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.

An interesting idea for the NHL (MOD: relegation)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2011, 09:56 AM
  #26
Fehr Time*
The Don of Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor No View Post
Ah, I read that as an lead-in to something else entirely, instead of a standalone remark. My apologies!
No worries Doctor, it's been a while since we debated each other anyways

Fehr Time* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 09:59 AM
  #27
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,081
vCash: 500
Without getting into the "benefits" of an open, promotion and relegation system:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
And you free up membership costs. So if Joe Blow wants to buy a team in BF-Nowhere he can, even if it means he has an arena that seats 2,000, he can only charge $5 a head, and pay his players in Happy Meals. The idea is the NHL is the big tent, and no matter how small your operation you have that infinitesimal hope of one day competing for the Stanley Cup.
But in order for the NHL to be a "big tent", 20 of the current 30 members must approve the change. Good Luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
The Cup's tradition is rife with out-of-the-blue teams competing for it. Seattle Millionaires anyone? Kenora Thistles? Both engraved on the trophy.
The Kenora Thistles were part of the original challenge series by amateur teams in 1907, 14 years after Lord Stanley donated the Cup that bears his name. They folded later in the year due to loss of players.

The Seattle Metropolitans, on the other hand, were one of only ten clubs that started 1916 with the hopes of winning the Cup. The four clubs in the Pacific Coast Hockey Association and the six clubs that started the 1916 NHA season were the only teams that could have won the Cup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
Sure, times have changed. It's big business now, that's why I propose the approach of splitting tiers by revenue generated. Then let nature take its course as it should.
If nothing is done, e.g., no one messes with the league business, doesn't that "let nature take its course"?

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 10:20 AM
  #28
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
[other diatribe deleted]

The NHL is so lost, and it's real shame because hockey is the greatest sport on earth, and the league has a potential product that could dominate other leagues if they'd just understand how to get out of their own friggin' way.
The league-wide revenues just keep going up. There may be some places with blemishes. Name me a league that doesn't have these blemishes.

I'm tired of watching people fight the good fight when it appears they don't know what exactly their fighting for. I'm tired of watching people complain about how the league is in trouble but that's because there is usually an ulterior motive; their team makes boatloads of revenue but can't spend it on salaries due to the salary cap or that there are unwashed masses in the southern United States that don't deserve hockey when there are plenty of elitists up north that could support a team.

The NHL cannot dominate other leagues by casting aside some of their membership in a promotion-relegation setup. Reduce the amount of teams that can qualify for an actual championship by contracting the size of the championship league, and you've relegated the league to the back-pages of many sports fans' interest.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 10:29 AM
  #29
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
Without getting into the "benefits" of an open, promotion and relegation system:But in order for the NHL to be a "big tent", 20 of the current 30 members must approve the change. Good Luck.The Kenora Thistles were part of the original challenge series by amateur teams in 1907, 14 years after Lord Stanley donated the Cup that bears his name. They folded later in the year due to loss of players.

The Seattle Metropolitans, on the other hand, were one of only ten clubs that started 1916 with the hopes of winning the Cup. The four clubs in the Pacific Coast Hockey Association and the six clubs that started the 1916 NHA season were the only teams that could have won the Cup.If nothing is done, e.g., no one messes with the league business, doesn't that "let nature take its course"?
I would agree with your last point, except for the fact that the NHL currently gets in the way of nature taking its course via the salary cap and floor, and it's strict control over owners, markets, arenas, etc etc etc.

They're stifling their own growth without realizing it...or so it would seem.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 10:36 AM
  #30
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
The league-wide revenues just keep going up. There may be some places with blemishes. Name me a league that doesn't have these blemishes.

I'm tired of watching people fight the good fight when it appears they don't know what exactly their fighting for. I'm tired of watching people complain about how the league is in trouble but that's because there is usually an ulterior motive; their team makes boatloads of revenue but can't spend it on salaries due to the salary cap or that there are unwashed masses in the southern United States that don't deserve hockey when there are plenty of elitists up north that could support a team.

The NHL cannot dominate other leagues by casting aside some of their membership in a promotion-relegation setup. Reduce the amount of teams that can qualify for an actual championship by contracting the size of the championship league, and you've relegated the league to the back-pages of many sports fans' interest.
The league doesn't have blemishes, it has gaping holes.

At no time have I suggested there are southern U.S. markets that "don't deserve hockey", as a matter of fact I have repeatedly stated the opposite. I think the NHL should be everywhere. Hell, they should put a team in Mobile, Alabama...all I'm saying is value the franchise for the market its in, not against markets that thrive like the Toronto's, Boston's, and Montreal's of the world.

And if you'd read my original post with regard to promotion and relegation...there is no NHL casting aside anyone because the idea is the NHL would be the large umbrella over every pro hockey franchise. The entire entity would be the NHL, it's just be split into tiers, conferences, whatever name you wanna give it.

And with my idea you don't contract the amount of teams that qualify to play for the cup, you increase it FOUR-FOLD!

