3rd plan

[Hockee]

I have posted two plans so far, and they both work quite well. Here's a 3rd, piggybacking off the previous two.

The union is dead as we know it. They have lost this battle. The owners hold all the cards at this point, and I certainly hope they have the marbles to stick to their guns and not cave in and come to a CBA. They have the ability to break the union right now, and they are stupid if they don't do it.

Now, operating under the assumption that the NHL will break the union, and that 80's style hockey is what they are shooting for, here's the plan.

1. Contract down to 20 teams.
2. Cap in place. The dollar numbers are irrelevant. Cost certainty and salary cap tied to revenue, with revenue sharing for the league. Thus the revenue for a big market team wouldn't allow them to spend more than a small market team.
3. Eliminate the two line pass rule and reinstitute the tag up rule.
4. Make goalie pads smaller and keep this strictly enforced.
5. Sever ties with the AHL and create a new league...NHL2 if you will. The ten teams that are contracted would become NHL2 teams. The difference between the Thrashers of today and the Thrashers of NHL2 would be negligible in terms of talent.
6. Create an NHLDL - NHL Developmental League. 20 teams, each made up half from NHL prospects, half from NHL2 prospects with direct ties to teams.
7. Eliminate the Draft completely. Teams sign youth players instead. This way, NHL2 teams can compete with NHL teams if they choose. It would create a system like NCAA football and scholarship restrictions. Sure, everyone would want to play for the NHL teams, but the NHL teams would be restricted to the number of roster spots they have available on their portion of the NHLDL team. Thus, great players would wind up on NHL2 teams.
8. Establish a relegation system, similar to what they do in European soccer. Bottom two NHL teams are relegated to the NHL2. Top two NHL2 teams are brought up to the NHL.
9. The cap would be constant for both the NHL and NHL2.
10. NHL2 teams would have the advantage of being broken up into two geographically determined divisions that do not play each other until the playoffs. This would save on travel costs. Revenue sharing would also go to the NHL2 western teams (if they need it) to cover their additional travel costs.

What would this do?

1. Brings back firewagon hockey.
2. Creates a compromise between not eliminating jobs and allowing the NHL owners to plan their finances and know they will break even at least.
3. Contracts the league without losing major markets. Any team contracted would still have an NHL2 team, a team with a good shot at being promoted to the NHL within a season or two.
4. Creates excitement. A late-season match between two cellar dwellers hoping to avoid relegation would be as exciting as Habs-Leafs.
5. Keeps salaries under control.
6. Eliminates rookies from being paid outrageous salaries (like Jani Rita making over a mil a year). They would have to prove themselves in the NHLDL before being offered the bucks. Plus, the cellar dwellers would still have a better chance at getting them, since they would be the teams that would have an open roster spot in the NHL for the players.
7. Opens up the possibility for a 40 team NHL Europe (ten teams each in Sweden, Finland, Russia and Czechoslovakia...all with mixed rosters) that would be a semi-feeder system for the NHL and NHL2. It would get Europeans involved with a particular NHL team because that city's team would be directly tied to an NHL or NHL2 team.

Click to read more...

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

It's just that easy. :lol

 

[itsmagic]

OK, Let's contract the following teams to get down to twenty...

NY Rangers
NY Islanders
Detroit
Colorado
Toronto
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas
New Jersey

Hey... you're right. It looks better already!

 

[Drury_Sakic]

americans have a hard enough time getting the concept of strikes and balls.... much less that...





I would hate that.. and it would be a marketing mess...





Fresh idea, but 0% chance of ever being even remotely thought of a probable solution...

 

[wazee]

The union is dead as we know it. They have lost this battle.

If the union really was dead, the NHL would be playing hockey right now. All this talk about the union being dead is premature. It's not over until it's over.

Now continue with your 43rd 'Expansion was evil. Contraction is the answer to all that is wrong with the NHL' threads.....

 

[wazee]

I have posted two plans so far, and they both work quite well. Here's a 3rd, piggybacking off the previous two.

The union is dead as we know it. They have lost this battle. The owners hold all the cards at this point, and I certainly hope they have the marbles to stick to their guns and not cave in and come to a CBA. They have the ability to break the union right now, and they are stupid if they don't do it.

