[Rumour] NHL and Seattle talking about expansion fees (~$225M)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

How am I not capable for fans seeing how I am one?

And if I say that fans would love to see more hockey, which one of us is right?

You can speak for yourself as an individual, as can I. Neither of us can really claim to speak for all.

As for the players listed above. If they out with injuries, the playoffs suck for fans and that may affect and gate revenue. Do I need to break it down further?

Sure, you need to explain why this becomes a greater risk in a 32 team NHL than it is in a 30 team league. It is theoretically possible that all three could be hurt for the playoffs now. Or in a 25 game season. Or in a 1 game season. Your argument is silly speculation and baseless fear mongering, not a credible argument against adding two teams.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There is no reason to think or expect that the NHL would move to a longer schedule. The Eastern Conference is already formulated aroung 16 teams/2x8 team divisions. Expansion would even it out in the West.

Wrong.

Let's keep the Eastern Conference (EC) vs EC game as is now. Simply by adding 2 more teams to the WC (Seattle, Las Vegas lets say), EC teams will have the same number of games vs other EC teams, plus 4 more games against WC teams. That makes 86 games.

To prove my point further, lets look at a few scenarios:

5 games vs your Div = 5*7 = 35
3 games vs the other Div = 3*8 = 24
2 games vs the other Conf = 2*16 = 32
Total = 91 games

4 games vs your Div = 4*7 = 28
3 games vs the other Div = 3*8 = 24
2 games vs the other Conf = 2*16 = 32
Total = 84 games

5 games vs your Div = 5*7 = 35
2 games vs the other Div = 2*8 = 16
2 games vs the other Conf = 2*16 = 32
Total = 83 games

All totals over 82 games.

[strombad]

Just because you say "wrong" doesn't mean that it's actually wrong.

The NHL could simply take your last scenario and do 4 games against one of the division rivals (which would alternate every year) creating 82 games.

Problem solved, and I didn't even have to be hired by the NHL to do it, surely they could easily figure an 82 game schedule.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by strombad

Just because you say "wrong" doesn't mean that it's actually wrong.

The NHL could simply take your last scenario and do 4 games against one of the division rivals (which would alternate every year) creating 82 games.

Problem solved, and I didn't even have to be hired by the NHL to do it, surely they could easily figure an 82 game schedule.

yep, the NHL has done this before and will again.

Another option would be the NHL going the "rivalry" route and play all out of division teams twice and them play extra games against "rivals" to make 82 games

or since the NHL used to have an 84 game schedule they could just go back to that.

[Puppet Guy]

adding my voice to the name-game: MLB stole the name Colorado Rockies from the NHL's past, so the NHL should steal the name Seattle Pilots from MLB's past.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

adding my voice to the name-game: MLB stole the name Colorado Rockies from the NHL's past, so the NHL should steal the name Seattle Pilots from MLB's past.

I actually really like that name too. I would want the Pilots or Totems personally, but I wouldn't want to see the Metropolitans.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

adding my voice to the name-game: MLB stole the name Colorado Rockies from the NHL's past, so the NHL should steal the name Seattle Pilots from MLB's past.

Actually the ownership group paid the NHL a small fee for the name, I remember an old story from SI that talked about it. Jerry McMorris wanted the name because the logo of the rockies fit his trucking company look or something like that anyway. I think he was an orginal ticket holder of the NHL rockies as well.

[Free Ben Hur!]

Originally Posted by getbak

They have the nicest and newest arena in North America without a major league tenant.

How idiotic is this? Kansas City, KANSAS FATAING CITY, has $275M in extra scratch kicking around for a state of the art building with no tenant and an uber wealthy and hockey mad city like Calgary can't find the money for a new building? I don't get it. There is something drastically wrong here.

[Clarkey]

[QUOTE=Nehkara;4623916]The Sprint Center cost $276 million and has a capacity of 17,544 for hockey.

That's a beautiful building, I would love to see something like that here.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Free Ben Hur!

How idiotic is this? Kansas City, KANSAS FATAING CITY, has $275M in extra scratch kicking around for a state of the art building with no tenant and an uber wealthy and hockey mad city like Calgary can't find the money for a new building? I don't get it. There is something drastically wrong here.

Yes, there's something drastically wrong here, and it's in Kansas.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

That's a beautiful building, I would love to see something like that here.

Did you have to quote that post?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by strombad

Just because you say "wrong" doesn't mean that it's actually wrong.

The NHL could simply take your last scenario and do 4 games against one of the division rivals (which would alternate every year) creating 82 games.

Problem solved, and I didn't even have to be hired by the NHL to do it, surely they could easily figure an 82 game schedule.

