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.

Contraction a necessary evil for survival of NHL says economist

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2012, 09:33 AM
  #126
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
As a fan it would be great. Better depth, better hockey.

Losing the worst 40 or so players in the league would be a great thing.
It does seem like there are 2-4 teams too many, but if they could relocate teams, as vs just contract, that would be better....look at Atlanta now Winnipeg, an amazing win for the game, and certainly the business side of things...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 11:36 AM
  #127
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 10,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
There are like 3 guys that can score 100 points. We used to have at least 6 or 7.
That's because defense and goalies have gotten better.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 11:48 AM
  #128
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clown Baby View Post
Tell me who leads centers in ice-time for the Nashville Predators, Toronto Maple Leafs, Winnipeg Jets, and Calgary Flames,
Not sure what the Predators are doing on that list. And I'm not sure why you're so focused on centers, At least two of those teams boast some very strong defense and goaltending, and that's been more than enough to be dangerous since long before the Cap Era.

I mean sure, the Leafs suck, but that's because their GM can't identify which talent to bring in to supplement all the minor league talent he can't develop. Not because of some weak sauce excuse about leaguewide talent depth.

Quote:
because if the league doesn't have a problem with depth, surely at least one of these teams has a legitimate no.1 center

So wait -- every team in the league is supposed to have one of the 15 best top line centers in the league? I've never heard of a "legit #1 center" that was in the bottom 15 of his position and role. And if you can't see how that's a moving goalpost, I don't even know what to say.

Take David Krejci for instance, he won a Cup centering our first line but is not "a legit first line center" because he's not one of the top 15 in center scoring. The standard moves with the level of talent. Patrice Bergeron and David Krejci can both be serviceable centering either of our top 2 lines, but by your standard "the Bruins don't have a legit #1 center." Largely because Claude Julien plays a 4 line system and the top 2 lines have relatively less ice time.

Until you have to have a "legit" top center to be competitive it's not a legit standard of measurement. Too many teams without one have clobbered too many teams with one for me to worry about who does or does not build their team around that one of many styles.

Then again, I root for a team that didn't win a thing with Joe Thornton, who by any reasonable measure is a legit #1, but got all the way with David Krejci and Patrice Bergeron, so I'm sure that's coloring my perception.

Quote:
(one of if not the deepest position in the league today.)
Legit #1 centers are one of the deepest positions in the league today?

Ha.

Frankly I think the distinction you're trying to draw does not exist. I'd rather have 3 good centers than 1 great one. A lot more teams win Cups that way.

Quote:
Of course, there's the salary cap which one could argue enforces disparity amongst the league. The Loser Point helps. It doesn't change the order of seeding, necessarily, but those late season, down to the wire, runs might not be a thing without it (or with the 3 point system.)
These are excuses and you don't even explain properly why they would change the math.

The NBA is capped. It is also a talent-thin league. That is what talent thin leagues look like. The NBA should probably contract. The NHL is a talent rich league by comparison, by quite a bit actually. if there was anything in basketball comparable to Canadian Juniors it might be another story, but it's pretty much the NCAA, full stop.

Meanwhile Hockey has Canadian juniors, the NCAA, a budding American youth program, and a lot of European talent to fall back on if needed. Not to mention that quite frankly, Olympic hockey is prestigious and exciting compared to Olympic basketball, so the international appeal of the sport is still growing. That's why poor, unprestigious teams like the Coyotes, if they're clever, can build their way into competitiveness.

If we were that bad for talent, it wouldn't matter what the cap did, you still would see the big teams spending to the cap to bring in their talent, and the less prestigious squads scrambling to find people who would join them for any money. Recent runs by the Predators and Coyotes suggests that this is anything but true.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 12:02 PM
  #129
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling View Post
That's because defense and goalies have gotten better.
Pretty much. Scoring is always a duel between offensive talent and defensive talent. Lower scoring is not an issue of lack of talent. It's an issue of defensive talent catching up to the scoring, and coaches that have succeeded building around good defenses have brought defensive systems into the limelight, making superstars of coaches who have mastered one and can teach it reliably to their players, which in term makes it harder for anyone to score.

