Meeting today 6/14 (I'd ask for news, but you know..)

[HockeyCritter]

Or, they could be talking about counting the revenue from the beer booths - the International Beer Booths, that is...

You're having quite a lot of fun, aren't you?

 

[Timmy]

You're having quite a lot of fun, aren't you?

Meh.

Beats the report that's on my other window.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The is a direct correlation to Olympic years and an increase in injuries . . . . . the schedule was compressed to accommodate the two plus week shutdown for Olympic participation

I'm not saying they won't have to condense it further because of the Olympics, just saying the health of the plaers is not Gary Bettman's prime concern when making the schedule.

For example, in 2001-2002, the season started on Octocber 3 and ended on April 14. For 02-03, it started on October 9 and ended on April 6. For 02-03, it stared October 9 and ended on April 3.

 

[HockeyCritter]

The greedy players going to the Olympics will be a good thing for the NHL. It will help launch the NHL on NBC baby. Great way bring in the linkage era.

That’s assuming NBC even broadcasts the hockey games . . . . I'm not sure the Olympics will do a thing to improve hockey's visibility. Owners need to find ways to get people to the arena (ticket promos, special rates, players in the community) and connect them to the team . . . . . While I think the Olympics are (were) a nice ideal, I don't think it will help the NHL all that much.

 

[HockeyCritter]

I'm not saying they won't have to condense it further because of the Olympics, just saying the health of the plaers is not Gary Bettman's prime concern when making the schedule.

For example, in 2001-2002, the season started on Octocber 3 and ended on April 14. For 02-03, it started on October 9 and ended on April 6. For 02-03, it stared October 9 and ended on April 3.

Oh, I get what you're saying (I misunderstood your point)

It is a bit troublesome that someone isn't concerned with the fact that a compressed schedule is more likely to result in injuries. If the League and PA are dead set on this, then extended the season a week or two to accommodate the shutdown dates . . . . it isn't that hard, especially if you consider the fact that lots of teams will have four or five days off between games in October and November - - - put in a game here and there to take off the pressure later in the season.

 

[NYR1724]

I think they play too many games to begin with. Drop the number to 72, i think it would help the product due to the reduced amount of games as well as the amount of injuries. It would then be up to the schedule makers to set up a schedule where teams play more meaningful games (intra division and intra conference) as a Rangers fan this is no disrespect to the Blue Jackets but when they play each other the thrill is not there. I love seeing Nash and Zherdev but one more game with the Islanders would be better then that.

 

[bcrt2000]

When Bettman became commissioner of the league, it was 82 games

and Bettman only allowed 4 teams into the NHL since he became commissioner: Minnesota, Columbus, Atlanta, and Nashville-- out of the 8 recent US expansions, these are arguably the best cities out of that list

 

[not quite yoda]

When Bettman became commissioner of the league, it was 82 games

and Bettman only allowed 4 teams into the NHL since he became commissioner: Minnesota, Columbus, Atlanta, and Nashville-- out of the 8 recent US expansions, these are arguably the best cities out of that list

Nashville and Atlanta are better hockey cities than San Jose? Please.

 

[kdb209]

When Bettman became commissioner of the league, it was 82 games

and Bettman only allowed 4 teams into the NHL since he became commissioner: Minnesota, Columbus, Atlanta, and Nashville-- out of the 8 recent US expansions, these are arguably the best cities out of that list

Sigh. San Jose still just doesn't get any respect. I'll give you maybe Minnesota as being a better expansion market, but San Jose is a MUCH better expansion market than either Columbus (although Columbus is a pretty good market), Atlanta, or Nashville (or Tampa or Florida or Anaheim).

You do know that San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US (it past Detroit into the top ten about a year ago). It is bigger than San Francisco. It is part of the 6th largest media market in the US (SF Bay Area). It has a lot of corporate support and demographics with a lot of disposable income. It has no direct competition - it is the only major league (if you still consider the NHL a major league) sport in town.

 

[X0ssbar]

I think they play too many games to begin with. Drop the number to 72, i think it would help the product due to the reduced amount of games as well as the amount of injuries. It would then be up to the schedule makers to set up a schedule where teams play more meaningful games (intra division and intra conference) as a Rangers fan this is no disrespect to the Blue Jackets but when they play each other the thrill is not there. I love seeing Nash and Zherdev but one more game with the Islanders would be better then that.

Doug MacLean mentioned on a local radio station here last week that the new schedule will have teams playing their division eight times instead six. So take that for what's it worth.

