riker Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=189350&hubname= Sounds like an NFL Wild Card scenario to me... but I think I like it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 horrible idea wild cards? the format now is fine except for when a 4 seeded team has more points then a third or seconded seeded team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 horrible idea wild cards? the format now is fine except for when a 4 seeded team has more points then a third or seconded seeded team. There are already wild cards now. If teams don't win the division, they are wild cards. Nobody calls them that, but that's what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 There are already wild cards now. If teams don't win the division, they are wild cards. Nobody calls them that, but that's what they are. Americanizing the game, don't like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 With 4 divisions, they should go back to the old names: Adams, Patrick, Norris and Smythe. That I'd love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 A return of the old Pacific division, I like! Although having Anaheim and San Jose back in the division scares me a bit. Just a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 With 4 divisions, they should go back to the old names: Adams, Patrick, Norris and Smythe. That I'd love. That would be awesome! It would be great to know about hockey history down here. But I don't know those names Smythe and Norris look familiar because they're on a couple trophies but Adams and Patrick I have no idea who they are. Then wasn't the confrences Campbell and something? See millions of people down here that follow hockey have no idea who you are talking about and that blame squarely goes on mr. basketball bettman. I'd love to see Chicago, Saint louis, Minnesota, Dallas, Winnipeg or if they wanted to put a teams in KC and Oklahoma City chicago stl minnesota Dallas winnipeg oklahoma KC that would be fun miss the jets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 My NHL league would look like this: West: Vancouver Edmonton Calgary Seattle Portland Anaheim San Jose LA Phoenix Salt Lake Colorado Dallas Saint Louis Minnesota Chicago Nashville Indy Oklahoma City Kansas City East: Quebec Montreal Ottawa Toronto Hamilton Buffalo Boston Hartford NYR NYI NJ Phili Washington Carolina TB FL ATL Detroit Columbus Haven't thought of divisions yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 That would be awesome! It would be great to know about hockey history down here. But I don't know those names Smythe and Norris look familiar because they're on a couple trophies but Adams and Patrick I have no idea who they are. Then wasn't the confrences Campbell and something? See millions of people down here that follow hockey have no idea who you are talking about and that blame squarely goes on mr. basketball bettman. I'd love to see Chicago, Saint louis, Minnesota, Dallas, Winnipeg or if they wanted to put a teams in KC and Oklahoma City chicago stl minnesota Dallas winnipeg oklahoma KC that would be fun miss the jets ...I missed you too Pierre. Anyway, that wouldn't happen. If they put a franchise back in Winnipeg (a big if) then they'd put it in the Pacific division with the Flames, Oilers and Canucks and take another team out. Probably Colorado or Phoenix. Colorado not being in the same division as the Flames though would piss me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mils Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Pittburgh is going to move. It won't be to a Canadian City (as much as it should be.) The team will end up in Portland or KC. The NHL shout NOT reallign the divisions, just revise the playoff system. Here's my ideal scenario: PIT to KC/POR. Columbus to the Atlantic Division. (As funny as that sounds.) IF the new team is in KC: Just plug them into Columbus's place in the central division. If the new team is in Portland: Put Portland in the Northwest with CAL, VAN, COL, and EDM. Put Minnesota in Columbus's place in the central. Reduce the schedule to about 74 games, and have each team play in each city at least once. Playoffs: The top 4 point earning teams in the conference get spots seeded 1-4 by points. The next 4 point earners play a best of 3 series 5 v. 8 and 6 v. 7 for the bottom two spots. The #1 and #2 seeds get a bye on the first round, the others play 3 v. 6 and 4 v. 5. #1 plays the winner of 4 v. 5, and #2 plays the winner of #3 v. #6. Very similar to the NFL system, and while I don't agree that this is "americanizing," I think that this system guarantees better matchups in the later rounds (and that brings several different advantages), and makes it tougher for there to be no-name, "how'd they get here" stanley cup finals matchups. There is more motivation to get into the top seeds in the regular season. Another idea that probably wouldn't be too popular, but it would be unique, revolutionary, and fun: Take the top 8 point getters from East and West and seend them 1-16 based on points and play a straight bracket or a re-shuffling system starting with 1-16, 2-15, 3-14 ... 