Would a 30-Team Stanley Cup Tournament work?

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

No no no no, this is a HORRIBLE idea. Toronto has sold out either Maple Leaf Gardens or the ACC like what, every game for 75 years? Why go from 41 games to TWENTY-NINE? That's fucking stupid. That's a loss of, I'd approximate to be around 228,000 tickets that just disappear. That's a lot of lost revenue. Jacking up the prices for your remaining 29 home games to compensate is just plain stupid. You have a terrible idea.

 

I never said jack up the prices..I'm refering to if there's a cap...I'm sure the players wouldnt mind playing less games, how often do you see watered down playoffs because these guys are so beat up? If there's a cap, owenrs know how much money is coming in and going out, and quite frankly, most owners are pretty well silent partners anyway...Does anyone remember when former Bolts owner referred to then rookie Vince Lecavalier as 'The Michael Jordan of hockey'

 

If there was a cap, ticket prices could theoretically stay fair, because the owners would make a profit because player salaries would be sensible..

 

Obviously, by the way, I don't think any player should make millions a year(everyone in the world could live comfortably on 60 grand Canadian a year), but I've accepted the player salaries won;t change, at least to the point of being like guys like you or me.

[iggymcfly 0]

The point is that the players and owners don't have enough money to go around between them, and as a result, they're not having a season right now. Giving money away from games that both parties are willing to play is not a solution in any way, shape, or form.

 

And as for the 60 grand comment, that's the kind of stupid communist attitude that keeps every other country in the world behind the United States. If you don't want to succeed, you never will. Of course, it's bringing down the US too, but at least we've got another 10 or 20 years left before we're all out socialist.

[nl5xsk1 0]

There wont be any hockey this year..or next year..or the year after that.

 

The sport is D E A D in the USA.  Let those wacky Canadians start up their own little CFL-esque NHL league...

First of all, as a die-hard American hockey fan, fuck off for saying that hockey should stay a Canadian-only sport. I was a fan long before the Bettman-era killed the game, and I'll be a fan long long after he's gone. It's not D E A D in the USA, it's D E A D to the bandwagon fans that jumped on recently. Cities like Boston, Detroit, Philly, Minnesota, will ALWAYS have hockey fans.

 

Second of all, even if this year is lost (which is still up in the air, I'm holding out that some of the recent rumors are true) then I really think that if there's still no resolution by the middle of next season (or where the middle of next season would be on the calendar) then the lockout will end because the PA will crumble. The owners can last FOREVER without having another game, the players cannot. Soon enough, the players that haven't been paid $4,5,6 (etc) million dollar contracts will need the bigger paycheck, and will be willing to play with a cap.

[The Czech Republic 0]

No no no no, this is a HORRIBLE idea. Toronto has sold out either Maple Leaf Gardens or the ACC like what, every game for 75 years? Why go from 41 games to TWENTY-NINE? That's fucking stupid. That's a loss of, I'd approximate to be around 228,000 tickets that just disappear. That's a lot of lost revenue. Jacking up the prices for your remaining 29 home games to compensate is just plain stupid. You have a terrible idea.

 

I'm sure the players wouldnt mind playing less games, how often do you see watered down playoffs because these guys are so beat up? If there's a cap, owenrs know how much money is coming in and going out, and quite frankly, most owners are pretty well silent partners anyway...Does anyone remember when former Bolts owner referred to then rookie Vince Lecavalier as 'The Michael Jordan of hockey'

 

If there was a cap, ticket prices could theoretically stay fair, because the owners would make a profit because player salaries would be sensible..

1. Hey, I'm sure we'd all like to get paid for doing less work. What's your point?

 

2. As for owners, you have that in every sport. There are those that are just the random consortia that own the team, or guys that don't know shit, but then you have Jerry Jones, George Steinbrenner, Mark Cuban, the Maloofs, Mike Illitch, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, all very involved ownership as well, who are aware of what they're putting out, and a very notable part of the organization.

 

I just don't like the idea of a salary cap. It makes the NFL less enjoyable for me and would probably make me dislike hockey as well.

