The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
No way. Too dinky of a market for the NHL to even remotely consider. Just off the top of my head, I'd venture that Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Hampton Roads, and Hartford all are above Omaha, and most of them have no chance at landing a team or are decades away from being a legitimate possibility, and that's looking only places in the U.S. And I'm probably forgetting a few decent metro areas, too.
Fair point. But hockey is popular in Omaha, the city has no professional sports team, and you've got a population of almost 1 million. Plus, Lincoln isn't too far away.
It's definitely "dinky" and there are better markets. Seattle and Portland would be better. The sports market in Milwaukee can't support an NHL team alongside an NBA team. So I don't know if Milwaukee is better. Houston is certainly better, but it's pretty much the exact opposite of Omaha. It's a big non-traditional city; whereas Omaha is more a quaint traditional city. There's trade-offs involved there.
But fair point, I concede that the NHL will prefer other markets. I do think Omaha gets ignored quite a bit though. It's one of the few places that seem to love their hockey. And it's got a sizeable population.
As for the dinkiness, a team in Markham will obviously use the Toronto name, probably something like Toronto X of York Region or something like that. But Hamilton is pretty damn dinky. I mean, no one would know where it is. Not even people in Canada outside of Southern Ontario. And it's a typical rustbelt sorta city.
I think it would bode well for the NHL to go to cities that enjoy hockey. By going to really heartland small-town like places like Omaha, I feel like hockey may be able to ingrain itself more in American culture. But perhaps that's a silly and ass-backwards idea (seriously).
For comparison, I would think an Omaha NHL team would be like the OKC Thunder. Small town with a massive appetite for sports. Perfect town for one professional sports team and not more.
Last edited by saffronleaf: 10-13-2012 at 08:52 PM.
Fair point. But hockey is popular in Omaha, the city has no professional sports team, and you've got a population of almost 1 million. Plus, Lincoln isn't too far away.
It's definitely "dinky" and there are better markets. Seattle and Portland would be better. The sports market in Milwaukee can't support an NHL team alongside an NBA team. So I don't know if Milwaukee is better. Houston is certainly better, but it's pretty much the exact opposite of Omaha. It's a big non-traditional city; whereas Omaha is more a quaint traditional city. There's trade-offs involved there.
But fair point, I concede that the NHL will prefer other markets. I do think Omaha gets ignored quite a bit though. It's one of the few places that seem to love their hockey. And it's got a sizeable population.
As for the dinkiness, a team in Markham will obviously use the Toronto name, probably something like Toronto X of York Region or something like that. But Hamilton is pretty damn dinky. I mean, no one would know where it is. Not even people in Canada outside of Southern Ontario. And it's a typical rustbelt sorta city.
I think it would bode well for the NHL to go to cities that enjoy hockey. By going to really heartland small-town like places like Omaha, I feel like hockey may be able to ingrain itself more in American culture. But perhaps that's a silly and ass-backwards idea (seriously).
For comparison, I would think an Omaha NHL team would be like the OKC Thunder. Small town with a massive appetite for sports. Perfect town for one professional sports team and not more.
Fair points, but I think that the size factor alone essentially would disqualify it from possible consideration. And the only reason that OKC got a team was because they "lucked" into having the Hornets temporarily in the immediate aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans (not making light of that tragedy) and the league and the Bennetts saw a practical opportunity for moving into that market. Had that never happened, nobody would've looked at Oklahoma as a potential NBA location, and I'm not anticipating a repeat happening between a current NHL team and the city of Omaha.
Seattle can't even keep an NBA team. No idea why people think it's such a good sports city. Even Seahawks and Mariners are far from successful.
Well if we had a properly built arena in the first place the Sonics would had never left. Not Seattle's fault Bennett was refusing to be reasonable regarding the arena issue. He lied to acquire the team. He had no intention of keeping the team in Seattle. NBA is just as guilty for allowing it to happen. The fact is that it took the Sonics leaving to force the issue regarding the arena problem.
