NHL Expansion: Back to Atlanta?

[Pete]

38 minutes ago, siddious said:

 

im fine with expansion. Talent being watered down is innacurate. Teams were tanking when there were 30 teams too. If hockey was a wildly unpopular sport that was shrinking in viewership and participation then I would say expansion is a bad idea but there are more hockey players than ever right now. Talent finds a way when there is opportunity. 

 

Just fix the schedule. Starts in early September. You don’t have to play each team every year - give me more divisional games. 

More people playing hockey and watching hockey has nothing to do with putting hockey back in markets where it already failed in some cases twice. 

 

I'm all for moving teams, but expansion to 34 teams is ridiculous. 

 

Next time you complain about useless fourth-liners I'll remind you that you don't think the talent pool is diluted. 

Edited yesterday at 02:45 AM by Pete

[Pete]

43 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

NHL draws talent all over the world tho. NFL only drafts US college students. There’s a much much bigger pool of talent in hockey

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point... The most popular sport in North America is the NFL. There is no way that NHL should have more teams. 

[Albatrosss]

Just now, Pete said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point... The most popular sport in North America is the NFL. There is no way that NHL should have more teams. 

But hockey has more talent than the NFL, so more teams in hockey could make more sense. 

[Pete]

Just now, Albatrosss said:

But hockey has more talent than the NFL, so more teams in hockey could make more sense. 

Not remotely true. NFL rosters is 52 players.

[Albatrosss]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

More people playing hockey and watching hockey has nothing to do with putting hockey back in markets where it already failed in some cases twice. 

 

I'm all for moving teams, but expansion to 34 teams is ridiculous. 

 

Next time you complain about useless fourth-liners I'll remind you that you don't think the talent pool is diluted. 

Its like life—talent pool is diluted. This board is case in point. lolol

[Albatrosss]

Just now, Pete said:

Not remotely true. NFL rosters is 52 players.

There are hockey leagues all over civilized world. Football only has one league. 

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Albatrosss said:

There are hockey leagues all over civilized world. Football only has one league. 

That's also not true. NFL CFL and leagues all over Europe. 

[Albatrosss]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's also not true. NFL CFL and leagues all over Europe. 

Seriously?  Thats like comparing NHL to ECHL

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Albatrosss said:

Seriously?  Thats like comparing NHL to ECHL

Who cares? This has nothing to do with any point I was making about the popularity of the sport.

 

 

[Albatrosss]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

Who cares? This has nothing to do with any point I was making about the popularity of the sport.

 

 

The convo is not about popularity in US, it’s about the talent pool

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

The convo is not about popularity in US, it’s about the talent pool

That might be yours but it was never mine. 

[Albatrosss]

34 minutes ago, Pete said:

That might be yours but it was never mine. 

Get with the convo, bro.  

[Sharpshooter]

Bring back the Thrashers. lol The name was perfect and I loved the uniforms.

[LindG1000]

10 hours ago, Pete said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point... The most popular sport in North America is the NFL. There is no way that NHL should have more teams. 

Based on what? 

 

The NFL hasn't expanded because it literally hasn't got room to do it. Sustaining an NFL team requires far more revenue, far more fans, and far more stadium costs. Off the cuff, it's probably by a factor of 3, maybe 4. There aren't many more cities that can sustain an NFL team and don't have one in North America—and that fact is one of the key reasons college football is the next biggest sport. The NFL also has some rather strict television rights limitations it has to abide by to give space to college football and high school football - if you've ever wondered why the NFL schedule starts to get very random after December 3 or so, those sports end and the broadcast room opens up.

 

So there's a market cap issue in North America, and there's a market access issue with the broadcast rights. Neither of which is an issue the NHL faces - and of note, neither of which is an issue with available talent "watering down" the league.

 

The NHL, on the other hand, has far lower costs. The stadium needs are far cheaper. The talent costs less. It can be - heck, it has been - supported, by smaller numbers of frankly, less engaged fans. That allows for the NHL to be in more markets. Cheaper barrier to entry, cheaper maintenance of fans, can pick spots better because of it. It's apples and oranges, and what's worse is that the NHL is having their lunch eaten on this exact game by the MLS right now. 

 

That they've chosen poorly and chosen to prop up stupid things like having a team in the Phoenix suburbs instead of in the actual city for twenty fucking years, or continuing to support Winnipeg is a business decision that has nothing to do with your original point that there is no talent. What's more, the idea that the NHL shouldn't be in two of the biggest, fastest-growing cities in the US is almost indefensible.

