BoKnows

My NHL Vision

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I've been thinking of this for a while now and I believe that this is what the NHL should do to grow the sport and make the most money.  The NHL should become a 32 team league, and realign the league to scrap the eastern and western conferences.  The first order of business would to be to get the league to a 32 team league.  There are three main cities that the NHL can expand to in the not so distant future (Quebec City, Seattle, Houston).  I personally believe that the NHL should add it's 32nd team in Houston, it's a huge market and would further grow the game in the southern states.  Houston is the sixth largest city in the USA, it makes sense for the NHL to want to expand, Houston also has an NHL ready arena and a multibillionaire wanting to put an NHL team in the Toyota Centre.  To me it's the best decision based on a business point of view, after all the NHL is a business.

 

Phase 2 Relocation:  Gary Bettman and the NHL need to relocate a couple of teams that are failing.  There are three teams that come to mind, Arizona Coyotes, Carolina Hurricanes, and the Florida Panthers.  The NHL could potentially relocate all three teams, but at least two should be moved.  Arizona should move to the Pacific Northwest, more specifically Seattle.  We all know that Arizona is a failing market, no one wants hockey in Arizona except Gary Bettman and the very few Coyote fans.  Arizona is struggling to keep an arena, it's time for them to move.  Either Carolina or Florida should move north of the border to Quebec City.  Canada is the worlds best hockey market so it makes sense, and both Carolina and Florida struggle to put fans in the seats.  I would prefer to see Carolina relocated just because Miami is a larger market and I hope that the NHL can succeed there.  After those two relocations perhaps Florida can relocate to Hartford or Kansas City, I'm okay with Florida staying put if Arizona and Carolina are relocated.

 

Phase 3 Realignment:  The NHL should realign the league like the MLB and NFL.  Scrap the east/west and create two separate leagues/conferences where geography is mix-matched.  I'll call them the Titan and Warrior conferences (Obviously the NHL will come up with better names than those).  Each conference will have 4 divisions North, South, East, and West.

Here's my makeup of the two conferences (This can be played around with).

Titan Conference

North: Toronto, Boston, Columbus, Winnipeg

South: Houston, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Florida/Kansa City/Hartford

East: Montreal, NYI, Washington, Philly

West: Anaheim, Calgary, Minnesota, Seattle

 

Warrior Conference

North: Quebec City, NYR, Ottawa, Chicago

South: Vegas, Los Angeles, Dallas, San Jose

East: Pittsburgh, Detroit, New Jersey, Buffalo

West: Colorado, Vancouver, Edmonton, St. Louis

 

This is just one big idea but I believe it can be done and it would make sense for the NHL to do it.  It can go without the realignment but I would love to see a league shaped similar to the one I created above.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't help when your team is playing at home and 80% of the fans are cheering for the other team..

That's why they need to move these low attendance teams to places where they will actually have supportive fans :ph34r:

Edited by Roberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed the lower ones should be moved and I always say a team in Saskatchewan will work as most Canadian players are from there and would want to play at home

 

plus most players are still Canadian so that being said most from a place with no team deserves a team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason they broke up the old Wales and Campbell conferences and created the East and West was to cut down on excessive travel.

 

Owners don't like it, neither do the players.

 

Relocating teams that can't turn a profit happens though, just not as frequently as we'd like. They still want to grow the game in the US. Get that money

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, luckylager said:

The reason they broke up the old Wales and Campbell conferences and created the East and West was to cut down on excessive travel.

 

Owners don't like it, neither do the players.

