Talk:ECHL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Ice hockey Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Colleges?

Are each of these league's teams tied to a college? --Stang281 09:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

None of them. What makes you think otherwise? ccwaters 12:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming article

This page should be at ECHL as that is what it is now called because the league consists of west coast teams as well. Earl Andrew

Good catch. – flamurai (t) 10:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seawolves

The Seawolves are out for at least the season ( http://echl.com/cgi-bin/mpublic.cgi?action=show_news&cat=1&id=5369 ). How should we list them? They're not defunct (yet). We should at least remove affiliation information. I'll be doing so at Bridgeport Sound Tigers. ccwaters 13:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Along with the Mississippi Seawolves, the Texas Wildcatters, due to Hurricane Rita, should simply be listed as suspended for the 2005-06 season and not as one of the defunct teams.

[edit] Monarchs

Do you have any references to the Greensboro Monarchs and the Carolina Monarchs being the same franchise? Generally, franchises don't switch leagues. And yes it was you the changed it. The ECHL Peoria Rivermen are not the AHL Peoria Rivermen. That franchise is the relocated Worcester IceCats (REF: http://www.theahl.com/AHL/News/2004/11/09/707175.html). Your "guarantee" from 10 years of following the ECHL is NOT a substitute for references. ccwaters 12:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the AHL Monarchs were an expansion team (http://www.greensborohockey.com/pages/289719/). Not sure what happened to the ECHL team, though. Uvaduck 14:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm really tempted to revert to the first pre WillC revision. I really don't see any value to any of it, and portions are false. It would be much easier just to revert instead of combing through it. See my User_talk:Ccwaters for more info... ccwaters 14:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Portions are false? POST PROOF OR RETRACT! So help me, you revert the work I've done and I am done forever contributing my knowledge to wikipedia. I have entered more info for the echl this week than anyone since its founding. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. I'm just getting started improving the woefully lacking entry I found for the echl. WillC 20:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Err ... WillC, none of us have any personal stake in whether any given user contributes or not to Wikipedia, so we've considerably less reason to recoil at threats to quit than we do to gauge whether work is accurate or not. Nor should longevity matter; I've been following hockey since the mid-Sixties, but that doesn't by itself mean I'm more knowledgeable than the next fan. Now strictly speaking, CC is right: while the ECHL Monarchs got an AHL expansion team with the same ownership group (as other teams have), a "franchise" is given by the individual league. RGTraynor 01:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
by your logic, i'm right. WillC 02:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I already gave you proof that the Rivermen are the Worcester IceCats. I originally just asked you for a reference to the Monarchs continium: you blanked my comments and all you can give me is your personal guarantee. Uvaduck as given you secondary evidence about Monarchs history. Yeah its not solid, but we just upholding the status quo. We not trying to revise anything. It certainly beats out anyone's "guarantee" no matter how many years they've been following minor league hockey (1983ish, go B-Whale!, for what its worth). Anyway, I'll be happy to discuss this more later. Bed time now. ccwaters 04:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, are we discussing the provenance of the AHL Monarchs? They were an expansion team, not a relocated franchise: all the franchises that played in the 1995 season remained intact, Baltimore and Carolina were added. RGTraynor 09:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Then I'm still right.....the franchise structure from the echl was granted one in the ahl. WillC 10:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
No. You are not. There was an ECHL franchise named the Greensboro Monarchs. There was an AHL franchise named the Carolina Monarchs. The owner of one purchased an expansion franchise in the other (for the standard $1 million fee), changing the league, the logo, the uniform, the affiliation, the name, the players (exactly one player on the ECHL team ever played for the AHL team) and pretty much everything but the arena in which it played and the nickname. I am not sure what you consider a "franchise structure" to be, but that would fall under the Wikipedia rule banning neologisms, I expect. RGTraynor 13:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Its says expansion. They traded up. New franchise, new league, new coach, and new roster. They did in Peoria. They did it in Norfolk. They traded down in Utah (The AHL franchise is dormant and is up for sale). ccwaters 13:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
franchise structure = the corporate organization. WillC 20:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
It was the owner of the B.C. Icemen that originally attempted to buy the AHL PEI Senators (dormant at the time). When that deal fell through the ownership group from the original Binghamton Rangers stepped up to the plate and the Binghamton Senators are the result. Kindly explain that with the same rationale you applied to the Monarch franchises. Are they the Icemen? Are they the Rangers? Who are the Hartford Wolf Pack? Explain George Gund and the hockey teams he has owned. Ditto for Mustafa Afr. ccwaters 21:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, well, if you want to say that the same corporation owned both the ECHL and the AHL Monarchs, that's likely correct (although for all we know the owner used separate corporations). They're just not the same "franchise", a term with a specific meaning at law that does not here apply. RGTraynor 00:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I claim victory. WillC 02:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Suit yourself, but I do believe your reasoning has been proven incorrect. Uvaduck 02:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my questions. We just trying to provide an informative and factual resource. But apparently you think this is some kind of pissing contest. ccwaters 11:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Err, claim what you please, if it makes you happy. We're still going to ensure the information out there is factual, and revert or edit what's necessary to do that. RGTraynor 04:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf Coast Swords