7-10, 8-9. The travel would be hideous for a matchup like Anaheim v. Montreal or something, but it would be cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Or just have 20 teams in each conference And split them up into two divisions then you wouldn't loose the rivalries Western Conference West: Vancouver Edmonton Calgary Seattle Portland Anaheim LA SJ Colorado Phoenix Midwest: Winnipeg Minnesota Kansas City Oklahoma Dallas Saint Louis Chicago Indy Nashville Houston (if I choose salt lake that means they'd have to move to the west there by moving a team over to this division so I have to go with Houston sorry salt lake) Eastern Conference: North: Quebec Montreal Ottawa Toronto Hamilton Detriot Boston Hartford Columbus Buffalo South: NYR NYI NJ PHILI PIT? WASH CAROLINA Atl TB FL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Mils if the Pens move to KC they must be in the blues division or the team will fail. Kansas City residents only show up to games if Saint Louis is involved. If the Blues aren't in KC's division mark my words THE TEAM WILL FAIL IN KC. You can't move Dallas out of the same division as Minnesota. Why? Because Dallas used to play in Minnesota. Its going to cause a riot but the NHL is going to have to split up the triangle rivalry that is detroit-chicago-saint louis. Detroit really doesn't belong in the west. Its sort of like a package deal I guess either put all three teams in the east or have some kind of clause that says detroit must play chicago and st louis every year. these rivalries are complicated. It would be easier if they left the divisions alone and just added teams to the already existing divisions there by not creating anarchy in the streets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) My NHL league would look like this: West: Vancouver Edmonton Calgary Seattle Portland Anaheim San Jose LA Phoenix Salt Lake Colorado Dallas Saint Louis Minnesota Chicago Nashville Indy Oklahoma City Kansas City East: Quebec Montreal Ottawa Toronto Hamilton Buffalo Boston Hartford NYR NYI NJ Phili Washington Carolina TB FL ATL Detroit Columbus Haven't thought of divisions yet Geez, dude that's 38 teams. There's enough people with their panties in a knot 'cause there's 30. If they're gonna re-align the divisions, which I think they'll probably have to do if the Pens move, then here's what I'd do, depending upon where the Pens end up. Pens to Las Vegas: Las Vegas to Pacific Dallas to Southeast Washington to Atlantic Pens to Portland or Seattle: Portland/Seattle to Northwest Colorado to Pacific Dallas to Southeast Washington to Atlantic Pens to Kansas City: KC to Central Nashville to Southeast Washington to Atlantic Pens to Houston Houston to Southeast Washington to Atlantic or Houston to Central Nashville to Southeast Washington to Atlantic The problem with the team moving to Houston, if it should happen, is that it would naturally want to share a division with Dallas. That could mean moving Dallas to the Central (it is in the Central Time Zone), and could push either Columbus or Nashville to the Southeast. I think that if Pittsburgh loses the team, and it probably will, then Washington is the obvious choice to move into the Atlantic Division as its replacement. It's a shuttle trip away from NYC. I think it would be a bad idea to go from 6 divisions to 4 because of the odd number of teams that would result in each division. It would mean an odd number of games, if every team plays each other at least once. For teams in a 7-team division, it would be 36 division games, 32 conference games and at least 15 inter-conference games, for a total of 83 games. For teams in an 8-team division, it would be 42 division games, 28 conference games and 15 inter-conference games, for a total of 85 games. And remember, the major complaint about the current schedule is that interconference teams host each other once every three years. Edited December 22, 2006 by RobRock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habscout Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 For the moment, let's say Pittsburgh stays put. Now, I believe the new divisions would look something like this: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, Washington New York Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa Bay and Florida Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Colorado and Phoenix Nashville, Detroit, St. Louis, Columbus, Chicago, Dallas, Minnesota Now, having both Ovechkin & Crosby in the same division is something the owners may not want to do. But, from a geographic & travel perspective, it makes sense to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 yeah I know thats a lot of teams in 'my vision of the future' but you've got to understand where the two countries are going. By the time I'm dead the US will have most likely baring anything dumb happening half a billion people. Canada will have 50 million. (your already on pace for 40 granted its immigrants and not births but at least you are growing ) more people means more people playing hockey which means more players. salt lake city Seattle (needs another team when the sonics leave) Portland Las Vegas- (just needs to get over the gambling issue) Kansas City Houston Hartford (Boston needs an american rival again) Pittsburgh (they'll be back see the Bobcats in the NBA) Oklahoma- they want to be taken seriously as a big city in Canada Toronto has a lot of people they can have 2 teams in the metro Montreal could have another team in the metro people would support it Quebec (its going to happen, to me a team in Quebec city is a political football, don't want to turn this into a political debate but it is or could become one depending on politics in Quebec in the future) Hamilton Winnipeg (they got robbed the last time) Halifax (wild card) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 EAST ADAMS PATRICK WEST NORRIS SMYTHE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 If there are ever 40 teams in the NHL, sheesh, that would blow. Population growth? It's just that many more people to ignore hockey. If anything, teams need to be eliminated. You're talking about "Basketball Bettman" having to go, and he's the one that expanded and watered down what the NHL is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 If there are ever 40 teams in the NHL, sheesh, that would blow. Population growth? It's just that many more people to ignore hockey. If anything, teams need to be eliminated. You're talking about "Basketball Bettman" having to go, and he's the one that expanded and watered down what the NHL is. Not to mention the talent pool could never support it. Adding 10 teams means adding the 230 best hockey players currently not in the NHL. :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 well peferably I'd like to see FL, Atl, Anaheim go but its not going to happen they are not going to