...I agree with you btw - I would rather play more teams in my division and create more rivalries and hate with those teams than have one-offs for the sake of seeing an orginal six team locally.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Doug MacLean mentioned on a local radio station here last week that the new schedule will have teams playing their division eight times instead six. So take that for what's it worth.

...I agree with you btw - I would rather play more teams in my division and create more rivalries and hate with those teams than have one-offs for the sake of seeing an orginal six team locally.

I agree - - and scheduling home-and-home series would go a long way to promoting that rivalry

 

[dolfanar]

Doug MacLean mentioned on a local radio station here last week that the new schedule will have teams playing their division eight times instead six. So take that for what's it worth.

...I agree with you btw - I would rather play more teams in my division and create more rivalries and hate with those teams than have one-offs for the sake of seeing an orginal six team locally.

Ok...32 games against your own division... hmm could this mean a straight 2 games each against the rest of the league? Maybe a different playoff format (1 vs 16, 2 vs 15)?

 

[norrisnick]

Wasn't there a report out a while back from the league that talked of this new greater importance of division play? Because I remember the extra divisional games, plus there was a tweak to the playoff entrances. Top 2 per division and then the wildcards.

I think it was the same article that suggested moving to 20 playoff teams.

peace

 

[bcrt2000]

Sigh. San Jose still just doesn't get any respect. I'll give you maybe Minnesota as being a better expansion market, but San Jose is a MUCH better expansion market than either Columbus (although Columbus is a pretty good market), Atlanta, or Nashville (or Tampa or Florida or Anaheim).

You do know that San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US (it past Detroit into the top ten about a year ago). It is bigger than San Francisco. It is part of the 6th largest media market in the US (SF Bay Area). It has a lot of corporate support and demographics with a lot of disposable income. It has no direct competition - it is the only major league (if you still consider the NHL a major league) sport in town.

well i was just making a point that, bettman wasn't the guy who brought in anaheim, florida and tampa

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Sigh. San Jose still just doesn't get any respect. I'll give you maybe Minnesota as being a better expansion market, but San Jose is a MUCH better expansion market than either Columbus (although Columbus is a pretty good market), Atlanta, or Nashville (or Tampa or Florida or Anaheim).

Hmmm, you do realize that Columbus, Tampa Bay and even Florida had higher average attendance last played season than San Jose?

 

[HockeyCritter]

Ok...32 games against your own division... hmm could this mean a straight 2 games each against the rest of the league? Maybe a different playoff format (1 vs 16, 2 vs 15)?

There was talk of a completely unbalanced schedule . . . something along the lines of:
Play each team in your conference two times (15x=30)
Play each team in your division eight times (4x8= 32)
Play the remaining 20 games in the other conference – similar to the way baseball has inter-league weekends

Playoff format would remain the same with divisional winners receiving the top seeds . . . . . if the league expands to 20 teams for playoffs it would still be based strickly on points regardless of division. There would be no cross over of teams until the Final where it would be East vs. West.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Sigh. San Jose still just doesn't get any respect. I'll give you maybe Minnesota as being a better expansion market, but San Jose is a MUCH better expansion market than either Columbus (although Columbus is a pretty good market), Atlanta, or Nashville (or Tampa or Florida or Anaheim).

You do know that San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US (it past Detroit into the top ten about a year ago). It is bigger than San Francisco. It is part of the 6th largest media market in the US (SF Bay Area). It has a lot of corporate support and demographics with a lot of disposable income. It has no direct competition - it is the only major league (if you still consider the NHL a major league) sport in town.

well i was just making a point that, bettman wasn't the guy who brought in anaheim, florida and tampa

I agree about GB and expansion. It is a pet peeve of mine that he gets "blamed" for the first round of expansion, when SJ, ANA, OTT, TB, and FLA were all granted before GB was hired by the league, but why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good anti-GB rant.

But when you added "out of the 8 recent US expansions, these are arguably the best cities out of that list" and implied that the recent 4 expansion cities were all better than San Jose, I had to respond - it's another of my peeves. San Jose just doesn't get any respect.

 

[kdb209]

Hmmm, you do realize that Columbus, Tampa Bay and even Florida had higher average attendance last played season than San Jose?

Of course that was the one down year in San Jose's entire existance, after the complete debacle of 02-03: high expectations, miss playoffs, fire Sutter, fire Lombardi, dump Nolan, lose Teemu, etc.