Now, operating under the assumption that the NHL will break the union, and that 80's style hockey is what they are shooting for, here's the plan.

1. Contract down to 20 teams.
2. Cap in place. The dollar numbers are irrelevant. Cost certainty and salary cap tied to revenue, with revenue sharing for the league. Thus the revenue for a big market team wouldn't allow them to spend more than a small market team.
3. Eliminate the two line pass rule and reinstitute the tag up rule.
4. Make goalie pads smaller and keep this strictly enforced.
5. Sever ties with the AHL and create a new league...NHL2 if you will. The ten teams that are contracted would become NHL2 teams. The difference between the Thrashers of today and the Thrashers of NHL2 would be negligible in terms of talent.
6. Create an NHLDL - NHL Developmental League. 20 teams, each made up half from NHL prospects, half from NHL2 prospects with direct ties to teams.

7. Eliminate the Draft completely. Teams sign youth players instead. This way, NHL2 teams can compete with NHL teams if they choose. It would create a system like NCAA football and scholarship restrictions. Sure, everyone would want to play for the NHL teams, but the NHL teams would be restricted to the number of roster spots they have available on their portion of the NHLDL team. Thus, great players would wind up on NHL2 teams.
8. Establish a relegation system, similar to what they do in European soccer. Bottom two NHL teams are relegated to the NHL2. Top two NHL2 teams are brought up to the NHL.
9. The cap would be constant for both the NHL and NHL2.
10. NHL2 teams would have the advantage of being broken up into two geographically determined divisions that do not play each other until the playoffs. This would save on travel costs. Revenue sharing would also go to the NHL2 western teams (if they need it) to cover their additional travel costs.

What would this do?

1. Brings back firewagon hockey.
2. Creates a compromise between not eliminating jobs and allowing the NHL owners to plan their finances and know they will break even at least.
3. Contracts the league without losing major markets. Any team contracted would still have an NHL2 team, a team with a good shot at being promoted to the NHL within a season or two.
4. Creates excitement. A late-season match between two cellar dwellers hoping to avoid relegation would be as exciting as Habs-Leafs.
5. Keeps salaries under control.
6. Eliminates rookies from being paid outrageous salaries (like Jani Rita making over a mil a year). They would have to prove themselves in the NHLDL before being offered the bucks. Plus, the cellar dwellers would still have a better chance at getting them, since they would be the teams that would have an open roster spot in the NHL for the players.
7. Opens up the possibility for a 40 team NHL Europe (ten teams each in Sweden, Finland, Russia and Czechoslovakia...all with mixed rosters) that would be a semi-feeder system for the NHL and NHL2. It would get Europeans involved with a particular NHL team because that city's team would be directly tied to an NHL or NHL2 team.

Let me address each item in your ‘Expansion is the root of all evil’ plan.

1. Contract down to 20 teams. Disagree. Favor the strategy of making the NHL a national sport in the U.S.

2. Cap in place, etc. I agree with this although I think the amount of the cap most certainly does matter in the 30 team NHL I favor.

3. Eliminate the two line pass and reinstate the tag up rule. Agree. Also want some other changes to open up the game.

4. Make the goalie pads smaller. Fine with me.

5. Sever ties with the AHL. The 10 contracted teams form the new NHL2 league. Sure. They will just roll over and donate the fees they paid the NHL for the good of your plan. They can hardly wait to drop down a level because you don’t think they deserve to be in your exalted league. The nerve of those pathetic upstarts. As you might have guessed, I consider this plan ill-advised and arrogant and am strongly opposed.

6. Create a different development league. Have no clue why you think this would serve the NHL better than the AHL. Change for change sake. Opposed.

7. Eliminate the draft. Strongly disagree.

8. Establish a ‘European league’ system where the NHL2 teams, should they get incredibly lucky could, on rare occasion, be allowed to skate on the same ice as your exalted 20. Count me opposed.

9. Cap would be consistant between the (wonderful, exalted NHL) and the (lowly, unworthy, upstart)NHL2. Why? It makes absolutely NO sense for the 2nd class league to have the same salary cap as the top tier. Opposed to the whole concept of a 2-tier league.

10. NHL2 teams would play in divisions to save on travel cost. Whoppee!!! I am sure they will be overwhelmed by how you are looking out for them.

