[butr]

If you at some point in your life liked hockey, or still like it this is for you.

Hockey is almost back. They will continue with 30 teams. At least 10 too many and actually closer to 14 too many.

Now they are talking about having an extra 2 teams per conference qualify for the playoffs.

IMO, this game has been butchered it makes me sad.

Where are you in terms of your feel for the NHL game?

This was the chance for the NHL to set the bar high enough in terms of a cap so teams could die.

Honestly, I haven't paid for a ticket in ages. I no longer watch games where I used to watch any game as a kid. Now I don't even have to watch the Leafs.

The only way they ever get me back on any level, is if a significant number of teams die despite the improved economic climate.

I just have to hope the sunbelt teams draw even less flies for the next few years.

[Turkish Delight]

Yeah I saw that in the newspaper. 20 teams in the playoffs? There shouldn't even be that many teams in the league IMO.
What would be the point of a 82 game regular season when 20 teams make the playoffs?
Baffling.

[butr]

Originally Posted by Turkish Delight

Yeah I saw that in the newspaper. 20 teams in the playoffs? There shouldn't even be that many teams in the league IMO.
What would be the point of a 82 game regular season when 20 teams make the playoffs?
Baffling.

My ideal league would be 16 teams, 60 games, 4 vs each other team. No divisions like most soccer leagues which supports the balance sked. Top 8 or half make the playoffs.

Eliminate all sunbelt teams and those eastern teams that are useless in terms of support like Washington, NJ, NYI. Restore decent ownership to Bos and CHI and you would watch the buildings fill again.

[Turkish Delight]

That could work.
I'm still baffled about what the NHL was thinking when they brought teams to cities like Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, Phoenix and so forth.

[speedythief]

20 teams is ideal, IMO, with 16 making the playoffs.

2 Conferences, 4 Divisions...

Wales
Adams: Boston, Detroit, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto.
Patrick: Buffalo, New Jersey, New York, New York, Philadelphia.

Campbell
Norris: Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Pittsburgh, St. Louis.
Smythe: Calgary, Edmonton, Minneapolis, Winnipeg, Vancouver.

16 teams make the playoffs. Most teams get post-season revenue.

[butr]

Originally Posted by speedythief

20 teams is ideal, IMO, with 16 making the playoffs.

2 Conferences, 4 Divisions...

Wales
Adams: Boston, Detroit, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto.
Patrick: Buffalo, New Jersey, New York, New York, Philadelphia.

Campbell
Norris: Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Pittsburgh, St. Louis.
Smythe: Calgary, Edmonton, Minneapolis, Winnipeg, Vancouver.

16 teams make the playoffs. Most teams get post-season revenue.

I've thought about a 20 team League too. I would want to reduce the sked though if only 4 teams do not make it.

[speedythief]

Originally Posted by blowuptheraptors

I've thought about a 20 team League too. I would want to reduce the sked though if only 4 teams do not make it.

I'm bad at this kind of math. I used to be able to do series and stuff like that. I think a 20 league team could still have ~65 games, which is I think the ideal length (W/L only, no ties, no OT points, shootouts after one period of OT).

[JuniorNoboa]

Columbus is doing pretty darn well as a market. Let's not put on the ignorance goggles that people wear for the Raptors. Just becuase they are not a traditional market does not mean they should leave the league.

Same with San Jose. They have always been very successful, and have had fairly high payrolls. THEY ARE ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL TEAMS IN THE NHL (TOP 10 NO DOUBT).

Your going to get rid of the reigning Stanley Cup Champs as well???? A market that has done well when they are playing decently. Sure they struggled financially for a little while.... when they were at the bottom of the league for about five years in a row.

Phoenix is doing OK ... there surviving, like many Canadian teams. Not doing great, but not hurting the league either.

Let's be careful on the teams we pick and not be like ignorant Americans and just throw out teams because they are different. Throwing out Carolina is a no brainer. But let's consider all situations before saying ignorant statements like all sun-belt teams should be gone.


The ignorance of many Canadians on this issue is boggling to me. We always look at problems of American teams when we have many small market teams like Edmonton and Calgary that aren't exactly kicking *** either. And then we want to add Winnipeg?????

Being that my favourite teams are the Expos and Raps I am particularly sensitive to this issue, because we have to put up with ignornat generalizations every day on message boards or from the media. Why do we have to be the same as some ignornant Americans?



Probably said ignorant about 10 times more then necessary, but that is how I feel.

[speedythief]

To make the League a respectable size you have to cut some teams that are financially stable. There aren't ten teams in the League that are in dire straights.

We're talking mostly about cutting teams without history in the League. Teams like Phoenix and Carolina and Nashville. Teams that are among the lowest in the League in attendance. Places where the NHL shouldn't have gone in the first place, simply because they were trying to keep up with the other big Leagues and have 30 teams.

