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.

QC/SEA Expansion With Happy DET/CBJ (Alignment Options)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-04-2013, 02:41 PM
  #76
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I have a suspician that you took his post a bit out of context, though I could be wrong.
I think the idea that the NHL is going to totally disregard geography is silly. Maybe HP's right that it won't be the top concern, but I don't think it's at all accurate to describe realignment in this league as "interchangeable" or inconsequential

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2013, 02:45 PM
  #77
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeysmitten View Post
Yes, I do consider playing a divisional team six times, like the last season, too much. That's my point of being glad to see us move to the larger 7-8 team division and playing each team 4-5 times instead, while also playing every team twice. I only go see a visiting team play twice a season. After that I give the remaining games for that team away or waste them. I couldn't stand to see the original six play over and over and over
again back in the day. I was so excited for expansion!
Hey, I agree with you wholeheartedly about expansion and the more teams the more interesting. But right in line with that, I don't want my team's Division to become my team's Conference and then have the Playoffs become even more compacted to just those few teams. I don't want a top-4 Standings fight for Playoff positions, I want it to be open to a wider number of teams.

But at the same time though, unless it's a top-16 Standings, I don't necessarily want a huge number of games played against teams that my team isn't competing directly with in the Standings. Teams also play more intense games against their Division and Conference opponents, again those teams they're competing with directly in the Standings. And furthermore, it's quite difficult for teams to play physically intense hockey in every game of an 82-game Season, so those out-of-Conference games are the ones that frequently just don't offer the best hockey for your $. Having more games against other Conference teams isn't necessarily going to be such exciting hockey, unless teams actually got to play enough games against those teams to develop some hatred, but two games against isn't likely to be enough for that.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2013, 02:48 PM
  #78
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
I think the idea that the NHL is going to totally disregard geography is silly. Maybe HP's right that it won't be the top concern, but I don't think it's at all accurate to describe realignment in this league as "interchangeable" or inconsequential
I think he was relating to the idea of bringing Houston into the League over Quebec City, just so that it wouldn't shake up the "geography" of having both Detroit and Columbus in the East; and that bringing QC in would be of huge economic benefit to the League (in his opinion). Again though, perhaps I'm reading the meaning of his post incorrectly.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:53 AM
  #79
AZPenguins
Registered User
 
AZPenguins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Country: Zimbabwe
Posts: 999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I find it really hard to believe that the league is going to make multiple business decisions worth hundreds of millions of dollars based on geography.

The fixation on something as interchangeable as conference realignment is silly.
So you do not think bringing hockey to Seattle and Houston could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Adding a team in QC does NOTHING to grow the sport. You are just taking money from another team's coffers where as adding larger US cities would actually have the chance to bring more fans to the game. On top of that you get the added bonus of adding a bit more balance to the geography. Yay!

AZPenguins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 12:58 AM
  #80
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose
If it's SEA and QC added, I can see the league going back to 4 conference format that was approved in Dec 2011 and then shot down by the PA

Conf A: Van, Edm, Cgy, Phx, Sea, SJ, Ana, LA
Conf B: Wpg, Min, Chi, Stl, Dal, Nsh, Det, Col
Conf C: Tor, Ott, Mtl, QC, Buf, Bos, TB, Fla
Conf D: NYR, NYI, NJ, Phl, Pit, Was, Car, Cbj

Top 4 make the playoffs per conference - the PA won't have an issue since it will be balanced this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dingo View Post
Best post in the thread

Detroit is not going back to the west. Bettman himself confirmed it.

Edit: I do realize the matrix would revert to only 2 games v.s out of division teams but I still don't see them "rekindling old rivalries" in the East just to be shunted back west in a few years.


Last edited by Jetsfan79: 07-05-2013 at 01:11 AM.
Jetsfan79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 01:23 AM
  #81
Mike Louis
Registered User
 
Mike Louis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Option 1 - Four Divisions

Adams (Northeast)

• Boston
• Buffalo
• Chicago
• Detroit
• Montreal
• Ottawa
• Quebec City
• Toronto


Patrick (Atlantic)

• Carolina
• Columbus
• New Jersey
• New York I
• New York R
• Philadelphia
• Pittsburgh
• Washington


Norris (Central)

• Colorado
• Dallas
• Florida
• Minnesota
• Nashville
• St. Louis
• Tampa Bay
• Winnipeg


Smythe (Pacific)

