NHL "Fixit" Idea [Archive] - Inline Hockey Central

ACCCT2

10-06-2007, 04:45 PM

Actually, it's a great idea that has quite frankly save professional hockey (and "pro" sports in general) in Europe.

As for "DblJ44" so-called "problems" --

1) Not really an issue, as it would make owners and GM's more responsible with their long-term contracts. It might also force a realistic re-thinking of especially "guaranteed" contracts and what a "2-way" contract might really mean under such a "relegation/promotion" system -- at the very least possibly "incentivizing" contracts with "2-way" levels of pay that are dependant on whether a team is 'at' the NHL level or not (and for how long).

Those who think this "2-way" contract "incentivization" system would cause an exodus of NHL players to 'other' leagues (especially the European & Russian "Elite" leagues) should realize that pay-scales (in any sport) are basically set and competed-for by the premier "pro" league within that sport -- and at even its worst, the NHL is at least that, the sport's premier league -- and further, the NHL going to a "relegation/promotion" format would most certainly have all of their teams and players under very carefully worded, "incentivized" and NHL/NHLPA-vetted contracts that obviously would take into account the contract 'landscape' (and 'demand') of non-NHL competition for players' services.

2) Trust me -- as a New Yorker, the Rangers finishing "in the tank" (7 years in a row OUT of the playoffs, 8 with the lockout, before last year's edition) has never meant "sink-or-swim" for either the league or other local teams like the Devils and Islanders -- and conversely, their being "in the picture" has certainly never really meant anything as far as a meaningful network broadcast contract is concerned.

Interestingly, at the very least, this "relegation/promotion" concept would conceptually bind together the game at all levels (NHL & minor-pro, etc.) MUCH, MUCH closer and because of this more inclusive and broader "footprint" and "presence", might possibly and finally give it the BEST chance of securing a meaningful, "incentivized" and lucrative LONG-term broadcast contract.

And I think it would certainly stand the sport a much better chance of finally doing away with the all-too-often "mailed-in" performances of those teams and players who think that just "making" it to the NHL is enough, as they certainly wouldn't "be there" very long under a "relegationpromotion" system...

TULaw

10-06-2007, 04:46 PM

I like the idea and I think it could be done, but not in the manner that they mentioned on slate. Here is my idea. create a whole new league. Thus we would have the NHL division one or premier league or whatever you want to call it and you would have NHL2 or division two or league two, whatever creative name the marketing guys come up with. Here is why it would work. The NHL still controls all teams. Also, the league as it is cant sustain anymore expansion, yet we have many cities with nice new arenas that want NHL teams such as Winnipeg, Kansas City, Quebec City, Oklahoma City but there just isnt any room for them. Thus a new rule would be that all expansion teams must start in NHL2 and work their way up to NHL1 if the owner chooses to spend the money and build an NHL caliber team or simply stay put in NHL 2. So this is how it would work the first year, lets say you give 6 new cities expansion teams. the teams could be:

Winnipeg Jets

Quebec Nordiques

Kansas City

Oklahoma City

Seattle

Milwaukee

then we would add the bottom 6 teams from the NHL to this league, thus giving you a 10 team league.
The NHL2 champion would then get an automatic berth into the NHL playoffs (giving you a nice potential underdog story) and a spot in the next years NHL. while the last place team in the NHL that season would placed into NHL2.
this would format wouldnt have the problems of teams from say the CHL who play in minor league caliber buildings in towns way too small for NHL teams. all the teams in both NHL1 and NHL2 would be playing in NHL caliber buildings, would be subject to the same sallery cap and rules etc. and both leagues would be under NHL control for marketing and rights purposes.

thus NHL 1 would be a 24 team league ( a decent size league) and NHL 2 would be a 12 team league the first year but could be expanded eventually to maybe a 24 team league as well.

ACCCT2

10-07-2007, 12:16 PM

Interesting that this "relegation/promotion" topic isn't getting more reply/input, as it's truly a subject worth exploring and expounding upon, don't you think (hmmm, is it something I said?;))...

MajorTomFoolery

10-29-2007, 04:33 PM

A two-tier league is quite an interesting idea, and I think TUlaw expanded in the right direction. I still have difficulty seeing the NHL on Versus, though. And I agree that they need to be under the NHL.

