AHL 17-18 Schedule

[Sidekick]

Any thoughts? opinions?

I've attached a (hopefully accurate) grid key.

Click to read more...

 

[LadyStanley]

Thumbnail not working for me (just get file name and date/time).

 

[Sidekick]

Really? ...uh-oh

Edit: I just tried it on a 2nd computer, and it seems to be working fine. Although, I did have to be logged in....humm..

Thumbnail not working for me (just get file name and date/time).

 

[tigervixxxen]

Looks good to me. Thanks for posting the grid, I geek out over stuff like that plus it's easy to see the team variances that way.

 

[LadyStanley]

Now it's working

 

[RowdyFan42]

So if I'm reading the grid correctly, the only interconference play is:
- Manitoba plays 4 games against each of the 3 Eastern Canadian teams
- Hershey and WBS each do a home-and-home with Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, and Rockford

Seriously, just split the league in half already. Bring back the IHL name and the Turner Cup. Baseball gets by just fine with multiple AAA leagues, hockey can do it too.

 

[Nightsquad]

So if I'm reading the grid correctly, the only interconference play is:
- Manitoba plays 4 games against each of the 3 Eastern Canadian teams
- Hershey and WBS each do a home-and-home with Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, and Rockford

Seriously, just split the league in half already. Bring back the IHL name and the Turner Cup. Baseball gets by just fine with multiple AAA leagues, hockey can do it too.

Regular season out of conference play is very cost prohibitive at the minor league level. We aren't talking big league revenue, and ticket prices, yet extensive travel costs are big league costs to minor league organizations. The IHL was an okay league but I am sure having a Calder Cup is better accomplishment then the Turner Cup. Had some friends who played professionally who have said obviously getting your name on a the Stanley Cup was first, an NCCA National Campionship was 2nd, but all have said winning a Calder Cup Championship would leave any hockey player satisfied in their accomplishments.This is hockey, not baseball. Hockey is very exclusive with limited opportunity, especially to play at professional level I don't think there needs to be a system like baseball, it's not baseball.

 

[RowdyFan42]

On the other hand, it looks like everyone in the Eastern Conference plays everyone else. Out west, it's a bit more dicey. Everyone faces everyone else in their division, but only the two Texas teams manage to visit everyone in the Central Division. The rest of the Pacific Division, in order to maintain their cushy 68-game slate, leaves their dance cards two or three teams short. (Two for Ontario, three for everyone else.)

 

[ZekeA]

On the other hand, it looks like everyone in the Eastern Conference plays everyone else. Out west, it's a bit more dicey. Everyone faces everyone else in their division, but only the two Texas teams manage to visit everyone in the Central Division. The rest of the Pacific Division, in order to maintain their cushy 68-game slate, leaves their dance cards two or three teams short. (Two for Ontario, three for everyone else.)

Same old crap, West plays less games......................

AHL is nothing more than a glorified beer league now by allowing this BS...............

 

[Hurricane Ron]

So if I'm reading the grid correctly, the only interconference play is:
- Manitoba plays 4 games against each of the 3 Eastern Canadian teams
- Hershey and WBS each do a home-and-home with Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, and Rockford

Seriously, just split the league in half already. Bring back the IHL name and the Turner Cup. Baseball gets by just fine with multiple AAA leagues, hockey can do it too.

Great idea!

The only constant with minor league hockey is change.

Should the Colorado Eagles of the ECHL become the 31st AHL team next season, that would bring the Pacific Division up to 9 teams. Wait a year or two and throw in the teams in Utah and Idaho, and maybe add the Allen team in Texas, and you've got the makings for a 12 team league.

I know this will be met with "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" But seriously, do any of these cities/teams have any ties to the AHL's basic Northeast US footprint?

Anyway, this is just speculation on my part. But, another AAA hockey league covering the western half of the US is certainly a possibility.

 

[Sidekick]

Great idea!

The only constant with minor league hockey is change.

Should the Colorado Eagles of the ECHL become the 31st AHL team next season, that would bring the Pacific Division up to 9 teams. Wait a year or two and throw in the teams in Utah and Idaho, and maybe add the Allen team in Texas, and you've got the makings for a 12 team league.

I know this will be met with "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" But seriously, do any of these cities/teams have any ties to the AHL's basic Northeast US footprint?

Anyway, this is just speculation on my part. But, another AAA hockey league covering the western half of the US is certainly a possibility.

Why would two leagues be any better than one?

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

I'm on board with the two leagues theory. It'd be the same deal as what you have now I suppose though. Only difference is even the losing finals team would have a trophy. Just think its hard to sell the idea of being in a league as half the teams your fans don't even see.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Great idea!

The only constant with minor league hockey is change.

Should the Colorado Eagles of the ECHL become the 31st AHL team next season, that would bring the Pacific Division up to 9 teams. Wait a year or two and throw in the teams in Utah and Idaho, and maybe add the Allen team in Texas, and you've got the makings for a 12 team league.

I know this will be met with "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" But seriously, do any of these cities/teams have any ties to the AHL's basic Northeast US footprint?

Anyway, this is just speculation on my part. But, another AAA hockey league covering the western half of the US is certainly a possibility.

speculation to nowhere, Ron, why? unless the NHL expands to 36 teams or more ...

b) the independent label was thrown out of the league/abolished when it became widely known it needed the NHL and hence the evolution to the 1 to 1 ratio....

c) the Pacific teams asked for this through their ownership after being where( SJ was Worcester prior to being the Barracuda, the Kings essentially swapped Manchester and Ontario, despite flipping the Monarchs to private ownership 2 years after the fact, and at the time Burke proposed this, Anaheim left Cincinnati, and they, along with Arizona, finally coerced a license out of Norfolk, despite having to entice Edmonton into that deal to keep hockey in Norfolk.

Utah has exactly the same ownership it did when the IHL collapsed, and if u recall didn't Hans say then that Dallas (which is in Idaho, now) and Arizona were suing them for breach of contract, so they elected to pull out and acquired Lexington's ECHL franchise to return there, so why would they return to seek an NHL Affiliation and that franchise was sold to Gilbert in Cleveland...

what affiliations are even available that essentially aren't known, and/or spoken for aka Colorado/Colorado/St. Louis/San Antonio?

you'll never see a 12 team alignment, much less top-heavy in one division, and that's even if you realign San Antonio/Texas out of that division, but where would u place them, if the current alignment/division setup isn't being changed, they don't exactly fit in the North Division as setup now.

 

[Theoriginalalex]

Time for the annual tradition of griping about the schedule, but this is the best one they've had in a few years, for two reasons.

- 25 teams face more different opponents than they did last year, some as many as +4. Only the Texas clubs are reduced, and it's just one fewer due to Charlotte's move.

- 9 teams are participating in inter-conference play, up from 2 last season and 5 the year before that.

Also, isn't it obvious what will happen with the alignment when they add Colorado as the 31st team? They'll go in the Pacific and the Texas teams will go to the Central, so at least the 68-gamers are together. Then again, this is the AHL, maybe it's not so obvious...

 

[tigervixxxen]

Also, isn't it obvious what will happen with the alignment when they add Colorado as the 31st team? They'll go in the Pacific and the Texas teams will go to the Central, so at least the 68-gamers are together. Then again, this is the AHL, maybe it's not so obvious...

Yeah that's the most logical. I guess Colorado could go in the Central, which might be the easiest thing but I agree that's likely what they are going for.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Regular season out of conference play is very cost prohibitive at the minor league level. We aren't talking big league revenue, and ticket prices, yet extensive travel costs are big league costs to minor league organizations. The IHL was an okay league but I am sure having a Calder Cup is better accomplishment then the Turner Cup. Had some friends who played professionally who have said obviously getting your name on a the Stanley Cup was first, an NCCA National Campionship was 2nd, but all have said winning a Calder Cup Championship would leave any hockey player satisfied in their accomplishments.This is hockey, not baseball. Hockey is very exclusive with limited opportunity, especially to play at professional level I don't think there needs to be a system like baseball, it's not baseball.

That statement is blatantly false. It is not cost prohibitive. It may be slightly more costly but not that much.

Yeah that's the most logical. I guess Colorado could go in the Central, which might be the easiest thing but I agree that's likely what they are going for.

