|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 12, 2015 5:16:29 GMT -6
I think its an easy choice solution.
Abandon the West vs East conference system, go to two national conferences like the MLB and NFL.
The IHC (international Hockey Conference), NAHC (North American Hockey Conference)
Expand 2 teams out west, Move Phoenix East and have 4 divisions in each conference North South East West
an Example
IHC (Wales Conference)
North- Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, Toronto East- Boston, NJ , New York R, Flyers South- Dallas, nashville, Vegas, Colorado West- Seattle*, Anaheim, LA, a Jose
NAHC (Campbell )
North- Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis East- New York I, Pitt, Columbus, Buffalo
South- Carolina. Florida, Tampa, Washington West- Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton
My way guarantees canadian participation in the playoffs. IT of course can be tweaked by market share for each conference, you allow for plenty of inter conference play and still keep the division rivalries as best as possible
Bettman would never think of this because he think the NHL should use the NBA model....which clearly doesnt work in a north to north east heavy sport.
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Jun 12, 2015 8:01:29 GMT -6
I would hate to be in a division with the Oilers, Flames and Canucks
|
|
|
Post by cheswick on Jun 12, 2015 8:12:05 GMT -6
Or they can just stick to 4 divisions and eliminate conference play. Play 2x's teams outside your division and the rest inter division. Then formulate divisions that span a maximum of two timze zones. The issues Detroit had with playing in the west was pacific coast trips. Playing one time zone over wasn't an issue.
Colorado goes to the pacific. Detroit goes to the central. Quebec goes to the atlantic.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 12, 2015 8:47:07 GMT -6
Or they can just stick to 4 divisions and eliminate conference play. Play 2x's teams outside your division and the rest inter division. Then formulate divisions that span a maximum of two timze zones. The issues Detroit had with playing in the west was pacific coast trips. Playing one time zone over wasn't an issue. Colorado goes to the pacific. Detroit goes to the central. Quebec goes to the atlantic. You could also just seed the playoffs 1-16 instead of two conferences would be fun to watch
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 12, 2015 8:48:07 GMT -6
I would hate to be in a division with the Oilers, Flames and Canucks Again that all can be adjusted I like having a guarantee of two Canadian teams in the playoffs every year
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Jun 12, 2015 9:16:02 GMT -6
I think its an easy choice solution. Abandon the West vs East conference system, go to two national conferences like the MLB and NFL. The IHC (international Hockey Conference), NAHC (North American Hockey Conference) Expand 2 teams out west, Move Phoenix East and have 4 divisions in each conference North South East West an Example IHC (Wales Conference) North- Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, Toronto East- Boston, NJ , New York R, Flyers South- Dallas, nashville, Vegas, Colorado West- Seattle*, Anaheim, LA, a Jose NAHC (Campbell ) North- Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis East- New York I, Pitt, Columbus, Buffalo South- Carolina. Florida, Tampa, Washington West- Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton My way guarantees canadian participation in the playoffs. IT of course can be tweaked by market share for each conference, you allow for plenty of inter conference play and still keep the division rivalries as best as possible Bettman would never think of this because he think the NHL should use the NBA model....which clearly doesnt work in a north to north east heavy sport. I like it aaaa-lot! (Jim Carrey quote)
|
|
|
Post by sting on Jun 12, 2015 11:37:26 GMT -6
It's not that hard to do. Just have Florida move to Quebec. That's the only change in the East. In the Pacific have Arizona move to Seattle. Expand to Las Vegas. Only leaves the central for a team. Expansion to either Toronto, Houston or Kansas City. Four divisions of 8.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 12, 2015 12:13:06 GMT -6
It's not that hard to do. Just have Florida move to Quebec. That's the only change in the East. In the Pacific have Arizona move to Seattle. Expand to Las Vegas. Only leaves the central for a team. Expansion to either Toronto, Houston or Kansas City. Four divisions of 8. whats tough about that is getting florida to move. yea thats what id do but its not that easy.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jun 13, 2015 0:07:45 GMT -6
Problem is travel arraingments. Unlike the NFL and MLB you play different teams all the time for only one night. costs go up a lot when you play in LA one night, then Toronto the next then back to San Jose because that's youre division. What I think would be best is to get rid of the Conferences (we don't use them for the All Star game anymore anyways) and just have 6 divisions of 5 teams and rank the playoffs 1 through 16. That or move Florida to Toronto and have them play in the Western Conference problem solved lol.
