Radical Idea: So Many Expansion Candidates...New League?

[patnyrnyg]

You wanna get nuts? Let's get nuts.

Expand to 40 teams but then have a relegation system.

So, add Quebec, Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston, Milwaukee, Portland, Hamilton, and Kansas City, and put them in a league with the 12 lowest-finishing teams the previous season.

Then you have two tiers: Premier Tier and Championship Tier.

Each tier plays 64-game regular seasons, and then you have an in-season NBA-style tournament with all 40 teams.

Each tier would have their own playoffs. I'm thinking 12 teams from each tier make the playoffs, then the four division leaders would get byes to the second round. The top tier plays for the Stanley Cup, the second tier would play for their own trophy.

Bottom four teams in the top tier get relegated. The four teams that make the semifinals in the second tier get promoted.

Leave the entry draft in place. For seeding purposes, the lower-tiered league teams will always be seeded #21-40 so a team in the lower tier would always get the first overall pick. I'd have to game out how the Gold Plan would impact this scenario. Leave the salary cap in place and allow trades between the two tiers.

The result is a shorter season but more meaningful hockey.

An NHL-Europe with teams in the big cities of Europe would never work over there, this would never work over here.

 

[BruinDust]

Your talent pool is basically the AAAA level pro players of the world. AHL vets and the guys playing in high level European leagues and the KHL.

Would an Amazon or a Netflix try to start their own 6-8 team league for their platforms rather than pay to air the NHL brand? That's about the only way I could see a new pro league in NA positioned between the AHL and NHL in terms of talent level. Even that seems like a massive stretch.

 

[MeHateHe]

An NHL-Europe with teams in the big cities of Europe would never work over there, this would never work over here.

Again, only positing this in the context of a 40-team NHL, in which the odds of winning a championship are small enough that a 50 or 60-year Cup droughts may well become the norm rather than the exception. I think, frankly, 32 teams is as big as a league should be; bigger and you start to lose the ability for each team to play every other team every season while still playing enough within your division to maintain rivalries.

As to the relegation-wouldn't-work-in-North-America argument, this isn't really relegation, because the draft, salary cap and guaranteed contracts would remain in place. The biggest problem that relegation would pose in North America is that teams in large markets would get buried so far down the league ladder that you'd go a generation without NHL hockey in, say, Chicago. But the relegation system in Europe is such that teams in second or third divisions are structurally limited in their ability to move up. Given that this remains functionally a single league, and the lower tier teams would always have the higher picks in the entry draft, and given that there would be four teams moving up and down every year, there would be ample opportunities for teams to not be stuck in the lower tier.

I'm a Habs fan and I would hate having my team stuck in purgatory under this system. But it would still be a hell of a lot of fun, and it would put a lot more pressure on teams to get their shit together and not stink for extended periods of time.

To be clear, I accept that many owners would be reluctant to try this, but that's more a factor of NHL owners being reluctant to try anything other than the white bread they've been eating for the past forty years. And this is only if we're going to advocate expanding beyond the current 32 teams.

But the fans would love it. More chaos. More opportunities for clubs to win. Fewer meaningless games. It would be a lot of fun.

 

[goalie41]

I do believe the Chicago Wolves are or have already toyed with the idea of a new league. Absolutely an 8 team league could get off the ground. 3 Canadian and 5 American teams. The big 4 are pricing themselves out of any sort of family entertainment. You have Hamilton, Quebec, Saskatoon that I would assume jump at this. Now you have Chicago, Hartford, Omaha, Kansas City, Houston, and Cincy to play with. Down the road, Portland, Phoenix????, San Antonio, Sacramento , San Diego, and a few more, Indy? Louisville? Memphis?

Is it possible? Sure, lower contracts than the NHL and higher than the AHL. Maybe this prevents some of the boys from heading to the European leagues or the KHL? We get the 30/40 somethings to play here to be top liners instead of 4th liners. The undrafted college kids. Hook up with the ECHL as a minor league affiliate. It could be done with proper pockets and the willingness to build the league, not short term investors or franchise flippers. Wolves owner Levin is a perfect example of who could make it happen.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I do believe the Chicago Wolves are or have already toyed with the idea of a new league. Absolutely an 8 team league could get off the ground. 3 Canadian and 5 American teams. The big 4 are pricing themselves out of any sort of family entertainment. You have Hamilton, Quebec, Saskatoon that I would assume jump at this. Now you have Chicago, Hartford, Omaha, Kansas City, Houston, and Cincy to play with. Down the road, Portland, Phoenix????, San Antonio, Sacramento , San Diego, and a few more, Indy? Louisville? Memphis?

