Offline
Alright Group A name nominations are closed. I am putting all of the name into polls for us all to vote on. Next week we will need to be VOTING and NOMINATING names for GROUP B. By the end of next week we will have the names of our first four teams. Come back on Sunday for the polls and the Group B cities.
In the meantime, if you are into league alignment talk and want to start brainstorming division ideas you can start. We will ask for ideas a little later in the process.
Offline
I think this is the best solution in terms of divisional alignment.
West:
Division A - LA, Bay Area, Denver, Minnesota
Division B - Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Calgary
East:
Division A - New York, Philly, Chicago, Boston
Division B - Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, Quebec
Last edited by Section30 (2/07/2020 9:58 pm)
Offline
I'll go similar to S30 but with some differences in the East. I think it'd be good for each division to house one team from the other country and Chicago is closer to Toronto/etc.
Regardless, Minnesota is the real loser here.
West:
Division: Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Calgary
Division: Los Angeles, Bay Area, Denver, Minnesota
East:
Division: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Halifax
Division: Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec
Offline
So if anything, I actually don't think we should have divisions. The Eastern Conference would be fairly easy to work with, (just have to decide between Canadian and American Divisions, or a kind of mini Northeast/Southwest split by putting Chicago in with Montreal, Quebec, and Toronto, putting Halifax with Boston, New York, and Philadelphia).
The Western Conference, however, is a mess. Minneapolis has the worst travel schedule already, so you'd like to at least seem them have a couple of division rivals that minimizes the traveling. However, because it's so hard to split up Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver, plus Los Angeles and the Bay Area, this means Minnespolis would be split off from one of its two "closest" neighbors. Calgary, (which would really only fit in a division with the 3 pacific northwest teams) and Denver (which, because of Calgary, would have to be in the division with the 2 California teams).
So I vote for just having 2 conferences and no divisions at all. Besides, the NHL has pretty large divisions of 8 teams each, (or will once Seattle joins), so this could work out just fine!
If we absolutely have to have divisions, though, these would be my choices.
WEST
1: Seattle, Vancouver, Calgary, Portand
2. Los Angeles, Bay Area, Denver, Minneapolis
EAST
1. Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec
2. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Halifax
Last edited by Stickman (2/08/2020 6:22 am)
Offline
East
Division 1: Halifax, Montréal, Québec, Toronto
Division 2: Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia
West
Division 1: Calgary, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis
Division 2: Bay Area, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver
The Eastern ones were easy too divide. For the West, I broke up the California teams, mostly as a by-product of Minneapolis' situation.
Offline
Interesting stuff from everyone. Like Stickman said, we can choose to vote on not having divisions at all. It may be fun to foster some rivalries though. I can go either way. In the future if we choose to expand the league we will be able to help Minnesota out. Minnesota will have to enjoy the benefit of having the largest geographic fan region in the league for now.
We could always play with the idea of the Patrick, Adams, Norris and Smythe type divisions. In this case we could always change the West v. East format. We started with that structure because we needed a way to focus out city voting.
What would you guys call your divisions in your formats?
Last edited by Gritty (2/08/2020 11:14 am)
Offline
Rube Dali, the DodoHorse wrote:
East
Division 1: Halifax, Montréal, Québec, Toronto
Division 2: Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia
West
Division 1: Calgary, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis
Division 2: Bay Area, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver
I agree with Rube Dali here, it’s too hard to split up the 3 northwestern teams, and the Bay Area is the next closest city to them, so put them in the west, and then take the leftovers, kinda all over the place, and put them in the other division. The East is simply split between Canadian and American. For division names, I’d say Northwestern, Western, Northern and New England.
Offline
I think that a 2 Conference, no division system sounds interesting, but I think that having the rivalries from divisions is big. Minnesota is going to have a brutal travel schedule no matter what, so I think that having more games between the teams in the pacific northwest for example would be better.
As for the names of divisions I would go with Northwest, West, Canadian, American
Offline
Ah, crap. Of course I miss out on the dun because of a busy work and school week! Some great names here that I would be happy seeing! I like the potential for unique identities with what has been offered. Here's what I would have suggested:
Boston Colony - Thought it be funny if an original founding team named "Colonists" went through an identity crisis in the late 90s that played out like a combo between the Wild and the Blue Jackets. Anyone else want to see an ant in dated military garment? No? That's fair.
Calgary Rustlers - It is just a name for someone who steals cattle. Can you believe there is a name for that? Thought it be unique and give some edge. A different take on the cowboy town.
Olympians of Los Angeles - Feels different enough. I have just been thinking the name would lend itself to an art deco branding that the city would love. Maybe even a logo of Atlas holding up the world.... although he was a titan... and that name is taken.
Montreal Ramblers - Not very unique to the city, but I feel it give a nod to the traders that went in and out of the town constantly. It's basically a word for someone who walks the countryside.
Offline
Thehealthiestscratch wrote:
Ah, crap. Of course I miss out on the dun because of a busy work and school week! Some great names here that I would be happy seeing! I like the potential for unique identities with what has been offered. Here's what I would have suggested:
Boston Colony - Thought it be funny if an original founding team named "Colonists" went through an identity crisis in the late 90s that played out like a combo between the Wild and the Blue Jackets. Anyone else want to see an ant in dated military garment? No? That's fair.
Calgary Rustlers - It is just a name for someone who steals cattle. Can you believe there is a name for that? Thought it be unique and give some edge. A different take on the cowboy town.
Olympians of Los Angeles - Feels different enough. I have just been thinking the name would lend itself to an art deco branding that the city would love. Maybe even a logo of Atlas holding up the world.... although he was a titan... and that name is taken.
Montreal Ramblers - Not very unique to the city, but I feel it give a nod to the traders that went in and out of the town constantly. It's basically a word for someone who walks the countryside.
I'll get yours in no worries. Would you like me to make it the LA Titans? Seems like a cool name and would be within the rules.