• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

eva unit zero

Random expansion idea

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

We all know how the NHL loves expansion recently. We also know how they appear to be interested in getting teams back into Winnipeg and Quebec. Plus, we know that Jimmy B is more likely to start marketing sausages than give up having a team in Hamilton.

Furthermore, the talent pool is deeper than it has been since the days of the Original Six, and players are better trained overall. Right now there are about 13 teams worth of Canadians in the NHL, and if you packed the top Canadians onto six teams you could probably challenge most Original Six teams. Think about lines like this for six different teams:

Toews/Getzlaf/Doan

Lecavalier/Crosby/St.Louis

Cammalleri/Savard/Iginla

Heatley/Thornton/Marleau

Tanguay/M.Richards/Spezza

B.Richards/Carter/Staal

Sure, there are some teams in today's NHL that might have one line that strong. But most of them don't have strong depth and three or four very good defensemen plus an elite goaltender backing that up. But there's more than enough Canadian talent in the league right now to put six teams like that together. And Americans and Europeans in the league are matching that talent level and taking a higher and higher percentage of the roster spots. Meaning either Canadian talent is getting worse (unlikely) or the overall talent is getting better.

So here's a crazy idea for expansion that would satisfy all of that, and clean up the divisions in the process. I've also included modifications to the playoff and regular season schedules, as well as rules for the expansion draft.

Expansion locations: Hamilton, Houston, Kansas City, Quebec, Seattle, Winnipeg. NHL expanded to 36 teams.

Division realignment:

Atlantic: Carolina, Florida, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Washington

Central: Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis, Winnipeg

Northeast: Boston, Buffalo, Columbus, Detroit, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto

Pacific: Anaheim, Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Seattle, Vancouver

Regular season scheduling:

No conferences, just 4 divisions. Teams play 4 games against teams in-division and 2 games against everyone else. 86 total regular season games.

Playoff scheduling:

Top 4 teams from each division make the playoffs. Teams play 1v4 and 2v3, and then winners play for division championship. Division champs are seeded 1-4 and play 1v4 and 2v3. Winners play in Cup final.

Expansion rules:

Teams can protect 12 skaters and one goaltender. All skaters under 26 who have appeared in under 300 NHL games are exempt. All goaltenders under 26 who have appeared in under 150 games are exempt. All skaters under 30 who have appeared in under 100 games are exempt. All goaltenders under 30 who have appeared in under 75 games are exempt. All teams must expose at least two players.

Drafting is a snake draft in a randomly determined order. No team may lose more than four players, and drafting will continue until all teams have drafted a roster of 14 skaters and 1 goaltenders. If the list of exposed players is exhausted, all teams (except those who have already lost four players) will be required to expose an additional player. This process will continue until the draft is completed.

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is INTENSE... sounds like a complete overhaul. I'm not even sure if I understand the whole draft system. How does "snake draft" work?

I like the way the divisions are, but I'm thinking 36 teams would be crazy. My idea, would be to shape the league similar to the MLB with 6 divisions, 2 conferences - bring back the Campbell and Wales - and include an "East, Central, West" for each conference. Not sure how to divide it, but I haven't put full thought into it like yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a bad idea by any means. In fact it's probably too perfect. Obviously is never going to happen, but for a dream it's not bad at all. They are probably going to expand here in the next couple years anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is INTENSE... sounds like a complete overhaul. I'm not even sure if I understand the whole draft system. How does "snake draft" work?

I like the way the divisions are, but I'm thinking 36 teams would be crazy. My idea, would be to shape the league similar to the MLB with 6 divisions, 2 conferences - bring back the Campbell and Wales - and include an "East, Central, West" for each conference. Not sure how to divide it, but I haven't put full thought into it like yours.

A snake draft is where the draft order in the odd rounds is reversed in the even rounds; meaning the team at the end of the round will pick again immediately afterwards to start the next round. Say I was Houston's GM, and picked 6th and of the top players available, there were two I thought were equally talented. Instead of having to make a tough decision, I would be able to pick one 6th in the first round, and one 1st in the second round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CaliWingsNut
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why should the NHL expand and what would that solve? And how would the draft work?

I'm unsure what it solves... I think the NHL thinks it'll stop Canada from bitching, but that's more caused by the US's half-arse interest generating more $ than Canada. It's not really how many teams they have. Though Balsillie & his campaign didn't help.

As for expansion, I could care less...

