NHL heading to Winnipeg!!! - Page 7

frinkprof · #**121** Posted **May 11, 2010, 11:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

^Pretty sure they want to keep Calgary Edmonton and Vancouver in the same division.

Not only are they already bitter rivals, but it limits the amount of games American teams play against Canadian teams which generally have lower TV ratings and are viewed less favourably by networks.

Also limits the number of Canadian teams in the playoffs most years.

Ayreonaut · #**122** Posted **May 11, 2010, 11:28 PM**

I win!

LeftCoaster · #**123** Posted **May 11, 2010, 11:32 PM**

Haha good point on both counts!

Distill3d · #**124** Posted **May 12, 2010, 12:39 AM**

Well, obviously having half the Canadian teams in the same division will curb their ability to make the playoffs. One day, the NHL will realize it needs Canada.

freeweed · #**125** Posted **May 12, 2010, 1:09 AM**

Err, guys... divisions mattered in the 1980s. Being in the same division doesn't really limit your chances of being in the playoffs that much, unless you honestly believe that all of these Canadian teams would place first in their division. Beyond the top 3 in a conference, who's in your division really doesn't matter. It's a free for all.

As for why 4 Canadian teams in a division - it's called RIVALRIES! Jeez, how soon we forget how freaking awesome the Smythe was during the regular season. The playoff format at the time guaranteed fewer Canadian teams each round (again, a system we no longer have), but the regular season was epic.

If Winnipeg got a team and suddenly the Flames played the Canucks less every season, I'd be extremely pissed off. The Flames-Canucks rivalry is turning into one of the best in hockey.

freeweed · #**126** Posted **May 12, 2010, 1:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

^Pretty sure they want to keep Calgary Edmonton and Vancouver in the same division.

Not only are they already bitter rivals, but it limits the amount of games American teams play against Canadian teams which generally have lower TV ratings and are viewed less favourably by networks.

Um... just to be clear, in general Canadian teams generate far larger TV ratings than American teams. I hope that's what you meant anyway.

Distill3d · #**127** Posted **May 12, 2010, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

If Winnipeg got a team and suddenly the Flames played the Canucks less every season, I'd be extremely pissed off. The Flames-Canucks rivalry is turning into one of the best in hockey.

I would be-ish too. Mind you, I can still get to Abbotsford and watch the Heat when I need a Flames fix.

LeftCoaster · #**128** Posted **May 12, 2010, 2:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

Um... just to be clear, in general Canadian teams generate far larger TV ratings than American teams. I hope that's what you meant anyway.

No that's not what I meant. The high TV ratings of Canadian teams on Canadian networks does nothing for Betman's ability to sign coveted large TV contracts with American networks. What I meant was a US team playing a US team attracts more US viewers allowing Betman to extract a higher price from networks like ESPN and NBC come contract renewal time. Therefore if Canadian teams play eachother more often interdivisionally Bettman can sell US TV contracts for a higher amount.

freeweed · #**129** Posted **May 12, 2010, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

No that's not what I meant. The high TV ratings of Canadian teams on Canadian networks does nothing for Betman's ability to sign coveted large TV contracts with American networks. What I meant was a US team playing a US team attracts more US viewers allowing Betman to extract a higher price from networks like ESPN and NBC come contract renewal time. Therefore if Canadian teams play eachother more often interdivisionally Bettman can sell US TV contracts for a higher amount.

I was being sarcastic, on purpose.

*what ability to sign big US TV contracts*??? Versus again?

Sorry, but this ship has sailed. Americans by and large don't give a shit about hockey. We've already seen numbers showing that a city like Calgary (1 million people) can have 10-20x the viewership of a city like Phoenix (4 million people), WHEN THEIR TEAM IS SETTING FRANCHISE RECORDS.

freeweed · #**130** Posted **May 12, 2010, 2:22 AM**

Well this is frustrating as hell. Trying to watch the CoG vote tonight, but the Free Press went and posted the video stream as well. I honestly think there are several thousand Winnipeggers watching a small US city's minor council meeting.

