Jump to content

Talk:ECHL/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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.

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. Ravenswing 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. Ravenswing 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. Ravenswing 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. Ravenswing 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. Ravenswing 04:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to reopen a 5-year old argument, but it looks as though the Greensboro Monarchs were a franchise that applied for AHL membership back in March 1995 (the year they ceased operations, to be replaced by the Carolina Monarchs), as per http://archives.postandcourier.com/archive/arch95/0395/arc0308102673.shtml and http://archives.postandcourier.com/archive/arch95/0395/arc0321101270.shtml. How does this make them different from Hampton Roads, who did the same thing in Norfolk, or Charlotte this past year? Should they not also be listed as one of the former ECHL franchises that "moved up" to the AHL, bringing the total to 4? Cjmclark (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

True. Would it be more accurate, then, to say something to the effect that they were replaced in their markets by AHL franchises under the same ownership groups(if applicable), who released their respective ECHL franchises back to the league? Cjmclark (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Ravenswing 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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? Ravenswing 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)

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. Ravenswing 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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) on 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

2008-09 NHL/AHL/ECHL affiliations

The ECHL has just updated the three league affiliations on their website, as of July 9. Here is the link NHL/AHL affiliates Rik (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This 'AA' League Business

There is no AAA, AAA, A classification in hockey. I don't think it matters what the ECHL says as some sort of marketing thing. I propose this be removed. Thoughts? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the only reason its mentioned is to stop edit wars. (See also International Hockey League (2007–)). The lead certainly can be more concise with the explanation. ccwaters (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, I'd love to see the whole business below the header. This "AA" business is self-described, nothing more, and should be stated as such. We've certainly seen edit wars over it and will see more, but this is a plain fact, however much some fans swallow the okey-doke whole.  Ravenswing  20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Damn I knew I had seen it somewhere, was not watching the IHL page. I played street hockey the other day, and we decided we were the top street hockey league in the world, just us 8 guys... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
*cackles*  Ravenswing  10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tried a little something in the lead, let us see what others think. Oh, and I am the best self designated vodka drinking editor online right now... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.  Ravenswing  03:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just got done cleaning up a bunch of dead links that some bots found. If you want to link articles from ECHL.com, in particular, please make sure you're linking from their press release archive, as linked main page articles go dead rather quickly. Thank you. Cjmclark (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Express and Teams Table