If Seattle gets the sodo arena built (aka getting the nba back) we will get a NHL team.
Well if we had a properly built arena in the first place the Sonics would had never left. Not Seattle's fault Bennett was refusing to be reasonable regarding the arena issue. He lied to acquire the team. He had no intention of keeping the team in Seattle. NBA is just as guilty for allowing it to happen.
If Seattle gets the sodo arena built (aka getting the nba back) we will get a NHL team.
Not to mention he named the Seahawks as an example in his post: A team that has a waiting list for season tickets several years long no matter how crappy they are on the field.
Not to mention he named the Seahawks as an example in his post: A team that has a waiting list for season tickets several years long no matter how crappy they are on the field.
And yet he ignored the sounders and they been one of the most successful expansion team in league history. they had 66.4k people attend their last home game against Portland.
The issue with the mariners is that they refused to do something to actually address the problems on field and instead focus on being anti arena.
Fair points, but I think that the size factor alone essentially would disqualify it from possible consideration. And the only reason that OKC got a team was because they "lucked" into having the Hornets temporarily in the immediate aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans (not making light of that tragedy) and the league and the Bennetts saw a practical opportunity for moving into that market. Had that never happened, nobody would've looked at Oklahoma as a potential NBA location, and I'm not anticipating a repeat happening between a current NHL team and the city of Omaha.
Ah, I wasn't aware of the circumstances that led to the NBA going to OKC. It did come as a surprise to me that the NBA chose OKC of all markets. Yeah, I don't see something similar happening that would sort of guide the NHL's hands into putting a team in Omaha. Gotta say though, the NBA lucked out with OKC -- their fanbase is rabid. Although time will tell if they'll stick around for the inevitable rough patches the team will go through.
Having 32 teams would be terrible. We already have too many goons in the league. Adding another 50 players to the league would dilute the skill level severely.
You can solve that easily by going to a 20 men roster. You cut two forward and one defence and I guarantee that goons will be on the endangered species list really fast. On top of that you likely create more offence by putting the defensive forward specialist on the same list.
The thing is... if York Region gets a team in Markham, why can't Peel Region get a team in Mississauga?
There's a larger population in Peel region. It would draw fans from Mississauga, Oakville and Brampton.
Someone should get on that and make an arena in Mississauga.
Move the Panthers there and call 'em the Peel Panthers. Money in the bank, shawty what you think? etc.
That'd be great. Every single night of the NHL regular season, there'd be a game to see somewhere in the GTA. Until the playoffs, of course. Then no games.
Last edited by saffronleaf: 10-13-2012 at 10:22 PM.
i have an idea lets go back to the ORIGNAL SIX...GO LEAFS GO
I've always thought that contracting the league to the original 6, the non-original 6 Canadian teams, QC, Philly, and the Pens would be the way to go (i'm teasing ).
That would leave us with Van, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, QC, Detroit, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philly.
To make the league work, we'd really need 16 teams (8 in each conference)...we could expand and include Markham and Hamilton - or else invite 2 existing teams...I'm not sure which ones, though. Maybe start a poll on the topic and see how it goes over w/ the rest of the board
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones
Only 4 different teams in MLB have drawn 4 million fans in a season. Toronto did it 3 times and they were the 1st to do it. Go figure, over a hundred years of baseball history in the U S and Toronto was the 1st team to draw over 4 million fans for a season.
I was old enough in the early 90s that I remember how exciting it was in Toronto re the Jays at that time...it's really too bad the way things went downhill attendance-wise, b/c for a while people in this city were really excited by the team...and genuinely liked baseball. It was fun b/c we had a good rivalry with Detroit and games in both cities were fun b/c TO/Detroit are close enough that fans from each would travel to the games. Games against the Yankees were also great b/c fans from NYC would travel up to watch the games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley
Seattle is NHL's #1? Over Quebec and Toronto?
Seattle can't even keep an NBA team. No idea why people think it's such a good sports city. Even Seahawks and Mariners are far from successful.
