Ideas and Thoughts on a Two Tier NHL

[Ironhorse]

Here's an idea I got from another thread, what if when this CBA debacle is all sorted, the NHL split into two leagues of 15 teams? the way it would work is the bottom two teams from tier 1 would be relegated to tier two, and the top two teams from tier 2 would come up each year. third place in tier two would play bottom third from tier 1 with the winner earning a place in the first tier.
In my opinion the two tier system would put a stop to rewarding mediocrity *ala top draft picks* and instead punish teams by demoting them.

there are a host of possible advantages and disadvantages to this idea, I'll let all you smart posters come up with them. Flame away!!

Click to read more...

 

[EricBowser]

Let's put it into simple terms.

I would never support a two-tier league, ever. Let the European Soccer ideas stay across the pond.

 

[Ironhorse]

why? do you dismiss it because they do it in soccer, or do you have some reasons?

 

[Isles72]

its already a 3 tier league in itself

tier 1 - 6 or so teams making $ under current system

tier 2 - 12 or so teams barely scraping by under current system

tier 3 - 12 or so teams unable to make $ under current system

 

[djhn579]

So let's say your team is in the lower league. They will get reduced advertising, reduced TV deals, and worse players. Are you going to support your team in that situation? Certainly not at the level it would take for a team to be able to move up...

 

[EricBowser]

Ironhorse

djhn579 pretty much summed up my reasons.

 

[Ironhorse]

I guess it depends on how it works, I'm not advocating the two tier system, just discussing the pros and cons, i think one of the compelling thing in sports is the majority of fans will support teams that are winners *you can see this in the way people flock to stadiums when the teams are in playoff drives*. so if a team is winning a lot in tier two, as opposed to getting their arses kicked in tier 1, fans might be more inclined to watch them when they are competing against teams similar to their skill/talent level. just something to consider...

 

[Ironhorse]

and to bring the soccer thing up again, teams in england below the premiership, in the championship division it's called, get great support, full stadiums of 20 000 + capacity, even though they have 1. inferior tv deals, 2. inferior players and 3. inferior advertising, fans still stand by their team, and support them. so my point is that it is possible. and if you abandon your team because they are going through a difficult time, or they are in a lower division, then i don't think you are too much of a fan.

 

[silver_made*]

and to bring the soccer thing up again, teams in england below the premiership, in the championship division it's called, get great support, full stadiums of 20 000 + capacity, even though they have 1. inferior tv deals, 2. inferior players and 3. inferior advertising, fans still stand by their team, and support them. so my point is that it is possible. and if you abandon your team because they are going through a difficult time, or they are in a lower division, then i don't think you are too much of a fan.

why you are trying to compare support for soccer in europe to ice hockey in north america is beyond comprehension.

 

[djhn579]

I think one of the big things that people forget when talking about the european soccer type leagues is that the team is part of the city. There is now independent owner or chance of the team moving. Many of these teams have many lower level teams filled with players from the community. These are the players that end up in the cities top team when it falls to the second teir. If the core of the team gets good enough, they can bring in a few free agents to try to get back into the top teir, and they might make it and be decent for a few years, but eventually it is the same teams bouncing back and forth, and the same teams at the top of the upper tier.

 

[R0CKET]

Isn't this a logic end to the ideas being pushed by the PA?

Let the rich teams spend...well extravigantly and let the other's go to hell...err...out of business.

Or in this case we can still keep them around and even play some upper tier games there but they would only be teams that could support what the teams in small markets can afford to spend. Then once in awhile we'll show up like the Golbetrotters and throw them a bone & beat their brains out.

NO good players will sign with those teams, would you?

No good hockey would be played there and they would virtually have no chance of winning a Stanley Cup.

I agree that we let the Euro Soccer models stay over there.

We need to save this game and the teams that are in THIS league as they are.

 

[Isles72]

So let's say your team is in the lower league. They will get reduced advertising, reduced TV deals, and worse players. Are you going to support your team in that situation? Certainly not at the level it would take for a team to be able to move up...

exactly

 

[Jaded-Fan]

In football they do as part of their system make the better teams play each other more often to create some competitive balance and make it harder on teams with success. They base the next seasons schedule on last seasons results, so NE, Steelers, Philly and the Colts likely will see each other. Not really the two tier system that you spoke of, but an idea that I would not be averse to hoceky adopting.

 

[Lowetide]

I like the idea, always have. If the NHL hadn't expanded this would have happened naturally anyway, as the old WHL was working towards independence.

As much as I love the Oilers, I cannot for the life of me understand why Toronto fans should have the money they spend on the Leafs transfer to the Oilers organization. And THAT's really what we're talking about here, turning the NHL into the NFL in that revenue is shared.

