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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Realistically....How many teams should be in the NHL?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-29-2012, 10:04 PM
  #201
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 28,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I think a magority of Canadians would say there should not be NHL teams in the south.
Strenuously disagree. Not in my company Sir.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:11 PM
  #202
FrailSwan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I have lost my home
Country: United States
Posts: 2,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Party View Post
Thanks for the clarity guys. The perception of the Preds in some of these posts is not reality.

Had there not been this lockout we would have sold out even more games this season than last.

And yes, I am a proud STH.
You're not alone friend. Ignorance is at an all-time high, it seems.

FrailSwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:20 PM
  #203
leesmith
Still in.
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I'm talking about the cities in general, including all the criteria that would be necessary to support an NHL team, which basically means as you said, "all of the above".
Then I'm with you.

To further discussion for everyone, here are a couple of recent studies done on this issue. Although the Sports Business Journals study does not take corporate support and broadcast rights into consideration.

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...e=&CPIorderBy=

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/report...iefing-14.aspx

leesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:21 PM
  #204
Dex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Under Deep Cover
Posts: 565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradD View Post
26. 25 current teams and add one in Seattle.

Anaheim Ducks
Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Calgary Flames
Carolina Hurricanes
Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche
Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Minnesota Wild
Montreal Canadiens
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Ottawa Senators
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
San Jose Sharks
St. Louis Blues
Tampa Bay Lightning
Toronto Maple Leafs
Vancouver Canucks
Washington Capitals
Winnipeg Jets

Then add a team in Seattle. 26 teams. I took out Columbus, Dallas, Florida, Nashville, and Phoenix. Lower fan bases when they are losing and do not provide consistent contention. Dallas is the only one I would second guess.
I think this list is a pretty good starting point.

I'd take out one NYC metro area team - either Devils or Islanders - as neither team is supported all that well.

I'd take out Anaheim - their attendance sucks historically and I think the LA market should have/needs only one team.

I'd remove Carolina because I think the support there is marginal and bandwagon at best. I'd rather see this same team in an area that loves hockey.

I used to think all Florida teams should go - but I now think that Tampa supports their team well enough to keep it - although I hate the concept of hockey where water does not naturally freeze.

In my league - to that I add Quebec City and Seattle - for a total of 24 teams:

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Calgary Flames
Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche
Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Minnesota Wild
Montreal Canadiens
New Jersey Devils or New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Ottawa Senators
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Quebec City
San Jose Sharks
Seattle
St. Louis Blues
Tampa Bay Lightning
Toronto Maple Leafs
Vancouver Canucks
Washington Capitals
Winnipeg Jets

So I guess I'm advocating for a 24 team league

Dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:21 PM
  #205
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
I'm a Florida native. Never lived anywhere else. Fell in love with hockey when I first saw it on TV - I believe Phil Esposito was still with the Bruins at the time - used to watch weekly games on TV with my dad when I was a kid (and he was from Texas - we just love sports). Loved Derek Sanderson. I watched the NHL when I could find it on TV and have always, always been glued to the tube for Olympic hockey. Have had season tickets for 17 years for the Lightning. I've traveled to Sunrise, Atlanta, Raleigh, Pittsburgh, D.C. and Calgary to attend road games. I don't see where the lack of snow on the ground (it does snow here occasionally, but melts rather quickly) has caused me to have less appreciation of the sport. I think I must enjoy it a great deal if I spend all that money on season tickets & to travel to away games.
First off, just confirming the idea that we're having a friendly discussion, no attacking fanbases nor each other in anyway... Now yes, certainly I can imagine that there exists fans almost anywhere in the world that have seen hockey on TV and fell in love with the sport. And of course, with indoor rinks, fans of hockey can enjoy it in a more up close and personal way. However, MY point was that I think the actual number of people that fall into the sport is likely smaller once you get away from the natural climate in which the sport more naturally occurs. And therefore, as fans it might be that you almost have to be more dedicated to the sport in order to help maintain a professional team in your city. But hey, it's spculation on my part; there certainly could be many other variables.

