I remember thinking that they were really overkilling the divisional rivalry thing. What was it like 6 games againt them, 2 against all other teams then two rounds of divional playoffs?
Yep, that was the general plan. I kind of like it. I think the point was to generate stronger rivalries that would form from teams seeing each other in the playoffs every year.
But, the single biggest reason for the league wanting to change it up was to provide some more equity in terms of start times and travel for teams in the West as compared to the East. Imagine as a Columbus or Detroit fan having to stay up for eight 10 o'clock or later start times in the season in addition to eight more 9 o'clock games and then all the other 8 o'clock games they have. It would be tough to build a young fanbase that way.
The alignment that was passed by the Board of Governors I thought was a much better situation for over half the teams in the NHL. They could have done something simple like moving Nashville to the Southeast, but I think they were looking at preserving existing regional rivalries while creating some more.
Fans of teams in the East likely don't see the need for drastic realignment, but I think that's because it was primarily intended to remedy the situations of a good number of teams in the west like Minnesota, Dallas, Columbus, Detroit, and now Winnipeg.
Also, it allows for the possibility of expansion without having to realign again when that occurs. And, with the situation in Phoenix so uncertain it provides flexibility to move them without having to realign again.
Having said that, I think the NHLPA turning it down was mostly just an opening shot heading into CBA negotiations this summer. I would expect it to go through if the NHL promises them that expansion is coming.
Yep, that was the general plan. I kind of like it. I think the point was to generate stronger rivalries that would form from teams seeing each other in the playoffs every year.
Yeah I can understand why people would like it too. I kind of like the randomness of who you could face in the playoffs. More intensity wouldnt be a bad thing though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BumFortyOne
But, the single biggest reason for the league wanting to change it up was to provide some more equity in terms of start times and travel for teams in the West as compared to the East. Imagine as a Columbus or Detroit fan having to stay up for eight 10 o'clock or later start times in the season in addition to eight more 9 o'clock games and then all the other 8 o'clock games they have. It would be tough to build a young fanbase that way.
Yep I can understand that. Id honestly have trouble watching as many pens games if it was like that all the time. I'd have to base my sleeping habits around it or change my start time at work. lol Or just sleep less.
The "divisional" playoff system is so backwards. It will cause serious controversy more often than not as to whether the best teams are actually making the playoffs. Think that would be good for the league? If anything, they should scrap divisions completely, not make them more self-contained.
I googled up on this yesterday, and it seems that while the NHLPA rejection was definitely an opening salvo for the bargaining process, it wasn't just that. Many people involved feel that there are some serious flaws with the realignment and wanted to put the brakes on it. So there is some hope yet that the NHL won't dive into what I think would be a total disaster.
Found an article here, that explained some of the troubles for the small market teams. One thing that I wasn't aware of previously were the pretty strict restrictions on getting shared revenue. While commendable for trying to make provisions so that teams aren't pocketing cash, it seems unrealistic for rebuilding teams.
Quote:
Secondly, starting in 2007-08, the CBA began to restrict the shares of certain teams, providing full shares to only those bottom-15 revenue teams who show revenue growth numerically greater than the league's, while maintaining attendance of at least 13,125 per game (that number jumped to 14,000 in 2008-09). The attendance provision alone would have limited the shares of Columbus, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Phoenix, and the already-excluded Islanders last year, with the revenue provision surely damaging teams such as Carolina and Florida.
That's a good article; thanks for posting the link.
I think the players are going to have to accept something closer to 52 or 53%.
OTOH I think building a CBA to accommodate teams like FLorida that might not exist in 5 years anyway due to a crap fan base, is not a great idea either. I would actually look at the Winnipeg situation as more of a way to go in terms of accounting for their smaller arena but also the fact that it will be filled far more often than Atlanta's ever was or Florida's ever is. I'm also hoping eventually both Florida and Phoenix end up as smaller Canadian markets (or maybe one in KC) because both of those existing markets blow. The fact that they exist at all in those places shows the NHL's lack of understanding as to what makes a good market, and what's a market where they can never compete or gain traction.
I honestly think the players will have to accept 50% of revenue. Thats what other professional sports are at. And it is my belief that the concession from the NHL for that will be them playing at the 2014 Olympics.
