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.

Realistically....How many teams should be in the NHL?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2013, 10:29 PM
  #451
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
excuses excuses excuses. That's all they'll give admirals.
I went to Mellon Arena a number of times the years before the 05 lockout. Seats were cheap and plentiful outside on the street. This team was bad. I regularly stayed in a Marriott in downtown Pittsburgh next to the old arena and the bar hosted the Pens postgame radio show. The fans were disgusted and angry. It sounded a lot like call-in shows on Montreal's TSN 690 radio.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 10:56 PM
  #452
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipowicz View Post
I'm not sure NHL hockey will work in Milwaukee, just this past week the AHL Milwaukee Admirals hosted their main rival the Chicago Wolves and only managed to draw 3000 fans.
No offense but it's pretty stupid to base NHL support on AHL attendance, especially one game.

It would be like me saying it's a guaranteed success and they would be top 5 in revenue because they drew 17,000+ against Chicago last year.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 11:14 PM
  #453
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
I went to Mellon Arena a number of times the years before the 05 lockout. Seats were cheap and plentiful outside on the street. This team was bad. I regularly stayed in a Marriott in downtown Pittsburgh next to the old arena and the bar hosted the Pens postgame radio show. The fans were disgusted and angry. It sounded a lot like call-in shows on Montreal's TSN 690 radio.
I believe you 100%, so many of the horror stories from 2001-2005. Honestly I get mad when Pittsburgh is listed with Chicago Washington Boston and them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
No offense but it's pretty stupid to base NHL support on AHL attendance, especially one game.

It would be like me saying it's a guaranteed success and they would be top 5 in revenue because they drew 17,000+ against Chicago last year.
Winnipeg only got 10k or what not for their AHL team.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 11:26 PM
  #454
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
I think they were more like 8,000. If we're judging on AHL attendance Hershey would have an NHL team.

Not saying you can't use AHL attendance as a tool but you have to use years of data, compare it with the rest of the league and go from there. Not one game.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:43 AM
  #455
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
I see a couple 14,000s and an 11,000 in there.

http://www.hockeycentral.co.uk/pengu...ns-Records.php
yes, for AHL level talent.

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:49 AM
  #456
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyutinMyOwnHorn View Post
I doubt that very much. Pittsburgh became the definition of bandwagon team once Crosby was drafted. Porbably the main reason we don't have the Kansas City Penguins right now.
Pittsburgh doesn't need to justify its position as a hockey market. It has a hockey history that dates well over 100 years. The Penguins aren't even the first NHL club to play in Pittsburgh. And the fact remains, we needed a new arena. Yes, there are bandwagoners in almost every city...including Canada, but this uneducated viewpoint really needs to end. The fact is, if the Pens support is only tied to Crosby, why have we continued to sell out each year over the past 3 given his injury situation?

http://pittsburghhockey.net/historical-timeline

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:51 AM
  #457
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
I went to Mellon Arena a number of times the years before the 05 lockout. Seats were cheap and plentiful outside on the street. This team was bad. I regularly stayed in a Marriott in downtown Pittsburgh next to the old arena and the bar hosted the Pens postgame radio show. The fans were disgusted and angry. It sounded a lot like call-in shows on Montreal's TSN 690 radio.
exactly. The support was always there, but people got tired of seeing crap hockey. A lot of posters on here seem to forget there was a team here before Crosby. A guy named Lemieux did pretty well before him even......

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:18 AM
  #458
Thumper17
Registered User
 
Thumper17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
This might help you guys out.

http://www.ranker.com/list/nhl-teams-values-2012/w1z1k

Ranking of the NHL teams by their value since last season, there's a second page.

It appears the bottom ten teams, (which everyone is casually lopping off) are, from the least profitable the Coyotes, Blue Jackets, Islanders, Blues, Panthers, Predators, Jets, Hurricanes, Sabres and Lightning. If you dont include the Jets, then the Devils are after the Lightning.