 

 

But let's get to the important matter. SOMEBODY HAS TO WIN THE STANLEY CUP. Let the college kids play for it. Let players make up their own little clubs and play for it. Reform the Ottawa Silver Seven. I don't care. DO something. The only thing that has stopped the Stanley Cup from being awarded was a massive influenza epidemic. They cancelled it because the players were all fucking DYING. Now we're cancelling it because Mike Modano is a greedy bitch. I thought hockey players were the toughest bastards.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

And as for the 60 grand comment, that's the kind of stupid communist attitude that keeps every other country in the world behind the United States.

 

What's America's debt again? Seven trillion, give or take a figure? That's funny, I thought conservatives were the ones who were responsible with money....

 

How many homeless people are in the States? How many people live below the poverty line? Yep, We're behind the States alright.

 

Who's led the G-8 in economic growth over the last few years? I forget, but it might be, you know, um, my country, Canada. I'm not trying to be self serving, you brought it up, but our economic growth, crime rate, gun control laws, universal healthcare, respect from other nations and routinely high rankings from the UN's 'Best country to live in' and 'Best City to live in' hardly adds up to a country below the United States. Also, even if the situation were reversed, my socialist attitudes would not be single handly responsible for what you call "behind".

 

And I'm not saying I'm communist, I voted Liberal, not NDP in the last election. I'm just saying it could be done. Anything after 60,000 a year seems to me to be basically excess comforts.

[nl5xsk1 0]

CanadianGuitarist, I really don't want to make this a political thread, so I'll make my one comment and then go back to thinking about hockey ...

 

One of the reasons the US got into debt in the first place was that they forgave millions, if not billions, in debts to countries that couldn't afford it. Just wiped it clean off the books. So, yes, the US has since rung up a staggering debt, it's not like it was due to mismanagement per-se.

 

Plus, doing things like giving $350+million to the tsunami relief fund is bound to add to a country's debt, innit?

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Well, I didn't really bring it up....

 

So how bout hockey, eh?

[iggymcfly 0]

I apologize for turning the thread in the political direction. I've had enough of those, this is more about the gross mismanagement of hockey, and why there won't be a Stanley Cup this year.

 

However, before I let everything go, I just want to say that the current incarnation of the Republican part is not my idea of "conservative." I voted Libertarian, and I will continue to until we get a Republican candidate that has any idea whatsoever what fiscal responsibility is all about.

 

The Democrats may be losing battles (the elections), but they keep winning the war by letting super-moderate Republicans come into office, while the Democratic candidates move more and more to the left every year. The "lesser of two evils" becomes worse that what the greater of two evils used to be within about an eight year span.

 

Just to make sure this doesn't veer too far off-topic, Gary Bettman is a fuckshit. He put the NHL in this mess that they're in now by not getting a decent TV deal, and then when the players agree to every possible concession short of a salary cap, he tells them to fuck off, and cancels the season. If hockey dies in the United States, it will be because Gary Bettman killed it.

[Red Baron 0]

Bettman killed the league by expanding hockey at the rate that no one was caring year after year.

 

The league became a parity when new teams started almost every season.

 

Though there is no need for a strict 30 million salary cap. Only Chicago and Pitttsburgh have a salary under 30 million. More teams can opt for a 40 million salary and thats by cutting a lot of contracts (Patrice Breisbois has "earns" 4 million dollars for a mediocore defencemen).

 

Second of all.

 

The game is horrible to watch. Ottawa vs Anaheim? San Jose vs Carolina? who'd want to watch those games, or even Carolina vs Atlanta or Phoenix vs Nashville. Yes we need those teams that have some fan base, but lets face it. Most of the southern states don't have a strong fan base (Florida, Atlanta, Tampa, Phoenix, Nashville, Carolina) I excluded the California teams, since all of them has market a profit, especially San Jose coming fifth in sell out games last year. Teams need to play a 68-74 game season and every game would matter. Or keep the 82 game system but contract a few teams.

 

Gary Bettman was brought in to make the game more accesible to Americans. It was succesful until he started to expand the sport into area's that were more accesible to College sports, NASCAR.