Heck, Gretzky and Orr played in eras of major expansion when a lot of teams WERE pretty thin, before we opened up the talent pool in Europe and had more than a trickle of American players. If you want to look at what a talent thin league looks like, that's your era, most teams couldn't dream of icing enough talent to compete head on with the best teams in the league, and it wasn't just because of the uncapped era. It's because the kind of talent that could be organized into a system that could stand against the big boys even 4 games out of 10 didn't exist for love or money.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 03:01 PM
  #130
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling View Post
That's because defense and goalies have gotten better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Pretty much. Scoring is always a duel between offensive talent and defensive talent. Lower scoring is not an issue of lack of talent. It's an issue of defensive talent catching up to the scoring, and coaches that have succeeded building around good defenses have brought defensive systems into the limelight, making superstars of coaches who have mastered one and can teach it reliably to their players, which in term makes it harder for anyone to score.

Heck, Gretzky and Orr played in eras of major expansion when a lot of teams WERE pretty thin, before we opened up the talent pool in Europe and had more than a trickle of American players. If you want to look at what a talent thin league looks like, that's your era, most teams couldn't dream of icing enough talent to compete head on with the best teams in the league, and it wasn't just because of the uncapped era. It's because the kind of talent that could be organized into a system that could stand against the big boys even 4 games out of 10 didn't exist for love or money.
No offense, but as the league is marketing an exciting product more defense is not the way to do it. Either Contraction or make the nets bigger. I am sure the latter creates less problems.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 05:30 PM
  #131
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Contraction would make it harder to score, because the players who would not be playing would largely be the worst defenders. GM's and coaches are not dummies. They know that there's two ways to help a team win -- improve your ability to score, and impede that of your opponents. And every GM in the league that's any good is doing everything he can along both vectors.

Goal differential is the OBP of hockey. Every team pays attention to it. Every team knows that while a 7-5 game is as much of a win as a 3-2 win, it's even better to win 7-2. If a player can't or won't help a team stop the puck, get the puck, and/or move it up the ice, he plays less, or goes to a team that doesn't care about goal differential -- which then goes on to suck.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 05:39 PM
  #132
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Let me put it this way:

Which was the more exciting game? The first round slugfest PIT vs PHI where 12 goals or so crossed the goal line? Or the double overtime BOS v MTL game with a lot of tension and excitement? I submit that the Phi v PIT game was awful, both teams played incompetently and had many big breakdowns, and gave the impression that NEITHER team was really giving their best effort. Meanwhile BOTH Boston AND Montreal gave every effort of wanting that double overtime game desperately. Well executed skill against matched up against well executed power and the result was a very tense and well-executed game with many heroes on both sides. A much better and more watchable product.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 05:49 PM
  #133
Clown Baby
Registered User
 
Clown Baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Not sure what the Predators are doing on that list. And I'm not sure why you're so focused on centers, At least two of those teams boast some very strong defense and goaltending, and that's been more than enough to be dangerous since long before the Cap Era.
If the league wasn't struggling for depth, teams wouldn't be picking and choosing which position they're going to build around. The Flyers, Senators, Leafs, Lightning, Islanders, Red Wings, Oilers, and Capitals have struggled to find a proper starting goaltender. The Predators, Leafs, Devils, Bluejackets, and Coyotes have struggled with centers. The Islanders, Stars, Avalanche, Oilers, Wild, and Panthers can't develop defensemen. There are too many holes for any one person to be able to sit there with a straight face and say there isn't a problem with talent around the league.
Quote:
I mean sure, the Leafs suck, but that's because their GM can't identify which talent to bring in to supplement all the minor league talent he can't develop. Not because of some weak sauce excuse about leaguewide talent depth.
But doesn't that contradict your original viewpoint? If there was enough talent to go around, Brian Burke couldn't help but find the players he needs. But the fact that he can field a subpar product consistently, and that so many other general managers also need to resort to AHL journeymen like Joel Ward seems to insist otherwise. Do you get my point? Teams suck because there isn't enough talent to go around. It's not because general managers league-wide are making the conscious decision to dress scrubs, and leave the stars playing in the minors.
Quote:
So wait -- every team in the league is supposed to have one of the 15 best top line centers in the league? I've never heard of a "legit #1 center" that was in the bottom 15 of his position and role. And if you can't see how that's a moving goalpost, I don't even know what to say.
In 1987, there were 21 teams. That same season, you had Ray Bourque, Scott Stevens, Gary Suter, Brad McCrimmon, Kevin Lowe, Chris Chelios, Paul Coffey, James Patrick, Mark Howe, and Denis Potvin receiving votes for the Norris trophy. Six of those defenders are now (rightfully) member of the Hockey Hall of Fame.

