If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated)   The NHL actually comes up with a sensible realignment plan   (nhl.si.com) divider line 159
    More: Unlikely, NHL, hot stove, Hockey Night in Canada, Jimmy Howard, Atlanta Thrashers, eastern time zone, playoff format, Atlantic Division  
•       •       •

4419 clicks; posted to Sports » on 25 Feb 2013 at 12:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-25 01:05:59 PM

tnpir: ElwoodCuse: This plan is just as stupid as before. Hey NHL: 30 isn't divisible by 4. Knock it off with the 4 unbalanced divisions crap. Because your inevitable solution to that morass will be "hey! two more teams! BRILLIANT!"

Then contract Florida and Columbus. Problem solved (except for the Panther and Blue Jacket fans in this thread who will now be calling for my summary execution....).

Alternatively, add a team in Seattle or Portland and one more in Canada somewhere.


Well, Columbus drew really well until recently, even while sucking, and the crowds came back a couple seasons ago when they had a playoff team. Florida ain't going anywhere- the owners simply wouldn't accept a buyout. Without the team, control over the arena and related revenues goes back to the county. Which makes the Panther's owner a lot of money. So while the team may lose money till kingdom come, they're not going anywhere as long as the other shows there continue to print money.

So, you know, maybe not being an idiot before talking about contraction and what markets are horrible and deserve to die would be good. And that doesn't even go into how stupid contraction would be for the league's profits as a whole.
 
2013-02-25 01:07:24 PM
One thing the NHL could do is wipe out season-long East v West play, then roll it into a couple 2 week long events like MLB did with Interleague Play.  You could market it, turn it into a thing, and maybe help generate some increased interest.  It also allows the NHL to market individual star players in a better fashion as they can advertise Player X and his team coming into town as part of Interconference Play.

Currently as it is (this season excluded obviously), some random team from the other conference shows up on a Tuesday night and nobody gives a shiat...then you don't see them for two more years.
 
2013-02-25 01:28:28 PM

JohnnyCanuck: 3 Conf consisting of 10 (2x5) teams....


You have the right idea, but the wrong set up. To me, the only answer that makes sense is eliminating geographic conferences and going to a set up similar to that of MLB and have 2 conferences with East, Central and West divisions. It's a set up in which just about everyone loses, but there's no other option that makes sense.

Start by separating the teams by region. I'd have it as:

West: Winnipeg, Dallas, Colorado, Phoenix, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles
Sorry Jets and Stars, but I'll try to make it up to you later. And yes, I'm assuming things with Phoenix. Don't ask me about that. I'm more sick of that than all of you Farkers combined.

The next 2 regions will be controversial
Central: Minnesota, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, Toronto, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Florida
1- Pittsburgh teams are used the being in a Central division. The Steelers were in the AFC Central for years. The Pirates are in the NL Central.
2- Toronto was in the Campbell conference for a long time and that was the western-most conference. Plus, it splits the Original 6 teams evenly across the regions.
3- It was either Tampa and Florida in the Central or Washington and Carolina.

East: Carolina, Washington, Philadelphia, New Jersey, NY Rangers, NY Islanders, Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa

Then, we put divisions together; trying to maintain the rivalries as much as possible.

Conference A:
East:
Boston, Montreal, NY Rangers, Carolina, Buffalo
Central: Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, Florida, Nashville
West: Dallas, Winnipeg, Colorado, Vancouver, Phoenix

Conference B:
East:
Ottawa, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Washington
Central: Pittsburgh, Columbus, Tampa Bay, Minnesota, St. Louis
West:San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Calgary, Edmonton

In Conference A; you have the Original Six, 4 Canadian teams, Dallas and Winnipeg only have to travel to the Pacific Time Zone for 1 team (unless they go to Phoenix during daylight savings time since Arizona doesn't do that).

In Conference B; there's a ton of geographic rivals that will run into each other.

Schedule:
Division: 5 games per team (20 total)
Conference: 4 games per team (40 total)
Interconference: 1-2 games per team (22 total)- extra games against teams in the same region (so East vs East, etc.) and 2 wild cards.
 