A lot of this has to do with the dollar market (declining US vs CDN Dollar) as stated by someone else recently (sorry forget who). Though their interest in Canadian markets in this area baffles me. The markets have little to do but slowly reverse (minus some other blunder) as the Canadian dollar isn't getting stronger but rather US Dollar has been weak (so shouldn't they be making a few upstart US teams on the cheap with all this free Canadian cash?). Unless they believe that the market is going to stay as is and the Canadian dollar as strong (compared to US Dollar), it would be the worst possible time to invest in the country for an international business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely pretty interesting.

But Jesus, 16 teams out 36 make the playoffs? That's harsh for those non-playoff teams. I understand not wanting to expand the playoffs but sooner or later it's goign to feel like baseball. But I do liek that the Wings would finally be playing int heir appropriate time zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lilja4mvp

this is almost as good as your idea of having hudler be our 2nd line center last year.

time to step away from the keyboard, brah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...lots o' s*** to think about, regarding the expansion draft stuff. The part I don't like, though, is the expansion itself. Houston? Seattle? Kansas City? Are those even viable NHL markets? It's a serious question, cuz I don't know. Quebec? Hamilton? Winnipeg? Two of those cities had NHL teams, and now they are gone. I'm not even sure Hamilton would work, but I'd like to see that one just so Jim Balsillie can hand Bettman a big bowl of "go f*** yourself".

I really don't think Quebec would get a professional hockey team, though. If that happened, Montreal would also want a professional hockey team. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nhlrealignmentmap.jpg

Here's my proposed expansion/realignment plan, I already put this in another thread a while ago, but just to recap:

Two Expansion teams, one in Toronto and one in Montreal (we all know both of those markets could support a second team)

All "Southern" teams that have not won a Stanley Cup get relocated (Atlanta, Florida, LA, Nashville, Phoenix) move them to the following cities arbitrarily: Portland, OR; Winnipeg, MB; Salt Lake City, UT; Kansas City, MO; Milwaukee, WI

4 divisions of 8 teams apiece, conferences composed of divisions 1 & 2, 3 & 4 as listed below

Division #1 (call it the Atlantic, Eastern, whatever):

NY Rangers

NY Islanders

New Jersey

Philadelphia

Boston

Washington

Carolina

Tampa Bay

Division # 2 (call it the Northern, Northeast, whatever):

Montreal

Montreal

Toronto

Toronto

Buffalo

Pittsburgh

Columbus

Ottawa

Division # 3 (call it the Central, Midwest, whatever):

Detroit

Chicago

Milwaukee

St. Louis

Kansas City

Winnipeg

Dallas

Minnesota

Division # 4 (call it the Western, Pacific, whatever):

Vancouver

Edmonton

Calgary

Portland

San Jose

Anaheim

Salt Lake City

Colorado

Increase the schedule to 84 games, each team plays non-conference teams twice a season (home & away), plays non-division teams in the same conference 3 times, and division teams 4 times each.

Same playoff structure

I also propose that the shootout be extended to best of 5 shooters, I like the shootout but they are over too quickly IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nhlrealignmentmap.jpg

Here's my proposed expansion/realignment plan, I already put this in another thread a while ago, but just to recap:

Two Expansion teams, one in Toronto and one in Montreal (we all know both of those markets could support a second team)

All "Southern" teams that have not won a Stanley Cup get relocated (Atlanta, Florida, LA, Nashville, Phoenix) move them to the following cities arbitrarily: Portland, OR; Winnipeg, MB; Salt Lake City, UT; Kansas City, MO; Milwaukee, WI

4 divisions of 8 teams apiece, conferences composed of divisions 1 & 2, 3 & 4 as listed below

Division #1 (call it the Atlantic, Eastern, whatever):

NY Rangers

NY Islanders

New Jersey

Philadelphia

Boston

Washington

Carolina

Tampa Bay

Division # 2 (call it the Northern, Northeast, whatever):

Montreal

Montreal

Toronto

Toronto

Buffalo

Pittsburgh

Columbus

Ottawa

Division # 3 (call it the Central, Midwest, whatever):

Detroit

Chicago

Milwaukee

St. Louis

Kansas City

Winnipeg

Dallas

Minnesota

Division # 4 (call it the Western, Pacific, whatever):

Vancouver

Edmonton

Calgary

Portland

San Jose

Anaheim

Salt Lake City

Colorado

Increase the schedule to 84 games, each team plays non-conference teams twice a season (home & away), plays non-division teams in the same conference 3 times, and division teams 4 times each.

Same playoff structure

I also propose that the shootout be extended to best of 5 shooters, I like the shootout but they are over too quickly IMO.

