| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 14:12:05
OK, we all complain about having too many teams in sunny cities, weird conference borders (like Michigan in the West), dumb team logos, etc. So, let's imagine you could rearrange some things: get rid of teams, add teams, change divisions, whatever you want. How would you do it? Let's keep it realistic though, no teams in Kamloops or cities that couldn't sustain franchises. And let's not ditch half the teams in the league, keep the reasonable ones (and original six), only get rid of ones that don't have much fanbase. Replace any ones you get rid of with new ones in better, financially-capable hockey towns, so that there are still 30 teams. You can make up new names for teams in new cities, or just move current teams to different cities.
Here's what I'd do:
Eastern Conference:
Northeastern Division
Buffalo Sabres (change the logo back to the crossed swords)
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs
Boston Bruins
Montreal Canadiens
Northwestern Division
Minnesota Wild
Detroit Red Wings
Wisconsin Wolfpack - New team. People in WI love hockey, they deserve a team. I'd base it in Madison
Winnipeg Jets - I'd bring 'em back. There's debate over whether the Peg could sustain a team, but they're more likely than a lot of other smaller Canadian cities.
Saskatoon Blues - St. Louis gets moved (I know Sask has a small population, but if the WHOLE province paid for it...)
Atlantic Division
New York Ranges
New York Islanders
Washington Capitals
Pittsburgh Penguins
New Jersey Devils
Western Conference:
South-Central Division
Tampa Bay Lightning
Columbus Blue Jackets
North Dakota Predators - Nashville gets moved (hockey's big in ND)
Chicago Blackhawks
Philadelphia Flyers
Pacific Division
LA Kings
SJ Sharks
Colorado Avalanche
Vancouver Canucks
Dallas Stars
North-Pac Division
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Alberta Clippers - Another Canadian team in the mix
Seattle Hurricanes - Carolina gets moved (It's near Canada, could get a fairly large fanbase if Canadians drove down to see games)
Montana Badlanders - Also borders Canada = more fans coming down. I like the name; there's an area in MT known as "the Badlands" where you can find dinosaur bones and fossils and stuff. Bodes for a pretty cool logo, sort of like the one on the cover of Jurassic Park, lol
I ditched Nashville, Phoenix, Florida, Carolina, Anaheim, Atlanta, and St. Louis, some of which I moved. I was considering putting a team in Milwaukee and maybe giving Manitoba its own provincial team, but I couldn't align the conferences right so I gave that up. What I really wanted was to have a team in Lake Placid, but 4 teams in NY is a bit much and I'm not sure if LP has enough people to sustain a team. Oh, and I'd also fire Gary Bettman.
So...what would you do? |
| 33 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| juice32 |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 04:47:31
Heres what I'd do
I'd have JFJ suit up for a full contact charity game at the beginning of each season with die hard Maple Leaf fans like myself. i'd also have Raycroft in goal without any equipment. |
| FSUBulldog0 |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 16:24:10
One thing I'd do is to ensure that I'd start the playoffs on the weekend rather than wait until a Monday night. I like having games every other night, but why not start the Stanley Cup playoffs on Friday? Then you'd have at least 2 games over the weekend when more people would be watching. The NHL has a great product, especially during the playoffs. They need to do a better job of marketing it. I'd love to see some of the realignments that you guys have already proposed. I don't think we need to get rid of teams, though. Some like Nashville need to move, but with the influx of foreign talent, I think the NHL might be able to support even more teams. They do need some more out of conference games however. It is disappointing here in Denver to not have Crosby and Ovechkin visiting at least once a year. It seems like we play Calgary every other game. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 14:26:36
Terrific idea for a topic Mik!