MajorTomFoolery

10-29-2007, 04:37 PM

The realistic problems with this are:

1. A team being removed from the NHL to a lower level league will then move most or all of the clubs "pro" rosters to the promoted team if they are in the same system. Devils go down River rats go up, Brodeur buys a house in Albany.

2. The New York Rangers finish in the tank and you loose the biggest market in the league. And not everyone in NYC is traveling to the island to support the Islanders or to NJ to see the Devils.

I agree with point #1. True, contracts may oblige a player to the bottom of the basement. But then players won't sign with borderline teams, meaning these lower tier one teams won't grow. Would you sign with a 10-year contract with Nashville if you knew they might not play in the NHL?

MajorTomFoolery

10-29-2007, 05:34 PM

And am I the only one that doesn't understand the relegation/promotion thing? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I don't understand it. Could you explain?

quick_dry

10-30-2007, 04:40 AM

MJT: its like having two grades/divisions, A grade and B grade. If you lose A grade, you get dropped into the B grade. If you win B grade, you get 'promoted' into the top (A) grade.

MajorTomFoolery

10-30-2007, 08:56 AM

MJT: its like having two grades/divisions, A grade and B grade. If you lose A grade, you get dropped into the B grade. If you win B grade, you get 'promoted' into the top (A) grade.

That's what he was talking about? What's the promotion thing, then?

MajorTomFoolery

10-30-2007, 09:09 AM

2) Trust me -- as a New Yorker, the Rangers finishing "in the tank" (7 years in a row OUT of the playoffs, 8 with the lockout, before last year's edition) has never meant "sink-or-swim" for either the league or other local teams like the Devils and Islanders -- and conversely, their being "in the picture" has certainly never really meant anything as far as a meaningful network broadcast contract is concerned.

Wait a minute. This idea was brought up because we don't want to see bad teams on TV. If the Rangers are qualified as a bad team, your TV time goes down. If you have these nobodys that move up from league two to league one, then they replace the ones you love with nobodys. And not making it to the playoffs (maximum of 30 or so games, if they all are seven game series, and the Rangers even make it that far) compared to the 72 during the league, all of which will probably be televised in the NY area.
I'm not saying it won't work, but there are some issues. How about local, Tier-two games get televised. They won't clog up TV time, because it's only local, and you don't miss out on your favorite team.

quick_dry

10-30-2007, 10:34 AM

That's what he was talking about? What's the promotion thing, then?
promotion is what happens to the team moving up from the B league to the A league i.e. they get 'promoted' from B to A.

MajorTomFoolery

10-30-2007, 11:22 AM

Yeah, I thought he meant something about a contract. What's he mean by the two-way contract?

skooled

11-03-2007, 07:55 PM

I like this Idea, and would go well to be adopted to both of the Inline leagues.

I have had this thought in my head about PIHA for a while now, sine the amount of teams has exploded so much in such a short amount of time. If you cut div 1 down to say 20-odd teams, and the rest go into div 2 you would have feircer competition, just to stay alive.

as said earlier, it works well for EPL soccer as an example... VERY WELL... someone get the yoders on the phone will ya?

ACCCT2

11-03-2007, 09:36 PM

What I meant by "2-way contracts" was that if an NHL-signed player was playing at the NHL level, he'd be paid a higher salary; conversly, should the team play bad enough to be "relegated/moved-down" to the lower ("minor"?) league, that same player would see a lowered paycheck -- now tell me that wouldn't "incentivize" contracts and more importantly, the on-ice passion and play of players (who now get paid NHL wages whether they finish 1st, 1 game out of the playoffs, or dead-last). These "2-way contracts" should/could/would also (in my conception of this idea, at least) work for the minor-league "promoted" teams and players as well (there could be an NHL-paid "bonus" to help cover higher "promoted/moved-up" contracts of the "promoted" players -- who would obviously enjoy "playing" for these "incentivized" contracts (probably almost as much as the "relegated" NHL-ers would hate their pay-cuts)...

Those "nobodys" are definitely not "nobodys" to their fans, supprters, sponsors, advertisers and media partners, and would certainly qualify as (at least) very interesting "dark-horse-somebodys" being that they moved-up and replaced, say (for conjecture) the Rangers for at least a year, as well possibly longer, as long as they could tenaciously 'hold' onto their NHL spot...

