Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
Author Message
jukeboxhero Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 24
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 2
I Root For: SC, Notre Dame
Location: Massachusetts
Post: #1
NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2015/6/24/8839813/nhl-expansion-las-vegas-quebec-city-seattle

The above article gives some decent food for thought.

Most people expect the NHL to expand by 2 teams, from 30 to 32... Las Vegas & Seattle come to mind as front-runners, and to balance out the western conference to equal the 16 teams of the eastern conference.

What if expansion is by 4 teams from 30 to 34? Maybe 17 teams in each eastern & western conferences.
WEST: Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland
EAST: Quebec City

What if expansion is by 6 teams from 30 to 36? Maybe 18 teams in each eastern & western conferences.
WEST: Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Houston
EAST: Quebec City, Kansas City
(Maybe St. Louis Blues, Chicago Blackhawks and/or Nashville Predators move East, instead of placing KC in east)

Its a possibility... at a rumored price of $500million expansion fee, 6 new teams put $3 Billion in the current 30 owners pockets...$100 million dollars each. Isn't that kind of cash is impossible to ignore?
06-30-2015 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #2
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
KC is a small market, that already supports an NFL team, an MLB team, an MLS team, 2 NASCAR events, plus college football and basketball from 3 engaged fanbases (Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri). I think we're somewhat maxed out. Even though we have a shiny pretty-new arena, I suspect the NHL would also think this way, and find our best value to be as potential leverage to "encourage" cities hosting current teams to upgrade their facilities. Sure, most cities who are threatened with such a move could probably also figure that out, but it does give the league some semi-credible leverage in such situations.
06-30-2015 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 449
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #3
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
That plan would not work because it would grossly dilute the talent.

Everyone always complains about the NHL's expansion in the 90s. However, they always miss the primary point. The problem is not that they went to a bunch of warm weather cities with fairweather fans.

Don't get me wrong, there were certainly problems associated with bringing in so many novice fan bases. A very high percentage of those fans had/have a lot to learn about the game, it's strategies, and history/traditions. However, the primary problem was that the NHL expanded by nine teams in a decade. In 1990, the NHL had 21 teams. By the 2000–01 season the league had ballooned to 30 teams. That is a ridiculous amount of greed and it caused all kinds of problems for the quality of play within the league itself.

There simply was not (is not?) enough NHL caliber players to fill 30 rosters.

A lot of career minor leaguers were thrust into prominent roles on NHL teams throughout the 90s. Naturally, and predictably, when those career minor leaguers, who were a few inches too small and a step or two too slow, were facing larger and more talented athletes, they resorted to cheating in the form of clutching and grabbing.

Not that I blame them at all. What would you do if you were an AHL defenseman and you were trying to stop a Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux or a Pavel Bure screaming down the boards at breakneck speed? You know you couldn't skate with them. You know that you had no hope of getting the puck off of them. So you reached out and grabbed them and took your chances that the official wouldn't call it every single time for 60 minutes.

It worked. In time, the officials called things like holding/hooking/interference less frequently - then FAR less frequently - because nobody wants to watch a special teams battle for 60 minutes.

Naturally, because it did work, coaches started to take notice and being the bright guys that they are, they began to design entire systems built around manipulating the rules to slow down the game's best players. That was good for those coaches' careers but it was HORRIBLE for the entertainment value for the league as a whole.

Before long that combination led to the "Dead Puck Era" which basically crippled scoring in the sport for more than a decade. For example, in the 2004 Stanley Cup finals, near the end of the DPE, there were ZERO lead changes in the entire seven game series. That is almost unfathomable and horrible to watch. The ratings during that time prove as much.

Its proponents talk about the Sunbelt expansion as being a great idea because of all the new markets it introduced to the sport. However, what difference does that make if the product you're selling them is a unwatchable? How appealing can a game be for novices if every night the score is 1–0 or 2–1?

I absolutely love the sport and watch it religiously. However, even I get turned off by low-scoring games every single night. This year's playoffs were perfect example of that. Chicago and Tampa are both outstanding teams and they each deserved to be in the Stanley Cup finals. Also, more to the point, they each play hockey the proper way – through skating and skill. They don't try to goon their way through the playoffs.

However, they also each come from the Detroit Redwings school of interference at every opportunity and it hurts the game, which is built on creating scoring opportunities by creating pressure through turnovers. If you allow teams to consistently, umm, block - for lack of a better word - attacking forecheckers, that limits turnovers; which, in turn, limits scoring opportunities. That, in turn, makes the game less entertaining.