|
|
|
Post by sting on Jun 13, 2015 0:58:01 GMT -6
Milwaukee is a option, now that the Bucks are getting a new area. They would fit in the central division nicely and great rival to Chicago and St. Paul.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jun 13, 2015 1:00:23 GMT -6
^ I don't think Milwaukee is big enough to support the NHL and NBA, I would say it is comparable to Vancouver currently for that.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 13, 2015 1:38:25 GMT -6
Word is the Milwaukee arena will probably be a horseshoe and may not even have an ice plant for the Milwaukee admirals. Milwaukee isn't comparable to Vancouver because while neither city could support both NBA-NHL currently at least Vancouver is growing at a good clip and might be big enough for NBA-NHL someday.Milwaukee population is stagnant. Milwaukee=a stale rust belt city. There isn't one rustbelt city that is growing. Check out the growth rates of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo etc... Yikes!!!! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Statistical_AreaVancouver only has the Canucks too. Milwaukee already has the Brewers plus the Bucks if the arena gets built. You have to also keep in mind even with a new arena the Bucks will be one of the bottom revenue teams in the NBA. Only teams I could see them beating with a new arena are Memphis and New Orleans and that is if things go right. Milwaukee currently is the 4th smallest market in the NBA. Not only can't Milwaukee support MLB-NBA-NHL combined, I'm not sure it can support MLB-NBA. It's very tight for that even. I have a feeling we will be the new Glendale. No one cares about the Bucks. The arena is hugely unpopular here in Wisconsin. The state cut funding to the University of Wisconsin system yet they can give the Bucks at least $250M. It's going to be a total Glendale like disaster almost. The only saving grace in this is the NBA has a huge national tv deal so maybe we get lucky and avoid the dreaded "arena management fee" ala Glendale. The whole financing plan is also built on a house of cards(uncollected debt that won't be collected). One thing for sure, we do know the Milwaukee arena will seat 17,000 for NBA. Usually non-horseshoe arenas lose 1,000 seats for hockey when you remove the lower seats for the rink. If it's not a horseshoe and Milwaukee did magically find another 1M people you have the problem of only having 16,000 seats which means charging almost Winnipeg prices to make it. NOT GOING TO WORK!
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 13, 2015 20:06:54 GMT -6
Problem is travel arraingments. Unlike the NFL and MLB you play different teams all the time for only one night. costs go up a lot when you play in LA one night, then Toronto the next then back to San Jose because that's youre division. What I think would be best is to get rid of the Conferences (we don't use them for the All Star game anymore anyways) and just have 6 divisions of 5 teams and rank the playoffs 1 through 16. That or move Florida to Toronto and have them play in the Western Conference problem solved lol. i think you would have to play back to back in the same city which isnt necessarily bad.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 13, 2015 20:08:53 GMT -6
Word is the Milwaukee arena will probably be a horseshoe and may not even have an ice plant for the Milwaukee admirals. Milwaukee isn't comparable to Vancouver because while neither city could support both NBA-NHL currently at least Vancouver is growing at a good clip and might be big enough for NBA-NHL someday.Milwaukee population is stagnant. Milwaukee=a stale rust belt city. There isn't one rustbelt city that is growing. Check out the growth rates of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo etc... Yikes!!!! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Statistical_AreaVancouver only has the Canucks too. Milwaukee already has the Brewers plus the Bucks if the arena gets built. You have to also keep in mind even with a new arena the Bucks will be one of the bottom revenue teams in the NBA. Only teams I could see them beating with a new arena are Memphis and New Orleans and that is if things go right. Milwaukee currently is the 4th smallest market in the NBA. Not only can't Milwaukee support MLB-NBA-NHL combined, I'm not sure it can support MLB-NBA. It's very tight for that even. I have a feeling we will be the new Glendale. No one cares about the Bucks. The arena is hugely unpopular here in Wisconsin. The state cut funding to the University of Wisconsin system yet they can give the Bucks at least $250M. It's going to be a total Glendale like disaster almost. The only saving grace in this is the NBA has a huge national tv deal so maybe we get lucky and avoid the dreaded "arena management fee" ala Glendale. The whole financing plan is also built on a house of cards(uncollected debt that won't be collected). One thing for sure, we do know the Milwaukee arena will seat 17,000 for NBA. Usually non-horseshoe arenas lose 1,000 seats for hockey when you remove the lower seats for the rink. If it's not a horseshoe and Milwaukee did magically find another 1M people you have the problem of only having 16,000 seats which means charging almost Winnipeg prices to make it. NOT GOING TO WORK! the thing is, Wisconsin is a hockey state, a HUGE american hockey state. I think it could work there but it is probably too late for that city to become an NHL market
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jun 13, 2015 20:22:15 GMT -6
^ Not if the Bucks move. Its just too small to support the Bucks and NHL.
|
|