| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
hanley6
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
674 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2009 : 14:03:38
|
|
I'd personally like to see the go down to 12 teams tops... You would see the best players in the NHL. 6 teams from Canada and 6 teams from the USA Canada Conference and USA Conference instead of Western and Eastern... I think hockey would be a lot more entertaining with 12 teams. Canadian Conference would be of course, Toronto Maple Leafs, Ottawa Senators, Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames, Montreal Canadiens and Vancouver Canucks. My picks for the USA conference would be Detroit Redwings, New York Rangers, Chicago Blackhawks, Boston Bruins, New Jersey Devils, and Philadelphia Flyers. what do you think? I think the original 6 teams should be in the NHL no matter what. It will never happen but if it did what 2 USA teams would you want to see in the NHL?
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 14:21:10
|
12 would be way too low in my opinion. From a fan's persective 24 would be perfect (back to what it was in the 80's and early 90's I believe) This would get rid of several of the team's who can't sustain a team and redistribute the premiere players to other teams without killing the league in the states.
But truthfully I don't know enough about the logistics to comment on what impact it would have financially on the league. Which is the true motivation for expansion or contraction...not what the real fans want. |
 |
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 14:26:28
|
It would be next to impossible to ignore a team in the California area, they already support 3 fairly stable franchises.
I doubt we would ever see the league go below 26 or so teams, unless the sport takes a serious nosedive.
I do agree that it sould be nice to see the talent 'condensed' into fewer teams. |
|
|
|
Thrasher
Rookie
Canada
155 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 18:42:01
|
| If there were only 12 different teams, how many games would a team play in the season? 82 games against the same 11 teams would be extremely repetitive. 24 wouldn't be bad, thinking of what teams would probably be taken out. Pheonix, Atlanta, Tampa, Carolina, Florida, Columbus? Maybe. Pretty much the entire south eastern conference short of washington should be taken out. Then players like Nash, Doan, Kovalchuk, Staal, Marty and Vinny would be put onto what teams? Would the cap go up, so that other teams could sign some of the bigger players or future stars like Stamkos, Filitov, Mason and Little? If this is a financial issue, maybe moving teams other places would be better. NHL in Vegas would probably be the best, being the first of major sports to put a team there, the money brought in there would be ridiculus. Kansas City has very loyal fans that could probably put a team there. Im sure there are one or two Canadian cities that could support one(Winnipeg might be ready for another one, I hear Toronto could support two). But i think this was started just so the more skilled players could stay in the league, and maybe the game would be more exciting. If the league went down to 12 teams, where do all the role players go? What would one teams salary be exactly? 12 teams is just too little for a major sport when looking at the other big 3(NFL has like 32, baseball has around 30, so does Basketball). I think 30 is alright, but i do hope instead of expanding the league even more, they just move one or two teams around to different places. |
|
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 07:57:52
|
12 teams Hanley? Really...are you serious?
I am for getting rid of a couple teams but getting rid of 18 teams is a little ridiculous. If you can get rid of Nashville and Phoenix in the west, and Atlanta and Florida in the east i'd be happy. I don't really see the need to get rid of any more than that. The cali teams are great, and I'm starting to get a soft spot for the Blue Jackets (not sure why.... maybe its Rick Nash...). Tampa Bay may not have great owners, but I was always a fan of the franchise. The Panthers on the other hand, they just always rubbed me the wrong way. I always hated their jerseys, the logo, the players, the coaches, everything. I hated the finals in '96 with those stupid plastic rats. You people are morons!
Anyways, I guess this is more of what I want to see and not neccessarily what is best for the league, although I don't really think Im too far off.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
|
|
|
Savitar
Top Prospect
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 08:21:22
|
For once I actually agree with hanley6. Teams that cannot remain competitive should just disappear.
Such obviously failed teams would be:
Toronto (Does anyone remember when these guys were last competitive?)
St. Louis (Come on guys, you've never won it all, and you haven't been to the Finals in like 40 years)
Phoenix (Well, they're bankrupt but all is forgiven if they actually make the playoffs)
NY Islanders (Its a shame such a storied franchise has come to this, but such is life)
LA Kings (See Toronto)
Florida (1995-96 was a very long time ago there Florida, what have you done for me lately)
Just split these losers up in a dispersal draft and let these players see wha a WINNING locker room looks like.
Just my two cents.
"I call the big one Bitey" |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 08:51:51
|
This last post was interesting. The teams that people normally want to bounce are those that lose. Why should Toronto not be part of that list if that is the criteria??
Now, before everyone attacks me, I do not want TO out of the league. I do also believe the league would be better, as stable, and actually more financially successful with fewer teams. But, why is it always the southern teams that need to leave??
I found some interesting information on NHL attendence by team, not only at home but on the road. The information starts in 2001 and goes through 2009. Here is the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2008
Everyone questions TB. Tampa had a higher attendance that TO did in 2007 and is in the top 10 in the league in attendance in 2008. What's wrong with that??? They have a fan base!!
And dropping down to 12 teams is just not even worth talking about. It really is absurd.