In today's game, we now have 30 teams, yet I'd be hard pressed to say any defender outside of Zdeno Chara has played to the same level with the same measure of consistency. You see my point? 30 teams does not necessitate 30 players capable of playing his position at a level set by the members of the HHOF, which is the gold standard.

An AHL-caliber player playing in the NHL does not make him an NHL player. It makes him lucky.
Quote:
Take David Krejci for instance, he won a Cup centering our first line but is not "a legit first line center" because he's not one of the top 15 in center scoring. The standard moves with the level of talent. Patrice Bergeron and David Krejci can both be serviceable centering either of our top 2 lines, but by your standard "the Bruins don't have a legit #1 center." Largely because Claude Julien plays a 4 line system and the top 2 lines have relatively less ice time.

Until you have to have a "legit" top center to be competitive it's not a legit standard of measurement. Too many teams without one have clobbered too many teams with one for me to worry about who does or does not build their team around that one of many styles.

Then again, I root for a team that didn't win a thing with Joe Thornton, who by any reasonable measure is a legit #1, but got all the way with David Krejci and Patrice Bergeron, so I'm sure that's coloring my perception.
It's also completely irrelevant to your original point that there's enough talent to go around.
Quote:
Legit #1 centers are one of the deepest positions in the league today?

Ha.
Centers [mod].
Quote:
Frankly I think the distinction you're trying to draw does not exist. I'd rather have 3 good centers than 1 great one. A lot more teams win Cups that way.
Irrelevant to your original point.
Quote:
These are excuses and you don't even explain properly why they would change the math.
It's been done countless times before. Google it...

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1099849
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=894717
Quote:
The NBA is capped. It is also a talent-thin league. That is what talent thin leagues look like. The NBA should probably contract. The NHL is a talent rich league by comparison, by quite a bit actually. if there was anything in basketball comparable to Canadian Juniors it might be another story, but it's pretty much the NCAA, full stop.

Meanwhile Hockey has Canadian juniors, the NCAA, a budding American youth program, and a lot of European talent to fall back on if needed. Not to mention that quite frankly, Olympic hockey is prestigious and exciting compared to Olympic basketball, so the international appeal of the sport is still growing. That's why poor, unprestigious teams like the Coyotes, if they're clever, can build their way into competitiveness.

If we were that bad for talent, it wouldn't matter what the cap did, you still would see the big teams spending to the cap to bring in their talent, and the less prestigious squads scrambling to find people who would join them for any money. Recent runs by the Predators and Coyotes suggests that this is anything but true.
Did you already forget a certain poison pill offer-sheet issued by the Philadelphia Flyers to the Nashville Predators' Shea Weber, and how even though Nashville couldn't afford to match said offer-sheet (from an outsiders perspective) they matched to retain one of two remaining stars on that squad, thus keeping the Nashville Predators from going the way of so many small market squads before them?


Last edited by mouser: 12-01-2012 at 10:51 PM. Reason: ...
Clown Baby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 05:52 PM
  #134
Clown Baby
Registered User
 
Clown Baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Let me put it this way:

Which was the more exciting game? The first round slugfest PIT vs PHI where 12 goals or so crossed the goal line? Or the double overtime BOS v MTL game with a lot of tension and excitement? I submit that the Phi v PIT game was awful, both teams played incompetently and had many big breakdowns, and gave the impression that NEITHER team was really giving their best effort. Meanwhile BOTH Boston AND Montreal gave every effort of wanting that double overtime game desperately. Well executed skill against matched up against well executed power and the result was a very tense and well-executed game with many heroes on both sides. A much better and more watchable product.
The word you're looking for is "contest." You contest that the PHI v PIT game was awful, and you've already stated you're a Bruins' fan. When in doubt, post a poll.