I just have this bad feeling that as long as Bettman is around, unless there's an expansion (which would require 2 new teams) - and there's only a relocation, he'd give it to Seattle. I just remember how grumpy he seemed when Atlanta was relocated to the 'Peg...he almost seemed pissed off about it.
If they expand, i think it would be Seattle/QC. If they just relocate, i think the first to get a team would be Seattle (although I would love it to be QC instead).
The problem w/ anywhere in Canada is that any new/relocated team doesn't seem to fit w/ the NHL's desire to "grow the sport" (i.e. introduce a new audience to the game) - you have saturation here where, for the most part, you're just getting people who watch hockey already to watch a new team.
Re: Toronto/GTA/Hamilton - as nice as it would be, I don't see it happening anytime soon...I can't imagine MLSE allowing it - and can't see the NHL messing with MLSE if it's not onside.
I've always thought that contracting the league to the original 6, the non-original 6 Canadian teams, QC, Philly, and the Pens would be the way to go (i'm teasing ).
That would leave us with Van, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, QC, Detroit, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philly.
To make the league work, we'd really need 16 teams (8 in each conference)...we could expand and include Markham and Hamilton - or else invite 2 existing teams...I'm not sure which ones, though. Maybe start a poll on the topic and see how it goes over w/ the rest of the board
I was old enough in the early 90s that I remember how exciting it was in Toronto re the Jays at that time...it's really too bad the way things went downhill attendance-wise, b/c for a while people in this city were really excited by the team...and genuinely liked baseball. It was fun b/c we had a good rivalry with Detroit and games in both cities were fun b/c TO/Detroit are close enough that fans from each would travel to the games. Games against the Yankees were also great b/c fans from NYC would travel up to watch the games.
I just have this bad feeling that as long as Bettman is around, unless there's an expansion (which would require 2 new teams) - and there's only a relocation, he'd give it to Seattle. I just remember how grumpy he seemed when Atlanta was relocated to the 'Peg...he almost seemed pissed off about it.
If they expand, i think it would be Seattle/QC. If they just relocate, i think the first to get a team would be Seattle (although I would love it to be QC instead).
The problem w/ anywhere in Canada is that any new/relocated team doesn't seem to fit w/ the NHL's desire to "grow the sport" (i.e. introduce a new audience to the game) - you have saturation here where, for the most part, you're just getting people who watch hockey already to watch a new team.
Re: Toronto/GTA/Hamilton - as nice as it would be, I don't see it happening anytime soon...I can't imagine MLSE allowing it - and can't see the NHL messing with MLSE if it's not onside.
Its not a sure thing the sodo arena will be built. Assuming the EIS comes out fine it could still be a couple years before we acquire a NBA team.
Not sure if the NHL wants to wait that long regarding phx if that deal to keep phx where they are at falls apart.
Did it come out of the mouth of one of the two guys entitled to talk on behalf of the League?
True or not, it's probably a deliberate leak. It'll win brownie points with Canadians. It's a great PR move for the owners.
Great PR move for both sides of the boarder,no?
Makes Canadians happy that they gain two teams and it prevents the Americans from getting ticked that they lost out to Canada , by having two of their teams relocate here.
Having 3 straight teams leave the states to come to Canada is very bad optics, south of the boarder.
I decided to take a shot at what the new conferences would look like if this expansion actually happened. Like the idea the NHL had before the PA shut it down, but each conference has 8 teams now. This is assuming also that Phoenix is relocated to Seattle, and even if that doesn't happen, Phoenix would still be in the same conference as Seattle is placed in this idea.
I tried to keep every team within the same time zone of the other teams within their conference. I remember there being complaints about the northeast conference having southern teams mixed in with the likes of the Leafs and Sens, but southern teams are mixed with northern teams in every conference (save the Atlantic, where every team is relatively close to each other).
The red is the Atlantic Conference, blue the East Conference, green the Central Conference, and Yellow the Pacific Conference.