Is it possible? Sure, lower contracts than the NHL and higher than the AHL. Maybe this prevents some of the boys from heading to the European leagues or the KHL? We get the 30/40 somethings to play here to be top liners instead of 4th liners. The undrafted college kids. Hook up with the ECHL as a minor league affiliate. It could be done with proper pockets and the willingness to build the league, not short term investors or franchise flippers. Wolves owner Levin is a perfect example of who could make it happen.

Chicago AKA Rosemont, IL would be done as a pro market if that happened.... you'd unlikely would not have Hamilton... (rumor is ECHL To Toronto... Marlies to Hamilton.).. QC unlikely.... Saskatoon nope not if there's no arena other SASKTEL.... Hartford no, since the Rangers are entrenched there, same w/ KC/Omaha/Houston/Cincinnati/ San Antonio has been done SSE.... NO TO Indy

 

[KevFu]

I think, frankly, 32 teams is as big as a league should be; bigger and you start to lose the ability for each team to play every other team every season while still playing enough within your division to maintain rivalries.

Ah, you're right about this part... but I don't agree that "playing everyone in every season" is all that important.

Baseball lucked into a really sweet set-up and is now hurting themselves. The demand to see Philadelphia play Seattle just never existed in baseball. The zipper format with "rival division interleague" makes sense (just fix the numbers)

Because you can have a 32+ team league and play 92% of your games vs only 5/8ths of the league and rarely play the other 3/8ths and no one would notice or care.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Ah, you're right about this part... but I don't agree that "playing everyone in every season" is all that important.

@KevFu it feels like I'm picking on you because I've responded to several of your posts in a row, but really it's not personal...

I hated it when the NHL had teams only play once per season against the other conference. That mean each team from the other conference would only come to your city every other year, Which meant a Crosby, or McDavid, or whomever, would only come to town every other year. It was a big improvement when you had to have a home-and-home against every team.

So I'm a Jets fan. I mean I get it - nobody is really itching for a Jets vs Blue Jackets game. But you know what - no one is really itching for yet another Jets vs Dallas game either, so we might as well just try and keep as many matchups new as we can.

 

[MeHateHe]

Ah, you're right about this part... but I don't agree that "playing everyone in every season" is all that important.

Maybe. True, hockey fans in general are mostly concerned with watching their own team. There are a good number, however, who would lament not being able to see McDavid, for example, or Kucherov or Makar or whoever. Whether the lack of those guys on the schedule means significantly less ticket revenue is for people with better access to market research, but I do suspect that the league would want to make sure that its stars are getting around to as many markets as possible.

It's an imperfect analogy, but when Connor Bedard was playing his final season in the WHL, the Regina Pats road games were selling out weeks in advance. I bought my tickets six weeks out and the rink was nearly sold out. Superstars tend to attract casual fans, and for the league to grow, they need to upgrade casual fans into regular fans.

 

[KevFu]

@KevFu it feels like I'm picking on you because I've responded to several of your posts in a row, but really it's not personal...

I hated it when the NHL had teams only play once per season against the other conference. That mean each team from the other conference would only come to your city every other year, Which meant a Crosby, or McDavid, or whomever, would only come to town every other year. It was a big improvement when you had to have a home-and-home against every team.

So I'm a Jets fan. I mean I get it - nobody is really itching for a Jets vs Blue Jackets game. But you know what - no one is really itching for yet another Jets vs Dallas game either, so we might as well just try and keep as many matchups new as we can.

No worries. It's totally cool if you happen to disagree with literally every thing I say. If we all agreed on everything, this site is just "Yup" or (like) and no one says anything!


I totally understand that fan logic of "we want to see everyone in the league!" But the thing is, in order to do that, you're getting 2 games each vs about 10 teams you're only interest in seeing is "My team play, we want 2 points."

Which teams ARE you itching for? That list of teams is smaller than the list of teams you're not itching for.

For every TOR, you get 7 games vs CBJ, OTT, NYI, NJD, PHI, BUF.

