My 32 Team NHL

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
If you guys would really like to see the league start struggling, then contraction is a perfect way to go. Contraction has always been a signing of a league in trouble.

MLB didn't contract the Expos, and hasn't contracted the Pirates, Royals, Devil Rays, or Marlins.

The NFL hasn't folded Arizona.

The NBA didn't get rid of Charlotte (the 1st version) and hasn't discarded Atlanta.

The NHL is not going to cut out any teams, either. Period. Discussion of that is like discussing how life will be when you marry Jessica Biel - it's a great fantasy, but it's never going to happen.
 

Little Fury

Registered User
Jun 21, 2006
17,831
6,800
If you guys would really like to see the league start struggling, then contraction is a perfect way to go. Contraction has always been a signing of a league in trouble.

The NHL is in trouble.
 

Pnut

Guest
If you guys would really like to see the league start struggling, then contraction is a perfect way to go. Contraction has always been a signing of a league in trouble.

MLB didn't contract the Expos, and hasn't contracted the Pirates, Royals, Devil Rays, or Marlins.

The NFL hasn't folded Arizona.

The NBA didn't get rid of Charlotte (the 1st version) and hasn't discarded Atlanta.

The NHL is not going to cut out any teams, either. Period. Discussion of that is like discussing how life will be when you marry Jessica Biel - it's a great fantasy, but it's never going to happen.

good point, contraction is not the way to go, but implying moving a team to a different location is not a way to go eithr

the expos probably would have been better off staying in MTl because now they lost Alfonse Soriano, they cant get anybody to come, the Pirates and Royals are teams were their hasnt been a winnner in 20-30 years but if they win people will come.... Devil Rays might be a case were there is one too many teams in a state. the Marlins, dont have consistant fans because everytime the team wins they get dismantled.so when then wn again (probably if their pater continues in 2010) people wil come back as long as the owners dont strip the team for parts like an 86 Corolla. the Arizona Cardinals are like the Saints, they had terrible teams and in the NFL within a few years (ie 2 0r 3) you can go from 32nd to 1st
the hornets will survive now because all of the poor people left NO and now more afflient people are moving in oon the outrskirts and well the NBA wont get rid of atlanta because it cant move it if the owner doesnt want to (see noe there are the Hornets to the west the charlot bobcats but if they move the Hawks(ATL) there is a whole area that is not getting served. Atlanta did have a good team back in the Dominique Wdays and people will come back if a winner is built.

But the NHL is none of these leagues so dont expect it to do things like the others. it wont conract but adding more than 2 teams in the next 5-10 years is bad (KC and Hamilton, not the preds an expansion team) it expanded from 91-94 and 98-00 but when so many teams are losing money, how could a perspective buyer of an expansion team come in and say "i want in" not unless the owners are liars and most teams arent losing as much as they say. I think they arent lying so why whould the NHL want to expand? just for a quick buck? in places where hockey is flooded (see Hamilton-Tor-Buff) or a place where it has failed see KC or Winnipeg.
 

TorFC-TML*

Guest
throw money, like the islanders, so they are regulated to the minors......well
then you contradict yourself and call NHL 2 puratory for teams that dont do anything, hello? how many of those NHL1 teams did something the last trade deadline or the last off serason and then you say i'd be happy if the Leafs were there (well guess what i would tooo if we could move the leafs down and isles up)..........The isles got Ryan Smyth, got rid of Yashin and made the Playoffs unlike lots of theose NHL 1 teams, lets just keep it 1 NHL.......and not use this as another excuss to hate the teams you dont like....I am glad the NHl doesnt do this kind of stuff, i am glad the NHL isnt run like this........whew!!!:teach::teach::teach:

Do you not like any of the non expansion teams in this NHL2? admit it you don't and this is why this is fantasy, man:madfire::banghead::banghead:

you have no good reason to do this..... you just dont, admit it. You dont like some teams, pure and simple. Oh by the way the NJ Devils might be a great hockey club, but people care less about them than the Nashvile franchise that everybody wants to throw under the bus....please do a little research before your formulate your opinions and say things that arent true!!!

and the NYR-NYI rivary is the biggest in all sports, bigger than Canadiens-Tor or Oil-Flame or Yanks- RedSox, and this stupid system takes that away......what a joke, opinions are a dime a dozen and everybody has one, it doesnt make them a genius Thankfully the nhl wouldnt even think of such nonsense!!


Youre a nutty conspiracy theorist arent you? Whats with the rant about last season trade dealine and all this Isles-Rangers nonsense?

Who was placed where is arbitrary at this point. Whenever this change is made, I would suggest taking the top 20 teams from the previous season and they are in NHL1.
 

undraftedstlouis

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
668
0
and the NYR-NYI rivary is the biggest in all sports, bigger than Canadiens-Tor or Oil-Flame or Yanks- RedSox, and this stupid system takes that away......

sure, the BIGGEST!