Also, the entertainment value of the playoffs overall was horrible. People without a horse in the race are simply not going to watch 2–1 hockey games every night. You have to give them a reason to tune in and that reason is scoring. The NHL regularly loses sight of that simple concept and the "Dead Puck Era" is what began that phenomenon.

What is less clear to me is why the league has not been more proactive in making sure it never again slips back into that unwatchable scoring coma?

Thirty-two teams is inevitable. Anything more than that would be a horrible mistake.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2015 09:14 AM by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer.)
07-01-2015 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
58-56 Offline
Blazer Revolutionary
*

Posts: 13,288
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 825
I Root For: Fire Ray Watts
Location: CathedraloftheDragon

BlazerTalk Award
Post: #4
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
I've long wondered why I really like Olympic hockey, but can't bear to watch the NHL. Is this why?

(07-01-2015 08:56 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That plan would not work because it would grossly dilute the talent.

Everyone always complains about the NHL's expansion in the 90s. However, they always miss the primary point. The problem is not that they went to a bunch of warm weather cities with fairweather fans.

Don't get me wrong, there were certainly problems associated with bringing in so many novice fan bases. A very high percentage of those fans had/have a lot to learn about the game, it's strategies, and history/traditions. However, the primary problem was that the NHL expanded by nine teams in a decade. In 1990, the NHL had 21 teams. By the 2000–01 season the league had ballooned to 30 teams. That is a ridiculous amount of greed and it caused all kinds of problems for the quality of play within the league itself.

There simply was not (is not?) enough NHL caliber players to fill 30 rosters.

A lot of career minor leaguers were thrust into prominent roles on NHL teams throughout the 90s. Naturally, and predictably, when those career minor leaguers, who were a few inches too small and a step or two too slow, were facing larger and more talented athletes, they resorted to cheating in the form of clutching and grabbing.

Not that I blame them at all. What would you do if you were an AHL defenseman and you were trying to stop a Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux or a Pavel Bure screaming down the boards at breakneck speed? You know you couldn't skate with them. You know that you had no hope of getting the puck off of them. So you reached out and grabbed them and took your chances that the official wouldn't call it every single time for 60 minutes.

It worked. In time, the officials called things like holding/hooking/interference less frequently - then FAR less frequently - because nobody wants to watch a special teams battle for 60 minutes.

Naturally, because it did work, coaches started to take notice and being the bright guys that they are, they began to design entire systems built around manipulating the rules to slow down the game's best players. That was good for those coaches' careers but it was HORRIBLE for the entertainment value for the league as a whole.

Before long that combination led to the "Dead Puck Era" which basically crippled scoring in the sport for more than a decade. For example, in the 2004 Stanley Cup finals, near the end of the DPE, there were ZERO lead changes in the entire seven game series. That is almost unfathomable and horrible to watch. The ratings during that time prove as much.

Its proponents talk about the Sunbelt expansion as being a great idea because of all the new markets it introduced to the sport. However, what difference does that make if the product you're selling them is a unwatchable? How appealing can a game be for novices if every night the score is 1–0 or 2–1?

I absolutely love the sport and watch it religiously. However, even I get turned off by low-scoring games every single night. This year's playoffs were perfect example of that. Chicago and Tampa are both outstanding teams and they each deserved to be in the Stanley Cup finals. Also, more to the point, they each play hockey the proper way – through skating and skill. They don't try to goon their way through the playoffs.

However, they also each come from the Detroit Redwings school of interference at every opportunity and it hurts the game, which is built on creating scoring opportunities by creating pressure through turnovers. If you allow teams to consistently, umm, block - for lack of a better word - attacking forecheckers, that limits turnovers; which, in turn, limits scoring opportunities. That, in turn, makes the game less entertaining.

Also, the entertainment value of the playoffs overall was horrible. People without a horse in the race are simply not going to watch 2–1 hockey games every night. You have to give them a reason to tune in and that reason is scoring. The NHL regularly loses sight of that simple concept and the "Dead Puck Era" is what began that phenomenon.

What is less clear to me is why the league has not been more proactive in making sure it never again slips back into that unwatchable scoring coma?