Although the Chicago Express are officially a member of the ECHL as of the conclusion of the 2011 Kelly Cup finals, I wanted to remove them from the league roster under the 'Teams' section and return mention of the team to the 'Future teams' section until the league's realignment for the 2011–12 season is released following next month's (June 2011) Board of Governors meeting. In my opinion, the teams section doesn't look that well with Chicago in a TBA category. Also, I was planning on changing the list of teams template in the teams section, but wanted the community's opinion whether it should bare more resemblance to the table in the teams section of the National Hockey League article or the American Hockey League article. Does the community have any concerns or opinions on these changes? Rik (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with pulling Chicago out. I only put them in because ECHL actually lists them on the website now, but I do think it would be better to wait until we have all the info on them.
As far as the template, the ECHL one was actually almost identical to the AHL one (save for some bold text) until recently, when attendance capacity was added. I do like the NHL one a lot. I wonder how everything's going to look when the realignment dust settles.
Idle speculation – I also think we can fully expect the Columbia Inferno to be declared defunct at the upcoming BOG meeting. I've heard nothing in the news regarding their arena or an upcoming season for them, and their website is no longer functional, which I wouldn't expect from a team that plans to be in operation in the next few months.  Cjmclark (Contact) 03:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I only brought up the template b/c I wanted to try and get is as uniform with the NHL and AHL articles per the Ice Hockey WikiProject, but noticed how different the two actually are. I'll probably tweak the ECHL roster of teams template and borrow some elements from both templates once the new alignment is released. IMO, I think Chicago is placed into the North Division, Wheeling moves to the Atlantic Division and the Colorado Eagles (if they move from the CHL) will be placed in the Mountain Division of the Western Conference.
In regards to Columbia, I was thinking exactly the same as you Cjm. No website, no news from the area, it would truly surprise me if Columbia is given another year of voluntary suspension. I also would expect the BOG to take Larry Leasure's franchise rights for the Reno, NV area (Reno Raiders). As a Las Vegas Wranglers fan, I remember how Reno and Las Vegas were to enter the WCHL together and then when that league folded and the teams applied to the ECHL, market rights to Reno and Ontario, CA were brought in as well. So for almost ten years, Leasure has been given another year to get a teams started up and build an arena, I can't see the ECHL giving him another year to get things situated. Especially when (with the state of mid-level minor league hockey) the league could find new markets, with new arenas that are actually being built (i.e. Richmond, VA and Evansville, IN). Though, if the league needs the money, they can just give each another year and collect on their franchise fees. Rik (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I forsee the alignment playing out that way as well. It really seems to be the only way that makes sense (not that that's stopped the BOG from doing something crazy before). I wonder how the playoffs will go if ECHL doesn't pick up another Western team...everyone in the conference qualifies? There needs to be more balance between the two conferences, IMHO. I wouldn't put it past the BOG to come up with a "Central" conference at some point, if they can get the franchises.
Looks like Columbia fans will need to make the 90-minute trip SE or NW if they want to see some hockey. It still blows my mind that SC supported 4 ECHL teams at once for a while.  Cjmclark (Contact) 13:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have heard through the grapevine that an official with Alaska said that the Board is discussing putting Chicago in the Western Conference while playing a mainly Eastern Conference schedule...hopefully this does not happen b/c it just doesn't make much sense to me. When it comes to the playoffs, I think it would be the top 6 qualifying, the two division winners receiving byes and 3 through 6 playing a best-of-5. I could see Eastern Conference Quarterfinals being a best-of-5 as well and then Conference Semifinals being best-of-7.
Not only were there four teams in SC (you could also throw Charlotte in there as well with support from Charlotte suburbs in SC), they were supported quite well. Pee Dee/Florence were waiting for Coastal Carolina University to build a new arena, but that went as far as Columbia's proposed new arena in Irmo, SC. Rik (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the Express back to the Future Teams section pending release of league realignment information.  Cjmclark (Contact) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

With the 2010-11 ECHL season now officially over, it doesn't make sense that the Chicago Express would still be listed as a future team. Would you consider Winnipeg's soon-to-be NHL team a future team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey51 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Until the full details of where exactly they fall in the conference are released, yes. It's just a matter of waiting for the ECHL Board of Governors to meet (which happens this month, next week unless I'm mistaken) and announce the league realignment. Since the 2011–12 season has definitely not started yet, there's no reason to rush.  Cjmclark (Contact) 19:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I was surfing the ECHL's website and found what appears to be the divisional alignment for 2011–12, here. In short, the standings table has Colorado in the Mountain Division and Chicago in the North Division, while Wheeling is moved from the North Division to the Atlantic Division. Trenton is also shown to remain in the Atlantic Division, though the team is under suspended operations, leaving me to believe that if an ownership group can be found in Trenton within the next two months, then the new Trenton ECHL franchise will begin play in 2011 instead of 2012. Although, no official announcement has been made by the league (and none is expected until the Trenton question is answered), it seems they are acknowledging this realignment through their statistics table and as such would provide enough reference, in my opinion, to adjust the current team table accordingly. I will not change the table until there is a consensus on whether it should be updated now or whether to wait until an official press release is issued by the league. Rik (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that they'd let something like that slip. I don't know that we can make an assertion of fact based on it, however. While it looks like they're tacitly acknowledging the new alignment, in light of the issue with Trenton I'd definitely wait for an official announcement.  Cjmclark (Contact) 03:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Gwinnett Gladiators affiliations