Right now you have 16 teams playing off for Stanley's mug. Under my idea, you have 64 teams duking it out come April. I'm biased, but I like my idea more, and it will be a better model for growing the game everywhere than the status quo.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 10:44 AM
  #31
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
The NHL is so lost, and it's real shame because hockey is the greatest sport on earth, and the league has a potential product that could dominate other leagues if they'd just understand how to get out of their own friggin' way.
I disagree. Hockey, the NHL brand, is never going to dominate the American or Global sports scene for that matter. Its a niche' sport. Always will be. The best they can do is what theyve' done & what their doing. Relegation would be about 10 steps back. Sure for the traditionalists (such as myself) the game would be superior with a hopefully non-cap Premier Division of about 12 teams, but guess what?.

Youd be killing franchises in Alberta (both of them), Ottawa, Jersey, LI, Minny, possibly Detroit, Nashville, Florida X's 2 etc etc etc. The SC interchanged annually between the Leafs & Rangers, Philly & Chicago. No one in a San Jose or Dallas is going to pay todays prices tomorrow to watch what would in essence be an AHL/ECHL/CHL squad fight it out for the Silver or Bronze Medal in some half empty Our Lady of Spain arena. Buildings would be empty. Anarchy & mass Contraction, the formation of rival leagues....

Suggest you read this. About the formation of the NHL, born from acrimony & displeasure with Eddie Livingstone & the Toronto Blue Shirts, long standing grudges & persecution, a primer on how & why the league operates the way it does to this day. Deceptions and Doublecross: How the NHL Conquered Hockey by Morey Holzman and Joseph Nieforth

http://www.amazon.ca/Deceptions-Doub.../dp/1550024132



Last edited by Killion: 11-27-2011 at 10:51 AM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 11:10 AM
  #32
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I disagree. Hockey, the NHL brand, is never going to dominate the American or Global sports scene for that matter. Its a niche' sport. Always will be. The best they can do is what theyve' done & what their doing. Relegation would be about 10 steps back. Sure for the traditionalists (such as myself) the game would be superior with a hopefully non-cap Premier Division of about 12 teams, but guess what?.

Youd be killing franchises in Alberta (both of them), Ottawa, Jersey, LI, Minny, possibly Detroit, Nashville, Florida X's 2 etc etc etc. The SC interchanged annually between the Leafs & Rangers, Philly & Chicago. No one in a San Jose or Dallas is going to pay todays prices tomorrow to watch what would in essence be an AHL/ECHL/CHL squad fight it out for the Silver or Bronze Medal in some half empty Our Lady of Spain arena. Buildings would be empty. Anarchy & mass Contraction, the formation of rival leagues....

Suggest you read this. About the formation of the NHL, born from acrimony & displeasure with Eddie Livingstone & the Toronto Blue Shirts, long standing grudges & persecution, a primer on how & why the league operates the way it does to this day. Deceptions and Doublecross: How the NHL Conquered Hockey by Morey Holzman and Joseph Nieforth

http://www.amazon.ca/Deceptions-Doub.../dp/1550024132

I read Kevin Lowe's book 'Champions' that was quite comprehensive on the history of pro hockey, the startup leagues, the failures, etc. I'm not unaware of that stuff.

Yes, hockey is a niche sport in certain markets. Will it always be? I don't think so if changes like the ones I have suggested are implemented. Will it always be niche with the current system? Yes, because the current path leads to involuntary contraction due to poor economics.

Promotion and relegation isn't 10 steps back, it's a giant leap forward. You don't relegate teams out of the league entirely. You do the entire promotion and relegation amongst tiers or conferences that are all part of the NHL. No matter if you are No. 1 or No. 128, you are in the NHL.

You wouldn't be killing any franchises with that approach you'd be opening everything up for many more teams, not less. Why? Because instead of trying to put an artificial value on markets, every owner would have the freedom to price their product based on the market their in.

Edmonton and Calgary wouldn't have to fold because ownership would have the freedom to react to what the market is telling them. If the NHL says you must charge this for seats, but the market place says it's too much given the expenditures on salaries, then the owners can react accordingly, tell the league to stick it, and spend as little or as much as they like. Same thing for all the other markets you mentioned, they don't die, they thrive, unless they're run by people who won't listen to what the market is telling them. Then they die, and someone else springs up with a franchise in their place. And since it's a free market, its cheap to get off the ground and running with no league meddling over what building, where, etc.

Would there be more dynasties in my idea of a system? Yes. Is that better for driving the popularity of the sport? Yes. Look at the historical record for the league's TV ratings. It was most popular on US TV in the 70s when dynasties were common place. Dynasties draw eyeballs, they bring interest to the league. Parity divides and conquers.

No one in San Jose or Dallas would have to pay today's prices to watch the new product. Don't you get it? In a free market the owners in those markets can adjust to whatever the fans there are saying with their wallets. If no one is able to pay 'x' for tickets, you lower the price, and cut your overhead. You do what it takes to stay in the black. Or you don't, then you go bankrupt, then you fold, and then someone else takes your place.