Thirty-two teams is inevitable. Anything more than that would be a horrible mistake.
07-01-2015 09:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Chappy Offline
Resident Goonie
*

Posts: 18,888
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 899
I Root For: ECU
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #5
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
Excellent post Dr, but I fear the owners are still too greedy to turn down the expansion fees, quality of play be damned.
07-01-2015 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PirateTreasureNC Offline
G's up, Ho's Down ; )
*

Posts: 36,249
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 617
I Root For: ECU Pirates,
Location:
Post: #6
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
I'd buy 2. 4 seems to offer more issues than it solves. IMO, 6 is way to many unless they are heavier in Canadian markets. And for sake of argument, if they dropped in 6 teams they'd better do a good job slowly rolling them into existence and making sure there aren't any current teams with financial issues to where relocation is better than expansion.
07-01-2015 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jskwrite Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 406
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 9
I Root For: UConn, OhioSt
Location:
Post: #7
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
The NHL should be the first sport to try out relegation at the same time as they expand.. add 4 teams, drawing from existing minor league teams and play like that for a year, then drop the 4 lowest teams

Yeah, no way in hell it happens but at least you'd get motivated fan bases and owners would wake up and just stop raking in cash at the expense of putting together a solid team.
07-01-2015 10:46 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


dbackjon Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,010
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 657
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #8
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
A couple of points:

1) The 90's also saw a huge influx of Eastern European players (Czech, Slovak, Russian, etc) that formerly were prohibited from leaving their home countries, so the talent pool expanded greatly, but they brought different style of play.

2) This is also when the NHL was trying to make the game more "TV-friendly, which backfired.
07-01-2015 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #9
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
Houston doesn't even have a minor league hockey team now. Lots of money here and they'd probably support it at the NHL level, but the NHL has a history of teams failing when they're simply placed somewhere based upon market.
07-01-2015 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #10
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
(07-01-2015 10:46 AM)jskwrite Wrote:  The NHL should be the first sport to try out relegation at the same time as they expand.. add 4 teams, drawing from existing minor league teams and play like that for a year, then drop the 4 lowest teams

Yeah, no way in hell it happens but at least you'd get motivated fan bases and owners would wake up and just stop raking in cash at the expense of putting together a solid team.

Relegation will never come to an American sports league. Just too much money on the line.
07-01-2015 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #11
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
Yeah if you relegated the bottom two in each conference Toronto, Buffalo, Phoenix, and Edmonton would be out. That'd be a hit.
07-01-2015 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Chappy Offline
Resident Goonie
*

Posts: 18,888
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 899
I Root For: ECU
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #12
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
Relegation can't really work when the teams in the lower level are affiliates of the teams at the upper level, can it? I have no idea because I am not familiar with how it works in Europe.

I'd assume they'd actually have to expand the NHL by 6 teams and then split the NHL into upper and lower divisions. 20 teams in the upper, 16 in the lower. The 4 upper-division teams that don't make the Stanley Cup playoffs get exchanged for the top 4 lower division teams after each season.

From there you could expand the lower division if you wanted to, or create even lower divisions for smaller market teams to start in. But all teams would need their own minor league systems for player development purposes.
07-01-2015 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 21,880
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1171
I Root For: Jimmy Nippert
Location:
Post: #13
RE: NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
No way they should add any of these teams--- commuter/directional schools, weak academics, no fans...

Oh I thought this was another football realignment thread.
07-01-2015 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 449
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #14
NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
(07-01-2015 09:20 AM)58-56 Wrote:  I've long wondered why I really like Olympic hockey, but can't bear to watch the NHL. Is this why?

That is unquestionably part of it. Also, nationalism is another factor. Like every other sport in the world, hockey different when you have a horse in the race.
07-01-2015 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 449
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #15
NHL Expansion - how many new teams? 2, 4, 6 ?
(07-01-2015 10:46 AM)jskwrite Wrote:  The NHL should be the first sport to try out relegation at the same time as they expand.. add 4 teams, drawing from existing minor league teams and play like that for a year, then drop the 4 lowest teams

Yeah, no way in hell it happens but at least you'd get motivated fan bases and owners would wake up and just stop raking in cash at the expense of putting together a solid team.

You know, I have long had a slightly different idea to solve the same issue.

Relegation is a European concept and it would never work in the US. Cities would just never go for their team suddenly competing in the second division. Can you imagine the New York Rangers or the Chicago Blackhawks being demoted to the AHL?

No way. Their fans would never go for it.

However, you could have a single elimination tournament - perhaps at a neutral/outdoor site - between all of the non-playoff teams. The winner of the "losers" tournament, earns the right to pick first, the runner up picks second, etc.

Can you imagine how exciting a tournament would've been this year with Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel available as the top prizes?

That would've been some incredibly entertaining action and it would've given those fans meaningful action long after their teams' respective seasons had unofficially ended.

Now, most years don't feature prospects of that caliber. However, everyone would like to have the first pick every year. I really think a non-playoff team tournament would be a commercially successful venture.
07-01-2015 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.