GreyHatnDart Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Read an interesting story in the province just now regarding a 4 team "expansion" to the league. I also heard rumblings about this on TSN today. Here's the link if anyone is interested... http://www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=10154039 Anywho. Point of this is the author seems to make it out as a horrible idea, whereas I think it could be a good thing. His point mainly being that the quality of skill would be spread too thin. However, isn't a big issue nearly every year the amount of (or lack there of) goal scoring? Wouldn't this be a really great way of boosting the total goal scoring? "The Expansion Years (1968-1986) Suddenly there were twelve and the NHL was never the same again. This was an era of rapid expansion with the NHL adding teams in multiple waves. In part this was to stave off competition. The World Hockey Association further extended the scope of elite professional hockey for the 1973 season with 12 teams of its own and, in short order, there were 28 major professional hockey teams. Although the WHA never reached parity with the NHL its dilutive effect was still pronounced. What we learned during the war and reconstruction years played out again as talent gets diluted scoring rises. This was an era of relentless inflation in scoring with average goals per game rising from 5.6 in 1968 to 8.0 in 1982." -hockeyanalytics.com Also, IF it were to be Las Vegas and Seattle getting teams, balancing the league? Obviously if a 4 team expansion were to happen Quebec City and possibly Hamilton would be very interested. However, if only 2 teams were to be created Seattle and LV would be good choices. Would create immediate rivalries for the Van vs Seattle (Totems? Or better yet, Orcas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William_Clarkson Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 There have been threads about this and this is not about the Canucks, so it should be in the "Around the NHL" forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyHatnDart Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 There have been threads about this and this is not about the Canucks, so it should be in the "Around the NHL" forum. Well I haven't read them or seen them. And seeing as this was a different take and on news I just heard today, I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. Thanks for your insight though. Edit - also I made sure to mention the potential Vancouver VS Seattle rivalry that would happen, so it does involve the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadcanucks Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Read an interesting story in the province just now regarding a 4 team "expansion" to the league. I also heard rumblings about this on TSN today. Here's the link if anyone is interested...http://www.theprovince.com/touch/story.html?id=10154039 Anywho. Point of this is the author seems to make it out as a horrible idea, whereas I think it could be a good thing. His point mainly being that the quality of skill would be spread too thin. However, isn't a big issue nearly every year the amount of (or lack there of) goal scoring? Wouldn't this be a really great way of boosting the total goal scoring? "The Expansion Years (1968-1986) Suddenly there were twelve and the NHL was never the same again. This was an era of rapid expansion with the NHL adding teams in multiple waves. In part this was to stave off competition. The World Hockey Association further extended the scope of elite professional hockey for the 1973 season with 12 teams of its own and, in short order, there were 28 major professional hockey teams. Although the WHA never reached parity with the NHL its dilutive effect was still pronounced. What we learned during the war and reconstruction years played out again as talent gets diluted scoring rises. This was an era of relentless inflation in scoring with average goals per game rising from 5.6 in 1968 to 8.0 in 1982." -hockeyanalytics.com Also, IF it were to be Las Vegas and Seattle getting teams, balancing the league? Obviously if a 4 team expansion were to happen Quebec City and possibly Hamilton would be very interested. However, if only 2 teams were to be created Seattle and LV would be good choices. Would create immediate rivalries for the Van vs Seattle (Totems? Or better yet, Orcas? ) and Arizona and Las Vegas (Gamblers)? I'm not opposed to expansion in the slightest. Just curious to other's thoughts on the matter. I'd be in favor of a 32 team league, with two expansion teams and two relocation teams. For relocation, I would suggest that Florida moves to Quebec City and Phoenix moves to Las Vegas. That would mean, to have a balanced east/west conference (each having 16 teams), the expansion targets could be Seattle and another western city -- maybe Portland or Houston? So that would mean no second team in the GTA. As far as playoffs go, I would suggest that it be expanded to 10 teams in each conference...top six get a bye, and bottom four play a best of five wild card series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyHatnDart Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 I'd be in favor of a 32 team league, with two expansion teams and two relocation teams. For relocation, I would suggest that Florida moves to Quebec City and Phoenix moves to Las Vegas. That would mean, to have a balanced east/west conference (each having 16 teams), the expansion targets could be Seattle and another western city -- maybe Portland or Houston? So that would mean no second team in the GTA. As far as playoffs go, I would suggest that it be expanded to 10 teams in each conference...top six get a bye, and bottom four play a best of five wild card series. I'm more in favour of those moves as well. 4 new teams I think would be too much. One point the author made in the link I posted was in regards to how it would most likely make the playoffs longer. I've been a supporter of a first-round best of 5 series to shorten the post season a little bit for a long time. However, be hard to convince the owners to give up all that playoff bank that comes with it. Interesting notion about having the bottom 4 having a best of 5 wild card playoff though. I like that idea a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadcanucks Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I'm more in favour of those moves as well. 4 new teams I think would be too much. One point the author