Relocation, Expansion, Realignment

Status
Not open for further replies.

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
djhn579 said:
I'm with Ruff. From his comments, I get that there were very good atheletes then, and there were people that could barely skate. He says "It has caused a bottleneck because there are a lot of darn good skaters." That implies that the game was more entertaining then because you had mis-matches in the amount of talent each player had, I don't feel you have as much of a mis-match today.

And as I tried to point out, those players you say get so few minutes and would/should not be in the league today have a negligible effect on the game since they are on the ice for little of the game. The game is clogged up because everyone can skate, and everyone is talented.

I just don't buy that the talent is watered down, and you are saying the average talent is higher today in one paragraph, and that it has decreased in another? Which is it?

Why do you really want contraction?

- Right, which is why the ice needs to be bigger in order to give more time and space for mismatches to develop.

- Again, arguing that the game is clogged up has nothing to do with the amount of teams. It has something to do with the ice size and the rules. Anyway, the so few minutes that the bottom players play don't have a huge affect, except that 4th lines are usually matched up so for about 8-12 minutes in most games I am watching minor league hockey. With a few less teams, each remaining teams bottom lines would get better, more talent, more speed. This would mean that for 8-12 minutes I would be watching better hockey.

- I will clarify. The individual talent level has risen. The 20th best player in the world today is better than the 20th best in 1980. The 700th best player in the world today is better than the 700th in 1980. But, as far as on ice product, the talent level of the game, the flow, has decreased, mainly because of over-expansion.

Maybe instead of saying the talent is watered down, I should say the game is watered down. This is partly because increased individual talent on the same ice surface as 20 years ago has led to a "clogging" of the ice and taken some flow out of the game, which Ruff is talking about, I agree that the ice needs to be bigger.

But this is also because with 30 teams, as opposed to 24 or so, there are a lot of players in the league who are minor leaguers who get to call themselves NHLers. Expansion has brought one dimensional players into the league, there are grinders who can't shoot or handle a puck, there are goons who can't skate. Having a few less teams would weed out the least "rounded" players and lead to a better product on the ice for 60 minutes. If you had 24 teams you would never see a defenseman who can't skate or handle a puck. Teams would fill their 4th line with somewhat talented players rather than guys that can do one thing but aren't good enough to really play good minutes. I wouldn't be watching Dale Purinton learn how to skate while playing in the NHL, I wouldn't be watching a nutcase on someones fourth line start 2 fights and take a bunch of cheap shots during the course of the game, for no other reason than that's about all he can do. This is why I support the idea of contraction.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
scaredsensfan said:
The biggest reason that Winnipeg lost their team was because they were playing out of a rink built in the 1940s. (or 1950s?)

Also, their population base was too small, you need around 1 million as a base market for an NHL team.

You're ight. Goodyby Edmonton and Calgary.
 

bladoww

Team of the Future
Jan 13, 2005
1,553
4
I can't believe it... the folks who say the Panthers, as an NHL team, aren't good enough to be in Florida. Why? Because it's a "non-traditional" market? Who cares? For the NHL to grow (and yes that is what the league wants) you have to defy the laws of tradition. I should also point out that last year alone, Florida had an average attendance higher than that of Buffalo, NJ (big surprise), and both Chicago and Boston (both original 6's). Teams in Florida do work. Not only in the big league. I should also point out that the Florida Everblades of the ECHL sell out games quite often. And when they made the finals against Columbia last season they sold out 2 playoff games in less than 24 hours, standing room only. Which totalled four consecutive sellouts.

The same can be said for the Bolts. Of course last years attendance was up for fairly obvious reasons. But I think the real concern is when the same team(s), year after year after year are consistent bottomfeeders. And at this point there really isn't a clear cut team that really needs to move or just fold completely.

The only team that could POSSIBLY be justified to relocate would be the Hurricanes. Although the 02-03 season had them ranked 19th in attendance alone.
 
Last edited:

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
nyr7andcounting said:
- Right, which is why the ice needs to be bigger in order to give more time and space for mismatches to develop.

