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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Brooks: NHL & NHLPA to meet on realignment

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-10-2013, 09:02 AM
  #1
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 123,951
vCash: 756
Brooks: NHL & NHLPA to meet on realignment

Larry Brooks writes on realignment today:

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...32Ke0UjDo3F0rO

Sounds like the biggest concern here is really the imbalance of 80s-style alignment.

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2015

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17
GKJ is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 10:26 AM
  #2
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Larry Brooks writes on realignment today:

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...32Ke0UjDo3F0rO

Sounds like the biggest concern here is really the imbalance of 80s-style alignment.
And financially, I think the PA likes the increased premium teams in the west have to pay for the added travel. Sometimes players have a specific preference, but they'll more often than not go to the highest bidder. If you've got the Sharks and Rangers, or Bruins and Kings, offering the same money, where is the player going to go? They'll get a ton of money either way, but one has much better travel, and has as good a chance to win, as the other.

If the Sharks or Kings want someone that the Bruins or Rangers want, the west coast teams are pretty much forced to increase the salary.

If the league goes to the proposed alignment, some of that advantage of playing eastern and western teams against each other goes away, decreasing the player's leverage. If you keep the 6 divisions, where a small segment of the league, which is also the league's largest revenue generating segment, has every advantage over every other team, salaries will go up that much more.

Competitively, and financially, status quo is the way to go for the players. I'm guessing the PA would just rather switch Winnipeg and Detroit and be done with it.

KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
02-10-2013, 12:07 PM
  #3
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
And financially, I think the PA likes the increased premium teams in the west have to pay for the added travel. Sometimes players have a specific preference, but they'll more often than not go to the highest bidder. If you've got the Sharks and Rangers, or Bruins and Kings, offering the same money, where is the player going to go? They'll get a ton of money either way, but one has much better travel, and has as good a chance to win, as the other.

If the Sharks or Kings want someone that the Bruins or Rangers want, the west coast teams are pretty much forced to increase the salary.

If the league goes to the proposed alignment, some of that advantage of playing eastern and western teams against each other goes away, decreasing the player's leverage. If you keep the 6 divisions, where a small segment of the league, which is also the league's largest revenue generating segment, has every advantage over every other team, salaries will go up that much more.

Competitively, and financially, status quo is the way to go for the players. I'm guessing the PA would just rather switch Winnipeg and Detroit and be done with it.
Also there's this, which I brought up yesterday... Until or unless the League eventually goes with a League-wide TV revenue sharing plan, it will not be to the West's advantage to have their Divisional/Conference games compartmentalized into stricter Time Zone groups. It may be inconvenient that CTZ and a couple ETZ teams have to play PTZ and MTZ teams, but having that realty means that more CTZ and ETZ fans tune into those games, and that is still where the population density is, especially the hockey-fan population base. If the far West restricts itself to Divisional rivals within those 2 Time Zones, the TV revenue for that Division/Conference is very likely to drop off. Sure, they would get more games against current Eastern Conference teams, but those games aren't and won't be viewed by anyone as rivalry matchups because simply they're not. Thus, people will still be less likely to tune into those games, not being Conference rivals, and not being time convenient for TV viewing purposes.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 12:53 PM
  #4
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Also there's this, which I brought up yesterday... Until or unless the League eventually goes with a League-wide TV revenue sharing plan, it will not be to the West's advantage to have their Divisional/Conference games compartmentalized into stricter Time Zone groups. It may be inconvenient that CTZ and a couple ETZ teams have to play PTZ and MTZ teams, but having that realty means that more CTZ and ETZ fans tune into those games, and that is still where the population density is, especially the hockey-fan population base. If the far West restricts itself to Divisional rivals within those 2 Time Zones, the TV revenue for that Division/Conference is very likely to drop off. Sure, they would get more games against current Eastern Conference teams, but those games aren't and won't be viewed by anyone as rivalry matchups because simply they're not. Thus, people will still be less likely to tune into those games, not being Conference rivals, and not being time convenient for TV viewing purposes.
That's why I think that if the NHL stays with a six division format, it will be Columbus moving east and not Detroit. The Wings are a huge draw out west and I can't see why those teams would want to lose that.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 12:53 PM
  #5
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
Splitting up Boston from Montreal and Pittsburgh from Philadelphia will be met with A LOT of resistance. For the east, I'd like to see this:

NE: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
ATL: New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
SE: Carolina, Columbus, Florida, Tampa Bay, Washington

I know Columbus isn't in the southeast, but neither is Washington. I figure it's easier to put the Blue Jackets in the Southeast division than tinkering with the Northeast and Atlantic divisions.