TOTF's big mistake was assuming that every team has to play every divisional opponent the same number of times. In the current system, that is already not the case out east. Tampa Bay, for instance, plays Montreal, Florida, Toronto, Boston and Buffalo four times and Ottawa and Detroit five this year.

That being said, the 84 game scenario is the best mathematically. Problem is, that would only happen if the NHLPA agreed to it. And if the NHLPA agreed to it, it blows up his other argument about how expansion creates too much hockey for the players.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Yes, there's something drastically wrong here, and it's in Kansas.

Why is that? Just because they don't have a NBA or NHL team does not mean the facility sits empty all year. Plus the 275 million cost....315 in today's dollars is half what the same facility will cost in Calgary. If a new Flames arena like that was going to cost that much they probably already have the shovels in the ground.

[lanny9]

Originally Posted by flameswin

No offense, but playing devil's advocate is usually kind of lame, but in this case it's especially goofy, as there's no way in hell there wold be controversy or offense taken to an a totem pole.

How am I not supposed to take offence to that post? "lame" "goofy" all directed at my thought?

So you think playing devil's advocate is lame. Do you understand that most major decisions within business and government are looked upon from the other side, if they aren't that is when you run into major problems. Many large corporations employ people to do critical thinking and make their corporate ideas as bulletproof as possible and to do this they play devil's advocate, so still lame? Many politicians employ people to do the same thing, especially in media driven USA.

Totem poles are a part of their heritage and are very much cherished and as such could be opened up to a lot of scrutiny from those who want to create issue. You need to understand where those far left are coming from and the fact that they look to create issues with anything to do with anyone's heritage could be the problem here. That is all I am saying, but to say playing devil's advocate is lame is just childish imo.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by lanny9

How am I not supposed to take offence to that post? "lame" "goofy" all directed at my thought?



So you think playing devil's advocate is lame. Do you understand that most major decisions within business and government are looked upon from the other side, if they aren't that is when you run into major problems. Many large corporations employ people to do critical thinking and make their corporate ideas as bulletproof as possible and to do this they play devil's advocate, so still lame? Many politicians employ people to do the same thing, especially in media driven USA.



Totem poles are a part of their heritage and are very much cherished and as such could be opened up to a lot of scrutiny from those who want to create issue. You need to understand where those far left are coming from and the fact that they look to create issues with anything to do with anyone's heritage could be the problem here. That is all I am saying, but to say playing devil's advocate is lame is just childish imo.

Don't be mad about something you did being called "lame" and then call someone else childish.

You were playing devil's advocate using an issue that is totally irrelevant to the current issues regarding Native American content used in sporting franchises.
The problems are with:
A) Racist logos or phrases (Redskins/Wahoo)
B) Representations of actual native people (Black Hawk)
C) Misuse of traditional Native American actions (Braves celebration)

What you're claiming to play devil's advocate with isn't even relevant to the discussion, making you seem ignorant of the issues. If you're ignorant of the issues, don't attempt to play someone who isn't for the sake of "devil's advocate".

Trust me, I'm firmly part of the "far left" and being far left has nothing to do with the use of Native American imagery. We don't just make stuff up to get upset about. That post just made you look goofy.

[strombad]

Anyways, not trying to merge the two threads.

I think Seattle Totems would be excellent, but you DO have the issue of the Thunderbirds logo currently having that sort of imagery. I'm sure you could change it enough though, it's an excellent name.

Seattle is actually one of the few cities I find where most of the team names are pretty great already while also being relevant to the area. How many more names can they come up with that fit the mold?

[_Q_]

4 conferences of 8 teams = 32 teams

Each conference has 2 divisions (4 teams)

6 games against 3 division teams = 18
4 games against 4 conference teams = 16
2 games against 24 rest of league teams = 48

total = 82 games

It's very doable

[Resolute 14]

Doable, but not very likely. The NHL went to the current format with expansion obviously in mind. They aren't going to realign again so soon.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Doable, but not very likely. The NHL went to the current format with expansion obviously in mind. They aren't going to realign again so soon.

They wouldn't be re-aligning though. For example, the Pacific division, would just become the Pacific Conference which has two divisions. The North West division would include Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Seattle. The South West division would include all the California teams + Phoenix. There's no moving teams around into other conferences or divisions.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

TOTF's big mistake was assuming that every team has to play every divisional opponent the same number of times. In the current system, that is already not the case out east. Tampa Bay, for instance, plays Montreal, Florida, Toronto, Boston and Buffalo four times and Ottawa and Detroit five this year.

That being said, the 84 game scenario is the best mathematically. Problem is, that would only happen if the NHLPA agreed to it. And if the NHLPA agreed to it, it blows up his other argument about how expansion creates too much hockey for the players.

You could easily increase to 84 games if you eliminated two exhibition games. NHLPA would accept that as it would mean more revenue and a higher cap at the end of the day.