HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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, 03:38 PM
  #26
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
You are cutting Minn? Really?
Do you have any other team to cut that isn't a contender? I am looking at the list and every other team is a contender or is growing profits. You could maybe cut Buffalo or St. Louis. I understand Minnesota is hockey country but the Wild are most certainly not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
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 fo top US players that were born there).

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.
Tampa is actually far better off than Florida. They've won the cup and are still a growing market. Plus with Stamkos they are most certainly the kings of that area next to Carolina hockey wise.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:40 PM
  #27
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
If you read my first post I am saying you can't cut a team from Minnesota. What someone proposed was a 20 team league. Figuring if that happened, they would add a franchise in Seattle and be done with it.

They would have to cut Minnesota, St. Louis, or Colorado. Take your pick. St. Louis is growing enormously. Also would have to cut several teams including Calgary to make up for it. They wouldn't cut the likes of Boston, Montreal, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, etc.

My original proposal was a 26 team league, cutting 5 teams including Columbus, Dallas, Phoenix, Florida, and Nashville then adding a team in Seattle. All of those markets are extremely weak and only two of them are contenders every year.

The only other solution would be to cut Columbus, Dallas, and Florida and put a team in Seattle to make 28 teams.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:42 PM
  #28
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=BradD;56875543]Do you have any other team to cut that isn't a contender? I am looking at the list and every other team is a contender or is growing profits. You could maybe cut Buffalo or St. Louis. I understand Minnesota is hockey country but the Wild are most certainly not.[QUOTE]

The NHL is not going to cut Minn or any team for that matter. Teams in all/most major North American TV markets = big TV contracts = big revenue = better NHL for everyone.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:43 PM
  #29
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,001
vCash: 50
Somewhere between 28-32. Once the economy is back on it's feet, I think pretty much all markets with the possible exception of Phoenix is viable. There are a few more that could handle NHL teams.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:46 PM
  #30
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=du5566;56875657][QUOTE=BradD;56875543]Do you have any other team to cut that isn't a contender? I am looking at the list and every other team is a contender or is growing profits. You could maybe cut Buffalo or St. Louis. I understand Minnesota is hockey country but the Wild are most certainly not.
Quote:

The NHL is not going to cut Minn or any team for that matter. Teams in all/most major North American TV markets = big TV contracts = big revenue = better NHL for everyone.
This thread was talking about how many teams should be in the NHL. I said there should be 26. The other reasonable conclusion was 28.

We're not saying the NHL is going to do this or should, we're saying HOW MANY teams should be in the NHL.

I said there shouldn't be a Columbus, Dallas, Florida, Nashville, or Phoenix. I stick by that point. All markets are super weak for hockey or already have another team in the market (see Tampa). There is no need to have TWO hockey teams in Florida.

Carolina and Tampa Bay have built their own. I highly doubt that, even if a team like Florida won the Cup, fans would stick around.

Money wise it is better short term for the NHL, yes, but when these teams start tanking even more it's going to be a huge problem. Dallas has upside and so does Florida, but teams like Nashville and Columbus are ridding themselves of all viable players. They need to not be in the NHL.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:46 PM
  #31
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradD View Post
I understand Minnesota is hockey country but the Wild are most certainly not.
As I pointed out above, it's a bad statement for a le ague if you can't run a franchise in a state that loves hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BradD View Post
Tampa is actually far better off than Florida. They've won the cup and are still a growing market. Plus with Stamkos they are most certainly the kings of that area next to Carolina hockey wise.
I am just going on the idea all things being equal, I would rather invest in Miami then Tampa

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:46 PM
  #32
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,310
vCash: 500
32 is the answer. There's enough actual NHL talent to support two additional teams, but is either buried within an established franchise or is playing in Europe. Guys like Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis never would have seen the NHL if not for 28 teams...who knows how many more are losing careers in lower levels.

The second part of that is that the cost to contract an NHL team would be astronomical. First, buy the team. Second, settle the lawsuits (and you'd better believe there would be lots of them). Third, "make whole" all the local governments and businesses. You're looking at a $500 million starting price tag, per team.

It takes a very special type of mind to say that "spending $2-3 billion and getting no actual return on that investment is the real key to financial stability."

And if it's a matter of "enriching the talent pool" and has nothing to do with anything else, then I don't think anyone should object to the Canadian teams being chopped. It's for the good of the game, after all.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:49 PM
  #33
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
32 is the answer. There's enough actual NHL talent to support two additional teams, but is either buried within an established franchise or is playing in Europe. Guys like Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis never would have seen the NHL if not for 28 teams...who knows how many more are losing careers in lower levels.
The thing I like about a number of teams being divisible by 4(ie either 28 or 32) is you can create 4 divisions and have the top 4 teams from each division make it every year. I think this would lead to many more rivalries which makes for entertaining hockey. it also could make scheduling much easier which may cut down on some travel expenses. I think the current way the league is set up with divisions and conferences doesn't help create rivalries(sure we still get some rivalries here and there but I do think a 4 division setup would create more)


Last edited by boredmale: 12-28-2012 at 04:00 PM.
boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:50 PM
  #34
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,480
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=du5566;56875657][QUOTE=BradD;56875543]Do you have any other team to cut that isn't a contender? I am looking at the list and every other team is a contender or is growing profits. You could maybe cut Buffalo or St. Louis. I understand Minnesota is hockey country but the Wild are most certainly not.
Quote:

The NHL is not going to cut Minn or any team for that matter. Teams in all/most major North American TV markets = big TV contracts = big revenue = better NHL for everyone.
How many wild games did nbcsn air last year ? The local deals are just that local, and I don't see the value of having the wild as a cornerstone of the TV deal if they can always get more eyes showing the new teams along with Pitt and Chicago.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:50 PM
  #35
Axe Man
Brooklyn Bound
 
Axe Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Islander Country
Country: United States
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
I think a 23 or 24 team league would be ideal. We could get rid of the original 6 teams or the 7 Canadian teams. Take your pick.

Axe Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:54 PM
  #36
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post

I am just going on the idea all things being equal, I would rather invest in Miami then Tampa
I definitley think Florida has alot of upside if they play their cards correct. I would give them a couple more years if I decided to officially cut off any teams. If they can actually start drafting well and get some big name leaders and stars I could see them becoming valid. That being said, I put them on the list because I don't believe they will. They have stuck with Tomas Fleischmann as their team leader. I mean, really, Fleischmann.

Markets that have smaller success need a big name star to help them succeed. For Columbus it was Nash, but they never built around him. For Tampa Bay it was Lecavalier. For Washington it was Bondra and Ovechkin.

Places like Washington and Pittsburgh went out and drafted huge name players and revived their franchises. Tampa was on the edge of losing their fanbase as all their players are getting up there in age. Dallas is/was on the same pattern after Modano is gone and now Richards is gone. Now they are dealing away players and hiring older guys to make up for it. Now that Tampa has Stamkos, they can start building around him again.

Florida needs to get a big name guy fast. Columbus I feel it might be too late.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:58 PM
  #37
sunnyvale420
Registered User
 
sunnyvale420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axe Man View Post
I think a 23 or 24 team league would be ideal. We could get rid of the original 6 teams or the 7 Canadian teams. Take your pick.
This haha. Too many fans at war with each other. 32-34 with revenue sharing, 24 teams with no cap or sharing

sunnyvale420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:59 PM
  #38
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axe Man View Post
I think a 23 or 24 team league would be ideal. We could get rid of the original 6 teams or the 7 Canadian teams. Take your pick.
Yeah getting rid of the majority of teams that are keeping the league afloat is a sensible business decision. I assume this is said in jest, but with the amount of Canada = evil sentiment on these boards, who knows?

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:01 PM
  #39
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyvale420 View Post
This haha. Too many fans at war with each other. 32-34 with revenue sharing, 24 teams with no cap or sharing
There aren't 24 markets that could exist without a cap or Rs. There just aren't.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:35 PM
  #40
regehr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
I think the NHL can support 28 teams (19 US, 9 Canada) -- 4 divisions of 7.

looking at the numbers there are 21 teams who sold out 96% or more of their home games (all of which averaged at least 16.7k/game with the exception of Winnipeg, whose arena only holds 15k):

1 PHI - 107.4%
2 CHI - 105%
3 TOR - 103.7%
4 PIT - 102.7%
5 VAN - 102.5%
6 WSH - 101.3%
7 OTT - 101.1%
8 DET - 100.7%
9 BOS - 100%
9 CGY - 100%
9 EDM - 100%
9 LAK - 100%
9 MTL - 100%
9 NYR - 100%
9 SJS - 100%
9 WPG - 100%
17 BUF - 99.9%
18 MIN - 98.4%
19 STL - 98.2%
20 NSH - 97.5%
21 TBL - 96.2%

From there, it drops to 5 "bubble" teams in the 86-87% range - these teams are OK, but not great - I could see one of these teams not making it (with NYI possibly improving with the move to Brooklyn).