The fact of say, the Rangers, a traditional NHL "big-market" team being out of the playoffs (in either the present NHL playoff formula or our "relegation" hypothesis) has never made any difference whatsoever to major network broadcast coverage of, and media dollars spent-upon, the NHL playoffs as they're presently presented broadcast-wise (last year's playoffs and "Finals" numbers were absolutely atrocious). If anything, the mere possibility of a moved-up "minor-league" team doing "wild-card" well in the NHL playoffs would add a degree of cross-continental rooting for the "David/little-guys/dark-horse" (that this team would clearly be) vs the NHL "Old Guards" -- and this seasonal "wild card" scenario might plausibly provide the NHL with the BEST possible chance of a truly major-network continental broadcast contract/package and their so-incredibly-desired-&-sought-after "cultural footprint" within the general sports audiences sensibilities, especially those of the highly-desired demographics of the general American sports fans...

By the way -- this "relegation" formula would also help out the broadcast/revenue streams of the "minor/relegation" leagues, as the 'binding-together' of all of the sport's 2 (or even 3) levels of the game (just like in European soccer) and their respective consumer/viewer markets would only make the NHL an even more "sure thing" (that it currently is clearly NOT) in the corporate consciousness' and boardrooms of the veritable myriad of local, regional and most importantly, major national advertisers, sponsors, marketers and media outlets (who generally like to "Think Global, Act Local" in their marketing strategies)...

skooled

11-03-2007, 11:41 PM

So the way you are looking at this is that with some contracts that players have at the moment, you see them potentialy leaving teams that are relegated to the "minors" or lower divisions? if that is the case, I would like to see a more strict contract agreement, locking players in for a period of time, and any forfeiture resulting in financial penalties or the like. (maybe if a player wants out of say a 2 season contract after the team is relegated at the end of the first season, a ban of so many games before signing to another team?)

All in all I think it is a more than viable option, but there are a few things that will need to be looked at. keeping a good salary cap, as there will be teams that will NEVER be relegated, so make sure they don't stack their teams. then from there, how do you combine all the different minor leagues? they will obviously state they are better than eachother to start with... and lastly, how many divisions?

ACCCT2

11-04-2007, 07:50 AM

The contracts would be completely binding whether the player is playing at the NHL level or not (this would be something the NHL, NHLPA, the "minor" leagues and probably the IIHF would also have to come to a legally binding agreement on to keep and preclude players from "walking" to other high-paying "Elite" leagues or teams, but it clearly could be done) -- players would absolutely not be allowed to simply 'walk' away from their contracts just because their team has been "relegated" to the lower league (as, if you allowed this, there'd be absolute mayhem). The only way the players get back to their NHL payscale/paycheck is to play well enough as a team to win back "promotion" to the NHL -- this would definitely "incentivize" the passion and play of virtually everyone on the team and probably bring even more team cohesion to their respective on-ice play and off-ice training, as well as keep the "point-prima-donna's" (guys who get "their points", but never when it matters most) from simply mailing-in their efforts and/or "showing" when it matters least (like A-Rod has done throughtout his entire $250,000,000 USD won-nothing baseball career)...

But the most important effect that this "relegation/promotion" concept would bring to the NHL and ice hockey in general is a much more excitingly broad and 'inclusive' fan-base demographic that would surely translate into the network broadcast deal (and DOLLARS!), as well as "cultural footprint", that the NHL has always craved...

joisyan

11-04-2007, 09:21 AM

does anyone think that the NHL should join the other leagues around the world (russian super league, swiss or finnish) to try to combine to have world championships like soccer? cause isnt that what the MLS did this past year? they joined the superliga right? and i dont mean international teams like USA vs. Canada; i'm saying that the teams (or clubs) play internationally. cause i'm personally and Arsenal fan of the premeirship and they play in the EPL as well as other leagues.

joisyan

11-04-2007, 09:22 AM

i meant "an" not "and" Arsenal fan, just woke up heh

skooled

11-04-2007, 05:45 PM

first of all they need to fix the domestic problems...