Why should it be? I know this is Super Bowl Sunday and everything, but there is something completely un-American about revenue sharing. Why SHOULD Detroit fans help the Oilers?

Don't mean to upset anyone on a great sports day, but it kind of irks me. The one thing I agree with the NHLPA on is that it is patently unfair to cut off dollars available and legislate windfall profits in the biggest hockey cities.

Complete madness. I think if this all goes legal the NHL will morph into two leagues. One will be the New York, Toronto, Detroit Colorado league and the other will be the San Jose, Canada, Minnesota league.

I'm okay with that. The big league might get the best quality talent, but is that so different than it is now? Is Detroit suffering? Toronto? As in any argument that uses logic, the Rangers are an asterisk that serves as a warning against hiring stupid people.

Back to the argument. Let them split the atom. It'll be better than allowing a bunch of lawyers to stop the world so they can screw the pooch.

 

[SJeasy]

Revenue sharing should be simple. Split the regular season gate 65/35 in favor of the home team. You need two teams to play a game. It still leaves incentive to increase home team revenues. Do not split playoff money, it removes incentive to field a good team.

 

[IcemanTBI]

Can't compare NHL with Euro Soccer. Or any other North American major league sport. For starters, in the euro soccer leagues, there is always different tournaments being played all the time (i.e. FA Cup, Champions League, Champions Cup, etc...) In tournaments, such as the FA Cup, all teams take part (from the premiership, all the way down to Division 3) Individual leagues (such as English Premiership, Serie A, etc...) is only one part of the season, the slew of tournaments are another. The individual national leagues are more or less a qualifier to get the the Euro Champions League anyways, which is the Big Prize.

Second, there is no playoffs in these individual leagues, the team with the most points at the end of the season win the cup. There are cups for the top teams in all divisions, not just the Premiership. Besides, the same teams always wins the Premiership anyways, in England, that is ususally Manchester United or Arsenal anyway (they have the most $$$$$), most fans of the other teams know by the first 1/4 of the season that their teams don't have a prayer in taking the top spot yet there is still enthusiasm for the team. If you are near the bottom of the Premiership though, there is interest in whether or not the team gets relegated. There are tournaments in which there teams can play, and as a result, there is always interest. The real playoffs are in the Euro Champions League.

Regarding lower tiered teams, they take part in various tourneys where they play the Big Boys and, usually, end up losing (such as FA cup). Sometimes though, an upset can happen (If I am not mistaken, I believe Manchester United was knocked out of the FA cup by a low level team this past year )

Another thing to consider is the way contracts work over there. All I know, it's way different. Teams pay for players with cash, not sure about individual contracts, no such thing as trades. Also, Euro soccer leagues are more or less turning into conferences, the european soccer is becoming one huge league (again, the Champions League is the unofficial playoffs)

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Why SHOULD Detroit fans help the Oilers?

Because it helps EVERYBODY in the end. Why did Wellington Mara come up with the idea of revenue sharing and a salary cap (I'm sure he wasn't alone but he was one of the pioneers), when as the owner of the NEW YORK GIANTS franchise he could easily have ruled the NFL for years? Because it made business and competitive sense. Have the Giants suffered from Mara's decision over the years? No, they've won Super Bowls, but so have many other teams. If Steinbrenner had the same vision as Mara, Major League Baseball would be a far greater entity today--and my Montreal Expos would probably still be in existence today.

As for the 2-tier system, I think one of the big reasons why it wouldn't work in hockey is because a lot of these markets are tied to the Stanley Cup. If the Chicago Blackhawks or Boston Bruins or New York Rangers or Montreal Canadiens CANNOT compete for the Stanley Cup one year, because they are playing in a lower league, how are they going to market the product? I think it's a cultural difference that would take several decades to overcome.

In North America, we're always optimistic about our team's chances when the season starts, no matter how crappy our teams really are. If you take THAT away right from the get-go, it'll be hard to survive as a system.

 

[wazee]

A two tier league? No, thank you. I cannot see any reason this would be good for the NHL..nor for the fans. The owners would not go for it because it would decrease the franchise value of the bottom 15 teams, which would basically become minor league teams. And I fail to see why it would appeal to fans as well...unless, of couse, you are a fan of a team the would always be in the top 15.

 

[djhn579]

Let's consider this from a practical aspect. What are the top 10 teams in the league going to offer the rest of the league to allow this to happen? The top 10 are the only ones that will benefit from a two tier system after all. The rest of the league gets to look forward to having less income and watching the value of their investment in an NHL team plummet.

Let's say that the top 10 teams some how get enough votes to support the league getting changed to a two tier system. Every team that gets put in the lower tier is going to sue the NHL. They paid their money to be part of the NHL and would expect to be able to compete for the Stanley Cup each and every year. This would be a legal mess thet will do more damage to the league than the current lockout.