I honestly think the players will have to accept 50% of revenue. Thats what other professional sports are at. And it is my belief that the concession from the NHL for that will be them playing at the 2014 Olympics.
There better be more concessions than that. Playing at the Olympics is relevant to probably less than 10% of the players.
I'm seriously worried there could be a work stoppage and that it would do extreme damage to all the good stuff the league has built up since the lockout. They finally have the TV stuff straightened away and are doing an excellent job with airing the playoffs in the US and if they somehow **** it up by having their 4th (one short one, one half-season one and the full season lockout) work stoppage in 20 years, I don't know what to say. Both parties can't be that stupid. They need to get together and have a CBA hammered out well before training camp so there's no chance for a work stoppage. It would be just a huge blow to the game in the US when ratings and interest are really starting to perk.
Sivek: not sure if NBC's agreement with the league can be altered based on CBA stuff or lockouts, but there might be a clause in there that says they can have out if there's a stoppage.
66-29-33: would not be opposed to it as long as things are geographically aligned as much as possible. Might actually throw an interesting curve ball into summer trade mix if they decide quickly enough.
Anyone know is the re-alignment going to be a PART of the CBA, or can they be agreed upon separately despite the timing now?
Anyone know is the re-alignment going to be a PART of the CBA, or can they be agreed upon separately despite the timing now?
It'll be used as a bargaining chip no doubt, even though it's best for everyone (mainly the Jets) to have it finalized. Players' Union will probably say "We'll agree on alignment, owners let the players play in Olympics" back-and-forth. I think stuff like the new divisions and the Olympics are super easy to fix and could be agreed upon in 5 minutes but both sides rather spend times swinging their dicks than just agree that both sides gain from the new divisions and the visibility of the Olympic Games. Neither side should waste time on theseissues and should just concentrate on the main things like how the % of revenue is going to distributed and how it relates to cap, the hated escrow deal, cap circumvention stuff, etc.
Can anyone explain why rumors are the cap will fall, as much as 4 million per year?
That's a good question. The league has been very successful financially AFAIK, even through the recession. So I'm not sure how the logic of "the cap must be going down" adds up. Also you have a lot of parity in the league now, as we're seeing, so there's no argument of "haves and have-nots" as there is in baseball.
Sivek: not sure if NBC's agreement with the league can be altered based on CBA stuff or lockouts, but there might be a clause in there that says they can have out if there's a stoppage.
66-29-33: would not be opposed to it as long as things are geographically aligned as much as possible. Might actually throw an interesting curve ball into summer trade mix if they decide quickly enough.
Anyone know is the re-alignment going to be a PART of the CBA, or can they be agreed upon separately despite the timing now?
I thought the big issue for NHLPA regarding the realignment was that conferences would be unbalanced and would effect their chances for a playoff spot. I don't think it's going to be part of the actual labor agreement ... I seem to recall it being said that the NHL did not actually need the NHLPA to sign off on the realignment, but chose to shelve the plan due to upcoming negotiations.
There was a really good interview with Bettman on Costas Tonight where all of this was discussed ... I'll see if I can find a YT or a link.
::EDIT:: Here's the first part, with his old boss/NBA Commissioner Stern http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/228251...92674#46592866
Second half he talks about concussions, fighting and NHL culture ... should be able to find the segment from the menu
I don't like the proposed alignment because it makes 3/4 of the leagues standings irrelevant to us until what, the third round of the playoffs?
Yeah, I wasn't a big fan of the proposal. The only real advantage was the it allowed for the league to expand. I was in favor of just flipping the Jets with CBJ. That would help the Columbus franchise not only in terms of travel, but also in terms of match-ups.
Can anyone explain why rumors are the cap will fall, as much as 4 million per year?
I think it has to do with the actual percentage of revenue going to the players, from like 58 to 50 percent. I think thats what ive read. I think the NHL has the highest percentage of the sports, but just not as much actual revenue.
Okay, let me try it. Somehow I see the whole thing. All final numbers are approximately.
1. 4M less is too much IMO.
