Why are people against expansion? More money, more competition, more rivalries, more hockey, conference equality. Don't see the problem with it.
- JAKEw1234

I just dont like its potential to water down the talent on teams.

i'd rather see more stars per team than less

Why are people against expansion? More money, more competition, more rivalries, more hockey, conference equality. Don't see the problem with it.
- JAKEw1234

And more HRR which adds up to a higher Salary Cap. Expansion is the way to go.

Why are people against expansion? More money, more competition, more rivalries, more hockey, conference equality. Don't see the problem with it.
- JAKEw1234

for the same reason people are against watered down lite beer. you can only dilute the product so much before quality starts to suffer.

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Thursday Quick Hits
- bmeltzer

Have to totally disagree regarding Jeff Chychrun.

He admittedly didn't win an overwhelming amount of his bouts, but he faced up against all the heavyweights at the time and more than held his own.

Unlike the grabbing, mugging, rabbit punching style of Brashear, Jeff was a stand up toe to toe fighter who took on all the heavyweights...Wendel Clarke, Kocur, Poeschek, May, Churla, Coxe, Hunter, Peluso, and on and on.

Bottom five? Bad call.

I just dont like its potential to water down the talent on teams.

i'd rather see more stars per team than less
- Crimsoninja

It seems to have worked out with past expansions. I think it could allow for more prospects to get opportunities and exceed their potential. I think it would create more talent.

Why are people against expansion? More money, more competition, more rivalries, more hockey, conference equality. Don't see the problem with it.
- JAKEw1234

Counterpoint: Talent pool becomes diluted. Quality of hockey decreases.

Have to totally disagree regarding Jeff Chychrun.

He admittedly didn't win an overwhelming amount of his bouts, but he faced up against all the heavyweights at the time and more than held his own.

Unlike the grabbing, mugging, rabbit punching style of Brashear, Jeff was a stand up toe to toe fighter who took on all the heavyweights...Wendel Clarke, Kocur, Poeschek, May, Churla, Coxe, Hunter, Peluso, and on and on.

Bottom five? Bad call.
- 77rams

Dude got KO'ed by Randy McKay, who was a good middleweight but not a heavy.

It seems to have worked out with past expansions. I think it could allow for more prospects to get opportunities and exceed their potential. I think it would create more talent.
- JAKEw1234

That takes years to work out.

I'm not a fan of expansion for expansion's sake.

It seems to have worked out with past expansions. I think it could allow for more prospects to get opportunities and exceed their potential. I think it would create more talent.
- JAKEw1234

The last 3 expansion team (Atlanta, Columbus, Minnesota) have been horrible, and they've been in the league for over a dozen years. All they've done is weaken the talent pool of other teams.

That takes years to work out.

I'm not a fan of expansion for expansion's sake.
- johndewar

And it seems to be the expansion teams themselves that suffer for that time.

And more HRR which adds up to a higher Salary Cap. Expansion is the way to go.
- MJL

90 teams! Wut wut!!

Counterpoint: Talent pool becomes diluted. Quality of hockey decreases.
- johndewar

MOAR TRAP!

And it seems to be the expansion teams themselves that suffer for that time.
- JAKEw1234

I believe the fans that pay to see their local team enjoy their money being used to prop up teams that have no business being in business if they cannot remain in business without league welfare.

Dude got KO'ed by Randy McKay, who was a good middleweight but not a heavy.
- jmatchett383

McKay was two inches shorter but 15 pounds heavier.

Whatever.

The last 3 expansion team (Atlanta, Columbus, Minnesota) have been horrible, and they've been in the league for over a dozen years. All they've done is weaken the talent pool of other teams.
- jmatchett383

Well Columbus and Minnesota are now just becoming competitive, . The Atlanta franchise has almost enough young pieces to become successful. They have a pretty good roster, and they too were close to the playoffs last year. They've all grown and developed their share of young talent since joining the league, and the more young talent that gets picked, developed, and given chances they might not get if their team didn't exist, the better.

Well Columbus and Minnesota are now just becoming competitive, . The Atlanta franchise has almost enough young pieces to become successful. They have a pretty good roster, and they too were close to the playoffs last year. They've all grown and developed their share of young talent since joining the league, and the more young talent that gets picked, developed, and given chances they might not get if their team didn't exist, the better.
- JAKEw1234

The "more talent" is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you've got guys like Datsyuk and Benn who might not have made it if there were only 24 teams. At the same time, it allows (actually, it FORCES) less-skilled players to be utilized by all teams since the talent pool is diluted.

Also, it should not take 12+ years to develop a competitive club.

I believe the fans that pay to see their local team enjoy their money being used to prop up teams that have no business being in business if they cannot remain in business without league welfare.
- Flyskippy

Well to be fair Minnesota had one of the top attendance numbers in the league last year, and Winnipeg has all of the things it needs (A good arena, a loyal fan base in a Canadian city, etc) to make their own money. Columbus is a team that benefits from revenue sharing, I'll give you that.

It's very possible they miss the playoffs. It's going to be interesting to see how the teams handle the new travel and divisional rivals, an if short season success can transfer into the same kind of play in an 82 game year.
- Jsaquella

On the brighter side, I can totally see Toronto failing to make the playoffs under the new format. Woot. My day is made.

MOAR TRAP!
- Flyskippy

I mean, who didn't love the dead puck era, amirite?

/All 25 Devils fans
//1996 Panthers

And it seems to be the expansion teams themselves that suffer for that time.
- JAKEw1234

Know who likes expansion?

1.) Owners. They get more $$ in expansion fees, etc.

2.) NHLPA. Two words: More jobs.

It's inevitable.

I believe the fans that pay to see their local team enjoy their money being used to prop up teams that have no business being in business if they cannot remain in business without league welfare.
- Flyskippy

It's a good model for success.

My wife and son enjoy that model quite a bit.

I mean, who didn't love the dead puck era, amirite?

/All Devils fans
//1996 Panthers
- johndewar

The point of hockey is to score more goals than the other team. That gets thrown when teams are more worried about preventing goals than scoring them. The fact that the Flyers were seen as the bad guys in the game in Tampa where they refused to skate right into the 0-4-1 revealed a lot about what's wrong with hockey's current state.

It's a good model for success.

My wife and son enjoy that model quite a bit.
- mayorofangrytown

Now that their breadwinner is no longer spending money on said team, eh?

The point of hockey is to score more goals than the other team. That gets thrown when teams are more worried about preventing goals than scoring them. The fact that the Flyers were seen as the bad guys in the game in Tampa where they refused to skate right into the 0-4-1 revealed a lot about what's wrong with hockey's current state.
- Flyskippy

Couldn't you argue that the point of hockey is to allow fewer goals than the other team?

The "more talent" is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you've got guys like Datsyuk and Benn who might not have made it if there were only 24 teams. At the same time, it allows (actually, it FORCES) less-skilled players to be utilized by all teams since the talent pool is diluted.

Also, it should not take 12+ years to develop a competitive club.
- jmatchett383

You'd think it wouldn't, the Flyers didn't take that long, but the league is different today. You can't just have a billionaire owner buy a competitive team now. You've got to go through a hit and miss process of building your franchise's 1st competitive era through drafting and youth. It takes a minimum 5 or 6 years. The fact that Columbus, Minnesota, and Winnipeg all seem to be coming around now suggests that it does take 12+ years in the modern era to create a competitive club. Granted, they've all had top talent that didn't pan out (Nash in Columbus, Kovalchuk in Atlanta, Gaborik in Minnesota), but they've all grown, gained value, and learned from their experiences with those guys.