Similar to my earlier post regarding a proposed realignment and restructure of the NBA, I feel the need to address the situation of the NHL. Yet another league that has just enjoyed one of the more entertaining and exciting postseasons in recent memory (though I may be biased as I live around Boston), the NHL is going through a small renaissance of sorts. The lockout they endured not too many seasons ago shied away many fans, but it was not the sole reason the popularity of the sport declined. However, it is making a comeback, and though the NHL may never eclipse the popularity of the NFL, they do look to be adding a new generation of fans within the past couple years. Certainly to thank would be the new rules installed post-lockout that encourage exciting, fast play, as well as the hard salary cap that ensures a stingy owner cannot submarine the team's competitiveness by refusing to pay for talent.
Bettman's Sun Belt expansion/relocation was miscalculated, and I think on this we can all agree. Expanding hockey into southern US states worked in some cases (Dallas, Anaheim), but you can't force a game onto a population that does not grow up around the sport. Hockey will always do well in Canada, and in the northern parts of the States where it is already a tradition and part of life in the winter months. Nashville? Raleigh? Miami? These are not hockey cities, and I know it pains the diehards to watch the Stanley Cup skated around the ice when outside the arena it's 95 degrees (I'm looking at you, Tampa/Carolina/Anaheim).
Besides, the NHL isn't a league that needs 30 teams. The league worked best before Bettman went expansion-crazy in the '90s, and it could be much more prosperous in a situation that keeps its teams in areas where the fan base cares and realizes that what's important is not the quantity of teams. The talent level has grown in recent years due to the influx of European and Russian skaters, but I still think 30 is too big for the league. If I was Commissioner of Sports and lived in my ideal world, I'd be cutting the NHL down to 24 teams, 12 in Canada, 12 in the US, and split up the conferences as so, allowing every Stanley Cup to feel like a Border War. Of course, since this is a good idea, it will never happen.
My more realistic dream would be to break up the Sun Belt teams and either contract them or relocate them to a region that will give a shit. This plan is already in motion, as Atlanta finally admitted they made a mistake, and granted Winnipeg a team to call their own again. Let's continue with the shakeup: Gone are the Hurricanes, Panthers, and Lightning, three teams whose fan bases spend more time in the Sun in one week than a hockey player spends on the ice in a month. Columbus is not a pro sports town, and any professional major league team who has a cartoony wasp in the wrong colors as their mascot should have had the team taken away long ago (yeah, Charlotte, that's a dig at your old basketball team, who looks like they won't be in New Orleans much longer either). The Nashville Sabertooth Fossils can remove themselves as well, along with the Phoenix Coyotes (that was never going to work) and the San Jose Sharks, who despite having the best team in their division for four years running, simply cannot fill their arena. We'll move this talented group to a city that cares.
That makes seven teams I'd like to see moved or contracted. In response to this, I'd like to see five markets served with their own franchise, giving us a net loss of two teams. These new (or revisited) cities I'd like to propose would be Quebec City, Hamilton, Hartford, Seattle, and Green Bay.
Hear me out. Quebec is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, and the Nordiques are a much-beloved franchise missed not only by their loyal fans, but also by hockey fans in general. Same goes for Hartford and the Whalers. In the past few years, Whalers merchandise has come back into popularity in New England, with many of the old fans and new hopefuls clamoring for a return of their green-and-blue clad skaters.
The new ideas are Hamilton, Seattle, and Green Bay. Seattle has a long hockey history, stretching back to the Metropolitans of the Pacific Coast Hockey Association in the early 1900s and currently being carried on by the Thunderbirds of the Western Hockey League (who look strikingly similar to the 1990s Whalers and current Vancouver Canucks). Seattle is a city of rabid sports fans, as evidenced by their quick and passionate support of Sounders FC in MLS.
It's long been said that the Toronto area can support another team, and in my opinion Hamilton would be a perfect place to host them. They certainly have the population and growth rate to support a professional team, and the nearby hockey cities of Toronto, Buffalo, and Detroit would make for some quick, fun rivalries between the teams. And let's be honest: It can never be a bad thing to bring hockey into a big Canadian city, right?