22 NJD - 87.4%, 15.4k/game avg (#1 media market - New York)
23 FLA - 86.6%, 16.6k (#16 media market - Miami)
24 ANA - 86.4%, 14.8k (#2 media market - Los Angeles)
25 COL - 86.1%, 15.5k (#17 media market - Denver)
26 CAR - 85.9%, 16.0k (#24 media market - Raleigh)

From there, it drops to 4 weak teams in the 72-81% range - all of which avg'd < 15k/game. These teams look like candidates for contraction or relocation (again NYI might move up and one of the above 5 could move down into this group):
27 NYI - 81.3%, 13.2k/game avg
28 CBJ - 80.8% , 14.7k
29 DAL - 76.8%, 14.2k
30 PHX - 72.5%, 12.4k

Additionally, Quebec and a second team in Toronto are likely do-able.

So 21 solid + 5 bubble + 2 relocation = 28 teams.

regehr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:35 PM
  #41
David_99
Registered User
 
David_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,615
vCash: 500
30 teams by 2012 should have been fine. The rush to get to the number 30 by the new millenium, however, was the mistake.

People often talk about the strain on the available talent pool. There was a world of qualified players available for sure, but the same can't be said about owners and managers. Too many teams moving or expanding to new markets with unqualified ownerships and managers in place has had a huge impact and created many of the problems teams face today. With slower expansion, stronger ownership due diligence, better planning on locations and arena criteria, there's nothing wrong with 30. Realistically, adding or subtracting teams today won't fix past mistakes.

David_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:42 PM
  #42
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,404
vCash: 500
Realistically, 32 teams. I wonder when it will happen?

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:43 PM
  #43
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,856
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
There aren't 24 markets that could exist without a cap or Rs. There just aren't.
24 might be high.

Make it a free for all.... no cap, no revenue sharing, etc. and you would be down to a 8 team league..

Montreal
Toronto
Boston
NY Rangers
Detroit
Chicago
Philadelphia
Vancouver

don't see any other teams running with $100M+ salary base. You might have more than 8 to start with, but after the fans realize they are just development teams for the big 8, those will die as well. I will never pay $5000 for STs watching our good players leave for the big money teams over and over again.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:45 PM
  #44
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by regehr View Post
I think the NHL can support 28 teams (19 US, 9 Canada) -- 4 divisions of 7.

looking at the numbers there are 21 teams who sold out 96% or more of their home games (all of which averaged at least 16.7k/game with the exception of Winnipeg, whose arena only holds 15k):

1 PHI - 107.4%
2 CHI - 105%
3 TOR - 103.7%
4 PIT - 102.7%
5 VAN - 102.5%
6 WSH - 101.3%
7 OTT - 101.1%
8 DET - 100.7%
9 BOS - 100%
9 CGY - 100%
9 EDM - 100%
9 LAK - 100%
9 MTL - 100%
9 NYR - 100%
9 SJS - 100%
9 WPG - 100%
17 BUF - 99.9%
18 MIN - 98.4%
19 STL - 98.2%
20 NSH - 97.5%
21 TBL - 96.2%

From there, it drops to 5 "bubble" teams in the 86-87% range - these teams are OK, but not great - I could see one of these teams not making it (with NYI possibly improving with the move to Brooklyn).

22 NJD - 87.4%, 15.4k/game avg (#1 media market - New York)
23 FLA - 86.6%, 16.6k (#16 media market - Miami)
24 ANA - 86.4%, 14.8k (#2 media market - Los Angeles)
25 COL - 86.1%, 15.5k (#17 media market - Denver)
26 CAR - 85.9%, 16.0k (#24 media market - Raleigh)

From there, it drops to 4 weak teams in the 72-81% range - all of which avg'd < 15k/game. These teams look like candidates for contraction or relocation (again NYI might move up and one of the above 5 could move down into this group):
27 NYI - 81.3%, 13.2k/game avg
28 CBJ - 80.8% , 14.7k
29 DAL - 76.8%, 14.2k
30 PHX - 72.5%, 12.4k

Additionally, Quebec and a second team in Toronto are likely do-able.

