My idea for NHL Re-Alignment

[vangvace 12]

What about Salk Lake City? Big population, always cold over their so I'm guessing they like skating, and no NFL or MLB team. I also think Texas deserves more then just one team.

While I am a American, I am a strong supporter of expanding more in Canada. I think we need more Canadian teams. Winnepeg can support one.

Anyways, I like the map they have in wikipedia of the current teams;

The West looks so damn empty!! Check this out;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_area

Houston and Portland looks like a no brainer to me!

Salt Lake City might be a good fit but there are at least three things holding them back...

1) All their sports teams play at home on Sunday or not at all.

2) Despite the devoted, hockey isn't overly popular. The minor league team (Grizzlies) dropped from the AHL to ECHL due to money problems. Also many folks out that way are more of the outdoorsy type.

3) It gets melt your face off hot before the playoffs are over, and doesn't normally get cold enough for pond hockey.

Three pluses...

1) Once they like you your golden.

2) Most of the state gladly welcomes outsiders and there is a large culture base.

3) They have money.

Houston makes sense to me if for no other reason then to give them the fourth "major" sport.

Winnipeg and Quebec shouldn't have lost their teams to begin with...

Vegas would prob have the best shot. They can have Casinos comp tickets too the games.

KC is a football town and nothing is going to change that (even if the fans there are fiercely loyal)

I couldn't say about Portland despite being there twice.

[NKYWingsFan 4]

Yeah, Chicago as the lone O-6 team out west looked weird to me too. The idea of your movement of teams is certainly palatable. Chicago in the Great Lakes division is VERY desirable, and Pittsburgh in the East - Southcentral could be sold.

I hope so. When the NHL moved Detroit to the West, I think they did that to help expansion out there. Pulling Detroit from the West (in this new scenario) is not going to help expansion out west. But breaking up the O-6 teams MAYBE did more harm than good. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Chicago is a natural for the Great Lakes.

My question would be removing Nashville from a division where two very natural regional rivalries could exist with Atlanta and Carolina. I know people here on this board might be inclined to say "Who cares about Nashville", but I know Legionnaire and other Nashville fans would rather be playing Carolina and Atlanta more throughout the season than Minnesota, St. Louis, and Dallas. (BTW, Minnesota and Dallas is not a geographic rivalry).

Yeah, Nashville is the tough one. The natural rivalry with Carolina and Atlanta would be hosed. By the same token, the Chicago/St. Louis rivalry would be gone too (if Chicago went to the East - Great Lakes). Nashville and St. Louis are close enough together that something may develop in time. Would the rivalry be as intense? Probably not. It may be enough, though. If we're going to put Chicago in the East (that is almost a "must" in my mind), someone on the western edge of the conference is going to have to go. Nashville just becomes the odd-team out on that one.

I have to be truthful. When considering these options, the sad state of affairs that is the Chicago Blackhawks led me to put them out west. While they are an 0-6 team, the organization and its fans need a change. Being in the same division as Detroit year after year has just destroyed the self-confidence of that organization.

*sigh* I know. It breaks my heart that the Wings have to keep kicking their butts year in and year out. On the other hand, it breaks my heart to see that once proud organization wallow toward the bottom side of mediocrity. More than any other team, I'd love to see the Blackhawks get back on their feet. I just don't think that's going to happen until Billy Boy takes a Steinway on the noggin though.

[DatsyukRules 0]

Your "Southcentral" division would fail in a few years. They dont have any big time cities. Florida, TB, Columbus, Atlanta...those are some of the worst cities in terms of a fan base for hockey. They would all be playing each other, and I think it wouldn't work. The guys on the sports Inferno also talked about this, how you can just throw all the s***ty teams into one division.

[DraperFan MN 0]

Your "Southcentral" division would fail in a few years. They dont have any big time cities. Florida, TB, Columbus, Atlanta...those are some of the worst cities in terms of a fan base for hockey. They would all be playing each other, and I think it wouldn't work. The guys on the sports Inferno also talked about this, how you can just throw all the s***ty teams into one division.