 

He thought bringing the sport to Florida was smart. Two exhibitions games in Florida average over 20,000 tickets. One team was good, but not two.

 

Carolina was a mistake.

 

Phoenix was a mistake.

 

Dallas was a dispute between the owners in Minnesota, one spawned off to San Jose, and made a profitable team.

 

Anaheim needs a stable owner, but fairly manageable.

 

Atlanta was a joke, that Ted Turner would buy in.

 

Nashville had potential, but no major star has arrived there to make the team stand out until Tomas Vokoun? (goalie).

 

Ottawa was a great idea, since most Canadian teams were leaving.

 

If the team didn't win the cup in the same year, I don't think the team would get as much popularity as they do now.

 

Columbus, should have been one of the first expantion team.

 

Minnesota without hockey is like a Canadian without beer.

[Dogbert 0]

I agree with redbaron: the NHL needs to make its on-ice product more exciting. In my opinion, that will get the attention of the American fanbase, who are fans of fast-moving, high-scoring sports.

 

First of all, rule changes need to be made. The centre-ice red line needs to be scrapped, allowing for more breakaways and quick rushes up-ice. Tag-up offsides need to be installed: no more defenses stalling with the puck in their own zone until next Christmas just because some twit was half an inch offside on a dump-in. Third, it's time for the ties to end. Let's have a shootout if teams can't do it in OT.

 

Secondly, some teams just plum ain't working out: meanwhile, some cities are dying for a professional team. Let's revise the league and see which ones can go...

 

CAROLINA HURRICANES: Gary goofed here.

 

PHOENIX COYOTES: Ditto.

 

NASHVILLE PREDATORS: Encore.

 

ATLANTA THRASHERS: D.S. al Coda.

 

MIGHTY DUCKS OF ANAHEIM: Are competing with the older and better Kings for attention, and losing in a walk.

 

FLORIDA PANTHERS: One team in "America's Wang" is enough.

 

PITTSBURGH PENGUINS: Super Mario's putting himself in the poorhouse trying to keep the Pens afloat. Still have no money, no franchise player and an arena that's so bad that they may as well flood the parking lot and play out there. Time to say bye-bye to Steeltown until City Council figures it out and pays for a new building.

 

There are a few fringe teams out there who will be fine for now, but may find themselves on the list in the future:

 

SAN JOSE SHARKS: Are doing great in Silicon Valley, but the location is the reason for it: the migration south to SJ after the dot-com explosion in the late '90s created thousands of new Sharks fans. Aren't in any sort of trouble now, but could be if failed Northern dot-commers start heading back to whence they came.

 

TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING: Had to give away tickets to their first-round playoff games... and they finished first in the conference. As long as they keep winning, the fans will come, but if they run into money troubles and have to sell off stars like Khabibulin, Lecavalier and St. Louis, sayonara.

 

NEW YORK RANGERS: Okay, I wanted a 10th "trouble team", and this is a stretch, but you wonder how long New Yorkers are gonna put up with shitty hockey and non-playoff teams before they either start attending more Islanders games, or developing a sudden interest in the Knicks. Bottom line, they need to get better.

 

Now that the axe has fallen, we need to start adding teams in cities that want them.

 

WINNIPEG, MAN: Winterpeg has been hockey-crazy since the start, and now that the state-of-the-art MTS Centre has been completed, they need a team to go with it. Should never have lost the Jets.

 

HOUSTON, TX: Incredibly, hockey has found itself a fairly decent niche in the Lone Star State, and a state that large needs another team. A Stars-Houston rivalry writes itself.

 

SEATTLE, WA. or PORTLAND, OR: These two cities pack thousands into their arenas to see WHL teams: an NHL team in one of them would do good business, and a rivalry with Vancouver could form due to proximity.

 

SASKATOON, SSK: Canadian, population of 250 000+, 16 500-seat arena, every other source of entertainment in Saskatchewan is closed after 5 pm, and it's not Moose Jaw. Why not?

 

FARGO-MOORHEAD, ND-MN: Don't laugh: any city between Wisconsin and North Dakota with more than 200 000 people in it could support an NHL team better than half the current NHL cities can.

