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.
I don't get how it creates less parity really? I never understand the rationality that certain situations benefit teams. Like Overtimes or 4v4s or Shootouts. Every team is still playing with the same puck and the same nets. Columbus has just as good of a chance to win/lose in regulation as they do in overtime or shootouts. It's not like there's a hidden variable involved that says, "+10 Win Chance" to the Kings because the game goes to OT. The puck still bounces the same way...
I think the loser point is what turns a lot of casual observers away from the NHL, really. At least those I've talked to.
It makes the standings close...thereby driving up attendance.
It makes the standings close...thereby driving up attendance.
This is a business people.
It does keep the standings close, which is stupid.
A #9 and #10 seed may bump out a #7 and #8 seed in the standings by losing. How would you feel to be a fan of the team who actually...you know...WON more games than the two other seeds, but you get bumped out by losers. Does that make you want to spend money on the sport?
I don't see which part of that definition doesn't apply to preseason games, given that player expense are not a factor and tickets still sell.
Considering that many of these franchises aren't operating at a profit at all, or if they are it's relatively minor, I'd call the extra revenue granted by preseason games a pretty significant part of the revenue picture.
Not really. Go look up the attendance of those teams for pre-season games, then go look up ticket prices. The ones I bought in Vancouver a few years ago (Vancouver/Edmonton & Vancouver/Calgary) were dirt cheap (less than $50 each), and was low in the lower bowl.
Yes some teams make some decent coin from these games. But it's not a "pretty significant part of their revenue picture". It's a very small percentage of their overall revenue.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Not really. Go look up the attendance of those teams for pre-season games, then go look up ticket prices. The ones I bought in Vancouver a few years ago (Vancouver/Edmonton & Vancouver/Calgary) were dirt cheap (less than $50 each), and was low in the lower bowl.
Yes some teams make some decent coin from these games. But it's not a "pretty significant part of their revenue picture". It's a very small percentage of their overall revenue.
Seriously, having been to preseason games, I don't know how anyone can think they are profitable. Do people who have not been to these games realize it's essentially an AHL matchup with a couple NHLers sprinkled in? It's junk hockey that none of the players care about and they still kind of overcharge for the tickets, even at about a third of the price of regular season games.
I don't see which part of that definition doesn't apply to preseason games, given that player expense are not a factor and tickets still sell.
Considering that many of these franchises aren't operating at a profit at all, or if they are it's relatively minor, I'd call the extra revenue granted by preseason games a pretty significant part of the revenue picture.
Especially since, unlike Regular Season games, there are no salary expenses and teams can deduct the Direct Costs of the games (including travel and arena rent and operating expenses) from HRR.
And note, that many teams (including the Sharks) require STHs to purchase pre-season tickets at regular season prices, whether they want them or not.
I look at pre-seson tickets as basically being a STH tax.
It does keep the standings close, which is stupid.
A #9 and #10 seed may bump out a #7 and #8 seed in the standings by losing. How would you feel to be a fan of the team who actually...you know...WON more games than the two other seeds, but you get bumped out by losers. Does that make you want to spend money on the sport?
To me it's not losing, since they tied the regular part of the game, but I'm not gonna get into that here.
Another thing with the shootouts is that if you have more regulation wins and don't make the playoffs, odds are you have more regulation losses too. You can look at it both ways. In the end, I think the current system is fine and serves its purpose well.
It does keep the standings close, which is stupid.
A #9 and #10 seed may bump out a #7 and #8 seed in the standings by losing. How would you feel to be a fan of the team who actually...you know...WON more games than the two other seeds, but you get bumped out by losers. Does that make you want to spend money on the sport?
Been there. Calgary knocked the Avalanche out of the final playoff slot a few seasons back thanks to loser points. Avs had more wins, fewer losses, and one less point because of the stupidity that is the loser point. I was pissed off for months.
Been there. Calgary knocked the Avalanche out of the final playoff slot a few seasons back thanks to loser points. Avs had more wins, fewer losses, and one less point because of the stupidity that is the loser point. I was pissed off for months.
