HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Daly on impact of realignment on expansion, negotiations w/NHLPA

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-05-2013, 07:56 PM
  #426
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
I have argued that the reality of the NHL is such that the Flyers will not be separated out of the Atlantic.
What would it matter if they're separated if all they play in a Season was two games against each other.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:00 PM
  #427
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
What would it matter if they're separated if all they play in a Season was two games against each other.
My proposal above was 'if it were up to me'. It's not. Most of my arguments in this thread have been based on reality, but that one was pure fantasy.

The reality remains:

1) The Atlantic Division will not be split up
2) The Northeast Division will not be split up
3) The western three Canadian teams will not be split up
4) Detroit will not play more than 2 games a year vs PTZ teams.
5) Divisions will not have more than 2 time zones.

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:13 PM
  #428
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
This is going to be a huge issue and a bigger hurdle than most people believe.

You have teams in the West who allegedly are against anything that doesn't have at least 2 games against everyone in the league.

Then, you have teams in the East who are more interested in playing their rivals. Like Lamoriello said, the more games against the Rangers and Flyers, the better. Right now, they play 6 times. Under the new proposal, that would shrink to 4 or 5. These teams do not want to give up games against the Rangers and Flyers for extra games against the Hurricanes and Blue Jackets. Making them division games isn't an automatic for the games to be in high-demand. Going to take time for these teams to form rivalries within the division. Unfortunately, there is no way to make everyone happy, but they need to come up with something that makes at least 22 teams happy. Even that might be tough.
Part of me really hates suggesting ideas that could make a 4 x structure work, and especially a 4-Conference structure because I hate it so much. But I think to achieve what you're describing there, the League would have to give up on a complete 2 games against every team in the League. The following schedule could work for 4-Conferences when the League goes to 32 teams:
8 games = 1 x 8
32 games = 2 x 16
42 games = 6 x 7
But damn it, I'd really hate that, primarily because it would almost for certain mean a top-4 per Conference.

So, let's say the two eastern Conferences always play each other 2 times each Season, and the two western Conferences always play each other 2 times each Season. And then each eastern Conference plays one western Conference 2 times in a Season and the other 1 time in a Season, alternating from Season to Season. That would mean that every eastern team would play every western team 3 times in two Seasons.

That's your solution; now I just have to hope that it never happens.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:15 PM
  #429
wildthing202
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglas, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 604
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wildthing202 Send a message via Yahoo to wildthing202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
I have argued that the reality of the NHL is such that the Flyers will not be separated out of the Atlantic.
The point is more about moving Pittsburgh out not Philly. Philly's fine with the NY trio & Washington but of course Philly wants its cake & eat it too by keeping Pittsburgh even though the league would be far better off separating the two.

Why else would they shove the Florida teams with the Canadians, all so Philly can keep Pittsburgh & keeping both Detroit & Columbus from really establishing themselves in the Eastern conference with a new rival which is the closest to them aka Pittsburgh.

I'm willing to bet if Pittsburgh was like the near bankruptcy teams, Philly would be the first to boot them out.

wildthing202 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:07 AM
  #430
Charliebox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Here's my proposal. It makes way more sense than the one the NHL is currently looking at.

1.
Seattle (Phoenix)
Calgary
Van
Edmonton
LA
Anaheim
SJ
Colorado

2.
Boston
MTL
Florida
Tampa
Toronto
Ottawa
Buffalo

3.
Detroit
Columbs
Dallas
St Louis
Winnipeg
Nashville
Minny
Chicago

4.
Islanders
Rangers
NJ
Carolina
Pitts
Philly
Wash

No team has a divisional opponent more than one timezone away.

From this, and just rational thought (something the NHL seems to be lacking), I don't understand why the NHL is hellbent on putting 17 teams in the East (which they are just gonna move) and 15 in the West, right now. Under the NHL's proposal, they are just going to have to move Detroit and Buffalo out of the NE as soon as QC and Markham get their teams. If the NHL is planning on expanding based on geography (ie put teams in the US midwest like KC), instead of potential sales, they are complete idiots.

