Two Tier NHL

[quat]

How about a first and second division? Like Soccer in the UK? You can have your NHL "A" league (the rich teams can spend and keep all the players hap, hap, happy!), and an NHL "B" league that seeds a couple of teams into the playoffs and the top of the "B" league at the end of each season also steps into the "A" league for what? A season or two or longer should they win enough games. "A" leaguers will also drop the bottom two teams of their league into B league... you know, switch em up.

This still gives the top B teams a chance at the Stanley Cup with a more budget conscious, but harder working roster. heh... Prove those "richies" aren't worth their gold.

Of course this will still leave the richer teams able to fleese the "B" league, but at least Tom and Wild and Gibby will be happy.

What think you?

Click to read more...

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

How about a first and second division? Like Soccer in the UK? You can have your NHL "A" league (the rich teams can spend and keep all the players hap, hap, happy!), and an NHL "B" league that seeds a couple of teams into the playoffs and the top of the "B" league at the end of each season also steps into the "A" league for what? A season or two or longer should they win enough games. "A" leaguers will also drop the bottom two teams of their league into B league... you know, switch em up.

This still gives the top B teams a chance at the Stanley Cup with a more budget conscious, but harder working roster. heh... Prove those "richies" aren't worth their gold.

Of course this will still leave the richer teams able to fleese the "B" league, but at least Tom and Wild and Gibby will be happy.

What think you?

would you pay NHL prices to see your team in the "B" league ?

dr

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

This idea was posted in a thread by Kritty on the boards a little while back. Maybe someone can dig that link up....

EDIT: Wasn't too hard to find afterall:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=100814

 

[djhn579]

would you pay NHL prices to see your team in the "B" league ?

dr

We don't agree on much in these CBA discussions, but I have to agree with you here. If there were two differnt divisions, the teams in the second division would have AHL level attendance and would have no way of ever making it to the 1st division.

And as easy a solution as it sounds, The top teams in those european leagues are there because they have a lot of corporate support. I have a friend in Germany that is a soccer fanatic. He has two favorite teams MSV Duisburg (home town team) and Bayern Munich (SP?). Munich has the most corporate support and is always at the top of the standings. Duisburg dropped to the second division 3 years ago and their attendance is a fraction of what it used to be. Duisburg might make it back to the 1st division in the next couple of years, but they will never be able to challenge Munich.

 

[Guest]

A counter I have to this proposal, which is in the same vein, is to have these two sides -- the spenders and the economically responsible teams -- into two difference leagues/conferences/divisions what have you, just like the current conference format. Then you have the two teams that come from the respective leagues as champs face off for the Cup.

The league with the spenders would have a salary floor to insure that all teams in the competition are going to put a minimal salary effort, good for the NHLPA. The other league with have a cap that would help those teams compete with their peers who can afford nearly the same rosters as them, consolation for the owners who need it.

Part of the problem with the prior proposal is that it makes the B Division look like a second rate league, which North America basically already has with the AHL. I think my idea seperates the two sides without making the capped league look bush, because they are still in direct competition with the spenders, just at a reduced level.

I think it's fair to say from the history of the Cup that the higher salaried team doesn't always win out in the end, so it will keep a competitive balance as more team out of each group will get the chance to advance further. For example, you would generally always have one of the bigger markets (TOR, PHI, NY, etc) making it further in the playoffs and even the finals because of the format. As well you would still see the TB, CGY, SJ with the equal opportunity because they wouldn't be squashed by a Detroit or Colorado along the way. This would also potentially help with ratings on a national level, because of the semi-guarantee that the big teams are more likely to go further.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

The spender conference would win out every year as all the good players get gobbled up. Of course, that is assuming that there are loosened up free agency rules to allow for the players to be paid their market value. If not, the system wouldn't work as players wouldn't want to stay in the system where they are stuck earning less than they would make on the open market.

 

[Guest]

The spender conference would win out every year as all the good players get gobbled up. Of course, that is assuming that there are loosened up free agency rules to allow for the players to be paid their market value. If not, the system wouldn't work as players wouldn't want to stay in the system where they are stuck earning less than they would make on the open market.

Much like now how some players sign with a particular team by preference, or because they feel they get a better opportunity on that team than they might on another team. I understand your point, but I don't think it's a guarantee to occur.

This isn't even my favorite proposal, but it's a counter to the one proposed above that makes more sense to me, although I agree the whole theory has some holes in it. Then again, I don't see either of us in the actual negotiations, so what does it matter.

 

[quat]

Much like now how some players sign with a particular team by preference, or because they feel they get a better opportunity on that team than they might on another team. I understand your point, but I don't think it's a guarantee to occur.

This isn't even my favorite proposal, but it's a counter to the one proposed above that makes more sense to me, although I agree the whole theory has some holes in it. Then again, I don't see either of us in the actual negotiations, so what does it matter.

I actually had more in mind what you wrote ... and I posted it just to get a better idea of what people actually expected or wanted from the league. There seems to be quite a range of expectations and it seems sometimes the person one disagrees with is coming from fundamentally different place. IE Those who don't care if teams are lost vs those who wish to see a healthy 30 league team.

 

[Guest]

Bring back a little of the tradition of hockey and bring back the Wales & Campbell conference for the names of the spenders and cappers. I figure you could probably split it into 14 teams for the spenders, and 16 teams for the cappers. You do two different divisions of 7 teams for the spenders, 4 divisions of 4 for the cappers. All of the division winners would be the traditional top seeds. Each of the two conferences would have distinct feels resembling parts of the NHL's past with less emphasis on division in the spenders league, and more emphasis in the cappers.

To start with, you could ask for teams to volunteer to join the spenders conference, as there are a number of team who probably wouldn't have a problem with it like Detroit, Toronto, and New York perhaps. If you don't get 14 teams to volunteer for it, then you have a committee to review which teams are most likely to survive such a format. Obviously many teams like Colorado, Philly, and others would probably fit right in but might not elect to.

The example I used previously also showed what kind of playoffs you would have hypothetically gotten last year. The final 4 teams were Calgary, San Jose, Tampa Bay and Philly, it's reasonable to expect that Calgary & Tampa Bay would have made it from the cappers league, and that maybe Detroit & Philly would have made it from the spenders league. I remember reading somewhere that Philly had among the best ratings in the NHL last season, so you can't tell me that the NHL wouldn't have liked to see a TB-PHI finals, and a runner up of a TB-DET final would have been really tough to settle for. Granted, that's a lot of guess work, but in theory it looks good.

I'll leave it to someone else to poke holes in the arguement, because I know it's not full proof, but I'd be curious to see valid arguements against it, as well as valid support for it.