And if rival leagues appear, so? Who wins in that case? We do! The fans! Competition brings about better quality at a better price. Or it doesn't, in which case the competition disappears, and we pay for what we like better. At no time is more choice a bad thing. The more hockey the better.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 11:40 AM
  #33
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
The more hockey the better.
Theoretically, your position/opinion is both valid & intriguing, however, the culture & business of sport is such in North America that it'd never fly. If after spending 3, 5, 7 years in the sub-tropics of an NHL Division 2 or 3, a Carolina, San Jose, Edmonton & Ottawa had had enough and went all WHA, signing away the odd franchise player from Premier Teams, youd still have a cast of border liners, has beens and never weres on the depth charts. They simply couldnt compete against the juggernauts in Toronto, New York, Philadelphia etc, and good luck, even if you did manage to sell a Toronto Toro's, Philadelphia Blazers type franchise into those markets. Been there, got the t-shirt.

More hockey at the very elite levels is already maxed, the league at this point capable of a conservative expansion of maybe 2-4 more teams over the next decade even if they felt so inclined. Immediately through relegation, youd be handing the AHL back to a city like Winnipeg, taking the wind right out of the sails in at least 16 other markets all over the continent. Now, had the NHL when it was formed amalgamated with the AHA/AHL/IHL/CHL etc etc, all under one umbrella with a promotion/relegation system circa 1926/27 forward then sure, but we have nearly 100 years of history here, the NFL/AFL, MLB & NBA/ABA all setting precedents in how its done. Punching a hole in the sky, carving the business model a new one at this juncture is just not on.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 11:47 AM
  #34
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
Without getting into the "benefits" of an open, promotion and relegation system:But in order for the NHL to be a "big tent", 20 of the current 30 members must approve the change. Good Luck.
Actually, since it would require blowing up amending virtually the entire NHL Constitution - including Sections III & IV which require unanimous consent to change - all 30 teams would have to agree to the change.

As I said - Ain't never gonna happen.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 12:37 PM
  #35
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
The league doesn't have blemishes, it has gaping holes.

At no time have I suggested there are southern U.S. markets that "don't deserve hockey", as a matter of fact I have repeatedly stated the opposite. I think the NHL should be everywhere. Hell, they should put a team in Mobile, Alabama...all I'm saying is value the franchise for the market its in, not against markets that thrive like the Toronto's, Boston's, and Montreal's of the world.

And if you'd read my original post with regard to promotion and relegation...there is no NHL casting aside anyone because the idea is the NHL would be the large umbrella over every pro hockey franchise. The entire entity would be the NHL, it's just be split into tiers, conferences, whatever name you wanna give it.

And with my idea you don't contract the amount of teams that qualify to play for the cup, you increase it FOUR-FOLD!

Right now you have 16 teams playing off for Stanley's mug. Under my idea, you have 64 teams duking it out come April. I'm biased, but I like my idea more, and it will be a better model for growing the game everywhere than the status quo.
Who cares what the umbrella name is? really?

The simple fact is -- the fringe local markets are not going to support the game to the degree required without visits from (and competitive games against) the big markets and star players.

The NHL has decided it's not worthwhile for them to try to operate teams in 60 markets or whatever you're proposing. They've contracted out the AHL to do part of that work, and let smaller operators do it for themselves elsewhere.

The other thing is -- you've still yet to even figure out what is wrong with the current system. Sure there's weak markets, and they probably need more revenue sharing, but that's a simple fix.



edit: Finally... you seem to be promoting something along the lines of the english soccer system. Answer me this: How many Premier League champions have there been since 92-93?

Answer: 4, and one of them were Blackburn Rovers in 94-95.


Last edited by seanlinden: 11-27-2011 at 12:57 PM.
seanlinden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 12:43 PM
  #36
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Theoretically, your position/opinion is both valid & intriguing, however, the culture & business of sport is such in North America that it'd never fly. If after spending 3, 5, 7 years in the sub-tropics of an NHL Division 2 or 3, a Carolina, San Jose, Edmonton & Ottawa had had enough and went all WHA, signing away the odd franchise player from Premier Teams, youd still have a cast of border liners, has beens and never weres on the depth charts. They simply couldnt compete against the juggernauts in Toronto, New York, Philadelphia etc, and good luck, even if you did manage to sell a Toronto Toro's, Philadelphia Blazers type franchise into those markets. Been there, got the t-shirt.

More hockey at the very elite levels is already maxed, the league at this point capable of a conservative expansion of maybe 2-4 more teams over the next decade even if they felt so inclined. Immediately through relegation, youd be handing the AHL back to a city like Winnipeg, taking the wind right out of the sails in at least 16 other markets all over the continent. Now, had the NHL when it was formed amalgamated with the AHA/AHL/IHL/CHL etc etc, all under one umbrella with a promotion/relegation system circa 1926/27 forward then sure, but we have nearly 100 years of history here, the NFL/AFL, MLB & NBA/ABA all setting precedents in how its done. Punching a hole in the sky, carving the business model a new one at this juncture is just not on.
Of course it's all just notion, but that's how everything begins, including today's NHL reality. It started with notions that became fully realized ideas.

Sure we could say lets get in the time machine and head back to the 20s to re-start with the promotion and relegation system, but obviously we can't do that. Does that mean we can't make change...ever? Of course not. Every great change starts a day at a time. History is rife with examples of those who said something for sure, 100% cannot happen, and then you know what? It did.