Wonder how many people are surprised by this. I think the Jackets and Coyotes could be bumped off and replaced with teams in Quebec and Seattle/Portland/Hartford.

But the League needs to grow for a profit. Cant take teams away.

Thumper17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 11:53 AM
  #459
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumper17 View Post
This might help you guys out.

http://www.ranker.com/list/nhl-teams-values-2012/w1z1k

Ranking of the NHL teams by their value since last season, there's a second page.

It appears the bottom ten teams, (which everyone is casually lopping off) are, from the least profitable the Coyotes, Blue Jackets, Islanders, Blues, Panthers, Predators, Jets, Hurricanes, Sabres and Lightning. If you dont include the Jets, then the Devils are after the Lightning.

Wonder how many people are surprised by this. I think the Jackets and Coyotes could be bumped off and replaced with teams in Quebec and Seattle/Portland/Hartford.

But the League needs to grow for a profit. Cant take teams away.
That's ridiculous. Having too many teams is what has gotten the NHL into this mess. Lower tier teams want expansion because of the expansion fee. But once new teams come in they are a drain on the league. My number one argument on the business side of the NHL has been that there are too many teams and there have been too many teams since the WHA merger. There should be between 16 and 20 teams. And with the exception of the Sabres and Blues, the bottom teams on that list are exactly who I'd lop off.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:07 PM
  #460
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
There should be between 16 and 20 teams.
At that point the NHL is a minor league in today's sports world.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:10 PM
  #461
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
There should be between 16 and 20 teams.
Completely agree. And set up B and C leagues for development of both players and management. Promotion/relegation between them - franchise success becoming completely dependent on on-ice success (or at least lack of failure).

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:13 PM
  #462
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
The problem I have with even more teams is I think it'll just create more problems and water down the product on the ice even further.

A leaner league with fewer teams would mean more talent concentrated into few clubs and a better product on the ice in general.
I disagree. Expansion tends to bring extremes into the game, contraction would tend to push them out in the name of "versatility". It would be a muddled mess of players who can do a bunch of things at an average level rather than guys who are actually good at, well, anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyvale420 View Post
I would rather teams remove bottom pairing D, and 4th line forwards instead of contracting teams
I've often wondered what would happen if the active list were taken from 20 down to 17, thus removing the entire 4th line. Right now the standard line setup means that the top three lines all lose 3-5 minutes a night so that mostly non-NHL players can be out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
I think they were more like 8,000. If we're judging on AHL attendance Hershey would have an NHL team.

Not saying you can't use AHL attendance as a tool but you have to use years of data, compare it with the rest of the league and go from there. Not one game.
Don't forget that Minnesota list their IHL team after two years, and Quebec lost both an IHL (Rafales) and AHL (Citadelles) team fairly quickly. I don't think anyone would use those as indicative of market strength; it's something that's interesting but not inherently meaningful.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:15 PM
  #463
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
That's ridiculous. Having too many teams is what has gotten the NHL into this mess. Lower tier teams want expansion because of the expansion fee. But once new teams come in they are a drain on the league. My number one argument on the business side of the NHL has been that there are too many teams and there have been too many teams since the WHA merger. There should be between 16 and 20 teams. And with the exception of the Sabres and Blues, the bottom teams on that list are exactly who I'd lop off.
If there's too many teams, then there are too many teams. I say chop the top 10; if talent dilution is too prevalent, then this would spread their talent around to the struggling teams. If they're truly a top-10 market, they can withstand having an AHL team instead of an NHL one.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:35 PM
  #464
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
At that point the NHL is a minor league in today's sports world.
Like it's not now?