- Again, arguing that the game is clogged up has nothing to do with the amount of teams. It has something to do with the ice size and the rules. Anyway, the so few minutes that the bottom players play don't have a huge affect, except that 4th lines are usually matched up so for about 8-12 minutes in most games I am watching minor league hockey. With a few less teams, each remaining teams bottom lines would get better, more talent, more speed. This would mean that for 8-12 minutes I would be watching better hockey.

- I will clarify. The individual talent level has risen. The 20th best player in the world today is better than the 20th best in 1980. The 700th best player in the world today is better than the 700th in 1980. But, as far as on ice product, the talent level of the game, the flow, has decreased, mainly because of over-expansion.

Maybe instead of saying the talent is watered down, I should say the game is watered down. This is partly because increased individual talent on the same ice surface as 20 years ago has led to a "clogging" of the ice and taken some flow out of the game, which Ruff is talking about, I agree that the ice needs to be bigger.

But this is also because with 30 teams, as opposed to 24 or so, there are a lot of players in the league who are minor leaguers who get to call themselves NHLers. Expansion has brought one dimensional players into the league, there are grinders who can't shoot or handle a puck, there are goons who can't skate. Having a few less teams would weed out the least "rounded" players and lead to a better product on the ice for 60 minutes. If you had 24 teams you would never see a defenseman who can't skate or handle a puck. Teams would fill their 4th line with somewhat talented players rather than guys that can do one thing but aren't good enough to really play good minutes. I wouldn't be watching Dale Purinton learn how to skate while playing in the NHL, I wouldn't be watching a nutcase on someones fourth line start 2 fights and take a bunch of cheap shots during the course of the game, for no other reason than that's about all he can do. This is why I support the idea of contraction.

We had those same kind of players when the league had 24 teams. And if the rules continue to be enforced as they are today, you will still have grinders and enforcers on the fourth line. The only thing contraction will accomplish is having less teams. It would have a very marginal effect on the quality of the games.

You are entitled to your opinion, it just does not jive with my opinion, and apparently the opinion of people that are intimately involved in the game.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,452
29,190
St. OILbert, AB
coyoteshockeyfan said:
Better attendance, bigger market, better economy, and new arena ring a bell?


if it's so good, how come there are reports of bankruptcy for the Yotes....also considering your team averaged 14000 fans in the last 3 years, I wouldn't say it that much better
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
GreenBud said:
I don't agree. Teams started playing tight defensive hockey, waiting to pounce on a mistake, because of one thing: Lack of skilled players. The percentage of the skilled guys in the league has gone down. They're spread too thin.

This is ridiculous. With the influx of Europeans, the number of skilled players has skyrocketed.

You are confusing a couple of things. First, the players are all bigger and faster, making the room to move smaller. Second, the NHL quit calling obstruction. This has kept a lot of the most skilled players in the minors, because they are too small to find through it. If the league just started calling interference, hooking and holding, there would be plenty of skill to go around.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
e-townchamps said:
if it's so good, how come there are reports of bankruptcy for the Yotes....also considering your team averaged 14000 fans in the last 3 years, I wouldn't say it that much better

You're confused. There are no reports off bankruptcy of Phoenix. One of the owners is near bankruptcy and needs to sell to raise cash. It has nothing to do with the team.
 

krandor

Registered User
Jan 28, 2005
82
4
Just some comment on this whole non-traditional hockey market thing. If people on here ever want to see hockey get better rating then bowling and those other sports, the sport has to grow. If you keep it in only "traditional" hockey markets you can't grow the sport.

and the sport can do well in these markets. Just last night I was at the Gwinett ECHL game (subburb of Atlanta) and they had a saleout of over 11,000. So these marks can work, if you have good ownership and if it is marketed well, but that goes for any business and any team.

So if you are going to move a team, move it because it isn't getting it done from a business standpoint and not just because it is a non-traditional market.
 

se7en*

Guest
arnie said:
You're ight. Goodyby Edmonton and Calgary.

You're really ignorant.