Did the 'Miracle on Ice' teach you nothing? Have you not read nor seen 'Moneyball'? Things happen. The 64 team April hockey bonanza of single elimination games I propose for the Stanley Cup gives just about anyone a puncher's chance. You think the Philadelphia Blazers wouldn't have a shot? History disagrees with you, just ask the Belarus team that beat Sweden, and every other massive upset in history. In single games things happen.

And have you ever been to see live games featuring has-beens, never-weres, or border-lines? I used to be a season ticket holder to Acadia University games, all the rosters were stuffed full of "failed" junior players who went to school after their draft eligibility dried up. You know something, it was great hockey. It was really great hockey. There were great skilled players. There are tons of great skilled players. What a shame they wind up doing something other than playing hockey for a living. Get the goons out of the game and there are lots of skilled guys who'd love a shot at playing pro, even if you paid 'em in ham sandwiches.

Been there got the T-shirt? I am certain you've never had the T-shirt for what I'm proposing. If what I'm putting forward as an idea was taken on our league, our game would be miles ahead of where it is.

Hockey at a 'very elite' level is relative. An undrafted junior player is a billion times better than I am, and most people in society. Very elite in terms of say Sid Crosby versus undrafted Joe Nobody...ok, I'll grant you that, but there's not even enough of those guys to fill more than two NHL rosters let alone a whole league. The level of skill amongst everyone else is lot closer than you think.

What I am saying is there are a ton of skilled guys out there who'd love the opportunity, and the NHL could be much larger than it is. And how long do you think it would take ESPN or the other big US networks to look at the NHL if they started promoting and relegating and every year seeded the best 64 hockey teams and played them off in a crazy tournament for the Stanley Cup? One year, two, maybe three? That's a lot better than the current outlook.

You're right about the status quo however. Sure, the NHL in its current form could maybe eke out another couple of franchises with its top down over-controlling ways, trying to control venues, budgets, who can and cannot own teams. They are dinosaurs doing what dinosaurs do...re-arranging deck chairs, waiting for their iceberg.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 01:38 PM
  #37
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
They are dinosaurs doing what dinosaurs do...re-arranging deck chairs, waiting for their iceberg.
The Miracle on Ice was certainly a tremendous event & a boon for hockey in the states however it was entirely different time & place. How many of those players actually went on to have productive NHL careers?. Only a handful. The beauty of hockey of course is that on "any given day" will can win out over talent, so there is some truth & validity to your opinions & perspective. I did read Moneyball (pass on the movie, cant stand Brad Pitt) & there again you make an interesting point, though call me a Neanderthal, Im no fan of the entire concept of "Puckmetrics" if you will. Its the intangibles (see Miracle on Ice) that make hockey such a great game. The surprises. Guys playing way beyond their talent & weight classes.

I think you paint far too dire a picture. The NHL is nowhere near the implosion you suggest. Yes, there are problems, we all know that & despite its secrecy have a pretty good idea what they are, where they are; many having some great suggestions in terms of a remedy. As for the difference between a CIAU, NCAA, Major Junior, Provincial Jr.A, Colonial League, SPHL, ECHL & AHL player I disagree, the differences are stark. I played the game. The differences in size & speed alone, style, toughness, by every variable differ considerably. Sure there are Diamonds in the Rough who missed being drafted, late bloomers, but c'mon here, from Bantam on up players are absolutely "scoped out", put through the paces physically & mentally. Yes the "quality" of CIAU hockeys' decent enough, enjoyable to watch, but its a totally different animal from its closest relation in NCAA Division 1. Apples to oranges. This whole notion that the NHL's simply rearranging the deck chairs while the band blithely plays on couldnt be farther from the truth. These guys are not idiots. Quite the contrary.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 02:54 PM
  #38
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
Who cares what the umbrella name is? really?

The simple fact is -- the fringe local markets are not going to support the game to the degree required without visits from (and competitive games against) the big markets and star players.

The NHL has decided it's not worthwhile for them to try to operate teams in 60 markets or whatever you're proposing. They've contracted out the AHL to do part of that work, and let smaller operators do it for themselves elsewhere.

The other thing is -- you've still yet to even figure out what is wrong with the current system. Sure there's weak markets, and they probably need more revenue sharing, but that's a simple fix.



edit: Finally... you seem to be promoting something along the lines of the english soccer system. Answer me this: How many Premier League champions have there been since 92-93?

Answer: 4, and one of them were Blackburn Rovers in 94-95.
1. The "fringe markets" will support any team where an owner makes it cost effective enough for fans to do so. There is always a market, it's just a matter of figuring out what people will pay for your product, and going from there.

2. The NHL wouldn't be operating 60 or however many teams, they would simply be the league that contains the the tiers all the teams compete in. Each of those teams would be private businesses run by their respective owners. The league wouldn't own the teams. The AHL would be folded into the NHL umbrella, and its teams would be divided and slotted into Tier or Div 1, 2, 3, 4, whatever.

