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.

If the NHL comes back, there has to be a big expansion.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-29-2012, 05:12 PM
  #51
pondnorth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
And yes we need 36. The NHL needs to be as visible as possible if it is to chase a TV contract.
What tv market are you talking about?Large population cities like Phoenix,Atlanta,and the Florida area have terrible numbers for hockey broadcasts.What networks don`t know this already? TV people are not that stupid,they know how many people are watching games.What exactly is your point?Some of these markets are dead horses for hockey already.

pondnorth is offline  
Old
12-29-2012, 05:22 PM
  #52
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
And yes we need 36. The NHL needs to be as visible as possible if it is to chase a TV contract.
They tried that, didn't work. And the networks are only interested in the big markets anyway. They won't pay to present the Coyotes on television.

Kimota is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 09:23 AM
  #53
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,496
vCash: 50
The league just got a 10-year TV contract. Putting teams in San Antonio will be completely irrelevant in terms of TV, they don't even really watch in Dallas, or most places in the south for that matter.

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 09:31 AM
  #54
mzappa
Jets fans in space
 
mzappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 166
Forget the expansion now. When/If the NHL comes back this year - there needs to be free NHL Centre Ice for the fans as a gift of goodwill. Think Elliott Friedman from CBC proposed that.

mzappa is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 09:45 AM
  #55
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,610
vCash: 500
Pretty sure a two team expansion is likely already in the works.

Six? Not in our lifetimes.

Wingsfan2965* is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 10:15 AM
  #56
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,717
vCash: 500
Adding two teams may work, but not 6...no way...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 11:43 AM
  #57
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 19,829
vCash: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzappa View Post
Forget the expansion now. When/If the NHL comes back this year - there needs to be free NHL Centre Ice for the fans as a gift of goodwill. Think Elliott Friedman from CBC proposed that.
LeBrun mentioned it too. Great idea.. though I may be little biased.

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 12:38 PM
  #58
Hal2000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
yes, lets make it even more difficult for my team to win the cup and further diluting the talent by adding teams...meanwhile half of the current ones will still not be selling-out on a regular basis contraction is the answer not expansion christ

Hal2000 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:03 PM
  #59
scotchex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
Population keeps growing. As population grows you can add more teams. We're gonna add 100-150M new people to North America by 2050.

Of course, much of that population is going to already big metro with existing teams. And that doesn't necessarily mean more teams. NYC metro had more baseball teams in the 1950s with half the population it does today (Yankees, Giants and Dodgers). Today with nearly 10M more people they have only 2 teams -- Yankees and Mets. But they have more teams overall as other sports have started teams in NYC metro.

The biggest opportunity in the future for new franchises, in any league, is when a mid-sized city finally grows large enough to support a pro sports franchise. Historically the South has had fewer pro sports teams because, outside of Atlanta, the South had few large cities and many mid-sized cities.

In the last 20 years the boom in the South and Southwest has grown many cities large enough to support a pro team. Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh, Jacksonville, Orlando, Oklahoma City, Memphis.

In the next 10-20 years more mid-sized cities will become economically viable. Places like Louisville, Virginia Beach, Birmingham, Richmond, Austin, Tulsa.

I think we'll see relocation of some franchises from stagnant or declining rust-belt cities to these faster growing cities. But also some expansion.

Presumably there's some upper limit for how many teams a North American wide league can have. Not sure what it is. NFL shows us 32 works. I think 36 isn't too high.

I'm not talking about NHL, but pro sports in general. And many of the cities might that now have only 1 team in 1 sport will grow enough to get a 2nd team in another sport.

scotchex is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:17 PM
  #60
sawchuk1971
Registered User
 
sawchuk1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worstfaceoffmanever View Post
The league isn't limited by talent, or even by infrastructure, so much as it is by willing investors. Even though most of the paperwork appears to be done, I still have concerns about Phoenix going forward, and the last thing the NHL wants to do is move into a bunch of markets and leave the Coyotes with nowhere to go but out of the NHL completely.

The league has eight markets it could conceivably move into in short order:

Quebec City
Cleveland
Kansas City
Portland
Seattle
Markham
Atlanta
Houston

You can immediately mark out Atlanta because of the ownership situation. (As an aside, the Hawks are also failing miserably at the gate under ASG's management despite fielding a very good team.) Cleveland is a shrinking Rust Belt city, I'm not sure the league wants to go that route even though they have a very nice arena and an owner who likes hockey (Dan Gilbert owns the Lake Erie Monsters, who play there now). Houston has an arena, but unless Les Alexander has changed his tune or plans on divesting himself from his current interests in the same building, forget it. Kansas City has no owner, and the Markham arena is up in the air. That leaves you with three, of which Portland is probably the least likely.

I say expand by two shortly after the lockout, see how Phoenix recovers and how the Islanders do at the Barclays Center, then move on from there. 36 is the absolute most I can see in the NHL, though. No way they can go beyond that without putting teams in really bad situations, either in old arenas (Hamilton), tiny American markets (Hartford), or both (Milwaukee). Orlando is a longshot, and that's probably generous.
cross cleveland off the list....

its a browns football town, while the indians and cavs are just too bad to be taken seriously....

sawchuk1971 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:23 PM
  #61
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
This will be the only way to make the media forget the lockout. It gives the appearance of growth and of course introduce new people into the game. Besides we can't turn back now and if the players lose this would be nice compensation. I don't want to do this but it's beyond obviously

I think we need to go to 36

Quebec City
Atlanta*
Houston
Seattle
San Antonio**
Hamilton, ON


* We need to go back to Atlanta. It's the capital of the south. Enough said.

** San Antonio is a fast growing city in the southwest with money and can bring in the parts of the southwest

Houston is self explanatory.
I don't know why so many people regularly claim places like Seattle and Kansas City are such guaranteed successes, I doubt they are big successes.

I'd love to see a team in Mississauga or K-W. If not there, then Hamilton would be ok.

TaketheCannoli is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:29 PM
  #62
sawchuk1971
Registered User
 
sawchuk1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzappa View Post
Forget the expansion now. When/If the NHL comes back this year - there needs to be free NHL Centre Ice for the fans as a gift of goodwill. Think Elliott Friedman from CBC proposed that.
don't hold your breath....

sawchuk1971 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:30 PM
  #63
scotchex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
In 1950, US+Canada population was 165M. There were 46 Big 4 teams. 3.6M people per team.
In 2010, US+Canada population was 343M. There were 122 Big 4 Teams, 2.8M per team. 138 counting MLS, 2.5M/team. 146 counting CFL, 2.35M/team.
In 2030, US+Canada population projection is 413M.
In 2050, US+Canada population projection is 480M.

The history of population growth and sports franchise growth shows that each sport tends to grow slower than pro sports overall. The extra population probably won't be captured by one league growing to 40,50+ teams. But instead by all the leagues growing some and perhaps even new leagues for new sports starting up. Perhaps lacrosse or rugby. Or perhaps new individual sports like the burst of X-games style action sports that popped up in the 90s. It will be interesting to see.

scotchex is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:46 PM
  #64
middletoe
Why am I me?
 
middletoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,802
vCash: 500
Maybe it's too late anyway, but don't expansion teams need lax officiating in order to get the competitive edge needed in building a fan base from scratch? For this reason expansion worries me.

Also, stars are more fun to watch when they have other stars to play with. So I don't really want to see the talent per team diluted more than it already is.

middletoe is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 02:55 PM
  #65
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,400
vCash: 844
I don't really buy the 'diluted talent pool' thing. As the world's population grows, and number of registered hockey players grows, wouldn't you think the size of the world's hockey talent pool is steadily increasing? The number of registered hockey players grew by 50,000 last year.

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/n...html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=10&cHash=e9cb081d53

And when you consider that today's athletes are constantly evolving...with better training, nutrition, and sheer size, speed and athleticism than ever before, I feel the 'diluted talent pool' view, is a view through rose-colored glasses. I honestly feel that if a decent-to-good NHL team, say a team like the Predators, time-warped back to the mid-90's, they'd probably be a cup contender. Because I feel the average player is better...not worse when you put all the pieces together. Just IMHO.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 03:02 PM
  #66
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
They tried that, didn't work. And the networks are only interested in the big markets anyway. They won't pay to present the Coyotes on television.
If that's the logic, then no QC either. Networks have no interest in Quebec City at all.