Here's what I'd do:
Main Points:
- Get rid of teams - some, like Tampa Bay, would be tough decisions, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do
- top 4 teams from each division get in, and then it is 1 vs. 8 etc - so you
wouldn't have to put so much emphasis on "divisional" play (but you should schedule things so that something like 2/3 of a team's games are within its own conference)
- also, don't worry so much about traditional divisional alignment (in my league, it turned out to be necessary to move Boston from Toronto and Montreal's division - if you schedule things right, that shouldn't be a problem though)
- Bring back the old names for the conferences and divisions - because the NHL simply isn’t perfectly aligned geographically
- get the friggin season over by the middle of May, AT THE LATEST - you can cut to 78 games, and start a week earlier, if necessary
-----------------------------------------------
Wales Conference
Adams
Buffalo Sabres (change the logo back to the crossed swords - YES)
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple Leafs (change back to white at home, blue on road)
Detroit Red Wings
Montreal Canadiens (WIN LESS CUPS! - oh, it is happening anyway )
Quebec Nordique (definitely bring em back)
Patrick Division
Philadelphia Flyers
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Washington Capitals
New Jersey Devils (or Pittsburgh Penguins) - cut one - tough, but good results require tough decisions
Boston Bruins (change back to white at home, black on road)
Campbell Conference
Smythe Division
Minnesota Wild
St. Louis Blues
Chicago Blackhawks
Dallas Stars
Colorado Avalanche
Winnipeg Jets (definitely bring em back)
Norris Division
LA Kings
SJ Sharks
Vancouver Canucks
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Seattle Seabucks (proving that Starbucks is EVERYWHERE!)
oh yeah, have every player in the NHL acknowledge in their contracts that Wayne Gretzky MAY not have been the greatest player ever
|
| stastnysforever |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 12:02:43
northwest
Edmonton Oilers
Calgary Flames
Winnipeg jets
Colorado Avalanche
Minnesota Wild
Pacific
Vancouver Canucks
San jose sharks
L.A. Kings
Anaheim MIGHTY ducks
Dallas Stars
Central
Detroit Red wings
Tennesee Tophats-formorly Nashville Predators
Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue jackets
St. Louis Blues
Northeast
Ottawa Senators
Toronto Maple leafs
Montreal canadians
Quebec nordiques
Green Bay Bombers
Atlantic
New York Islanders
New york Rangers
Buffalo Sabres
Boston Bruins
New Jersey Devils
Southeast
Tampa bay Lightning
Atlanta Thrashers
Philidelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
Washington Capitols
|
| hithere311 |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 04:35:01
Where would the Alberta Clippers play? I don't think Alberta needs another team. And if there was an NHL team in Germany, it would go to Köln, because they have the biggest ice arena in Germany, and the Kölner Haier (the team there) sells more seats than NJ, NYI, STLB, and Chicago. And hockey in Britain sounds like a terrible idea. London has a hockey team, and they are lucky if they can get 500 people there. But the Kings are going to open next season with 2 home games in London, England, so that might open some doors for a European NHL expansion. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 16:55:20
Another potential change I might consider making is changing the Senators to the Ottawa MPs. I know Canada has a Senate, but Parliament comes to mind first, and I just think MPs sounds cooler. But I dunno, we're all kinda used to the Senators. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 07:00:29
Oh OK. I wasn't sure. In that case, scratch the last paragraph on my last post, lol |
| I´m also Cånädiön |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 06:56:26
Spengler cup isn´t wellknown in sweden. I saw one game of it on eurosport when flipping channels on the tv. The only swedish team participating in Spengler cup 07 was Mora IK ranked 8:th in sweden so I wouldn´t compare it to an european version of Stanley cup.
Ok now I´ve read the posts more thouroly didn´t mean to diss the NHL just thought it was a bad name of a League consisting of teams from all over the world. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 06:24:17
quote:
Originally posted by I´m also Cånädiön
Anyone else heard of this Victoria cup?
Sounds familiar, I've probably heard about is somewhere.