The Sports Inferno guys know nothing about hockey. They admit this on a regular basis and I have pleaded with them to improve their knowledge before getting on the air. Atlanta, Carolina, Tampa, and Nashville are s***ty teams? That is just not true. Nashville, Tampa, and Atlanta ALL made the playoffs this year and Carolina just won the cup. All are being run quite well IMO. Columbus is trying. Florida is the one team that is s***ty and doesn't give a rats ass.

These teams need regional rivalries that make sense, and this division would do that and help grow the fan base.

I guess I cannot disagree with your assessment on those teams more.

[DaKineMaui 8]

(Don't take this a threadjack)

Thanks for the pdf. After seeing it on paper you've made me realize just how much I hate expansion in the NHL. I am NOT criticizing your work, or the thoughts that went into it - besides a few tweaks here and there it looks great to me. (ANYTHING to get da Wings back to the East.)

That said, looking at your chart for the 4th time - I found myself looking at the East - specifically the Great Lakes and Atlantic, and saying to myself......"Those 2 divisions would be MORE than fine for me. Stop DraperMN's new NHL right there!".

Then just to double-check, I looked at the 4 div's I threw away and yup,.....I'd miss 1 or 2 clubs, but it'd be worth the small sacrifice.

I just think the NHL or the NNHL is nearing the point of calling for a do-over.

Anyways...................tnx

[eva unit zero 271]

Winnipeg

Was a massive failure when it came to attendance.

The highest average attendance the Jets ever got over a season--about 13,700--would have been just behind 27th-place Washington for raw numbers this season. The 88.4 percent would have finished just behind 21st place Nashville, who everyone here seems to be clamoring to move because of their terrible attendance. Being in Canada does NOT entitle you to have an NHL team in your hometown. Sorry.

and Quebec shouldn't have lost their teams to begin with...

Quebec I agree with. The Nordiques, unlike the Whalers, Jets, or North Stars, actually filled their arena quite well, and the arena was of decent size (nearly 17k) The problem was that unlike most clubs, the Nordiques had minimal corporate support due to the presence of the Canadiens. In an odd sort of irony, had the Nords stayed one more year and won the Cup in 96, they would likely still be around in Quebec, except for the fact that they would never have won the Cup, because they would not have been able to acquire Roy.

Vegas would prob have the best shot. They can have Casinos comp tickets too the games.

KC is a football town and nothing is going to change that (even if the fans there are fiercely loyal)

I couldn't say about Portland despite being there twice.

KC is a football town. So is Pittsburgh. Are you foolish enough to think hockey is the top dog in a majority of shared markets in the US?

[/font]

Atlanta--Michael Vick owns Ilya Kovalchuk as far as popularity.

Boston--Bruins are 4th place in Beantown.

Buffalo--Bills are more popular even though they will forever suck balls.

Chicago--Bears>Bulls>Cubs>White Sox>Bill Wirtz' Spare Change

Denver--Broncos, Rockies, Nuggets are all more popular than the Av-nots.

Dallas--Mavs and Rangers are more popular than the Stars, and the Stars constantly sell out. Noticing a pattern yet?

Detroit--Wings are kings right now, but ticket prices and good Tigers and Pistons teams could quickly alter that.

Miami--Panthers are an afterthought when compared to the Dolphins, Marlins, or Heat.

LA/Anaheim--Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Kings, and Ducks? Hockey is barely on the radar WITHOUT a football team here.

Minneapolis/St.Paul--Wild are more popular than Twins, Vikings, or T-Wolves right now, but that's more a result of the Canadian-esque feeling of entitlement about the Stars, resulting in a ridiculous lack of attendance and a moving franchise.