Frankly, if you contract, you end up with squads that look closer to the ASG, and we all know how those turn out.

Clown Baby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 06:18 PM
  #135
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clown Baby View Post
If the league wasn't struggling for depth, teams wouldn't be picking and choosing which position they're going to build around.
This is complete BS. Teams are struggling to pick and choose which position they're going to build around, because it's impossible for any team to have superstars at every position. Not because "there isn't enough talent to go around." When you only get a handful of players in the draft, and free agency is a thing, you're always fighting entropy when building a team, that's just the way professional sports is.

Quote:
The Flyers, Senators, Leafs, Lightning, Islanders, Red Wings, Oilers, and Capitals have struggled to find a proper starting goaltender.
This is not because of a lack of talented starting goaltending options. This is because, given the choice of multiple goaltending options, they have picked the wrong ones. Mike Smith could have been a Lightning. Tuukka Rask could have been a Leaf. The Senators finally found Anderson after getting rid of a guy in Elliott who came into his own with the Blues. Any of these teams could have gotten the decent year Jose Theodore gave the Panthers.

It's part of the unstable nature of this sport that the plan never works 100%. Pretending that the fact that plans fail means there isn't enough talent is ludicrous.

Quote:
The Predators, Leafs, Devils, Bluejackets, and Coyotes have struggled with centers.
Meanwhile, the Bruins, among other teams, have talented centers (Seguin and Peverley are both competent at the position) playing on the wing because they have too many centers to play them all. The problem, again, is not lack of talent, it's about being able to accurately identify the players to target and what makes a good center in your environment. A team that cannot rally at least adequate depth at any position is incompetently run. I honestly haven't seen a ton of effort from most of these teams to correct this problem in the first place.

Quote:
a The Islanders, Stars, Avalanche, Oilers, Wild, and Panthers can't develop defensemen.
Can't, won't, or haven't? I maintain the only thing you can reliably prove, is that they haven't.

Quote:
There are too many holes for any one person to be able to sit there with a straight face and say there isn't a problem with talent around the league.
Sure you can. The common thread of most of the teams you're bringing up involves organizations that are in financial trouble, poorly led from the top down, or in some other way do not have their organizational ducks in a row. Weakly led teams will attract less talent.



Quote:
But doesn't that contradict your original viewpoint? If there was enough talent to go around, Brian Burke couldn't help but find the players he needs.
This is the core of your argument, such as you even have one. There is literally no such thing as a superstar in every position throughout the league. If you try, the sheer level of talent in the league reindexes the definition of "superstar" so that originally standout talents look average.

No matter how much talent a league has, there is always room for things to go wrong and for a team to fail. If your definition of "enough talent" is that teams can never be incompetently led and can never slump in talent acquisition, you will eventually contract down to a team of one.

Quote:
But the fact that he can field a subpar product consistently, and that so many other general managers also need to resort to AHL journeymen like Joel Ward seems to insist otherwise.
Not nearly as much as it suggests that the NHL is not a perfectly efficient market.

Quote:
Do you get my point?
I'll try...


Quote:
In 1987, there were 21 teams. That same season, you had Ray Bourque, Scott Stevens, Gary Suter, Brad McCrimmon, Kevin Lowe, Chris Chelios, Paul Coffey, James Patrick, Mark Howe, and Denis Potvin receiving votes for the Norris trophy. Six of those defenders are now (rightfully) member of the Hockey Hall of Fame.

In today's game, we now have 30 teams, yet I'd be hard pressed to say any defender outside of Zdeno Chara has played to the same level with the same measure of consistency. You see my point? 30 teams does not necessitate 30 players capable of playing his position at a level set by the members of the HHOF, which is the gold standard.
You're responding to a snapshot of time. One in which guaranteed hall of famers Nicklas Lidstrom and Chris Pronger seem to be more or less done with their own careers, and Suter, Weber, Doughty, and several other talented defenders aren't long enough in the tooth yet that we know which are "talented but temporary" and who's going to have the health and durability to stick around long enough to take a good solid shot at the Hall themselves.

