PROBIE4PREZ 58 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 What in the hell is in ESPN's coffee? Link: - Id put Detroit and Columbus in the East - Scrap Tampa, Nashville, Phoenix - Add two teams to Canada And thats where Id stop .. The Wings need to be in the East. Just b/c I hate 10pm games for a striahgt week Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waitahochiminute 2 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 WOW. You have to remember that ESPN sucks... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest lnvincible Report post Posted September 23, 2009 What in the hell is in ESPN's coffee? Link: - Id put Detroit and Columbus in the East - Scrap Tampa, Nashville, Phoenix - Add two teams to Canada And thats where Id stop .. The Wings need to be in the East. Just b/c I hate 10pm games for a striahgt week ^agreed. Makes more sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stactum 4 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 I actually like Buchi's idea of expansion and adding some teams, inlcuding Milwaukee! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 The only plan listed that would realistically work is Melrose's plan. Buccigross' plan is somewhat reasonable, but the expansion teams could perhaps be better laid out to avoid overloading certain areas with new teams. All of the others are absolutely ridiculous. The only realistic way to have European teams in the NHL would be to have an equal or near-equal number of teams in Europe and North America. If you are going to make the geographical swap and put Boston in the same conference as Los Angeles, the only reasonable way to do so would be a conference layout much like the NFL, with two conferences that are evenly spread across the nation and have no geographical base. My personal opinion of the best realignment plan would work as follows: Two expansion teams, in any two of the following: Seattle/Portland, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Kansas City, and Houston. Detroit moves to the east, and each conference is divided into four-team divisions. Division winners get automatic playoff spots, and the next four teams in the conference get playoff spots. Teams are seeded based on points, without any automatic seeding; the #8 seed could be a division winner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Selke13 0 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 My biggest problem: WTF is Melrose thinking putting the Wings and Hawks in different conferences?????????? That may be the stupidest thing ive heard in a long time. the rivalry is great and can only get better as the hawks get more competitive. What is he thinking? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hooon 1,089 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 yeesh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 Barry's plan made me laugh seeing as it's so simple compared to the rest. Move struggling American franchises North, Wings into the East, done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z and D for the C 712 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 If there is ever an NHL team in Europe I'll cry like I never have before. The fact that I've heard the idea more than once is bone-chilling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MannyK 16 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 i like buccigross's the best out of all those.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cern 0 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) 40 teams?! The talent pool is already being stretched and the league is having enough financial trouble trying to run 30. The GOOD news is that at least Melrose's minimal plan appears to be the most popular by a big margin. Edited September 23, 2009 by Cern Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Louisville 112 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 I used to really enjoy John Buccigross and he still writes a decent column, but he is smoking crack these last couple seasons. ORR CONFERENCE? GRETZKY CONFERENCE? What the hell is that? He wants 40 teams but I distinctly remember him saying the NHL season is about 15-20 games too long. He says there is a large talent pool but how stretched out will that talent pool be (across the league) when there are 40 teams? Scott Burnside takes the cake because he's a moron. But the main reason they're out is we recall being at a board of governors meeting in Dallas at the 2007 All-Star Game and listening to team president and COO Michael Yormark telling a small group of writers the Panthers' problems were really the fault of negative reporting from the Canadian hockey media. He was serious. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright, Scotty. Let's eliminate a team and it's entire fan base because you don't like what the Panthers president said. Let's also ***** out our division names. Put the pipe down and get the f*** out of the room. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 Expansion???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilmrt 636 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 HAHAHAHAHA GRETZKY CONFERENCE!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 HAHAHAHAHA GRETZKY CONFERENCE!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Better not run up the score in THAT conference! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 Get rid of Phoenix, at least 3 of the Southern teams (Nashville, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa, Florida), and the Islanders. Add Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City, and possibly a 2nd Toronto area franchise (maybe in place of one of the above). 4 8-team divisions, North and South conferences to equalize travel. 6 games vs each divisional team (42 games), 3 vs other division (24), 1 vs each non-conference (16) = 82 games. Bring back divisional playoffs. Something like... Northwest: Vancouver Seattle Portland Calgary Edmonton Saskatoon Winnipeg Minnesota Northeast: Milwaukee Chicago Detroit Toronto Buffalo Ottowa Montral Boston Southeast: New York Rangers New Jersey Philadelphia Washington Pittsburgh Columbus Nashville Carolina Southwest: St. Louis Kansas City Dallas Colorado Salt Lake San Jose Los Angeles Anaheim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gutierrez 7 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 Get rid of Phoenix, at least 3 of the Southern teams (Nashville, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa, Florida), and the Islanders. Add Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle, Kansas City, and possibly a 2nd Toronto area franchise (maybe in place of one of the above). 