3. I fully understand the current problems. That's why I've been making the suggestions I have. I actually want to grow the game, as opposed to the NHL who just pays lip service to that idea. And revenue sharing is not growing the game, it is just diluting the profit pool. I'm saying don't share revenue with businesses that are in the red because it's an act that rewards bad management. If a team is in the red it's because donkeys are running it. Let the team fail if that's what needs to happen, and allow it to be bought up by someone who knows how to run a business. Even if that means changing the economics from Bettman's idiotic ideas of controlling venue, salary floors, etc.

4. Yes, what I am proposing is similar to English soccer. The amount of different champions in the Premier League means nothing to what I am proposing because since when does the EPL seed the top 64 teams in England and play them off in the span of a few weeks for the Championship trophy?

In the EPL you are the champion when you finish first in the league. I proposing each tier has it's own playoffs to determine that tier's champion. Then seed the best 64 teams on the continent and play single elimination knockout in April for the Stanley Cup. Will you always end up with the richest teams winning Stanley's mug? Maybe, but it'd be friggin' exciting as hell, and if NCAA basketball has taught us anything...anyone has a chance in a once gamer.

Follow that idea, and just watch the U.S. media go..."whoa...where did this come from"? They already love the NCAA Frozen Four in some media markets...this would be taking that idea to a whole other level. Talk about growing the game.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 03:12 PM
  #39
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
The Miracle on Ice was certainly a tremendous event & a boon for hockey in the states however it was entirely different time & place. How many of those players actually went on to have productive NHL careers?. Only a handful. The beauty of hockey of course is that on "any given day" will can win out over talent, so there is some truth & validity to your opinions & perspective. I did read Moneyball (pass on the movie, cant stand Brad Pitt) & there again you make an interesting point, though call me a Neanderthal, Im no fan of the entire concept of "Puckmetrics" if you will. Its the intangibles (see Miracle on Ice) that make hockey such a great game. The surprises. Guys playing way beyond their talent & weight classes.

I think you paint far too dire a picture. The NHL is nowhere near the implosion you suggest. Yes, there are problems, we all know that & despite its secrecy have a pretty good idea what they are, where they are; many having some great suggestions in terms of a remedy. As for the difference between a CIAU, NCAA, Major Junior, Provincial Jr.A, Colonial League, SPHL, ECHL & AHL player I disagree, the differences are stark. I played the game. The differences in size & speed alone, style, toughness, by every variable differ considerably. Sure there are Diamonds in the Rough who missed being drafted, late bloomers, but c'mon here, from Bantam on up players are absolutely "scoped out", put through the paces physically & mentally. Yes the "quality" of CIAU hockeys' decent enough, enjoyable to watch, but its a totally different animal from its closest relation in NCAA Division 1. Apples to oranges. This whole notion that the NHL's simply rearranging the deck chairs while the band blithely plays on couldnt be farther from the truth. These guys are not idiots. Quite the contrary.
I'm using numbered points just to simplify...I know it's kinda pretentious...but it's easier than replying to your paragraphs with more paragraphs.

1. Hockey is a game of emotion. How many times have inferior Canadian teams on paper defeated the superior Russian teams in major international matches? It happens at every level. That fact would keep fans of the most backwater team hopeful that one day they'll get their crack at the Mighty Maple Leafs.

2. The NHL may not be near imminent implosion, but it is on an unsustainable path in its current iteration, as there are too many teams bleeding. I think it will be sad to see the sunbelt teams go. Yes, I'd love to see more Canadian teams, but there is room for both. All the NHL needs to do is start treating each market on a case-by-case basis. For instance, stop forcing the same model on the 'Yotes that is used for Toronto, or Boston, etc. And if you open up promotion and relegation, AND have a March Madness type tourney at the end of the year, teams that have had to cut overhead like the Coyotes would still get an invitation to the dance most likely. That possibility alone will win local fans, and the TV dollars will follow.

3. I played the game too, though nowhere near the level some of my friends have played. One example, one of my buddies played NCAA Div 1, went undrafted, then played AHL, IHL, ECHL, and a season or two in France. He plays summer league now with a few NHL guys, usually role players like Raffi Torres. He tells me all the time when we get together to watch NHL games that the level of play in that league amongst the bottom 98% of players is not much different than guys like him who go undrafted because Buddy College Coach decides not to put you on the power play for your final two years of NCAA eligibility.

Sure, on the surface that might sound like a guy who's just talking bitter, but I'm telling you, he is a phenomenal player, and holds his own easily with the Torres's of the world. He said making the bigs is a lot of who you know when you get tons of players with all similar skill levels. He's played minor pro a while, and he's not a self-aggrandizer so I know he's talking truth.

Thing is, I was a paying customer of Canadian University hockey on the east coast, and it was excellent value for the money.

And you're simply wrong about CIAU vs NCAA. Wasn't that long ago they took the two champions of each and played them off against each other. CIAU won the first two and then some. Remember, CIAU is all 22 to 26 year olds who didn't get drafted, but played full careers in the CHL...those guys can flat out play.