I just assumed you'd like my idea more than contracting one or both teams?

Dear Mr. Betteman,

There are too many teams these days. Please eliminate 3. I am not a crackpot.

If only that was a possibility, I'm with you 100%. I don't see the NHL buying out any owners so I think we have to think of another approach.
 

Stevedude530

Registered User
Dec 21, 2005
1,941
1
Ham
Tor
Mtl
Ott

Nyr
Nyi
Bos
Buf

Nj
Phi
Pit
Wsh

Car
Tb
Fla
Atl

Kc
Stl
Det
Clb

Chi
Min
Dal
Col

La
Ana
Phx
Lv

Edm
Cgy
Van
Sj
 

tiredman

Registered User
Nov 10, 2003
5,048
74
32 teams, 4 divisions in each conference like the NFL, 82 game season.

Western Conference:

San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
Phoenix

Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
WINNIPEG (Expansion)

Dallas
Colorado
St. Louis
KANSAS CITY (Expansion)

Minnesota
Detroit
Chicago
Columbus

Eastern Conference:

Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
HAMILTON (Relocation from Nashville)

Buffalo
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington

Boston
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
New Jersey

Carolina
Atlanta
Tampa Bay
Florida

6 games against each team within the division (18 games), 4 games against other teams in the conference (48 games), 1 interconference game alternating location each season (1 games). Grand total of 82 games.

8 teams per conference make the playoffs and 4 division winners get home ice in the 1st round.

Comments...?

I prefer 4 divisions in the league.

1st division :
Quebec
Montreal
Toronto
Ottawa
Boston
Buffalo
New Jersey
Detroit

2nd division :
NYI
NYR
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Florida

3rd division :
Winnipeg
Minnesota
Chicago
Columbus
Nashville
Atlanta
St Louis
Dallas

4th division:
Colorado
Pheonix
Calgary
Edmonton
Anaheim
Los Angeles
San Jose
Vancouver
 

Stevedude530

Registered User
Dec 21, 2005
1,941
1
You can't put Jersey in a division with teams further north than NYI and NYR. Look at a map sometime.

Montreal
Toronto
Ottawa
Buffalo
Boston
Columbus
NY Rangers
NY Islanders

New Jersey
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Carolina
Tampa Bay
Florida
Atlanta

Kansas City
St. Louis
Detroit
Chicago
Minnesota
Dallas
Nashville
Colorado

Las Vegas
Los Angeles
San Jose
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Anaheim
Phoenix
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
Since this thread seems to have a lot of fantasy, allow me to truly create my 30 teams, 6 Divisions, 2 Conferences league. But first, this is a my fantasy NHL and there are some current teams that aren't included, and if you are a fan of one of those teams then try not to feel offended. It's only me, I'm nobody, right... well with respect to who makes decisions in the NHL.

* (Expansion, 2 or 3 times, to 36 teams by 2016)

WEST
Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
Seattle
Portland__
* Salt Lake City
-----
San Jose
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Denver___
* Sacramento
-----
Minneapolis
Chicago
St. Louis
Kansas City
Dallas____
* Milwaukee

EAST
Boston
New York
New York Is.
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh_
* Hartford
-----
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Buffalo
Detroit___

Columbus
-----
Washington
Raleigh
Atlanta
Nashville__
* Louisville
* Indianapolis

The NBA and MLB don't appear to care much about having teams north of the Canadian border, and I don't care much about having teams south of the 34th parallel (Toronto is their exception, Dallas is mine). But you'll see that I didn't go for adding in more Canadian based teams.
Oh, and two teams are enough in the NY metropolitan area.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2006
7,347
1
If you guys would really like to see the league start struggling, then contraction is a perfect way to go. Contraction has always been a signing of a league in trouble.

MLB didn't contract the Expos, and hasn't contracted the Pirates, Royals, Devil Rays, or Marlins.

The NFL hasn't folded Arizona.

The NBA didn't get rid of Charlotte (the 1st version) and hasn't discarded Atlanta.

The NHL is not going to cut out any teams, either. Period. Discussion of that is like discussing how life will be when you marry Jessica Biel - it's a great fantasy, but it's never going to happen.

:clap: Excellent post.

I'm so tired of reading articles and posts from "fans" who think the solution to the league's problems is to have fewer teams. What problem does that solve, exactly?
 
Jan 19, 2006
7,347
1
Since this thread seems to have a lot of fantasy, allow me to truly create my 30 teams, 6 Divisions, 2 Conferences league. But first, this is a my fantasy NHL and there are some current teams that aren't included, and if you are a fan of one of those teams then try not to feel offended. It's only me, I'm nobody, right... well with respect to who makes decisions in the NHL.