How long does the arena construction have to be stalled before the link can come down as "awaiting arena construction"? With the threat of foreclosure [1] on the property, and construction halted for a year now[2], I seem to think the project is a dream. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should remove Gulf Coast, Reno, and Burlington from the futre franchise section. The arena in Reno has been built for some time now and it does not seem like the Reno Raiders will see light. With Utah's success and no new news about an arena in Vermont, it looks like Burlington is out. And finally it seems like that arena in Sarasota is 5 1/2 feet in the grave. - Rik | Talk | 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbus Cottonmouths

If you look at the Columbus Cottonmouths web site you will see that they have been playing for over ten years. I dont think they moved to Flordia. They are currently in the SPHL.

The ECHL franchise that used to be in Columbus moved to Florida. The SPHL Cottonmouths are a different operation. -- Robster2001 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

1. The Myrtle Beach Thunderboltz was a proposed team that never saw the light of day. The Conway team will be different. 2. Ontario, California will probably get a team in 2007. 3. Reno is getting another new arena, and the Raiders will begin play there in 2007.

Thanks! M. Burmy 11:06 CDT 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I received an e-mail that was forwarded to me that the ECHL claims they have current interest in settting up a team in Ontario, CA.
--FrankCostanza 17:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Possibly they do, but unless there's a verifiable source it isn't even worth mentioning, and certainly not under Future Expansion Teams until the league makes an official announcement. RGTraynor 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska Aces

I am wondering if this can be moved to Alaska Aces (ECHL) as there is a separate Alaska Aces (PBA) (Philippine Basketball Association)? --Howard the Duck 06:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does the one require the other? RGTraynor 06:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Because I am proposing that Alaska Aces be a disambig page, pointing to two Alaska Aceses: the ECHL team and the PBA team. My local google says that the PBA's Alaska Aces is first rather than the ECHL one: [3]. To be fair, I'd propose that the Alaska Aces be made into a disambig page, just like St. Louis Blues (hockey). --Howard the Duck 11:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course the Filipino version of Google is going to list the PBA team first. What's your point? ccwaters 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affiliations

The affiliations listed are only the NHL affiliations that individual ECHL teams have. Note that no AHL affiliates are listed (save for Texas as it's important to note they have affiliation with an AHL team but not an NHL team), no UHL affiliates are listed, no CHL affiliates are listed, and no SPHL affiliates are listed. I'd have no problems seeing those added, but feel that it would clutter up the page a bit much. What seem to be the feelings in general? Garnetpalmetto 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that all affiliations should be listed. It helps people understand what is going on better. John R G 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Garnet, if you were doing an article for say the Pacific Coast League would you put every affilation (from MLB to Short-Season A and Rookie League) for each team? It would get out of hand, the extended affiliations should only be on the team's page. We could, however, create a new section for secondary affiliations or add an intro to the affiliation section, or go as far as create a whole new page just for AA Ice Hockey Affiliations...I would love to hear your opinnions on these ideas or what you think we can/should do. Rik 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't baseball; it's hockey. Since there are almost no cases where there are more than three affiliations (NHL -> AHL -> ECHL), we're obviously not going to get clogged with the large system chains baseball has. Moreover, the important affiliation chain isn't ECHL => NHL, it's ECHL => AHL. The Chiefs (for instance) are fifty times as likely to have a player recalled to Springfield than to Tampa Bay. RGTraynor 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario, California no longer in ECHL interest

<<<- *Ontario, California - though not officially granted, the ECHL has expressed interest in another shot at that market, and it would be determined whether they would be an expansion or returning franchise. [citation needed] >>> Talk is still in progress, I'll keep you all updated on the results. The Ontario Convention center may also host an AF2 football or/and ABA basketball team, unless an agreement is reached for them. The Inland Empire region wants to extend minor league sports in their burgeoning metropolis of 3 million people, along with cities of Riverside, San Bernardino and Palm Springs. 207.200.116.137 23:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greensboro

Listed on ECHL link bar at bottom, but not sited. To my knowledge the league has not met on this "Franchise" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.108.187 (talk • contribs)