New York/New Jersey--Yankees, Mets, Knicks, Nets, Giants, Jets, and the Rangers (because they own MSG) get the press and the money, and then if there's anything left, the Devils and Isles get some scraps.

Philadelphia--Flyers are the least popular team in Philly even though they have had just as much recent success as the others.

Phoenix--Coyotes are less popular than the Suns or Cards--but still bigger draws in the desert than they were in Winnipeg.

Pittsburgh--Penguins have been seriously considering moving for a long time due to lack of financial support. That will never happen to the Steelers or Pirates.

St. Louis--Rams wereinstantly more popular. Winning it all in 2000 cemented that. Cards just won it all too. Blues are really just dragging San Looah down.

Tampa Bay--Bolts won a Cup and still the next season the worthless Bucs were far more interesting. Not even contending to repeat didn't do much to help, either.

Washington--The Caps used to have a monopoly on disinterest in the nation's capital. Well, it looks like they still do, because the Nationals actually appear to have some fan interest.

Detroit and Minnesota are the only US cities where hockey can claim status as top dog in a shared market, and even then it's a debate. But at the same time, five of the markets I mentioned averaged a sellout this season, and five more were 95% or higher. That's ten of 20 teams. The numbers do seem to indicate it is pretty hit or miss; the other ten can be found in the bottom twelve teams--Nashville and Columbus are the only solo markets that low--as far as percentage of capacity. However--the failuers can be explained:

St. Louis, Chicago, and Boston--Decades of failure and mismanagement, combined with limited promise but ultimately no real chance of ever reaching the goal. Detroit Lions anyone?

New Jersey and NY Islanders--Despite scattered success, these teams suffer from the same big brother syndrome that killed the Nordiques. And here, it's three teams basically in a city instead of two teams in a province. The Rangers hog the spotlight and get the majority of new and casual fans, and the Isles and Devils get bloodline fans and diehards only.

Florida and Phoenix--Victims of the 'win now' mentality due to a non-traditional market, attempts to buy a top team failed, attempts to insert new pieces failed, and these teams are now in rebuilding mode and could potentially be very dangerous teams in a few seasons if managed well.

Washington--A team that seriously needs to be moved. DC has NEVER supported this team, no matter how good or bad they were. When the Caps go to the Cup finals, and a reporter can go around town and find FIVE people in sports bars, BARTENDERS INCLUDED, on a game day who actually know who Peter Bondra is, there is a PROBLEM.

Atlanta--Years of futility as an expansion team have given the fans no reason to go. They are at the same point Tampa and Ottawa were in the late 1990s, with major opportunities to build lasting fan base. Should be significantly higher attendance-wise next year if they do well.

Los Angeles--There are two NHL teams in LA, and Two NBA teams. Of Note: neighboring Anaheim is among the ten I mentioned that are above 95% capacity, yet LA actually posted a higher average attendance figure. No other Original 12 team has to give equal market share to a Cup contender.

[RedTide 0]

How about the original 6 just quit the "newer" NHL and form a league with no salary cap.

That is something I'd like to see. Reduce this joke of a league to farm status and see real talent vs real talent.

[Legionnaire11 0]

Here is my idea for re-alignment.

Whales Conference

Northeast

Boston

Buffalo

Montreal

Ottawa

Atlantic

New York

Long Island

New Jersey

Philadelphia

Southwest

Los Angeles

Anaheim

San Jose

Phoenix

southwest

Colorado

Dallas

Houston

St. Louis

Campbell Conference

Northwest Division:

Vancouver

Edmonton

Calgary

Seattle

Midwest

Minnesota

Detroit

Chicago

Toronto

Southeast

Tampa Bay

Florida

Atlanta

Carolina

Mid-America

Washington

Nashville

Pittsburgh

Columbus

Schedule...

Each team in the other 7 divisions twice (1 home and 1 away) = 56 games

Each team in own division 6 times (3 home and 3 away) = 18

Total games = 74

Playoffs...

top team in each division gets the top 4 seeds (home ice in at least first round). then the next 4 highest point totals regardless of division are ranked 5-8.