 

MILWAUKEE, WI: Ditto.

 

So, say we get rid of the 7 hopeless teams and one of the fringers (say Tampa, because, well, I'm a bitter son of a bitch). That leaves us with 22 cities that want teams. We add a new Pittsburgh team in there down the road, once the city gets it together, and... let's say Winnipeg, Houston and Seattle. That leaves us with this scenario:

 

EASTERN CONFERENCE

 

Atlantic Division

 

Philadelphia Flyers

New York Rangers

New York Islanders

Washington Capitals

New Jersey Devils

Pittsburgh Penguins (Columbus Blue Jackets)

 

Northeast Division

 

Columbus Blue Jackets (Milwaukee Golden Eagles)

Montreal Canadiens

Ottawa Senators

Boston Bruins

Buffalo Sabres

Toronto Maple Leafs

Detroit Red Wings

 

WESTERN CONFERENCE

 

Central Division

 

Minnesota Wild

Chicago Blackhawks

Houston Aeros

St. Louis Blues

Winnipeg Jets

Dallas Stars

 

Pacific Division

 

Vancouver Canucks

Calgary Flames

Edmonton Oilers

Colorado Avalanche

Los Angeles Kings

San Jose Sharks

Seattle Thunderbirds

 

 

These measures accomplish:

 

- cutting of losses incurred by teams in bad locations

- concentration of talent pool

- installation of the game in cities that want it, thus, higher revenue

- more fast-paced action

- a winner decided in every game

 

If these could get people interested in hockey again, there may be no need for a cap.

[MrRant 0]

Minor point that there already is a team called Seattle Thunderbirds as the WHL team but I'm sure you knew that already.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Milwaukee wants a team. Milwaukeeans want a team. The NHL wanted Milwaukee to have a team. The only power that got in their way was Bill Wirtz. Then again, I might agree with Dollar Bill that they should just make do with the Blackhawks: the team would get zero attention while the Packers are playing, so that's October, November, December, and traditionally part of January in which the team would get little TV audience, live attendance, and media coverage.

 

I can't fathom a team as significant as the Penguins just folding. I think the tie has to go, however--don't say a shootout compromises the game, having a system in which you can have 35 wins over 82 games and that's considered pretty good compromises the game. No tie, no overtime losses, no shootout wins, no shootout losses...stop adding colums! Jeez. Wins, and losses. There. 5-minute overtime, then a shootout. There. Someone always wins.

[Dogbert 0]

Minor point that there already is a team called Seattle Thunderbirds as the WHL team but I'm sure you knew that already.

It was 2:00 am, and I was tired.

 

I figure that the WHL team would move elsewhere and the NHL team would be free to pick up the name.

[Red Baron 0]

No shoot-out.

 

If worse came to worse, have the point system like this.

 

Three points for a win

 

One point for a tie

 

Zero points for a loss.

 

No OT Losses.

[The Czech Republic 0]

No shoot-out.

 

If worse came to worse, have the point system like this.

 

Three points for a win

 

One point for a tie

 

Zero points for a loss.

 

No OT Losses.

Fuck points, fuck ties. Wins and losses.

[Red Baron 0]

No shoot out then.

 

It'll make the game more gimmickary, and would be laughed at.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

No shoot out then.

It'll make the game more gimmickary, and would be laughed at

 

I agree.....the novelty probably would wear off....We get excited over them now because we see them, what, once a year tops?

 

No shoot-out.If worse came to worse, have the point system like this.

Three points for a win

One point for a tie

Zero points for a loss.

No OT Losses.

 

Yep. There'd be a lot more heart in games.....maybe more trapping too though.

 

Gary has actually done a lot of good, but he's bad on the whole...The franchise start up fees the NHL gained were astronomical, which is why they continued adding....A lawyer being money grubbing and greedy, who would have thought? just kidding.

 

Scoring needs to be up to market the game in Nascar areas....Most hardcore fans of hockey will watch a 2-1 game....

 

Now, I can't believe no one has thought of this, but nine new teams since 1991. That's 180 skaters to 9 goalies.....thus, teams become a bit more watered down...I'm not saying there's not 180 good skaters in junior hockey/U.S college, but it is stretching it pretty thin...