* (Expansion, 2 or 3 times, to 36 teams by 2016)

WEST
Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
Seattle
Portland__
* Salt Lake City
-----
San Jose
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Phoenix
Denver___
* Sacramento
-----
Minneapolis
Chicago
St. Louis
Kansas City
Dallas____
* Milwaukee

EAST
Boston
New York
New York Is.
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh_
* Hartford
-----
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Buffalo
Detroit___

Columbus
-----
Washington
Raleigh
Atlanta
Nashville__
* Louisville
* Indianapolis

The NBA and MLB don't appear to care much about having teams north of the Canadian border, and I don't care much about having teams south of the 34th parallel (Toronto is their exception, Dallas is mine). But you'll see that I didn't go for adding in more Canadian based teams.
Oh, and two teams are enough in the NY metropolitan area.

I personally don't care for all of these Canadians and Northeasterners who live here in South Florida. Can I send them all back? ;)
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
:clap: Excellent post.

I'm so tired of reading articles and posts from "fans" who think the solution to the league's problems is to have fewer teams. What problem does that solve, exactly?

Yes guys, I going to chime in with Irish Blues earlier. Contraction is what it is... a real sign that a League is struggling. And then come the vultures to pick it apart, even more than usual.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
I personally don't care for all of these Canadians and Northeasterners who live here in South Florida. Can I send them all back? ;)

Fine. :D
Those rich retirees abanboned hockey lands, so perhaps they should have to watch it on TV.
I abanboned hockey lands also, and I can't even so much as see a game on TV. I guess it's the price I pay.
 
Last edited:

Hollywood3

Bison/Jet/Moose Fan
May 12, 2007
6,441
941
:teach::teach::teach::teach::teach::teach::teach::teach:

Let's go all out here. I say give everybody a franchise. What the hey!

NORTHWEST
Victoria
Nanaimo
Vancouver
Burnaby
Seattle
Portland

PACIFIC
San Jose
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Anaheim
San Diego
Las Vegas

SOUTHWEST
Phoenix
Salt Lake City
Colorado
Dallas
Houston
Oklahoma City

PRAIRIE
Edmonton
Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Thompson

MIDWEST
Minnesota
Fargo
Chicago
St. Louis
Kansas City
Milwaukee

CENTRAL
Columbus
Detroit
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Indianapolis
Auburn Hills

ONTARIO
Toronto
Hamilton
Ottawa
Thunder Bay
London
Kitchener-Waterloo

ATLANTIC
Montreal
Quebec City
Moncton
Halifax
St. John's
St. John

NORTHEAST
Boston
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
Philadelphia
New Jersey
Hartford

EAST
Pittsburgh
Buffalo
Syracuse
Rochester
Albany
Washington

SOUTHEAST
Carolina
Atlanta
Nashville
Birmingham
Florida
Tampa Bay


That's 66 teams in 11 divisions. The top 2 would make the playoffs. The 11 2nd place teams and the lowest 1st place team would play the first round, a best of 3. Then each round would be best of 7.

Then again, this idea may just suck.
 

Lux Aurumque*

Guest
I've got an idea!

Canadian Conference
Vancouver
Burnaby
Whistler
Banff
Jasper
Edmonton
Red Deer
Calgary
Medicine Hat
Lloydminister
Saskatoon
Regina
Minnedosa
Winnipeg
Brandon
North Bay
Thunder Bay
Barrie
Sudbury
Ottawa
Toronto
Brampton
Hamilton
Montreal
Quebec City
Halifax
St. John's
Iqaluit


American Conference

Detroit

:biglaugh: :biglaugh:
 

undraftedstlouis

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
668
0
Contraction may be a sign the league is in trouble. But it wouldn't be the cause of the league being in trouble. Some may be content with how things are going. Not think being part of the US sporting mainstream is necessary. If the owners in Phoenix and elsewhere can keep tolerating 7-8 figure losses (though overstated and debatable I believe they exist), then don't consider contraction. Listen to offers from expansion candidates. But I still am convinced the league could be much stronger with fewer teams (along with a few other changes).
 
Jan 19, 2006
7,347
1
Contraction may be a sign the league is in trouble. But it wouldn't be the cause of the league being in trouble. Some may be content with how things are going. Not think being part of the US sporting mainstream is necessary. If the owners in Phoenix and elsewhere can keep tolerating 7-8 figure losses (though overstated and debatable I believe they exist), then don't consider contraction. Listen to offers from expansion candidates. But I still am convinced the league could be much stronger with fewer teams (along with a few other changes).

I have yet to hear anyone give a rational reason as to why this would be the case.
 