Advantages:

1. Brings back firewagon hockey. Nope. Contraction and the few changes you mention will not bring back firewagon hockey and it most certainly will not bring firewagon hockey to the NHL2 teams.

2. Brings compromise by not eliminating jobs. Keeping a 30 team NHL does no eliminate any jobs. No advantage there.

3. Contracts the league without losing major markets. Who are you trying to fool? Do you really think any city that has had an NHL team is going to be satisfied with an NHL2 team? You are within your rights to support contraction, but spare me the hypocrisy of pretending you give a damn about the teams you want to contract.

4. Creates excitement. Right. For sure. The NHL2 cities that never get to see the star players will be SOOOOOO excited about being part of the 2nd tier.

5, Keeps salaries under control. Yep. A salary cap will do that for all 30 teams.

6. Eliminates rookies getting outrageous salaries. Can be done without demoting 10 teams.

7. Opens the door for expansion in Europe. Ah, I get it now. Expansion in the U.S., BAD. Expansion in Europe, GOOD. Can’t argue with that kind of logic.

I must have missed the part where you dealt with what an advantage it would be for the NHL to pay the NHL2 teams for demoting them into a 2nd class league. And I must of missed the start up costs for your new development league. But who cares. It eliminates the teams you want to get rid of so it is worth any price.

My response to your plan…a hearty ‘No Thanks’.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

OK, Let's contract the following teams to get down to twenty...

NY Rangers
NY Islanders
Detroit
Colorado
Toronto
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas
New Jersey

Hey... you're right. It looks better already!

 

[pacde]

I have posted two plans so far, and they both work quite well.. .

This is what I read ...

 

[Injektilo]

1. Contract down to 20 teams. Disagree. Favor the strategy of making the NHL a national sport in the U.S.

7. Opens the door for expansion in Europe. Ah, I get it now. Expansion in the U.S., BAD. Expansion in Europe, GOOD. Can’t argue with that kind of logic.

You know, I sorta have to wonder just how possible that is, making hockey a national sport in the US. All the American sports fans I talk to on other forums don't care about the NHL not because the current game is boring but because the just don't care about hockey. They spend too much time on the other three main sports and just don't have time to follow another one, and so they follow the one's they're familiar with. I know that doesn't mean it applies to everyone, but I still have to wonder at if it's even possible for the NHL to become a viable sport in some areas, regardless of how much marketing there is.
To be perfectly honest, I think the boom in the early-mid 90's was an abberation, hockey was momentarily the cool thing, esp with Gretz moving to LA and going to the finals, the dominance of Mario in Pittsburgh, and then the Rangers in 94. The lockout killed any momentum the NHL might have had, but I think even then hockey in certain markets was just a fad.
It probably does need more time, especially after this lockout to see what the impact is, but at a certain point, there should be a time when you can admit that "yeah, this isn't working".

 

[joepeps]

OK, Let's contract the following teams to get down to twenty...

NY Rangers
NY Islanders
Detroit
Colorado
Toronto
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas
New Jersey

Hey... you're right. It looks better already!

lol Thats funny... Get ride of the teams making the most money??? lol :lol

 

[X8oD]

lol Thats funny... Get ride of the teams making the most money??? lol :lol

at least it would stop the small market fans from *****ing all the goddamn time.

when they still cant make money, then who will they blame. THATS the question.

And $5 says Ottawa Still doesnt win the cup.

 

[Hockee]

Let me address each item in your ‘Expansion is the root of all evil’ plan.

1. Contract down to 20 teams. Disagree. Favor the strategy of making the NHL a national sport in the U.S.

The NHL is not a national sport in the US. To market it as such will not work. Have you watched the American media? Nobody cares that the league has been locked out this year. It would be nice if it were national, but it's not. It's a regional sport, and it will take at least a generation or two before it is national.

The fact is, people in Miami will not pay $60 plus parking, concessions, etc. to watch hockey on a regular basis. If they are in the playoffs, maybe. But not year in and year out. And no amount of marketing is going to change that.

Now, you can either lower prices, or you can move the team to a place where they would be supported.

How do you lower ticket prices? To do that, you have to lower salaries. A CBA won't lower salaries enough or permanently enough to make the Panthers viable long term.

The best way to do it would be to contract the Panthers down to NHL2 and let them earn their way back into the NHL. As a 2nd tier pro team, perhaps they would be more successful.