If everyone made their ideal version of a "perfect schedule" for their teams, everyone's lists would be like 85% or more the same. Everyone's list of "I'd be okay if they only visited once every couple years" lists would be really close to identical. And those are newer brands, small market teams, or teams that suck.

 

[Tawnos]

My feeling with the schedule is that teams should be playing their divisional opponents once per month. Can be an average, but I'd like there not to be too long of stretches between meetings.

That means 6 meetings. In an 8 team division, that's 42 games. How they fill it out beyond that is up to the user. Could do 24 games (3 per team) against the other division in the conference and 16 games against the other conference, playing one division at home and the other division away

 

[edog37]

This plan for a competitor league could work, but realistically it would be more like the IHL of the 90s than the WHA. That is to say it would be a somewhat pumped up farm league as opposed to a full-on competitor to the NHL.

That's not to say it's not worth doing. But it would be tough to get it off the ground. Pay would likely be peanuts so teams would be raiding the AHL, ECHL and Euro leagues for talent, not the NHL.

Best case scenario a league might look something like this:

GTHA (probably Hamilton since there'd be nowhere to play in Toronto)
NYC (Brooklyn)
Milwaukee
Phoenix
Atlanta
Houston
Kansas City
Indianapolis
Quebec City
LA (assuming they could find somewhere to play, they'd need a foothold in that market)
Chicago (one of the secondary arenas like NOW Arena)
Minneapolis (Target Center)

That's a dozen. Throw in a few wild cards (Saskatoon? Montreal? Detroit? Boston? Portland?) and that could form the core of a decent league. But again, even turning into a 90s IHL copycat will take an awful lot of things to go right.

So basically you just outlined the AHL

 

[jetsmooseice]

So basically you just outlined the AHL

Not even close, but go on.

 

[gstommylee]

I strongly suspected that FIFA would sit idly by (like the NHL with dueling women's hockey leagues), because a rival league on the world calendar could either (a) "win" or (b) Force MLS onto the World Calendar. Both of which benefit FIFA immensely.

That's really what "winning" would look like. MLS would win over the rival league, but it would win by becoming MORE like the rival league and more like world soccer.

Fifa can't mandate MLS to do anything due to the anti-trust laws in the US.

 

[GindyDraws]

So basically you just outlined the AHL

The AHL has teams like the San Jose Barracuda and the Calgary Wranglers that don't draw flies and the NHL teams don't care about that.

20 years ago, it would make sense, but not today.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

The AHL has teams like the San Jose Barracuda and the Calgary Wranglers that don't draw flies and the NHL teams don't care about that.

20 years ago, it would make sense, but not today.

correct, the direction that league has taken esp the last decade bears that out.... pray the E isn't close to thinking the same way.... Calgary's affiliate history also bears that out

 

[KevFu]

Fifa can't mandate MLS to do anything due to the anti-trust laws in the US.

Right. I get that. I'm saying FIFA also wouldn't be able to do anything about an "unsanctioned" (and non-USSF licensed) "Rival Soccer League" for the same reason. They'd sit idly by and hope that it succeeded to the point where it forced the sanctioned / USSF-licensed league (MLS) on to the world calendar like the rest of the world, which they'd want because the US/Canada have top 20 economies but are spending like Wrexham levels, not like Man City levels.

And I don't think the lack of USSF-license would be prohibitive to the rival league. The USSF could say "anyone who plays in this league can't play on the US National Team." But the USMNT talent pool is TOO GOOD for MLS now, unless they're 18-21 and haven't been sold to a better league yet, or they're 30+ and coming to MLS for a "homecoming/semi-retirement."


It would simply be a competition of which style the American fan wants more: Open League, 60-120 teams, PRO/REL vs Closed League, 30 teams, no PRO/REL.

The other leagues HAD their "Rivalry days" and is beyond that while soccer isn't yet. Baseball did it in the 1880s and the AL/NL emerged with the agreement for the World Series; A mild version in the late 50s early 60s with the PCL before the Dodgers moved to LA and the threat of the CBL from New York. Basketball and football and hockey were the late 60s and early 70s.

The "end game" would not be to "usurp" but to force change, as MLB, NFL, NHL and NBA expanded/merged/absorbed and extended their borders and took the best elements of both leagues.

That's really what it would be about: I think that a rival soccer league would have a chance to change MLS based on numbers. An open, massive league operating on the world system would be like "Okay, this can work here..." So MLS could change to kill the rival league by converting to that system and inviting the top teams of the rival league (and leave the rest to die).