2. Could still be less than 64.3M actual cap-hit but could be more depends on a few facts. (Will mention it later)
3. In actual CBA, this is how it works:
57% (players share) of HRR (hockey related revenue) _____________________________________________ = Salary Cap Midpoint
30 NHL Teams
a) you can add 5% growth if the HRR is more than $2.7 Billion (it shall be
adjusted upward by a factor of five (5) percent in each League Year (yielding the
Adjusted Midpoint) until League-wide Actual HRR equals or exceeds $2.1
billion, at which point the five (5) percent growth factor shall continue unless or
until either party to this Agreement proposes a different growth factor based on
actual revenue experience and/or projections, in which case the parties shall
discuss and agree upon a new factor)
4. Now you have midpoint. You have to add 8 Million to get salary cap and subtract 8 Million to get salary floor.
5. So this season it was like this:
- HRR of 2011 was app. $2.822 Billion
- 57% players share
- +5% growth, cause HRR is more than 2.7B
57% of 2.822 B ( = 1.60854 B)
__________________________ = 53.618 Million + 2.6875 Million (5%) = app. 56.3 Million
30 (teams)
Midpoint is 56.3 M --> 56.3 + 8 = 64.3M salary cap
56.3 - 8 = 48.3M salary floor
6. So, with the same way, we can get the next salary cap and floor, but upon the actual CBA which expires on Sept. 15, 2012.
7. It was rumored/mentioned/speculated that the HRR for the year 2012 could app. 3.2 Billion.
- now add 8M and you have 71.8M Cap Hit and subtract 8 and you have 55.8M Cap Floor
9. There's no way some low-budget team could effort at least 55.8M to reach the cap floor.
10. Because of that, in the new CBA, it was speculated/rumored/proposed two major changes:
a) Players share would go down from 57% to 50%
b) 8 Million added to the midpoint and 8 Million subtract would go up to +10 Million and -10 Million
c) not sure, if 5% growth stay or not, but I think it could stay..
based on those facts we could get :
50% of 3.2B
___________ = 53.3 M + 2.665 M (5% - could not stay) = 56.0 M (midpoint)
30
11. So now you can speculate :
a) if +8M/-8M stay, you have : SALARY CAP - 64.0 M (0.3M less than this season) SALARY FLOOR - 48.0M
b) if it will go to +10M/-10M : SALARY CAP - 66.0 M SALARY FLOOR - 46.0 M (2.3M less than this season)
The Bottom line is, even cap hit could go up to 72 Million, it will be legal until the new CBA is signed, in the other words, you cannot use those 72M.
It's impossible to guess those facts, like if 5% growth stays or how much you go up and down from the midpoint. You can have different numbers in the end because of that.
That's the most difficult part for GMs cause they can just guess, like we are, how it could look like.
Hope somebody will get it what I wrote and hope I helped little bit.
I'd be stunned to see the cap not rise a bit, let alone stay static or fall. I would bet anything that the "rumors" of this scenario occurring are just negotiation scare tactics.
The only person I've heard say the cap might fall is Bob Pompeani on the Nightly Sports Call the other day (don't ask why I was watching that). If anyone else has links bring 'em on. Up until this week I thought everyone was assuming the cap would go up, possibly $5 million?
That's a good question. The league has been very successful financially AFAIK, even through the recession. So I'm not sure how the logic of "the cap must be going down" adds up. Also you have a lot of parity in the league now, as we're seeing, so there's no argument of "haves and have-nots" as there is in baseball.
18 of the 30 NHL franchises had an operating loss in the 2011 season. For comparison, NFL had 2 franchises with an operating loss, MLB had 3 and NBA had 15 (and we know they ended up with a lockout).
The total operating income of the league was approximately $126 m. Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens accounted for around $170 m, meaning the rest of the teams had a combined operating loss of $44 m. To me that sounds like some changes might be in order.
The main thing would definitely be players share.. if it drops to 50% which is very very possible, cap won't go higher than 66 Million, IMO. And that's the best scenario.
Although, every 1% up or down of the players share, could make huge difference when we're talking about league revenue 3.2 BILLION dollars.
Blow up divisions completely. Just swap Winnipeg and Nashville in the eastern and western conference.
Seed playoff teams 1-16, that way the best 16 teams get in and none of this ******** where Florida is a 3 seed and the Pens are a 4 seed. If did it my way the Pens would still be the 4 seed but Florida would be the 14 seed.