Besides which, I'm not sure why you can't see how much this plays against your argument. If the rank and file is keeping up with the best players at their position today, better than they were in 1987, that probably means the league is deeper, not shallower.
Quote:
Did you already forget a certain poison pill offer-sheet issued by the Philadelphia Flyers to the Nashville Predators' Shea Weber, and how even though Nashville couldn't afford to match said offer-sheet (from an outsiders perspective) they matched to retain one of two remaining stars on that squad, thus keeping the Nashville Predators from going the way of so many small market squads before them?
SO your response is to cite one incident?

Come on.


Last edited by Killion: 12-01-2012 at 07:57 PM.
Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 06:24 PM
  #136
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clown Baby View Post
The word you're looking for is "contest." You contest that the PHI v PIT game was awful, and you've already stated you're a Bruins' fan. When in doubt, post a poll.

Frankly, if you contract, you end up with squads that look closer to the ASG, and we all know how those turn out.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 06:39 PM
  #137
Mant*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clown Baby View Post
If the league wasn't struggling for depth, teams wouldn't be picking and choosing which position they're going to build around. The Flyers, Senators, Leafs, Lightning, Islanders, Red Wings, Oilers, and Capitals have struggled to find a proper starting goaltender. The Predators, Leafs, Devils, Bluejackets, and Coyotes have struggled with centers. The Islanders, Stars, Avalanche, Oilers, Wild, and Panthers can't develop defensemen. There are too many holes for any one person to be able to sit there with a straight face and say there isn't a problem with talent around the league.
Agreed, because realistically, half the players in the nhl should be playing in one of the minor professional leagues.

Mant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 06:44 PM
  #138
zombiekopitor
i am lorde, ya ya ya
 
zombiekopitor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Best Coast
Posts: 3,090
vCash: 50
If they lose a full season I think the league should try and reformat the league.
IMO 2 teams contracting and moving any additional teams would be the smartest move


I really liked some of the ideas of the 4 conference/division league. I think tweaking that idea could benefit the league.
What I would like to see is 28 teams 4 divisions and no conferences, then a playoff format where the division winners get 1-4 seeds, 2nd place get 5-8 and the best remaining records league wide get the bottom 9-16

This is my 'fantasy' league with new division reformatting that I think would have potential to really open up some rivalries. Maybe it's not the best time zone wise, but geographically it would certainly be interesting.
East

NYR
Pitts
NYI
Philly
Quebec
MTL
Boston

South

Nashville
Tampa
Carolina
Washington
Dallas
St Louis
Columbus/Houston/OKC/KC

North

Buffalo
Ottawa
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
Winnepeg
Toronto

West
SJ
Vancouver
Edm
LAK
Calgary
Seattle
Colorado

-contract Phoenix and Florida, they've both been given a fair chance and struggled, even with winning teams.
-move Anahiem to Seattle, now that the Kings are contenders their attendance is going to dip even more, they would still be able to keep their 2 big rivals in division.
-Move New Jersey to Quebec, like the Ducks you want a teams like them to still keep some tradition, there's already the Colorado connection and rivalries would be great for them
-I think Columbus would be successful if they had a competetive team, but they are so far away from that starting over in a new city wouldn't be a bad idea either

yup that would be better
oh well

zombiekopitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 08:16 PM
  #139
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackett View Post
I would argue that the depth is better today than it was a decade ago. That's an issue that isn't brought up as much as it used to be. That may partly have to do with the the fact that they eliminated some clutching and grabbing since then, but I think the depth really gets compromised in the times where we have new expansion teams being phased in, which was the case a little over a decade ago with teams like atlanta and columbus coming in.
I was more understanding 10 yrs ago. Not now. I admit that the expansion has failed for various reasons. Part of which is the lack of talent available. Im not criticizing their decision to expand as rapidly as they did. I can understand the reasons for it ( big Tv contract, expansion of footprint, more European players. etc) . But in 2012, we can admit that it hasnt worked.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 11:09 PM
  #140
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
I was more understanding 10 yrs ago. Not now. I admit that the expansion has failed for various reasons. Part of which is the lack of talent available. Im not criticizing their decision to expand as rapidly as they did. I can understand the reasons for it ( big Tv contract, expansion of footprint, more European players. etc) . But in 2012, we can admit that it hasnt worked.
10 years is a long time in certain situations in life. However for the NHL trying to grow it's footprint and cement itself in non-traditional markets, particularly in the 90's-00's... it will really take 50-60 years.