Edited May 21, 2007 by Legionnaire11

[evilmrt 636]

I submit the Coyotes as a possible move in the near-ish future. There has been quite a bit of talk of that after this season...people here are just sick of such a crap team (and management) that they have become bitter enough to talk about them leaving. As if its not such a bad thing. In that case, I'd like to see a Portland/Seattle move. Vegas is NOT the place for a team, but might be in another 5 years or so.

And what about Wisconsin? Of all places in the US that should have a hockey team....they're IT.

[fifthandbroadway 4]

Yeah, Chicago as the lone O-6 team out west looked weird to me too. The idea of your movement of teams is certainly palatable. Chicago in the Great Lakes division is VERY desirable, and Pittsburgh in the East - Southcentral could be sold.

My question would be removing Nashville from a division where two very natural regional rivalries could exist with Atlanta and Carolina. I know people here on this board might be inclined to say "Who cares about Nashville", but I know Legionnaire and other Nashville fans would rather be playing Carolina and Atlanta more throughout the season than Minnesota, St. Louis, and Dallas. (BTW, Minnesota and Dallas is not a geographic rivalry

I have to be truthful. When considering these options, the sad state of affairs that is the Chicago Blackhawks led me to put them out west. While they are an 0-6 team, the organization and its fans need a change. Being in the same division as Detroit year after year has just destroyed the self-confidence of that organization.

Agree about Nashville's natural rivals in the Southeast. Even pre-season games with Atlanta get heated from the get-go.

I really like the division you have the Wings in. Some very interesting matchups there. Great hockey cities belong together like that.

[DaKineMaui 8]

How about the original 6 just quit the "newer" NHL and form a league with no salary cap.

That is something I'd like to see. Reduce this joke of a league to farm status and see real talent vs real talent.

I'm all for it. Can there be a rule where if you say Bettman, or say a word that rhymes with or sounds like Bettman you get expelled? And you hafta go play with one of those other bush-league capped teams for 1 yr?

Gotta have rules.

SHRINK THIS LEAGUE! Form a league of their own. Fresh idea.

[MacK_Attack 108]

The NHL needs to go back to the divisional playoff series format. It's pretty much a waste to have this divisionally-heavy schedule and then not even have divisional teams face each other in the playoffs. Ottawa/Buffalo are the only two divisional teams to face each other in this years playoffs.

Think back to the 70s, 80s and early 90s.....the playoffs were always awesome no matter who played, because the first two rounds were guaranteed to have divisional rivals playing each other. It was a virtual guarantee that every series had deeply engrained hatred long before the first puck was ever dropped. Nowadays, it takes three or four games to get the hatred cranked up, and by then, the series is basically over.

If you're going to have divisional teams play each other 2,305 times in the regular season, at least make sure they'll meet in the playoffs. Maybe then the regular season matchups will be interesting the next year.

[Resident Lune 0]

A little late to the party, but I decided to help out a little and make a map of the original proposal, using the Wikipedia one:

Personally, I'm still a fan of my "Hockey Purist" map:

[RedLightGoesOn 81]

I think someone should just stab Bettman and end it all.

[vangvace 12]

this might sound silly but what about OKC?

[TheLegend19 1]

How are the playoffs done? If they're set-up the same is right now, then this heavily favors teams in the Western Conference. Much easier to be in the top 8 of 15 teams then in the top 8 of 18 teams. Were you planning on disregarding conferences when it comes to playoff seeding? i.e. Taking the top 16 teams regardless of conference?

I like that idea. However, I'm still not a fan of half the league making the playoffs. I'd cut it to 8 teams make the playoffs. Take the top two in each conference, and then then the top 6, regardless of conference.

