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, 05:20 PM
  #51
straka91*
 
straka91*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,499
vCash: 500
(Quebec)
Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Calgary Flames
(Hamilton)
Chicago Blackhawks
Colorado Avalanche
Detroit Red Wings
(Anchorage)
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
(Seattle)
Toronto Maple Leafs
Vancouver Canucks
Washington Capitals
Winnipeg Jets

straka91* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 05:31 PM
  #52
Predatorbill
Registered User
 
Predatorbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 771
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
would you start by moving Nashville to Hamilton?
No I would expand to 32 teams both teams in Canada. Nashville is supposedly the model for Southern expansion. Remember we have some deep pocket owners. Wilson who is Canadian is worth over 1.5 billion.


Last edited by Predatorbill: 12-28-2012 at 05:32 PM. Reason: Both teams in Canada
Predatorbill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 07:35 PM
  #53
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,766
vCash: 500
32:



or 36:




DyerMaker66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 07:48 PM
  #54
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,389
vCash: 514
24 is an ideal size IMO. Though that ship sailed a long time ago and there's no chance of going back.

I just remember that size of being the perfect blend of growth, yet not thr over-saturation that followed.

Mightygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 08:04 PM
  #55
The Apologist
Kessel Supporter
 
The Apologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Soviet Kanukistan
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,052
vCash: 500
36 easily. From a financial standpoint, reducing the amount of teams makes no sense at all. There are still plenty of markets that can support big league hockey. The problem is that there are only 5-6 markets that can support 60m payrolls.

The Apologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 08:07 PM
  #56
The Apologist
Kessel Supporter
 
The Apologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Soviet Kanukistan
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
32:



or 36:



Is that Saskatoon?

The Apologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 08:21 PM
  #57
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
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.
NHL lost Atlanta, a big market, and it had no impact on their TV contract. I didnt hear NBC trying to get out of the deal because of it.

Would love to see what the TV numbers are in markets like Tampa and Dallas for NBC games which never feature their teams.

NBC cares about only 7-10 franchises in the US. Those are the markets that generally drive the TV numbers they draw.

The CyNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 08:30 PM
  #58
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,504
vCash: 500
Off the top of my head I got to 24:

Toronto
Toronto 2
Hamilton
Montreal
Quebec City
Ottawa
Edmonton
Calgary
Winnipeg
Vancouver
Detroit
Buffalo
Chicago
New York
New York 2
Boston
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Minnesota
Los Angeles
San Jose
Washington
Seattle
Colorado

The CyNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:05 PM
  #59
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
24 is an ideal size IMO. Though that ship sailed a long time ago and there's no chance of going back.

I just remember that size of being the perfect blend of growth, yet not thr over-saturation that followed.
My opinion as well. 24 would be the ideal number of teams. Assuming a 6 team contraction, 10 players (six top 6 forwards, 4 top four defensemen, give or take) per team, it would mean an extra 2 or 3 players for the remaining teams (or, in other words, a replacement 4th line).

That said, aside from the logistical hurdles of contracting teams, I'm not sure there is even six teams one would want to contract. Phoenix, definitely. Florida, maybe. Anaheim, maybe (reducing the number of LA teams to 1). Islanders or Devils, maybe (reducing the number of NYC teams from 3 to 2). Who else?

Such a contraction would also spell the end of Quebec City's, Hamilton's, and Seattle's NHL aspirations.

For those reasons, I'd prefer the NHL to go the expansion route to 32. Adding (or subtracting for that matter) a mere two teams would not have a significant impact on the talent pool and it would provide an immediate boost of cash for the NHL, especially if the two expansion locales are Southern Ontario and Quebec City.


Last edited by htpwn: 12-28-2012 at 09:11 PM.
htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:11 PM
  #60
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,287
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
NHL lost Atlanta, a big market, and it had no impact on their TV contract. I didnt hear NBC trying to get out of the deal because of it.
Getting out of a existing deal would probably be very difficult to do. I think the way to look at it is how the renewal of the deal would go if NBC (or whichever network) is watching the league and wondering if it's worthwhile to invest in a sport that appears to be failing because it's contracting teams and cutting down on the potential viewership.

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:14 PM
  #61
Confound
-Vindicated-
 
Confound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 17,640
vCash: 500
Keep it the way it is.

Honestly I would rather contract a few teams though instead of expanding.

Confound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:16 PM
  #62
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Getting out of a existing deal would probably be very difficult to do. I think the way to look at it is how the renewal of the deal would go if NBC (or whichever network) is watching the league and wondering if it's worthwhile to invest in a sport that appears to be failing because it's contracting teams and cutting down on the potential viewership.
Or if the League is seen to be retrenching into Canadian markets, assuming anything more than 1 more expansion or relocation to a Canadian market.

