HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Realistically....How many teams should be in the NHL? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1312769)

Habsrule 12-28-2012 01:30 PM

Realistically....How many teams should be in the NHL?
 
I know that it would never happen but I truly believe that the best way to solve the NHL lockout would be to have less teams.

Their are a bunch of teams who are losing money year after year. I think the best way to get economics back to where they should be would be to cut the fat and lose a few teams.

So the question that I ask here is how many teams should be cut and what teams?

mouser 12-28-2012 01:33 PM

Mod note:

As this is the BoH forum, please make sure your replies consider this topic from a business viewpoint.

Mory Schneideur* 12-28-2012 02:54 PM

Honestly, 32.

NHL could easily support 2 more teams in strong markets such as Quebec or in Canada. Winnipeg has shown us this.

I believe the current revenue split with the players problem needs to be fixed. Once that is done, if the league can implement some minor forms of revenue sharing or perhaps a luxury tax to help support the teams on the lower end of the spectrum the league should be fine.

Up until the lockout the NHL was gaining popularity. There was a pretty decent buzz about the playoffs and SCF I haven't seen in a while. Winter Classic was become an event all sports fans were getting into. Hockey was about to slowly slide into the spotlight until this debacle.

Tawnos 12-28-2012 02:55 PM

Cutting teams is not a solution to the problems the league has. Removing a team in Phoenix is not going to improve the finances of a team in Denver.

What the NHL needs is better people running their teams. The turnaround in Nashville is a prime example of what having good management does. NHL teams need to be able to maximize their available revenue streams and then grow them on top of that.

So my answer to the question of the best number of teams? 32. Not the direction I'm sure you were expecting.

Pilky01 12-28-2012 02:55 PM

As many as can remain financially viable.

It really shouldn't be more than 20.

kmad 12-28-2012 02:56 PM

32

64 in the KHL

Overlapping seasons, top teams from each league play for the HEXTALL CUP in June

Xref 12-28-2012 02:59 PM

I was just fine with the original 6. So I vote for 6. :)

Realistically, 24. The 6 weakest teams in the NHL (financially speaking) can be lopped off as far as I am concerned.

trellaine201 12-28-2012 03:02 PM

I vote to get rid of 5 teams minimum, more likely 6.

Dado 12-28-2012 03:03 PM

I would like to see 20 teams in the top league, and 20 more in each of the B and C leagues. With zero territorial exclusions - none whatsoever. Promotion/relegation between the leagues.

This provides incredible opportunity for players, potential owners, and fans themselves to compete at a level that is most sustainable for themselves, their pocket books, and their communities. Potential ownership groups could cut their teeth at the lower levels before being given the chance to blow up one of the big clubs.

Total win for everybody.

PensBandwagonerNo272 12-28-2012 03:05 PM

24 or 26.

I'm inclined to say 25 (5 less teams) but to keep it even for the conferences, 24 - 26.

Would solve a lot of issues.

ThisYearsModel 12-28-2012 03:08 PM

20 max. Poor markets reduced, talent pool enhanced. We are paying the prices that a 10 team league would charge for a watered down product now. Guess that is our fault.

Tawnos 12-28-2012 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dado (Post 56874595)
I would like to see 20 teams in the top league, and 20 more in each of the B and C leagues. With zero territorial exclusions - none whatsoever. Promotion/relegation between the leagues.

This provides incredible opportunity for players, potential owners, and fans themselves to compete at a level that is most sustainable for themselves, their pocket books, and their communities. Potential ownership groups could cut their teeth at the lower levels before being given the chance to blow up one of the big clubs.

Total win for everybody.

I think the idea of a relegation/promotion system is extremely intriguing. However, it's also entirely unrealistic.

IkeaMonkey* 12-28-2012 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel (Post 56874729)
20 max. Poor markets reduced, talent pool enhanced. We are paying the prices that a 10 team league would charge for a watered down product now. Guess that is our fault.

How does this make sense? We are paying prices where most of the league is losing money.

If you go to a 20 team league, heck yea the talent per team goes up. What else will? Salaries.

Salaries go up...so do tickets.

Unless you think that a 20 team capped league will go over well with the players...

Dado 12-28-2012 03:18 PM

I would also change the playoff structure so that (a) all teams are included and (b) the early rounds start during the regular season (think FA Cup style, only best-of, a real series).

This would effectively emphasize just how hard/special it is to win the regular season trophy (harder to win PT than SC, IMO), thereby increasing its value, which would have the knock-on effect of creating two prizes/distinctions for teams to compete for.

And we should work in a "champions league" type situation to interact more with our European brethern and sisteren.

Gotaf7 12-28-2012 03:18 PM

24 Teams with the increased revenue sharing that will come with the new CBA would make for a finacially stable league IMHO.

I Am Score* 12-28-2012 03:22 PM

26. 25 current teams and add one in Seattle.