[handyandy_101 0]

Recently, I had a ton of downtime at work, and I put a lot of thought in to this and got some stuff down on paper. What I have come up with is conference and division alignments that will allow every team to play each other at least once and more importantly, put Detroit in the Eastern Conference. Go ahead and read the attachment below. There are going to be things that catch your eye and you will have questions about, but read my explanations first before bashing the proposal.

I heard Gary Bettman say to the guys on Sports Inferno (radio show on WXYT in Detroit) regarding the difficulty of re-alignment, "Our problem is, most of our teams are in the Eastern Time Zone."

This is true, because under his watch he added Nashville, Columbus, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, and Florida among other teams. This realignment I have put together makes the Eastern Conference the heavier conference as far as number of teams, but this will allow for future business and solve the problems caused by previous expansion with, (yes I know), more expansion. The cities I suggested for expansion make sense for the following reasons:

Portland or Seattle - These cities could easily support a hockey team and have a history of hockey in their market.

Kansas City - They were lobbying HARD for the Penguins. The arena is almost built and would be a no brainer for any prospective owner. A natural rivalry would exist between this team and St. Louis

Las Vegas - Both the NBA and MLB are considering expansion into this market. Beat them to the punch. Plenty of people from out of town consistently present, and the permanent population is growing by the minute.

You'll also notice the scheduling is only for 72 Games. This would be a sell for the players. With expansion, the number of games will increase, and if expansion occurs, there is room to gradually increase to 82 games.

I don't think this solves all problems and it isn't perfect. With that said, IMO, it is a helluva lot better than what the NHL and its fans have right now, it allows for future business as the game grows, and only serves to enhance regional television markets as far as scheduling is concerned. This will also grow the fan base because fans will have the opportunity to see all teams in person at least once every other year (every year on TV) due to rotation of home and away for inter-conference games.

Furthermore, I also think this will place more importance on the regular season. While divisional play is weighted heavier, it isn't so much more that rest of conference and inter-conference play do not mean anything.

im interested to see how you intend to get vancouver on board for this reallignment. at least initially u plan on having the three cali sisters, and then vancouver playing the role of the ugly outcasted step sister....

but that great lakes division....gorgeous

[ColdWarrior 0]

You'll also notice the scheduling is only for 72 Games. This would be a sell for the players. With expansion, the number of games will increase, and if expansion occurs, there is room to gradually increase to 82 games.

Problem with 72 game schedule... 12% fewer games means 12% less revenue, meaning 12% lower salary caps & 12% lower paychecks to players. So, there's a reason for the NHL, managers & players to all say hell no.

As for the cities, vegas might work although I suspect many of the lower bowl seats would be owned by casinos for guests. But hey, revenue is revenue. Seatle might also work... but I'd imagine you'd have to overcome a canuck fanbase there.

Another issue, is it my imagination or do all of the 'eastern' divisions have 6 teams & all the western only 5?

[Guest Poppinfreshboy]

Hello Everyone... I have been a lurker to your board for quite a while but this topic has sparked me to sign up and reply... First of all I will say.. I am a Predators Fan (pause for the boos), However I have appreciated the knowledge and passion most of you have and have learned and am learning to love hockey.

But to the topic at hand... Expansion is the best of worlds and the worst of worlds, for new markets the intial fever pitch is great.. it is new and exciting, it becomes the in thing to do, then, as fans get more knowledgable, the 60 pt seasons and missing the playoffs gets old and then you have questionable attendance for a while and then when you start winning more, developing conflict and hatred within the divison and put together a team that has promise, fans are slow to come back and learn... i.e. Nashville.. I say all of that because in this thread the disccusion is Expansion and Rivialies. To expand into markets where rivalries must be developed as opposed to perhaps ones that are all ready in place seems to be not as good of an idea... It seems to me that adding only 2 more teams in markets that have that potential could be a better plan... Plus just as an outside thought... steal good ideas for other places, I am more in line with Legionnares idea of a 4 team 4 division conference with the same 8 playoff spots.