 

As for the teams, I've brought this up before on a different thread.

 

Canadian Conference-Trudeau Division

 

Ottawa

Toronto

Halifax or St. John

Quebec

Montreal

 

Canadian Conference-McDonald Division

 

Vancouver

Calgary

Edmonton

Winnipeg

Regina

 

American Conference- Lincoln Division

 

Buffalo

New York

Boston

Hartford

Philadelphia

 

American Division- Kennedy Division

 

Chicago

Detroit

Columbus

Minneapolis

Pittsburgh

 

Potential expansion: Hamilton, Victoria, Washington, Milwaukee

 

Division winners get a bye, while first and second runners-up play one another....I've always liked the idea of a division champion.

[The Czech Republic 0]

No shoot out then.

 

It'll make the game more gimmickary, and would be laughed at.

Well the ice can't handle open-ended overtimes. I am for the shootout.

 

 

Also, why name the divisions after heads of state? I didn't know anything about Abraham Lincoln's wicked slapshot. (Though I did hear Trudeau was a wizard in front of the net.) But seriously, Smythe-NORRIS-Adams-Patrick.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Now, I can't believe no one has thought of this, but nine new teams since 1991. That's 180 skaters to 9 goalies.....thus, teams become a bit more watered down...I'm not saying there's not 180 good skaters in junior hockey/U.S college, but it is stretching it pretty thin...

 

You have to remember that the collapse of communism in the Eastern Bloc has opened the door for Eastern European players. So that talent pool has to be taken into account.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

I agree with redbaron: the NHL needs to make its on-ice product more exciting. In my opinion, that will get the attention of the American fanbase, who are fans of fast-moving, high-scoring sports.

 

First of all, rule changes need to be made. The centre-ice red line needs to be scrapped, allowing for more breakaways and quick rushes up-ice. Tag-up offsides need to be installed: no more defenses stalling with the puck in their own zone until next Christmas just because some twit was half an inch offside on a dump-in. Third, it's time for the ties to end. Let's have a shootout if teams can't do it in OT.

 

Blah blah a lot of stuff gets cut here.

Bullfuckingshit they need to cut out the midline. People have been saying for years that cutting out the redline would make games more open-ended, and increase scoring, and as you said, it would allow for more breakaways and quick rushes up ice.

 

It flat out doesn't.

 

Speaking as a defenceman in an area where they experimented with eliminating the red line, it is absolutely a bad idea. Our team wound up putting one defenceman at our defensive blue line as a safety, then had the other defenceman and the centre playing between the red line and the offensive blue line, trying to keep the puck in our offensive zone but ready to get back if the other team even touched the puck. And sadly, this is the most effective strategy in a game without the red line. What you're going to see if you eliminate the red line is this:

 

A) There will be a couple ballsy teams that try and play offence like they usually do. These teams will be the victims of numerous breakaways, lose a lot of games 6-0 and 7-0 to start the season, and will wise up and become like column B teams by the All-Star game at the latest.

 

B) Everybody else will implement a really boring style of offence where they send in one, maybe two forecheckers, and keep everyone else back in case the other team's one or maybe two forecheckers get the puck and go somewhere. This will create a lot of two-on-threes and one-on-threes. Also, defencemen will have to cover back more and won't be able to hold the puck in the offensive zone, and thus you'll see even more boring play in the neutral zone.

 

Eliminating the red line? Bad idea.

[iggymcfly 0]

The idea of having half the teams in Canada is retarded. Canadian teams have to make it to at least the second round of the playoffs just to keep from going broke, and that's in the successful markets that already have teams. Montreal and Toronto are the only Canadian teams that are even capable of making a profit, and if they put a team in Regina, they would lose money even with a $20 million salary cap.

[the max 0]

Division winners get a bye, while first and second runners-up play one another....I've always liked the idea of a division champion.

 

You can't do a bye in any stretch of the imagination in the game of hockey. It creates a completely unfair advantage against the teams that actually have to play while the other team gets a bye.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Also, why name the divisions after heads of state? I didn't know anything about Abraham Lincoln's wicked slapshot. (Though I did hear Trudeau was a wizard in front of the net.) But seriously, Smythe-NORRIS-Adams-Patrick.