ACCCT2

11-04-2007, 08:03 PM

Their "cultural footprint" with especially American fans is the core gist of their "domestic problems". By laying out a more creative, inclusive and shore-to-shore game "footprint" (what media/marketers measure all-important fan-base "cultures" and "recognizability/recall" with) the NHL, the "relegation" leagues and the game in general would clearly benefit by the increased fan, media, and sponsor attention (and all their attendant revenue streams and DOLLARS!) that would be brought into the sport -- again: what essentially saved European professional soccer (and European ice hockey) and made it the largest, richest sport in the world...

As for "joisyan's" supposition --

The NHL absolutely wouldn't be "join(ing) the other leagues around the world" -- if anything, it would be a highly desirable scenario of those "other leagues" ("Russian Superliga", as well as the Finnish, German, Italian, Swedish and Swiss "Elite" liga's) officially ceding the game's "premiership" and "primacy" (and its costly contention) to the NHL itself as a trade-off for their chance at global exposure (and all its attendant revenue streams), lower running costs, more player career path potential and a truly international fan base to sell to and highlight (to its sponsors, advertisers and media partners) -- an absolute "win-win-win-win-win" for the NHL, the "other leagues", the players, the fans, and most importantly, the game...!!!

quick_dry

11-04-2007, 08:13 PM

ACCCT2, wouldn't such a scheme be interesting to implement in a way that didn't open the leagues up to legal action?
Also, wouldn't it make 2 year contracts practically a mandatory necessity - you'd never sign anything but a signle year contract if there was the chance you might be an A grade player relegated to the B league.

ACCCT2

11-04-2007, 08:30 PM

Absolutely interesting. In fact, I have an upcoming meeting with the NHL "honchos" (in NYC) on a special TV program we're producing (built around the game) and I think this is something I might just bring up in passing, as we're going to be addressing a lot of marketing and "cultural footprint" issues head-on, as well as a myriad of potential opportunities, initiatives and creative solutions in discussing how our TV program "meshes" with their league marketing goals in this regard...

As for the thought that this "relegation/promotion" format might encourage shorter contracts -- I can see where one might initially get this "shorter contract" idea and logic from, but if you really think about it, the "incentivization" of everyone playing under mandated "2-way" contracts would instill a much more consistant and reliable higher standard of performance out of the players, who'd obviously be imbued with an even more passionate level of heart and play, especially in the knowledge that their financial rewards are more proportionately tied to on-ice team success, as opposed to being tied to simply "making the the team"...

You might indeed be "an A grade player relegated to the B league" if your team doesn't perform up to NHL playoff-position squat -- this is the interesting, critical and fun part of the exciting "risk/reward" scenarios of just exactly what kind of contract that both a club and a player signs. With consistant, reliable, tried-&-true "money" players, you'd obviously want to sign them to longer "incentivized" contracts with performance bonuses much like the better NHL players now enjoy. For those less consistent, less reliable, not-so-tried-&-true "wild card-ish" players, you'd obviously sign them to shorter, more team-performance-based contracts that would provide an incentive for better team play and playoff placement...

quick_dry

11-04-2007, 11:16 PM

discussing how our TV program "meshes" with their league marketing goals in this regard...
HA! you can't be a real marketing guy, they don't 'mesh' - they 'synergize'! :p (slow day at work)

back to the topic at hand...

skooled

11-04-2007, 11:29 PM

hahahahahaha, sneaky sneaky. a champions league as such could be an entertaining suggestion, once current situations are resolved.

ACCCT2

11-05-2007, 09:02 AM

Only junior account guys with absolutely no clue whatsoever 'bluff' their way through and say things like "symergize" in the hope that it'll at least sound intelligent and well-founded (or "researched" as they might also say)...!!!;)

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 03:44 PM

The fact of say, the Rangers, a traditional NHL "big-market" team being out of the playoffs (in either the present NHL playoff formula or our "relegation" hypothesis) has never made any difference whatsoever to major network broadcast coverage of, and media dollars spent-upon, the NHL playoffs as they're presently presented broadcast-wise (last year's playoffs and "Finals" numbers were absolutely atrocious).

I'm not talking about the playoffs. I'm talking about being on TV at all. Top-tier teams are, bottom-tier teams aren't. Playoffs was never brought into the question. I DO think that this can be countered by local coverage of minor games, though.