Another great part about this plan is that it would create twice as many playoff teams. Top 16 in each league would make the playoffs, creating 32 playoff teams. Sure, the NHL2 teams would only be playing for the NHL2 Cup, but think about it...are Thrashers fans more likely to attend a game in March if the Thrashers are out of the NHL playoffs, or if they are in contention for the NHL2 Cup and an automatic berth back into the NHL?

Finally, your claim that I am making an "expansion is the root of all evil" argument is an ignorant straw man. If you were to use your head and look at my plan, you would realize that my plan actually calls for expansion by ten teams. It allows cities that cannot stay afloat in today's NHL to be able to survive and thrive. If they can't remain NHL competitive, they can play NHL2, have a more competitive league to play in, and maybe even make it to the NHL again.

It allows cities like Winnepeg, Oklahoma City, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City, Salt Lake City, Memphis, etc to possibly have an NHL/NHL2 team and have a go at it.

The way things are now, UHL teams have no DIRECT ties to the NHL. If this plan were put in place, UHL cities could host NHLDL teams, or if they were big enough, NHL2 teams.

If you want to make hockey a national sport long term, my plan does a hell of a lot more toward making it so than the NHL does.

But continue your closeminded, shortsighted myopic bashing. Whatever works for you.

 

[Hockee]

You know, I sorta have to wonder just how possible that is, making hockey a national sport in the US. All the American sports fans I talk to on other forums don't care about the NHL not because the current game is boring but because the just don't care about hockey. They spend too much time on the other three main sports and just don't have time to follow another one, and so they follow the one's they're familiar with. I know that doesn't mean it applies to everyone, but I still have to wonder at if it's even possible for the NHL to become a viable sport in some areas, regardless of how much marketing there is.
To be perfectly honest, I think the boom in the early-mid 90's was an abberation, hockey was momentarily the cool thing, esp with Gretz moving to LA and going to the finals, the dominance of Mario in Pittsburgh, and then the Rangers in 94. The lockout killed any momentum the NHL might have had, but I think even then hockey in certain markets was just a fad.
It probably does need more time, especially after this lockout to see what the impact is, but at a certain point, there should be a time when you can admit that "yeah, this isn't working".

Ding ding ding!

It's not the sport. The ECHL, before it expanded, saw several markets in the south maintaining quality teams with plenty of fan support. These markets are not big enough to be candidates for an NHL team, but there's no reason that you can't institute some regionality in interest and get them involved in an NHL team.

Pee Dee and Greenville had a huge rivalry in the ECHL. Both teams had plenty of support. Why shouldn't these teams be affiliated with the Hurricanes and Thrashers? Why not have Greenville as an NHLDL affiliate of the Canes and Pee Dee as an NHLDL affiliate of the Thrashers? I know the fans of these teams are rabid about their former players when they make the NHL. Why not capitalize on that?

But no, people like Wazzee are too busy trying to pound a square peg in a round hole and get Atlanta to be a viable team on its own.

What the NHL is doing IS NOT WORKING. The CBA is not why the fans don't care. The NHL is trying to sell something that people don't want to people who don't want it. There are people who do want it, and it should be sold to them.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

The way things are now, UHL teams have no DIRECT ties to the NHL.

Maybe they like it that way. The UHL isn't a developmental league. Where's their incentive to climb aboard your Pan-NHL scheme?

 

[NYIsles1*]

OK, Let's contract the following teams to get down to twenty...

NY Rangers
NY Islanders
Detroit
Colorado
Toronto
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas
New Jersey

Hey... you're right. It looks better already!

Here is the funny thing, every team on that list claims to have lose money last season outside of Toronto, who only make a 10-15 million dollar profit. Vancouver leads the league in profit.

Rangers-lost 40m
Islanders-lost 20m
Detroit-Forbes claims 19m loss
Colorado-recently claimed to lose a few million.
Los Angeles-claimed to be losing 20-30 million, even fan audit confirmed this.
Chicago-claim to be losing revenue but close to even with low payroll.
Philadelphia-Snyder claimed to lose revenue going to conf finals.
Dallas-Hicks within last two week claimed to lose revenue.
Devils-Have been losing significant revenue since moving to New Jersey from McMullen to Yankee-Nets.