 

 

 

 

[LindG1000]

10 hours ago, Pete said:

That might be yours but it was never mine. 

 

19 hours ago, Pete said:

Bro there are teams winning less than 20 games a season. There's absolutely a talent dilution.

 

Yea, 4th liners are more skilled than in 1990, but that's not the issue. Pulling a Michigan doesn't make you a hockey player.

 

19 hours ago, Pete said:

The problem is the league is too big and watered down, they already play too many games and they already have too little rivalry.

 

It's generic as fuck and you don't fix that by adding more teams.

 

11 hours ago, Pete said:

Yes it is, because a lot of these teams fail because they aren't good, and never have been, and that leaves right back to dilution of talent along with mismanagement. They're literally only sustained by the worst players in the league going there.

 

Your point is what's completely irrelevant. 

 

When the most popular sport on NA has x amount of teams, The 6th most popular shouldn't have more. It makes less than zero sense. 

 

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

Based on what? 

If I have to explain this to you, then you're too far gone for me to waste my time. 

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

 

 

 

My guy.... My point about the popularity of the NFL versus the NHL had nothing to do with my point about dilution of talent. They are two separate arguments. I didn't think that needed to be explained to you, but apparently you need to be spoon-fed common sense. 

[LindG1000]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

If I have to explain this to you, then you're too far gone for me to waste my time. 

You're making no point here besides stomping your feet, saying you don't like it, and then shifting the goalposts and doing it again. If you don't like the idea, sure, but your reasoning is nonsensical, unsupported, and constantly shifting through topics.

[Ozzy]

Hey!  I have a great idea!

 

I'd like it if they'd just leave the fucking game alone and not try to "improve" it. 

BUT

If we're gonna improve it here's a couple of ideas I'd like to see:

 

Get rid of the loser point system (I don't care how...just do it!)

Get rid of the salary cap and go to a "Luxury Tax" type system.

 

That's enough for me!

 

[LindG1000]

1 minute ago, Ozzy said:

Hey!  I have a great idea!

 

I'd like it if they'd just leave the fucking game alone and not try to "improve" it. 

BUT

If we're gonna improve it here's a couple of ideas I'd like to see:

 

Get rid of the loser point system (I don't care how...just do it!)

Get rid of the salary cap and go to a "Luxury Tax" type system.

 

That's enough for me!

 

I mean, I think they should be actively trying to improve the game. One of the reasons the NFL is so popular is because there's something new every year. They're going to call Pass Interference slightly differently. They're changing kickoffs to encourage more returns. 

 

They iterate on the on-field product all the time. The NHL could learn from that.

[Ozzy]

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

I mean, I think they should be actively trying to improve the game. One of the reasons the NFL is so popular is because there's something new every year. They're going to call Pass Interference slightly differently. They're changing kickoffs to encourage more returns. 

 

They iterate on the on-field product all the time. The NHL could learn from that.

 

Have you seen that new Kickoff system?  It's like the "Participation Trophy" version of football.  I think it doesn't do anything to improve the NFL other than now there's even less kickoff returns where guys can feel contact.

 

I get what you're saying, G man...It's just that I think there are bigger issues in the game than expansion to areas that have failed miserably in the past.  I always looked at hockey as a "cult" kinda sport.  I don't think they're gonna get THAT kind of support to keep teams profitable over the long haul in cities like Atlanta.

 

I watched the Flames go up in smoke with guys like Willie Plett and Eric Vail.  They were a decent team back in the old Patrick Division days, and they were forced to move to Calgary because of the lack of interest down there.  So things are gonna be different now?  I don't think so....but the NHL never learns.

 

You know, when I think about it, this league probably won't improve until they move on from Gary Bettman.  I never liked him and I think his ideas are very gimmicky, for lack of a better term.  I think the league will improve the day they unload his ass and get someone else.

 

 

[Pete]

29 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

You're making no point here besides stomping your feet, saying you don't like it, and then shifting the goalposts and doing it again. If you don't like the idea, sure, but your reasoning is nonsensical, unsupported, and constantly shifting through topics.

I'm sure you believe that. That's why I have neither the time or the crayons for you.

[Albatrosss]

35 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

You're making no point here besides stomping your feet, saying you don't like it, and then shifting the goalposts and doing it again. If you don't like the idea, sure, but your reasoning is nonsensical, unsupported, and constantly shifting through topics.