If I win the big lotto, I am buying the AHL and dissolving it.

 

[royals119]

If I win the big lotto, I am buying the AHL and dissolving it.

I realize you are joking, but that isn't possible. No one "owns" the AHL. The league is controlled by it's board of governors, which consists of team owners or whoever the appoint. Your only option would be to buy the individual teams, and then have the board vote to dissolve the league. I think there is a league bylaw about owning multiple teams that would prevent you from owning enough teams to take control, so you would have to have other people who agree with you buy the other teams. It would be difficult to get them approved as owners since they would have this sudden unexplained wealth, but no experience.

The point (aside from throwing cold water on your fantasy) is that when "the league" does something, it is really the collective teams voting to do that thing. It may not be what ever team wants, and often is a compromise between competing interests, but it isn't some mystery "league" that hands down decisions. The team owners are in charge, and they make the decisions.

The commissioner just runs the day to day operations, implementing the decisions of the owners, and stands in front of the cameras/microphones as their representative. He might give advice, or try to be a negotiator/facilitator between owners who disagree, but in the end he is responsible to the team owners.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

I realize you are joking, but that isn't possible. No one "owns" the AHL. The league is controlled by it's board of governors, which consists of team owners or whoever the appoint. Your only option would be to buy the individual teams, and then have the board vote to dissolve the league. I think there is a league bylaw about owning multiple teams that would prevent you from owning enough teams to take control, so you would have to have other people who agree with you buy the other teams. It would be difficult to get them approved as owners since they would have this sudden unexplained wealth, but no experience.

The point (aside from throwing cold water on your fantasy) is that when "the league" does something, it is really the collective teams voting to do that thing. It may not be what ever team wants, and often is a compromise between competing interests, but it isn't some mystery "league" that hands down decisions. The team owners are in charge, and they make the decisions.

The commissioner just runs the day to day operations, implementing the decisions of the owners, and stands in front of the cameras/microphones as their representative. He might give advice, or try to be a negotiator/facilitator between owners who disagree, but in the end he is responsible to the team owners.

The majority of the owners, not the collective. Big difference.

Also, all I would need is 16 teams and I, believe it or not, do have 15 friends who I would gift the teams to that would vote my way.

 

[royals119]

The majority of the owners, not the collective. Big difference.

Also, all I would need is 16 teams and I, believe it or not, do have 15 friends who I would gift the teams to that would vote my way.

I thought that was clear in my post, but yes the board vote doesn't have to be unanimous.

I'm sure you have 15 friends, but probably not 15 who could get approved as AHL owners, since the other owners would probably figure out what you were up to, and they do have standards as far as experience, enough money in reserve to sustain losses, etc. They are going to look at all these new potential owners who suddenly have a bunch of money, and are all connected to each other in various ways.

Also, many of the teams are owned by organizations or companies who aren't going to sell because owning the team serves another purpose for them. For example, more than half the league is now owned by NHL teams, and most of them won't sell because they own the team for the purpose of developing their NHL players, or as a place to keep their depth players for salary cap purposes. Hershey is owned by a board, and is there as a benefit for Hershey resorts, who own the Giant Center and the adjacent Hershey Park and surrounding hotels. I'm sure they profit from the team, but the bigger picture is they also profit from the arena operations, hotel rooms, visits to the amusement park, etc that occur because of the team. There are likely similar motivations among other owners. Yes, they might sell the team if that was their only business, but in reality they need the team in order to profit off of the arena/concessions/parking/etc. That isn't every team, but it is enough that you'd have a hard time getting to sixteen teams even if you managed to find 16 friends that could get approved by the board.

 

[royals119]

Also, I obviously don't have the league bylaws, but I would bet your lottery winnings that there is a clause in there about dissolving the league, and it likely requires some type of super-majority to pass. Like 2/3 or 3/4 of the board has to approve.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

It works in baseball well. I'm just not sure why hockey fights to keep this going. You have like 7 teams in NY and PA alone if memory serves. You could keep the more eastern part of the country as the AHL(keeping the name and not totally dissolving the league) them after alignments are formed think of another name for the other half that'd make up AAA. I'm sure someone would suggest IHL but that name is so tired out.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

I'm on board with the two leagues theory. It'd be the same deal as what you have now I suppose though. Only difference is even the losing finals team would have a trophy. Just think its hard to sell the idea of being in a league as half the teams your fans don't even see.