So 21 solid + 5 bubble + 2 relocation = 28 teams.
Sell out are better than not selling out but butts in the seats jobs to gate revenie. with no cap and no rs the teams at the bottom would be financially worse off then they are now, the have teams with big arenas will still charge premiums for tickets that would simply not fly in non traditional markets.


With no cap and no rs, I'm not sure Montreal could keep up with the leafs. You could possibly start with 28 markets, but the lack parity would mean a lot of these teams would be treading water ahead of their eventual demise.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 04:58 PM
  #45
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
24 might be high.

Make it a free for all.... no cap, no revenue sharing, etc. and you would be down to a 8 team league..

Montreal
Toronto
Boston
NY Rangers
Detroit
Chicago
Philadelphia
Vancouver

don't see any other teams running with $100M+ salary base. You might have more than 8 to start with, but after the fans realize they are just development teams for the big 8, those will die as well. I will never pay $5000 for STs watching our good players leave for the big money teams over and over again.
Vancouver is a bit of a stretch. Talk about being out on an island in that scenario. The closest road game is almost 1800 miles, and 2 time zones away. Unless Vancouver was planning on having the highest payroll in the league, by far, who is going to sign in Vancouver in a free market? Who signed in Vancouver before the cap? An ancient Messier?

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 05:05 PM
  #46
Predatorbill
Registered User
 
Predatorbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 770
vCash: 50
Remember the CBA is with an American union. If you have actually belonged to a union and participated in their activities, cutting jobs is one of the last things they will do. There are a variety of reasons, less members, less union dues, etc. Cutting the number of teams is cutting jobs it would be a non starter unless a lot was given to the remaining members.

From an economic standpoint adding more teams in Canada makes the most sense. They should be profitable in a shorter period of time than the American teams, which should mean more revenue sharing.

Long term (with the dream of the American TV contract) it makes sense to expand into the US, but it takes a long time to grow the game in these areas.

Predatorbill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 05:07 PM
  #47
hizzoner
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
There should be as many teams as can support themselves without taking charity from other teams while abiding by any cba. If the team can support itself--even if a perpetual loser (Leafs) there should be no franchise issue. If it cannot support itself, then after a reasonable period of time with some league help it should be left to sink or swim--the franchise will be taken over by the league and then sold, transferred or folded. So on that basis how many teams are left?

hizzoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 05:13 PM
  #48
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post

Montreal
Toronto
Boston
NY Rangers
Detroit
Chicago
Philadelphia
Vancouver
If they were able to secure lucrative Canadian & American broadcasting contracts then perhaps, but just looking at that list, I hafta say, Vancouver, Detroit, Boston & Montreal would be up against it, Chicago & Philly questionable. Youd basically have the Rangers & Leafs exchanging Cups every few years I should think, and thats just not gonna cut it for the broadcasters, teams like the Wings & Bruins (can you imagine Jacobs digging that deeply into his pockets?) winding up like the Expo's really. In the dying days of the 06 league, Boston & New York were not the greatest, combination of lousy ownership, bad management, weak farm systems & short pockets. If some sort of alternative league was to pop up with teams in the Southwest, South, Florida, California, Northeast etc, could conceivably kill this so called "Super League", in fact Im certain it would, and we'd be right back to square one again.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 05:17 PM
  #49
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predatorbill View Post
Remember the CBA is with an American union. If you have actually belonged to a union and participated in their activities, cutting jobs is one of the last things they will do. There are a variety of reasons, less members, less union dues, etc. Cutting the number of teams is cutting jobs it would be a non starter unless a lot was given to the remaining members.

From an economic standpoint adding more teams in Canada makes the most sense. They should be profitable in a shorter period of time than the American teams, which should mean more revenue sharing.

Long term (with the dream of the American TV contract) it makes sense to expand into the US, but it takes a long time to grow the game in these areas.
would you start by moving Nashville to Hamilton?

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 05:20 PM
  #50
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,097
vCash: 500
Doesn't the answer to this question depend greatly on how much it should cost to assemble a competitive team and also partly resulting from that how much the team feels it needs to charge for tickets. And lastly, how much Revenue Sharing could be involved and what all the "League" sources of revenue are.

I think you have to answer those questions first before you can answer the question in the thread title.

MoreOrr 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 03:39 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.