made in the link I posted was in regards to how it would most likely make the playoffs longer. I've been a supporter of a first-round best of 5 series to shorten the post season a little bit for a long time. However, be hard to convince the owners to give up all that playoff bank that comes with it. Interesting notion about having the bottom 4 having a best of 5 wild card playoff though. I like that idea a lot. I think the best of five works if first two games are back-to-back, one day off for travel, games 3/4 are back-to-back, one day off for travel and game five is played (up to five games in seven days); and for conference quarter finals, games 1&2 are back to back and games 3&4 are back-to-back, with up to seven games being played in 11 days; the rest of the playoffs can be played out as it is, so we'd be adding 4 days to the playoffs from what it is today. The only hitch to the schedule would be if there is anything in the CBA that restricts back-to-back games in the playoffs. I thought I heard someone say that a day of rest in between games in the playoffs had been negotiated by the players. If that's the case, then maybe a best of three wild card round works. And the four days can be made up by starting the NHL season four days sooner than it is now...with the way players train in the off-season they would be ready, and for sure, the fans would be ready for the season to start sooner. I think it could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComfyMatter Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I see it as what it could be for the Canucks. I mean think about it. Seattle and Vancouver rivalry. I know there is already a topic about this but the thought of this is insane. I think adding Seattle and LV should even the conferences a little bit. Quebec City would also be great. More Canadian teams! We need more! I have a feeling Arizona will relocate to Quebec City/Seattle and LV will get an expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 What about the expansion draft? Is no one else pissed that we will be losing players... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxgoalie Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 What about the expansion draft? Is no one else pissed that we will be losing players... If there's new teams, we'll lose a player per team. So 2 new teams would mean 2 unprotected players gone. 4 new teams would mean 4 unprotected players gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lui's Knob Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Terrible idea... Vegas?? Really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj vic Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Can't say I'm on board with a four team expansion. There's enough questionable talent playing in the NHL now without adding another 100 players into the mix. Two teams would be pushing the limits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Contraction and relocation. No expansion please, and no screwing with the playoff format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyHatnDart Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 Makes more sense to me that if it's only a relocation, that Florida be the one to go to Quebec and Arizona to Seattle. Those two cities seem to be front runners, and both teams would stay in their respective conferences. Can't say I'm on board with a four team expansion. There's enough questionable talent playing in the NHL now without adding another 100 players into the mix. Two teams would be pushing the limits I did make a point of looking up the fact that the late 70's and 80's was nearly the highest team goal scoring in the league, ever. This didn't make for some incredibly exciting hockey? The really good players absolutely destroyed the weaker teams on a nightly basis. Some very fun hockey to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Are All Cynics Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 What it would mean for the Canucks is that likely four new teams will win the Cup before we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 The league and the owners want money. I can see Florida and Phoenix folding, and the addition of 4 expansion teams. You'd hold a dispersal draft first, then an expansion draft. That way the league gets the expansion fees they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyHatnDart Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 What it would mean for the Canucks is that likely four new teams will win the Cup before we do. Your name is right on point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 i believe that in past expansions, team could protect 15 players and one goal tender...when one of their players are chosen, they can protect another player..if this happens in 2017, you have to figure who will be here then andb what 15 you would protect.... if they were dumb and added 4 teams in one year, teams might only be able to protect 12 players...that could get dicey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I'd be in favor of a 32 team league, with two expansion teams and two relocation teams. For relocation, I would suggest that Florida moves to Quebec City and Phoenix moves to Las Vegas. That would mean, to have a balanced east/west conference (each having 16 teams), the expansion targets could be Seattle and another western city -- maybe Portland or Houston? So that would mean no second team in the GTA. As far as playoffs go, I would suggest that it be expanded to 10 teams in each conference...top six get a bye, and bottom four play a best of five wild card series.Why would it make the playoffs longer, just keep the same numbers of teams qualifying for the playoffs as before so expansion would just mean a few more teams miss the p[layoffs which could make the regular season more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadcanucks Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 What about the expansion draft? Is no one else pissed that we will be losing players... Flip side of that is if the expansion draft were to happen today, it would give teams the opportunity to shed some bad contracts. Not a great argument since this is not a "hockey" matter, but allows teams to dump players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_Canuckian Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 How about stability for ALL 30 teams before we put franchises in cities that can't handle them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.