Under my proposal, if and when QC and Markham get their teams, Buffalo can be moved into Div 4 with the other NY teams. It shouldn't be a big deal for Buffalo and makes sense rivalry-wise to have all the NY state teams in the same Div.

The only reason I can possibly think why the NHL put Detroit in the NE is to appease Mike Ilich. Other than that, there is absolutely no reason I can think of to put Detroit in the NE when they could simply rearange their division by putting Winnipeg, Dallas and Minny into it.

How can Mike Ilich be unhappy with the division I proposed above? They will have one team in their timezone and the remainder only one timezone later. If every team plays non divisional opponents the same # of times, then Detroit won't be at much of a disadvantage compared to other Eastern timezone teams.

Charliebox is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:17 AM
  #431
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...hot-topic.html

^^^Latest on re-alignment news (items 26-30 in the article). Not surprisingly the East is dead against it (playoff structure)

Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:25 AM
  #432
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Part of me really hates suggesting ideas that could make a 4 x structure work, and especially a 4-Conference structure because I hate it so much. But I think to achieve what you're describing there, the League would have to give up on a complete 2 games against every team in the League. The following schedule could work for 4-Conferences when the League goes to 32 teams:
8 games = 1 x 8
32 games = 2 x 16
42 games = 6 x 7
But damn it, I'd really hate that, primarily because it would almost for certain mean a top-4 per Conference.

So, let's say the two eastern Conferences always play each other 2 times each Season, and the two western Conferences always play each other 2 times each Season. And then each eastern Conference plays one western Conference 2 times in a Season and the other 1 time in a Season, alternating from Season to Season. That would mean that every eastern team would play every western team 3 times in two Seasons.

That's your solution; now I just have to hope that it never happens.
That won't happen. I'd believe too many western teams would vote no, as there isn't much of an increase in "out-of-conference" games.

We've seen too much regarding the insistance that every team play every other team twice. So every time I see a plan that has teams only playing once a season, I discard it.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:31 AM
  #433
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 309
vCash: 500
I don't understand why the NHL doesn't simply shelf major re-alignment until the league has 32 teams? For next year, move the Jets to the NW, Columbus to SE, VAN to Pacific and Dallas to Central. I also seem to recall hearing once that the Wings woud agree to staying in the West if they reduced the amount west coast road trips they made every year. So why not do that by taking a page out of baseball and have the Wings take 1 long road trip to the west coast and play out all their games in one trip only? i.e 2 back to back games in LA , one in SJ, 2 back to back ANA etc.

Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:31 AM
  #434
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,906
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charliebox View Post
Here's my proposal. It makes way more sense than the one the NHL is currently looking at.

1.
Seattle (Phoenix)
Calgary
Van
Edmonton
LA
Anaheim
SJ
Colorado

2.
Boston
MTL
Florida
Tampa
Toronto
Ottawa
Buffalo

3.
Detroit
Columbs
Dallas
St Louis
Winnipeg
Nashville
Minny
Chicago

4.
Islanders
Rangers
NJ
Carolina
Pitts
Philly
Wash

No team has a divisional opponent more than one timezone away.

From this, and just rational thought (something the NHL seems to be lacking), I don't understand why the NHL is hellbent on putting 17 teams in the East (which they are just gonna move) and 15 in the West, right now. Under the NHL's proposal, they are just going to have to move Detroit and Buffalo out of the NE as soon as QC and Markham get their teams. If the NHL is planning on expanding based on geography (ie put teams in the US midwest like KC), instead of potential sales, they are complete idiots.

Under my proposal, if and when QC and Markham get their teams, Buffalo can be moved into Div 4 with the other NY teams. It shouldn't be a big deal for Buffalo and makes sense rivalry-wise to have all the NY state teams in the same Div.

The only reason I can possibly think why the NHL put Detroit in the NE is to appease Mike Ilich. Other than that, there is absolutely no reason I can think of to put Detroit in the NE when they could simply rearange their division by putting Winnipeg, Dallas and Minny into it.