William Bourque

11-05-2007, 03:55 PM

ACCCT2

11-05-2007, 03:57 PM

The NY Rangers (as a hypotheical example) are going to have their fans and broadcast deals whatever they do during any given season, so being "relegated" only makes them a more "love/hate" object of devotion to their loyally suffering fans (almost like Red Sox fans were for the longest time) and a more interesting local broadcast property. As for how this might effect NHL boadcast coverage/contracts, all I can say is that no-one really wants to see a bad game (or a game involving a bad team) anyway, so my guess is that the NHL, network and media partners would obviously schedule around these season-to-season realities...

As for "William Bourque's" possible "loyalty" scenarios --

Actually, I think it opens up a world of interesting fan and broadcast possibilities, for instance --

Let's say the Grand Rapids Griffons score "promotion" to the NHL(a very distinct possibility under this "relegation/promotion" hypothesis). They might have to actually face their parent-team, the Detroit Red Wings, during the next regular season -- what does the Red Wing organization do roster-wise to maximize what would clearly be a way for them to 'steal' ('orchestrate'?) some easy win/loss points, as well as maybe even provide 'flanking' cover throughout the season-long standings and even into the playoffs...!?! And this doesn't even begin to address the veritable treasure-trove added of revenue that would flow into both clubs' coffers and ultimately into the Illitch's ice hockey war-chests (that they've always wisely used to sign even more talented "future talent"), so personally, I think it'd be a really cool proposition...!!!

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 04:07 PM

Yeah, that's what I said...

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 04:12 PM

Although i love the idea, i don't like the possible problem that it could also cause...

For example...

Philadelphia Flyers
Philadelphia Phantoms
Hershey Bears
Washington Capitals
Scranton Penguins
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Binghamton Senators
Albany River Rats
Rochester Americans
Syracuse Crunch
Buffalo Sabers

What if all of those teams made up the top tier NHL? How many fans of those Minor teams, especially a franchise like Hershey, are actually fans of either Washington or Philadelphia first, and then support the Bears because its hockey close to them?

Do you expect these fans to switch to their new NHL tea (Hershey) or revert to their old NHL team?

Plus doesn't 11 teams In two states hurt the NHL's market?

I love the idea, however, i think that the NHL is set in its ways and not really open to an idea as drastic as this.

Teams like the Phantoms wouldn't even be in the league. We're talking about cutting the league in half, and then giving a stepping stool to new organizations (the lower-tier league). Organizations like the Phantoms and the Bears wouldn't be in it (I hope). But yes, that is a concern, and it's a concern because both are run by the same organization. My guess is that... well, I don't know what the minor teams would do...

William Bourque

11-05-2007, 04:19 PM

Let's say the Grand Rapids Griffons score "promotion" to the NHL. They might have to actually face their parent-team, the Detroit Red Wings, during the next regular season -- what does the Red Wing organization do roster-wise to maximize what would clearly be a way for them to 'steal' ('orchestrate'?) some easy win/loss points

Wouldn't the concept of a parent organization like Detroit-Grand Rapids have to cease for this concept to work?

How would the draft work? Etc...

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 04:25 PM

Wouldn't the concept of a parent organization like Detroit-Grand Rapids have to cease for this concept to work?

How would the draft work? Etc...

Exactly. EXCEPT if the minor team wasn't in the NHL at all. They could be like an elite travel team that plays to move up to the NHL team.

ACCCT2

11-05-2007, 04:29 PM

Not at all. Draft would work virtually the same way as it does now (the "parent-team" making the selections, signing the contracts and allocating all on-ice, off-ice and financial resources). It would work almost be like what and how an Indy race car team works in pursuing racing "winner's points" and season-long championships -- obviously, they'd both work for the benefit of the strongest, best-positioned club to make it to the ultimate (Stanley Cup) championship, and this would most probably be the "parent-team" Red Wings -- but just in case, they'd both still be in a position to advance the Griffons, should the Red Wings falter or be eliminated...

William Bourque

11-05-2007, 04:33 PM

I have to reread the whole thread and article. I obviously misunderstood something along the way.