 

Relocating teams that can't turn a profit happens though, just not as frequently as we'd like. They still want to grow the game in the US. Get that money

exactly why we relocate/expand to Seattle and Houston.  Carolina is a smaller (failing) market compared to both Houston and Seattle, it makes sense to move the game away from Raleigh over to Seattle and Houston.  Houston and Dallas would become an instant rivalry growing the game in one of the larger states of America.  I also believe that hockey would just naturally thrive in Seattle, seems like a great sports city to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, cripplereh said:

agreed the lower ones should be moved and I always say a team in Saskatchewan will work as most Canadian players are from there and would want to play at home

 

plus most players are still Canadian so that being said most from a place with no team deserves a team

Saskatchewan?  There just isn't the population there to support an NHL franchise.  And don't bother quoting the success of the Riders, the economics of an NHL team are completely different than that of a CFL team.  Horvat by himself makes more than an entire CFL team.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BoKnows said:

exactly why we relocate/expand to Seattle and Houston.  Carolina is a smaller (failing) market compared to both Houston and Seattle, it makes sense to move the game away from Raleigh over to Seattle and Houston.  Houston and Dallas would become an instant rivalry growing the game in one of the larger states of America.  I also believe that hockey would just naturally thrive in Seattle, seems like a great sports city to me.

I'm all for relocation, unless it's the Canucks...

 

The realignment you propose will never happen. It's a nice thought and I enjoy the sentiment, but that's just never gonna "fly".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BoKnows said:

Houston is the sixth largest city in the USA,

I believe you will find that Houston is the fourth largest city in the USA.  But size isn't everything.  Phoenix is the 5th largest and look how that's working out.

 

As for the rest of your proposal, I agree on expanding to 32.  It evens out the conferences.  I also agree with a little relocation.  I have a feeling that one day we will see a team in Seattle and Quebec.  But as for the realignment proposal, I completely disagree.

 

One thing that I really like about how the NHL is organized right now is the geographical rivalries.  In your proposal you have Edmonton and Calgary in different conferences.  Same with the Rangers and Islanders, Pittsburgh and Philly, Anaheim and L.A., Houston and Dallas, Toronto and Detroit, etc.  This would completely wreck some great rivalries.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't Vancouver be in the west? Why would St. Louis be in the same division as Vancouver? They are 3,500 km apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BoKnows Aside from adding extra the extra teams, what's your proposed schedule change? In other words, why bother with re-alignment at all? Aside form looking neat with 4 per division all it appears to do is break up some historical rivalries.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Green Building said:

@BoKnows Aside from adding extra the extra teams, what's your proposed schedule change? In other words, why bother with re-alignment at all? Aside form looking neat with 4 per division all it appears to do is break up some historical rivalries.

I'm hoping the aim in busting the old rivalries is to create a new era, acknowledge that the game has changed.

Rivalries get stale when you play eachother all the time. I hate Calgary, but I don't need to see us play them 6 times in reg season. (or however many it actually is)

 

I'm an advocate for a "Premier League" style NHL. 16 teams in the "A", 16 in the "B".  "A" teams don't get a first round pick.

 

Bottom two "A"s get relegated, top two B's get a wild card in the playoffs and promoted for the next season.

 

It's not a pop opinion. I get raked for it, always

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, luckylager said:

I'm hoping the aim in busting the old rivalries is to create a new era, acknowledge that the game has changed.

Rivalries get stale when you play eachother all the time. I hate Calgary, but I don't need to see us play them 6 times in reg season. (or however many it actually is)

 

I'm an advocate for a "Premier League" style NHL. 16 teams in the "A", 16 in the "B".  "A" teams don't get a first round pick.

 

Bottom two "A"s get relegated, top two B's get a wild card in the playoffs and promoted for the next season.

 

It's not a pop opinion. I get raked for it, always

Dude, you deserve to get raked for that trash. It's trash.

 

However, your rivalries comment is spot on. I should have specified more of the Original 6 rivalries. I'm not all that sentimental with Canuck rivalries, but I think regular season hockey does need some classic matchups. All of this can be done with minimal realignment, and just tweaking the schedule a touch. I realize there's 31 teams in the league, but even facing Eastern teams 3 times per year instead of 2 would make a little difference. And I don't want to hear about how the math doesn't work out with inter-conference play because I don't need to see the Flames 6 times per year either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Green Building said:

Dude, you deserve to get raked for that trash. It's trash.

I know, I abandoned any real passion for it when the master-slave trade routine was brought into play, but whatever. I just want Olympic style competition.

Never once has anyone agreed with me, even "soccer guys". 

 

Hardly anybody agrees with contraction either.. 