NHL = NATIONAL Hockey League (OK so it's two nations, but same continent). It's not the International Hockey League. Isn't there a Spengler Cup or something? Sort of the European equivalent of the Stanley Cup? Europeans in their leagues can compete for that, we compete for the Stanley Cup, and Europeans who are skilled enough can join the NHL. Makes sense to me. |
| I´m also Cånädiön |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 05:57:01
I like the idea about a team in London, the english would probably put skates on their polo horses and forecheck alot  |
| I´m also Cånädiön |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 05:37:47
I think NHL=National Hockey League should stay in North America on the other hand i´m positive about a Champions League of hockey. Anyone else heard of this Victoria cup?
Btw Champions League was invented by a swede (just had to get that in there ). |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 05:19:27
quote:
Originally posted by I HATE CROSBY
The London Monarchs sounds good.
LOL!! I can just imagine the Brits getting into hockey: "Care for a spot of tea aftah the Monahch's game, mate?" That would be so funny. Still though, I really would prefer the NHL to stay on one continent. I don't see the point of expanding to Europe, they have their own leagues already. And about money: not every European nation uses Euros. Russia still uses rubles, Norway and Sweden may still use crowns or kronor or something like that. Finland I have no idea. Britain's still using pounds (I think). Czech Rep. and Slovakia don't use Euros either. The only nation on our list that does is Germany. Currency exchange would be a nightmare. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 18:01:33
Sorrry 'bout that. Changed Oslo to Stockholm just before you posted. I Included London for the same reason I included LA and Miami. $$$. Perhaps the elite of these 4 conferences could be filtered up over a four- year period of regional play and have a World Cup in the style of FA Cup Soccer? I dunno. I'm just speaking as a fan who would love to see more interest in the greatest sport on Earth (including Oslo). |
| I HATE CROSBY |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 17:58:10
I think it would be so cool to have the NHL in Europe. Apparently it will happen some day. I heard through the grapevine that the are designing new jets that can get to Europe (from North America) in about 2 hours...What they do is blast way (WAY!!!!!) up into the air and then, while the earth rotates the jet is somehow not in that same relative rotation as the earth (or something like this, I don't get Physics too well hahaha), then the plane drops back on is in europe (or wherever).....So clearly this would make the whole travel problem a non-factor.
Ya Mik, I concur. Stockholm should have a team for sure...I think the reason Czech and Russia aren't considered for teams is due to the financial part. But they certainly desreve teams based on those countries roles in Hockey over the years. I think it would be Hilarious if a team was in London. The London Monarchs sounds good. They would probably get a decent following there. Those Britains are diehard sports fans. And if they had a Hockey team in England, I bet many people would cheer just because of that infamous English pride.
Sugar Ray over Hasek any day! |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 17:38:12
Instead of London and Oslo, how 'bout Prague and Stockholm? The Czech Republic and Sweden are bigger hockey nations than Britain and Norway. Berlin could arguably be changed to Bratislava for the Slovaks, but Germany's not that bad. Still though, I think having an all-North American league works much better. No other sport has an international league like this, primarily because of travel, currency exchange, and broadcasting issues (like fans on different continents watching games in different languages). The Europeans have their own leagues; the RSL, SM-Liiga, DEL, Extraliga, Elite League, etc. We have the NHL. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 17:25:38
How about this..
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Vancouver
Winnipeg
Calgary
Edmonton
Minnesota
CENTRAL CONFERENCE
Chicago
Detroit
Toronto
Montreal
New York (Hey, hey, only one of you!)
SOUTHERN CONFERENCE
Los Angeles
Dallas
Phoenix (Gotta' keep Gretz happy)
Miami
Denver
EASTERN CONFERENCE
London
Stockholm
Helsinki
Moscow
Berlin
I know it couldn't happen, but wouldn't that be fantastic? |
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 16:28:32
Ya I just had a Northeast/Southeast ect because it was confusing. And I changed Buffalo from both confrences, sorry Mik but they aren't THAT good .