2013-02-25 01:29:37 PM

Shrugging Atlas: One thing the NHL could do is wipe out season-long East v West play, then roll it into a couple 2 week long events like MLB did with Interleague Play.  You could market it, turn it into a thing, and maybe help generate some increased interest.  It also allows the NHL to market individual star players in a better fashion as they can advertise Player X and his team coming into town as part of Interconference Play.

Currently as it is (this season excluded obviously), some random team from the other conference shows up on a Tuesday night and nobody gives a shiat...then you don't see them for two more years.


As a Blues fan with partial season tickets, there's nothing worse than during a regular season getting force-fed weeknight games in January and February crappy matchups like Ottawa and Carolina.
 
2013-02-25 02:12:18 PM

Handsome B. Wonderful: Jimmy Howard told the Detroit Free Press "The travel takes years off of all our lives."
Boo-farking-hoo.  fark you Jimmy Howard.


Jimmy is kind of a clown, he was obviously joking. One of the nicest guys I've ever met. Ran into him and Osgood more than once at a little local bar back in Michigan.
 
2013-02-25 02:18:34 PM

WhiskeySticks: tnpir: Then contract Florida and Columbus. Problem solved (except for the Panther and Blue Jacket fans in this thread who will now be calling for my summary execution....).

Alternatively, add a team in Seattle or Portland and one more in Canada somewhere.

I'd be ok with two less teams...then again a team name like the Portland Hipsters does have a nice ring to it.


i111.photobucket.com

/Shamelessly stolen from the Fark thread about the Islanders' move
 
2013-02-25 02:30:07 PM
Bring back the old division and conference names!
 
2013-02-25 02:33:31 PM

desertgeek: JohnnyCanuck: 3 Conf consisting of 10 (2x5) teams....

You have the right idea, but the wrong set up. To me, the only answer that makes sense is eliminating geographic conferences and going to a set up similar to that of MLB and have 2 conferences with East, Central and West divisions. It's a set up in which just about everyone loses, but there's no other option that makes sense.

Start by separating the teams by region. I'd have it as:

West: Winnipeg, Dallas, Colorado, Phoenix, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles
Sorry Jets and Stars, but I'll try to make it up to you later. And yes, I'm assuming things with Phoenix. Don't ask me about that. I'm more sick of that than all of you Farkers combined.

The next 2 regions will be controversial
Central: Minnesota, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, Toronto, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Florida
1- Pittsburgh teams are used the being in a Central division. The Steelers were in the AFC Central for years. The Pirates are in the NL Central.
2- Toronto was in the Campbell conference for a long time and that was the western-most conference. Plus, it splits the Original 6 teams evenly across the regions.
3- It was either Tampa and Florida in the Central or Washington and Carolina.

East: Carolina, Washington, Philadelphia, New Jersey, NY Rangers, NY Islanders, Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa

Then, we put divisions together; trying to maintain the rivalries as much as possible.

Conference A:
East: Boston, Montreal, NY Rangers, Carolina, Buffalo
Central: Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, Florida, Nashville
West: Dallas, Winnipeg, Colorado, Vancouver, Phoenix

Conference B:
East: Ottawa, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Washington
Central: Pittsburgh, Columbus, Tampa Bay, Minnesota, St. Louis
West:San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Calgary, Edmonton

In Conference A; you have the Original Six, 4 Canadian teams, Dallas and Winnipeg only have to travel to the Pacific Time Zone for 1 team (unless they go to Phoenix during daylight savings time since Arizona doesn't do that).

In Conference B; there's a ton of geographic rivals that will run into each other.

Schedule:
Division: 5 games per team (20 total)
Conference: 4 games per team (40 total)
Interconference: 1-2 games per team (22 total)- extra games against teams in the same region (so East vs East, etc.) and 2 wild cards.


On mobile, so can't snip, but switch Ottawa and Pittsburgh in conference B. The Pens rivals are Flyers and Caps, division them up together.
 
