Lak, Sjs, Ana, Col, Phx)
Wouldn't Winnipeg prefer to be with the other Canadian teams from the west? Remember back in the '80s/90s the Jets were rival with every Western Canadian teams, almost as much as Quebec vs Montreal.

As for the two Fla teams being in the Northeast I don't mind. While travel costs would increase, the increased amount of sellouts from snowbirds would counter that.

Also there's no way we can split Boston from Montreal or Pittsburg from Phidalelphia. Those are some of the biggest rivalries right now. As for Toronto vs Montreal I guess that wouldn't be as much of an issue as it used to be decades ago. That might be a different story if, one day, Toronto ever makes the playoffs again, though.

DJ Omnimaga is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 11:53 PM
  #450
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I have to say that for a 4-Division setup, I like your Division-divider concept to adapt to the scheduling. That's excellent.

But another option would be to just go with 4-team Divisions to begin with, with each Division having one other Division in which it plays against all those teams 4 times.

As for the actual alignment, well that's another issue.
Thanks.

The reason to go with 8-team rather than 4-team divisions is the playoffs:

In a four-team division setup you'd have to keep conference playoffs.
You have teams playing schedules with 20 different games from each other, and comparing point totals for the playoffs.
The odds of someone getting screwed skyrockets.

In an eight-team division, you go with divisional playoffs. And while the schedules are slightly different, teams competing for the same playoff spot would have only six different games from each other (less than the 11 they have now!).

KevFu is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.