Continuing from the point I made in my previous post... The League can theoretically support any reasonable number of teams it wishes, as long as it creates an economic system suited to the vast majority of those teams and doesn't cater an economic structure to a rich few teams at the top.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:19 PM
  #63
Mightygoose
I Am Groot
 
Mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ajax, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,389
vCash: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Getting out of a existing deal would probably be very difficult to do. I think the way to look at it is how the renewal of the deal would go if NBC (or whichever network) is watching the league and wondering if it's worthwhile to invest in a sport that appears to be failing because it's contracting teams and cutting down on the potential viewership.
While the deal with NBC was being worked out. The network would have been well aware that Atlanta and Phoenix (at the time) were on life support. Not having teams in those markets would not be detrimental to the national numbers.

As long as the core US markets are in good shape (the US original six, Philly, Pittburgh and a few more) the league will be OK with future TV deals

Mightygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:23 PM
  #64
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightygoose View Post
While the deal with NBC was being worked out. The network would have been well aware that Atlanta and Phoenix (at the time) were on life support. Not having teams in those markets would not be detrimental to the national numbers.

As long as the core US markets are in good shape (the US original six, Philly, Pittburgh and a few more) the league will be OK with future TV deals
That should be 'US original 8, or 8.5 if you count Minnesota. Don't forget St Louis and Los Angeles.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:42 PM
  #65
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
32:



or 36:



All those expansion markets and no Baltimore? Saskatoon and SLC? Over Baltimore? Tut tut.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 09:50 PM
  #66
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 3,018
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Continuing from the point I made in my previous post... The League can theoretically support any reasonable number of teams it wishes, as long as it creates an economic system suited to the vast majority of those teams and doesn't cater an economic structure to a rich few teams at the top.
This. And if you can add markets in a stable manner, everyone is ultimately making more money, etc. A competitive league with parity is better for everyone's bottom line in the end. The problem is that supporting new markets is an investment and not everyone is on board with this.

_Del_ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:13 PM
  #67
The Apologist
Kessel Supporter
 
The Apologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Soviet Kanukistan
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
This. And if you can add markets in a stable manner, everyone is ultimately making more money, etc. A competitive league with parity is better for everyone's bottom line in the end. The problem is that supporting new markets is an investment and not everyone is on board with this.
This exactly. However, at the end of the day none of it matters. There are not 30 markets in NA that can support a 60m payroll for hockey. There may not even be ten. Until the NHL can get salaries under control, most of the teams are doomed to fail. With salaries under control, the possibilities are endless.

The Apologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:13 PM
  #68
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
If I had to add 6 markets:

Houston
San Antonio
Atlanta
Baltimore
Quebec
Seattle

4 divisions of 9 teams:

Atlantic Conference

BOS
MTL
TOR
OTT
QUE
BUF
NYR
NYI
NJD

Midwest Conference


DET
CLB
NSH
PHI
PIT
WPG
CHI
MIN
STL

Southern Conference

SAT
HOU
WSH
BAL
ATL
TB
FLA
DAL
CAR


Western Conference

VAN
EDM
CAG
PHX
SEA
ANA
LA
COL
SJ


Last edited by Dojji*: 12-28-2012 at 10:16 PM. Reason: LOL forgot the Canes.
Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:15 PM
  #69
The Apologist
Kessel Supporter
 
The Apologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Soviet Kanukistan
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
If I had to add 6 markets:

Houston
San Antonio
Atlanta
Baltimore
Quebec
Seattle

4 divisions of 9 teams:

Atlantic Conference

BOS
MTL
TOR
OTT
QUE
BUF
NYR
NYI
NJD

Midwest Conference

TOR
DET
CLB
NSH
PHI
PIT
WPG
CHI
MIN

Southern Conference

SAT
HOU
WSH
BAL
ATL
TB
FLA
DAL
STL

Western Conference

VAN
EDM
CAG
PHX
SEA
ANA
LA
COL
SJ
Remove SA and add a second SWO team. With teams in Houston and Dallas, a team in SA is just too much.

The Apologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:27 PM
  #70
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Now see, I disagree. I happen to think that having multiple teams in a given region is much better for real penetration than having one team in a region. That's how you get rivalries. History. Tradition. It has to start somewhere, and where it starts is 2 teams that rub elbows enough to really start hating each other. The fact that teams are so spread out in the west and south has a lot to do with why they're struggling. Not enough proximity to really build some serious hate. Bostonians and Montrealers have to deal with each other on a regular basis due to the ordinary regional diaspora -- they compete economically, not just in hockey. Vancouver and Dallas really don't.

Now it's possible to go too far in the other direction and just plain have a franchise squeezed out by its neighbors. Hartford is a classic example. But you need that regional jostling if you really want to start building the stoylines that will make a success of the Sunbelt. That's why success in Atlanta was so critical. A successful Atlanta builds rivalries with all the other southern squads. Atlanta is the axle, the other franchises are spokes. Without that, southern hockey is just tepid.