Tampa is a tough one but they were 15th in attendance percentage. If that's the best they can do with the League's best team, the worst they could do is dismal (in 2000-2001, they were 27th in attendance percentage). They also happen to have the 23rd worst road attendance numbers, not including Edmonton, Philadelphia, and Phoenix.

Columbus looks like a good market. They have good fan support. You could argue putting them in instead of a team like Pittsburgh or Buffalo. Or merging them with a team like Chicago, who has a rich hockey history but demonic ownership.

The thing about the NHL is that most teams do in fact make a lot of money, contrary to what the owners pretend is the truth. But in order to improve the quality of the League, it's not a matter of minor rule changes, it's a matter of concentrating talent, IMHO.

If you were going to cut ten teams, who would they be? And I'm not saying that is the only solution, it's just one were playing around with.

[VCFSO2000]

They should rename the divisions IMO...Northeast,Southeast,Atlantic?

There will be more rivalries and a sense of pride when you know you're playing in the ''Norris Division''.

As Long as they take out the red-line and have shootouts. I'M good.

[JuniorNoboa]

Originally Posted by speedythief

To make the League a respectable size you have to cut some teams that are financially stable. There aren't ten teams in the League that are in dire straights.

We're talking mostly about cutting teams without history in the League. Teams like Phoenix and Carolina and Nashville. Teams that are among the lowest in the League in attendance. Places where the NHL shouldn't have gone in the first place, simply because they were trying to keep up with the other big Leagues and have 30 teams.

Tampa is a tough one but they were 15th in attendance percentage. If that's the best they can do with the League's best team, the worst they could do is dismal (in 2000-2001, they were 27th in attendance percentage). They also happen to have the 23rd worst road attendance numbers, not including Edmonton, Philadelphia, and Phoenix.

Columbus looks like a good market. They have good fan support. You could argue putting them in instead of a team like Pittsburgh or Buffalo. Or merging them with a team like Chicago, who has a rich hockey history but demonic ownership.

The thing about the NHL is that most teams do in fact make a lot of money, contrary to what the owners pretend is the truth. But in order to improve the quality of the League, it's not a matter of minor rule changes, it's a matter of concentrating talent, IMHO.

If you were going to cut ten teams, who would they be? And I'm not saying that is the only solution, it's just one were playing around with.

Good response. A few points

- I don't understand why they have to cut down the league by ten teams, however. I do not think concentrating talent is necessarily an issue - there is a bigger talent pool then in the heydey of hockey the seventies and eighties when teams had more goons then they do now. I personally think people have become too big and quick for the current rules to work. Cutting teams, to increase the average talent level of a player will not help IMO. I think it is the rules that need change. I am a firm believer that the NHL must make the drastic move of switching to four on four hockey. Other then that, enfore holding and obstruction rules and things, shrink goalies and thinks will improve enough. I think if the NHL is serious about these things, which they appear to be, we will see a better product.


- I do agree with cutting dead weight however - the obvious choices would be Carolina and Pittsburgh for sure. They should be gone. As for other teams let's consider case by case. Some markets are going to act differently to the strike then others.

- As for Tampa. Remember they have basically come out of nowhere. The benefits of there championship run (substantial increased season ticket base), would have been post-championship. So its not quite fair to analyze the 2004 season alone. Unfortunately, that optomism might have been killed by the strike. Road attendance is a dumb stat.... indicates nothing, other then how your schedule is weighted. There division was Carolina, Atlanta, and Florida.... what did you expect?

- I don't agree that most teams made money. I beleive most teams were losing money, although I am sure some owners were exaggerating such losses The economic model of the NHL is was such that it could not be highly profitable. If it was profitable there would be a high number of buyers for franchises which there was not (and this is not because prices were too high... in fact they have been stagnant or going down)

[VCFSO2000]

Originally Posted by JuniorNoboa

Good response. A few points

I am a firm believer that the NHL must make the drastic move of switching to four on four hockey. Other then that, enfore holding and obstruction rules and things, shrink goalies and thinks will improve enough. I think if the NHL is serious about these things, which they appear to be, we will see a better product.

I disagree. IMO,4 on 4 is too drastic. I don't want to see more goals. I want to see more scoring chances. A game that finishes 2-1 but with a total of 85 shots and goalies making incredible saves is just as exciting as a 7-4 game.

I think that the red line being taken out would be enough. And shootouts.
But I would like to see 4 on 4 for 5 minutes whenever fighting majors are handed out.

[Spyda]

I dont care much about the rules and regulations. Im just glad hockey is back. Hockey has the best playoff games out of all the major sports. There is one rule i dont like though. Players cant get more than 7million a year. Outstanding players lose from this bargaining deal, its like their getting punished for being allstars.