Anaheim Ducks
Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Calgary Flames
Carolina Hurricanes
Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche
Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers
Los Angeles Kings
Minnesota Wild
Montreal Canadiens
New Jersey Devils
New York Islanders
New York Rangers
Ottawa Senators
Philadelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
San Jose Sharks
St. Louis Blues
Tampa Bay Lightning
Toronto Maple Leafs
Vancouver Canucks
Washington Capitals
Winnipeg Jets

Then add a team in Seattle. 26 teams. I took out Columbus, Dallas, Florida, Nashville, and Phoenix. Lower fan bases when they are losing and do not provide consistent contention. Dallas is the only one I would second guess.

boredmale 12-28-2012 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel (Post 56874729)
20 max. Poor markets reduced, talent pool enhanced. We are paying the prices that a 10 team league would charge for a watered down product now. Guess that is our fault.

The problem of getting rid of 10 teams is that means you get hockey out of 10 markets which intern makes it harder to try make National US TV deals since the league comes off as a regional sport.

Dado 12-28-2012 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boredmale (Post 56875161)
The problem of getting rid of 10 teams is that means you get hockey out of 10 markets which intern makes it harder to try make National US TV deals since the league comes off as a regional sport.

The NFL was a second-rate league with fewer than 20 teams when it secured its first national US TV deal.

JMT21 12-28-2012 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tawnos (Post 56874347)
Cutting teams is not a solution to the problems the league has. Removing a team in Phoenix is not going to improve the finances of a team in Denver.

What the NHL needs is better people running their teams. The turnaround in Nashville is a prime example of what having good management does. NHL teams need to be able to maximize their available revenue streams and then grow them on top of that.

So my answer to the question of the best number of teams? 32. Not the direction I'm sure you were expecting.

With the NHL being a gate driven league many teams need to reap the play-off revenue bonanza to break even or make a profit.

7 teams made a profit last season despite missing the play-offs : Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Dallas & Colorado

To answer the question : 32 : Phoenix to relocate to Quebec..... add a team in Seattle and another in the GTA.

Can't imagine the league ever contracting to below 28 teams.

du5566* 12-28-2012 03:27 PM

All of them plus expansion teams in Seattle and Quebec....... The more teams the more TV markets and better national TV deal which would finally bring stability to the league which has been fighting the big 4 for TV coverage for decades.

The NFL needs to make a team work in Phoenix, its a huge TV market and the NFL cannot afford to lose another huge TV market.

boredmale 12-28-2012 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dado (Post 56875185)
The NFL was a second-rate league with fewer than 20 teams when it secured its first national US TV deal.

That's comparing apples and oranges(in one case you are comparing the TV market of the 60s to the 21st century, and another you are comparing a game that is played everywhere in the US to one that is already limited mostly to a few northern states)

I Am Score* 12-28-2012 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boredmale (Post 56875161)
The problem of getting rid of 10 teams is that means you get hockey out of 10 markets which intern makes it harder to try make National US TV deals since the league comes off as a regional sport.

I took out 5 teams and added one in Seattle. I don't think you could make it 20. 30 teams, take out 10 minus 6. 4 extra teams. So all these teams would be cut:

Anaheim
Calgary
Columbus
Dallas
Florida
Minnesota
Nashville
New York Islanders
Phoenix
San Jose

That would leave these teams which will never be cut:

Boston
Buffalo
Carolina
Chicago
Colorado
Detroit
Edmonton
Los Angeles
Montreal
New Jersey
New York
Ottawa
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Tampa Bay
Toronto
Vancouver
Washington
Winnipeg

du5566* 12-28-2012 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradD (Post 56875369)
I took out 5 teams and added one in Seattle. I don't think you could make it 20. 30 teams, take out 10 minus 6. 4 extra teams. So all these teams would be cut:

Anaheim
Calgary
Columbus
Dallas
Florida
Minnesota
Nashville
New York Islanders
Phoenix
San Jose

That would leave these teams which will never be cut:

Boston
Buffalo
Carolina
Chicago
Colorado
Detroit
Edmonton
Los Angeles
Montreal
New Jersey
New York
Ottawa
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Tampa Bay
Toronto
Vancouver
Washington
Winnipeg

You are cutting Minn? Really?

boredmale 12-28-2012 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradD (Post 56875369)
I took out 5 teams and added one in Seattle. I don't think you could make it 20. 30 teams, take out 10 minus 6. 4 extra teams. So all these teams would be cut:

Anaheim
Calgary
Columbus
Dallas
Florida
Minnesota
Nashville
New York Islanders
Phoenix
San Jose

Other then Tampa you basically have no presence in the South East(and most of the south in general besides LA). Add to that Minnesota is as much hockey country as you can get, you want a team there to try push as many people to take up hockey as possible and make future US stars(look at the amount of top US players that were born there). It's almost an insult that the league can't have a team in the state that hockey is a big deal.

I should also add why would you get rid of Florida and not Tampa. Given the 2 markets both teams are in I would put my money on Miami over Tampa(the only reason Tamap is doing better is they have a little better luck that when they suck they seem to do it at the right time(ie Vinny and Stamkos))

I Am Score* 12-28-2012 03:36 PM

Actually, if you added another team in Seattle you would have to cut one more team. I believe St. Louis or Colorado would also get the axe.

Bad idea in general. There needs to be a team in Seattle. It's a HUGE market. But you can't cut down the league to less than 26 teams.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.