How can Mike Ilich be unhappy with the division I proposed above? They will have one team in their timezone and the remainder only one timezone later. If every team plays non divisional opponents the same # of times, then Detroit won't be at much of a disadvantage compared to other Eastern timezone teams.
Ummm that's the NHL's proposed re-alignment from Dec 2011 (which the PA turned down).

cheswick is online now  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:35 AM
  #435
Charliebox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Ummm that's the NHL's proposed re-alignment from Dec 2011 (which the PA turned down).
Then don't do anything until there are 32 teams.

If the PA turned it down cause the chances of making the playoffs in the West were worse than the East, why does the NHL think the PA will like it with the situation reversed? It makes no sense.

Just switch Winnipeg with Nashville and be done with it....

...until expansion/relocation.

Charliebox is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:45 AM
  #436
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,906
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charliebox View Post
Then don't do anything until there are 32 teams.

If the PA turned it down cause the chances of making the playoffs in the West were worse than the East, why does the NHL think the PA will like it with the situation reversed? It makes no sense.

Just switch Winnipeg with Nashville and be done with it....

...until expansion/relocation.
The league has no current plans for expansion so not sure how that's a solution.

Switching Winnipeg and Nashville will draw the ire of Detroit, Columbus (2 Eastern time teams in the west where Naashville is a Central time team), Dallas (cause they want a change and believe a re-alignment shoudl address their issues), Minnesota (Why should Winnipeg be in the central when Minne is south east of Winnipeg) etc etc etc.

If there was an easy solution that satisfied the vast majority of teams, it would have been done.

cheswick is online now  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:47 AM
  #437
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
That won't happen. I'd believe too many western teams would vote no, as there isn't much of an increase in "out-of-conference" games.

We've seen too much regarding the insistance that every team play every other team twice. So every time I see a plan that has teams only playing once a season, I discard it.
You should argue with patnyrnyg about that, because I was responding to his post.

However, let's analyze this...
I look at this 2-games against every idea as something that evolved through a chain of issues. Detroit, Columbus, and the CTZ teams want few games against the far-west. To give them that meant that the far-west would be losing games against teams or more specifically a region where they don't want to lose games against, but would actually prefer to gain games against. Doing the 2 by everyone format enables Detroit and those other teams to reduce their number of games against the far-west, while the far-west recovers that loss by gaining more games against the rest of the east.

Currently, P/MTZ teams play 50 games in a Season against C/ETZ teams.
The 2x everyone format would reduce that to 48 games.
The schedule that I suggested could get passed in a 4-Conference structure would reduce that to 40 games.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:50 AM
  #438
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charliebox View Post
Here's my proposal. It makes way more sense than the one the NHL is currently looking at.

1.
Seattle (Phoenix)
Calgary
Van
Edmonton
LA
Anaheim
SJ
Colorado

2.
Boston
MTL
Florida
Tampa
Toronto
Ottawa
Buffalo

3.
Detroit
Columbs
Dallas
St Louis
Winnipeg
Nashville
Minny
Chicago

4.
Islanders
Rangers
NJ
Carolina
Pitts
Philly
Wash
NO alignment that has the Florida teams in with the eastern Canadian teams should ever be described as making "sense"!

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:55 AM
  #439
Charliebox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
The league has no current plans for expansion so not sure how that's a solution.

Switching Winnipeg and Nashville will draw the ire of Detroit, Columbus (2 Eastern time teams in the west where Naashville is a Central time team), Dallas (cause they want a change and believe a re-alignment shoudl address their issues), Minnesota (Why should Winnipeg be in the central when Minne is south east of Winnipeg) etc etc etc.

If there was an easy solution that satisfied the vast majority of teams, it would have been done.
If the NHL doesn't cash in on expansion fees from QC and Markham in the next 5-10 yrs, they are complete idiots.

While they may not say they are planning on expansion, publicly, they sure are. There is a reason why the players wanted expansion fees tied into HRR during the lockout and the owners said no. If there were no plans on expansion in the next 10 years, there would have been no point in even discussing it.

Relocation will work for Phoenix to Seattle and possibly Florida to Kansas, but the big cash prize are the expansion fees from QC and Southern Ont.

So assuming QC is a target, which everyone is talking about, what div are they going to go in? With Montreal, obviously. So that leaves one of Detroit or Buffalo to move in 5-10 yrs. What's the point in bringing in Detroit just to move them in a few years time? Then we'll be back to square 1 with teams *****ing about realignment.

