the admiral

NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator

7,143 posts in this topic

On 1/17/2017 at 10:06 PM, Sodboy13 said:

Every story I've heard about Stan Mikita is a good story. Someone like him meeting a slow, withering end like this makes me sad.

 

Oh, look, here's a story on Stan Mikita's life with dementia, if you'd like to cry a bit.

 

His company makes the dipping sauce cups for Chicken McNuggets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 1:52 AM, CRichardson said:

In fairness to the league, I doubt most people even pay attention to who the trophy was named after. I bet a significant portion of modern hockey fans don't know who Clarence Campbell is either.

 

At least it's not directly named after him so the league can weasel out of it by saying that nowadays the name is a tribute to the title, not one of its holders. Or at least that's what they'd probably do if someone besides us brought up the fact that the trophy is named after a Nazi sympathizer.

A large percentage of fans probably wouldn't have a clue who the names are on the older trophies in any sports league

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask anybody under 30, hell 40, who George Halas, Lamar Hunt, Or Larry O'Brien were ad you'd probably get plenty of blank faces.

 

I'd assume most fans know who Vince Lombardi was, but I'd also assume I'd be surprised how many don't.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a kid, I thought the Wales Conference was named after the Hartford Whalers. I wasn't very bright. (I'm still kinda dumb.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen if the NHL would select eight new teams and then the league would increase to 40, those potential teams would be:

Atlanta Thrashers (based in Atlanta, Georgia)

Baltimore Skipjacks (based in Baltimore, Maryland)

Capitanes de Puerto Rico (based in San Juan, Puerto Rico)

Cincinnati Stingers (based in Cincinnati, Ohio)

Guerreros de México (based in Mexico City, Mexico)

Hamilton Tigers (based in Hamilton, Ontario)

Houston Aeros (based in Houston, Texas)

Indianapolis Racers (based in Indianapolis, Indiana)

Kansas City Scouts (based in Kansas City, Missouri)

Oakland Seals (based in Oakland, California)

Portland Lumberjacks (based in Portland, Oregon)

Quebec Nordiques (based in Quebec City, Quebec)

Saskatoon Ice (based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan)

Seattle Metropolitans (based in Seattle, Washington)

 

This is my point of view.

And also, I'm not doing concepts, but we're making discussions about this.

How your point of views about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way the NHL expands to 40 teams anytime soon. That would be a bad business decision, even by their standards.

 

For starters, Atlanta's already been through two NHL teams and I doubt the league's in a hurry to return there. Puerto Rico and Mexico City are definitely not getting teams. Hamilton wants a team but they would be wedged in between the Leafs and Sabres and neither team will have that. Houston has an arena perfectly suitable for the NHL, but whether the market would support an NHL team is another matter, or whether the owner of the Houston Rockets is willing to share the building with a hockey team (he isn't, see the relocated Houston Aeros of the AHL, now known as the Iowa Wild).

 

Oakland - and by extension, the entire San Francisco Bay Area - already has a team in the San Jose Sharks. They're more or less seen as a spiritual successor of the Seals. The Sharks have fans in San Jose, San Francisco, and in Oakland. Why put another team there when the Sharks have already got that entire market behind them? Yeah, the Los Angeles metropolitan area has two teams, but it's also the second most populous area in the United States. The San Francisco area as a whole has about the third of the population of LA. And even LA is about 6 million short of New York, which is why New York can support three teams. And while the New Jersey Devils aren't technically in New York, they're within the vicinity of NYC. Or rather, they're practically next door.

 

The only cities on that list I could see getting teams are Seattle and Quebec. At the moment, if there is another team added to the league then only one of them is getting that expansion franchise.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see.

 

1. Puerto Rico's economy is in the toilet and has a crippling debt crisis plus a 11.5% sales tax with a declining population.

 

2.  Why try Atlanta... Again?

 

3. Oakland?  See San José.

 

4. Baltimore/Cincinnati: See DC and Columbus, respectively. Plus, neither possess adequate facilities now or in the future; same with Seattle.

 

5. Indianapolis/Houston/Portland: Not economically feasible unless NBA owner also owns the franchise as they control the master lease and premium seat revenues and advertising. Indy seating bowl is like the NYI is too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle and Quebec are really the only foreseeable options as I don't see the NHL or any league for that matter going past 32 teams.

 

Quebec has an NHL ready venue, and my gut says that at some point in the next 5 years that Carolina moves there.

 

Seattle will be the expansion team 32 if and when their arena gets footing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Let's see.

 

1. Puerto Rico's economy is in the toilet and has a crippling debt crisis plus a 11.5% sales tax with a declining population.

 

2.  Why try Atlanta... Again?

 

3. Oakland?  See San José.

 

4. Baltimore/Cincinnati: See DC and Columbus, respectively. Plus, neither possess adequate facilities now or in the future; same with Seattle.

 

5. Indianapolis/Houston/Portland: Not economically feasible unless NBA owner also owns the franchise as they control the master lease and premium seat revenues and advertising. Indy seating bowl is like the NYI is too.

then they need to show this again to people:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Marcos Flamengo said:

And also, I'm not doing concepts, but we're making discussions about this.

 

We most certainly are not.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expansion beyond 32 is not likely to happen for at least 20 years, and will require the league to be more stable than it is, right now. We would need to see the NFL do it first. No league has any business expanding beyond what they show is viable.

 

If that point ever comes, though, 36 would be the likely number, with 6 divisions of 6 teams, each. 

 

Any in-depth conversation about team 33 and up should be in its own thread, not in this one.

 

Now, as for team 32, Seattle. Quebec will only be used to bail out a team that takes on too much water. If Seattle can't get it together and build an arena, who knows. The owners have proved that they'll give a franchise to any billionare with an arena and the cash, the League's best interests be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, goalieboy82 said:

then they need to show this again to people:

 

Really?.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2017 at 10:14 PM, cmm said:

When I was a kid, I thought the Wales Conference was named after the Hartford Whalers. I wasn't very bright. (I'm still kinda dumb.)

When I was a kid, it bugged me that Seattle could play Washington for the title because i thought they should be friends before it was explained to me that Washington referred to D.C. and not the state I was in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a really little kid, I also thought Washington referred to the state and not the capital, because I had never seen it referred to without the DC suffix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was little, I figured out that "Washington" in NBA Jam must refer to DC because it was in the Eastern Conference with Philadelphia and New York B)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing up in New Hampshire as a little kid I always thought it was really confusing that the Trail Blazers played in the Western Conference if they were in Portland, Maine :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atkinson has most votes, loses MVP to Simmonds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2017 at 3:13 AM, wildwing64 said:

They're more or less seen as a spiritual successor of the Seals.

If you really want to get technical they're considered the same franchise seeing as how the Seals/Barons franchise was merged with the then North Stars and the Sharks were "unmerged" even to the extent of being able to take some Minnesota players with them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now