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 04:33 PM

As for "William Bourque's" possible "loyalty" scenarios --

Actually, I think it opens up a world of interesting fan and broadcast possibilities, for instance --

Let's say the Grand Rapids Griffons score "promotion" to the NHL(a very distinct possibility under this "relegation/promotion" hypothesis). They might have to actually face their parent-team, the Detroit Red Wings, during the next regular season -- what does the Red Wing organization do roster-wise to maximize what would clearly be a way for them to 'steal' ('orchestrate'?) some easy win/loss points, as well as maybe even provide 'flanking' cover throughout the season-long standings and even into the playoffs...!?! And this doesn't even begin to address the veritable treasure-trove added revenue that would flow into both clubs coffers and ultimately into the Illitch's ice hockey war-chests (that they've always wisely used to sign even more talented "future talent"), so personally, I think it'd be a really cool proposition...!!!

I don't see anything good coming out of a game between two related teams. I wouldn't pay to watch their game, because:
A) The one team is the minors of the parent team, meaning they are the players who were not good enough to make it to the pro.
B) Lets say the parent team is a win or two shy of playoff position. The owner can say "throw the game, or your fired". And if it's close, then an organization should not get that stepping stone of one or two games.

As far as revenue, there's clear cut advantages to having two sources of revenue, but I can't imagine the league allowing that, as it does offer a team an advantage.

ACCCT2

11-05-2007, 04:43 PM

I hearken to the "Indy team" scenario on "throwing" (or challenging for) anything in this kind of potential match-up -- at the very least, it'd be almost like a wild and raucous "family reunion" kind of atmosphere -- surely something that family "bragging-rights" alone would guaranty a spirited (but obviously 'clean') game...

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 04:46 PM

ACCCT2

11-05-2007, 04:58 PM

Again, "Indy team" scenario: send the best team forward, the other provides 'flanking' cover in the standings...

Remember -- this is a hypothetical, so details of 'how' and 'when' and 'what' and 'who' would obviously be pre-planned and readied by the parent-organization/ownership for just such a scenario...

Depending on how you'd structure "relegation/promotion" (for instance: does the "promoted" team replace the "relegated" team in whatever division it originally come from?), anyway, just think of the ultimate "bragging rights" scenario, eh -- both teams meeting in a "Cup" Final...!?!

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 05:03 PM

Again, "Indy team" scenario: send the best team forward, the other provides 'flanking' cover in the standings...

Question One: Sending the best team foreward is:
1) An unfair advantage, as they should not have the right to a free game.
2) A game that no one will watch.
I don't see it helping the league or even making the game any more interesting. What good does it do?

Question Two: What do you mean by providing flanking cover? I'm a little confused...

ACCCT2

11-05-2007, 10:26 PM

To answer "MajorTomFoolery's" questions --

1) Any "advantage" earned on the ice is an "advantage" that any team or organization has the right to 'play' as they see fit (in my mind, anyway)...

2) A whole lotta' people -- especially hockey people -- would indeed "watch" (and pay-for) what would be an unusual and most probably rare type of intra-organizational game, I have absolutely NO DOUBT about this point...

3) "Flanking cover" as in protection for the #1 team's place in the standings or playoffs by the #2 team's tougher and more physically aggressive and 'wearing' play against the #1 team's division, conference or playoff rivals that would essentially aid in protecting (and help in insuring) the #1 team's roster-health, playoff placement, and best possible chance to maximize their dually-earned "advantage"...

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 10:48 PM

I said that no one would watch it because the team would throw the game. And as far as having the right to an advantage, it seems as though it's the politics interfering with the sport. Think about salary caps. It's your money, why can't you spend it? Because it would give you an unfair advantage on the basis of money or organization size.
As far as a game where both teams tried their best, I can see the excitement in the game, like a tech-vs.-state game in college.

ACCCT2

11-05-2007, 11:46 PM

I think I'm now done with my take on this really interesting subject, as for me at least, this thread is getting way too far off of the original and intriguing "Fixit" idea that Richard originally threw out there for us to thoughtfully ponder, 'spit-ball' and extrapolate upon...

And I am going to bring it up in my meetings with the NHL this week (I'll mention it as feedback 'gleaned' in my periodic 'online' checking-out the 'pulse' of the fans)...

GEEZ, I got through yet another IHC thread without being called some crude or rude or misspelled obscenity -- I'm a HAPPY GUY...!!!

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 11:48 PM

White flag accepted.

ACCCT2

11-05-2007, 11:51 PM

No "white flag" here, "Major" -- just satisfied victorious troops heading home for the parade;)...!!!