contract a team, unless it was a Canadian team since Bettman just ignores all things Canada. What Bettman is doing to hockey is like if I was head of the NFL and moved all the teams to Canada and Mexico leaving barely any teams in America where its most popular. Would the NFL do that? No. So why is the NHL doing it? And don't say economics they have the CBA now and the loonie is at all time highs. And a Canadian team wouldn't need a 5 million person city. Canada lives hockey a small market can support a team easily now. Bettman needs to be tried for crimes against hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 well peferably I'd like to see FL, Atl, Anaheim go but its not going to happen they are not going to contract a team, unless it was a Canadian team since Bettman just ignores all things Canada. What Bettman is doing to hockey is like if I was head of the NFL and moved all the teams to Canada and Mexico leaving barely any teams in America where its most popular. Would the NFL do that? No. So why is the NHL doing it? And don't say economics they have the CBA now and the loonie is at all time highs. And a Canadian team wouldn't need a 5 million person city. Canada lives hockey a small market can support a team easily now. Bettman needs to be tried for crimes against hockey. Then why are you suggesting 40 teams?? The NHL hasn't moved a team from Canada since Quebec City (which still wouldn't fill an arena) and Winnipeg. Heck, even in the Original 6 days, there were more teams in the states than Canada. I don't think just randomly plopping teams in Canadian cities is a solution to anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 I don't mind the idea but honestly, it looks like an expansion move if you ask me. Two divisions of eight teams and two divisions of seven teams, doesn't take a genius to figure out an expansion or eliminating two teams ( not with Bettman around) is what the future holds of the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 I suggested 40 teams because thats the route the NHL is going. I disagree about Quebec its the arena they get a pro friendly Quebec government coming in they'll get an arena. NHL will go back to Quebec no matter what happens with the quebec question. They have to, Quebec City and Montreal don't really like each other. Winnipeg had an arena problem, problem was fixed. Hamilton has been royally screwed over the years. And remember Saskatoon Blues would have been a team but a buyer came in at 11:59pm at the 12am deadline and bought the team. People went to sleep here thinking the Blues were gone then woke up in the morning to a surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) well peferably I'd like to see FL, Atl, Anaheim go but its not going to happen they are not going to contract a team, unless it was a Canadian team since Bettman just ignores all things Canada. What Bettman is doing to hockey is like if I was head of the NFL and moved all the teams to Canada and Mexico leaving barely any teams in America where its most popular. Would the NFL do that? No. So why is the NHL doing it? And don't say economics they have the CBA now and the loonie is at all time highs. And a Canadian team wouldn't need a 5 million person city. Canada lives hockey a small market can support a team easily now. Bettman needs to be tried for crimes against hockey. Economics. The salary cap went up this season, and it's projected to go up next season, anywhere from $47 million to $50 million. If, by some miracle, revenues continue to rise, even at a reasonable rate, it easier to cover that increase in a larger market, especially if you have to do it through ticket prices. If you sell 16,500 per game in a city of less than million, there's only so many times you can raise individual ticket prices before you reach their breaking point. Unless your team is in Toronto. If your market is larger, you can try to bring in new fans who haven't been there yet. The larger your market is, the greater your potential for growth is. Winnipeg's arena problem was fixed? It's smaller than the igloo. I don't call that fixing the problem. The Penguins averaged more last year than they could ever do in Winnipeg if the sold out every game. Edited December 22, 2006 by RobRock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 I suggested 40 teams because thats the route the NHL is going. I disagree about Quebec its the arena they get a pro friendly Quebec government coming in they'll get an arena. NHL will go back to Quebec no matter what happens with the quebec question. They have to, Quebec City and Montreal don't really like each other. No arena, no team in Qc... Because no one will spend the $$$ for it, neither private investors neither both Governements. And the biggest money in town (the Tanguay family) said time and time again they prefered smaller-scaled, more manageable ventures like the Remparts and the Rouge et Or. I highly doubt you'll ever see an NHL team in Quebec again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House11 Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Playoffs: The top 4 point earning teams in the conference get spots seeded 1-4 by points. The next 4 point earners play a best of 3 series 5 v. 8 and 6 v. 7 for the bottom two spots. The #1 and #2 seeds get a bye on the first round, the others play 3 v. 6 and 4 v. 5. #1 plays the winner of 4 v. 5, and #2 plays the winner of #3 v. #6. Very similar to the NFL system, and while I don't agree that this is "americanizing," I think that this system guarantees better matchups in the later rounds (and that brings several different advantages), and makes it tougher for there to be no-name, "how'd they get here" stanley cup finals matchups. There is more motivation to get into the top seeds in the regular season. This wouldn't work ... the top two teams would not want to have two weeks or more off after the season to wait and see who they play because they get a bye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.