Magnus

$250 million in losses later, Gosbee and co. will think to themselves "I should have just bought the Flames"...

This realignment groups the Original 6 teams together, thereby keeping the Wings and Hawks together, but moving the Wings into an "eastern" division, of sorts. The benefits of this setup are the preservation of the Wings-Hawks rivalry, along with the relocation of a few teams to more appropriate divisions. Vancouver now gets to play 3 division mates in its own time zone, for one. Dallas and Winnipeg also get division mates in their own time zone - plus, Winnipeg and Minnesota are together, at last.

Also included in this setup are the "select" matchups, whereby heated rivalries of the past can still be preserved through extra matchups, like Canucks-Flames, Avs-Wings, Rangers-Devils, Leafs-Sabres, etc. The select matchups also creates at least one intriguing new rivalry, a matchup of the two largest media markets (Los Angeles and New York). In order to minimize travel, the "select" games could all be played back-to-back, resulting in 4-game road trips or home stands.

This one I simply call "SCREW EVERYONE". It does allow the O6 teams to play a reasonable number of games against each other, but it also increases the travel burden for every team, thus making Detroit and Columbus' whining into a punishment for everyone.

How would the playoffs work in your realignment?

Playoff standings would be determined in a league-wide table from 1-30. Division winners would not be guaranteed spots, but ranked according to league standings as well. It's theoretically possible that an entire division could miss the playoffs. Heck, maybe 2 entire divisions...lol

UPDATE:

As I understand it, the Blackhawks are probably the team most upset by Detroit's departure to the East - leaving them the lone O6 team in the West. I attempted to rectify that for them, by eliminating conferences altogether, instead going with five divisions of six teams.

I was fascinated by that last proposal, so I made a quick graphic of it:

Offhand, I'd say a Columbus or Nashville hockey fan...anyway, any number of proposals by me or anyone else could have been better than the plan the GDNHL actually adopted. But that's what this thread is for, right?

EDIT:

For argument's sake, back in the O6 era, even a 50-game season saw teams playing all others 10+ times each. It's not unprecedented.

FWIW, the division with Iowa in it is the Midwest Division in their realignment, and in mine Iowa would be in the West Division, as opposed to the South. So it *almost* works...except for the Carolina bit.

Dear God. What is wrong with the AHL? How can you possibly put a team on the East Coast in the West Division, when nearly half the league is west of Carolina?

My fix. I emailed it to them as well.

One problem with that. Who would want to park their vehicle on a lot with that heat potential?

“The agreement requires the city to pay $15 million a year to buyer Anthony LeBlanc and his IceArizona partners to manage the city-owned Jobing.com Arena.

The buyers group projects that revenue could hit between $8 million and $11 million annually, effectively reducing the city’s $15 million annual outlay."

One problem: 8 million, or 11 million, is STILL less than 15 million.

"The alternative to voting on the hockey deal was to pursue a non-hockey arena manager that would’ve cost about $6 million, which is what the city has budgeted. The problem with that option was that it meant the almost certain loss of the Coyotes and the 41 hockey games in Glendale each year."

--

So...lose $4-7 million TO A PRIVATE BUSINESS, (after kickback revenues), or kick the team to the curb and pay $6 million to the arena manager only.

Hmmm...I wonder what the SMART CHOICE would have been?

So...if the city of Glendale is so insistent on keeping the team, why doesn't the city of Glendale just buy it? They wouldn't have to keep funneling money to private interests, at least.

Kind of Ironic that the area around where the Sundogs play is literally on fire...just sayin...

Hockey fandom plus "tra-la-la-la-la, I own stock in the team" would be such a critical mass of sanctimony that it would destroy the entirety of western civilization.

Okay...that's a bit much, I think. I'm assuming the overkill was just to go with the spirit of farce in this thread, though...

If it is farcical for fans to want to own a piece of their team, then I suggest you not only talk to the Packers' fans about it, but also every English football club that is owned by their fans (granted, none are in the Premiership). Not to mention the Sask Riders, Eskies and Blue Bombers, the Kitchener Rangers and the Prince Albert Raiders. Personally, I think the ownership structure could theoretically be tweaked to at least give fan-owners perks, like priority seating, if they can't get a monetary dividend out of it.