Lastly is Green Bay, and this is my biggest question mark in the fake plan that I'm making up now and definitely will never come to fruition. However, bear with me. Green Bay isn't the biggest city in the world, it's not even the biggest city in its own state. However, really the only things to do in Green Bay (I imagine, I've never been) are watch the Packers, talk about the Packers, or go ice fishing. Considering the intense passion and dedication these sports fans show to their football team, I don't think a hockey team in town would be a disaster. With the Packers' season over in early February at the earliest each year, having another sports team in the city of Green Bay that could continue play into the summer months could be a rousing success. The nearby Resch Center only has a capacity around 10,000, but I have to believe that a renovation and expansion in order to bring an NHL team to Green Bay would be a welcome process. Besides, the Canadian city of Saskatoon has been discussed as a future NHL site, and their population a) is smaller than Green Bay's, and b) isn't exactly known for their rabid sports fandom. The other place I'd consider for this last spot would be bringing a team to Portland's Rose Garden. Portland could be a viable NHL city in the way that it's a wholly viable NBA city, but for now, I'll pencil in Green Bay as our last introduction.
So, we are left with 28 teams. With the reduction in franchises, we no longer have a need for six divisions. What makes sense in this case are four seven-team divisions within two conferences, broken down in the traditional structure of East-West and divided as to reduce cross-time zone travel. Below is what this new league would look like, taking all of the previous moves into consideration:
There. That feels better, doesn't it?
The problem this now presents us with is scheduling. We've cut two teams and realigned all our divisions; current scheduling formats won't work with this new look. Aiming towards retaining the 82 games that have been standard since the 1995-96 season, I've broken the proposed schedule down as such: Five games against all other teams within the division (intra-divisional), for a total of 30 games. The odd game against each team would alternate hosts each year. Additionally, teams would play three games against all opponents that are within the same conference but outside the division (inter-divisional), giving us another 21 games, for a current total of 51. The extra home game would be alternated in the same manner as the intra-divisional games. Each team would then faceoff against every team outside their conference (inter-conference) twice in a home-and-home series. This new format ensures, unlike the current scheduling methods, that fans will have the opportunity to see every team in the NHL at least once in their home team's arena. This adds up to 28 games, totaling 79. With the three additional games we can follow an idea introduced by the NFL and that I adopted in my earlier post about reorganizing the NBA: each team plays one additional game against the team in each division that finished in the same place in the standings the previous year. That brings us to 82 games, a full NHL season.
One of the things I like most about this potential scheduling method is that there are an uneven number of games against all opponents within a team's conference (except the one opponent in the other division with the additional game as noted above), ensuring that the season series between teams will always have a definitive winner. This could open the door for challenge trophies as we see in college football, where the winner of the season series takes home the trophy for the year. As if we needed an added incentive for a Bruins-Canadiens or Red Wings-Blackhawks series, we might actually see hardware exchange hands as well. Talk about an interesting proposition.
With the altered alignment and scheduling system, the playoff system needs a little tweaking. We will guarantee playoff spots for the top three teams in each division, with the division winners being seeded no lower than fourth, therefore rewarding them with home ice in the first round. The remaining two spots in each conference go to the two remaining teams with the most points. We don't want a situation where the fourth-placed team in the weakest division gets into the playoffs with less points than the fifth-placed team in the other division, therefore giving us a weaker field for the playoffs. We want the best quality tournament we can get. We can retain the reseeding that is currently done after each round, and I would suggest keeping the seven-game series in every round as well. We know the Stanley Cup Playoffs work incredibly well, so let's not go messing around with the format too much.
It's my opinion that all of the changes mentioned in this post would make the NHL a much stronger and more successful league. I'm sure not all of these changes will ever be adopted, in fact most might never see discussion outside this blog. But Atlanta is packing up and moving to Winnipeg, so I guess anything is possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment