IceHL Expansion: Choose Two Cities
Thursday · Feb 23 · 2012 | 1:21 PM PSTThe IceHL Project is full steam ahead. And as previously discussed, our crowd-sourced fantasy hockey league will be expanding from 30 to 32 teams this offseason. It's a process that will take months to complete, but it has to start with a simple question: Which two cities should get new IceHL franchises?
In the polls below, you'll answer that question. How did I determine which cities would be included in these polls? Easy. I looked at the cities that weren't originally selected by voters to get IceHL teams in 2008. The Top 5 vote-getters from each region (east and west) are getting a second chance at the IceHL.
Polls close Wednesday, March 7. Once the two expansion cities are chosen, we'll be voting on realignment. Currently, we have three divisions of five teams each. With 16 teams in each conference, we won't be able to easily divide them into 3 divisions. I'll have more details about realignment when it comes time to vote.
Reader Comments (17)
How awesome would a team in Yellowknife be??!!!!!
No write-in votes? Pity.
are we going to expand any more after this or are we just going to relocate from here on out?
Can Cleveland and Kansas City be eligible for for the West? Or have realignment? lol
Halifax!
Tyler: Cleveland and Kansas City will be eastern cities in the IceHL. Realignment is still short way off for us. The cities up for voting were selected based on how many votes they received long ago when we first started building the IceHL.
Canada: I have a trick or two up my sleeve for going beyond 2012. But for now through the summer, we'll only be expanding by two teams. More can be relocated if that's what everyone decides.
Where's Buffalo? And why is Miami on the list?
Tom: As I explained, the cities listed in these polls were the top vote-getters that didn't make the final cut when we originally set up the league. This is what Icethetics readers selected. Keep in mind: We're not trying to rehash the NHL here. We're trying to create something unique.
Hi Chris,
A little bit of criticism here, not out of despise or anything, but because I love the project and am thrilled by the idea of watching a fan-based league emerge. So take it as constructive advice :)
I think the original policy of separating north america into six clearly marked, geographically equal-sized divisions was a problem from the beginning. It gives a way too strong power to areas that do not exactly fit with ice hockey, be it popular backing or teams history. Your proposed original North-East division potentially hosts half of the cities where people want to see hockey.
How is it that we had to eliminate Ottawa, Halifax, Hartford, Phila, Pittsburgh and Buffalo, and still give some consideration to cities such as Kelowna, Phoenix and Colorado Springs just because they happen to sit in a desert?
I would recommand that we can at least choose two cities among the top-12 total votes from 1st round, wherever the division. That could at least help to have teams in Ohio or Pennsylvania that the IceHL desperately needs.
Well just my opinion, but I'd like to hear others'.
Pablo: All fair questions. The simple answer to all of them is this: I do not want the IceHL turning into the NHL. When we started, had I given readers the option, I can almost guarantee that at least 25 of the 30 NHL markets would've been recycled. To solve that problem — as well as to give a chance to cities that wouldn't necessarily be real-world options (for the purposes of creative branding) — I gave readers five options for dividing up the map. This is what they went with.
At the time, voters had already chosen a 30-team North American league when they had the option to go global and have more or fewer than 30 teams. Seeing that, I worried that league was just going to turn into a rehash of the NHL. I was just trying to keep that from happening. If you don't guide them, people will just go with what's familiar.
Now, as expansion goes, I'm giving a second chance the markets that came close the first time around. That was my thinking then. Four years later, if it's the will of the people that cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh or Buffalo add teams, we can explore that through relocation later this spring. However, I will continue to stand in the way of letting our league look like the NHL. That's not the point of this little exercise.
Thanks for the feedback, Pablo. Hope my response makes sense.
Thanks for answering. Don't worry I totally agree with the fact it should NOT be NHL 2.0 and it's much more exciting this way. I'm happy to see teams coming alive in Seattle, Portland, Milwaukee, SLC or Anchorage which all look like great winter cities for me, much more than existing Anaheim, San Jose or Raleigh. Thanks for this.
It's just... this East/West divison does not really work for hockey. I'll vote for Yellowknife then, just for the sake of seeing a real, real Far North Canadian team, and in the perspective of its future name (hmm... lovely debates ahead!).
One last comment that doesnt need to be published, just for you Chris - please try to adress the multivote issue, I just voted twice already, you just need to reload the page. A bit unfair.
Good work and thanks for all this!
Pablo: You may think you're voting multiple times. You aren't. I've done plenty of testing.
If I choose Phoenix, won't they later just become the Aviators?
MAKE IT ELEVEN!
I know it wouldn't be for quite awhile down the road, but when it comes time to pick relocation cities I'd like to nominate Victoria, BC and Halifax, NS as options.
The league"s coming to NWT!!!
Awesome :-D
When do we get to name it?