If the NHL no longer existed this is what my new league would look like.

[buce]

My NEW LEAGUE would have a EUROPEAN Conference.


My league would have 32 teams - 24 in NA and 8 in Europe

Two actual teams based in US would be sold/transferred to Winnipeg and Quebec to create a 8 team Canadian Conference

There would be two 8-tems conferences in the US (East and West)

The six teams that would disspappear in the US could be sold to European investors and 2 new teams would be cresated over there.

Most European players would play in Europe - those teams would eventually (after the first 3 years in the league) have a limit of 5 North American players on their rosters. The North Ameriacn teams would also have a quota of 5 European born players.

The teams in Europe could be located in Russia (2); Finland; Sweden; Tcheque Republic; Switzerland; and Germany (2) - Why in 2 teams in Germany ? They have money-fan- and some large brand new facilities.

This will never happen because the time change issue. You're talking about losing the North American viewing audience everytime a team played in Europe.

 

[Toonces]

San Jose would have definatly been in my imediate plans as one of the front runners for expansion from my original 16 team league. I agree that San Jose is one of the better hockey markets in the Southern US.

San Jose isn't what I consider part of the southern US.

You'd be supprised how many hockey fans there are in Northern California.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

If you're gonna create a new league, then you're willing to throw tradition out the window. And the Stanley Cup belongs to the National Hockey League so you can't give that out to the champion of your league.

Now if I were to create a league, I would like it to resemble some of the European soccer leagues. I'd keep all the current locations and even add 2 more teams (doesn't really matter where they are located but preferably one in Canada & one in the US) and then divide up the league into 2 divisions so to speak (16 teams each). The top 16 teams from the previous season will be in the Premier division and the bottom 16 teams in the First division. Each season the bottom 2 teams from the Premier division will drop down to the First division and the top 2 teams from the First division will jump up to the Premier division. During the season, no trades can take place between teams in differing divisions (offseason, trades like this can occur). Penalties taken in the offensive zone will result in a penalty shot no matter what the infraction. Utilize international rules (no touch-up icing, bigger rink, etc). All teams share 40% of gate revenue with the league and to receive a share of that pool, each team must achieve several markers (like attendance figures, payroll expenditures, etc) but differ for each division. Soft-cap/Luxury tax system to keep salary expenditures in check but flexible enough for owners to keep their teams together. A limit (7) on the number of Foreign players per team (foreign meaning outside of North America).

Okay, did I tick all the hockey purists off with my suggestions? I think I did

 

[richardn]

If you're gonna create a new league, then you're willing to throw tradition out the window. And the Stanley Cup belongs to the National Hockey League so you can't give that out to the champion of your league.

Now if I were to create a league, I would like it to resemble some of the European soccer leagues. I'd keep all the current locations and even add 2 more teams (doesn't really matter where they are located but preferably one in Canada & one in the US) and then divide up the league into 2 divisions so to speak (16 teams each). The top 16 teams from the previous season will be in the Premier division and the bottom 16 teams in the First division. Each season the bottom 2 teams from the Premier division will drop down to the First division and the top 2 teams from the First division will jump up to the Premier division. During the season, no trades can take place between teams in differing divisions (offseason, trades like this can occur). Penalties taken in the offensive zone will result in a penalty shot no matter what the infraction. Utilize international rules (no touch-up icing, bigger rink, etc). All teams share 40% of gate revenue with the league and to receive a share of that pool, each team must achieve several markers (like attendance figures, payroll expenditures, etc) but differ for each division. Soft-cap/Luxury tax system to keep salary expenditures in check but flexible enough for owners to keep their teams together. A limit (7) on the number of Foreign players per team (foreign meaning outside of North America).

Okay, did I tick all the hockey purists off with my suggestions? I think I did

I for one don't like the idea of having the league set up like a soccer league. It is an interseting idea, but I don't think I would be in favour of that. I definatly don't like the idea of a penalty shot on all ofeensive zone penalties. I like watching a power play over a penalty shot. A penatly shot for all offensive zone penalties to me would be like foul shots in the NBA. Not a good idea in my opinion, it takes the team effort out of the game, this is why I am not a fan of the shoot out as well. To me their is nothing more exciting then sudden death overtime.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

First off, that someone not from the CBJ board would defend Columbus as a hockey market is astonishing, but maybe a hint at the progress the market has made in the minds of the hockey populace. Woo-hoo - we get a team in the NAHL!!!

Another observation regarding "new" markets. I find it fascinating that Colorado has become an "assumed" among major markets. Not just here, but in the media as well. Sure, the Avs are a good team, and have been one of the best in the league since moving to Colo. But that's my point. Stay with me here.

Just by way of camparison - Denver and Atlanta had teams in the 70s. Both moved to other markets. Twenty(-ish) years later Denver gets a relocated team that wins the Cup in it first year and becomes a regular near the top of the standings. Meanwhile, Atlanta gets an expnsion team, and, as expansion teams are wont to do, doesn't make the playoffs. Given this, Colorado is presumed to be a great market for hockey and Atlanta a poor one. Are we certain that this scenario wouldn't be reversed if the relocated team had moved to ATL and the expansion team placed in Denver?

