|
Post by phillymike on Jan 7, 2012 19:55:31 GMT -6
Did I just hear that correct on The Hot Stove? Winnipeg players voted down the re-alinement plan? Too much travel to the US?
And Phoenix will have to be moved?
|
|
Wolfie
2nd Line Winger
Posts: 345
|
Post by Wolfie on Jan 7, 2012 20:00:21 GMT -6
Did I just hear that correct on The Hot Stove? Winnipeg players voted down the re-alinement plan? Too much travel to the US? That's what they said. With all American teams, there would be too much border crossing, so the Jets players didn't like it. Apparently only Detroit and Columbus players supported it.
|
|
|
Post by Snoopy on Jan 7, 2012 20:05:15 GMT -6
THey should be in the Calgary and Edmonton divison....
|
|
|
Post by hobble on Jan 7, 2012 20:51:45 GMT -6
So WPG would rather be with CGY EDM and possibly VAN?
Still, it would be better off in the Central conference rather than the SE division.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jan 8, 2012 1:22:14 GMT -6
Did I just hear that correct on The Hot Stove? Winnipeg players voted down the re-alinement plan? Too much travel to the US? And Phoenix will have to be moved? I'm surprised. With the expedited customs clearance available I would rather fly internationally than over three time zones. m.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2012 2:30:48 GMT -6
Well, I guess I will have to fight once again to get tickets to that one Jets game in Vancouver next season....IF they even come here, that is.
|
|
|
Post by jetsnordiquesfan on Jan 8, 2012 3:00:40 GMT -6
Assuming there's a season next year, I hope that if Nordiques returns that they won't have to play in the Pacific... if you thought the amount of travel for the Jets was big, then imagine Quebec having to travel back and forth to California... not to mention every road game will start at 10 PM for Quebec fans.
|
|
roo604
1st Line Centre
Posts: 437
|
Post by roo604 on Jan 8, 2012 3:15:17 GMT -6
if we were to have a lockout, I'd assume that part of getting the lockout resolved is having a proper schedule that everyone likes.
If relocation is in the cards during the lockou (which I think everyone feels is logical) there is no doubt they will address it in the schedule, Quebec wouldn't end up in Phoenix old spot.
I'd love to hear a good breakdown on which teams are going to get put under without hockey in their building during a lockout season...damages to fan bases in fragile markets will be trouble.
Islanders, Panthers, Stars, Coyotes, Blue Jackets etc
|
|
|
Post by Grumpz on Jan 8, 2012 10:25:30 GMT -6
Imagine, 4 work stoppages in a 20 yr period, which includes losing half a season and a full season.
I don't think Owners or players can afford it.
|
|
phreload
Alternate Captain "A"
Section 307 - Row 10 - Seat 4
Posts: 569
|
Post by phreload on Jan 8, 2012 12:44:47 GMT -6
if we were to have a lockout, I'd assume that part of getting the lockout resolved is having a proper schedule that everyone likes. If relocation is in the cards during the lockou (which I think everyone feels is logical) there is no doubt they will address it in the schedule, Quebec wouldn't end up in Phoenix old spot. I'd love to hear a good breakdown on which teams are going to get put under without hockey in their building during a lockout season...damages to fan bases in fragile markets will be trouble. Islanders, Panthers, Stars, Coyotes, Blue Jackets etc Would this potentially snuff out a weaker team? Correct me if I'm wrong but short term effects of a lockout with hurt successful teams through lost profits and benefit weak teams AKA Phoenix, Columbus Florida, Dallas through avoiding losses. Exception for any teams that own their arena where they will have no revenue streams to offset debt payments. A lockout would have universally negative effects all all parties in the long term to be sure
|
|
phreload
Alternate Captain "A"
Section 307 - Row 10 - Seat 4
Posts: 569
|
Post by phreload on Jan 8, 2012 12:47:10 GMT -6
if we were to have a lockout, I'd assume that part of getting the lockout resolved is having a proper schedule that everyone likes. If relocation is in the cards during the lockou (which I think everyone feels is logical) there is no doubt they will address it in the schedule, Quebec wouldn't end up in Phoenix old spot. I'd love to hear a good breakdown on which teams are going to get put under without hockey in their building during a lockout season...damages to fan bases in fragile markets will be trouble. Islanders, Panthers, Stars, Coyotes, Blue Jackets etc Would this potentially snuff out a weaker team? Correct me if I'm wrong but short term effects of a lockout with hurt successful teams through lost profits and benefit weak teams AKA Phoenix, Columbus Florida, Dallas through avoiding losses. Exception for any teams that own their arena where they will have no revenue streams to offset debt payments. A lockout would have universally negative effects all all parties in the long term to be sure <----- assuming it didn't result in a significant shift in profit sharing to the owners' benefit....
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 8, 2012 14:18:54 GMT -6
To an extent weaker teams might favour a lockout. Indirectly, they get a shortened season. They have trouble attracting fans to "meanignless" games in Oct/Nov/Dec as it is. Directly, they want a wage roll back and lower cap and lower floor.
I dont believe anything about "players voted down". Only a handful of players are likely educated enough on the ins and outs to make distinct choices. In Dec, the vast majority of players quoted were excited about the change. Since then, the PA propaganda masters have gotten a hold of them. Players vote with the union, whether they agree or disagree or know or dont know.
Regarding Grumpz: "Percentage wise, yes they do. 57.1% of the teams in a 7 team conference make it, vs. 50%.
It's got nothing to do with points, and everything to with how many teams are competing for how man spots."
I still see it as a non issue. If you have 100 teams in a conference then the percentage of teams making the playoffs is even lower but the amount of points needed to qualify doesn't change.
If you have to win 50 games to get in, you have to win 50 games regardless of how many other teams also want to win 50 games. It's not a tournament, it's a long season. Things such as the talent of the other teams have a greater impact than the amount of other teams because they all play the same amount of games.
A 7 team conference with much more talented teams makes it harder to make the playoffs than an 8 team conference with poor teams.
Like the media has pointed out, under the new proposal, the Jets would be 2nd last in their conference rather than 1 pt out and that has to do with the strength of the teams, not the amount of teams because it should be "easier" to make the playoffs in an 8 team conference than a 15 team conference and right now its "easier" for us.
|
|
|
Post by Ric O. on Jan 8, 2012 17:14:18 GMT -6
^ To say it's equally easy to finish in the top 4 in a 100 team conference as in an 8 team conference completely defies all logic and laws of probability and statistics.
Nowhere else to go with this one, but feel free to continue to debate it gentlemen...
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Jan 8, 2012 18:23:24 GMT -6
All I'm saying is the one extra team argument isnt a detriment, not when there are so many other factors that impact how many points a team gets in a season.
If you have 7 teams in a conference and the fourth place team gets 95 points and the fifth place team gets 94, how does having one extra team impact that at all? If you played more or less games, it would impact it. But the quality of the teams you play has more of an impact since all teams play the same amount of games.
|
|
|
Post by Grumpz on Jan 8, 2012 19:04:11 GMT -6
All I'm saying is the one extra team argument isnt a detriment, not when there are so many other factors that impact how many points a team gets in a season. If you have 7 teams in a conference and the fourth place team gets 95 points and the fifth place team gets 94, how does having one extra team impact that at all? If you played more or less games, it would impact it. But the quality of the teams you play has more of an impact since all teams play the same amount of games. So from a competition standpoint, you'd see no difference in competing with 6 teams for 4 playoff spots, vs. competing with 7? If not, I don't understand why. It's can't, it black and white.
|
|