2013-02-25 02:36:59 PM

LucklessWonder: On mobile, so can't snip, but switch Ottawa and Pittsburgh in conference B. The Pens rivals are Flyers and Caps, division them up together.


I was torn about that one, but they'd still face each other 4 times a year in my proposal. Putting them in the same division would just add 1 game each. It's not a major loss, IMO.
 
2013-02-25 02:47:11 PM

cptjeff: tnpir: ElwoodCuse: This plan is just as stupid as before. Hey NHL: 30 isn't divisible by 4. Knock it off with the 4 unbalanced divisions crap. Because your inevitable solution to that morass will be "hey! two more teams! BRILLIANT!"

Then contract Florida and Columbus. Problem solved (except for the Panther and Blue Jacket fans in this thread who will now be calling for my summary execution....).

Alternatively, add a team in Seattle or Portland and one more in Canada somewhere.

Well, Columbus drew really well until recently, even while sucking, and the crowds came back a couple seasons ago when they had a playoff team. Florida ain't going anywhere- the owners simply wouldn't accept a buyout. Without the team, control over the arena and related revenues goes back to the county. Which makes the Panther's owner a lot of money. So while the team may lose money till kingdom come, they're not going anywhere as long as the other shows there continue to print money.

So, you know, maybe not being an idiot before talking about contraction and what markets are horrible and deserve to die would be good. And that doesn't even go into how stupid contraction would be for the league's profits as a whole.


Okay, so first off, excuse me all to hell.  Second off, Columbus as you pointed out doesn't draw, nor is it a desirable market. Miami is not a hockey town, has never been a hockey town, and barely supported that team even when they made the Finals in 1996.  No one would miss either market if they disappeared.

Now, granted, if the NHL were seriously going to contract (and that would be a better option, IMHO, than adding two more teams), there may be better franchises/markets to consider. But both Columbus and Miami would have to be at the top of the list. The NHL is not strengthened by having teams there, whereas they would be stronger with more Canadian teams and another northern US team.

Hey, I'm just a fan making observations. I could be right, I could be wrong. But it seems pretty obvious to me that the rapid southward expansion of the NHL was overall a bad idea - they grew into markets that aren't good for hockey and diluted the hell out of the talent pool.  There is not enough NHL-caliber talent out there for 32 teams, and probably not for 30 teams.
 
2013-02-25 03:54:46 PM

robertus: WhiskeySticks: tnpir: Then contract Florida and Columbus. Problem solved (except for the Panther and Blue Jacket fans in this thread who will now be calling for my summary execution....).

Alternatively, add a team in Seattle or Portland and one more in Canada somewhere.

I'd be ok with two less teams...then again a team name like the Portland Hipsters does have a nice ring to it.

[i111.photobucket.com image 399x300]

/Shamelessly stolen from the Fark thread about the Islanders' move


I like this logo because I'm on it.
 
2013-02-25 04:06:28 PM
Let me start by doing some expanding and realigning to get to a good 32:

EXPANSION: Quebec, Seattle
RELOCATION: Coyotes relocated to Kansas City
Panthers relocated to Milwaukee
Islanders relocated to Hamilton
Ducks relocated to Portland
Hurricanes relocated to Indianapolis

I thought about moving the Blue Jackets to Cleveland, but I think their attendance problems are more due to the Blue Jackets being terrible. So they can stay in Columbus. Nashville, Dallas, Tampa Bay and Los Angeles can stay where they are.

Realignment (new NHL cities in bold)

Boston, Buffalo, Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Tampa Bay, Quebec, Hamilton

Columbus, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, New Jersey, Detroit, Indianapolis

Winnipeg, Chicago, Dallas, Minnesota, St. Louis, Nashville, Milwaukee, Kansas City

Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, San Jose, Los Angeles, Colorado, Seattle, Portland
 
2013-02-25 04:08:18 PM
Actually, on second thought, scratch that. Flip Tampa Bay and Detroit.