Not to direspect Colo. I like that team and think it's a good market. Also, this isn't specifically about ATL, just an obvious comparison given their similar history with having NHL teams. But why is Denver automatic in anyone's contraction/new league/big market vs. small market discussion?

 

[snakepliskin]

looks like 1975--the franchises still hold too much value to scrap but to re-organize under chapter 13 bankruptcy laws is a different animal-and i don't think contraction is possible because of how much these owners paid for a franchise--i say re-organize and implement your workplace rules even if it means holding tryouts and if the prongers and damphousse's of the world want to sit out let em and oh yeah GO CANES!!

 

[wazee]

First off, that someone not from the CBJ board would defend Columbus as a hockey market is astonishing, but maybe a hint at the progress the market has made in the minds of the hockey populace. Woo-hoo - we get a team in the NAHL!!!

Another observation regarding "new" markets. I find it fascinating that Colorado has become an "assumed" among major markets. Not just here, but in the media as well. Sure, the Avs are a good team, and have been one of the best in the league since moving to Colo. But that's my point. Stay with me here.

Just by way of camparison - Denver and Atlanta had teams in the 70s. Both moved to other markets. Twenty(-ish) years later Denver gets a relocated team that wins the Cup in it first year and becomes a regular near the top of the standings. Meanwhile, Atlanta gets an expnsion team, and, as expansion teams are wont to do, doesn't make the playoffs. Given this, Colorado is presumed to be a great market for hockey and Atlanta a poor one. Are we certain that this scenario wouldn't be reversed if the relocated team had moved to ATL and the expansion team placed in Denver?

Not to direspect Colo. I like that team and think it's a good market. Also, this isn't specifically about ATL, just an obvious comparison given their similar history with having NHL teams. But why is Denver automatic in anyone's contraction/new league/big market vs. small market discussion?

Actually, I would agree with you to a point about Colorado not being an big market team. That is probably why Stan Kroenke, the Avs owner is, and has always been, in favor of 'cost certainty'.

I don't know what the situation was in Atlanta when the Flames moved. I do know the circumstances in Denver that lead to the Rockies leaving for New Jersey...and it had a lot to do with bad ownership. The condensed version...the Rockies had 4 owners in the 6 years the team was in Denver. Remember the owner in the movie 'Major League'? The Rockies owners made her look good. The last three owners spent their time and budget trying to move the team, a move the NHL finally approved after last owner's unfortunate Mafia connection came to light. It is nearly impossible to build a fan base for a team that is loudly and constantly announcing their intent to pull up stakes an leave.

Denver has changed a lot since then. For starters, the population has doubled...meaning their are more bodies to fill the arena. For seconds, Stan Kroenke is a solid owner who owns the arena and the Nuggets as well as the Avs. And the City of Denver obtained a tight legal agreement stating the teams could not be moved for 25 years. I am sure the Avs will slip in popularity when they hit the 'rebuild' stage. That happens in a lot of cities. But I think the fan base is large enough to support the team through down times...after all, we supported the Broncos for 16 years before they even had a winning season.

 

[NYIsles1*]

looks like 1975--the franchises still hold too much value to scrap but to re-organize under chapter 13 bankruptcy laws is a different animal-and i don't think contraction is possible because of how much these owners paid for a franchise--i say re-organize and implement your workplace rules even if it means holding tryouts and if the prongers and damphousse's of the world want to sit out let em and oh yeah GO CANES!!

A little scary when Escape From New York is on television as I write this and a poster named Snake Pliskin is posting.

 

[Old Hickory]

San Jose would have definatly been in my imediate plans as one of the front runners for expansion from my original 16 team league. I agree that San Jose is one of the better hockey markets in the Southern US.

California isn't part of the South.

The furthest west "The South" stretches is either Texas or Lousiana (depending on who you talk to)

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Actually, I would agree with you to a point about Colorado not being an big market team. That is probably why Stan Kroenke, the Avs owner is, and has always been, in favor of 'cost certainty'.

I don't know what the situation was in Atlanta when the Flames moved. I do know the circumstances in Denver that lead to the Rockies leaving for New Jersey...and it had a lot to do with bad ownership. The condensed version...the Rockies had 4 owners in the 6 years the team was in Denver. Remember the owner in the movie 'Major League'? The Rockies owners made her look good. The last three owners spent their time and budget trying to move the team, a move the NHL finally approved after last owner's unfortunate Mafia connection came to light. It is nearly impossible to build a fan base for a team that is loudly and constantly announcing their intent to pull up stakes an leave.

Denver has changed a lot since then. For starters, the population has doubled...meaning their are more bodies to fill the arena. For seconds, Stan Kroenke is a solid owner who owns the arena and the Nuggets as well as the Avs. And the City of Denver obtained a tight legal agreement stating the teams could not be moved for 25 years. I am sure the Avs will slip in popularity when they hit the 'rebuild' stage. That happens in a lot of cities. But I think the fan base is large enough to support the team through down times...after all, we supported the Broncos for 16 years before they even had a winning season.

Thanks for the poop on the Rockies. Absolutely a different market now, and Kroenke's a good owner. Just thought the question should be asked.