Quote:
I don't attack people, either. As I said, we're used to this mentality down here, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to us. I could see all of this as an extremely valid argument if the games were played outdoors. However, we have a beautiful arena, and we've progressed down here in the south to the point where we've discovered the joys of a thing called air conditioning. We have top notch equipment to keep the ice in good shape. And we get to wear shorts and flip-flops to the games if we so choose.

I think those who believe we have no business having a hockey team because of the weather here are just, well, a wee bit jealous. Since the players voted us as the 5th highest team they'd prefer to play for if they had a choice, they apparently don't have a problem with it, maybe the fans should give us a chance.
Another variable, which I was intending to include in the first post, is that I would think that the further south one gets into warmer climates, all year round, the more variety of other activities come available to the population. So then, it's not just that contact with hockey might be less, and that includes less people talking about it in all sorts of different venues, but also that even if you're someone who really likes hockey that doesn't mean that there aren't any number of other sports in and around your cities that you could also be involved in, thus reducing your potential contact with hockey.

Sometimes, one could say, it just comes down to a sort of fanbase logistics. Many US cities and the US in general has lots of major league sports that can occupy the attention of the population. You put hockey in a southern market, and that competition, I would think, becomes even more difficult for hockey to gain a significant piece of the pie.

Now, as for jealousy... I for one am not jealous about far southern cities... too hot for my taste. I hate the cold, but I'm not a big fan of extreme heat either. Now I live in Mexico, but where I live the average daytime temperature is about 21 degrees centigrade.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:22 PM
  #206
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 24,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Strenuously disagree. Not in my company Sir.
I hope you know that you are a minority.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:27 PM
  #207
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 8,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
Then I'm with you.

To further discussion for everyone, here are a couple of recent studies done on this issue. Although the Sports Business Journals study does not take corporate support and broadcast rights into consideration.

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...e=&CPIorderBy=

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/report...iefing-14.aspx
I despise that "study." According to that the Milwaukee Metro area doesn't have enough total personal income support an MLB team yet they've averaged 36,507 per game over the last five years.

In addition they also support (though that is waning but it has nothing to do with lack of money) an NBA team, an NFL team, a bunch of college sports and a crap ton of minor league teams.

AdmiralsFan24 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:31 PM
  #208
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 28,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I hope you know that you are a minority.
Not in the circles I travel in Kimota. And that includes Quebec.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:32 PM
  #209
leesmith
Still in.
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
I despise that "study." According to that the Milwaukee Metro area doesn't have enough total personal income support an MLB team yet they've averaged 36,507 per game over the last five years.

In addition they also support (though that is waning but it has nothing to do with lack of money) an NBA team, an NFL team, a bunch of college sports and a crap ton of minor league teams.
Well, another flaw in that study is that they consider the Green Bay Packers a Milwaukee team. They are a WISCONSIN team drawing support from several other markets in the state.

I have a soft spot in my heart for Wisconsin because I played my first game of pond hockey on ice skates in Stevens Point. I played in the beer leagues here in Columbus for another 10 years after that.

leesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 10:32 PM
  #210
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
Then I'm with you.

To further discussion for everyone, here are a couple of recent studies done on this issue. Although the Sports Business Journals study does not take corporate support and broadcast rights into consideration.

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...e=&CPIorderBy=

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/report...iefing-14.aspx
Yes, Pretty much know about those studies, well especially the bizjournals one, we've analyzed it here in the Business Board.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:02 PM
  #211
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsrule View Post
I know that it would never happen but I truly believe that the best way to solve the NHL lockout would be to have less teams.

Their are a bunch of teams who are losing money year after year. I think the best way to get economics back to where they should be would be to cut the fat and lose a few teams.

So the question that I ask here is how many teams should be cut and what teams?
Like i have said before cut the rangers, maple leafs and Canadians. It would lower the salary cap for other teams and would help 27 teams. I guess we would have to cut one more to make it even number so how about the Canucks?