In any case, each team wold play teams in their own division 4 times, and out of conference teams twice (One game home, one game away), giving each team a total of 76 games. Four teams from each conference would qualify for the playoffs. You'd then have a conference playoffs where the 1st & 4th place teams in each conference play each other, and the 2nd & 3rd place teams play each other. The winners of those matches would then play each other to decide the conference champion, before moving on to the semifinals, where the teams are re-seeded based on where they finished within their respective conferences. Example:
You could still keep the Presidents trophy in this format, and less regular season games means potentially fewer (if any) June games. What do you guys think?
Why do people propose things where the Leafs and Habs are not in the same division?
I dont see them ever being separated. There's too much money in Leafs-Habs, and Sens-Habs games. The Canadian broadcasters would not be happy. You're also breaking up Pittsburgh and Philly...which again, is not going to happen.
If you look at the divisions the league proposed last year, they had 7 teams in the Leafs division. If QBC comes in, they would just move there. If you add another team in Toronto, you move Buffalo to that "Patrick" division, and then you open two spots in the "Adams" division.
IF there is in fact an expansion that puts a team in Quebec and another in Ontario, there will certainly be many who argue that finally Bettman and the League have backed away from the movement southward. However, I'd look at such an expansion as furthering of an already east-heavy, if not more specifically northeast-heavy League. The population distribution on the continent may certainly be weighted in that direction, but in no way is the population as skewed towards the northeast as much as the NHL is or will be even more so with another two teams in the northeast.
I certainly wouldn't see such an expansion as evidence that the NHL is a league growing its fanbase. It would instead be a very conservative move, and will make it even harder to ever have an east-west balanced league (and that's just dividing along the ETZ/CTZ line, which certainly isn't a balanced split to begin with). But fine, there will certainly be those around this forum who will be of the attitude that it's great that the NHL may have decided to entrench itself in the area of its strength.
Why do people propose things where the Leafs and Habs are not in the same division?
I dont see them ever being separated. There's too much money in Leafs-Habs, and Sens-Habs games. The Canadian broadcasters would not be happy. You're also breaking up Pittsburgh and Philly...which again, is not going to happen.
If you look at the divisions the league proposed last year, they had 7 teams in the Leafs division. If QBC comes in, they would just move there. If you add another team in Toronto, you move Buffalo to that "Patrick" division, and then you open two spots in the "Adams" division.
*ahem*
You do realize the Leafs played in the West until 1998-99, right?
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
Why do people propose things where the Leafs and Habs are not in the same division?
I dont see them ever being separated. There's too much money in Leafs-Habs, and Sens-Habs games. The Canadian broadcasters would not be happy. You're also breaking up Pittsburgh and Philly...which again, is not going to happen.
If you look at the divisions the league proposed last year, they had 7 teams in the Leafs division. If QBC comes in, they would just move there. If you add another team in Toronto, you move Buffalo to that "Patrick" division, and then you open two spots in the "Adams" division.
I thought about that. Basically, my logic was that Leafs vs Habs is a smaller rivalry compared to Habs-Bruins or Leafs-Sens. The Leafs and Habs rivalry hasn't been nearly as heated as the previously mentioned two. I'd reckon a Nordiques-Habs or Leafs-Markham rivalry would be stronger than what the Habs-Leafs "rivalry" has become. The money that would be lost by separating them would be made up from Ottawa-Markham, Toronto-Markham, and Habs-Nordiques games. I'm sure the CBC and TSN wouldn't mind having the french rivalry back, and the angle they could put on the Markham-Toronto rivalry. The Habs and Leafs have been separated before, it's not out of the question that it'll happen again.
As for Pittsburgh, that is a problem. In this new division they have no old rivals unfortunately. You could switch them and Washington now that I think about it. Washington and Ottawa in the same conference would be like the US capital vs Canadian Capital, not to mention Washington could keep growing the rivalry between them and the other southern teams, and they aren't losing any major rivalries by leaving the Atlantic.
Hopefully those two teams would be QC and Seattle. I think those two cities would flourish given a shot with the NHL.