MajorTomFoolery

11-05-2007, 11:59 PM

I knew you were going to reply :). I could go on for hours, but I'll stay on topic for this one :).

MajorTomFoolery

11-06-2007, 09:20 AM

So there are numerous problems with the concept, let's see if we can knockout all of them. This is the list that I came up with:

1) Parent/Minor organizational issues
2) Pro players leaving a downgraded team
3) Popular teams getting lowered to Division Two, while unknown team goes to division one.

As far as number three goes, the promoted team probably won't have much popularity because they don't get any broadcasting other than local TV time. As far as the big scene, they're unknown. So I might have to disagree on them immediately getting a playoff berth, as someone said further back.
To put you in a fans position: lets say Winnepeg gets promoted, and you don't live anywhere near Winnepeg. Would you want them to go all the way through the playoffs to the Stanley Cup? Would you care about such a team? This is an actual question, so I would like your answers.

ACCCT2

11-06-2007, 10:42 AM

1) No problem here, as (as I mentioned earlier) the "parent" organization would have "pre-planned and readied" contingency plans for such a scenario -- remember, this "relegation/promotion" wouldn't come about in the NHL without first its review and considerable discussions by the NHL ownership and GM's at their respective board meetings...

2) As I also mentioned earlier, participating leagues and players would be under binding "2-way" agreements and contracts that wouldn't allow for a player to "walk" (obviously, the AHL, ECHL and European "Elite" leagues, as well as maybe even the IIHF, would have to be on-board with this scenario) -- if a player's only alternative is an even lower, lower-paying league than the one his team is "relegated" to, is he really going to "walk" on his only chance at playing in the big leagues for a big-league paycheck -- I don't think so...

3) "Popular teams" meaning who...??? Did anyone not from Anaheim or Ottawa "really care about" these teams going "all the way"...??? Broadcast numbers clearly indicate not. Teams are most "popular" with core fans, so your supposition that, say Winnepeg being "promoted" wouldn't be be something for anyone to "care about" totally disregards the worthy Winnepegers' views on things...

MajorTomFoolery

11-06-2007, 11:04 AM

Point One: I made it clear the issue: politics over sport. Poll the others, poll everyone, they will agree with me that a team should NEVER, NO MATTER THEIR FINANCIAL STANDING, be given a free game. Without a question in my mind, it is an unfair advantage. Steroids are an outside effect on the game, and they are not allowed. Money is an outside effect on the game, and it has been capped. I don't see why this would be allowed.
Point Two: As I mentioned earlier, nobody would sign to a bad team. And as far as "incentivizing", or whatever you said, know this: unless a player is TRULY disgruntled with the organization, he will be trying his best in all situations. He would not have made the team if he did not put forward a constant effort.
Point Three: The ONLY people for Winnepeg is the people IN Winnepeg. Hands down. I do not limit a fanbase to their home UNLESS their home is the only place that cares about them. For example, I like the Flyers. If they're not in the playoffs, I like Ottowa, Colorado, Detroit, Aneheim, and San Jose, because I've seen them play many times. At least one of these teams at any given point in the past 5 years has had a shot at making it to the Cup, so I have a pretty good chance of watching. If none of them are included, I probably won't watch. There is no reason for me to include Winnepeg in that group, as I have never seen them, nor care about them. Not until their Tier-One identity has been established, and a non-local crowd of supporters has been rounded up.
And remember, if you present the evidence in a polite way, I will believe you.

MajorTomFoolery

11-06-2007, 12:07 PM

3) "Popular teams" meaning who...??? Did anyone not from Anaheim or Ottawa "really care about" these teams going "all the way"...??? Broadcast numbers clearly indicate not. Teams are most "popular" with core fans, so your supposition that, say Winnepeg being "promoted" wouldn't be be something for anyone to "care about" totally disregards the worthy Winnepegers' views on things...

Maybe so, but my best guess is that a fan won't follow one team to the grave. There are plenty of teams a guy is partially interested in, and will watch them play in the Stanley Cup. It's not that easy for Winnepeg. And I'm not saying Winnepegs promotion is something that nobody would care about. Winnepegs immediate jump into the playoffs is something only homegrown fans would watch. I know marketability is a big thing for you: how big of a marketing advantage is this team over any other team? Does it even come close?
Again, my issue is not with regelation/promotion. My two cents is that they don't get a jump into the playoffs.

quick_dry

11-06-2007, 08:29 PM

I think the comparison to motor racing where teams have 2 drivers ina race is a better support for the idea that people do not like conflicts of interest that give a free ride.