I have reverted this edit due to there being no current affiliation listed between the Gwinnett Gladiators and the Columbus Blue Jackets and Springfield Falcons per the ECHL 2010–11 affiliation list. Columbus does not list Gwinnett as an affiliate on their website (which means the Blue Jackets' article probably needs to be fixed). Additionally, Gwinnett has not yet declared their new affiliates for the 2011–12 season, per this news story posted on their website. If anyone has a reliable source to support this edit, please feel free to share it here and reinstate the edit.  Cjmclark (Contact) 01:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on affiliations, with a major change in affiliations between NHL and AHL clubs occurring this off-season, should we place TBD under NHL/AHL affiliates sections of the ECHL team table for clubs that are affected by the changes in the NHL and AHL affiliations? For example, the Phoenix Coyotes are now affiliated with the Portland Pirates, yet the Las Vegas Wranglers are still listed as being affiliated with both Phoenix and the San Antonio Rampage, Phoenix's AHL affiliate from the previous season, leaving part of the article outdated. Right now, the only clubs affected by this are Gwinnett and Las Vegas, with Cincinnati to a much lesser extent as the still have affiliation agreements with the Nashville Predators and the Milwaukee Admirals. Rik (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This might not be a bad idea. I just reverted an edit changing Las Vegas' AHL affiliate without a current source.  Cjmclark (Contact) 02:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bakersfield Condors affiliation

Word is that the Condors may not have an affiliation this season. Thoughts on how to handle this in the team table?  Cjmclark (Contact) 01:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha...derp. Indeed.  Cjmclark (Contact) 02:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Kalamazoo Wings affiliation

The Chicago Wolves should remain listed as the Wings' AHL affiliate. The ECHL/AHL "affiliation" doesn't generally truly exist; it's more that the NHL team with which a given ECHL team is affiliated then extends that affiliation to their AHL affiliate. Vancouver may choose to move a promising prospect from Kalamazoo to Chicago, or send someone who's not making the grade the opposite direction. The Wolves' affiliation with the Missouri Mavericks is immaterial to this relationship. Additionally, the league lists Chicago as Kalamazoo's affiliate here.  Cjmclark (Contact) 07:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Colorado Eagles affiliation

This may be semantics, but the ECHL currently doesn't recognize the Eagles' NHL/AHL affiliations (which the team announced here and was reported in an RS here). I had emailed the league because they didn't have the affiliations listed on their webpage or their list of affiliates (here) and was told that the team had not yet submitted the "required Affiliation Agreement paperwork" to the league office. So should we maintain the affiliation because the team announced it, or remove it (from the league page, at least) because the league doesn't recognize it? Sources seem to support the fact of affiliation, but I wanted to ask.  Cjmclark (Contact) 16:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

2012-13 Team Map

I created a map for next season. We can use it if everything that I included is accurate. I was purely assuming when it came to the divisions and team memberships. Here it is

File:2012-13ECHLteammap.jpg
team map for next season

Carolinapanthers17 (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a nice-looking map, and I'd be interested to see if the teams you have listed (Fort Wayne, et c.) do wind up in the league next season. The main issue I see with it is that it uses the team logos. Generally speaking, the logos (being non-free use images) are only allowed on the main article page for each team, since that's the only place we can really justify using them. That's why the current map just shows location dots instead of logos. I am interested to see the divisional alignments in the Eastern Conference if the current teams remain. I'd guess Wheeling back to North and maybe SC to Atlantic, with Orlando in the South. Time will tell.  Cjmclark (Contact) 17:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How about using a more-editable map template, which would allow for easy changeover as teams are added/dropped from the league (let's face it, that's a fact of life in the minor leagues!) sort of like this:

class=notpageimage|
Teams currently in the ECHL. Dot colors correspond to division colors in the league chart. Not pictured are the Alaska Aces of the Mountain Division.