Why doesn't San Jose get moved? Why are we moving teams based on location and past success rather than actual interest and financial stability of the team? The Isles and Blue Jackets have less interest and are less stable financially than Nashville or Los Angeles. Your plan to move teams is pretty much a random decision based on "I don't like having teams in this area. Since they haven't won a Cup, they never will and fans will never be more interested in that team than they are in watching the animations on the screen at the bowling alley. Move 'em!"

Also, playing teams an odd number of times per year isn't a good scheduling tool. It results in what could be considered unfair scheduling. Teams play different at home and on the road, and there is a defined-by-rule advantage given to the home team in certain aspects. Say Montreal and Toronto are racing for the division title. They end up one point apart, Toronto winning. Toronto played two home games against the Islanders, who are the top team in the league by 15 points, and won both in a shootout, while losing the away game by three goals. Montreal played one home game against the Isles and won it, while losing one away game in a shootout and one in overtime. Do you think the team that came in second in the division might have a complaint about the scheduling? Had the situation been reversed, it seems likely that Montreal would have one more point, and Toronto would have two fewer; thereby swinging the division in Montreal's favor with a two-point margin of victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why doesn't San Jose get moved?

Because San Jose is a great hockey market, they have a loyal fan base in the Bay area as well as across the country, and the franchise is not struggling

Why are we moving teams based on location and past success rather than actual interest and financial stability of the team?

I am moving teams based on interest and financial stability, I just included the past success as in indicator of both. The Hurricanes are not struggling financially and have a rabid fan base, as do the Ducks and Stars, which is in large part due to the fact that the franchises have been successful on the ice in the recent past

The Isles and Blue Jackets have less interest and are less stable financially than Nashville or Los Angeles.

Based on what? Nashville can't even get the name sponsor of their stadium to pay their bills on time, whereas the Islanders have an owner who has deep pockets and only has threatened to move the franchise in an effort to rally support for a badly needed new stadium

Your plan to move teams is pretty much a random decision based on "I don't like having teams in this area. Since they haven't won a Cup, they never will and fans will never be more interested in that team than they are in watching the animations on the screen at the bowling alley. Move 'em!"

My plan is actually the result of the combined thoughts of about 15 of my co-workers and I, but since I am the only Red Wings fan in the group, I am the only one posting it here. I don't know if they belong to any forums, but you may see similar plans posted on boards for the Penguins, Habs, Leafs, Rangers, Devils, Bruins, Sabres, and Blackhawks. The company I work for is directly involved in the sports marketing field, so not only is everyone here a sports fan, but very knowledgeable about the business of sports. We came up with a plan that would get NHL teams out of struggling markets and into markets where hockey is a more natural fit (climate wise), have the necessary infrastructure to support a professional franchise (Kansas City has a stadium built that is just waiting for a tenant, SLC , Milwaukee and Portland have facilities that could easily accommodate hockey) and would not alienate fans of teams that have thrived despite not being in what most would consider "hockey markets".

Also, playing teams an odd number of times per year isn't a good scheduling tool. It results in what could be considered unfair scheduling. Teams play different at home and on the road, and there is a defined-by-rule advantage given to the home team in certain aspects. Say Montreal and Toronto are racing for the division title. They end up one point apart, Toronto winning. Toronto played two home games against the Islanders, who are the top team in the league by 15 points, and won both in a shootout, while losing the away game by three goals. Montreal played one home game against the Isles and won it, while losing one away game in a shootout and one in overtime. Do you think the team that came in second in the division might have a complaint about the scheduling? Had the situation been reversed, it seems likely that Montreal would have one more point, and Toronto would have two fewer; thereby swinging the division in Montreal's favor with a two-point margin of victory.

All right, I'll concede you that point, mainly because reading it makes me dizzy. But don't you realize that the NHL already has teams playing each other an odd number of times, last time I checked 1 is an odd number. Points are points, the only situation in which your scenario would apply is if there were a tie in the standings, in which case there are a number of tie-breakers, which according to NHL.com are as follows:

Division leaders are seeded 1, 2, and 3 in Conference standings. If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order:

* The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).

* The greater number of games won.

* The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing.

* The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season.

Edited by bonan78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy. Very crazy. But way more likely than any kind of European Conference. It's a very cool idea and with a little luck could create some fun local rivalries, e.g. Toronto, Texas, Seattle/Vancouver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting idea, but I don't think the league is expanding anytime soon. I love the alignment of the divisions and the playoff structure. If the league really wanted to promote rivalries within the division, it would go back to divisional playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now