Seattle doesn't have an NBA team, that would be a nice opportunity for the NHL to step up and try a team there this decade.
We'll have a NBA team by the time the NHL team arrives. There is no current NHL ready arena. One will get built if Hansen is able to acquire a NBA team baring any issues.
I thought about that. Basically, my logic was that Leafs vs Habs is a smaller rivalry compared to Habs-Bruins or Leafs-Sens. The Leafs and Habs rivalry hasn't been nearly as heated as the previously mentioned two. I'd reckon a Nordiques-Habs or Leafs-Markham rivalry would be stronger than what the Habs-Leafs "rivalry" has become. The money that would be lost by separating them would be made up from Ottawa-Markham, Toronto-Markham, and Habs-Nordiques games. I'm sure the CBC and TSN wouldn't mind having the french rivalry back, and the angle they could put on the Markham-Toronto rivalry. The Habs and Leafs have been separated before, it's not out of the question that it'll happen again.
As for Pittsburgh, that is a problem. In this new division they have no old rivals unfortunately. You could switch them and Washington now that I think about it. Washington and Ottawa in the same conference would be like the US capital vs Canadian Capital, not to mention Washington could keep growing the rivalry between them and the other southern teams, and they aren't losing any major rivalries by leaving the Atlantic.
You should ask someone at CBC or TSN which is the bigger rivalry between the Habs-B's/Sens-Leafs vs Habs-Leafs. You have to remember that the Leafs and Sens have had multiple playoff series against one another. Leafs and Habs wasn't able to happen outside the Finals. If it did, it would blow everything out of the water in terms of ratings in Canada. That's why the proposed realignment was great, because you guaranteed two rounds on inter-divisional playoffs, which makes it more likely to see those natural rivals playing in the playoffs. The TV people would love it.
Makes no sense to split them up when you dont have to. Leafs, Habs, Sens should be a block of teams. Just like Isles, Rangers, Devils, Pens, and Flyers should be. You fit everyone else in where you can fit them (hence Florida and Tampa in a division with Leafs).
If you add a team to Quebec, they should be with Montreal, which means they should be with Toronto and Ottawa. If you add Toronto 2, why wouldnt you want them with Ottawa, Toronto AND Montreal and Quebec? The question becomes which is the bigger rivalry -- games between the Habs and Rangers or games between the Habs and Leafs. Its an obvious answer.
I thought about that. Basically, my logic was that Leafs vs Habs is a smaller rivalry compared to Habs-Bruins or Leafs-Sens. The Leafs and Habs rivalry hasn't been nearly as heated as the previously mentioned two. I'd reckon a Nordiques-Habs or Leafs-Markham rivalry would be stronger than what the Habs-Leafs "rivalry" has become. The money that would be lost by separating them would be made up from Ottawa-Markham, Toronto-Markham, and Habs-Nordiques games. I'm sure the CBC and TSN wouldn't mind having the french rivalry back, and the angle they could put on the Markham-Toronto rivalry. The Habs and Leafs have been separated before, it's not out of the question that it'll happen again.
As for Pittsburgh, that is a problem. In this new division they have no old rivals unfortunately. You could switch them and Washington now that I think about it. Washington and Ottawa in the same conference would be like the US capital vs Canadian Capital, not to mention Washington could keep growing the rivalry between them and the other southern teams, and they aren't losing any major rivalries by leaving the Atlantic.
Toronto2 (Markham) is not going to happen because MLSE. will do everything in there power to stop another NHL. team from takking root right on there door step because it will take business away from just not the leafs but the Raptors & Marlies too in which MLSE. also owns . Besides this so called arena in Markham is far from a done deal & might not even get bulit so don't count your chickens before they hatch because if this arena dose not get bulit Markham is setting them selves up for a huge let down & if it dose get bulit they will have a huge & expensive up hill battle for an NHL. team & in my opinion no prospective owner for TO2 team would put up the money , time & fight because it would just not be worth it .