By the same token, neither of EDM and CAL as well in a league where the other is absent.

One of the many reasons I am skeptical of WPG is that they're in a market wher this has ABSOLUTELY NO chance of really happening.

Houston, Dallas and SA are used to seeing each other in the NBA. To really start competing with the NBA for entertainment dollars in Texas, you need penetration in all 3 markets.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:49 PM
  #71
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predatorbill View Post
No I would expand to 32 teams both teams in Canada. Nashville is supposedly the model for Southern expansion. Remember we have some deep pocket owners. Wilson who is Canadian is worth over 1.5 billion.
So a team that couldn't attract even 14,000 fans per game without papering the seats just a few years ago is a model, but just a few posts back you want to move other teams who might be in the same position?

Interesting...

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:54 PM
  #72
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
One of the many reasons I am skeptical of WPG is that they're in a market wher this has ABSOLUTELY NO chance of really happening.
Yes, good points, and I agree with most of it. Interesting dynamic in Winnipeg though that you might not be aware of; they do actually have a natural rival, that being Toronto. A history of enmity that goes back several decades actually. Heightened by such intransigences as Ballard (along with Montreal & and to a far far lesser extent Vancouver) trying to shut them out when Amalgamation with the WHA was being negotiated.

Just a sort of general contempt for the "Centre of the Universe" as many Western Canadians refer to central Canada & Toronto specifically. Additional rivalries did exist and will likely rise again with the Alberta teams; Ottawa & Montreal, Vancouver, Minnesota, perhaps Phoenix, Minnesota & Chicago, Detroit. Dont worry about Winnipeg, they love a good fight, no problem picking them either.

And ya, love to see Dallas vs. Houston, San Jose vs. Portland vs. Seattle vs. Vancouver & so on.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 10:58 PM
  #73
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Is that what Western Canada calls a rivalry?

Really?

Perhaps it's because I'm right in the thick of the Eastern Corridor, but that sounds like really weak sauce to me.

Very, very few non-regional rivalries are not transient. In fact I can't really think of one. Regional teams are rubbed in our faces because of divisional strucutre to the point that the hate can't help but being sustained. When you're good they hate you, when you're bad you hate them. Having an axe to grind over something that happened decades ago just doesn't stand up to that.

Of course, it takes more than regionality. No one talks about the fierceness of the TB-FLA rivalry. Maybe that'll come as the franchises mature. Hope so, it'd be the making of both franchises.


If you're going to sell the league based on the laundry -- which is the best way to sell it -- then a strong history needs to be built quickly. Expansion built around favoring strong regional rivalries is the best way to make sure that happens.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 11:13 PM
  #74
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Is that what Western Canada calls a rivalry? Really? Perhaps it's because I'm right in the thick of the Eastern Corridor, but that sounds like really weak sauce to me.... If you're going to sell the league based on the laundry -- which is the best way to sell it -- then a strong history needs to be built quickly. Expansion built around favoring strong regional rivalries is the best way to make sure that happens.
Maybe you need to get out more then Dojji, travel, because I can tell you, theres nothing "weak" about the sauciness the fan bases from Montreal to Ottawa, Toronto to Winnipeg to Edmonton, Calgary to Vancouver extol upon one another. Usually pretty hot stuff, requiring a fair amount of libation to extinguish. Of course Boston & Montreal have a great rivalry going back to the late 60's & all through 70's with multiple Playoff tilts that are absolute classics. Rather unfair to compare one of the leagues Great Feuds to really any other clash, be it temporary or longer term. We live in an age of wall-wall information, technology & ease of access, wars are fought from long range, sports no different, regional proximities nowhere nearly as important as they were throughout the 20th & early part of the 21st Centuries.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 11:17 PM
  #75
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 3,018
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazeeEddie View Post
This exactly. However, at the end of the day none of it matters. There are not 30 markets in NA that can support a 60m payroll for hockey. There may not even be ten. Until the NHL can get salaries under control, most of the teams are doomed to fail. With salaries under control, the possibilities are endless.
Without a cap and revenue sharing, the league needs to cut 15-20 teams. Everyone knows that is ridiculous (well, reading this thread, apparently not everyone). The questions for the players remain "do we prefer 500 players under higher contracts or 30 teams and twice as many players with slightly lower contracts?" It's an easy question to answer.
And for the owners, "are we willing to invest a reasonable and substantial amount of our money to insure parity and growth with all the benefits that come with that?" Even the dozen owners that could afford sixty million dollar payrolls can see the long-term benefit of a larger league and a level playing field. Now they just have to decide how much of their own money they're willing to invest in the league instead of directly into their team.
I've been largely pro-owner in the debate, but the current system is heavily flawed and much of that rests on the league not expanding in a controlled manner and on individual owners not controlling their purse strings.

_Del_ is online now   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 07:08 PM.

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.