Here's the reason being...

Most of the existing population with ticket buying capabilities already have their interests in life figured out, their parents weren't raised with hockey and they weren't raised with hockey and they already know where their money is going for entertainment. They might take in a game or two as a novelty, but that's really about it.

The next generation is their children who are now growing up with the NHL in town. Hopefully their curiosity pushes mom/dad to take them out to a few games and it grows their passion, But it's still 20-30 years before that generation is in a solid position to become season ticket holders.

Finally 3rd generation, whose parents grew up with hockey in town and will now not have to be pushed into taking the kids to hockey games but they actually encourage the kids to take a liking to the game. So this will be the first truly dedicated, hardcore, lifelong fans of the team and sport. Another 20-30 years before this generation is in a solid position to become season ticket holders.

Most all of the really solid markets in the NHL have had their 50 years, and perhaps more importantly, they were all founded in an era before the price of entertainment was so outrageous and before professional sports were such a serious business that dominated our spare time. Those teams were already in place while the national appetite for pro sports was growing. The newer teams are now fighting to carve out a place in a fairly well cemented sporting landscape.

There really is no other way, the payoff in the long run is too great to ignore. The risk of fading into oblivion if the league hadn't expanded is equally too great to ignore.

Legionnaire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 06:51 AM
  #141
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
I have to ask, why are we suddenly contemplating moving the Anaheim Ducks? That seems absurd to me. I can't see a single rational reason why that market can't succeed.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 08:19 AM
  #142
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
I was more understanding 10 yrs ago. Not now. I admit that the expansion has failed for various reasons. Part of which is the lack of talent available. Im not criticizing their decision to expand as rapidly as they did. I can understand the reasons for it ( big Tv contract, expansion of footprint, more European players. etc) . But in 2012, we can admit that it hasnt worked.
There is no lack of talent, it's very much the opposite. The lower-end has improved, hence scoring going down. A lack of talent leads to superstars scoring extremely high numbers while even the good guys put up quite a lot of points, see the 80s for reference.
A higher talent-level among the bottom of the rosters leads to less mistakes and thus less scoring by the good players, with a slightly lower amount of scoring by the superstars. The slightly improved offense by the bottom players isn't making up for the loss of the more talented ones, so you end up with scoring going down.

You want to see more offense, expand the league, contraction would lead to the opposite reaction and reduce scoring even more.

Using the Allstar game as an example for increased scoring by increased talent-level is just useless. No one puts effort into that game, pretty much every game has no hitting and virtually no defense. Beyond that, removing 2-4 teams is not moving every team to allstar-level, nor to Olympic level rosters. That amount of talent could possibly add a bit of scoring, but to reach that level you would need to cut about 2/3s of the league, which makes no sense at all.

Sanderson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 08:27 AM
  #143
Jester9881
Registered User
 
Jester9881's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 5,951
vCash: 500
I'll bet my house, right now, that a vast majority of the people calling for contraction are both fans of large market teams, and did so after checking the rosters of the bottom teams to see what players they wanted.

[MOD]


Last edited by Killion: 12-02-2012 at 11:18 AM. Reason: ...not necessary.
Jester9881 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 09:20 AM
  #144
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester9881 View Post
I'll bet my house, right now, that a vast majority of the people calling for contraction are both fans of large market teams, and did so after checking the rosters of the bottom teams to see what players they wanted.
I'm sure the large market owners would love contraction considering they're paying money out of their pocket to support these teams, but as a fan I support a team or 2 contract simply because the markets don't make sense and there is no way the league is in a position to assume it will grow in another market right now.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 09:23 AM
  #145
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88eight View Post
If they lose a full season I think the league should try and reformat the league.
IMO 2 teams contracting and moving any additional teams would be the smartest move