[LindG1000]

31 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

 

Have you seen that new Kickoff system?  It's like the "Participation Trophy" version of football.  I think it doesn't do anything to improve the NFL other than now there's even less kickoff returns where guys can feel contact.

 

I get what you're saying, G man...It's just that I think there are bigger issues in the game than expansion to areas that have failed miserably in the past.  I always looked at hockey as a "cult" kinda sport.  I don't think they're gonna get THAT kind of support to keep teams profitable over the long haul in cities like Atlanta.

 

I watched the Flames go up in smoke with guys like Willie Plett and Eric Vail.  They were a decent team back in the old Patrick Division days, and they were forced to move to Calgary because of the lack of interest down there.  So things are gonna be different now?  I don't think so....but the NHL never learns.

 

You know, when I think about it, this league probably won't improve until they move on from Gary Bettman.  I never liked him and I think his ideas are very gimmicky, for lack of a better term.  I think the league will improve the day they unload his ass and get someone else.

 

 

 

As an obsessive NFL and CFB watcher...I'm down on the new kickoff system, but I also want to give kickers time to figure it out. It changes the incentive from basically just kicking the piss out of the ball (because starting on the 20 was very acceptable) to placing the kick inside the 5. Still, the greater point is that they recognize something they don't like and they actually try to change it. There's no bullshit about the sanctity of the sport; there's no "well, we can't do it because xyz" - they try something that they feel could actively make the sport better.

 

As for the rest - yeah, there are some big issues, but one of the things I think the league has learned in the last 12 years is how to expand correctly and profitably. They've cracked the code to an extent, and they're going to get 2 billion+ in expansion fees for these two teams. Two teams that will be rather competitive from the jump in markets where there is a desire for a team, brand new arenas for the team, and bluntly, markets where 10% of the market share should be sufficient to ensure consistent financial health. 

 

Put another way - Winnipeg and Columbus being problems doesn't make me think Houston and Atlanta aren't worth expanding to, because there's so much room between Houston and Winnipeg as market quality goes. 

[Ozzy]

3 hours ago, LindG1000 said:

 

As an obsessive NFL and CFB watcher...I'm down on the new kickoff system, but I also want to give kickers time to figure it out. It changes the incentive from basically just kicking the piss out of the ball (because starting on the 20 was very acceptable) to placing the kick inside the 5. Still, the greater point is that they recognize something they don't like and they actually try to change it. There's no bullshit about the sanctity of the sport; there's no "well, we can't do it because xyz" - they try something that they feel could actively make the sport better.

 

As for the rest - yeah, there are some big issues, but one of the things I think the league has learned in the last 12 years is how to expand correctly and profitably. They've cracked the code to an extent, and they're going to get 2 billion+ in expansion fees for these two teams. Two teams that will be rather competitive from the jump in markets where there is a desire for a team, brand new arenas for the team, and bluntly, markets where 10% of the market share should be sufficient to ensure consistent financial health. 

 

Put another way - Winnipeg and Columbus being problems doesn't make me think Houston and Atlanta aren't worth expanding to, because there's so much room between Houston and Winnipeg as market quality goes. 

 

As far as the kickoff system goes, why not just back the kicker up and make him kick it from the 20 yard line?  That would pretty much eliminate the touchback, excapt where your kicker is either downwind or bionic!  Thing is, I think they wanted to do away with excessive full speed contact, AND also try to eliminate touchbacks.

 

Football to me is indeed a very high contact sport, and with the growing leg strength of some of these kickers nowadays, the 50 yard field goal is a chip shot. 

I'm a purist, G Man...I know you probably know that.  I like the old days and I don't greet change very well.  I'm an old foogy!  LOL  I think the NFL should be pretty much set in stone, and anything they do to "puss-ify" it detracts from it.  They make so much money with their TV contracts & pretty much the world stands still on Sundays.

 

Hockey isn't footbal, and certainly NOT the NFL in my opinion.  Although Bettman may think he can do what the NFL does, I don't think he can.  I also think that if you expand any more, you're gonna have players that would normallybe playing in the AHL, playing in the NHL.  To me that;s a bad product.  I wanna see more guys like Panarin, and Fox....not a bunch of Brodzinsky's.

 

I'd really like to see them do away with OT, and the current salary cap the way it is set up right now, but that's a chat for another time