TaketheCannoli is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 03:06 PM
  #67
Conflicted Habs fan
Registered User
 
Conflicted Habs fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 580
vCash: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawchuk1971 View Post
don't hold your breath....
"Hupff"!! :x

Conflicted Habs fan is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 03:18 PM
  #68
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
I don't really buy the 'diluted talent pool' thing. As the world's population grows, and number of registered hockey players grows, wouldn't you think the size of the world's hockey talent pool is steadily increasing? The number of registered hockey players grew by 50,000 last year.

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/n...html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=10&cHash=e9cb081d53

And when you consider that today's athletes are constantly evolving...with better training, nutrition, and sheer size, speed and athleticism than ever before, I feel the 'diluted talent pool' view, is a view through rose-colored glasses. I honestly feel that if a decent-to-good NHL team, say a team like the Predators, time-warped back to the mid-90's, they'd probably be a cup contender. Because I feel the average player is better...not worse when you put all the pieces together. Just IMHO.
In canada the rate of registration is not keeping oup with pop growth.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 03:19 PM
  #69
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
There has to be a big expansion, if the NHL comes back? Some of the existing teams doesn't even have stable ownership.

And these markets you proposed doesn't have an arena.
KC is ready; but without an owner, it's just an appetizer not a meal.
QC is ready; but without a building, it's just a proposal.
Seattle too,
Atlanta is a good choice, if you want a TV deal, but an arena would be nice, because Philips Arena is still and ASG property. And they need an owner that KNOWS the business of hockey, not someone who "wants to own the team."
Houston is a great choice. Houston Aeros.
Portland is also a good choice, same situation with Seattle.
An expansion in Southern Ontario would be great. The anti Leafs fans would have another team to cheer. Markham or Hamilton is a okay, there's not much difference. Although Markham would have the upper hand with that brand new arena.

I'll add Milwaukee and Salt Lake. When it comes to expanding NHL teams, I like to look at teams without NFL, MLB, or NBA teams, if it's a really large city we still need to assess it.

Owners. Arenas. Markets. Things to look at before jumping the gun, it should take 10-20 years before an expansion. I personally would prefer big cities with AHL or at least whatever hockey teams, to really grasp how things would work. And I'm talking about Houston, it's time for them to graduate.

JetsFlyHigh is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 03:24 PM
  #70
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
In canada the rate of registration is not keeping oup with pop growth.
Canada's pop growth is mainly because of immigrants. I'm an immigrant myself, from a tropical country, and look at me now, I love hockey. Might force my kids to play hockey in the future. Statistics can only tell the numbers, but it doesn't speak.

JetsFlyHigh is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 03:24 PM
  #71
middletoe
Why am I me?
 
middletoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
I don't really buy the 'diluted talent pool' thing. As the world's population grows, and number of registered hockey players grows, wouldn't you think the size of the world's hockey talent pool is steadily increasing? The number of registered hockey players grew by 50,000 last year.

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/n...html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=10&cHash=e9cb081d53

And when you consider that today's athletes are constantly evolving...with better training, nutrition, and sheer size, speed and athleticism than ever before, I feel the 'diluted talent pool' view, is a view through rose-colored glasses. I honestly feel that if a decent-to-good NHL team, say a team like the Predators, time-warped back to the mid-90's, they'd probably be a cup contender. Because I feel the average player is better...not worse when you put all the pieces together. Just IMHO.
I can't find anything you say here to disagree with.

But for me, the more gifted players in any game the better. I can appreciate a team like Nashville, but they'd need more offensively talented players on their roster to really interest me as a viewer.

middletoe is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 03:41 PM
  #72
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 32,356
vCash: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
I don't really buy the 'diluted talent pool' thing. As the world's population grows, and number of registered hockey players grows, wouldn't you think the size of the world's hockey talent pool is steadily increasing? The number of registered hockey players grew by 50,000 last year.

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/n...html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=10&cHash=e9cb081d53

And when you consider that today's athletes are constantly evolving...with better training, nutrition, and sheer size, speed and athleticism than ever before, I feel the 'diluted talent pool' view, is a view through rose-colored glasses. I honestly feel that if a decent-to-good NHL team, say a team like the Predators, time-warped back to the mid-90's, they'd probably be a cup contender. Because I feel the average player is better...not worse when you put all the pieces together. Just IMHO.
I agree entirely. I honestly get a kick out of people that use the diluted talent pool argument, I honestly think it couldn't be further from the truth, that the talent pool in the NHL right now is as good as it's been in a long time.

