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.
Orr, you know I love your Mix East And West agenda.
However, there's a number of things I'd change.
If you're adding six markets, why not use the markets themselves to solve why W-E conferences don't work?
Been there, done that recently in another thread here.
Quote:
MIN, CHI, STL, NSH, DAL, Houston
WIN, EDM, CAL, COL, PHX, Salt Lake
LA, ANA, SJS, VAN, SEA, Portland
Houston is larger than MIL, MIL is right on top of CHI while HOU is four hours from DAL.
Salt Lake is smaller than KC or MIL, but would give Colorado a regional rival.
Absolutely! I forgor Houston when I posted that yesterday. Definitely would be a more potential choice than Milwaukee. Salt Lake I also included in that other East-West alignment I mentioned above.
Not bad except Boston and Montreal not being divisional rivals anymore would be extremely controversial
Splitting up Montréal-Boston would be controversial, as that is a great rivalry. But Montréal-Québec was an even greater rivalry until the Nordiques flew away, one that captures the passion of an entire province (nation). Boston in the Comcast/NBC division gives the broadcaster access to the greatest hockey metropolises in a concentrated format, and preserves the equal distribution of Original Six franchises. So I say let it be. The Northeast is essentially configured as a Canadian division, and maybe Buffalo can swap some broadcasting rights from TSN for the concession of a couple of neutral games in
Hamilton.
I know it won't play out the way I suggested. I think the Molson-Bettman feud and Quebecor's lawsuit against Bell will hamper Québec's bid. Sports after all is governed by politics. I also believe that both the owners and players are greedy enough to charge exhorbitant amounts for expansion teams which will only further saturate the league (because it is evident that the NHL has the same stability as the NFL) and extend the NHL season, when the best way to grow the sport is in my opinion to shorten our season, and work in conjunction with the IIHF to have international hockey expanded.
It's real easy to make alignment plans that work when you're "allowed" to move teams and expand the league by six.
I think 32 in the 4 conference structure is pretty easy, too. Southern Ontario in the Central, CBJ in the "Patrick" (with PIT) and QUE in the Adams (with OTT, MON and BOS).
It's real easy to make alignment plans that work when you're "allowed" to move teams and expand the league by six.
I think 32 in the 4 conference structure is pretty easy, too. Southern Ontario in the Central, CBJ in the "Patrick" (with PIT) and QUE in the Adams (with OTT, MON and BOS).
The thread title says expand 2 in Canada, why not do what is "easy"
Two different conferences, two different realities. In the East, it's all about rivalries. In the West, it's all about travel. Why do the two have to be set up the same way? Why does one size have to fit all?
East: NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi
North: Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor
Central: Pit, Buf, Det, Clb
South: Was, Car, TB, Fla
- All 16 ETZ teams in the East
- 6 games against 3 division opponents(18)
- 4 games against 12 conference opponents(48)
- 1 game against the West(14)
- Go to an even 80 game schedule, or add two wildcard games against two teams from the West for 82
- Every team has the same chance of making the playoffs
- 1-8 conference seeding
- Division winners get the top 4 seeds
Midwest: Chi, Nas, StL, Min, Wpg, Dal, Col
West: Van, Edm, Cal, SJ, LA, Ana, Phx
- 6 games against 6 division opponents(36)
- 4 games against 7 conference opponents(28)
- 1 game against the East(16) + maybe two wildcard games
- 80 or 82 game schedule
- Every team has the same chance to make the playoffs
- Top 4 in each group makes the playoffs, and they play each other in the 1st and 2nd round, to cut down on travel
- If the 5th team in one group has a better record than the 4th in the other, suck it up and deal with it
- Sorry Chi, StL, and Nas, but Detroit doesn't really care about you guys anyway, at least not enough to turn down more 7pm start times on the road
Now if only they could figure out how to split the billions of dollars, realignment might matter.
I have been out the country for months and haven't been following anything hockey-related, but isn't Seattle further ahead than Markham/Hamilton at this point? Quebec City I could understand though.