Stevedude530

Registered User
Dec 21, 2005
1,941
1
How is 2 teams in an area with 17 million people enough? 3 teams is just fine. At least 2 of 3 are going to sell out most of their games next year.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
How is 2 teams in an area with 17 million people enough? 3 teams is just fine. At least 2 of 3 are going to sell out most of their games next year.

Well, of the 4 major leagues, hockey is the only one that has 3 teams in the NY metropolitan area. And the last I've heard, hockey is supposedly the least popular of those 4 sports in the United States, though perhaps someone might argue that that's not the case in the New York area.
 

undraftedstlouis

Registered User
Sep 11, 2004
668
0
I have yet to hear anyone give a rational reason as to why this would be the case.

It would concentrate the marketable players. The best players would play with and against each other more often. The best teams (and markets) would face each other more often. It would make it easier for casual fans (and sports writers) to keep up with the league. It would eliminate the weaker markets and thus project a more succesful image for the league as a whole.

There's got to be some # that's ideal. If 32 is better than 20, why not 60? Does the NHL care that most US sports fans (I'd guess) can't name 5 current star players?
 
Jan 19, 2006
7,347
1
It would concentrate the marketable players. The best players would play with and against each other more often. The best teams (and markets) would face each other more often. It would make it easier for casual fans (and sports writers) to keep up with the league. It would eliminate the weaker markets and thus project a more succesful image for the league as a whole.

Weak argument. The best players will be more concentrated which will attract more casual fans?!? That's funny. The casual fan wouldn't notice the difference between a game in the Finnish league and an NHL contest. They certainly won't notice the difference after contraction.

As for "projecting a more successful image", it won't matter. ESPN will continue to snub the league and the sportswriters will continue to bash the league because it's easy and requires little thought. Why do you care what they think anyways?
 

BrianSTC

Registered User
May 23, 2007
556
4
Winnipeg
Western Conference:

San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
SEATTLE (from Florida)
Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
WINNIPEG (Back from Phoenix)
Dallas
Colorado
St. Louis
Minnesota
Detroit
Chicago
Columbus

Eastern Conference:

Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
HAMILTON (Relocation from Nashville)
Buffalo
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Boston
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
New Jersey
HARTFORD (back from Carolina)
Tampa Bay
QUEBEC CITY (from Atlanta)

NO EXPANSION!!!!!
 

BrianSTC

Registered User
May 23, 2007
556
4
Winnipeg
I've got an idea!

Canadian Conference
Vancouver
Burnaby
Whistler
Banff
Jasper
Edmonton
Red Deer
Calgary
Medicine Hat
Lloydminister
Saskatoon
Regina
Minnedosa
Winnipeg
Brandon
North Bay
Thunder Bay
Barrie
Sudbury
Ottawa
Toronto
Brampton
Hamilton
Montreal
Quebec City
Halifax
St. John's
Iqaluit


American Conference
Detroit

lol

I bet Iqaluit could draw better than some current NHL franchises!!
 

Montrealer

What, me worry?
Dec 12, 2002
3,964
236
Chambly QC
Weak argument. The best players will be more concentrated which will attract more casual fans?!? That's funny. The casual fan wouldn't notice the difference between a game in the Finnish league and an NHL contest. They certainly won't notice the difference after contraction.

As for "projecting a more successful image", it won't matter. ESPN will continue to snub the league and the sportswriters will continue to bash the league because it's easy and requires little thought. Why do you care what they think anyways?

Considering how expansion was offset by the influx of European players in the 90s, I also fail to understand how contraction will automagically fix everything.

I've argued that one of the reasons scoring was so common in the 80s was the lower talent level that you found amongst the bottom feeding teams in a 21 team NHL - guys that would have a hard time making an AHL roster in 2007 were playing regular minutes in places like Pittsburgh, New Jersey and Toronto.

Also, others saying the NHL is in trouble will have to explain how a league whose revenue continues to increase without end (roughly $2.4 billion this year) is in trouble.
 
Jan 19, 2006
7,347
1
Western Conference:

San Jose
Los Angeles
Anaheim
SEATTLE (from Florida)
Edmonton
Calgary
Vancouver
WINNIPEG (Back from Phoenix)
Dallas
Colorado
St. Louis
Minnesota
Detroit
Chicago
Columbus

Eastern Conference:

Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
HAMILTON (Relocation from Nashville)
Buffalo
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington
Boston
NY Rangers
NY Islanders
New Jersey
HARTFORD (back from Carolina)
Tampa Bay
QUEBEC CITY (from Atlanta)

NO EXPANSION!!!!!

You want to contract a team from South Florida (which is full of Northeastern & Canadian transplants) and move it to Seattle (a smaller market)? Why? Because it's colder up there? Maybe we should put a team in Alaska while we're at it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->