• Anaheim
• Calgary
• Edmonton
• Los Angeles
• Phoenix
• San Jose
• Seattle
• Vancouver



Option 2 - Eight Divisions

Northeast

• Boston
• Montreal
• Ottawa
• Quebec City


Great Lakes

• Buffalo
• Toronto
• Detroit
• Chicago


Tri-State

• New Jersey
• New York I
• New York R
• Philadelphia


Atlantic

• Carolina
• Columbus
• Pittsburgh
• Washington


Southeast

• Dallas
• Florida
• Nashville
• Tampa Bay


Central

• Colorado
• Minnesota
• St. Louis
• Winnipeg


Northwest

• Calgary
• Edmonton
• Seattle
• Vancouver


Pacific

• Anaheim
• Los Angeles
• Phoenix
• San Jose



I personally prefer the eight division format since each division will have at most, two time zones. The four division format I posted leaves the Central stuck with three time zones (blasted league politics ).

Mike Louis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 03:17 AM
  #82
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,178
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Louis View Post
I personally prefer the eight division format since each division will have at most, two time zones. The four division format I posted leaves the Central stuck with three time zones (blasted league politics ).
We currently have a 30-team league, and people are looking at a 32-team league. Let's compromise... 31 teams... no, I'm not joking. Given that the NHL+NHLPA are willing to operate 7/7/8/8, they should be willing to operate 8/8/7/8.
  • Start with your 4-division proposal.
  • The Coyotes are gone in 5 years, relocated to Seattle.
  • Colorado switches to the Pacific division.
  • Tampa and Florida switch to the Central division.
  • The NHL expands to Quebec.
PACIFICCENTRALNORTHEASTATLANTIC
AnaheimChicagoBostonCarolina
CalgaryDallasBuffaloColumbus
ColoradoFloridaDetroitNew Jersey
EdmontonMinnesotaMontrealNY Islanders
Los AngelesNashvilleOttawaNY Rangers
San JoseSt LouisQuebecPhiladelphia
SeattleTampaTorontoPittsburgh
VancouverWinnipeg Washington

This has multiple advantages...
  • Colorado now actually has a couple of divisional opponents (Calgary/Edmonton) in their own time zone
  • CENTRAL is down to 2 time zones
  • Florida and Tampa have something vaguely resembling "regional rivals" in Dallas and Nashville
  • There's even room for Hamilton or Toronto2 in the NORTHEAST, if you insist on 32 teams

knorthern knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 10:14 AM
  #83
Crayton
Registered User
 
Crayton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
While I still say that a 15-17 split is more viable (and makes more use of the new wild-card structure) than the 14-16 split, I'll toss out more off-the-wall fodder.

Most of these proposals have divisions of 4 teams each. Some of them group the divisions into 2 conferences, some into 4. But you can also take some of these division lists and put them into 3 conferences, of 2, 3, and 3 divisions a piece. Each of the 8 division winners make the playoffs and play a wild-card team from within their conference (lowest from their division, if any) in the first round. In the second round there is a league-wide re-seeding (with perhaps some allowances for further conference matchups).

Simple Scheduling Matrix: play division 6 teams, play other conferences twice, play other divisions within your conference 3 (if in a 3-division conference) or 4 times (if in a 2-division conference).

I'll have the Western Conference as a 3-division conference to limit cross-divisional games for that 3rd, more centrally located division. The "Central Division" could be placed in either of the two other conferences.

WESTERN CONFERENCE
**Northwest Division**
Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Vancouver
**Pacific Division**
Anaheim, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose
**North Division**
Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota, Winnipeg

CENTRAL CONFERENCE
**South Division**
Florida, Nashville, St. Louis, Tampa Bay
**Midwest Division**
Carolina, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit
**Central Division**
Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Washington

EASTERN CONFERENCE
**Northeast Division**
Boston, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec
**Atlantic Division**
NY Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey, Philadelphia

"Divisional" Round (higher ranked in division always plays easier opponent)
W1 vs. W6 Anaheim vs. San Jose
W2 vs. W5 Vancouver vs. Los Angeles
W3 vs. W4 Minnesota vs. Winnipeg
C1 vs. C6 Chicago vs. Detroit
C2 vs. C5 Pittsburgh vs. Toronto
C3 vs. C4 St. Louis vs. Washington
E1 vs. E4 Montreal vs. Ottawa
E2 vs. E3 NY Rangers vs. Boston