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:40 PM
  #465
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
For those of you that think there should be 32 NHL teams, that means that the NHL would need a 93 game schedule to play each opponent 3 times a season. Insane.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:40 PM
  #466
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
Like it's not now?
No, it's not. Right now it's a major league with financial troubles. Fixable financial troubles, they're simply are dealing with the stuff now that the NFL resolved 40 years ago. That's what happens when you cling to a financial model that was obsolete in the 1950s.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:42 PM
  #467
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
For those of you that think there should be 32 NHL teams, that means that the NHL would need a 93 game schedule to play each opponent 3 times a season. Insane.
Why would you need to play each opponent 3 times? They play in conferences and divisions for a reason. In the NFL every team has at least 12 other teams that they don't play at all in a given year.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:43 PM
  #468
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
No, it's not. Right now it's a major league with financial troubles. Fixable financial troubles, they're simply are dealing with the stuff now that the NFL resolved 40 years ago. That's what happens when you cling to a financial model that was obsolete in the 1950s.
Yes, fixable by reducing the number of financially troubled teams which means reducing the number of teams. Or playing musical chairs with franchises by extorting money from politicians desperate to seek higher office by bringing major league sports to their undeserving cities.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:46 PM
  #469
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
Yes, fixable by reducing the number of financially troubled teams which means reducing the number of teams. Or playing musical chairs with franchises by extorting money from politicians desperate to seek higher office by bringing major league sports to their undeserving cities.
Fixable by introducing a modern revenue sharing system coupled with reasonable restrictions on expenses (ie player salaries). Flushing teams is not needed.

And btw, who are YOU to decide what cities are "undeserving"?

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:46 PM
  #470
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Why would you need to play each opponent 3 times? They play in conferences and divisions for a reason. In the NFL every team has at least 12 other teams that they don't play at all in a given year.
Each NFL team only plays 16 games. They don't have to worry about selling out the stadium. Wayne Gretzky breaks all NHL scoring records but even though you pay $5,000 a year for season tickets you can't see him because you're in the wring conference.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:48 PM
  #471
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Fixable by introducing a modern revenue sharing system coupled with reasonable restrictions on expenses (ie player salaries). Flushing teams is not needed.

And btw, who are YOU to decide what cities are "undeserving"?
And who are you to decide that I have to pay another $50 or $100 per seat per game so your undeserving city can have a hockey team?

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:48 PM
  #472
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
Each NFL team only plays 16 games. They don't have to worry about selling out the stadium. Wayne Gretzky breaks all NHL scoring records but even though you pay $5,000 a year for season tickets you can't see him because you're in the wring conference.
And this is a problem.....how exactly? In the '80s I only got to see Magic Johnson live once a year when the Lakers played their one game in Washington. Funny, I didn't feel deprived since I got to watch him on TV practically every week.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:50 PM
  #473
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
And who are you to decide that I have to pay another $50 or $100 per seat per game so your undeserving city can have a hockey team?
Because you don't pay $50-$100 a game because city-X is in the league. You pay $50-$100 a game because that's what the going rate in your city is. You pay that rate regardless of whether there are 6 teams or 100 teams.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:02 PM
  #474
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Because you don't pay $50-$100 a game because city-X is in the league. You pay $50-$100 a game because that's what the going rate in your city is. You pay that rate regardless of whether there are 6 teams or 100 teams.
That could be argued: Would the going rate not decrease if you have an equal team a relatively equal distance away that's charging less, thus decreasing the demand for your team's tickets? Buffalo and Toronto seem to believe that to be true.

DyerMaker66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:11 PM
  #475
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
That could be argued: Would the going rate not decrease if you have an equal team a relatively equal distance away that's charging less, thus decreasing the demand for your team's tickets? Buffalo and Toronto seem to believe that to be true.
The only way the Maple Leafs' tickets would go down is if another team was put in Toronto forcing the Leafs to compete for fans. But that, of course, is a different argument than what the other poster was making. Ottawa could undercut Toronto prices by half and it wouldn't effect the Leafs ticket prices because they aren't directly competing for fans within the GTA market. It's also possible that a second team in Toronto wouldn't generate much demand in which case there wouldn't be any effect on the Leafs' ticket prices: Similar to how the Islanders and the Devils really don't influence the Rangers' prices. I'm inclined to doubt that though: I'm pretty sure a second team in Toronto would create instant demand.

SaintPatrick33 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 08:43 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.