Owning a piece of paper that says "I helped keep my favourite team in town" would be a great thing to get young kids interested in sports, I think.

Well, I'm glad that there are millionaires and other well-to-do folks in the city, but that raises a new question. If there really is some magically as-yet unrealized passion for hockey in the desert, why can't a couple dozen/hundred/however many of these Glendale millionaires buy the team off the NHL? Do they not believe it can magically make money? Or are they all too smart for that, seeing how the city has thrown good money after bad all these years?

Because there isn't, they can't, and yes, they are.

Furthermore, the NHL would never approve that sale. As reported in the Bettman book, when the Oilers (I believe) were in peril, there was an offer from this conglomerate group of townsfolk dumping hats full of money onto the kitchen table. Bettman wouldn't allow that ownership group because he wanted there to be a solid majority owner.

Does he not know how the Packers have existed for practically their entirety? It can work. That kind of reasoning is blind, to me.

Well, I'm glad that there are millionaires and other well-to-do folks in the city, but that raises a new question. If there really is some magically as-yet unrealized passion for hockey in the desert, why can't a couple dozen/hundred/however many of these Glendale millionaires buy the team off the NHL? Do they not believe it can magically make money? Or are they all too smart for that, seeing how the city has thrown good money after bad all these years?

When a city has to sell off its own facilities to pay for a for-profit enterprise, something is terribly wrong. The team has NEVER EVER made profit, neither will it ever make profit in the desert. I wouldn't be surprised if businesses all around Glendale start closing up shop soon, eventually leaving only the Jobberdome left there. Congratulations, Glendale, you're on your way to becoming a ghost town.

It's still not good for Seattle to get a team right now. But of course, that's by design. The Coyotes now exist to suppress revenue.

A loss-leader, as it were. Lose money on one item to gain more on big-ticket ones, like the Wings...

If there's one league that'll expand its sport to a death trap of a region, fanbase-wise and environmental-wise, all while setting shop in a state home to legalized gambling, bookies and the brothel house in Reno, it's the GDNHL.

I'm not even sure the NHL is that lacking in fores--ah, it, they probably are...the CFL sure tried it and failed miserably, so why not the NHL?

My reason for it is attendance figures. I don't have a problem with either of the venues - I just wanted a more centralized location, and record setting attendance. Pretty sure you could get a full Penn State for two consecutive matches there - one Flyers hosting Pens and the other Pens hosting Caps - since those are the teams (Pens/Caps) that Gary Bettman seems to want to milk the most. Then Philly travels to DC.

or... they could always bring back the vet.

I see what you did there...

[double post]

What exactly is wrong with Quebec City?

(Quebec City) would be the smallest market in North American pro sports

Ahem...

Quebec (Lévis) : 765,706

Green Bay Metro Area: 311,098

Source: www.citypopulation.de

*I realize that the Packers have all of Wisconsin (6 million) behind them, but the Quebec City NHL team would have half of Quebec Province (and probably a sizeable portion of the Maritimes) on its side. That's at least 4 million potential viewers, which is enough of a market for an NHL team. Yes, there is the issue of exchange rates and corporate sponsorship, blah, blah - but most of the profitable teams in the NHL are north of the Canada-US border.

Pittsburgh in Heinz field is more suitable. The Flyers and the Penguins shoudn't have the same stadium.

I agree that using a stadium in your own city is preferable. The reason I picked a bunch of college stadiums (and I suspect, the reason that Detroit also did for their Winter Classic) was historic significance and spectacle (not to mention the fact that the Wolverines already proved what a success it could be with the Big Chill). I also don't think once a year is too often if they make it into a spectacle, like bowl season is for NCAA football.

Anyway, the point of using Penn State would be that it happens to be somewhat equidistant from both Philly and Pitt - roughly in the center of the state. Google Maps tells me it is a 2.5 hour drive from Pittsburgh, and 3.5 hours' drive from Philadelphia. (I realize that NHL teams take planes to cities further than 100 km away, but I'm just illustrating).

2.5 hours or 3.5 hours is a lot better on both teams than having to travel 6 hours to one city, and 6 hours to the other for the back-to-back. It also could put Penn State back on the national stage in a positive light...so there's that...