Boston, Buffalo, Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, Quebec, Hamilton

Columbus, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, New Jersey, Tampa Bay, Indianapolis

Winnipeg, Chicago, Dallas, Minnesota, St. Louis, Nashville, Milwaukee, Kansas City

Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, San Jose, Los Angeles, Colorado, Seattle, Portland
 
2013-02-25 04:10:29 PM

Gosling: Actually, on second thought, scratch that. Flip Tampa Bay and Detroit.

Boston, Buffalo, Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, Quebec, Hamilton

Columbus, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, New Jersey, Tampa Bay, Indianapolis

Winnipeg, Chicago, Dallas, Minnesota, St. Louis, Nashville, Milwaukee, Kansas City

Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, San Jose, Los Angeles, Colorado, Seattle, Portland


Good thoughts, but I still am not sold on two more teams versus two less teams. I just don't think there's a wide enough talent pool for two more teams.
 
2013-02-25 04:13:16 PM

Gosling: RELOCATION: Coyotes relocated to Kansas City


As much as I'd like to see a team in KC (moving there this week), They only have the 29th largest metro area in the US (2 million). I doubt they'd be able to support a team.
 
kab
2013-02-25 04:18:19 PM
Here's a novel concept.   Split however makes the most sense for travel, but get rid of this retarded notion that div. leaders get automatic top seeds in the playoffs.
 
2013-02-25 04:28:27 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Gosling: RELOCATION: Coyotes relocated to Kansas City

As much as I'd like to see a team in KC (moving there this week), They only have the 29th largest metro area in the US (2 million). I doubt they'd be able to support a team.


They built a stadium just to attract a team and nobody's showed up yet.

Also, Columbus is 31st, Nashville is 37th, Buffalo is 49th. (And Portland is 26th, Indianapolis is 30th, and Milwaukee is 36th. Milwaukee is thinking of replacing the Bradley Center, but they'd rather do it for the NHL than do it for the Bucks.)
 
2013-02-25 04:46:30 PM

lostcitysaint: Oh Chicago fans, cry more about losing your rivalry with Detroit. Or as it really is, your benchmark for success.


From the look of the thread most of the people lamenting this rivalry being lost are Detroit fans?
 
2013-02-25 04:51:49 PM

Gosling: They built a stadium just to attract a team and nobody's showed up yet.

Also, Columbus is 31st, Nashville is 37th, Buffalo is 49th. (And Portland is 26th, Indianapolis is 30th, and Milwaukee is 36th. Milwaukee is thinking of replacing the Bradley Center, but they'd rather do it for the NHL than do it for the Bucks.)


Looks like they were going after the Islanders, but that obviously fell through. Phoenix is still on the fence, but I'd guess that they end up in Seattle or Portland.

Columbus has the worst attendance in the league, so they're not a good example to use. Buffalo benefits from a lot of Canadians crossing the border for games, so they're drawing from a much larger base than just the Buffalo metro area. Nashville has done well, so there is proof that a small market can support a team.

Guess there's always the Missouri Mavericks for now.
 
2013-02-25 05:15:56 PM
How to fix the NHL: drop four teams, and move two.

Teams to drop (due to varying degrees of both piss poor management and poor fan support):
- Yotes
- Islanders
- Blue Jackets
- Panthers

Teams to move (good management, some success, but horrible fanbase)
- Devils (to Hamilton)
- Stars (To Quebec City)
 
2013-02-25 05:31:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to do 2 Canadian divisions. You'd need an expansion team in Quebec/Hamilton/London/Niagara to do it. But I think it would build on the Canada vs. US mindset that would make for some interesting storylines. It won't ever happen, but it would be quite fun.
 
2013-02-25 05:32:09 PM
For the 1 billionth time, no professional sports league will just drop teams as long as they continue to bring in money and as long as there are enough ownership groups willing to own a team. You might think it's stupid. You might think it's not in the best interest of competition. But pro sports is a business, first and foremost and every league is making more money with 30 teams than they were with 26 or 28. Deal with it and give up on the contraction crap.
 
2013-02-25 05:34:52 PM
Name the conferences Adams, Patrick, Norris and Smythe and we've got a deal!

/Toe Blake!
//Eddie Shore!
///Old-time hockey!
 