There's some pros and cons, of course. Pros: easy to add/remove teams, clickable links. Cons: there's no map template that includes Alaska that allows for links on the dots (template: North America does include Alaska, as well as Canada, but the teams in the Northeast are squished together too much to allow for legible tags on the dots), there's no historical map record -- a downside to being easily-edited, I suppose -- and the map can't be used on other projects (eg, the French or German ECHL entries) easily.

A sample section cut from the current ECHL article with my map inserted can be found on my sandbox, along with a version that includes Alaska (but no tags on the dots) Thoughts? Tthaas (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

2012-13 conference alignments and timeline

With the Evansville IceMen and the Fort Wayne Komets announcing their entry into the ECHL yesterday, the IceMen website now lists conference and division alignments for all 23 teams (everyone returning from the 2011-12 ECHL less the Chicago Express, plus the new additions of the San Francisco Bulls, Orlando Solar Bears, Evansville and Fort Wayne), which can be found at http://www.evansvilleicemen.com/3918/2011-12-echl-league-alignment -- it seems to be a premature release of the info before the Board of Governors meeting, so I put the info into the "future teams" section. I did not add it to the current teams section, as it seems to make sense to wait for the BOG meeting for an "official" announcement. I also added all 4 new teams on the timeline, listing 5/17/12 as their starting date; should the starting date for Orlando and San Francisco be 1/11/11 and 9/21/11 respectively, or should we put them all in on 7/1/12 (when everyone else arrives/leaves the timeline), or something else? Tthaas (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'd personally be inclined to use the July date since that seems to be the de facto start of the season in question. The real question here is when will the league finally throw in the towel on the Columbia Inferno?  Cjmclark (Contact) 01:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
We'll have to wait for the BOG meeting to see about Columbia. I'll modify the timeline to use July as the start date. Tthaas (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the new alignment is out and pretty much fell out as expected. As far as Columbia, the ECHL is being typically circumspect. They said nothing about Columbia at all, but did cap the league at 26 teams and expressed a desire to add 3 expansion teams in the west. Not much room for Columbia in that plan, but (as usual) no definite pronouncement.  Cjmclark (Contact) 21:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Given the BoD's lack of word on Columbia, combined with the emphasis on adding 3 Western expansion teams... perhaps it's time to move the Columbia info to the "former teams" section? At this point, I think they've given up the ghost.Tthaas (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the 2012-13 Slignment is up, should the "League alignment as of conclusion of annual ECHL Board of Governors meeting on August 1, 2011.[13]" line be removed? I'd do it myself, but I didn't know when this summer's BoG meeting took place. --Paploo (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I changed things over to reflect the 2012 BoG meeting, which ended on June 25. Tthaas (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Toledo Walleye founding date

I have had to revert edits changing the founding date for the Toledo Walleye in the teams table three times now. From the team's Wikipedia entry: "The Walleye were founded in 1991 as the Toledo Storm and they play their home games at the Huntington Center, which opened in 2009." The table lists the founding year of the franchise in question, which in this case is the Toledo Storm, which was founded in 1991, had a two-year suspension and change of ownership from 2007–09, and resumed play as the Walleye in 2009. If there is any confusion about this, please express it here instead of changing the date again without discussion.  Cjmclark (Contact) 20:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

2015-16 Alignment

The new alignment is now available: http://www.echl.com/alignment-playoff-format-announced-for-2015-16-season-p196093 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.32 (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

New Affiliations

The Manchester Monarchs are no longer affiliated with the Winnipeg Jets: http://www.echl.com/nhl-ahl-affiliations-s12375# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.32 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

League level

An IP has twice added that the ECHL is a 'AA' league. There is no such designation in hockey. It should be noted that the same IP is adding this 'AA' nonsense to ECHOL team pages as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Worcester Railers

As per the ECHL website, the Worcester team name is Worcester Railers HC. Can this be confirmed?

Better discussed at Talk:Worcester Railers. Yosemiter (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ECHL/Archive_1&oldid=1136684336"