Round 2: (rule allowing no more than 1 cross-over unless to avoid pairing of Top 3 teams)
1 Chicago vs. 8 Minnesota (cross-over)
2 Pittsburgh vs. 5 Washington
3 Boston vs. 7 Ottawa
4 Los Angeles vs. 6 San Jose

Round 3: (rule disallowing matchup of best of the Top 3 remaining)
1 Chicago vs. 4 Los Angeles
2 Pittsburgh vs. 3 Boston

Round 4:
1 Chicago vs. 3 Boston

EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe moving that Colorado division to the Central Conference (along with divisional realignment) and the Pittsburgh division to the East would be better. Doh! And I just spent all that time... Still, same rules apply. Replacement Playoffs:

Divisional Round
W1 Anaheim vs. W4 San Jose
W2 Vancouver vs. W3 Los Angeles
C1 Chicago vs. C6 Winnipeg
C2 St. Louis vs. C5 Minnesota
C3 Columbus vs. C4 Detroit
E1 Pittsburgh vs. E6 Toronto
E2 Montreal vs. E5 Boston
E3 NY Rangers vs. E4 Washington

Quarterfinals
1 Chicago vs. 8 Detroit
2 Pittsburgh vs. 6 Washington
3 Boston vs. 4 St. Louis (cross-over)
5 Los Angeles vs. 7 San Jose

Semifinals
1 Chicago vs. 5 Los Angeles
2 Pittsburgh vs. 3 Boston

Stanley Cup Finals
1 Chicago vs. 3 Boston


Last edited by Crayton: 07-05-2013 at 10:49 AM.
Crayton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 10:21 AM
  #84
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
Detroit is not going back to the west. Bettman himself confirmed it.

Edit: I do realize the matrix would revert to only 2 games v.s out of division teams but I still don't see them "rekindling old rivalries" in the East just to be shunted back west in a few years.
Gotta Link????

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 10:24 AM
  #85
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Louis View Post
Option 1 - Four Divisions

Adams (Northeast)

Boston
Buffalo
Chicago
Detroit
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec City
Toronto


Patrick (Atlantic)

Carolina
Columbus
New Jersey
New York I
New York R
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington


Norris (Central)

Colorado
Dallas
Florida
Minnesota
Nashville
St. Louis
Tampa Bay
Winnipeg


Smythe (Pacific)

Anaheim
Calgary
Edmonton
Los Angeles
Phoenix
San Jose
Seattle
Vancouver



Option 2 - Eight Divisions

Northeast

Boston
Montreal
Ottawa
Quebec City


Great Lakes

Buffalo
Toronto
Detroit
Chicago


Tri-State

New Jersey
New York I
New York R
Philadelphia


Atlantic

Carolina
Columbus
Pittsburgh
Washington


Southeast

Dallas
Florida
Nashville
Tampa Bay


Central

Colorado
Minnesota
St. Louis
Winnipeg


Northwest

Calgary
Edmonton
Seattle
Vancouver


Pacific

Anaheim
Los Angeles
Phoenix
San Jose
You just really don't want the West to have any traditional markets, do you. Might as well just remove the NHL from TV broadcasts in the West accept for the western Canadian teams.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 10:28 AM
  #86
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
We currently have a 30-team league, and people are looking at a 32-team league. Let's compromise... 31 teams... no, I'm not joking. Given that the NHL+NHLPA are willing to operate 7/7/8/8, they should be willing to operate 8/8/7/8.
No, how about, let's compromise... 33 teams, and you can figure out how that best divides up.
Quebec City, Seattle, Portland, Houston, Markham, and possibly one or two other unexpected options.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 11:42 AM
  #87
DatsyukToZetterberg
Alligator!
 
DatsyukToZetterberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Newfoundland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
That's what this thread is all about. How to do it without having a Western Conference of 15 teams in the PT/MT/CT zones... AND Detroit or Columbus!

Creativity people. Pick an idea and say why teams in the league would be upset with it.
Well you put the new kid(s) on the block into the West, it's that simple. I don't think there's any chance Detroit will be going back West, Columbus might but only if their is something in it for them. Both teams have paid there dues & the NHL could make it part of getting an expansion team that the 2 teams have to play in the West, if you don't agree to it then they'll get another city/team to join the league.

DatsyukToZetterberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 11:49 AM
  #88
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatsyukToZetterberg View Post
Well you put the new kid(s) on the block into the West, it's that simple. I don't think there's any chance Detroit will be going back West, Columbus might but only if their is something in it for them. Both teams have paid there dues & the NHL could make it part of getting an expansion team that the 2 teams have to play in the West, if you don't agree to it then they'll get another city/team to join the league.
The same mentality that I just referred to in a post above. The League isn't just the Eastern Conference, and it should do what's best for the League. Continuing to put all the more established markets in one Conference and "newer guys on the block" into the other Conference is only good for eastern business, not for League business.

If one of those two teams must return to the West, and preferably not I suppose, then it should be Detroit.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 04:47 PM
  #89
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Here's a "sample schedule breakdown" for a few teams in a W-C-E-E model, I think you'll find the idea less crazy if you see the schedule changes.

MODEL 2:

CAMPBELL
A- MON, BOS, QUE, OTT
B- NYI, NYR, NJD, WAS
C- WIN, MIN, COL, DAL
D- EDM, CAL, VAN, SEA

WALES
A- TOR, DET, CHI, STL
B- PHI, PIT, CBJ, BUF
C- CAR, FLA, TB, NAS
D- LA, ANA, SJ, PHX

MON, BOS, OTT (compared to 2011-12 model)
Play each other 6 times (no change)
Play NYI, NYR, NJD, WASH four times (no change)
Play TOR 4 times (-2)
Play DET, CHI, STL four times (+3)
Play WIN, MIN, COL, DAL, EDM, CAL, VAN, SEA four times (+3)
Play PHI, PIT, TB, CAR, FLA zero times (-4)
Play BUF zero times (-6)
Play CBJ, NAS, LA, ANA, SJ, PHX zero times (-1)


PHI, PIT
Play PHI/PIT (no change), CBJ (+5), BUF (+2) six times each
Play NYI, NYR, NJD (-2) WAS (NC) four times
Play TOR (NC), DET, CHI, STL (+3) four times
Play CAR, FLA, TB (NC), NAS, LA, ANA, SJ, PHX (+3) four times
Play MON, BOS, OTT (-4), WIN, MIN, COL, DAL, EDM, CAL, VAN (-1), SEA zero times

DET
Play TOR (+5), CHI, STL (NC) six times
Play MON, BOS, QUE, OTT, PHI, PIT, BUF, CAR, FLA, TB (+3), NAS (-2), LA, ANA, SJ, PHX (NC) four times
Play Play NYI, NYR, NJD, WAS (-1), WIN, MIN, COL, DAL, EDM, CAL, VAN (-4) zero times.

EDM, CAL, VAN
Play each other six times (NC)
Play MIN, COL (-2), WIN, DAL, LA, ANA, SJ, PHX four times (NC)
Play MON, BOS, OTT, NYI, NYR, NJD, WAS (+3) four times

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 04:50 PM
  #90
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreorr View Post
no, how about, let's compromise... 33 teams, and you can figure out how that best divides up.
Quebec city, seattle, portland, houston, markham, and possibly one or two other unexpected options.
east: Mon, bos, que, ott, nyi, nyr, njd, phi, was, tb, fla
central: Tor, buf, pit, car, cbj, det, chi, stl, mark, nas, dal
west: Edm, cal, van, sea, la, ana, sj, phx, win, min, col

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 05:25 PM
  #91
Mike Louis
Registered User
 
Mike Louis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
You just really don't want the West to have any traditional markets, do you. Might as well just remove the NHL from TV broadcasts in the West accept for the western Canadian teams.
When I did my 4 and 8 division formats, I didn't put them in any conferences because I felt that with an expansion to 32 teams, the league might decide to bring back the Wales/Campbell format. Furthermore in a 32 team league, a 8 division setup would be preferable because if you stay with the 4 division format with Seattle and QC expansion, the Central division will have 3 time zones no matter which 2 ETZ teams you put there. As for the "West" not having traditional markets, that can be remedied with the home and home schedule matrix.

Mike Louis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 05:53 PM
  #92
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,178
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
No, how about, let's compromise... 33 teams, and you can figure out how that best divides up.
Quebec City, Seattle, Portland, Houston, Markham, and possibly one or two other unexpected options.
A bit of math. Even if you relocate Phoenix to Seattle, your list comes out to 34 teams. Four dvivisions would imply 8 or 9 teams per division, which is a bit much. I tried 5 divisions (6 or 7 teams per division) and 6 divisions (5 or 6 teams per division). Neither one works out.