When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;) |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 18:07:23
Yeah, I had some issues with making the teams match the geography of the divisions. That's the problem with giving them names like "Northwest" or "Pacific", etc. It's easier if we use "Conn Smythe" and the old names they used to use. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 17:16:32
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhailova
Cool topic Mik.. my initial thoughts:
- Saskatoon should be in the West
- Tampa, Detroit, Phili, Chicago in the East
- Vancouver should be in the North-Pac Div
with Seattle and a team in Portland. :)
Ok... now, let's plan how we make this happen....
|
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 16:58:48
A team in Seattle would be good for a potential rival with Vancouver and more fans at games, but I was debating whether or not to move the Hurricanes there. They won a Cup in Carolina, so I was a little reluctant to relocate them at first. If the divisions could be kept even and make sense with the Canes still in NC and a team in Seattle, that would be best.
And they don't really get hurricanes in Seattle anyway...a few Pacific storms every now and then but it's not like every summer the way it is down south. |
| GOWINGS19 |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:13:33
well you guys definitely have some interesting ideas haha i like them all wow...creativity in this forum for sure...mik...the moosecatchers huh haha
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:13:21
Maybe 
If we're on the "Storm" theme with team names, how 'bout the Ice Storm? (Or maybe Ice Pack given the injuries that could occur, lol). I originally had Manitoba having its own team and I called it the Moosecatchers; since the Moose would be their AHL farm team, they "catch" all the good players from there |
| semin-rules |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:09:20
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhailova
You have the Sabres in the Northeast and Northwest division
Maybe he thinks Buffalo is good enough to be in two divisions
~~~Let's Go Ducks!!!~~~ |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:07:29
You have the Sabres in the Northeast and Northwest division |
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 17:49:46
Heres my take on it. The NHL has some great skill emerging and it needs to be more physical. I also like the salary cap but I would definatly make it higher. As for division realignment.
Eastern Confrence
Northeast Division
Toronto Maple Leafs
Montreal Canadians
New York Rangers
Detroit Red Wings
Quebec Nordiques
Pittsburgh Penguins
Carolina Hurricanes
Northwest Division
Ottawa Senators
Buffalo Sabres
New York Islanders
Tampa Bay Lightning
Washington Capitals
Chicago Blackhawks
Philadelphia Flyers
Western Confrence
Southeast Division
Vancouver Canucks
Minnesota Wild
Calgary Flames
Colorado Avalanche
Edmonton Oilers
Dallas Stars
Southwest Division
San Jose Sharks
Anaheim Ducks
Winnepeg Jets
Seattle Storm
Manitoba Firestrom
St. Louis Blues
Milwakee Stealth
I like this alot. The divisions are venly matched and I have weeded out the non-producing teams with ones that could sustatin a franchise.
Teams play their division opponents 4 times, twice at home and twice away and confrence opponents another 2 times(once home and once away).
They play the non-confrence teams 2 times, once home and once away.
First 2 series are best of 5 and the other 2 are best of 7.
When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;) |
| 1 Crosby fan |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 17:10:05
I think Quebec should have another team so the Canadians would have a rival again(rival=more fans ) and also I'd love one in Seattle so Vancouver could have another rival(remember what i said)just like the Vancouver/Chilliwack/Prince George rivalry lol and bring back Winnipeg and maybe give Las Vegas 2 years or 3 years to see if it does work and I'll give more teams later
Good Playoffs Canucks Better luck next season now i cheer the WINGS AND DEVILS GO |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 16:55:30
Yeah I was debating whether to dump NJ or not. At first I didn't want to, but the fanbase there isn't very big and there are lots of empty seats. Now that you mention it though, I just can't take away a 3-time Cup winner. I think I'll edit it and dump the Thrashers instead. |
| I HATE CROSBY |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 16:51:44
Mik, I concur with some of your stuff, but you can't ditch New Jersey and St. Louis!!!!!!!!! The Blues have been around for soooooo long, and when the Blues play well, the bandwagoners will return...As for New Jersey, I don't like the idea of ditching a 3-time cup champ.....But I gotta give props to the idea of a team in Wisconsin. I like the idea of a team in Las vegas .....There are no big sports teams there now, and if a hockey team came, it would be a big hit by default. plus that would be a blast for the visiting teams too (to visit LV).