 

I was going more for the fact they were great leaders.....Why did you italicize Norris?

 

The idea of having half the teams in Canada is retarded. Canadian teams have to make it to at least the second round of the playoffs just to keep from going broke, and that's in the successful markets that already have teams. Montreal and Toronto are the only Canadian teams that are even capable of making a profit, and if they put a team in Regina, they would lose money even with a $20 million salary cap

 

I'm not talking about the mismanaged NHL, today's NHL. I'm talking an ideal, properly run league....yes, with a cap......But you don't think Regina could handle a 20 million dollar bill over the year? Even with luxury boxes, season tickets, advertising and tv money? I can't be the only one who thinks Regina could do it.

 

ou can't do a bye in any stretch of the imagination in the game of hockey. It creates a completely unfair advantage against the teams that actually have to play while the other team gets a bye

 

Fine....but the division winner deserves some kind of kudos....and 16 of 21 teams is absurd.

[the max 0]

So why have 16 teams? Since there's only 21 in this proposed league, why not make it that 8 make it? Maybe make the rounds a best-of-9 to make up for the loss of a round.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Yeah, you can have the top 2 winners from each division make it. Maybe division winners get 5 home games vs 4 away games if it goes to the full 9.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

I would like to defend the Ducks and say that they are better run now than in the beginning.

 

The Ducks should stay because we have rivally with Kings.

 

I agree Seattle, Winnipeg, and also Kansas City need a team.

 

What about the Capitals? They did not sellout their last playoff series. Anaheim has sold out every playoff series so far.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Also, why name the divisions after heads of state? I didn't know anything about Abraham Lincoln's wicked slapshot. (Though I did hear Trudeau was a wizard in front of the net.) But seriously, Smythe-NORRIS-Adams-Patrick.

 

I was going more for the fact they were great leaders.....Why did you italicize Norris?

I capital-bold-itali-lined Norris because the Norris Division was the shit, that's why. Brutal physical multi-way rivalry between tough cold-weather hockey hotbed cities....mmm, that's the good stuff.

[Dogbert 0]

I based my assumptions on the Ducks several ways.

 

First of all, this was the first year in a while that the Ducks did not finish in the bottom 5 in attendance. Even then, the team couldn't average 15 000 seats sold a game, a mark reached by 70% of teams. Descriptions of the Pond during home games were also a factor, as it has been described as hardly having 10 000 in attendance.

 

While this is happening, the Kings are averaging nearly 18 000 a game. This showed me that, in the battle for attention between the Ducks and Kings in two very close markets, Anaheim is losing badly.

 

The team needs a franchise player to get the market running again, and Sergei Fedorov isn't it. Worse, none of their high-end draft picks, such as Ryan Getzlaf and Ladislav Smid, have the potential to bring that "It Factor" to the Ducks.

 

Add it up, and this team's in trouble.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Most of the Kings seats are sold in group deals with Lakers tickets.

 

Ducks sold out all the suites in the Pond last season because they were in the Finals last year.

 

We have a few potential buyers for the franchise but the lockout has to end in order for anything to take place. The 2002-03 season was the first time in 10 years where the franchise was not badly mismanaged.

 

We will sell more seats as soon as the Los Angeles Ducks of Anaheim take the ice.* (Disney will probably try that in order to sell the team.)

[Red Baron 0]

The idea of having half the teams in Canada is retarded. Canadian teams have to make it to at least the second round of the playoffs just to keep from going broke, and that's in the successful markets that already have teams. Montreal and Toronto are the only Canadian teams that are even capable of making a profit, and if they put a team in Regina, they would lose money even with a $20 million salary cap.

Five years ago this statement would be true, but with the strength of the Canadian dollar as it is now, Vancouver, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto would not need to be in the playoffs to make a profit.

 

The problem in Canada is that one team gets far more attention (Toronto) than any other Canadian team. More attention, more times being on television broadcast to more TV Outlets equals more money.