I really liked some of the ideas of the 4 conference/division league. I think tweaking that idea could benefit the league.
What I would like to see is 28 teams 4 divisions and no conferences, then a playoff format where the division winners get 1-4 seeds, 2nd place get 5-8 and the best remaining records league wide get the bottom 9-16

This is my 'fantasy' league with new division reformatting that I think would have potential to really open up some rivalries. Maybe it's not the best time zone wise, but geographically it would certainly be interesting.
East

NYR
Pitts
NYI
Philly
Quebec
MTL
Boston

South

Nashville
Tampa
Carolina
Washington
Dallas
St Louis
Columbus/Houston/OKC/KC

North

Buffalo
Ottawa
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
Winnepeg
Toronto

West
SJ
Vancouver
Edm
LAK
Calgary
Seattle
Colorado

-contract Phoenix and Florida, they've both been given a fair chance and struggled, even with winning teams.
-move Anahiem to Seattle, now that the Kings are contenders their attendance is going to dip even more, they would still be able to keep their 2 big rivals in division.
-Move New Jersey to Quebec, like the Ducks you want a teams like them to still keep some tradition, there's already the Colorado connection and rivalries would be great for them
-I think Columbus would be successful if they had a competetive team, but they are so far away from that starting over in a new city wouldn't be a bad idea either

yup that would be better
oh well
As a leaf fan, there is absolutely 0 chance and I mean literally no chance at all that the Leafs and Habs are removed from the same division. The league needs the rivalry. I also don't understand why Chicago, Minnesota and Winnipeg would be in the same division as Toronto, Ottawa and Detroit... seems very odd.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 09:29 AM
  #146
Clown Baby
Registered User
 
Clown Baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester9881 View Post
I'll bet my house, right now, that a vast majority of the people calling for contraction are both fans of large market teams, and did so after checking the rosters of the bottom teams to see what players they wanted.
I only consider contraction as a means to make the league as a whole more profitable. This excerpt came from Bill Daly himself:

Quote:
"We instituted as part of our last collective bargaining agreement a pretty comprehensive revenue sharing program. That program will produce about $150 million in revenue sharing this past season.

"Our proposal that's on the table now would increase that pool fairly significantly up in the neighborhood of $190 million, and depending on how the negotiation ultimately plays out, probably more than that."
That figure was money dedicated exclusively to "troubled" franchises:
Quote:
The NHLPA also has pushed itself as having the best interests of smaller-market teams at heart. It has proposed revenue sharing of $260 million — with $120 million designated for "troubled franchises" to be doled out at the commissioner's discretion.

The NHL proposal is $190 million but could grow during negotiations, Daly said.

As for hockey-related revenue, the league is proposing it be shifted from 57% in the players' favor (in the final year of the last CBA) to 49% (in the first year of the league's proposal).
Get rid of just two of the weakest franchises, realign the conferences, and you have a more profitable NHL.


Last edited by Killion: 12-02-2012 at 11:19 AM.
Clown Baby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 09:44 AM
  #147
tony d
Honey Nut Cheerios
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,017
vCash: 500
I disagree with contraction. Surely there are other ways to cure the ills of the NHL rather than by contracting teams.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:18 AM
  #148
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
As a leaf fan, there is absolutely 0 chance and I mean literally no chance at all that the Leafs and Habs are removed from the same division. The league needs the rivalry. I also don't understand why Chicago, Minnesota and Winnipeg would be in the same division as Toronto, Ottawa and Detroit... seems very odd.
The Leafs Habs rivalry is dead.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:24 AM
  #149
IdealisticSniper
Registered User
 
IdealisticSniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,311
vCash: 500
Here's the problem with contraction. The weakest teams today, aren't the same as the weakest teams tomorrow.

Outside of Montreal, Toronto, and the NYR, I'd say just about every team has had a point in its history where it looked bleak.

Lets contract Chicago, or Detroit. How about Pittsburgh or New Jersey. Maybe the NYI or Boston need to go.

Contraction is a non starter.

IdealisticSniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:37 AM
  #150
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
The Leafs Habs rivalry is dead.
lol... no.

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:39 AM.

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.