| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2008 : 16:11:43
|
Poll Question:
At 30, are there too many teams in the NHL?
|
|
|
|
Devils Fanatic
Top Prospect
Canada
87 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 16:38:53
|
I find that the league would work way better with 28 teams and 4 divisions. If they had it that way, each team could play every other team in the league at least once a year, and there would only be 4 seeded teams for the playoffs. 6 is too many in my opinion.
Devils fan for life |
 |
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 17:11:29
|
Let's go over the facts.
30 NHL teams means a 3.33 chance of winning the cup. The last three teams to win the cup were Anaheim, Carolina and Tampa Bay. A Stanley Cup has not been in Canada for 15 years.
Of the top 20 in scoring last year, 15 different teams, or half the NHL, had a representative. This year, in the top 20 in league scoring, to date, 17 NHL teams have representatives.
My concern is, the game of hockey is not featuring enough talent and is spreading itself too thin.
For argument's sake, to take us to a far extreme, let us imagine that there were still 6 NHL teams. Aside from the rivalries and all the fun that would be added to being a fan, let's look at what happens when the talent is concentrated to 16.66 percent of the league, using only stats as a reference for lack of time. That means that about the top 2.5 forwards on every team is playing every night! Markus Naslund, number 72 on that formula, currently has 51 points, in a season that still has to see ten games played or so, on an offensively lacking team. Imagine him playing with the other players around him that are at least in the top 72 in league scoring!
Now, let's look at the defensemen, using the same forumla. That makes 2 defense per unit times 3 units times 6 teams = 36 defensemen. Any way you slice it, that is the top 1.20 defensemen on every team.
Goalies is even more fun. 2 goalies times 6 teams is 12 goalies. 12 goalies! Can you imagine!
Now, obviously that would not happen. But personally, I think that all the SouthEast teams should be gone with, all the Pacific teams should be gone with, three of the central teams should be gone with, etcetera etcetera. Not from the business point of view, from the hockey point of view. Anyone disagree? I think not.
-------------------------------------
All aboard the Price bandwagon |
Edited by - Alex on 03/16/2008 17:12:13 |
|
|
|
Antroman
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
537 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 21:20:21
|
| Getting rid of Ottawa and Montreal would suit me just fine. LOL. I think the teams that should fold are the franchises that can't support themselves and not necessarily by geographic position. If they could drop these poor cousins and get rid of the salary cap at the same time I think I would be a much happier camper. It is called survival of the fitest and works in most other business circles. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 08:40:34
|
I prefer the 30 teams.
More teams, more competition. More games played, more hockey to watch. :)
Irvine |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 08:48:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
I prefer the 30 teams.
More teams, more competition. More games played, more hockey to watch. :)
Irvine
first off 1 there is enough great hockey talents out there for the teams the nhl is not to waterd down the problem is marketing and teams and makeing every team competative every year,,, 30 teams is just right all i would do is change some locations
Pasty |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 08:53:46
|
From a hockey point of view, I agree that 30 teams are too many. I agree that the league is under-saturated (if that's a word) with talent and that the league would be better with 6 less teams. I would prefer to see two-12 team conference. Top 7 teams on either side make the playoffs, with the top team in the conference getting a bye in the first, 5 game play off series. I also think that is should be a 68 game season with a home and away with each team from the other conference and 2 home and aways with every team in your conference. The Stanley Cup should be played in late April, not early June.
But Alex, 6 teams?? That's not even close to practical. All that would do is turn hockey into Lacrosse. Let's face it, if there are only 6 teams, they are highly offensive. It would be like watching the All Star Game every night. Not fun for me. And even if Edmonton is one of those 6 teams, I would get board pretty quickly. I like having a variety of teams and players to watch. Both good and bad. Offensive or defensive.
And what is wrong with the Southwest?? Or the Pacific?? I just don't get your logic?? I can appreciate and agree that there are too many teams today and that the league would be better overall with a few less teams. But down to 6 is just not practical at all. Not even to think about. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 14:16:13
|
Beans, I was just trying to illustrate my point. By no means am I advocating for the league to get rid of 83.33 perrcent of its teams or players.
And also, let's face it. Assuming we go by your way of thinking, with 24 teams, what would they be? Remember, hockey perspective only, not business.
I would have to favour the teams that have made their historic mark, just for their sentimental value, if you will.
The Kings would be above the Thrashers in my books, just because these recent expansion teams under the Bettman rule just leave a bad taste in my mouth. No reason other than that
I would also have the Islanders and Penguins before the Senators, for example. No reason other than I hate change.
All aboard the Price bandwagon
EDIT: Can all the members who look at this join the PickUpHockey Cyber Cup? It only will take two minutes, I am trying to get participation from all the active members. All you need to do for now is read the intro and tell me you will join. Time is of the essence. Thanks guys, I know I can count on you 
This is the link:
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3820#51395 |
Edited by - Alex on 03/24/2008 11:33:22 |
|
|
|
tbar
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 14:16:58
|
| Beans I don’t think Alex was trying to say they should cut it down to six teams he was just trying to get his point across. And as of right now I would have to agree their are too many teams and the league is a little watered down. If they would pull out 6 teams it would make it alot better of a product. On the other hand with more and more kids playing hockey from different countries around the world it is just a matter of time till every team has a legitimate top two lines. |
|
|
|
Leafs Rock Planet
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 16:34:35
|
Atta' boy Alex.
You were patient and you finally got your poll featured.