2013-02-25 07:13:45 PM

LemSkroob: Teams to move (good management, some success, but horrible fanbase)
- Devils (to Hamilton)
- Stars (To Quebec City)


Yeah, great idea to move from the 5th largest US market to a city the size of Ft. Worth and a metro area smaller than the city of Dallas by itself. Dallas doesn't have a bad fanbase, the problem is the Tom Hicks ran the team into the ground, went bankrupt, and the fanbase stopped showing up. Before the bankruptcy, the Stars always sold out games, and now that they have new ownership and are actually trying to improve you are seeing the fans fill up the arena again.

/dumb to move the Devils too
//seems some NHL fans are actively trying to make the sport irrelevant in large parts of the country
 
2013-02-25 08:45:12 PM

desertgeek: Central: Minnesota, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, Toronto, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Florida


Pittsburgh without Philly? Toronto without Montreal?

Um no.
 
2013-02-25 08:58:30 PM
To any Eastern based team complaining about more travel, STFU.

/west coast teams have been sucking it up for decades.  It wouldn't kill the Devils/Rangers/Islanders to actually have to go on a long road trip every now and then.
 
2013-02-25 09:04:30 PM

desertgeek: Then, we put divisions together; trying to maintain the rivalries as much as possible.

Conference A:
East: Boston, Montreal, NY Rangers, Carolina, Buffalo
Central: Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, Florida, Nashville
West: Dallas, Winnipeg, Colorado, Vancouver, Phoenix

Conference B:
East: Ottawa, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Washington
Central: Pittsburgh, Columbus, Tampa Bay, Minnesota, St. Louis
West:San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Calgary, Edmonton

In Conference A; you have the Original Six, 4 Canadian teams, Dallas and Winnipeg only have to travel to the Pacific Time Zone for 1 team (unless they go to Phoenix during daylight savings time since Arizona doesn't do that).

In Conference B; there's a ton of geographic rivals that will run into each other.

Schedule:
Division: 5 games per team (20 total)
Conference: 4 games per team (40 total)
Interconference: 1-2 games per team (22 total)- extra games against teams in the same region (so East vs East, etc.) and 2 wild cards


There is no way in hell they would split the Isles, Rangers, and Devils up. Not a chance.
 
2013-02-25 09:30:51 PM
The worst part of this realignment is that it leave no room for Quebec City, the most deserving market, as well as a second Toronto area team, the most obvious market ever in the history of professional sports.
 
2013-02-25 10:11:59 PM

Brosef13: The worst part of this realignment is that it leave no room for Quebec City, the most deserving market


The most deserving market would be somewhere that didn't piss away a team already.
 
2013-02-25 10:28:48 PM

Popcorn Johnny: The most deserving market would be somewhere that didn't piss away a team already.


Yeah, I'd rather give a team to Seattle, Portland, Kansas City, Houston, and Milwaukee over Quebec freakin City.
 
2013-02-25 11:20:39 PM

Martonio: To any Eastern based team complaining about more travel, STFU.

/west coast teams have been sucking it up for decades.  It wouldn't kill the Devils/Rangers/Islanders to actually have to go on a long road trip every now and then.


The teams aren't complaining on behalf of the players (they fly on private or charter jets); it's for the fans.  It sucks for ratings for east coast fans to watch games starting at 10:00 PM, particularly in the playoffs when games can easily last until 2:00 in the morning.  Worst case for the West Coast is what, you listen for an hour in the car on the way to the bar after work or DVR a game to watch your team play on tape delay?

This is entirely about maximizing TV ratings.  Fans in Pittsburgh or Chicago or Detroit tune in to watch their team play; fans in LA or other LA or San Jose don't.  Losing 10% of a Pittsburgh or Detroit audience because of a late game is going to hurt ad revenue much more than losing 10% of a San Jose audience because of an early game.
 
2013-02-26 12:12:18 AM
This proves desert geek knows shiat about hockey

desertgeek: JohnnyCanuck: 3 Conf consisting of 10 (2x5) teams....