The AHL has teams like the San Jose Barracuda and the Calgary Wranglers that don't draw flies and the NHL teams don't care about that.

20 years ago, it would make sense, but not today.

Absolutely. The AHL doesn't serve the fans need for hockey as it's primary focus. It serves the NHL as a development league. The teams aren't in places the NHL would explore expansion, they're in places close to their parents, or where existing arenas lower operations costs to the parent.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Right. I get that. I'm saying FIFA also wouldn't be able to do anything about an "unsanctioned" (and non-USSF licensed) "Rival Soccer League" for the same reason. They'd sit idly by and hope that it succeeded to the point where it forced the sanctioned / USSF-licensed league (MLS) on to the world calendar like the rest of the world, which they'd want because the US/Canada have top 20 economies but are spending like Wrexham levels, not like Man City levels.

And I don't think the lack of USSF-license would be prohibitive to the rival league. The USSF could say "anyone who plays in this league can't play on the US National Team." But the USMNT talent pool is TOO GOOD for MLS now, unless they're 18-21 and haven't been sold to a better league yet, or they're 30+ and coming to MLS for a "homecoming/semi-retirement."


It would simply be a competition of which style the American fan wants more: Open League, 60-120 teams, PRO/REL vs Closed League, 30 teams, no PRO/REL.

The other leagues HAD their "Rivalry days" and is beyond that while soccer isn't yet. Baseball did it in the 1880s and the AL/NL emerged with the agreement for the World Series; A mild version in the late 50s early 60s with the PCL before the Dodgers moved to LA and the threat of the CBL from New York. Basketball and football and hockey were the late 60s and early 70s.

The "end game" would not be to "usurp" but to force change, as MLB, NFL, NHL and NBA expanded/merged/absorbed and extended their borders and took the best elements of both leagues.

That's really what it would be about: I think that a rival soccer league would have a chance to change MLS based on numbers. An open, massive league operating on the world system would be like "Okay, this can work here..." So MLS could change to kill the rival league by converting to that system and inviting the top teams of the rival league (and leave the rest to die).





Absolutely. The AHL doesn't serve the fans need for hockey as it's primary focus. It serves the NHL as a development league. The teams aren't in places the NHL would explore expansion, they're in places close to their parents, or where existing arenas lower operations costs to the parent.

you're forgetting 2 leagues Kev..... the ECHL and the 3 major junior leagues..... and if I remember right.... doesn't that impact the NHL/CHL Agreement..... over 600+ players have moved up that ladder from the E to the A/NHL

 

[KevFu]

you're forgetting 2 leagues Kev..... the ECHL and the 3 major junior leagues..... and if I remember right.... doesn't that impact the NHL/CHL Agreement..... over 600+ players have moved up that ladder from the E to the A/NHL

I'm not "forgetting" them. That's the concept we're talking about here: if a rival league could make money. And the answer is "yeah, they could, but it's a tiny amount of money like the ECHL."

If you answer the question of "Why the ECHL isn't as lucrative as the NHL" you have your answer on a rival league.


Which is why I turned my focus to soccer. Because the ECHL is the NHL but with smaller cities and worse players. While a "rival" soccer league would be "MLS with worse players, BUT playing on the world calendar so they COULD compete in the same cities as MLS teams, and OPEN unlike any NA pro league, so all the markets can be included. It's a volume game of "200 million people live where their markets have a team in this league, vs 125m of the MLS... so...."

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I'm not "forgetting" them. That's the concept we're talking about here: if a rival league could make money. And the answer is "yeah, they could, but it's a tiny amount of money like the ECHL."

If you answer the question of "Why the ECHL isn't as lucrative as the NHL" you have your answer on a rival league.


Which is why I turned my focus to soccer. Because the ECHL is the NHL but with smaller cities and worse players. While a "rival" soccer league would be "MLS with worse players, BUT playing on the world calendar so they COULD compete in the same cities as MLS teams, and OPEN unlike any NA pro league, so all the markets can be included. It's a volume game of "200 million people live where their markets have a team in this league, vs 125m of the MLS... so...."

my focus was more the impact of the CHL/NHL agreement than the pro leagues overall.... and based off some knowledge of how those leagues have been run.... Newfoundland/Labrador being a prime example of that while other Canadian markets have seemed to thrive after adapting to the Junior level... whether it's Atlantic Canada or those sprinkled through the OHL/WHL

 

[KevFu]

My overall point was that it's an extreme long-shot for anyone to "Do the same thing with far less resources and far less talent" and be successful. When you see something succeeding with a lack of talent/resources, they're doing something radically different. (Like the Moneyball A's).