I don't really understand the constant cut teams from the league? Where do you think the money would come from to buy the teams out and pay for the broken leases? it would be better for the league to just have more revenue sharing.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:06 PM
  #212
Ragamuffin Gunner
Last Day Of Camp
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 21,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
32 is the answer. There's enough actual NHL talent to support two additional teams, but is either buried within an established franchise or is playing in Europe. Guys like Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis never would have seen the NHL if not for 28 teams...who knows how many more are losing careers in lower levels.

The second part of that is that the cost to contract an NHL team would be astronomical. First, buy the team. Second, settle the lawsuits (and you'd better believe there would be lots of them). Third, "make whole" all the local governments and businesses. You're looking at a $500 million starting price tag, per team.

It takes a very special type of mind to say that "spending $2-3 billion and getting no actual return on that investment is the real key to financial stability."

And if it's a matter of "enriching the talent pool" and has nothing to do with anything else, then I don't think anyone should object to the Canadian teams being chopped. It's for the good of the game, after all.
Great post. The bolded is key.

It's easy to say, "cut 10 teams" without really thinking about the logistics of cutting teams. Not to mention that it would kill future TV deals and really hurt the future of USA hockey.

I see that many of the pro-contraction crowd are fans of the big market teams that wouldn't be contracted. My question for them is:

Would you still favor contraction if your favorite team was the first team cut?

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:09 PM
  #213
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Great post. The bolded is key.

It's easy to say, "cut 10 teams" without really thinking about the logistics of cutting teams. Not to mention that it would kill future TV deals and really hurt the future of USA hockey.

I see that many of the pro-contraction crowd are fans of the big market teams that wouldn't be contracted. My question for them is:

Would you still favor contraction if your favorite team was the first team cut?
One of my favorite lines: "Let him who would move a team first move his own".

Not that I compare myself to Socrates, but...

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:18 PM
  #214
FrailSwan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I have lost my home
Country: United States
Posts: 2,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
One of my favorite lines: "Let him who would move a team first move his own".

Not that I compare myself to Socrates, but...
Truth, at it's finest.

FrailSwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:24 PM
  #215
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 28,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrailSwan View Post
Truth, at it's finest.
MayorBee's one of the best.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:36 PM
  #216
FrailSwan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I have lost my home
Country: United States
Posts: 2,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
MayorBee's one of the best.
And you're not too bad yourself, if I do say so!

FrailSwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:45 PM
  #217
Saintpatrick*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,133
vCash: 500
I don't understand why people don't have Columbus on their lists of teams that should stay in the league. Ohio is one of the fastest growing hockey markets. I would however remove one 1 Florida team, 1 California team, Nashville or Dallas and Phoenix (obviously) and either scale back the league to 26 team league or relocate 2 of these franchises to Ontario and Quebec. If you look at the hockey in the 80's and early 90's the product was so much better because the talent wasn't watered down so much.

Saintpatrick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:55 PM
  #218
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardking89 View Post
I don't understand why people don't have Columbus on their lists of teams that should stay in the league. Ohio is one of the fastest growing hockey markets. I would however remove one 1 Florida team, 1 California team, Nashville or Dallas and Phoenix (obviously) and either scale back the league to 26 team league or relocate 2 of these franchises to Ontario and Quebec. If you look at the hockey in the 80's and early 90's the product was so much better because the talent wasn't watered down so much.
Funny, but we keep being told that the '80s were watered down and inferior because of the lack of Euros. Now the league if 1/3 Euro players (or thereabouts) and the league has expanded by a third so that means the talent per team is the same right?

The problem isn't that the product is watered down, the problem is that they've done everything possible to kill scoring.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:07 AM
  #219
leesmith
Still in.
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue n Gold Forever View Post
I think this list is a pretty good starting point.

I'd take out one NYC metro area team - either Devils or Islanders - as neither team is supported all that well.

I'd take out Anaheim - their attendance sucks historically and I think the LA market should have/needs only one team.