You have the right idea, but the wrong set up. To me, the only answer that makes sense is eliminating geographic conferences and going to a set up similar to that of MLB and have 2 conferences with East, Central and West divisions. It's a set up in which just about everyone loses, but there's no other option that makes sense.

Start by separating the teams by region. I'd have it as:

West: Winnipeg, Dallas, Colorado, Phoenix, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles
Sorry Jets and Stars, but I'll try to make it up to you later. And yes, I'm assuming things with Phoenix. Don't ask me about that. I'm more sick of that than all of you Farkers combined.

The next 2 regions will be controversial
Central: Minnesota, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, Toronto, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Florida
1- Pittsburgh teams are used the being in a Central division. The Steelers were in the AFC Central for years. The Pirates are in the NL Central.
2- Toronto was in the Campbell conference for a long time and that was the western-most conference. Plus, it splits the Original 6 teams evenly across the regions.
3- It was either Tampa and Florida in the Central or Washington and Carolina.

East: Carolina, Washington, Philadelphia, New Jersey, NY Rangers, NY Islanders, Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa

Then, we put divisions together; trying to maintain the rivalries as much as possible.

Conference A:
East: Boston, Montreal, NY Rangers, Carolina, Buffalo
Central: Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, Florida, Nashville
West: Dallas, Winnipeg, Colorado, Vancouver, Phoenix

Conference B:
East: Ottawa, NY Islanders, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Washington
Central: Pittsburgh, Columbus, Tampa Bay, Minnesota, St. Louis
West:San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Calgary, Edmonton

In Conference A; you have the Original Six, 4 Canadian teams, Dallas and Winnipeg only have to travel to the Pacific Time Zone for 1 team (unless the ...

 
2013-02-26 12:14:16 AM
Don't worry, the more sensible the plan, the more likely the NHLPA is to reject it.
 
2013-02-26 12:14:54 AM
There's always one moron who thinks people in San Jose don't tune in or fill up the barn with home fans. (except when Vancouver comes to town in the playoffs, then its Vancouver South). Congrats <b>meanmutton</b> on being that guy.
 
2013-02-26 12:15:55 AM
Congrats to myself for not figuring out the new formatting system. way to go,  self.
 
2013-02-26 12:18:10 AM

Electromax: lostcitysaint: Oh Chicago fans, cry more about losing your rivalry with Detroit. Or as it really is, your benchmark for success.

From the look of the thread most of the people lamenting this rivalry being lost are Detroit fans?


most Detroit fans would rather have three original six opponents in a new division than keep Chicago.
 
2013-02-26 12:29:42 AM

meanmutton: This is entirely about maximizing TV ratings.  Fans in Pittsburgh or Chicago or Detroit tune in to watch their team play; fans in LA or other LA or San Jose don't.  Losing 10% of a Pittsburgh or Detroit audience because of a late game is going to hurt ad revenue much more than losing 10% of a San Jose audience because of an early game.


I get where you're going, but I think you're underestimating the loyalty of the West Coast fan.  East Coast teams should suck it up every now and again for the greater good of the game.  We want to see Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Tavares, Datsyuk, etc.  And I'm sure some East Coast fans would like to see the Sedins, Thornton, Marleau and the West Coast stars more often than every 3 years.
 
2013-02-26 01:18:11 AM
Flip Winnipeg and Nashville.  Problem solved.

OR

Remove the team from Arizona and place it in Atlanta as compensation for the city losing two hockey teams and one World Series to Canuckistan.
 
2013-02-26 02:09:16 AM

SniperJoe: Florida and Canadian teams being in the same division is not an absurd compromise.  It's almost by design.  Have you ever seen how many Quebec license plates exist in Florida in the winter?  It's absolutely stunning.  There is a very good reason that they're in the same conference, because half of Canada is already down there either part-time or permanently!


The guys I know that worked for the team shot that argument down last summer, they say that those games did not have significantly better attendance. Since I'm somewhat lazy, I'll take their word on it. You get a slight bump for Montreal instead of Carolina, but not that much. Plus, we all know that Quebecois are not going to go see the Leafs or Bruins, only their beloved Habs. And if your plan to increase ticket sales involves selling more tickets to the fans of other teams when they come to visit, you've essentially given up on growing your own market.