However, 24-26 teams would be about right, provide a decent talent pool, and still provide enough teams for variety and competition.
Drop a few, but base it financially as well as fan base. Not just who is competative now or not. If that was the case, should TO not be considered?? They have not been competative for more than a few years now. |
|
|
|
Guest9838
( )
|
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 10:00:45
|
The anti-toronto rhetoric is really getting boring guys, this post is less in defence of Toronto then it is a defence of reason...
Let's go one more, why not just blow toronto up or have it become a country of it's own that's not allowed to play any sports, close down the raptors, the jays, Toronto FC, the league really doesn't need the revenue from Toronto fans anyways right?
So we base the league on long term success then? Ok Vancouver has to go, Chicago has to go (but they're getting better you say? They're rebuilt? Too bad they've been barely succesful for years, and who cares about the revenue they've recently been generating), say goodbye to the Islanders, who cares about history anyways. you're only allowed in if you've won a cup in the last 20 years. St Louis and LA... good young teams, screw em they've been s***e for years. Ottawa... gone, no cup. Or are teams that have made the playoffs, or gone to a conf final in the last 10-20 years allowed in... except of course Toronto (they're gone, always the exception)
That's your 6 teams gone, now everybody's happy right? TOR, CHI, LA, STL, OTT, VAN, seems about right, makes perfect business sense too.
Why would we look at Nashville, Columbus, Atlanta? Keep em in, they're great franchises. At least you're looking at Phoenix and Florida (but not sure if it's for the right reasons)?
It sounds like your analysis is half baked between teams that have had a recent lack of success and the teams you personally don't like. |
|
|
|
Guest7143
( )
|
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 12:25:58
|
Get rid of Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, one of the Florida teams to start.
(ADMIN EDIT - LINK REMOVED - SPAM)
|
|
|
|
Savitar
Top Prospect
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 17:11:57
|
Perfect!
This is the exact discussion I was hoping to provoke. I was hoping more for an answer like Beans, than like that by Guest9838, but no, I'm not even remotely serious about shutting down the Leafs, my best friend is a Leafs fan. I just can't resist baiting the local Leafs fans.
As for the point that I am getting across, I am, as my avatar would suggest a diehard Whalers fan, I have a hat signed by Paul Maurice, Sean Burke, Brendan Shanahan, Kevin Dineen and others from the 7 times the Whalers visited the Flames. I don't want to hate on any particular market, but there are a few that either show no interest in their team, have a franchise in a horrible mess, or have little or no chance of realizing a profit in their current market.
Some likely candidates are:
Toronto: OK seriously, not really, I was really just baiting Leafs fans here, and Guest9838 you took the bait handsomely, for which I thank you.
L.A.: Southern California sports fans are the biggest bandwagon fans since the Arizona Cardinals fans. Teams move in and out of that area on a rotational basis across all leagues. The Kings wouldn't be the first team to pull out of LA (Seals, Rams) and frankly the young, tough, gritty style they play would be a huge hit elsewhere, though a case could be made for contraction at least temporarily during this recession.
Phoenix: I admit to having a soft spot for the Jets, but the situation is Phoenix is starting to get to the point where we may see a team simply fold in the NHL, which we haven't seen in ages, the last being the Colorado Rockies who technically merged. this team can't move because of their contract with the stadium, and they can't make a profit because of their contract with the stadium. This is a great team and in any other market they would be succesful, but here they just can't win, even if they win the bloody Cup.
Florida: Tampa Bay is hugely succesful attendance-wise, as Beans pointed out, and they have won a Cup in the last 10 years. Florida has been rotten generally for the past few seasons, and even during their Cup run attendance was terrible. I like hockey in TB, but Florida just seems like a bit of a poorly thought-out operation.
NYI: This one tears me up, because they were a glorious franchise once but the Rangers are hot right now, and the Islanders haven't turned a profit since the 1980s. New York loves a winner, and it is no coincidence that the Isles are playing an expansion game in KC (Scouts anyone?)
St. Louis: This was my last choice, I really wanted to come up with a nice round number, and they did fit with my theoretical model of poor financial success coupled with poor playoff success.
And Guest9838, why the hate on Columbus and Atalnta? Both are getting the fans out (which Nashville and Florida and Los Angeles certainly cannot claim) and both have a history of past franchises (The Barons, the Flames), while I don't like Bettman's policy of keeping teams from pulling teams out of the South that clearly aren't working to cities (Hartford, hamilton, halifax, winnipeg) that would support them, there are programs that are working.
And half baked? Never! You want half baked? Try and justify your hate for Atlanta and Columbus beyond "I don't like hockey in the South".
Wow, that got wordy in a hurry. Comments?
"I call the big one Bitey" |
Edited by - Savitar on 01/30/2009 17:15:31 |
|
|
|
Guest0914
( )
|
Posted - 01/31/2009 : 00:06:28
|
9838 here.. I don't think any bait particular to this post was taken. I think the response was due to the constant barrage of negative comments towards toronto and it's franchise. I never even said that Toronto was the team I cheered for on a regular basis (this has nothing to do with being a leafs fan, which I may not be, this has to do with those who specifically are against a certain franchise). I only wanted to point out how anti-toronto bias tends to skew the conversation.
