Contraction? How about expansion and revision?

By Mike

Editors Note: Sorry for the lack of updates. I worked in excess of 50 hours last week while Dave's in the middle of a move to San Diego. Thanks for your patronage in the meantime.

Ah, so we get to talk about the league having some problems with revenues during the recession and what not. People like to see the problems that the Coyotes and the Predators are having financially and ask "Was the expansion worth it? Was the lockout worth it? Why didn't they just stop at 21 or 24 or 28 teams? Why didn't they put teams in Canada or a Northern market that would be sustainable for a team?"

You can say that having a team in Phoenix, Nashville, or suburban Miami might not be the best place for having a team because hockey isn't as popular there as it is up North, but how in the world do you expect the southern part of the country to get into hockey when there isn't a major league team there in the first place? Simply stated you have to expand into those markets and if there's anything that's been a hindrance to the teams in those regions it has less to do with interest in hockey and more to do with the performance of those franchises and how they've managed (or rather mismanaged) themselves as opposed to a lack of interested in the game in those areas.

While the Nashville Predators may be the exception (who've had attendance issues in spite of four straight playoff appearances), the Coyotes haven't made the playoffs since the 2001-02 season, and the Florida Panthers haven't made an appearance since the 1999-2000 season! Maybe Toronto can take a year off from playing well and still have decent attendance, but if markets like Edmonton or Boston are an indication, people are going to go in droves to teams that are winning. Look at the Chicago Blackhawks in 2004,when they were losing left and right, versus 2009, when they have a dynamic team to root for. Should they have been subject to relocation rumors? No, because they're an Original Six franchise. People like to see winning teams, and while the Columbus Blue Jackets and the Florida Panthers get a free pass for actually improving as of late, I think the league needs to intervene in certain situations to address organizational issues that affect fan support in certain markets (this especially holds true with the Atlanta Thrashers in regards to making them get rid of Don Waddell as their General Manager. How ever this guy has managed to remain at the helm of this team is something I can't figure out for the life of me. Bizarre.)

So my suggestion proposal to this is... Expansion? Expansion?! Did I forget that it's puff-puff-pass and not puff-puff-puff-puff?

Not at all. I think the league needs to do three things:

1. Award two teams to new cities. The first would be Winnipeg. While it lacked corporate support when the team set sail to Phoenix, their economy is performing more favorably and considering the amount of corporations based in Winnipeg, there's no reason to suggest that a new group of owners couldn't help prop a team up there. MTS already invested in an arena there and with some modification, it could ready for NHL action.
The second would be somewhere in Southern Ontario. Ideally, it would be in a spot that would be equidistant between London and Kitchener, but the only cities between the two, Stratford and Woodstock, only have populations barely over 30,000 and wouldn't be sustainable enough to dedicate a hockey team to. Considering that the league doesn't want a team in Hamilton and that Toronto could sustain two teams, Mississauga is probably a better destination.
I chose these locations because while having an upstart team in the United States can be a mixed bag, Canada's love of hockey will assure that a new team will get decent support, winners or not. Both would be in markets where they'd get both corporate and fan support, which is something necessary to a team's survival.

2. Relocate two of the existing teams.
So which teams would I pick?
The New York Islanders would be the first team I'd look to move. The third team in a market already filled by the New York Rangers and the New Jersey Devils, the Islanders have consistently been ranked last in attendance in the league for quite some time. Meanwhile, Kansas City is not only hungry for a hockey team, they've got quite the facility to host a team.
For the second team, like I said before, the Predators are having attendance problems in spite of the fact that this will be their first season in 5 that they're not poised to make the playoffs. Not even a playoff team can thrive there, so what good is it doing the league to keep the team in Nashville? I say that there's another city that wants a franchise back... The Whale! Hartford has recently talked to the NHL about getting a team. A team that lost their first home meets a city that lost it's first team. Frankly, I couldn't think of a better match.
(And when Quebec City can get significant support toward bringing an NHL team back, I'd give them consideration over anyone else if someone were to relocate.)

3. Change the Divisional, season, and playoff formats.
First off, with 32 teams, you could realign the conferences and have divisions that make sense. Assuming that teams either relocate or start anew at the places I listed above, this is how I'd align the divisions (and if you want to rename them something to the effect of when the teams played in the Campbell or Wales Conferences, awesome.)

Western Conference	Eastern Conference
Southwest Division	Southeast Division
Anaheim Ducks	Atlanta Thrashers
Los Angeles Kings	Carolina Hurricanes
Phoenix Coyotes	Florida Panthers
San Jose Sharks	Tampa Bay Lightning
Northwest Division	Northeast Division
Calgary Flames	Boston Bruins
Edmonton Oilers	Hartford
Winnipeg	Montreal Canadiens
Vancouver Canucks	New York Rangers
Central Division	Atlantic Division
Colorado Avalanche	New Jersey Devils
Dallas Stars	Philadelphia Flyers
Kansas City	Pittsburgh Penguins
Saint Louis Blues	Washington Capitals
Great Lakes Division	Ontario Division
Chicago Blackhawks	Buffalo Sabres
Columbus Blue Jackets	Mississauga
Detroit Red Wings	Ottawa Senators
Minnesota Wild	Toronto Maple Leafs

4 Divisions with 4 teams per division.

So how would scheduling work out under that suggestion? Glad you asked:
16 Inter-conference games (West Vs. East, every team would face each other once. Two divisions from the East go out West while two divisions from the West would go out East.)
48 Intra-conference games (each division faces a non-division Conference Opponent twice in each of their respective buildings per season.)
18 Divisonal Games (each division opponent would face each other three times in both of their respective buildings.)
For a total of... well look at that, 82 games!

Now on to the playoffs. When the NHL first went to the current 16-team playoff format, there were 21 teams in the league. That meant that roughly 24% of the teams in the league didn't make the playoffs. Yet now that there will be 14 teams missing the cut, however, nearly half of the teams in the league will miss out on making the playoffs. I would suggest that with a 32-team league, 12 teams per conference would make it to the playoffs. However, I would suggest a preliminary round precede the Conference Quarterfinals. The winner of each division would draw a "bye" while seeds 5-8 would take on seeds 9-12 in a best-of-three game series, where the first game would be at the lower-seeded team's arena and the second and third game (if necessary) would take place at the higher-seeded team's arena. The winners of that would go on to face seeds 1-4 per usual.

So how would all that help the league out?
1. If you give people the illusion that their team is playoff bound, the fans will come. Even if it's a chance, the fanbase of teams like Columbus and Florida would be more hopeful that their team actually has a shot at seeing the playoffs. You bet that would drive up fan support and, if nothing else, give an owner an extra game to help off-set what he owes towards hockey operations.
2. With abundance of talented players like Ray Emery, Kyle McLaren, and Ville Leino playing in either the minor leagues or Europe, given how national hockey programs have evolved to develop top-tier players, there's going to be enough talent to go around to fortify teams and make the league more competitive with the European leagues. The NHL is losing ground on the KHL and the Swedish Eliteserien because of this principle. North America alone develops an astounding amount of prospects and while the minor league teams may not be as deep initially, it could only flourish with the development of the game in non-traditional markets.

Crazy? Perhaps, but when has a game that endorses fighting as part of its curriculum ever been sane? By putting hockey back in places where some feel it belongs, it will no doubt help generate revenues for the league and help keep teams in places where some may consider it doesn't belong (except for those who know better.) When you consider that the NHL is now in an era of "cost-certainty", teams are not only more competitive as ever, but the cost of putting together is now less of an issue with money and more of an issue of good planning and development. If there was ever a time to consider this, that time is now.