There are already 8 teams in the other Eastern division so are they going to put Buffalo in the West? Not a chance.

This new realignment plan does nothing for the future and just reeks of a patchwork solution to Detroit's complaints.

The proposal I put above (the NHLs from 2011) makes a ton more sense when thinking about the future.

If the future is as uncertain as you say (no plans for expansion), then why bother doing anything other than finding a way to put Winnipeg in the West and either Detroit, Columbus OR Nash in the east.

Charliebox is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 11:56 AM
  #440
Charliebox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
NO alignment that has the Florida teams in with the eastern Canadian teams should ever be described as making "sense"!
It's the only way the panthers will survive dude.

If it isn't for the snowbirds from Tor, MTL, Boston and to a lesser extent, Buff and Ottawa, Florida is doomed.

You ever seen the difference in their crowds when they play, say Washington, compared to when they play the Leafs or the Habs?

Charliebox is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:12 PM
  #441
Kebekoi
Registered User
 
Kebekoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Matane, QC
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charliebox View Post
It's the only way the panthers will survive dude.

If it isn't for the snowbirds from Tor, MTL, Boston and to a lesser extent, Buff and Ottawa, Florida is doomed.

You ever seen the difference in their crowds when they play, say Washington, compared to when they play the Leafs or the Habs?
Studies posted on these forums showed that there is a lot of transplants from the Atlantic division too.

Kebekoi is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:14 PM
  #442
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,906
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charliebox View Post
If the future is as uncertain as you say (no plans for expansion), then why bother doing anything other than finding a way to put Winnipeg in the West and either Detroit, Columbus OR Nash in the east.
That's what they are attempting at doing. Bettman has commentted on it numerous times. The only reason they went for a somewhat radical re-alignment plan was cause they could not reach a satisfactory consensus doing a simple swap.

Yes its simple enough to post a one for one swap on a message board. But when you're dealing with 30 teams and 30 different wants a simple swap in this case doesn't appear to satisfy enough people. The fact is, not enough teams are happy with the current set up and that's why when a re-alignment is to be done, a radical one is preferred by more teams.

cheswick is online now  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:22 PM
  #443
Charliebox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
That's what they are attempting at doing. Bettman has commentted on it numerous times. The only reason they went for a somewhat radical re-alignment plan was cause they could not reach a satisfactory consensus doing a simple swap.

Yes its simple enough to post a one for one swap on a message board. But when you're dealing with 30 teams and 30 different wants a simple swap in this case doesn't appear to satisfy enough people. The fact is, not enough teams are happy with the current set up and that's why when a re-alignment is to be done, a radical one is preferred by more teams.
I said 'one of' those three teams. Not two. As soon as you put Columbus and Detroit in the 'East', good luck convincing one of those two to move back to the West.

That's what my point is.

Of course, in an ideal world, it would be great to have all the eastern time zone teams in the 'East', but that's just not going to fly based on the numbers.

The only thing I can think of is that Florida and another team (NJ, possibly) are in more trouble than we know if. If that's the case, then they could fit QC and Markham into the East, and have two even conferences.

I honestly don't think this will get done. There are already grumblings in the East that the playoff structure isn't going to be fair.

If they can have a 7 and 8 team 'conference' in each (West and East) then the crossover, 'wild card', idea makes sense. If not, then I can't see the players going for it, considering they turned down the exact same type of proposal last year.

Do the players in the 'East' care less about their chances of making the playoffs? I doubt it.

Charliebox is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:29 PM
  #444
Charliebox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kebekoi View Post
Studies posted on these forums showed that there is a lot of transplants from the Atlantic division too.
Fair enough, but then who would move from the Atlantic to the NE?

NYR, Isles and Jersey are a package deal.

Pitts and Philly are a package deal.

They aren't going to put Carolina or Washington in the NE.

You could put Columbus in the NE and move one of Tampa or Florida, but that leaves the other one.

I guess you could put Philly and Pitts in the NE.. but I think they would rather see the Rangers and Caps more time in the year than the Leafs/Habs and Bruins.

If you do put Pitts and Philly in the NE, it's going to be one beast of a division.