You say the "bait" was taken hansomely... maybe to a degree this is true, but only in that I see an extrodinary amount of anit-toronto rhetoric on these forums, and perhaps this last topic was a tipping point. I may love 5-10 teams before toronto, but I despise the immaturity and irrelavance of the comments against the franchise based on people trying to "bait" the fans or their pure hate of the city and it's sports teams.
As for Columbus and Atlanta, I actually really like those teams, but if you do a deep dive into their financials they will likely not make sense to the league in terms of profitability. Hockey in the South is great if you can sell it.
Aside from Toronto now, based on you're criteria, what do you think about the elimination of Vancouver , Chicago and Ottawa.
|
Edited by - n/a on 01/31/2009 04:14:24 |
|
|
|
Savitar
Top Prospect
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 17:31:15
|
My criterion was last playoff appearance going to the second round, combined with financial solvency.
As I said, the dig against Toronto was indulgent and wrong, and you're right to call me on it. I still hate the Leafs though. :)
Based on that criterion, I have no problem wth Vancouver, Chicago, or Ottawa. All have solid finances, and while Ottawa, and lately Vancouver (really Canucks, WTF?) may not make the playoffs, all of these teams have been competitve in the playoffs recently. You cannot say the same for the rest of the teams I picked: St. Lous, NYI, Los Angeles, Florida (who i like as a team, but look at the numbers!), the Coyotes (Bankrupt!),
My problem is with people targeting Southern teams purely for the "We Hate the South" mentality. There are some very good, entertaining (and sometimes profitable) teams like Nashville, Columbus, and Tampa Bay to be had. I realize that partisan toronto-bashing somewhat tainted my post and my opinion, but hey, it got some response didn't it? As much as I hate to say it, though anti-Toronto vias tends to skew the conversation, it does get a response.
And actually, Atlanta and Columbus are solidly in the middle of the pack for attendance, and aren't saddled with a tumor-like lease like the unfortunate Phoenix Coyotes. They may be around for a good long time.
"I call the big one Bitey" |
|
|
|
Guest7279
( )
|
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 18:16:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Savitar
For once I actually agree with hanley6. Teams that cannot remain competitive should just disappear.
Such obviously failed teams would be:
Toronto (Does anyone remember when these guys were last competitive?)
St. Louis (Come on guys, you've never won it all, and you haven't been to the Finals in like 40 years)
Phoenix (Well, they're bankrupt but all is forgiven if they actually make the playoffs)
NY Islanders (Its a shame such a storied franchise has come to this, but such is life)
LA Kings (See Toronto)
Florida (1995-96 was a very long time ago there Florida, what have you done for me lately)
Just split these losers up in a dispersal draft and let these players see wha a WINNING locker room looks like.
Just my two cents.
"I call the big one Bitey"
|
|
|
|
Guest7279
( )
|
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 18:17:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Savitar
For once I actually agree with hanley6. Teams that cannot remain competitive should just disappear.
Such obviously failed teams would be:
Toronto (Does anyone remember when these guys were last competitive?)
St. Louis (Come on guys, you've never won it all, and you haven't been to the Finals in like 40 years)
Phoenix (Well, they're bankrupt but all is forgiven if they actually make the playoffs)
NY Islanders (Its a shame such a storied franchise has come to this, but such is life)
LA Kings (See Toronto)
Florida (1995-96 was a very long time ago there Florida, what have you done for me lately)
Just split these losers up in a dispersal draft and let these players see wha a WINNING locker room looks like.
Just my two cents.
"I call the big one Bitey"
Lol. how could you get rid of the team making the most money wiith the most fans. Toronto will be in the NHL forever |
|
|
|
Guest7013
( )
|
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 18:33:35
|
24 teams is a great idea. 12 is ridiculous.
6 teams to cut would be:
florida
atlanta
phoenix
nashville
columbus
i would like to say la but a 15 millon people market with only 1 team (the ducks) somebody would definately buy them .
so maybe st louis.
on second thought 26 sounds good keep columbus |
|
|
|
Thrasher
Rookie
Canada
155 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 23:05:33
|
| Why is no one talking about the Islanders? They have not been good since the Mike Bossy era, and have the leagues worst attendance. If we are talking about taking out teams, or moving them, they should be at the top. Rangers rarely sell out games, so all the die hard hockey fans there can get their fix at the rangers games. Move the isles or take them out, they are the worst team, and now Tavares will most likely be heading there, and the black hole that sucks up talent their will do the same to him. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 04:58:39
|
I like the 24 teams idea, and pretty much agree with the cuts that guest 7013 made . . . keep the Islanders, for historical reasons (they have a winning history, won cups, had a heyday with HOF players, etc) and, frankly - because Toronto needs a team in there we can beat!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
30 Teams is way too much for Hockey 