Houston and Portland are non-starters due to the people controlling their arenas. Seattle MIGHT be possible if arena financing can be arranged. The Markham proposal is on its last legs. It just barely survived a pre-emptory vote to kill it (7-to-6), and that was before info came out about the promoters issuing misleading statements about how close they had come to owning the Habs. The only guaranteed modern arena with an owner+market is going to be in Quebec.

knorthern knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 05:53 PM
  #93
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 13,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I think he was relating to the idea of bringing Houston into the League over Quebec City, just so that it wouldn't shake up the "geography" of having both Detroit and Columbus in the East; and that bringing QC in would be of huge economic benefit to the League (in his opinion). Again though, perhaps I'm reading the meaning of his post incorrectly.
No, your onto the right track.

The NHL is not a league that holds national appeal in the United States. It is most popular in the Eastern parts of the country and as a result, there are more teams in that part of the country. That is a reality the NHL has to deal with and it may result in some franchises being unhappy about their divisions or conferences.

When it comes to expansion or relocation, the league should be looking at far more important factors than how it will fit in conference alignment: Ownership, Building, Market. One market always brings something different than another one or is bigger or has more corporate support. One owner usually has more influence or money or background. One building is usually newer or built or more ideal. Those, I would think, would be the make or break factors whether a location is awarded a team. Not geography (FTR, the NHL had 17 Eastern teams for nearly a decade before Atlanta moved to Winnipeg. Didn't seem to matter in the early 2000's expansion drafts).

By those terms, I believe that two of the top three markets available for the foreseeable future are in the Eastern time zone (Southern Ontario 2, Quebec City, Seattle being the lone exception), and I find it hard to believe the NHL would pass up either in a round of expansion. Especially over a lot of the most westerly cities often mentioned which are all flawed in some way (Houston, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Portland, etc.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZPenguins View Post
So you do not think bringing hockey to Seattle and Houston could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Adding a team in QC does NOTHING to grow the sport. You are just taking money from another team's coffers where as adding larger US cities would actually have the chance to bring more fans to the game. On top of that you get the added bonus of adding a bit more balance to the geography. Yay!
I have no doubt that both would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in expansion fees. Lots of cities are capable of such a feat. In fact, I could even envision a scenario where tiny Saskatoon could put together that kind a dough. It doesn't mean the NHL should go there.

I think Seattle getting a team at this point is as close to a foregone conclusion as one can get on NHL expansion/relocation plans (which, is to say, not very conclusive) and the market will probably be a strong one in the NHL for years to come.

Houston, on the other hand, not so much. It has a small hockey base, has little history to show it could support NHL hockey without being a drain on league resources, is a city of transplants, the NHL is competing against the 4 other major sports, the city has no potential ownership candidates, and no suitable arena. All indications are that Les Alexander has lost much of his wealth and has little interest in owning a team. His stranglehold on the Toyota Center means that any team would need his permission to play there (and in the process, compete directly with his Rockets) and even then, likely only as a tenant, meaning secondary revenues that are now essential to running an NHL franchise (concerts, concessions, etc.) would not be available to the new team.

Winnipeg successfully debunked the myth of cutting into another team's revenues and more than proved that there is still markets to be tapped within Canada. The "Grow the Game" argument, on the flip side of the coin, is about 15-20 years out-of-date. The idea that the league can just plunk down teams and create big revenue streams and have players coming out of every square inch of the United States turned out to be incredibly optimistic and a big failure. The NHL should try to focus on rectifying those mistakes (through relocation in some cases and in their current markets in others) before accepting more charity cases in the league.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 06:04 PM
  #94
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by knorthern knight View Post
A bit of math. Even if you relocate Phoenix to Seattle, your list comes out to 34 teams. Four dvivisions would imply 8 or 9 teams per division, which is a bit much. I tried 5 divisions (6 or 7 teams per division) and 6 divisions (5 or 6 teams per division). Neither one works out.

Houston and Portland are non-starters due to the people controlling their arenas. Seattle MIGHT be possible if arena financing can be arranged. The Markham proposal is on its last legs. It just barely survived a pre-emptory vote to kill it (7-to-6), and that was before info came out about the promoters issuing misleading statements about how close they had come to owning the Habs. The only guaranteed modern arena with an owner+market is going to be in Quebec.
KevFu did it for you, just two posts above yours.