Calgary passed the mark for quite some time now and Edmonton recently joined the millionaires club. And they had no problem filling the building in the 80's when the cities were around half the size they are now.
 

coyoteshockeyfan

Registered User
Mar 17, 2004
2,529
0
Coyote Country
e-townchamps said:
if it's so good, how come there are reports of bankruptcy for the Yotes....also considering your team averaged 14000 fans in the last 3 years, I wouldn't say it that much better

First off, like most of the teams in the league, it isnt "so good" for the Coyotes right now, thats why there is a lockout right now. That said, the conditions for a franchise in Phoenix are way better than they ever were in Winnipeg. For one, the Coyotes LOWEST average attendance in their history is only about 400 seats below Winnipegs HIGHEST ever. Also, Winnipeg's average attendance never hit 14k, and was below the league average for twelve years in a row.

Let's put it this way. The conditions in Winnipeg were so bad for the Jets that a new ownership group was willing to move the team even though they knew that they were going to be in an arena unsuitable for hockey with even more obstructed seats, with almost all of the concession/parking/etc money not even going to them for several years, and that a new arena was years away, and not even a guarantee at the time. With the new arena, these problems dont exist. We finally have an arena suitable for NHL hockey, where all the money spent in it goes to the team, and decent attendance to boot. Phoenix (and the Glendale area in particular), are growing rapidly and coupled with the solid economy of the area and the new arena on top of the already existent solid fan base, things will only go up.

Furthermore, according to Forbes Magazine, for the last few years, the Coyotes have had a higher franchise value and more total revenue coming in than (among others) Edmonton. Thus, in order to be a better franchise location financially than Phoenix, Winnipeg would have to be a better franchise location than Edmonton. How is this possible when Edmonton is a city with a larger population, better economy, and larger NHL fan base than Winnipeg?
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
djhn579 said:
We had those same kind of players when the league had 24 teams. And if the rules continue to be enforced as they are today, you will still have grinders and enforcers on the fourth line. The only thing contraction will accomplish is having less teams. It would have a very marginal effect on the quality of the games.

You are entitled to your opinion, it just does not jive with my opinion, and apparently the opinion of people that are intimately involved in the game.

Yes, there were the same kind of players when the league had 24 teams. But, that was a decade ago, and as you and Lindy Ruff have pointed out, the talent level has gone up. I believe that if you had 26 teams, there would be enough talent to give each team 18 skaters who are well rounded, skilled players. 15 years ago that wasn't the case, but today it is. Taking away a few teams would weed out the marginal talent and lead to deeper, more talented teams. That is obviously something that is good for the game.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
nyr7andcounting said:
Yes, there were the same kind of players when the league had 24 teams. But, that was a decade ago, and as you and Lindy Ruff have pointed out, the talent level has gone up. I believe that if you had 26 teams, there would be enough talent to give each team 18 skaters who are well rounded, skilled players. 15 years ago that wasn't the case, but today it is. Taking away a few teams would weed out the marginal talent and lead to deeper, more talented teams. That is obviously something that is good for the game.


Whatever... :shakehead
 

Bon Esprit

Registered User
Jan 24, 2004
4,856
438
My point is that Gary Bettman (a Basketball man) never considered that hockey is not an all-american sport.
Hockey as a major league sport is Canada, the north east and maybe the U.S. major cities like L.A. Success at the gates and tv in many U.S. cities only happens if the team wins.
 

DownFromNJ

Registered User
Mar 7, 2004
2,536
2
Name one other sport besides Football where financial success does not correlate with a winning record.

A salary cap will solve the problem of a team needing to sell out 85% of their Arena at high prices before making a profit.

NHL franchises are considered poor if they sell 15,000 seats a game (80% of their Arena). There are maybe 4 or 5 baseball franchises who sell that high a % of their tickets.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
GreenBud said:
I don't agree. Teams started playing tight defensive hockey, waiting to pounce on a mistake, because of one thing: Lack of skilled players. The percentage of the skilled guys in the league has gone down. They're spread too thin.

Sure, there may be as much scoring. But we have to look at how those goals are coming about. Pouncing on mistakes! Dumping the puck in and hoping the D-man screws up. Boooooring. Wide-open hockey is gone due to the fact the skilled guys are few and far between. These defensive schemes are designed to control the skilled players and to hide the lack of skills of any lesser players.