As for the western conference:

CEN: Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Nashville, St. Louis
NW: Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Minnesota, Winnipeg
PAC: Anaheim, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver

This makes it easier on Dallas an Minnesota so that they don't have to travel two time zones to play any divisional foes.
I know BOS-MTL probably can't be split up. But neither can Philly-NYC, with is a multi sport rivalry of the highest level. My post is kind of a running shot at MoreOrr, who insists on not recognizing PHI/NJD/NYR/NYI is pretty much indivisible.

I personally think the NHL's proposed 4 conference was brilliant, and one of the best solutions I've seen. Like it or not, there are a ton of snowbirds in FL, so having the Canadian teams in with FLA and TBY would help increase revenues for those cities.

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 12:56 PM
  #6
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
I know BOS-MTL probably can't be split up. But neither can Philly-NYC, with is a multi sport rivalry of the highest level. My post is kind of a running shot at MoreOrr, who insists on not recognizing PHI/NJD/NYR/NYI is pretty much indivisible.
That's true the NHL will never split up the NY teams from Philly, but if they had to chose between putting Columbus in the NE, moving Boston to the ATL, and moving Pittsburgh to the SE or just putting Columbus in the SE, I think they'd lean towards the latter.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:00 PM
  #7
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 500
CLB in the SE isn't that bad.

Every team will hate being with the FL teams because they are so remote w/o Atlanta.

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:11 PM
  #8
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Since TB and Sunrise are reportedly good attendance, the option of including Toronto with the Florida team division can die. Just switch Winnipeg and Nashville/Columbus and let them be. Who cares if they get the lowest attendance per division.

If Phoenix moves.. well that's another thread.

JetsFlyHigh is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:15 PM
  #9
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 35,544
vCash: 500
I moved this to its own thread since it's about actual talks and not what everyone's wish is about an alignment.

Let's try to keep this thread focused on the issues raised by the two parties (travel, playoff chances, money, etc.).


Link to last thread discussing some potential mixes: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1327545

Fugu is online now  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:16 PM
  #10
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsFlyHigh View Post
Since TB and Sunrise are reportedly good attendance, the option of including Toronto with the Florida team division can die. Just switch Winnipeg and Nashville/Columbus and let them be. Who cares if they get the lowest attendance per division.

If Phoenix moves.. well that's another thread.
There are a number of other issues that should be addressed, plus being ready for inevitable expansion. Winnipeg can play in the SE until it is all figured out.

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:25 PM
  #11
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 87,498
vCash: 50
Realignment can't come soon enough in my opinion.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:25 PM
  #12
Kane One
Global Moderator
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,003
vCash: 1425
If teams in the west who travel more want a realignment so bad, they should be the ones with the extra team in their divisions. Why should eastern teams have to pay for a western team that decided to start a franchise that doesn't have any team relatively close to them? Obviously if there's an expansion, this would be a moot point.

When Vancouver came into the league, their closest team were the Golden Seals.

As long as the Rangers are in a division with 7 teams, I'll be happy with the proposed realignment.

__________________


Glass from Girardi is practically a mathematical impossibility. I'm glad to have witnessed this great Rangers moment. -Bob Richards
I'd hate to know what the toilet facilities look like after a game with the way this team aims... -Megustaelhockey
Kane One is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:28 PM
  #13
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
If teams in the west who travel more want a realignment so bad, they should be the ones with the extra team in their divisions. Why should eastern teams have to pay for a western team that decided to start a franchise that doesn't have any team relatively close to them? Obviously if there's an expansion, this would be a moot point.

When Vancouver came into the league, their closest team were the Golden Seals.

As long as the Rangers are in a division with 7 teams, I'll be happy with the proposed realignment.
It will be like two or three seasons TOPS before there are 8 teams in all 4 division.

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:29 PM
  #14
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
Why should eastern teams have to pay for a western team that decided to start a franchise that doesn't have any team relatively close to them?
Good question. Why are Detroit and Columbus made to pay for it?

KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:29 PM
  #15
Kane One
Global Moderator
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,003
vCash: 1425
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
It will be like two or three seasons TOPS before there are 8 teams in all 4 division.
That's if there's an expansion.

Kane One is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:30 PM
  #16
Pilky01
Registered User
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,762
vCash: 500
I loved the NHL's realignment plan. I really hope it, or something very similar, gets implemented.