Ahh, it's good, I wouldn't complain with that. But it could be better:
That Division should be matched with something similar in the east, or else Vancouver's alignment sticks out like a sore thumb. For Example:
NORTHEAST
Montreal
Boston
NY Islanders
NY Rangers
New Jersey
(which also keeps Montreal and Boston together)
Having your other western Canadian-content Division
Match this eastern one:
GREAT LAKES
Ottawa
Toronto
Buffalo
Detroit
Chicago
Now, no matter how much I think 2 Florida teams are at least 1 Florida team too many, there is no immediate sign that either team is going to disappear anytime soon:
The problem still remains though as to which three other teams would combine with the two Florida teams to create a well-rounded hockey Division. Other than one idea of combining the Florida teams with the NYC area teams, another option could be this one:
ATLANTIC
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Washington
Tampa Bay
Florida
(also keeps the Pennsylvania teams together)
Now that changes up your
To make this
CENTRAL
Dallas
St Louis
Nashville
Columbus
Carolina
A Division which I think creates an interesting mix and potential for those teams.
Putting that all together:
West
East
PACIFIC
NORTHEAST
Vancouver
Montreal
Seattle
Boston
San Jose
NY Islanders
Los Angeles
NY Rangers
Anaheim
New Jersey
Portland
Quebec City
-
-
GREAT LAKES
NORTHWEST
Ottawa
Edmonton
Toronto
Calgary
Buffalo
Winnipeg
Detroit
Minnesota
Chicago
Colorado
Southern Ont
Milwaukee
-
-
CENTRAL
ATLANTIC
Dallas
Florida
St Louis
Tampa Bay
Nashville
Washington
Columbus
Philadelphia
Carolina
Pittsburgh
Kansas City
Atlanta
Blue = Expansion 1, Red = Expansion 2, Purple = Expansion 3.
(Ultimately Atlanta could flip Divisions with Carolina.)
Also notice that there are 3 Orig-6 teams in both Conferences.
I like this but replace KC with Houston. The NHL is lacking for big markets out west.
Canada: Quebec City, Saskatoon and if their moving a team in the Toronto Area, I say put it in Hamilton.
USA: Seattle, Kansas City and Milwaukee, Houston wouldn't be a bad idea, same with Oklahoma City, but I think Utah isn't a bad idea Either
Quebec Nordiques/Voyagaurs
Saskatoon... Can't think of one
Hamilton Steelers
Seattle Thunderbirds/Americans/Totems
Kansas City Bullets?
Utah Miners
Oklahoma City Oaks
Saskatoon could happen..... in a century or so. Until the 2100's, not gonna happen.
I'd be half willing to lay odds that Atlanta will get a third team before Saskatoon gets their first NHL team.
As for OKC..... also a way's off, in all likelihood, if at all. More likely than not, the NBA will cover the market for a while until they eventually get an NFL team, and that'll be that for the very foreseeable future.
Salt Lake City does make a lot of sense as a longterm expansion goal for the NHL, given their ever-increasing market size and wealth, but they're still probably at least two decades off from being serious contenders for an NHL team, imho. If the NHL and USA Hockey were halfway intelligent, though, they'd be investing in promoting the hell out of the game in Utah and increasing youth hockey participation in order to pave the way for an eventual team.
Kansas City makes sense now, except they've shown no inclination of having a potential owner or ownership consortium stepping up.
Adding two more teams does nothing good for the league other than short term money when there are still franchises that are hurting. Relocating Phx and maybe Flo/Col might make more sense. Move struggling franchises to more lucrative markets. Immediate impact in ticket sales and if a new CBA comes in at 50/50 would only help these clubs.
All that being said there are still other teams struggling such as Dal, TBay, SJ, Stl and others. So again, adding two more teams would be ludicrous.