4. Yes, the current dinosaurs running the NHL are re-arranging the deck chairs. They're telling the band to play on while Columbus loses another $25 to $30 mill this year, Carolina loses, Nashville, the Islanders, Jersey, Florida, Phoenix. They're all hurting, but if the NHL would let them price their product for the markets they're in, they wouldn't have to bleed.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 03:22 PM
  #40
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
Follow that idea, and just watch the U.S. media go..."whoa...where did this come from"? They already love the NCAA Frozen Four in some media markets...this would be taking that idea to a whole other level. Talk about growing the game.
Well, just a minute here, how would you go about just "folding in" the likes of St.Johns, Manchester, Worcester, Bridgeport, Albany and all of the rest of them without watching franchise values absolutely plummet because sure as shootin those places wouldnt be able to pay any premium to be a part of a "New" NHL. Do you just "gift" them their place in the new league?. They'd never get out of the bottom division so whats the point?. They'd be AHL/ECHL caliber forever, NHL in name only. Jokes already fly about "Gary Bettmans worst nightmare is a Vancouver - Ottawa Stanley Cup Finals". Who wants to watch the Podunk Lake Erie Otters vs. the Abbotsford Heet in a Division 2 or 3 finals?. Good luck with those ratings, broadcasting revenues & advertising/sponsorship dollars.

At least under the AHL they can cater more to smaller regional markets & tastes without selling the false hope that the winner of that series will next year be playing in the Premier Division, virtually guaranteeing their extinction shortly thereafter if they hope to compete. The US media loves the Frozen Four like Minnesotans love their Gophers. NCAA body slams the NHL in terms of eyeballs in just about every single market because its an entirely different beast altogether. Whether its hockey, basketball & especially football, the NCAA transcends sport itself, having everything to do with state pride & accomplishment, Army vs. Navy, a whole range of sociological factors that go well beyond anything any of the major leagues cater & pander to.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 04:14 PM
  #41
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, just a minute here, how would you go about just "folding in" the likes of St.Johns, Manchester, Worcester, Bridgeport, Albany and all of the rest of them without watching franchise values absolutely plummet because sure as shootin those places wouldnt be able to pay any premium to be a part of a "New" NHL. Do you just "gift" them their place in the new league?. They'd never get out of the bottom division so whats the point?. They'd be AHL/ECHL caliber forever, NHL in name only. Jokes already fly about "Gary Bettmans worst nightmare is a Vancouver - Ottawa Stanley Cup Finals". Who wants to watch the Podunk Lake Erie Otters vs. the Abbotsford Heet in a Division 2 or 3 finals?. Good luck with those ratings, broadcasting revenues & advertising/sponsorship dollars.

At least under the AHL they can cater more to smaller regional markets & tastes without selling the false hope that the winner of that series will next year be playing in the Premier Division, virtually guaranteeing their extinction shortly thereafter if they hope to compete. The US media loves the Frozen Four like Minnesotans love their Gophers. NCAA body slams the NHL in terms of eyeballs in just about every single market because its an entirely different beast altogether. Whether its hockey, basketball & especially football, the NCAA transcends sport itself, having everything to do with state pride & accomplishment, Army vs. Navy, a whole range of sociological factors that go well beyond anything any of the major leagues cater & pander to.
1. You don't gift them anything, if they want to take part, they'll accept the invitation, and pay the fee.

2. The "they'd never get out of the bottom division so what's the point?" argument could be applied to just about anything. What's the point? The point is to provide willing fans with an exciting product week in and week out. Using your logic what's the point of 30 teams playing 82 games? Why not 32 playing 76? Why not 28 playing 84? Why not 5 playing 190? The point is because we love the game, and we love supporting teams, whether they be from our home town or somewhere else. Sure, each year than can only be one champion, but if we all followed the "what's the point" idea there wouldn't be an NHL at all. "It's always going to be inferior to the NFL, so what's the point?"

You tell me.

3. Do you think the people of Podunk Lake and Abbotsford would care to see their teams playoff for a championship at whatever level they're playing? Of course they would. By your logic why bother cheering for an AHL team playing for the Calder Cup? It's not the NHL, so what's the point?

Do you think those fans that now have a team in the large promotion and relegation system will beget more fans who will now all pay a lot more attention to this larger league they're not a part of? You betcha. If you're looking to grow hockey in the southern U.S. does it do you any good to have teams in Mobile, Alabama or Little Rock, Arkansas that have a hope even if it's minor of one day maybe getting to the final 64 tournament? Absolutely, it does a world of good. And asking what's the point is completely beside the point.

Why do we cheer for anything? The same reason people climb mountains.

4. The current AHL set up is closed off, in similar fashion to the NHL. It's a fairly set amount of teams that play regular seasons and playoffs into infinity with no real hope of going anywhere but where they were the year before. If you want to stick with that status quo, congratulations that puts you in the same category as the fossils who currently comprise the NHL Board of Governors.

5. You said that the NCAA product involves: "a whole range of sociological factors that go well beyond anything any of the major leagues cater & pander to"...but the operative word you're forgetting in that statement is the word "yet".

The NHL does not go well beyond anything any of the major leagues cater or pander to...yet.