 

Feel like I'm all alone on an Island, wanting to see more dynamic, explosive, engaging hockey games. We put up with a lot of dull hockey. The calibre could be higher

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, luckylager said:

I know, I abandoned any real passion for it when the master-slave trade routine was brought into play, but whatever. I just want Olympic style competition.

Never once has anyone agreed with me, even "soccer guys". 

 

Hardly anybody agrees with contraction either.. 

 

Feel like I'm all alone on an Island, wanting to see more dynamic, explosive, engaging hockey games. We put up with a lot of dull hockey. The calibre could be higher

 

The calibre could be higher with 28 teams. It could be even higher with 24. It would be really high with 12. In fact, I think the highest calibre competition we could have would be just having two teams. So let's go with that.

 

I think the fact that Golden Knights are actually winning games with the castoffs from other teams rosters is proof enough that there isn't a dearth of talent in the NHL. Any lack of "dynamic, explosive, engaging hockey" is due to coaching, not talent.

 

Edited by Bitter Melon
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, goalie13 said:

Saskatchewan?  There just isn't the population there to support an NHL franchise.  And don't bother quoting the success of the Riders, the economics of an NHL team are completely different than that of a CFL team.  Horvat by himself makes more than an entire CFL team.

Hmmmm so 100+ players each pitching in would not get a team

 

do not make me laugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Green Building said:

@BoKnows Aside from adding extra the extra teams, what's your proposed schedule change? In other words, why bother with re-alignment at all? Aside form looking neat with 4 per division all it appears to do is break up some historical rivalries.

More of just making it a new era of the NHL.  Making the transition from a 30 team league to 32 team league more interesting.  

 

9 hours ago, goalie13 said:

 

One thing that I really like about how the NHL is organized right now is the geographical rivalries.  In your proposal you have Edmonton and Calgary in different conferences.  Same with the Rangers and Islanders, Pittsburgh and Philly, Anaheim and L.A., Houston and Dallas, Toronto and Detroit, etc.  This would completely wreck some great rivalries.

 

 

It would wreck some rivalries but also create new ones.  It was just an idea.

 

8 hours ago, zzbottom said:

Why wouldn't Vancouver be in the west? Why would St. Louis be in the same division as Vancouver? They are 3,500 km apart. 

Like I said in my post the realignment could fiddled around with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cripplereh said:

Hmmmm so 100+ players each pitching in would not get a team

 

do not make me laugh

You're correct.  No amount of players 'pitching in' would get a team in Saskatchewan.  That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard, and on CDC, that's saying something.

 

Saskatoon is 1/3 of the size of the NHL's smallest market.  Regina is even smaller.  Even in their best years, neither the Blades or the Pats even come close to selling out.    Halifax and Hamilton would have a better chance than any city in Saskatchewan.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cripplereh said:

Hmmmm so 100+ players each pitching in would not get a team

 

do not make me laugh

You're correct.  No amount of players 'pitching in' would get a team in Saskatchewan.  That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard, and on CDC, that's saying something.

 

Saskatoon is 1/3 of the size of the NHL's smallest market.  Regina is even smaller.  Even in their best years, neither the Blades or the Pats even come close to selling out.    Halifax and Hamilton would have a better chance than any city in Saskatchewan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That keebler wood elf would relocate the Canucks to Mobile Alabama, the Oilers to Lexington Kentucky, the Flames to Sante Fe New Mexico, the Sens to Juneau Alaska, the Habs to Oklahoma City Oklahoma, the Jets to Bute Montana, and the Leafs to Hartford Connecticut if he could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bitter Melon said:

The calibre could be higher with 28 teams. It could be even higher with 24. It would be really high with 12. In fact, I think the highest calibre competition we could have would be just having two teams. So let's go with that.

 

I think the fact that Golden Knights are actually winning games with the castoffs from other teams rosters is proof enough that there isn't a dearth of talent in the NHL. Any lack of "dynamic, explosive, engaging hockey" is due to coaching, not talent.

 

Lol, love the reduction, put it all on coaching. Fair enough

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.