___________________
Let the Stamkos sweepstakes begin!
|
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 16:58:47
|
If you look at the serious rivalries in the NHL today, as opposed to the original 6, you may see what I mean. I think that in the original six era, everyone could argue that they had a bone to pick with each of the five other teams. On the other hand, let's look at the legitamite rivals in today's NHL... obviously this list is purely opinion, but anyhow:
Anaheim: Sharks
Atlanta : no one
Boston: no one, could be argued Philly this year but that is a stretch
Buffallo: Toronto you could make a case for
Calgary: Edmonton
Carolina: No one
Chicago: Detroit
Colorado: Vancouver?
Columbus: No one
Dallas: ?
Detroit: Chicago
Edmonton: Calgary
Florida: No one
Los Angeles: No one
Minnesota: no one
Montreal: Toronto not so much anymore, Ottawa
Nasvhille: No one
New Jersey: ?
New York Islanders: Rangers
New York Rangers: Islanders
Ottawa: Toronto, Montreal, ?Buffalo?
Philadelhpia: Pittsburgh
Phoenix: No one
Pittsbrugh: Philly
Sharks: Ducks
St. Louis: No one
Tampa: No one
Toronto: Montreal not so much, Ottawa, Buffalo
Vancouver: Colorado?
Washington: No one, maybe Pittsbrugh but its not so much of a rivalry as much as a contest to outclass the other team in skill
All aboard the Price bandwagon |
Edited by - Alex on 03/17/2008 16:58:59 |
|
|
|
Guest9381
( )
|
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 05:34:32
|
first of all u cant just get rid of 6 teams... if the nhl has any plans for that there is no way u can tell an owner of a franchise that he cant play here anymore, its just ridiculous.
i personally think there is 2 too many tteams and think 28 is fine. i dont wanna see the same guys on the ice twice a week unless its the team i cheer for. and like i agree with the comment about watching the allstar game every game. i dont wanna see 6 JJ'S ON THE SAME TEAM... i think there is room in the league for those role playing defenceman...u people are saying the talent is dwindling NO ITS NOT. U are just used to seeing players like phaneuf and crosby and ovechkin come out of minor league systems. but the fact of the matter is that ur not going to get a league full of those players. compared to these "special" players sure the other players in the league look average!!! |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 05:53:15
|
In AndyHack world (an idealistic/unrealistic place), the NHL would be a 24 team league. There would be 2 conferences, each with 2 divisions of 6 teams each. The top 4 teams in each division would get in the playoffs, and then (most importantly), they would be seeded 1 to 8 in the conference regardless of whether one team happened to win one of the divisions.
Unfortunately the above is just a dream. But if over the next few years the top brass would change its expansion way of thinking and somehow pare down the league to 28 teams, and otherwise go with the sort of structure mentioned above (the only change being that each division would have 7 teams in it instead of 6), I think that would be a significant improvement over the present structure. |
|
|
|
Axey
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 12:23:55
|
| I say we leave them game alone..? but if i were to pick 2 teams to leave to make it 28 .. new jersey and the islanders ... i know alot of history there .. but they average in the bottom 10 each year usually avg. 10 000-15 000 fans each year.. islanders i can see bc they havent hada tremendous year in a while now ... but i mean new jersey makes the playoffs, wins cups, always a contender and one of the best team in the NHL and still have brutal attendance... can you imagine if they were in a hockey city? so much more money could be made off of this franchise .. st louis is really starting to fall now too as well |
|
|
|
Patchy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
529 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 16:42:20
|
I believe the league would be better with a few less teams, I kind of agree with Beans' idea, but realistically I don't think it will ever happen. I don't believe the NHL will reduce the amount of teams, that would be incredibly controversial to pick which ones to take out. In the process more people would become unemployed (well maybe not unemployed, but lose their 'arena job') than you might think, in some cases the employees that work at the arena (concession stands, souvenirs, zamboni drivers etc..), all the workers that manufacture the merchandice for the respective team, as well as everyone involved with the team(s). I would like to see it done, but from a businessman's point of view, it won't happen.
~~Go Leafs Go~~ |
|
|
|
leafsfan_101
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1530 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 17:04:46
|
Sorry, but it seems to me that everyone is looking at this in a hockey sense and sort of saying "Well, lets just skip the business side." Well, I am here to talk about the business side.
For any league to prosper and grow, there has to be revenue from the teams. More teams=more revenue. If the NHL downgrades, they lose some money. And that isn't good for a prospering league. If teams are struggling financially, they wont just be wiped out, they will be relocated so the NHL can still generate profit margins.
So yes, the NHL with fewer teams sounds nice, but from a business standpoint it is suicide for the league.
|
|
|
|
Patchy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
529 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 19:45:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by leafsfan_101
Sorry, but it seems to me that everyone is looking at this in a hockey sense and sort of saying "Well, lets just skip the business side." Well, I am here to talk about the business side.
I do believe I pointed that out as well. 
~~Go Leafs Go~~ |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 14:03:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
Not from the business point of view, from the hockey point of view. Anyone disagree? I think not.
-------------------------------------
All aboard the Price bandwagon
LeafsFan101 and Patchy, the reason behind this is as such: originally, when I made this poll, I knew that this was a sensitive topic, and that realistically, practically speaking, there was no room for discussion. More teams = more money = end of discussion, especially with Gary Bettman in charge of things. Therefore, my original question was 'Taking the business aspect out, does the NHL have too many teams?' or something along those lines. When it was edited, by Leigh I believe, the first part was removed, presumably to get rid of space on the home page, as this poll became a feature poll for a while.
Take two minutes to join the PickUpHockey Cyber Cup!
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3820#51395
|
|
|
|
Patchy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
529 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 20:23:19
|
I agree, it's fun to discuss this. And I will, providing we don't let reality completely slip away from us..
~~Go Leafs Go~~ |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Too Many NHL Teams? 