Here would be my plan: the addition of two expansion teams - and yes for the Candians you get one back!!!

Western Conference -

Pacific - Vancouver, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim

Mountian - Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado, Phoenix

North - **Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis

Central - Dallas, Nashville, Atlanta, ** Kansas City

** denotes expansion

Eastern Conference -

Atlantic - Philadelphia, NY Rangers, NY Islanders, New Jersey

South - Washington, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida

Central - Detroit, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Buffalo

Northeast - Montreal, Ottawa, Boston, Toronto

Each team plays each team in their divison 6 times

Each team plays a conference rivialry series (2 home / 2 away) againist one divison, and rotating each year

Each team plays a home and home with each of the remaining teams in the rest of the league regardless of conference.

I choose the KC market for arena availibility and rivalry possibilies and Winnipeg as it seems to be one of the Canadians most popular we never should have lost this teams...

The biggest debate is the Western Central Division in my eyes, however the Nashville / Atlanta connection and the renewed hatred of the Nashville / Dallas seems to be in play and outweighs the timezone differences.

just one mans thoughts...

Edited May 21, 2007 by Poppinfreshboy

[Guest jaytan]

They'd have to be insane to expand to anymore teams. We'd be better off contracting a few, if you ask me.

Also, there's already way too many divisional games and too few games against teams from the other conference.

However, I do like the idea of putting Detroit in that Great Lakes Conference.

[Legionnaire11 0]

why is expansion insane? Do you really buy into all of the media jib-jab about how poor the league is doing, and all that gloom and doom from outsiders?

The facts are that in the first season after the lockout, which the outside media labeled as a make or break year for several franchises, and the league as a whole. The truth was that the league enjoyed it's highest attendance ever and more importantly, the highest revenue intake ever. Yeah, sounds like a struggling league to me. oh, and this season... the league topped both of those marks again.

So not only is expansion viable, but it would be the ultimate F-U to everyone who constantly talks about the sad state of affairs around the NHL.

really, it's too bad that fans around the league are so divided about which markets deserve teams and stuff like that, rather than all focusing on making the league as a whole as strong as it can be.

Edited May 21, 2007 by Legionnaire11

[Kp-Wings 3]

I like Eva's proposal of moving the Capitals out of DC. That city has never supported the team, nor do they have any actual fans at all. I cannot believe how lame it is when you actually watch a Capitals game on TV. There are empty seats everywhere, and the building is so dead that it makes the ACC during a Leafs game actually look exciting.

Sometimes I thought it's because the Capitals haven't made the playoffs in 4 years and have been on the bottom since then, but even before that, the Capitals had very little support. The fact that DC itself is not really that far south is what really suprises me.

With the also mentioned fact that the Nationals, who blow, are getting more media attention then the Capitals is all the more sign that it's time to go. I'll be 90% of the people in DC don't even know who Ovechkin is.

[DraperFan MN 0]

why is expansion insane? Do you really buy into all of the media jib-jab about how poor the league is doing, and all that gloom and doom from outsiders?

The facts are that in the first season after the lockout, which the outside media labeled as a make or break year for several franchises, and the league as a whole. The truth was that the league enjoyed it's highest attendance ever and more importantly, the highest revenue intake ever. Yeah, sounds like a struggling league to me. oh, and this season... the league topped both of those marks again.

So not only is expansion viable, but it would be the ultimate F-U to everyone who constantly talks about the sad state of affairs around the NHL.

really, it's too bad that fans around the league are so divided about which markets deserve teams and stuff like that, rather than all focusing on making the league as a whole as strong as it can be.

I agree, and there a couple of more markets where hockey could succeed.

There more I think about it, I think I like the four division idea. This would only require adding two teams. I will go back to the drawing board with this and come back with something that will blow your minds!

[Guest jaytan]

Why is expansion a ridiculous idea?

Ratings. The quality of play. The lack of viable markets for a new team.