Call it the loser point all you want, fact is they lost less real games than Colorado did. But had they won those OTs and SOs, you wouldn't be *****ing because the standings don't separate OT wins from regulation ones...
What a pile of overall nonsense. A European division is intriguing, but unlikely to ever work long term. They will NEVER give Centre Ice away for free either. This is like a child's dream and not reality.
Call it the loser point all you want, fact is they lost less real games than Colorado did. But had they won those OTs and SOs, you wouldn't be *****ing because the standings don't separate OT wins from regulation ones...
Here's a translation of what you just said...
Overtime losses are more valuable than overtime wins.
Call it the loser point all you want, fact is they lost less real games than Colorado did. But had they won those OTs and SOs, you wouldn't be *****ing because the standings don't separate OT wins from regulation ones...
So they had more games where they ended up on the losing side of things.
If it's your progative to lump OTLs and regular losses in together, then sobeit. But the points that put them in the playoffs weren't because they lost, it was because they tied more games after 60 minutes of 5-a-side hockey than yours did, which is how the playoffs are played.
I love when the media brings up moving the season up so that we don't play in June. It's as if they would rather come in off summer vacation in August to cover training camp and pre-season hockey as opposed to meaningful playoff hockey in June.
Quite an unhealthy obsession there is with it in general.
I love when the media brings up moving the season up so that we don't play in June. It's as if they would rather come in off summer vacation in August to cover training camp and pre-season hockey as opposed to meaningful playoff hockey in June.
Quite an unhealthy obsession there is with it in general.
I don't know where they come with it. When it comes to the Stanley Cup Finals, if the teams are even remotely interesting, I'd watch them in August if I had to.
I'm concerned that Lebrun wants a play in. He's a sycophant and probably parroting something the owners want... because it's just extra cash for these greedheads.
I don't know where they come with it. When it comes to the Stanley Cup Finals, if the teams are even remotely interesting, I'd watch them in August if I had to.
You, me and probably most of the HF boards. The problem is that mainstream public doesn't see that as we do, especially in the US.
Shorter pre-season, tighter schedule and SC finals at the end of may with 3 week break before the draft, sounds good.
If it's your progative to lump OTLs and regular losses in together, then sobeit. But the points that put them in the playoffs weren't because they lost, it was because they tied more games after 60 minutes of 5-a-side hockey than yours did, which is how the playoffs are played.
In the playoffs, you don't get a loser point for losing. If you lose in the playoffs, the other team is one more game closer to eliminating you from competition. Losers get no compensation for OT losses in the playoffs. It should be the same way in the regular season.
Call it the loser point all you want, fact is they lost less real games than Colorado did. But had they won those OTs and SOs, you wouldn't be *****ing because the standings don't separate OT wins from regulation ones...
Big deal. You start the season knowing your team needs to finish 4th. If you finish 5th but have more than the 3rd place in the other division... Boo Hoo. You knew the deal,
In the playoffs, you don't get a loser point for losing. If you lose in the playoffs, the other team is one more game closer to eliminating you from competition. Losers get no compensation for OT losses in the playoffs. It should be the same way in the regular season.
Missing the point.
If a team gets enough ties to be all that interesting, it's playing better hockey than a team that wins more games but loses more games, because it's playing more consistently at a competitive level. I'll take consistency over boom and bust, because come playoff time, "bust" is just as likely as "boom."
And if your boom and bust squad gets a lot of its "boom" from picking up the "winner point," I like my chances even better, because that's not a factor in the postseason.
Big deal. You start the season knowing your team needs to finish 4th. If you finish 5th but have more than the 3rd place in the other division... Boo Hoo. You knew the deal,
Exactly. This is exactly what I was saying to the Avs fan who was *****ing. Thanks for agreeing with me.
In the playoffs, you don't get a loser point for losing. If you lose in the playoffs, the other team is one more game closer to eliminating you from competition. Losers get no compensation for OT losses in the playoffs. It should be the same way in the regular season.
Right. In the playoffs you don't close tie games with a side show, you close it with hockey. It's not the same thing...