Weird.

It keeps crashing. Basically, city employees are doing their damnedest to defend this whole thing. Mayor/councillors are grilling them on it. Mind you I'm missing 3/4 of the action due to the feed crashing.

Update: Daly is going to speak in front of council.

Update 2: this feed likely has more viewers than the Yotes themselves did all season. Wow, it's just dying.

Yume-sama · #**131** Posted **May 12, 2010, 3:18 AM**

Ooooh, the weasel is on CBC!

Yume-sama · #**132** Posted **May 12, 2010, 3:23 AM**

Seems a little silly of him to compare Phoenix to Chicago. I don't think that, even with a few successful years, Phoenix will be as successful as Chicago.

Chicago actually has history, and has, at some point in their history, made money.

Only The Lonely.. · #**133** Posted **May 12, 2010, 3:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

Well this is frustrating as hell. Trying to watch the CoG vote tonight, but the Free Press went and posted the video stream as well. I honestly think there are several thousand Winnipeggers watching a small US city's minor council meeting.

Weird.

It keeps crashing. Basically, city employees are doing their damnedest to defend this whole thing. Mayor/councillors are grilling them on it. Mind you I'm missing 3/4 of the action due to the feed crashing.

Update: Daly is going to speak in front of council.

Update 2: this feed likely has more viewers than the Yotes themselves did all season. Wow, it's just dying.

We also learnt tonight that the Phoenix fan club has 350 odd members.. Whhhoooooaaaa!!

DowntownWpg · #**134** Posted **May 12, 2010, 4:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Ooooh, the weasel is on CBC!

Here's the link to the video posted on CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Sports/ID=1491503663

Bettman's just playing politics using Winnipeg... as he always has.

frinkprof · #**135** Posted **May 12, 2010, 4:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

Err, guys... divisions mattered in the 1980s. Being in the same division doesn't really limit your chances of being in the playoffs that much, unless you honestly believe that all of these Canadian teams would place first in their division. Beyond the top 3 in a conference, who's in your division really doesn't matter. It's a free for all.

Sort of. Teams play other teams in their division more often than they do other teams, which means how you do in your divisional games matters. Having a slight edge in your season record against divisional rivals will have a big influence on putting you in better standings, but equally as important, it influences how the other teams end up too. In other words, a team can control their divisional rivals' destiny moreso than other teams in the league.

Basically, any one division will typically have a whipping boy that everyone can beat, and a team that is the class of the group. With almost invariably (the NE and SE divisions this year being that variance in a wonky eastern conference), only 2 or 3 teams from each division will make the playoffs. With 4 Canadian teams in the same division, chances are greater that two or even three of them will miss the playoffs in the same year.

I do agree with the rivalry angle.

The other issue is timezones. The NW division would be spread across 3 of them, which is brutal for travel. 2 is manageable, but three is a bit ridiculous.

frinkprof · #**136** Posted **May 12, 2010, 4:27 AM**

CBC says Glendale will cover losses up to $25M. Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly says to the city council that the team is not moving to Winnipeg.

Yume-sama · #**137** Posted **May 12, 2010, 4:27 AM**

The motion to support the team passed. The team will not be moving.

Cue the lawsuits! People have claimed it is unconstitutional already.

Jamaican-Phoenix · #**138** Posted **May 12, 2010, 4:29 AM**

And, sadly, I must remind people on here to never count their chickens before they hatch. It would've been nice, but alas.

drew · #**139** Posted **May 12, 2010, 4:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

The motion to support the team passed. The team will not be moving.

Just like Reinsdorf and Ice Edge were absolute certainties up until the moment those deals dropped dead too.

This thing is far from over.

I think most people were in agreement beforehand that this motion would pass.

Until there is an OWNER this vote means squat.

Yume-sama · #**140** Posted **May 12, 2010, 4:37 AM**

But Bill Daly and the guy in the bubble on CBC said so.