Charliebox is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:31 PM
  #445
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
I don't understand why the NHL doesn't simply shelf major re-alignment until the league has 32 teams? For next year, move the Jets to the NW, Columbus to SE, VAN to Pacific and Dallas to Central.
That's a pretty major realigning of teams though. That's changing both conferences, and 4 divisions. It may not be a radical realignment, but it certainly would be a major one.

That's why it's not a simple thing to do. That would be putting 1 Canadian team that has been around for 40 years in an otherwise American division. That would leave 1 ETZ team in the West. That would be increasing the travel within the division for the single ETZ team in the West.

If the league had to stick with 6 divisions, I'm not sure anything changes from the current setup. Once that Winnipeg to the West thread is pulled, the whole sweater starts getting holes in it.

The Thrashers to Winnipeg from Atlanta is very different than the Nordiques to Colorado, or North Stars to Dallas, or Whalers to Carolina, or Jets to Phoenix. Nobody had to move out of the West to make room for the Avs, and the other 3 were all in conference moves.

KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:37 PM
  #446
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charliebox View Post
Fair enough, but then who would move from the Atlantic to the NE?

NYR, Isles and Jersey are a package deal.

Pitts and Philly are a package deal.

They aren't going to put Carolina or Washington in the NE.

You could put Columbus in the NE and move one of Tampa or Florida, but that leaves the other one.

I guess you could put Philly and Pitts in the NE.. but I think they would rather see the Rangers and Caps more time in the year than the Leafs/Habs and Bruins.

If you do put Pitts and Philly in the NE, it's going to be one beast of a division.
Columbus and Carolina.

Sure, it would be much better if it were Columbus and Pittsburgh, but that's highly unlikely to happen. And it might be even better if it were Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia, with Boston moving to the Atlantic, but that's obviously Not going to happen.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:40 PM
  #447
Charliebox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
To me, there is a REASON why the NHL's first proposal (the 2011 one that I put above) is the one they thought of first!

It's because
1. it makes the most sense for the short term
2. it leaves room for expansion/relocation

As I said, they should just leave it the way it is and move Winnipeg and Nashville, but if they are hellbent on going with 4 'conferences', then stick with the 2011 proposal.

If it won't fly with the players, then have Columbus and Detroit flip a coin or something. If Detroit wins, they go into the NE and if Columbus wins they go into the Atlantic.

That way, the East and West each have 15 teams (7,8 team 'conferences') and the whole crossover, wildcard, idea will work.

Done and done.

Charliebox is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:41 PM
  #448
Charliebox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Columbus and Carolina.
Carolina is dead if they go into the NE. They won't get extra sales from snowbirds, and they won't have any natural rivalries to help ticket sales.

Also, they don't have a ton of cash, so all the extra travel expenses will hurt their ownership group big time.

Charliebox is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:50 PM
  #449
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charliebox View Post
Carolina is dead if they go into the NE. They won't get extra sales from snowbirds, and they won't have any natural rivalries to help ticket sales.

Also, they don't have a ton of cash, so all the extra travel expenses will hurt their ownership group big time.
Yet there are posts regarding attendance for the Hurricanes that show they get better attendance from the eastern Canada teams, Boston and Buffalo. Those posts are in one of the many realignment threads since mid-2011.

Grudy0 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:01 PM
  #450
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charliebox View Post
Carolina is dead if they go into the NE. They won't get extra sales from snowbirds, and they won't have any natural rivalries to help ticket sales.

Also, they don't have a ton of cash, so all the extra travel expenses will hurt their ownership group big time.
I don't believe that for a moment. Carolina already has medium rivalries with Boston, Buffalo, and Montreal. While in the Atlantic Division, Carolina has the same with just the Devils. The other team that Carolina has something going with is Florida (possibly the only actual rivalry that exists to some degree in the Southeast.

Where's Tarheel to confirm or deny this??


To be honest, I'd be more worried about Columbus in the Northeast (though not necessarily a problem); but if the League can somehow keep an alignment with Detroit there, then Columbus also becomes a more natural fit.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 03-06-2013 at 01:23 PM.
MoreOrr 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 09:07 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.