But if I could change only one thing in the NHL, I'd make the ice Olympic size...It would make a huge difference, and isn't as drastic as making the nets bigger (that sort of rule change would lead to my boycott of hockey). Going to Olympic size ice would make the trap a litle harder to pull off....and you'd see a lot more speed!
Sugar Ray over Hasek any day! |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 16:18:58
I took out Anaheim because I thought it was kind of silly to have 3 teams in California. And, of the 3, Anaheim had the smallest fanbase. In LA and SJ, people actually do follow hockey and go to games, but in Anaheim their team is in the playoffs and the town could care less. They're not getting real excited. And Nashville just isn't that big of a hockey town, but it could go either way I guess.
Halifax! I forgot completely about them! The Halifax Huskies sounds good to me. |
| Saku Steen |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 16:13:43
Looks good to me, but keep Anahiem and Nashville and get a team in Halifax! |
| PainTrain |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 15:47:58
Saskatoon Blues!!! I like it. I would love to have a team in Saskatchewan and I can guarantee Saskatchewan people would pay to have a team here, we love hockey. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 14:54:06
I like the idea of shorter first and second playoff rounds. 7 games for each is kinda long. They should cut it to 5. For the third round and the Cup final though, 7 is OK. Those are the best rounds.
I was debating whether to relocate Carolina to Seattle or just give Seattle's team a new name. I had the name "Seattle Rattle" in mind, since there are rattlesnakes up in the mountains, but I already made a few other changes and I didn't want to change things too much.
|
| manninm |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 14:47:57
I like the topic, Mik....here's my redistricting, reduction, and rebranding of the NHL....
First off, the NHL needs a marketing overhaul. Granted, I think the rule changes have made a big difference, but I feel a piece of the game has been taken out in the process. Rebrand the NHL as a tough, physical, and maybe even violent sport that requires heart and grit to succeed. Get rid of the instigator rule, and for God sakes let the boys hit! I'm not saying you do away with the hooking and holding penalties. I believe it speeds up the game and makes it more interesting. But players need to know they can go out there and play a physical game without being penalized for it (as long as the hits are clean).
Second, reduce the size of the NHL to 28 teams. 2 teams are removed (Florida and Phoenix) and one team is relocated (Nashville to Winnipeg). Now the redistricting looks like this:
Prince of Wales Conference
Jack Adams Division
Buffalo Sabres
Montreal Canadiens
Boston Bruins
Toronto Maple Leafs
Ottawa Senators
Pittsburgh Penguins
Philadelphia Flyers
Lester Patrick Division
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey Devils
Washington Capitals
Carolina Hurricanes
Tampa Bay Lightning
Atlanta Thrashers
Clarence Campbell Conference
James Norris Division
Detroit Red Wings
Chicago Blackhawks
Columbus Blue Jackets
Winnipeg Jets
Minnesota Wild
Calgary Flames
Edmonton Oilers
Conn Smythe Division
Anaheim Ducks
LA Kings
SJ Sharks
St. Louis Blues
Dallas Stars
Vancouver Canucks
Colorado Avalanche
Now for the final piece of the puzzle. Each team plays division rivals 4 times, conference rivals twice, and non-conference foes once. This totals 52 games. Now you're talking about each game meaning something, players getting injured less.
Top 3 teams in each division make the playoffs. The playoffs work like this:
- 2 vs. 3 in each division, 3 game series
- winner plays 1 seed for division championship, 5 game series
- winner plays other division winner for conference championship, 7 game series
- winner plays other conference champ for stanley cup, 7 game series
I know it's kinda crazy...just the way I'd like to see it play out.
Because the demands on a goalie are mostly mental, it means that for a goalie, the biggest enemy is himself." ~Ken Dryden |