Worse players, smaller markets, a rival league just replicating what the major league does is not going to be able to get anywhere close to the major league in fan base and revenue. That's what the ECHL is and what any rival attempt would be.

The rival leagues that successfully forced mergers back in the day could do so because the Major Leagues were so small that the untapped markets could rival the major league, as demand exceeded supply (and why expansion of the majors killed those rivals).

There's 160m people living in NHL markets, the next FIFTY FOUR markets without NHL teams add up to 100m people. So that ship has sailed.


What sets the attempts in football apart is that SPRING football is not directly competing with the NFL. They supplement the NFL, generating revenue from demand for football when NFL isn't playing. Hockey doesn't have that opportunity.


That's what turns me to soccer: We didn't have the fan base for soccer to build "a world football league" here in North America 30 years ago, so they made "The USFL of soccer" with MLS.

Forming a "World Football League" in the US/Canada COULD be successful for three reasons:
#1 - Maybe we DO have the fan base now (?)
#2 - The rival league would be selling what Major League Soccer ISN'T: Our own "World Football League." (a drastically different product)
#2 - Soccer fans here have already accepted that our domestic league is BAD compared to other leagues. (worse talent matters a lot less).

Instead of "the ECHL's best player vs Connor McDavid," the Rival League to MLS talent gap is more like "the ECHL's best player vs Hudson Fasching or a 40-year old Joe Pavelski."

No one is choosing a bad hockey league over the NHL. But soccer fans here could choose a "bad domestic World Football League" over a "bad domestic summer league" because they crave being part of the world soccer culture more than they crave "watching the superior rosters of MLS."

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Yeah, but no one's been offering me another Old Fashioned.

Speak for yourself

 

[KevFu]

Speak for yourself

I'll take one with rye.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I'll take one with rye.

are we specifically talking hockey league or other sports

 

[joelef]

My overall point was that it's an extreme long-shot for anyone to "Do the same thing with far less resources and far less talent" and be successful. When you see something succeeding with a lack of talent/resources, they're doing something radically different. (Like the Moneyball A's).

Worse players, smaller markets, a rival league just replicating what the major league does is not going to be able to get anywhere close to the major league in fan base and revenue. That's what the ECHL is and what any rival attempt would be.

The rival leagues that successfully forced mergers back in the day could do so because the Major Leagues were so small that the untapped markets could rival the major league, as demand exceeded supply (and why expansion of the majors killed those rivals).

There's 160m people living in NHL markets, the next FIFTY FOUR markets without NHL teams add up to 100m people. So that ship has sailed.


What sets the attempts in football apart is that SPRING football is not directly competing with the NFL. They supplement the NFL, generating revenue from demand for football when NFL isn't playing. Hockey doesn't have that opportunity.


That's what turns me to soccer: We didn't have the fan base for soccer to build "a world football league" here in North America 30 years ago, so they made "The USFL of soccer" with MLS.

Forming a "World Football League" in the US/Canada COULD be successful for three reasons:
#1 - Maybe we DO have the fan base now (?)
#2 - The rival league would be selling what Major League Soccer ISN'T: Our own "World Football League." (a drastically different product)
#2 - Soccer fans here have already accepted that our domestic league is BAD compared to other leagues. (worse talent matters a lot less).

Instead of "the ECHL's best player vs Connor McDavid," the Rival League to MLS talent gap is more like "the ECHL's best player vs Hudson Fasching or a 40-year old Joe Pavelski."

No one is choosing a bad hockey league over the NHL. But soccer fans here could choose a "bad domestic World Football League" over a "bad domestic summer league" because they crave being part of the world soccer culture more than they crave "watching the superior rosters of MLS."

The nhl and mlb has a affiliate minor league system and the nfl doesn’t do that why springs leagues are always popping up.

 

[edog37]

Not even close, but go on.

“That is to say it would be a somewhat pumped up farm league as opposed to a full-on competitor to the NHL.”

That’s precisely what the AHL is.