If the League can suddenly go from 2 Conferences to 4, then it could just as well go to 3 Conferences.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 08:40 PM
  #95
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
When it comes to expansion or relocation, the league should be looking at far more important factors than how it will fit in conference alignment: Ownership, Building, Market.

By those terms, I believe that two of the top three markets available for the foreseeable future are in the Eastern time zone (Southern Ontario 2, Quebec City, Seattle being the lone exception), and I find it hard to believe the NHL would pass up either in a round of expansion. Especially over a lot of the most westerly cities often mentioned which are all flawed in some way (Houston, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Portland, etc.).
I agree completely, which is why this thread exists. Bypassing a market like Quebec because they don't fit into the alignment is insanity. There's no reason we HAVE to have an Eastern Conference. The League created Conferences and Divisions to better manage the league they have. There's no reason to be a slave to it, which is what most realignment threads become: slaves to geography.

We're trying to get creative here and make the most number of teams happy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
The NHL is not a league that holds national appeal in the United States.

The "Grow the Game" argument, on the flip side of the coin, is about 15-20 years out-of-date. The idea that the league can just plunk down teams and create big revenue streams and have players coming out of every square inch of the United States turned out to be incredibly optimistic and a big failure. The NHL should try to focus on rectifying those mistakes (through relocation in some cases and in their current markets in others) before accepting more charity cases in the league.
You are 100% wrong with this one.

#1 - The "Grow The Game argument" isn't out of date. The new markets that came into the league in the 90s actually DID grow the game. Calling it a "failure" is an incredibly narrow view and is only accurate with the ridiculous expectation level that every market is supposed to be Toronto. More people are interested in hockey, more people play hockey, more people go to NHL games (and the NHL got a bigger TV contract than ever) because of the expansion. Those are just facts.

That doesn't mean the NHL took over those markets, and made them forget about football, basketball and basketball. The fact that the "Sun Belt" franchise with the highest average attendance and best crowd atmosphere just happens to be the one that A - was the first and B - is in a city with zero MLB, NBA, NFL teams within 40 miles is quite telling, isn't it? (That's San Jose).

#2 - It's also highly comical to read "have players coming out of every square inch of the United States turned out to be incredibly optimistic and a big failure" five days after a Texan was drafted #4 overall.

Kids from Carolina, Texas, Arizona and Florida who were impressionable when the NHL arrived are only JUST reaching draft-eligible ages. Jones will join Blake Geoffrion (Florida), Tyler Myers (Texas), Jared Boll & Ben Smith (NC), Sean Coultier (AZ) as six NHL players who were 11 years old or younger when NHL teams arrived in their state for the first time.

In the previous 90 years, those four states produced a grand total of six NHL players. California had six NHL players in 1982 (15 years after the Kings showed up). Now, California is up to 27 natives who've played in the NHL. It's Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to make that claim, and it's being proven false already.

#3 - THIS IS NOT THE "FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN."

There's no adversarial nature here: Calling the alleged "failure" of southern expansion a reason why Quebec should get an expansion team is a freaking insult to Quebec. There doesn't need to be a comparison, like Houston (comparing themselves to Dallas). The south is irrelevant.

There's no need to try and show why Quebec is a better choice for the NHL.

"We Have An Arena Now" is all the argument Quebec needs. Everyone knows that's the sole reason the NHL left in the first place. That issue's fixed.

There's no guesswork. No questions. We know. We don't know exactly what Seattle, Houston, etc, etc, will do as NHL markets, but we know Quebec will be successful. So all the other interested markets can form a line behind Quebec.


Last edited by KevFu: 07-05-2013 at 08:45 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 02:27 AM
  #96
coolboarder
Registered User
 
coolboarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
Off the topic: what if we expand even further, to 40 teams, then we would easily create a 4 conference, 10 teams each. This is not crazy because if we find 32 U.S. cities that MLB or NFL has, 29 U.S. MLB franchises and 32 NFL teams that are in U.S. and add 8 Canadian teams so therefore this might be possible if hockey grows faster if done correctly. NFL or MLB cannot expand any more cities except for L.A. for the NFL because the market has been reached to a maximum in term of cities all over the U.S. The way I see the situation regarding to expansion for MLB or NFL has reached to a maximum.

