Sunday
Sep042011

IceHL Logo Map


View IceHL Map 2011-2012 in a larger map

It's not much, but this map gives you a look at how the teams are spread out. Oddly, before making this map, it never occurred to me how close the Blue Crabs and Sentinels actually are, geographically. Also that both Texan teams use three shades of green and red as an accent. We might need to do something about both of those issues next summer. We're probably going to expand the league by two teams as well. I think northern California and Pennsylvania will be on the short list for sure. 

Don't forget to pan around the map to see the Huskies all the way up in Anchorage.

And for what it's worth, I've placed each of the map markers on the arena where a hockey team in each given market might theoretically play — or actually does, in many cases. Regina and Anchorage probably wouldn't survive in a major league.

On Sunday afternoon I'll be notifying those who were selected to own teams this sesason. Once everyone is confirmed, I'll make an announcement here on the site. Good luck to everyone who entered!

« IceHL Ready for 2011-12 Season | Main | Wanted: 17 New IceHL GMs! »

Reader Comments (14)

Not only are the Texas teams very similar, but all the teams in the southeast US have green (or teal in TB's case) as a color. And almost every team in the northeast uses blue.

Also, I just thought about this now, but shouldn't the Kodiaks be in Alaska? That is where the Kodiak islands are, and Kodiak bears are only there.

Sep 4 · 12:51 AM PDT | Registered CommenterJon W | California Wave

Hey Chris, how about expanding in North America's 5th largest market, TORONTO!!!!! Maybe because teams couldn't survive, they could also move? T.O would be great spot for an IceHL francise.

Sep 4 · 7:10 AM PDT | Unregistered CommenterJonathan B

Regina and Anchorage wouldn't survive? But say nothing of Saskatoon, Seattle or Portland? I didn't think that real life sustainability was the point of this league anyways

Sep 4 · 9:23 AM PDT | Unregistered CommenterIan K

Jon: Good point! Didn't even pick up on that. Think that may have been a knee-jerk reaction by the readers to the lack of green in the NHL?

Ian: It's not. Excuse me for expressing an errant thought. I only meant in terms of arena size. Most of the other cities have arenas that could in theory house major league hockey. All I could find in Regina and Anchorage were 6,000-seat buildings. And what does it really matter anyway?

Jonathan: Toronto was picked as one of the cities. The readers chose to name the team the Hamilton Steelcats. So your "5th largest market" is well-covered in that regard. They're just not named after Toronto is all.

And to all, once again, no point in directing your concerns to me since these calls aren't up to me. Direct them to the Icethetics readership as a whole. They made all the decisions as a group from which cities got teams to names to logos... to everything! I'm just overseeing it all.

Sep 4 · 10:55 AM PDT | Registered CommenterChris

could we vote on the expansion cities?

Sep 4 · 7:25 PM PDT | Unregistered CommenterJOE

My apologies Chris, wasn't complaining, simply mocking Saskatoon.

Sep 5 · 12:54 AM PDT | Unregistered CommenterIan K

Northern California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kansas City would be four ideal targets. KC actually has a gorgeous arena, just a bad landlord. But IceHL doesn't have to worry about the landlord!!

Sep 5 · 12:36 PM PDT | Unregistered CommenterRobert B.

Joe: Of course, everything in this league is voted on by Icethetics readers. That's the point of it.

My tentative plan for next summer is to make the following changes:
- Expand to 2 new cities
- Rebrand up to 3 teams
- Relocate up to 2 teams

Again, you guys will vote on everything. We may not move or rebrand any teams or we may do the max. It'll be entirely up to you. But by next season, this league will be 4 years old and ready for a little refresher. And with the way the fantasy leagues are set up, it'll be much nicer to have an even number of teams in each conference.

Sep 5 · 12:54 PM PDT | Registered CommenterChris

Tru, but Southern Ontario does ha the market for 2 teams, maybe that could be a possibility for the future. Anyways my bad for sounding snobby

Sep 5 · 7:10 PM PDT | Unregistered CommenterJonathan B

Kansas City gets my vote. Hell, I'd probably even want to change my ownership to a potential Kansas City franchise.

Sep 9 · 8:26 AM PDT | Unregistered CommenterDavid Streeter

How about a team in Mexico?
I'll take that team!!!

We do have a Men's National Team, you know....
...just saying...

:D

Sep 11 · 10:43 PM PDT | Unregistered CommenterEA~

I personally don't like the idea of relocating the Baltimore team or any other. It's ok to have some close rivalries if the cities happen to be neighbors and theres not too many of them. If we would go for spreading the league all over the map, you also would need to relocate Houston to New Mexico, Chicago to St. Johns and Seattle to Yellowknife... If we had something like New York and New Jersey in the NHL that would make sense to relocate 2 of those, cause 1 city shouldnt get 3 teams.
To expand the league by 2 Teams would be nice and its the better way to cover some spaces on the map ;)

Sep 13 · 10:46 PM PDT | Unregistered CommenterNelloz

some sugestions for relocation ottawa,ON, and either vegas phoenix

Oct 28 · 11:49 AM PDT | Unregistered Commenterme

This is somewhat random, but we should have an IceHL TOL. Just a thought.

Feb 19 · 7:36 PM PST | Unregistered CommenterA B C D E F Z

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Textile formatting is allowed.