Adding two more teams does nothing good for the league other than short term money when there are still franchises that are hurting. Relocating Phx and maybe Flo/Col might make more sense. Move struggling franchises to more lucrative markets. Immediate impact in ticket sales and if a new CBA comes in at 50/50 would only help these clubs.
All that being said there are still other teams struggling such as Dal, TBay, SJ, Stl and others. So again, adding two more teams would be ludicrous.
SJ is struggling? Did I miss something? That's actually kind of a serious question as I haven't been paying as much attention through the lockout.
SJ is struggling? Did I miss something? That's actually kind of a serious question as I haven't been paying as much attention through the lockout.
Apparently, which is shocking to me, on Hockey Central one day in Canada they were mentioning that word got out that SJ lost money in each of the last six years. Is it real money, creative accounting? I don't know but the balance sheet was made to not look that good.
Adding two more teams does nothing good for the league other than short term money when there are still franchises that are hurting. Relocating Phx and maybe Flo/Col might make more sense. Move struggling franchises to more lucrative markets. Immediate impact in ticket sales and if a new CBA comes in at 50/50 would only help these clubs.
All that being said there are still other teams struggling such as Dal, TBay, SJ, Stl and others. So again, adding two more teams would be ludicrous.
Well, Columbus can't be relocated until 2039 so they're out of the question.
Why would they expand opposed to relocating? Relocate Phoenix, Florida, or Columbus. Why add more teams when the majority are struggling as it is.
Florida makes money for the company that owns it through the arena. Columbus is stuck until 2039. That leaves Phoenix. There aren't any other teams available for relocation unless you want to add Edmonton to that list (never going to happen).
Adding two more teams does nothing good for the league other than short term money when there are still franchises that are hurting. Relocating Phx and maybe Flo/Col might make more sense. Move struggling franchises to more lucrative markets. Immediate impact in ticket sales and if a new CBA comes in at 50/50 would only help these clubs.
All that being said there are still other teams struggling such as Dal, TBay, SJ, Stl and others. So again, adding two more teams would be ludicrous.
If payroll is tied to HRR, it probably does make more sense to expand rather than relocate.
Expansion drives up the average far less than relocation. You have one less poor team with relocation, but more teams are closer to poor, and the poor are further from the midpoint.
Adding two more teams does nothing good for the league other than short term money when there are still franchises that are hurting. Relocating Phx and maybe Flo/Col might make more sense. Move struggling franchises to more lucrative markets. Immediate impact in ticket sales and if a new CBA comes in at 50/50 would only help these clubs.
All that being said there are still other teams struggling such as Dal, TBay, SJ, Stl and others. So again, adding two more teams would be ludicrous.
Just about every team you mentioned isn't struggling. Where do you get your information from?
Apparently, which is shocking to me, on Hockey Central one day in Canada they were mentioning that word got out that SJ lost money in each of the last six years. Is it real money, creative accounting? I don't know but the balance sheet was made to not look that good.
"Losing money" is borderline worthless as an indicator.
San Jose has lost money because they spend it on players:
2008: $44 payroll, +$2.4
2009: $54 payroll, -$5.0
2010: $57 payroll, -$6.2
2011: $65 payroll, -$7.8
Isn't this what everyone is clamoring for in the revenue sharing threads? "There's no incentive to improve your team!"
San Jose is what you'd WANT: They spend money to increase revenues. They lose money because they CHOOSE to lose money.
The Sharks are most like a loss-leader for the arena, which the team operates.
Even without the sweet lease that gives them all the arena revenues, their $27.5 in operating losses since buying the team in 2002 will be offset by the franchise rising $64 million in value over the purchase price since then. They'll make back all their losses on the team via the sale of the team when they decide to do so; and the team's success brings in more arena revenue.
If a team didn't invest in payroll and spent only what they can afford (which the league no longer allows), their revenue streams would be stagnant, their team value would be stagnant, and their franchise value doesn't go up.
) and extend the NHL season, when the best way to grow the sport is in my opinion to shorten our season, and work in conjunction with the IIHF to have international hockey expanded.