It doesn't mean it will, god knows right now the way it's being run it can't...but that does not mean it won't ever. I think my suggestions would be a huge step in the right direction.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 04:58 PM
  #42
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,392
vCash: 500
In interesting idea -

An original idea -

Relegation has been proposed in various threads for as long as I've been here - sprouting up randomly like a fungus - in multiple "Hey, I've got an original idea - why don't we make the NHL more like Euro football" threads and being brought up in many only slightly tangentially related threads.

Relegation in the NHL?
Could there be a NHL second division?

Two Questions about Expansion
Should the NHL re-think how they organize the lotto for the draft
Bob McCown Fan590: 24-26 team NHL
Phoenix bankruptcy/ownership Part XI: A Fistful of Dollars?
Houston and the NHL
Expansion Teams
...


Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Sigh. Yet another Relegation thread.

[Standard Relegation Question]
Sigh - as I ask every time the relegation question comes up:

Why would the current owners, who have hundreds of millions of $$$'s in equity invested in their teams, ever agree to a system where the value of their asset would be decimated if relegated?

Hint: they wouldn't.

/thread
[/Standard Relegation Question]

And, note that a change to a relegation system would require unanimous approval of all 30 teams to ammend the NHL Constitution.

You will never see relegation in any major US professional sports leagues.
And the proponents have never come up with any rational explanation why the 30 current NHL owners, who are the only people with a say in the matter - not the players, not the fans, not a disgruntled HF Boards poster - would have any economic (or other) incentive to do so.

If you don't like that - well feel free to start up your own league where you can relegate yourself to your hearts content.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 05:23 PM
  #43
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
And the proponents have never come up with any rational explanation why the 30 current NHL owners, who are the only people with a say in the matter - not the players, not the fans, not a disgruntled HF Boards poster - would have any economic (or other) incentive to do so.

If you don't like that - well feel free to start up your own league where you can relegate yourself to your hearts content.
The economic incentive is to grow beyond what they're capable of growing to following their current trajectory which leads to teams involuntarily folding or being moved.

If they truly want NFL-style dominance, they need to change the entire operation.

And don't kid yourself, the climate in this country is ripe for well-financed, well-managed league to open in a handful cities, and slowly chip away at the NHL's failed model.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 06:06 PM
  #44
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
The economic incentive is to grow beyond what they're capable of growing to following their current trajectory which leads to teams involuntarily folding or being moved.
The current trajectory is increasing revenues by almost double-digit growth since the lockout. There hasn't been a franchise that has folded in thirty-plus years. Movement has occured because a group of trained monkeys could have done a better job than the former owners of the Atlanta Thrashers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
If they truly want NFL-style dominance, they need to change the entire operation.
"NFL-style" is a truly centralized league; your idea is about as far away from it as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
And don't kid yourself, the climate in this country is ripe for well-financed, well-managed league to open in a handful cities, and slowly chip away at the NHL's failed model.
Yet I can guarantee you it won't be an "open" league with promotion and relegation.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 07:09 PM
  #45
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
1. You don't gift them anything, if they want to take part, they'll accept the invitation, and pay the fee.

2. The "they'd never get out of the bottom division so what's the point?"...You tell me.

3. Do you think the people of Podunk Lake and Abbotsford...so what's the point? Why do we cheer for anything? The same reason people climb mountains.

4. The current AHL set up is closed off, in similar fashion to the NHL...

5. You said that the NCAA product involves... but the operative word you're forgetting in that statement is the word "yet". The NHL does not go well beyond anything any of the major leagues cater or pander to...yet.

It doesn't mean it will, god knows right now the way it's being run it can't...but that does not mean it won't ever. I think my suggestions would be a huge step in the right direction.
Ok. How much do they pay, the AHL & ECHL teams, maybe even some places sans any team at all, like Vegas or Atlanta?. With the former the difference between an AHL & NHL franchise?. You think St.Johns is gonna cough up $180M (based on todays franchise avg. of $200M)?. Abbotsford?. They dont have that kind of money, the buildings to make it in, the fan base, sponsors etc. So what happens to them?.

2) The NHL isnt "inferior" to the NFL. Its a totally different game, riff. Some people like RadioHead, some people like Lady Gaga. Its not a case of one being superior to the other & never the twain shall meet. Most people like both. Some dont. Good music is good music regardless of the genre'. Same thing applies to sports.

3) Thats the AHL's problem. If the Montreal Canadiens' are stupid enough to plant there farm team smack dab in the middle of whats Leafs territory then dont be surprised if attendance is anemic. Why bother with the AHL at all when you live in a major market & have big league tastes?. People in Southern Ontario brought up with the NHL. Ask the Marlies about that one?. The only reason the Chicago Wolves were successful was because of Wirtz blacking out the Hawks for decades & Chicagolanders like there TV hockey fix. The Phantoms moved on, most do that share a market with the NHL and for very good reason. How long Abbottsford survives is anyones guess.

4) People "climb mountains", go heli-skiing, base-jump, para-glide, golf, whatever because there participatory sports, some pushing the envelope so they can push themselves, adrenalin junkies. Comparing those activities to spectator sports is night & day. You dont generally have 18,500 clapping & going nuts when youve just skied a solid ice 90 degree pitch, taken 5 strokes off your golf game, bested your mile run average in competing in a triathalon. The only one who knows about it or cares is you, your friends & family, and depending on whatever your doing, they could well think your just nuts with the usual "WOW, your a God!" tossed atcha like a Milkbone.