All I'm saying is that if they stop trying to force Detroit into the east, they won't have to fix so many things that aren't broken.
 
2013-02-26 02:27:35 AM

mikaloyd:

Pittsburgh without Philly? Toronto without Montreal?

Um no.


Did you know that they were in separate conferences up until the 97-98 season? At least I keep them in the same conference.
 
2013-02-26 02:32:01 AM

notsosilentbob: All I'm saying is that if they stop trying to force Detroit into the east, they won't have to fix so many things that aren't broken.


I agree. I think they're kind of set to this idea, but as I said upthread; put the Avs in Conference 4 and the Wings in 3. Then it's 15 teams in the "West" and the East. Top 4 in each conference goes to the playoffs and then it's Conf. 1 winner vs Conf. 2 winner and 3 vs 4 in the Stanley Cup Semifinals.
 
2013-02-26 02:53:02 AM

TheJoe03: Yeah, great idea to move from the 5th largest US market to a city the size of Ft. Worth and a metro area smaller than the city of Dallas by itself. Dallas doesn't have a bad fanbase, the problem is the Tom Hicks ran the team into the ground, went bankrupt, and the fanbase stopped showing up. Before the bankruptcy, the Stars always sold out games, and now that they have new ownership and are actually trying to improve you are seeing the fans fill up the arena again.


I think we've proved definitively with the Thrashers and Coyotes that when it comes to hockey, you can take your market sizes and throw them out the goddamned window. It doesn't matter how many people you have in a city. If they only see snow once every 20 years, they're generally a bad place for a hockey team. That is why they moved a team from Atlanta to a place an hour north of North Dakota. On paper, that's a terrible decision. In hockey, it was an obvious decision.
 
2013-02-26 03:14:10 AM

Gosling: I think we've proved definitively with the Thrashers and Coyotes that when it comes to hockey, you can take your market sizes and throw them out the goddamned window. It doesn't matter how many people you have in a city. If they only see snow once every 20 years, they're generally a bad place for a hockey team. That is why they moved a team from Atlanta to a place an hour north of North Dakota. On paper, that's a terrible decision. In hockey, it was an obvious decision.


Atlanta and Dallas are two different cities, Atlanta doesn't support any of their pro teams all that much. Dallas (and Texas in general) is also a more important market than either Phoenix (and Arizona) or Atlanta (and Georgia). Plus, it seems pretty asinine to move out of a market like Dallas when they finally have a new owner and they are actually selling out games for the first time in a few years (despite having the same ~.500 record they've had in the last few years). The Stars just don't seem like a smart team to relocate, especially to some small city like Quebec City or Hamilton. Go ahead and move Phoenix, but moving Dallas would be just as stupid as moving LA or San Jose.

/DFW actually snows at least once a year, I think Atlanta might be similar.
 
2013-02-26 09:43:57 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Gosling: RELOCATION: Coyotes relocated to Kansas City

As much as I'd like to see a team in KC (moving there this week), They only have the 29th largest metro area in the US (2 million). I doubt they'd be able to support a team.


The city is REALLY spread out, though- IIRC, once you throw in CSA data (Overland Park, Lawrence, Lees Summit, etc.) they jump to 15th or so.
 
2013-02-26 09:55:00 AM

Incorrigible Astronaut: The city is REALLY spread out, though- IIRC, once you throw in CSA data (Overland Park, Lawrence, Lees Summit, etc.) they jump to 15th or so.


The 2 million number includes the burbs.
 
2013-02-26 10:13:35 AM

notsosilentbob: SniperJoe: Florida and Canadian teams being in the same division is not an absurd compromise.  It's almost by design.  Have you ever seen how many Quebec license plates exist in Florida in the winter?  It's absolutely stunning.  There is a very good reason that they're in the same conference, because half of Canada is already down there either part-time or permanently!