If Quebec City is awarded a franchise, then we'd have 8th Canadian teams and possible 9th Canadian team, a second Toronto team. There are a few cities that are potential for expansion without hurting the hockey such as Houston, KC, Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, etc. There are plenty of cities that could make the hockey even stronger in years ahead while other city in U.S. doesn't have any franchise that could not get a NFL or MLB team and NHL could make a city go crazy for a professional team and grow the game even further. When a NHL team is exploring a new city and get an expansion team, the city will gain more new fans to the hockey fan bases. When the 40th team is all said and done, we'd potentially see 9 Canadian teams and 31 American teams.

One con side out of all this things is that the talent level will dilute even deeper. Who knows if the NHL owner get greedier with the expansion money. You never know if this could become a reality because the way I see this could happen. They are doing this slowly as much as possible with sunbelt teams because if they see that the city has strong fan bases in Tampa and when the bad years comes in and the attendance remains stronger until Tampa becomes a good team again. The vicious cycle of a good years and a bad years while Florida could get a better years and new fans who live in the area will notice that the Panthers is a good team and fan bases will grow and when they hit bad years again, and fan bases could be stronger because of it. It takes a playoff run to take ahold of the city.

coolboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 03:34 AM
  #97
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Gotta Link????
Gary Bettman:

Quote:
— Detroit and Columbus are in the East to stay: "They're moving East and there is no moving back. They have no plans of moving back."
Link: http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/stor...playoff-format

I hope we can now finally stop posting possible alignments with either Detroit or Columbus in the West because it's not gonna happen

Jetsfan79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 09:05 AM
  #98
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,438
vCash: 50
There is zero chance we go to 8 divisions unless get to a point where we have 40 teams, which won't happen in our lifetime. Further, any scenario where Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are separated from New York is a non-starter.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 11:28 AM
  #99
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
There is zero chance we go to 8 divisions unless get to a point where we have 40 teams, which won't happen in our lifetime. Further, any scenario where Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are separated from New York is a non-starter.
ultimately, what drives alignment is TV. This is why the Patrick Division will not be split up. There are too many good TV markets that provide the league a built in security blanket on ratings.

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 12:32 PM
  #100
DetroitRed
Crashes the Crease
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 175
vCash: 500
It seems like things will be lopsided for a while, especially if Hamilton, a second team in Toronto, and a new Quebec City team are as real as rumors suggest.

The last I read was that an Eastern team might move west, but that still leaves things messed up, even if Seattle gets a team, and especially if Phoenix busts.

Here's the thing, though. Detroit moved into the Western Conference so that the NHL could expand once. That was decades ago. As a result of that move, the Wings traveled more miles than any other club. Also, all the late games are a revenue killer, and that not only hurts the Red Wings' organization, but it hurts the NHL, because if you have people who can't stay up to watch the game, who can't follow their team as well as a result, that means they will be less passionate about the sport. That's especially dangerous to the NHL when many of those lost viewers are kids, not only because of lost merchandise sales, but because that means kids are more likely to grow up preferring a different sport.

My thought is that the NHL wants as many games as feasible on the television in peak viewing times in their respective time zones. And that's what the moves east did.

When people say Detroit should move back west, I think they forget all the decades that Wings fans and owners sacrificed for NHL expansion. Second, Detroit is like one mile west of Columbus. However, Columbus is more centrally located in terms of the NHL map and in terms of its north and south position, it's like 200 miles south of Detroit. So, if you are talking about travel to nearby St. Louis, or to Dallas, Colorado, Phoenix, LA, Anaheim, or San Jose, any of those seven, Columbus has shorter travel time. If you are talking about going to Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, or nearby Chicago, and Minneapolis, any of those six, Detroit has shorter travel time than Columbus. Therefore, especially after all those decades of sacrifice by Detroit, if a team is to move back west it makes more sense that it would be Columbus, and not just because they are a comparative newcomer.

Notwithstanding, I wont volunteer Columbus to move back west, because I know it is horrible for Eastern teams. I think, if this realignment bothers some of the Eastern teams so much, then volunteer your own team to move west. You know, if they cannot handle Detroit coming back east in Boston for example, then move Boston west. Let them take a turn at it for a few decades. It's no big deal, right? It's just an Eastern Time Zone team playing in the Western Conference.

Barring that, the divisions will have to be redone. The name of the game is shared sacrifice; it's not fair to always want Detroit to carry the heavy weight.


Last edited by DetroitRed: 07-06-2013 at 01:20 PM.
DetroitRed 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 06:07 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.