Remember, the skilled guys would be in the league no matter what. It's the 4th line guys of today that should not be in the league and they wouldn't be if there wasn't so many teams. It's alot easier to have these guys play tight, defensive hockey then it is to ask them to play a type of hockey that needs any sort of offensive skill. Some of those players handle the puck like they're playing with a concrete stick.

Tight, defensive hockey is booooring to watch. Especially to Americans that don't understand the game like those in the 'hockey playing' States or in Canada. Less teams would be so much better for the league as a whole.

* I would also like the instigator rule to go the way of the red line. :)

A blog with a very good discussion of this issue:

http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/001892.html

Is hockey better today than it was 12 years ago?

So the unanswered question of the day is:

Has the quality of the on-ice product improved over that interval?
As a fan, do you believe you enjoy hockey more, or less than you did back in January 1993?

These are, in fact, two different questions. And it's important to understand why they're different, and why that difference matters.

...

check it out.
 

SedinFan*

Guest
EricBowser said:
Want a way to fix the game on ice. Get the teams into the right markets. have fair division competition and alignment and things will grow for the sport.

Relocation
- Anaheim moves to Las Vegas
- Florida moves to Houston

Expansion
- Winnipeg
- Quebec

My solutions to 'fixing' the game.

-Get a solution to the lockout, Hard cap at 40 million (creates for a healthier league as a whole).

-Move Anaheim to Portland, Carolina to Kansas City, and Florida or Tampa to Milwaukee.

-Re-align the divisions/conferences, try to create more rivalry.

-Don't expand to other cities.

-Slightly modify the rules of the game, enforce obstruction for a full season like they do in the NFL.

-Put more money into recruiting officials/training officials.

-Increase marketing/advertising for the league

-Lower ticket prices
 

GreenBud

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
61
0
Vancouver
ubongs.blogspot.com
kdb209 said:
A blog with a very good discussion of this issue:

http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/001892.html

Is hockey better today than it was 12 years ago?

So the unanswered question of the day is:

Has the quality of the on-ice product improved over that interval?
As a fan, do you believe you enjoy hockey more, or less than you did back in January 1993?


These are, in fact, two different questions. And it's important to understand why they're different, and why that difference matters.

...

check it out.

Not a chance. This league has gone downhill. I lived in Asia for three years in the late 90s and never saw one game. I got back and the NHL put me to sleep. Defensive hockey is boring. Lindy Ruff and others are just trying to defend the league. Sure, maybe the 3rd and 4th liners may be better skaters, bla, bla, bla. But thats BS about there being so many more skilled players to make up for the increased teams. No way.

Face it, there are too many damn teams and contraction is a great solution. Get rid of the Sun Belt teams, the majority of the fans don't know what's going on anyway.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
kdb209 said:
A blog with a very good discussion of this issue:

http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/001892.html

Is hockey better today than it was 12 years ago?

Ah, so that's where Chuq has been hanging out. Used to have some spirited discussions with him back on GEnie in the late 80's, early 90's.

Like most, I think he over exaggerates the differences between the modern game, and the older days. Most sports have had incremental improvements at best during the past 10 to 20 years, yet hockey is portrayed that the older players couldn't even be on the ice at the same time as current players.
 

gobolt7

Registered User
Sep 24, 2003
11,266
9
Florida.
Zack Attack said:
My solutions to 'fixing' the game.


-Move Anaheim to Portland, Carolina to Kansas City, and Florida or Tampa to Milwaukee.

One would have thought that by winning a cup, the words relocation, contraction and Tampa would not be used in the same sentence. Guess I was mistaken. :shakehead
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
gobolt7 said:
One would have thought that by winning a cup, the words relocation, contraction and Tampa would not be used in the same sentence. Guess I was mistaken. :shakehead

markets that only support winners will always need to keep on their toes.

this isn't a judgement of tampa fans, and congratulations on the cup.

but when a non-performing team does relocate to winnipeg the NHL will then have a success story to build on. i'm biased, because i live in a community where hockey is #1, but the illusive American TV contract is never going to materialize. everyone loves a winner. unfortunately not every team is one. the lockout is just going to kill some of these markets.