The depth in the league is to the point where a lot of quality players and prospects are getting buried in the minors or heading overseas simply due to lack of opportunity in the NHL. Just looking at goalies for an example, over the past few years alone we've had Cory Schneider, Brayden Holtby, Craig Anderson, Brian Elliott, and Jimmy Howard buried by depth. Expand by two teams and I guarantee that there's at least enough goalies that could take that opportunity and run with it: Bernier, Lehner, Harding, Enroth, etc. There's enough quality out there that someone will be able to take the opportunity and become a star. Goalie's hardly the only position where that's the case, just the most glaring instance because of the propensity for talents to get buried.


But we don't need some huge expansion to 36 teams. That just reeks of a desperation "look at me, we're making news" mentality.

DaveG is online now  
Old
12-31-2012, 04:21 PM
  #73
scotchex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsFlyHigh View Post
Canada's pop growth is mainly because of immigrants. I'm an immigrant myself, from a tropical country, and look at me now, I love hockey. Might force my kids to play hockey in the future. Statistics can only tell the numbers, but it doesn't speak.
Huh? The statistics are pretty clear. Canada's immigrant population cares about hockey significantly less, on average, than the native-born population. That doesn't mean many immigrants don't become enthusiastic hockey supporters. Your anecdote says nothing about the statistics. You love hockey. Good for you.

You sound like the people who deny that smoking is a health risk by saying they knew a guy who smoked his whole life and lived to be 90. Yeah, that happens. That's how statistics work. Women are shorter than men on average, but some women are really tall and some men are really short. You can't point to a 6 ft tall woman and claim that men aren't taller than women on average. That'd be insane.

Baseball has faced some similar problems. Some demographic groups have sharply lower levels of interest in playing baseball. In particular the % of black kids playing has dropped. That doesn't mean there still weren't large #s of black kids who loved baseball and played it and followed the sport. It would be silly for baseball to ignore the data and insist everything was fine.

Denying reality is rarely wise. Reality always wins in the end. A good definition of reality is - it's the stuff that, even if you don't believe it, doesn't go away.

scotchex is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 04:23 PM
  #74
Shawa666
Registered User
 
Shawa666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsFlyHigh View Post
There has to be a big expansion, if the NHL comes back? Some of the existing teams doesn't even have stable ownership.

And these markets you proposed doesn't have an arena.
KC is ready; but without an owner, it's just an appetizer not a meal.
QC is ready; but without a building, it's just a proposal.
Seattle too,
Atlanta is a good choice, if you want a TV deal, but an arena would be nice, because Philips Arena is still and ASG property. And they need an owner that KNOWS the business of hockey, not someone who "wants to own the team."
Houston is a great choice. Houston Aeros.
Portland is also a good choice, same situation with Seattle.
An expansion in Southern Ontario would be great. The anti Leafs fans would have another team to cheer. Markham or Hamilton is a okay, there's not much difference. Although Markham would have the upper hand with that brand new arena.

I'll add Milwaukee and Salt Lake. When it comes to expanding NHL teams, I like to look at teams without NFL, MLB, or NBA teams, if it's a really large city we still need to assess it.

Owners. Arenas. Markets. Things to look at before jumping the gun, it should take 10-20 years before an expansion. I personally would prefer big cities with AHL or at least whatever hockey teams, to really grasp how things would work. And I'm talking about Houston, it's time for them to graduate.
Quebec's arena isn't "just a proposal" There's shovels in the ground and they've torn down the old hippodrome to make way for it.

Shawa666 is offline  
Old
12-31-2012, 04:23 PM
  #75
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
They're losing money because the rich teams are raising the price of talent. It has nothing to do with the availability or depth of talent.

You're not going to have even 20 teams that can compete directly for talent the way NYR, TOR, MTL can. Most of the western Canadian teams can forget it -- the cap is aimed right at saving those teams as it is. So you need to create a structure that puts limits on what those can teams can do for the sake of the rest of the league, and once you've done that, a lot of markets that aren't in western Canada become viable.
Ok, I can buy this argument on a hypothetical basis.

In the real world however, we have 2 sides *****ing about a few percentage points. The changes required for a (healthy) expansion to happen isn't even close to realistic.

Hockey Team is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:23 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.