5) NCAA is popular because a lot of folks went to the Universities & Colleges or know people who did, a touchstone to their pasts, a source of pride to their regions. Professional sports cannot replicate the decidedly amateur status of NCAA or CIAU, College or High School sports. Its an entirely different different animal. There is no "yet" about it, ever, and plenty of "nyet's"...

And yes kward, if this was 1926 and you were a member of the ownership groups in the old NHA looking at dropping a bomb on Eddie Livingstone, busting loose & forming a new pre-eminent pro hockey league then sure, perhaps we could look at a fully integrated system of relegation & promotion, but probably NOT. In business, theres no room for benevolence and magnanimity. You win or lose and want matters expedited quickly, efficiently, ruthlessly if necessary. Im all for teams in Birmingham, returns to Atlanta & Hartford, QC, Hamilton especially, Seattle & Portland. Through Expansion and if necessary, Relocation. Absorption, relegation & promotion is simply not a practicable option.


Last edited by Killion: 11-27-2011 at 07:16 PM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 07:50 PM
  #46
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fehr Time View Post
This goes on in soccer in Europe of course and there are no issues with it there.

Maybe some teams should be relegated, perhaps that is the only way to get some owners to run their teams better.
1) Over here it is called football
2) Using just the UK as an example there are about 160 legit club teams on this little island and another 140 that are there but not as organized


If a two teared system was created there would be trouble with drafts and figuring out the cap--as teams in the first league might draw more crowds and have higher revenues then those in the second league--so you create a two level cap system.

and how about draft picks?

__________________
trying to fend off exwife number 2
45000/010113
GO SHARKS GO
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 07:51 PM
  #47
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
The Miracle on Ice was certainly a tremendous event & a boon for hockey in the states however it was entirely different time & place. How many of those players actually went on to have productive NHL careers?. Only a handful. The beauty of hockey of course is that on "any given day" will can win out over talent, so there is some truth & validity to your opinions & perspective. I did read Moneyball (pass on the movie, cant stand Brad Pitt) & there again you make an interesting point, though call me a Neanderthal, Im no fan of the entire concept of "Puckmetrics" if you will. Its the intangibles (see Miracle on Ice) that make hockey such a great game. The surprises. Guys playing way beyond their talent & weight classes.

I think you paint far too dire a picture. The NHL is nowhere near the implosion you suggest. Yes, there are problems, we all know that & despite its secrecy have a pretty good idea what they are, where they are; many having some great suggestions in terms of a remedy. As for the difference between a CIAU, NCAA, Major Junior, Provincial Jr.A, Colonial League, SPHL, ECHL & AHL player I disagree, the differences are stark. I played the game. The differences in size & speed alone, style, toughness, by every variable differ considerably. Sure there are Diamonds in the Rough who missed being drafted, late bloomers, but c'mon here, from Bantam on up players are absolutely "scoped out", put through the paces physically & mentally. Yes the "quality" of CIAU hockeys' decent enough, enjoyable to watch, but its a totally different animal from its closest relation in NCAA Division 1. Apples to oranges. This whole notion that the NHL's simply rearranging the deck chairs while the band blithely plays on couldnt be farther from the truth. These guys are not idiots. Quite the contrary.
That's why it's a seven game series, do we really want a champion because the coin came up heads on any given day?

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 09:03 PM
  #48
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyhopeful View Post
That's why it's a seven game series, do we really want a champion because the coin came up heads on any given day?
I think that's an oversimplification of my position. I think each tier, division, conference, whatever you wanna call it should have a robust playoff at the end of the regular season where they play best 4 out of 7 series to determine a champion at that level, and trophy and bonuses should be awarded.

Then you take the results of all those playoffs at the different levels and the competition committee selects the top 64 teams based on their playoff/reg. season performance. That way every playoff at every level is in and of itself a beginning in the march toward the Stanley Cup.

A huge 64 team hockey tournament to cap the year off would be fantastic, and hardly deciding the overall championship on a "coin toss". I doubt the NCAA men's div.1 basketball champs feel they earned their National Title by winning a coin toss. That big tourney is tough to win. Not to mention all the conference playoffs needed to get to the big dance in the first place.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 09:39 PM
  #49
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,179
vCash: 500
A potentially 64 team elimination for the Stanley Cup kward?. Im sorry, but thats not only a waste of time it reeks of Socialism. As your an advocate of "Puckmetrics" surely you can see the folly & madness in such a scheme?.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2011, 11:22 PM
  #50
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
A potentially 64 team elimination for the Stanley Cup kward?. Im sorry, but thats not only a waste of time it reeks of Socialism. As your an advocate of "Puckmetrics" surely you can see the folly & madness in such a scheme?.
It's only "madness" until it is tried, and it works. Every idea under the sun began with naysayers proclaiming "madness". Luckily that didn't stop the mad from touting their ideas anyway.

kward 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 03:17 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.