HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Realistically....How many teams should be in the NHL?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-28-2012, 01:30 PM
  #1
Habsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 728
vCash: 500
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?

Habsrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 01:33 PM
  #2
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
Mod note:

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


Last edited by mouser: 12-28-2012 at 02:45 PM.
mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:54 PM
  #3
Mory Schneideur*
Mory's Better!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Today & The Future
Posts: 5,261
vCash: 500
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.

Mory Schneideur* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:55 PM
  #4
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
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.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:55 PM
  #5
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
As many as can remain financially viable.

It really shouldn't be more than 20.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:56 PM
  #6
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,933
vCash: 500
32

64 in the KHL

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

kmad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:59 PM
  #7
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
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.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:02 PM
  #8
trellaine201
Registered User
 
trellaine201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Left coast
Posts: 6,383
vCash: 500
I vote to get rid of 5 teams minimum, more likely 6.

trellaine201 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:03 PM
  #9
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
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.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:05 PM
  #10
PensBandwagonerNo272
the march
 
PensBandwagonerNo272's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,720
vCash: 450
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.

PensBandwagonerNo272 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:08 PM
  #11
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 6,890
vCash: 500
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.

ThisYearsModel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:10 PM
  #12
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
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.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:11 PM
  #13
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel View Post
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...

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:18 PM
  #14
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
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.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:18 PM
  #15
Gotaf7
Registered User
 
Gotaf7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winterpeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 553
vCash: 50
24 Teams with the increased revenue sharing that will come with the new CBA would make for a finacially stable league IMHO.

Gotaf7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:22 PM
  #16
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
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.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:23 PM
  #17
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel View Post
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.

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:24 PM
  #18
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
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.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:26 PM
  #19
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
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.

JMT21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:27 PM
  #20
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
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.


Last edited by du5566*: 12-28-2012 at 03:33 PM.
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:28 PM
  #21
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
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)

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:30 PM
  #22
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
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

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:35 PM
  #23
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradD View Post
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?

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:35 PM
  #24
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradD View Post
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))

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:36 PM
  #25
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
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.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.