4 8-team divisions, North and South conferences to equalize travel. 6 games vs each divisional team (42 games), 3 vs other division (24), 1 vs each non-conference (16) = 82 games. Bring back divisional playoffs. Something like... Northwest: Vancouver Seattle Portland Calgary Edmonton Saskatoon Winnipeg Minnesota Northeast: Milwaukee Chicago Detroit Toronto Buffalo Ottowa Montral Boston Southeast: New York Rangers New Jersey Philadelphia Washington Pittsburgh Columbus Nashville Carolina Southwest: St. Louis Kansas City Dallas Colorado Salt Lake San Jose Los Angeles Anaheim lol @ getting rid of the Islanders, you're going to dump a team that won 4 consecutive stanley cups, was a dynasty at one point, and had HOF players like Trottier, Bossy, Potvin, et al? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cjm502 165 Report post Posted September 23, 2009 lol @ getting rid of the Islanders, you're going to dump a team that won 4 consecutive stanley cups, was a dynasty at one point, and had HOF players like Trottier, Bossy, Potvin, et al? I believe he was looking more in to the future, not the past. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted September 24, 2009 lol @ getting rid of the Islanders, you're going to dump a team that won 4 consecutive stanley cups, was a dynasty at one point, and had HOF players like Trottier, Bossy, Potvin, et al? Wouldn't be the first sports team with a nice history to move. It's been more than 25 years since they won anything, have reportedly lost over $200 million in the last ten years, and sit in a market with two other teams (and a third not far away, in an already crowded East...) who are both doing much better at the moment. They might do better than a few of the cities I included, but wouldn't likely expand the overall market. That said, it wouldn't be very difficult to keep them around. Columbus, Carolina, or Nashville could all go, or any one of the expansion cities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Holmstrom96 347 Report post Posted September 24, 2009 WTF is Melrose thinking putting the Wings and Hawks in different conferences?????????? I'll take Montreal, Toronto, Boston, and NYR over just the Hawks any day. I would love to be in the East conference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cern 0 Report post Posted September 24, 2009 lol @ getting rid of the Islanders, you're going to dump a team that won 4 consecutive stanley cups, was a dynasty at one point, and had HOF players like Trottier, Bossy, Potvin, et al? Using past success as a get-out-of-jail-free card against a clear financial quagmire is ridiculous. The NHL is a buisness, not a museum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gutierrez 7 Report post Posted September 24, 2009 Maybe the MLB should get rid of the Cubs since they haven't won anything since 1908. I know that the Islanders suck and there are two other teams in that market but come on, and maybe this is just the hockey purist in me as much as I dislike that term, it just seems wrong to get rid of a team like the Islanders. I agree with you though on the others you mentioned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cern 0 Report post Posted September 24, 2009 Maybe the MLB should get rid of the Cubs since they haven't won anything since 1908. I know that the Islanders suck and there are two other teams in that market but come on, and maybe this is just the hockey purist in me as much as I dislike that term, it just seems wrong to get rid of a team like the Islanders. I agree with you though on the others you mentioned. Do the Cubs actually generate revenue? Because the Islanders sure don't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hiei 192 Report post Posted September 24, 2009 Isles are playing preseason in Saskatoon and KC. Their Owner has said he'd move or sell the team if Uniondale/Hempstead/Nassau Co. doesn't update the arena (the Coliseum is a dump...) Areas that I think would support NHL hockey: Winnipeg: Lot of love for the jets, even though they left. New arena has seating capacity, amenities, AND suites. all they need is a little corporate support, and they should be in the NHL. Hartford: Idea has been tossed around of replacing the HCC. No ideas have been seriously tabled for further discussion. Golden Horseshoe of Ontario: Despite being close to Buffalo and Toronto, you're still looking at Kitchener, Cambridge, and Hamilton. Saskatoon, SK: Look at the fans in the stands for PRESEASON! Seattle/Portland: Seattle needs a new arena, KeyArena is dated. The Rose Garden in Portland is nicer and newer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bonan78 1 Report post Posted September 24, 2009 I agree with the minimal expansion/realignment strategies, here's my scenario: I took all of the southern teams and moved the ones that have never won a cup (Florida, Atlanta, Nashville, Phoenix, and LA) and sent them packing for colder weather. I added two expansion teams, again in natural hockey markets, and I eliminated the Eastern/Western conferences and made 4 8-team divisions, based more loosely on geography. Here are the divisions: -Western Division- Anaheim San Jose Portland Vancouver Calgary Edmonton Colorado Salt Lake City -Midwest Division- Dallas Minnesota Milwaukee Winnipeg Kansas City Chicago Detroit St. Louis -Northeast Division- Montrealx2 Torontox2 Ottawa Buffalo Columbus Pittsburgh -Eastern Division- Boston Tampa Bay Carolina Washington New York Rangers New York Islanders New Jersey Devils Notice I said "loosely" based on geography, because I wanted to keep Detroit in the same division as the Blackhawks for rivalry purposes (I mean, they kept the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC East to maintain the rivalries with the Giants and Redskins), I could care less about other team's rivalries. Drop the schedule from 82 games to 80 (who came up with an 82-game schedule anyway), each team plays the teams in their division 6 times, the neighboring division twice (i.e. Western vs. Midwest, Northeast vs. Eastern) and then the remaining 16 teams once per season. Playoffs are seeded 1-16 based on record, the division champs getting the first 4 seeds, then each of the remaining teams by overall record. That way, there could conceivably be a Stanley Cup Finals matchup between division rivals. See the attached map for details on the alignment (I reassigned the teams arbitrarily, and put expansion teams in Toronto and Montreal, two huge hockey markets that could easily support a second team). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
