RTWAP*
Guest
I was looking at Mirtle's blog and saw this map. It gave me some funny ideas about better groupings of divisions but they would only work if there was a massive expansion.
So I'm going to walk you through the questions and answers I could see. It might be a little hard to follow, but this is how my brain works.
Why not expand into all the available markets, especially if it makes geographic sense and enhances rivalries?
But that would dilute the talent pool so much that the hockey would be almost unwatchable, which reminded me of a pet idea from a while back.
Why not reduce the roster sizes to three forward lines and 4 D-men?
But that would be too hard on the players. They might break down from the increased icetime.
Why not reduce the number of games, spreading them out a little, to allow a little more rest and recovery time during the year?
So here's my wacky vision for NHL 3.0.
66 games, 40 teams, 8 divisions, 2 conferences.
Why do it?
Why would the players agree?
Why would the teams agree?
How would the games be divided?
Who are these 40 teams and 8 divisions?
Western Conference
Eastern Conference
What can I say? It's late, and I should have been in bed hours ago.
So I'm going to walk you through the questions and answers I could see. It might be a little hard to follow, but this is how my brain works.
Why not expand into all the available markets, especially if it makes geographic sense and enhances rivalries?
But that would dilute the talent pool so much that the hockey would be almost unwatchable, which reminded me of a pet idea from a while back.
Why not reduce the roster sizes to three forward lines and 4 D-men?
But that would be too hard on the players. They might break down from the increased icetime.
Why not reduce the number of games, spreading them out a little, to allow a little more rest and recovery time during the year?
So here's my wacky vision for NHL 3.0.
66 games, 40 teams, 8 divisions, 2 conferences.
Why do it?
More revenues, less cost. There would be more games (1320 vs. 1230) and more sponsorship deals in more markets. You can also sell more seasons tickets when they cost less (fewer games) and the best dates are easier to schedule.
Why would the players agree?
They get more revenues split among roughly the same number of players (30 x 20 = 600, 40 x 16 = 640) for fewer games/player. More money for fewer games is an easy sell.
Why would the teams agree?
Not all would, but at the price teams are going for these days -- some factors keeping that price up would be the attractiveness of employing only 16 players, and a decent expansion draft, and the leveling effect of the cap -- the teams could be looking at $1.5B for 10 teams. That's $50M each for the current 30 teams. Sweet!
How would the games be divided?
4 games against each division rival (16 games).
2 games against each conference rival (30 games).
1 game against each other team (20 games).
2 games against each conference rival (30 games).
1 game against each other team (20 games).
Who are these 40 teams and 8 divisions?
Western Conference
Northwest:
Westcentral:
Eastcentral:
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Seattle
Portland
Southwest:Calgary
Edmonton
Seattle
Portland
Los Angeles
Anaheim
San Jose
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Anaheim
San Jose
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Westcentral:
Colorado
Dallas
Houston
Oklahoma City
Minnesota
Dallas
Houston
Oklahoma City
Minnesota
Eastcentral:
Nashville
St. Louis
Kansas City
Chicago
Columbus
St. Louis
Kansas City
Chicago
Columbus
Eastern Conference
Southeast:
Northcentral:
Northeast:
Florida
Tampa Bay
Atlanta
Carolina
Washington
Tampa Bay
Atlanta
Carolina
Washington
Northcentral:
Winnipeg
Detroit
Toronto
Hamilton
Buffalo
Detroit
Toronto
Hamilton
Buffalo
Northeast:
Ottawa
Montreal
Quebec
Boston
Hartford
Atlantic:Montreal
Quebec
Boston
Hartford
New Jersey
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
What can I say? It's late, and I should have been in bed hours ago.