San Jose Sharks 1999-00 41 708,925 17,291
San Jose Sharks 2000-01 41 716,196 17,468
San Jose Sharks 2001-02 41 714,237 17,420
San Jose Sharks 2002-03 41 711,386 17,351
San Jose Sharks 2003-04 41 649,261 15,836

Columbus Blue Jackets 2000-01 41 715,738 17,457
Columbus Blue Jackets 2001-02 41 743,576 18,136
Columbus Blue Jackets 2002-03 41 727,522 17,744
Columbus Blue Jackets 2003-04 41 712,145 17,369

Tampa Bay Lightning 1999-00 41 557,618 13,600
Tampa Bay Lightning 2000-01 41 611,173 14,907
Tampa Bay Lightning 2001-02 41 644,610 15,722
Tampa Bay Lightning 2002-03 41 678,354 16,545
Tampa Bay Lightning 2003-04 41 730,634 17,820

Florida Panthers 1999-00 41 655,260 15,982
Florida Panthers 2000-01 41 596,857 14,557
Florida Panthers 2001-02 41 659,440 16,084
Florida Panthers 2002-03 41 632,552 15,428
Florida Panthers 2003-04 41 653,380 15,936

I agree Columbus is also a good expansion location, selling out (or nearly selling out) a slightly larger arena than San Jose, but let's see what their attendance (and revenues) are 10 years out before crowning them a top expansion site.

The two Florida cities, sorry, but no comparison.

 

[King_Brown]

Don't worry no need to fight, one theres linkage its all gravy baby.

 

[Patman]

There was talk of a completely unbalanced schedule . . . something along the lines of:
Play each team in your conference two times (15x=30)
Play each team in your division eight times (4x8= 32)
Play the remaining 20 games in the other conference – similar to the way baseball has inter-league weekends

Playoff format would remain the same with divisional winners receiving the top seeds . . . . . if the league expands to 20 teams for playoffs it would still be based strickly on points regardless of division. There would be no cross over of teams until the Final where it would be East vs. West.

I'd personally like to see 3 conferences in 2 divisions with 5 teams in each division, but I don't know if people would go for the idea of 3 conferences. I'd have 32 in division (8 vs. each), 20 out of div. but in conf. (4 vs. each), and then another 30 out of conference (1.5 vs. each). This way you put more teams into the playoffs (if that's what the NHL really values) as my system would put in 24 teams (the difficulty would be going from 3 to 2) and you stress more local opposition. I'd use the old AHL plan of 8 teams by conference making the playoffs but to play the 1st 2 rounds in division. Clearly a downside would be a longer post-season but I originally worked this with the idea of 72 games. I'd use a best of 5 1st rd., best of 7 Div Final and Conf Finals, a 2x rd robin knockout round, then a best of 7 for the cup.

I really hate the idea of giving byes and I really hope the NHL avoids it. Any team can win in a quick 3 game "do or die" series. I think the NHL will go ahead with their plans for 20 teams in the playoffs and the strong divisional emphasis. The real ugly part is if they go with the top 2 from each division being placed 1-3 and 4-6. Any team that would otherwise come in 10th or 11th place doesn't deserve a 6th seed.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Of course that was the one down year in San Jose's entire existance, after the complete debacle of 02-03: high expectations, miss playoffs, fire Sutter, fire Lombardi, dump Nolan, lose Teemu, etc.

You apparently missed the in my post...

I understand the oversensitivity -- I'm a Lightning fan. I'm used to disrespect, been putting up with it for years and still get it, in spite of being Stanley Cup Champions.

Be that as it may, I'd like to thank you for posting the attendance figures. Until 2002-2003 the Bolts' highest finish since 1997 or so was 27th overall (2001-2002). I'm very appreciative you posted those attendance figures because there's the proof that the Lightning's average attendance went up every year, even while the team languished in last (or close to it) place year after year, when we were really really bad. I kept telling people that we had/have a solid, growing fan base, most chose not to believe it.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Of course that was the one down year in San Jose's entire existance, after the complete debacle of 02-03: high expectations, miss playoffs, fire Sutter, fire Lombardi, dump Nolan, lose Teemu, etc.

You apparently missed the in my post...

I understand the oversensitivity -- I'm a Lightning fan. I'm used to disrespect, been putting up with it for years and still get it, in spite of being Stanley Cup Champions.

Be that as it may, I'd like to thank you for posting the attendance figures. Until 2002-2003 the Bolts' highest finish since 1997 or so was 27th overall (2001-2002). I'm very appreciative you posted those attendance figures because there's the proof that the Lightning's average attendance went up every year, even while the team languished in last (or close to it) place year after year, when we were really really bad. I kept telling people that we had/have a solid, growing fan base, most chose not to believe it.

No, I saw the , but just wanted to make sure others didn't miss it and take your comment as gospel.

 

[SedinFan*]

Meetings over after 12 hours. To meet again on Thursday.