Contraction is not going to solve this nor will it change the trap that many teams play.

Big markets make profits, othewise what's big about them?

 

[Hockee]

5. Sever ties with the AHL. The 10 contracted teams form the new NHL2 league. Sure. They will just roll over and donate the fees they paid the NHL for the good of your plan. They can hardly wait to drop down a level because you don’t think they deserve to be in your exalted league. The nerve of those pathetic upstarts. As you might have guessed, I consider this plan ill-advised and arrogant and am strongly opposed.

That's because you don't understand it.

The 10 contracted teams form half the NHL2 because if they don't, they go away anyway. It's moving to a league where they can be competitive, or they go bankrupt.

And it's not really dropping down a level. The level of play would be basically the same as it would be if the bottom half of the NHL separated from the top half. Basically, it wouldn't be dropping down at all, it would just be playing in a league with other teams that are like yours, and having something to play for at the end of the season.

6. Create a different development league. Have no clue why you think this would serve the NHL better than the AHL. Change for change sake. Opposed.

Opposed because you don't understand it.

The AHL is a league of pluggers and a few prospects. The AHL has too much autonomy. Most teams have at least a few players that are not affiliated with the NHL team. And a lot of them are in different geographical areas from their parent teams. Why should a Hershey fan watch the Avs? Half their players play for the Lightning. Some of their players are just Bears. Both of their parent teams are at least a 24hr drive away. And the Flyers are right in their backyard.

Not to mention that NHL teams would stock the NHLDL teams and most importantly THE COACHING STAFF. Players would be developed EXACTLY HOW THEY WANT THEM DEVELOPED.

Change for change sake? Not at all.

7. Eliminate the draft. Strongly disagree.

I love the draft just as much as the next guy, but there's no reason for it. It limits opportunities for Europeans. It ties players to teams that have no interest in using them. It keeps players in leagues they are too good for. It limits movement and hinders development.

Most of all, it contributes to the disparity in the NHL.

8. Establish a ‘European league’ system where the NHL2 teams, should they get incredibly lucky could, on rare occasion, be allowed to skate on the same ice as your exalted 20. Count me opposed.

For someone who wants the NHL to be national, you sure are shortsighted.

9. Cap would be consistant between the (wonderful, exalted NHL) and the (lowly, unworthy, upstart)NHL2. Why? It makes absolutely NO sense for the 2nd class league to have the same salary cap as the top tier.

Again, you oppose it because you don't understand it.

The reason the cap would be the same is that it would allow NHL players another place to play, and most importantly, it would allow the promoted 2nd tier teams to be competitive when they move up.

10. NHL2 teams would play in divisions to save on travel cost. Whoppee!!! I am sure they will be overwhelmed by how you are looking out for them.

Wow. You have no concept of how the finances of professional sport work out.

3. Contracts the league without losing major markets. Who are you trying to fool? Do you really think any city that has had an NHL team is going to be satisfied with an NHL2 team? You are within your rights to support contraction, but spare me the hypocrisy of pretending you give a damn about the teams you want to contract.

At this point, I have moved beyond my interest in your argument. At this point, I am wondering why you are getting so worked up over a proposal on an internet messageboard. The way you talk to me, you would think I kicked your mother in the stomach.

Lighten up.

And yes, I DO care about the teams being "contracted." You are the one who doesn't. You are willing to let them rot on the vine in an NHL that is set up to kill them.

You want the sport to become "national," yet you aren't willing to change anything to help it become national.

4. Creates excitement. Right. For sure. The NHL2 cities that never get to see the star players will be SOOOOOO excited about being part of the 2nd tier.

NHL2 teams would have star players. You obviously don't understand what I proposed and what the ramifications of it are.

5, Keeps salaries under control. Yep. A salary cap will do that for all 30 teams.

Heh. I have some beachfront land in Arizona to sell you.

7. Opens the door for expansion in Europe. Ah, I get it now. Expansion in the U.S., BAD. Expansion in Europe, GOOD. Can’t argue with that kind of logic.

Again, where the hell are you getting the idea that I think expansion is or was bad?

I must have missed the part where you dealt with what an advantage it would be for the NHL to pay the NHL2 teams for demoting them into a 2nd class league.

Who said they would?