GO JETS GO !!!
 

gobolt7

Registered User
Sep 24, 2003
11,266
9
Florida.
hawker14 said:
markets that only support winners will always need to keep on their toes.

You wont find an argument from me on this point, however, there are plenty of markets north of Tampa that had a smaller percentage of people in their buildings on a nightly basis, yet only market based in the south are the ones that are talked about with contraction.
 
I think that to "fix" the game, the obvious answer (as has been stated in this thread) is to get a financial setup in place, and start playing. That's the obvious place to start.

As for franchises, i wouldn't mind seing Anaheim move to Portland. I also thinkt hat long term Florida will NOT be able to support both Florida and Tampa Bay and i am skeptical about Carolina as a Hockey mecca, but they are all strong enough for the moment, so leave them alone for now.

On ice a couple changes could make a difference in terms of game-flow imo.

Tag up off-side
Two line pass
No touch Icing

In terms of making the end of games more interesting, the important thing is not gimmickry, it's the stakes that matter, so axe this whole 4 on 4 thing. It isn't needed in the playoffs because in the playoffs you win or die.

10 minutes 5 on 5 OT
Winner in regulation gets 3 points
Winner in OT gets 2 points
Tie gets 1 point
Loss in OT gets 1 point

That way teams in close games will fight hard in the last minute of regulation, rather than hang back for a guaranteed point to get to OT, and OT will still be an all or nothing affair played under normal NHL rules. No "mini-game" syndrome that we have today where if you get to overtime, the 60 minutes of regulation are pretty much useless...
 

Hussar

Talented.
Mar 30, 2004
764
10
Paradise
gobolt7 said:
One would have thought that by winning a cup, the words relocation, contraction and Tampa would not be used in the same sentence. Guess I was mistaken. :shakehead

or that when the panthers and ducks would go to the finals.

there's some bitter canucks round here. And it seems all of them HATE the Ducks, can't stand seeing a team do great in Tampa, and that a team with meager earnings in atlanta or nashville has immense potential over a team in winnipeg.

yes lets go ahead and contract 6 teams move all the small market teams into canada, and the players can play for room and board and a 25,000 a year salary. the NHL will be great then!
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
dolfanar said:
I think that to "fix" the game, the obvious answer (as has been stated in this thread) is to get a financial setup in place, and start playing. That's the obvious place to start.

As for franchises, i wouldn't mind seing Anaheim move to Portland. I also thinkt hat long term Florida will NOT be able to support both Florida and Tampa Bay and i am skeptical about Carolina as a Hockey mecca, but they are all strong enough for the moment, so leave them alone for now.

On ice a couple changes could make a difference in terms of game-flow imo.

Tag up off-side
Two line pass
No touch Icing

In terms of making the end of games more interesting, the important thing is not gimmickry, it's the stakes that matter, so axe this whole 4 on 4 thing. It isn't needed in the playoffs because in the playoffs you win or die.

10 minutes 5 on 5 OT
Winner in regulation gets 3 points
Winner in OT gets 2 points
Tie gets 1 point
Loss in OT gets 1 point

That way teams in close games will fight hard in the last minute of regulation, rather than hang back for a guaranteed point to get to OT, and OT will still be an all or nothing affair played under normal NHL rules. No "mini-game" syndrome that we have today where if you get to overtime, the 60 minutes of regulation are pretty much useless...
no ties - no points for anything that looks like a tie - 3 points for the winner - 0 for the loser -
gotta score goals -
 

AdvDave

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
37
0
PuckNutz said:
or that when the panthers and ducks would go to the finals.

there's some bitter canucks round here. And it seems all of them HATE the Ducks, can't stand seeing a team do great in Tampa, and that a team with meager earnings in atlanta or nashville has immense potential over a team in winnipeg.

yes lets go ahead and contract 6 teams move all the small market teams into canada, and the players can play for room and board and a 25,000 a year salary. the NHL will be great then!


Shhhh!!!!
Our friends north of the border who think they are intellectually superior might hear you...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->