Might they be able to work out some sort of 'wild card' for the playoffs, where a better team from an 8 team conf can cross over and take the place of a worse team in a 7 team conference?

Frankly, I think the playoff representation complaint is garbage, but the PA seems bent on making it a bargaining issue.

Divisional playoffs will be amazing!

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:32 PM
  #17
Pilky01
Registered User
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
It will be like two or three seasons TOPS before there are 8 teams in all 4 division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
That's if there's an expansion.
As opposed to getting there through relocation?

Pilky01 is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:33 PM
  #18
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
That's if there's an expansion.
Absolute lock that the NHL expands to Quebec and Markham within 2 years after the Phoenix situation is settled. Too much revenue to being thrown away if they don't.

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:34 PM
  #19
tony d
Is it though?
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,954
vCash: 500
Looking forward to seeing what they do here. I prefer a 4 division format were the top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs.

__________________
tony d is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 01:58 PM
  #20
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, FL
Posts: 8,513
vCash: 500
I would honestly prefer if the NHL adopted a MLB/NFL style alignment where you had two conferences that each had an even balance of east, west, and central teams.

Would help spread out the travel costs league wide and allow for fans to see players they normally wouldn't see.

chasespace is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 02:02 PM
  #21
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Competitively, and financially, status quo is the way to go for the players. I'm guessing the PA would just rather switch Winnipeg and Detroit and be done with it.
To be honest, I don't follow your logic at all as far as finances are concerned. The only real issues for the players will be travel and the uneven divisions.

That said, I support the league making the proposed realignment with divisional playoffs. The current system is nonsense and the divisions serve absolutely no purpose. The current "divisions" are more or less completely irrelevant and might as well not exist.

Tough Guy is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 02:13 PM
  #22
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,030
vCash: 500
So if the divisional format of the 80's and early 90's was so great, why did the NHL change it? Even if certain teams relocated they still could have kept a four conference format, but chose not to.

Shockmaster is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 02:14 PM
  #23
Tough Guy
Registered User
 
Tough Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
Absolute lock that the NHL expands to Quebec and Markham within 2 years after the Phoenix situation is settled. Too much revenue to being thrown away if they don't.
There aren't 32 cities in North America that can support NHL hockey. That is a major problem. Heck, even 30 is a stretch.

We're also reaching the point of Canadian saturation as far as TV is concerned. The last thing the American networks want is even more Canadian teams. I think it's Quebec or Markham, not both. Quebec might be a lock, but 8 Canadian teams is probably the absolute maximum.

Tough Guy is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 02:21 PM
  #24
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Dawg View Post
There aren't 32 cities in North America that can support NHL hockey. That is a major problem. Heck, even 30 is a stretch.

We're also reaching the point of Canadian saturation as far as TV is concerned. The last thing the American networks want is even more Canadian teams. I think it's Quebec or Markham, not both. Quebec might be a lock, but 8 Canadian teams is probably the absolute maximum.
Meh. There are probably 22-24 that can support hockey profitability. But there are another 8-10 that can break even with the right revenue sharing, and that:

1) Increases revenues due to more teams
2) Increases revenues due to a better footprint
3) Makes the NHLPA and NHL happy due to 1 & 2

MountainHawk is offline  
Old
02-10-2013, 02:31 PM
  #25
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Dawg View Post
To be honest, I don't follow your logic at all as far as finances are concerned. The only real issues for the players will be travel and the uneven divisions.
If the Rangers offer $7 million per year to a player, and the Kings offer $7 million, why wouldn't the player go to NY? For the Kings to get that player, they'll have to make it worth the player's while, and offer say $8 million per year, or an extra year at $7 million, something more. If the Rangers don't match, then the player got more money. If the Rangers do match, the player gets the extra money, and gets to sleep in his own bed more often.

Look at the history of free agency in the NHL. How many big names have ended up in Vancouver, or San Jose, or Los Angeles? Anaheim got Fedorov, by offering quite a bit for him. The Ducks lucked out with having the younger brother of an all-time great defenseman. Colorado, even when they were great, didn't really bring any free agents in, they just kept their own. Havlat got a lot from Minnesota. Of course Parise and Suter had specific reasons to go to Minnesota.

The better the free agent, the more likely they are to end up in the northeast corridor. NY, Boston, Philly, Toronto, etc, are all money printing franchises. Nobody can really compete with them in terms of money if those franchises want a player. If these teams keep their big travel advantage with the current alignment, it allows players to keep significant financial leverage come contract time.

KingsFan7824 is online now  
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 10:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.