The New NHL 36 Team Alignment

Ironman Indy

2009 Most Generous Member of the Year,
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
2,213
Reaction score
16
Location
St. John's, NL
I just got off a conference call with Gary Bettman and Bill Daly at the league office.

They wanted me to draw up the new division alignment to include the 4 expansion teams, to be announced shortly

Here is a sneak peak at what I sent them



The new teams are Portland, Houston, Atlanta and Salt Lake City

Salt Lake and Atlanta begin play next season and Portland and Houston the year after

More teams, mean more playoff matchups ala MLB format

Winner in each division make up the top 3 seeds with best records making up 4 through 11 seeding

8th seed in each conference plays the 11th
and 9 plays 10 in a one game play-in

winner of those play a best of 3 and play the top seed
rest is 2-7, 3-6, 4-5, for each conference

Remember you didn't hear it from me, I could get in trouble

Here is what I proposed and was quickly shot down.



When Gary steps down I will present this to the new commissioner

36 teams are way too many, so is 32

We need to go back to 24

6 divisions. 3 per conference

top 2 in each divison make playoffs plus 2 wild cards from each conference
 
I know this all fun & games.... but I do believe that 36 is coming. Probably Houston, probably Atlanta 3.0. My gut tells me that another team out west (Portland, Salt Lake) and another Eastern team (maybe in Canada, QC ?) round it out.

They go to 4 divisions of 9. I expect playoff expansion, or at least a "play in" round. If that's the case, my preference would be:

Top 3 teams in each division make the playoffs. 4th place team hosts the 5th place team in a "play in". Could be one game, could be a best of 3, could be a two game aggregate. Winner moves into the 4th slot and place the division winner in Round 1.
 
I’m curious as to why the NHL would want to attempt to put another team in Atlanta again..
They had the ….

Atlanta Flames 1972-1980 (which ended up being sold to Calgary)
Atlanta Thrashers 1999-2011 (which ended up being sold to Winnipeg)

I’m not saying anything negative about this decision just curious as to why they’d try putting another team there.
I do like the idea of seeing the Quebec Nordiques have a team once again.
 
Oh Boy! The New Old NHL looks mighty tantalizing but I agree that Gary and Friends will likely (and greedily) expand the bejesus out of the already bloated and watered down league for the gazillions of green that'll be generated in "expansion" fees.
 
Unless there's a massive change of heart in the NHL front office, only way Quebec City is getting a team is if the Sens get sold and move there.
 
I’m curious as to why the NHL would want to attempt to put another team in Atlanta again..
They had the ….

Atlanta Flames 1972-1980 (which ended up being sold to Calgary)
Atlanta Thrashers 1999-2011 (which ended up being sold to Winnipeg)

I’m not saying anything negative about this decision just curious as to why they’d try putting another team there.
I do like the idea of seeing the Quebec Nordiques have a team once again.

Because it's a huge market. Atlanta & Houston are the two big ones that the NHL is not currently in. They will blame the team's poor play for the reason why it didn't work. A good team would bring in fans, and then the team succeeds. I'm not sure I buy it either..... but if they expand, I fully expect Atlanta to be one of the destinations (so long as there's a would-be owner, and reports suggest that there is)

Oh Boy! The New Old NHL looks mighty tantalizing but I agree that Gary and Friends will likely (and greedily) expand the bejesus out of the already bloated and watered down league for the gazillions of green that'll be generated in "expansion" fees.

Expansion fees are not hockey related revenues, so the owners get to cash in, and they don't have to share. They do create 23 new union jobs for the NHLPA though, so it's win-win. While I agree that expansion isn't really necessary, it generates a lot of money for a lot of people. If there's an opportunity, they'll do it.

Unless there's a massive change of heart in the NHL front office, only way Quebec City is getting a team is if the Sens get sold and move there.

I've never thought of the NHL front office being anti-Canada the way a lot of fans do. With Winnipeg #1 & Quebec City - they had owners who were bleeding money, and no local ownership groups willing to step up. We have no way of knowing how much effort was put into keeping those teams where they were, but I bet it wasn't zero.

Bettman did work his butt off to keep the Senators & Oilers where they are, when there were real risks of them moving.

When the owners in Atlanta through the proverbial keys on the table, and said "enough" - Winnipeg was ready to go, and the NHL seemed very happy to let that move happen.

I don't think QC would be their first choice, but I can see it happening if the ownership group is strong (it would be, in theory) and they've got three other groups who want to come in (need to make it an even four) in a short order.

At the end of the day, there's only so many people crazy enough to spend $750,000,000 on an NHL team. If they can raise $3 Billion in expansion fees, I think they'll do it, and I don't think they'd block QC, if that's one of the best four bids.

Having said that, I do think the NHL likes have QC in its back pocket, to use as leverage with other cities. "Hey Calgary, don't want to build a new arena? There's one in QC ready to go....". They had that with Winnipeg, and they've have that with QC now. That's a hard thing to give up.
 
Great topic. I would agree Houston would be a good market. One that is not mentioned is Kansas City. I would prefer them over Atlanta. Atlanta is only into the SEC Football. I have been to 2 Thrasher games in my travels and the last one had less than 2000 people.
Quebec City and possibly another Toronto team?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
389,423
Messages
2,232,455
Members
4,142
Latest member
Allechritoper08
Back
Top