Kwame_Kilpatrick 0 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 do any of you guys agree that the nhl is maybe too big? most other hockey leagues have 20 teams or less, i mean the only reason the league is big is for marketing purposes but i think if the nhl was 20 teams if would be more fun, or maybe 24. there are some teams in the south who never have fans and they r actually decent clubs, like atlanta has a good team and their arena is nearly always empty, its awful. also we never even play teams in the east, i want to play new york and montreal, we never play them. i think it would just be more fun for everyone. i think it would make the games more of a personal battle between coaches and players if we saw eachother more, i mean imagine shaun avery in detroit it would be fun i really liked him when we played new york, it would get fans excited to see him fighting our players (if we had a decent fighter) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest lnvincible Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Too much talent for only 20 teams. ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropkickshanahans 463 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Too much talent for only 20 teams. ... Well, we wouldn't have to worry about not having any natural goal scorers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crymson Report post Posted December 11, 2009 do any of you guys agree that the nhl is maybe too big? most other hockey leagues have 20 teams or less, i mean the only reason the league is big is for marketing purposes but i think if the nhl was 20 teams if would be more fun, or maybe 24. there are some teams in the south who never have fans and they r actually decent clubs, like atlanta has a good team and their arena is nearly always empty, its awful. also we never even play teams in the east, i want to play new york and montreal, we never play them. i think it would just be more fun for everyone. i think it would make the games more of a personal battle between coaches and players if we saw eachother more, i mean imagine shaun avery in detroit it would be fun i really liked him when we played new york, it would get fans excited to see him fighting our players (if we had a decent fighter) Sean Avery is a locker-room cancer and a cheapshot-artist. He would not belong here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMatt89 63 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 I agree. Delete Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Florida. Create team in Quebec. Having less teams will create more rivalries and maximize skilled players and lessen the amount lower tier players. Salaries will be forced to decrease, (although raising the cap a little to 60-65 mil could help a little with the chaos and bloatation of star players and more of them being available) and put new rules on free agency and new dynasties will form. Teams will be more competitive and home grown franchise players will be more popular and will be better for the fans. Now I understand that less team means more players available. and with the crazy demanded salaries, teams wont be able to sign such players. More European players will head back to their native countries (KHL) This will make Olympic play much more entertaining. Also, the international hockey federation could come to an agreement and hold a world tournament every 2 years or so? (Winners of home league) With less Euro's in the league, physicality and toughness become more of a focus on game play. With more grit in game play, players play with heart and soul, and skill is less a factor than working hard and grinding out a win. More North Americans could increase the fans interest in America possibly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lidstromboli Report post Posted December 11, 2009 why would the cap be raised wouldn't the league make less money with less teams? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hooon 1,089 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 I think there is 2-4 teams too many... but unless there is a reasonable SOLUTION presented its hard to argue against the current format. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CenterIce 83 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 I think there is 2-4 teams too many... but unless there is a reasonable SOLUTION presented its hard to argue against the current format. Unfortunately, with Bettman in control, the league will be getting bigger not smaller. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyGangsta 79 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 On top of that here in Montreal we've been hearing news that a Quebec team is on the rise again. Some guy has been having talk with Gary and talks have been going very good. I say take out 8 teams (weakest fan/revenue) ... Insert Quebec / Winnipeg You've got yourself an amazing league with a great fan base. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Regarding downsizing of the League: That horse is long out of that barn. Blame Bettman. â„¢ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmamolo 287 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 why would the cap be raised wouldn't the league make less money with less teams? Not if you eliminated teams that lose revenue as opposed to earn it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmamolo 287 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Persoanlly I would like a 24-26 team league. There is an optimal number of teams that would create a situation where 4th liners are dropped and skill players dont necessarily leave for Russia or wherever. Regardless of player movement I'd prefer a slightly smaller league. Also, not to change the subject, but Detroit should be in the Eastern Conference and that could be accomplished with league contraction. Detroit has been screwed with travel for far too long. Not to mention the rivalries we miss out on with the Leafs and other EC teams. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Not if you eliminated teams that lose revenue as opposed to earn it. There's a difference between revenue and profit/loss. Every team generates revenue, some just spend more than they make. The cap is based off revenue, so any reduction in teams would mean a reduction in the cap, if the current rules continue. (Though with the CBA expiring soon, it's possible a different deal could be worked out.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brett 1,029 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 28.. NY doesnt need 2 teams, neither does florida then i think the talent would be more spread out, and thered be less point gaps between teams Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hillbillywingsfan 794 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Sean Avery is a locker-room cancer and a cheapshot-artist. He would not belong here. its funny how some can be compared to him on this forum as well......hahahahahah kidding.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hillbillywingsfan 794 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Sean Avery is a locker-room cancer and a cheapshot-artist. He would not belong here. its funny how some can be compared to him on this forum as well......hahahahahah kidding.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmamolo 287 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 There's a difference between revenue and profit/loss. Every team generates revenue, some just spend more than they make. The cap is based off revenue, so any reduction in teams would mean a reduction in the cap, if the current rules continue. (Though with the CBA expiring soon, it's possible a different deal could be worked out.) Dude, I was just joking. Do you, or anyone else knnow, exactly how the cap is calculated? Assuming it's based on revenue you'd imagine it would work out as a percentage of total revenue. If that were the case, the percentage woudl have to be based on number of teams contributing to that revenue. So I would imagine that if the league contracted, meaning fewer teams, that percentage would go up due to the loss in revenue. But maybe IM making a mistake, id otn know Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Original-Six 254 Report post Posted December 11, 2009 The problem isn't that there are to many teams, the problem is that there are to many teams in city's that don't support hockey or just plain don't care about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PrairieDawg 52 Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Take away a few American teams and then put them in Canada. Make an American conference and a Canadian conference. Now that'd be interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ZetterbergFourty Report post Posted December 12, 2009 I agree. Delete Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Florida. I'm with you on this, replace Columbus with Tampa though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SweWings 45 Report post Posted December 12, 2009 Yeah. Unless there's a huge financial meltdown that affects most of the league it's more likely to expand than shrink. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tane 17 Report post Posted December 12, 2009 I'd love it. Cut out 6+ teams. Go Back and Rename Conferences after Hockey people again. I'd like to see a league like this Adams Division Montreal Boston Buffalo Quebec Hartford Ottawa Patrick Division Pittsburgh Philadelphia Washington New York Rangers New York Islanders New Jersey Devils Norris Division Detroit Toronto Chicago St.Louis Minnesota (North Stars) Smythe Edmonton Calgary Vancouver Los Angeles Winnipeg If you want to Balance out the conferences, you Could Add San Jose and Columbus. But I'd Take My NHL Just like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest lnvincible Report post Posted December 12, 2009 I would love to see a tournament like what soccer has. Has the best teams from every league (You have to qualify) and they face off to compete for a very rewarding trophy. I think it would be good for fans, and it would create more interest in hockey. thats my 2 cents Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