I'd remove Carolina because I think the support there is marginal and bandwagon at best. I'd rather see this same team in an area that loves hockey.

I used to think all Florida teams should go - but I now think that Tampa supports their team well enough to keep it - although I hate the concept of hockey where water does not naturally freeze.

In my league - to that I add Quebec City and Seattle - for a total of 24 teams:

Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Calgary Flames
Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche
Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Minnesota Wild
Montreal Canadiens
New Jersey Devils or New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Ottawa Senators
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Quebec City
San Jose Sharks
Seattle
St. Louis Blues
Tampa Bay Lightning
Toronto Maple Leafs
Vancouver Canucks
Washington Capitals
Winnipeg Jets

So I guess I'm advocating for a 24 team league
If somehow the NHL would manage to pull that off, I'd advocate a new 24-team World Hockey League with a single-entity structure (like MLS).

The North America Conference and European Conference would function much like Major League Baseball. A small amount of Inter-Conference play (meaning one road trip through each division), but mostly they stay to themselves until the Global Cup series final.

NORTH AMERICA EAST
New York Islanders (or New Jersey Devils)
Carolina Hurricanes
Columbus Blue Jackets
Nashville Predators
Toronto (Hamilton)
Chicago (Northern Chicago)

NORTH AMERICA WEST
Dallas Stars
Houston
Los Angeles Ducks of Anaheim
NorCal (San Francisco or Sacramento)
Las Vegas
Portland

EUROPE WEST
Germany
Austria (Salzberg)
Sweden
Finland
London
Paris or Manchester

EUROPE EAST
Prague
Moscow
Russia 2
Russia 3
Belarus
Latvia or Ukraine

The WHL... It's ON, b****es!

leesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:13 AM
  #220
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue n Gold Forever View Post
I used to think all Florida teams should go - but I now think that Tampa supports their team well enough to keep it - although I hate the concept of hockey where water does not naturally freeze.
The birds who frequent the birdbath in my patio have landed on a solid block of ice on plenty of occasions... Hey, it's not much, but it does happen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
However, MY point was that I think the actual number of people that fall into the sport is likely smaller once you get away from the natural climate in which the sport more naturally occurs. And therefore, as fans it might be that you almost have to be more dedicated to the sport in order to help maintain a professional team in your city. But hey, it's spculation on my part; there certainly could be many other variables.
One thing to consider is that a large portion of our population are folks from northern climates who have moved to Florida and made it their permanent home, so they have that life long exposure to the game.

Quote:
Another variable, which I was intending to include in the first post, is that I would think that the further south one gets into warmer climates, all year round, the more variety of other activities come available to the population. So then, it's not just that contact with hockey might be less, and that includes less people talking about it in all sorts of different venues, but also that even if you're someone who really likes hockey that doesn't mean that there aren't any number of other sports in and around your cities that you could also be involved in, thus reducing your potential contact with hockey.
Oh, there's plenty to do around here. One good thing is that the sports teams have a tendency to support each other so there's exposure at those games. Players make videos of support that are shown at each other's games, they take ads out in the paper congratulating each other when they make the playoffs, Rays players drop the puck at our games, Lightning players throw out the first pitch at Rays games. Which reminds me...



Quote:
Sometimes, one could say, it just comes down to a sort of fanbase logistics. Many US cities and the US in general has lots of major league sports that can occupy the attention of the population. You put hockey in a southern market, and that competition, I would think, becomes even more difficult for hockey to gain a significant piece of the pie.
Not too much conflict between baseball and hockey as the seasons don't overlap too much. I know lots of folks who have gone to a day Rays game and then headed back to Tampa for a Lightning game. Football is one day a week, usually in the daytime. Shouldn't be a problem.

Quote:
Now, as for jealousy... I for one am not jealous about far southern cities... too hot for my taste. I hate the cold, but I'm not a big fan of extreme heat either.
Lived here all my life - I can't stand the heat, either. Gets worse the older I get. Thank the Lord for air conditioning!