Hoe is two leagues much different than now?

Time for the annual tradition of griping about the schedule, but this is the best one they've had in a few years, for two reasons.

- 25 teams face more different opponents than they did last year, some as many as +4. Only the Texas clubs are reduced, and it's just one fewer due to Charlotte's move.

- 9 teams are participating in inter-conference play, up from 2 last season and 5 the year before that.

Also, isn't it obvious what will happen with the alignment when they add Colorado as the 31st team? They'll go in the Pacific and the Texas teams will go to the Central, so at least the 68-gamers are together. Then again, this is the AHL, maybe it's not so obvious...

The schedule isn't as bad as last year.

Also, I obviously don't have the league bylaws, but I would bet your lottery winnings that there is a clause in there about dissolving the league, and it likely requires some type of super-majority to pass. Like 2/3 or 3/4 of the board has to approve.

By-laws are meant to be changed.. And I doubt the requirement for background could not easily be passed. And as for financial aspect, shouldnt be a big deal. And experience? If they follow the NHL lead then that wouldnt be a problem either.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

regarding Hershey:

I thought that was clear in my post, but yes the board vote doesn't have to be unanimous.

I'm sure you have 15 friends, but probably not 15 who could get approved as AHL owners, since the other owners would probably figure out what you were up to, and they do have standards as far as experience, enough money in reserve to sustain losses, etc. They are going to look at all these new potential owners who suddenly have a bunch of money, and are all connected to each other in various ways.

Also, many of the teams are owned by organizations or companies who aren't going to sell because owning the team serves another purpose for them. For example, more than half the league is now owned by NHL teams, and most of them won't sell because they own the team for the purpose of developing their NHL players, or as a place to keep their depth players for salary cap purposes. Hershey is owned by a board, and is there as a benefit for Hershey resorts, who own the Giant Center and the adjacent Hershey Park and surrounding hotels. I'm sure they profit from the team, but the bigger picture is they also profit from the arena operations, hotel rooms, visits to the amusement park, etc that occur because of the team. There are likely similar motivations among other owners. Yes, they might sell the team if that was their only business, but in reality they need the team in order to profit off of the arena/concessions/parking/etc. That isn't every team, but it is enough that you'd have a hard time getting to sixteen teams even if you managed to find 16 friends that could get approved by the board.

THAT'S NOT A Board Royals, who controls Hershey. it's a perennial trust that operates Hershey, and has essentially since that city/town was formed by Milton Hershey himself it's why the Bears only trail age-wise the original 6 NHL Clubs.

it bars anything like a sale or transfer of the franchise, because it's been perpetually decreed as such by the trust. that's why the logo gets updated every decade or so as does each organization that the Bears have affiliated with know that going in....and that's where the uniform tweaks to each affiliate come from.

The Trust likely has final say over anything the Bears propose to do operation-wise. might be a good option to have a Hershey post in a sticky, for future posters, just sayin....

 

[210]

THAT'S NOT A Board Royals, who controls Hershey. it's a perennial trust that operates Hershey, and has essentially since that city/town was formed by Milton Hershey himself it's why the Bears only trail age-wise the original 6 NHL Clubs.

it bars anything like a sale or transfer of the franchise, because it's been perpetually decreed as such by the trust. that's why the logo gets updated every decade or so as does each organization that the Bears have affiliated with know that going in....and that's where the uniform tweaks to each affiliate come from.

The Trust likely has final say over anything the Bears propose to do operation-wise.

Royals119 is talking about the AHL Board of Governors.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Hoe is two leagues much different than now?



The schedule isn't as bad as last year.



By-laws are meant to be changed.. And I doubt the requirement for background could not easily be passed. And as for financial aspect, shouldnt be a big deal. And experience? If they follow the NHL lead then that wouldnt be a problem either.

Because atleast then you'd play every team in "alleged" league.