The guys I know that worked for the team shot that argument down last summer, they say that those games did not have significantly better attendance. Since I'm somewhat lazy, I'll take their word on it. You get a slight bump for Montreal instead of Carolina, but not that much. Plus, we all know that Quebecois are not going to go see the Leafs or Bruins, only their beloved Habs. And if your plan to increase ticket sales involves selling more tickets to the fans of other teams when they come to visit, you've essentially given up on growing your own market.

All I'm saying is that if they stop trying to force Detroit into the east, they won't have to fix so many things that aren't broken.


watch ANY Canadian team vs Florida and you'll disagree. Always larger/louder away section, sounds like the Panthers are visiting. How would your friend at the pro shop even have any Ida who the fans were there to see? Ask every person who came in?
 
2013-02-26 10:28:18 AM

WSUCanuck: There's always one moron who thinks people in San Jose don't tune in or fill up the barn with home fans. (except when Vancouver comes to town in the playoffs, then its Vancouver South). Congrats <b>meanmutton</b> on being that guy.


http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/sort/allAvg

San Jose is 18th in home attendance, 20th in road attendance.  But nearly everyone sells nearly all of their seats so selling out their tiny arena isn't that unusual for the NHL.

TV, though, is where my point was.  The most recent ratings information I've seen for the Sharks local TV ratings is from the Sharks  http://sharks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=614593

Last season, they averaged a 1.33 rating for their locally broadcast cable (33,411 households per game).

Red Wings average 4.5 for their locally broadcast cable.
Penguins are averaging 11.9 local ratings this season  http://fans.penguins.nhl.com/community/topic/18951-pens-tv-ratings-ju g gernauts/
Boston Bruins averaged 3.1 and 4.7 the last two seasons on locally broadcast cable.  http://fangsbites.com/2012/04/boston-bruins-set-another-ratings-recor d -on-nesn-2/
 
2013-02-26 11:14:05 AM

notsosilentbob: The guys I know that worked for the team shot that argument down last summer, they say that those games did not have significantly better attendance. Since I'm somewhat lazy, I'll take their word on it. You get a slight bump for Montreal instead of Carolina, but not that much. Plus, we all know that Quebecois are not going to go see the Leafs or Bruins, only their beloved Habs. And if your plan to increase ticket sales involves selling more tickets to the fans of other teams when they come to visit, you've essentially given up on growing your own market.


I would disagree.  I attended a Panthers vs. Maple Leafs game in late January and there were MANY, MANY Quebec license plates in the parking lot.  I saw multiple people there in Habs jerseys as well as the requisite masses in Leafs jerseys.  I'd say the split was 60-40 in terms of Panthers / Leafs fans.  Furthermore, the BB&T Center (where the Panthers play) actually has a gear shop dedicated to other teams' gear.  They even had Thrashers jerseys, throwback Canadiens jerseys and the vaunted Hartford Whalers gear.

Malcolm_Sex: watch ANY Canadian team vs Florida and you'll disagree. Always larger/louder away section, sounds like the Panthers are visiting.


As noted above, you're absolutely right.  I'm actually going to see the Habs in Tampa Bay in a few weeks, so it should be interesting.
 
2013-02-26 11:22:45 AM

TheJoe03: Plus, it seems pretty asinine to move out of a market like Dallas when they finally have a new owner and they are actually selling out games for the first time in a few years (despite having the same ~.500 record they've had in the last few years).


I'm actually really enjoying watching them this year. I don't know if the lockout made me miss hockey more than usual or what, but it's been really fun.

And the argument about putting hockey in cities that only see snow "once every 20 years" is asinine. Unless the other teams are playing their games outside, geography is irrelevant.  We can freeze shiat now. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY
 
2013-02-26 12:17:47 PM

Di Atribe: And the argument about putting hockey in cities that only see snow "once every 20 years" is asinine. Unless the other teams are playing their games outside, geography is irrelevant. We can freeze shiat now. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY


The shiat that needs to freeze is the lake. If the lake isn't freezing, there's no underlying winter-sports culture and you can't force one.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report