I've been in snow once. I have no desire to ever set foot in it again!

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:15 AM
  #221
Saintpatrick*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Funny, but we keep being told that the '80s were watered down and inferior because of the lack of Euros. Now the league if 1/3 Euro players (or thereabouts) and the league has expanded by a third so that means the talent per team is the same right?

The problem isn't that the product is watered down, the problem is that they've done everything possible to kill scoring.
If you watch footage of hockey from that era it was high flying and exciting. It's no coincidence that after the Bettman expansion era that that trapping era soon followed. If the league is scaled back I'm positive that there would be a much better product on the ice. Healthy competition for jobs on teams would strengthen the league not weaken it.

Saintpatrick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:17 AM
  #222
Saintpatrick*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
If somehow the NHL would manage to pull that off, I'd advocate a new 24-team World Hockey League with a single-entity structure (like MLS).

The North America Conference and European Conference would function much like Major League Baseball. A small amount of Inter-Conference play (meaning one road trip through each division), but mostly they stay to themselves until the Global Cup series final.

NORTH AMERICA EAST
New York Islanders (or New Jersey Devils)
Carolina Hurricanes
Columbus Blue Jackets
Nashville Predators
Toronto (Hamilton)
Chicago (Northern Chicago)

NORTH AMERICA WEST
Dallas Stars
Houston
Los Angeles Ducks of Anaheim
NorCal (San Francisco or Sacramento)
Las Vegas
Portland

EUROPE WEST
Germany
Austria (Salzberg)
Sweden
Finland
London
Paris or Manchester

EUROPE EAST
Prague
Moscow
Russia 2
Russia 3
Belarus
Latvia or Ukraine

The WHL... It's ON, b****es!
You forgot Montreal and the Rangers ...fail!

Saintpatrick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:19 AM
  #223
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardking89 View Post
If you watch footage of hockey from that era it was high flying and exciting. It's no coincidence that after the Bettman expansion era that that trapping era soon followed. If the league is scaled back I'm positive that there would be a much better product on the ice. Healthy competition for jobs on teams would strengthen the league not weaken it.
I've not only watched footage, I was actually watching that era WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. I agree it was high-flying and exciting and would like to see the NHL return to it. What I disagree with is that trapping is a result of expansion. It's a result of COACHES who have spread the philosophy of negation throughout the league regardless of the talent level on their team. Saying it's a result of expansion is a classic case of post hoc, ergo procto hoc.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:23 AM
  #224
Saintpatrick*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I've not only watched footage, I was actually watching that era WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. I agree it was high-flying and exciting and would like to see the NHL return to it. What I disagree with is that trapping is a result of expansion. It's a result of COACHES who have spread the philosophy of negation throughout the league regardless of the talent level on their team. Saying it's a result of expansion is a classic case of post hoc, ergo procto hoc.
Maybe it was just a coincidence but post expansion hockey was boring as hell in comparison even with the influx of exciting European players. I think the amount of good goalies now has something to do with lack of scoring as well.

Saintpatrick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:23 AM
  #225
leesmith
Still in.
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 18,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizardking89 View Post
You forgot Montreal and the Rangers ...fail!
Montreal and the NY Rangers are still in the NHL in this scenario. Although, I think Montreal could handle a WHL team along with the Habs.

While I'm still pissed at the NHL for this lockout, the new WHL would have the following rule changes:
- Olympic size ice
- Hybrid icing
- Goals CAN be kicked in
- Penalty shots are worth TWO points. If it is missed or saved, a power play follows.
- Goals scored from beyond the blue line are worth two points.
- Five men in the neutral zone without the puck is ruled an illegal defense.
- Goalies who play puck outside an enlarged crease CAN be checked.
- There is NO goaltender interference outside the enlarged crease.
- OT is 4v4. Second OT is 3v3. And THEN the shootout.
- Standings are 3 points for win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss, 0 for regulation loss.


Last edited by leesmith: 12-30-2012 at 12:32 AM.
leesmith 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 03:57 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.