And I must of missed the start up costs for your new development league. But who cares. It eliminates the teams you want to get rid of so it is worth any price.

Who said I want to get rid of any specific teams?

Honestly, some of the expansion teams are viable and would have a place in the NHL if I were picking the 20 teams. San Jose definitely. Phoenix maybe. Columbus definitely. Tampa possibly. Dallas definitely.

My plan makes it possible that cities like Houston, Memphis, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Hamilton, Winnepeg, Quebec City would have NHL teams within two years. Not to mention the possibility of a second team in Detroit, Toronto and Montreal.

But yeah, insult people and ideas that you don't understand just because some of us think outside of the box. Great plan.

 

[Hockee]

Maybe they like it that way. The UHL isn't a developmental league. Where's their incentive to climb aboard your Pan-NHL scheme?

Who said the UHL would be invited? Their owners could be invited perhaps, but I would really have no interest in affiliating with any other league. I think that all the leagues need to retain the NHL brand name.

 

[wazee]

That's because you don't understand it.

The 10 contracted teams form half the NHL2 because if they don't, they go away anyway. It's moving to a league where they can be competitive, or they go bankrupt.

And it's not really dropping down a level. The level of play would be basically the same as it would be if the bottom half of the NHL separated from the top half. Basically, it wouldn't be dropping down at all, it would just be playing in a league with other teams that are like yours, and having something to play for at the end of the season.



Opposed because you don't understand it.

The AHL is a league of pluggers and a few prospects. The AHL has too much autonomy. Most teams have at least a few players that are not affiliated with the NHL team. And a lot of them are in different geographical areas from their parent teams. Why should a Hershey fan watch the Avs? Half their players play for the Lightning. Some of their players are just Bears. Both of their parent teams are at least a 24hr drive away. And the Flyers are right in their backyard.

Not to mention that NHL teams would stock the NHLDL teams and most importantly THE COACHING STAFF. Players would be developed EXACTLY HOW THEY WANT THEM DEVELOPED.

Change for change sake? Not at all.



I love the draft just as much as the next guy, but there's no reason for it. It limits opportunities for Europeans. It ties players to teams that have no interest in using them. It keeps players in leagues they are too good for. It limits movement and hinders development.

Most of all, it contributes to the disparity in the NHL.



For someone who wants the NHL to be national, you sure are shortsighted.



Again, you oppose it because you don't understand it.

The reason the cap would be the same is that it would allow NHL players another place to play, and most importantly, it would allow the promoted 2nd tier teams to be competitive when they move up.



At this point, I have moved beyond my interest in your argument. At this point, I am wondering why you are getting so worked up over a proposal on an internet messageboard. The way you talk to me, you would think I kicked your mother in the stomach.

Lighten up.

And yes, I DO care about the teams being "contracted." You are the one who doesn't. You are willing to let them rot on the vine in an NHL that is set up to kill them.

You want the sport to become "national," yet you aren't willing to change anything to help it become national.



NHL2 teams would have star players. You obviously don't understand what I proposed and what the ramifications of it are.



Heh. I have some beachfront land in Arizona to sell you.



Again, where the hell are you getting the idea that I think expansion is or was bad?



Who said they would?



Who said I want to get rid of any specific teams?

Honestly, some of the expansion teams are viable and would have a place in the NHL if I were picking the 20 teams. San Jose definitely. Phoenix maybe. Columbus definitely. Tampa possibly. Dallas definitely.

My plan makes it possible that cities like Houston, Memphis, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Hamilton, Winnepeg, Quebec City would have NHL teams within two years. Not to mention the possibility of a second team in Detroit, Toronto and Montreal.

But yeah, insult people and ideas that you don't understand just because some of us think outside of the box. Great plan.

What? You want points for ‘thinking outside the box’? Sorry. Bad ideas are bad ideas. Doesn’t matter if they are inside or outside of the box.

The major flaw in your ‘plan’ is that you assume any city with an NHL team would want to be demoted into your 2nd tier NHL2 league. Now you are saying it really isn’t ‘dropping down a level’…a statement that is either silly or disingenuous.

You would be hard pressed to sell that idea to the fans of the teams you would demote. Maybe you can tell them that they only oppose your idea because they don't understand it...Which is the exact opposite of the truth. I oppose your idea because I do understand it. And so would they.