I don't follow Indy, but in F1 there have been cases where team orders have clearly been for one driver to win over the other to ensure some result. Any time I have heard this brought up it has universally been condemned as harming the racing.

When the reverse has happened and stablemates have been allowed to have a good tussle, it is seen as a great thing.

I think the direct help of a team throwing a game to its 'top' team from teh same ownership, is not the only thing to consider but that teams can throw key games to alter who their top team will play/sit in playoffs. e.g. Red Wings always win against Flyers but struggle vs Rangers, Flyers are close to Rangers in points and a win would put them in front going into playoffs v Wings. So the promoted minor team (Grand rapids?) is told to throw their game v Flyers.

If players are injured and a call up has to be made, where do the players come from? Wings can't pull from the Rapids because that would be substitution within the one division. if you were it would be a neat way to bypass salary cap rules, simply by up big on two teams, get them into the top tier and then mix and match your squad in each game as needed.

What ownership rules do the english soccer leagues have? it would surely have been a consideration of theirs, and they have a working promotion/relegation league.

MajorTomFoolery

11-07-2007, 12:02 PM

Agreed. And if anyone could find a soccer league online with an explanation of their system, that'd be great.

In all honesty, I'd just assume that the minor teams wouldn't be included.

William Bourque

11-07-2007, 02:18 PM

Agreed. And if anyone could find a soccer league online with an explanation of their system, that'd be great.

In all honesty, I'd just assume that the minor teams wouldn't be included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_and_relegation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_league_system

MajorTomFoolery

11-07-2007, 03:41 PM

Holy crap, that's a lot of leagues. Thanks for the info. In that second link, the bottom level, level 20, had around 100+ leagues, not teams.

ACCCT2

11-07-2007, 04:00 PM

"William Bourque" --

GREAT posts for referencing how "relegation/promotion" works in just English soccer, as well as all over Europe...!!!

FYI: The English football league system, otherwise known as the football pyramid, is a series of interconnected leagues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_system) for club football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_%28soccer%29) in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) (although for historical reasons a small number of Welsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales) clubs also compete). The system has a hierarchical format with promotion and relegation between leagues at different levels, and allows even the smallest club to dream of rising to the very top of the system. There are over 140 leagues, containing over 480 divisions.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-0>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_league_system#_note-0)</SUP> The exact number of clubs varies from year to year as clubs join and leave leagues or fold altogether, but an estimated average of 15 clubs per division implies that over 7,000 clubs are members of a league in the English football league system.

KEY marketing point: "The system...allows even the smallest club to dream of rising to the very top..." -- now just imagine this system applied to the vast and varrying "tiers" of the professional ice hockey network of leagues and teams and what it might mean for a tradionally "minor-league" team (like say, the Grand Rapids Griffons or Hershey Bears?) to make it to the NHL playoffs and maybe even (with a hot goalie and a lucky bounce or two), the Stanley Cup Finals...!?!

MajorTomFoolery

11-07-2007, 04:04 PM

And just imagine how low the pyramid could go. I'm not going to say house league, but pretty close to that. What surprised me is that, if I understand this right, the leagues are independently operated, so the NHL can walk up to a league and say, "hey, you want to be a part of the biggest hockey market in America?" The NHL could become huge, and a kid could have a directly mapped out way of making it to the NHL.
Now let me propose this for inline hockey: if travel league teams formed a little league, they could be a part of the inline hockey pyramid, under PIHA (or whoever is most popular at the time).

ACCCT2

11-07-2007, 04:07 PM

Exactly!!! This system would provide virtually everything the NHL currently lacks: shore-to-shore "cultural footprint" (broadcast and community); aspirational quotient that would bind even the smallest local and regional, teams, players, and fans to the "mother-league"; more organized and attractive "tiered" advertising, sponsorship and media opportunities (especially in the tiered "title" leagues, see the English examples); and if they did it right, a centralized marketing and logistics "brain-trust" that could (finally) effectively "showcase", highlight and market the game as it should be (you know: the way it currently is not)...