Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

should there be another team in the NHL?


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#41 CaliWingsNut

CaliWingsNut

    PeeWee Bettman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Location:Sonoma County, CA

Posted 13 August 2010 - 10:13 PM

The league is due for an expansion of two more teams. Aside from 32 teams being a much more desirable number for a number of scheduling and divisional reasons, the talent pool of developing youth, both in Europe and North America, has greatly expanded. There's investment opportunity out there (see: number of investors that were at one point in line for a hockey team even in a crappy location, aka Phoenix), and there's certainly talent. In fact, I'd imagine you'd see less skilled players, Russians included, going to the KHL and other leagues; the addition of two extra teams would allow them to get paid more.

On top of that, if both teams were in the West (Pick 2 of: Seattle, Winnipeg, Vegas, Kansas City, Houston), then the Wings could finally be moved to the East where they belong

Edit: I know some people are going to ask "Why did you mention 'x' city?" Here's why:

Kansas City: Preexisting arena; rivalry potential with Blues; close to relocation there before

Vegas: Feed off tourism

Seattle: Northwest seems a logical destination for expanding the game both business-wise and in popularity/player development. It gets, you know, cold there.

Winnipeg: No explanation needed, I hope

Houston: Largest hockey market (AHL) without an NHL team. Old and longstanding tradition of having an AHL team there and a hockey following.. oddly enough. I look at Houston's AHL success as an example of what can happen in the south if given both enough time AND competent management (something many of the southern expansion teams have not had).


This is almost the exact opposite of what I think.

How many players are put in the press regularly? besides sid, ovi and kovy (currently)? Do you think adding 2 more teams is going to improve that?

Growth to the point of watered down is not what professional sports are about. How about consolidating the number of teams down to 16 big teams and paying players salaries comparable to other professional sports? No one will care about the KHL, if the NHL is nothing but the top players.

The way you guys seem to think, merging with the AHL would be a good thing.Posted Image Then again, It's in line with Canadians thinking they need teams in markets half the size of current (US & CA) NHL teams.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. - Mark Twain


#42 Wombat

Wombat

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 396 posts
  • Location:Washington, DC

Posted 14 August 2010 - 01:54 AM

This is almost the exact opposite of what I think.

How many players are put in the press regularly? besides sid, ovi and kovy (currently)? Do you think adding 2 more teams is going to improve that?

Growth to the point of watered down is not what professional sports are about. How about consolidating the number of teams down to 16 big teams and paying players salaries comparable to other professional sports? No one will care about the KHL, if the NHL is nothing but the top players.

The way you guys seem to think, merging with the AHL would be a good thing.Posted Image Then again, It's in line with Canadians thinking they need teams in markets half the size of current (US & CA) NHL teams.


Adding teams won't help marketing at all... but the reason marketing for the NHL is bad is not because there are too many teams, but because hockey is a niche sport and the NHL is just not good at marketing! They tried to put all their eggs in the Crosby basket.

the key is to find the optimal balance between available talent in the world and markets that can support a big league team. Clearly, a merger with the AHL would not work in either regard. That said, there appear to be markets available right now that could be had. Whether there is enough talent to support the current 30 teams (or more) can be a debateable point. I agree that you don't want to water down the talent. Perhaps the most prudent move is to take franchises in failing markets and try them in fresh ones.

#43 Shoreline

Shoreline

    Panzerfaust

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,817 posts
  • Location:Brampton, ON

Posted 14 August 2010 - 02:57 AM

No. In fact, the NHL shouldn't try to, in any form, save failing teams, or expand until every team can be around the cap. They need to let them go and pool more talent together. Pre-2000s expansion the spread of NHL teams was just fine, teams' fan base was more encompassing, which also meant more revenue. Continuing to add teams may overall help the NHL as far as their own piece of the pie, but it will without a doubt perpetuate what happened to Anaheim, Phoenix, Buffalo, Nashville, and so on, and overall not good for the fan base, or the NHL's image.

Edited by Shoreline, 14 August 2010 - 02:57 AM.


#44 daniel1

daniel1

    #40 - UNSTOPPABLE

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Location:Land of Cold and Snow (Canada)

Posted 14 August 2010 - 07:58 AM

No. In fact, the NHL shouldn't try to, in any form, save failing teams, or expand until every team can be around the cap. They need to let them go and pool more talent together. Pre-2000s expansion the spread of NHL teams was just fine, teams' fan base was more encompassing, which also meant more revenue. Continuing to add teams may overall help the NHL as far as their own piece of the pie, but it will without a doubt perpetuate what happened to Anaheim, Phoenix, Buffalo, Nashville, and so on, and overall not good for the fan base, or the NHL's image.



Yep, contraction would greatly help each remaining team's talent level. I think you could fold Phoenix, Florida, Columbus, and Nashville without anyone really batting an eye. Although Trotz would likely stick his neck out for the Preds (pun intended).
"And? If I did, I probably would have been a fighter, so what?"

Who knows; maybe you would realize that enforcers in hockey are critical to a teams chemistry and overall success?

#45 Datsyerberger

Datsyerberger

    "Dat's yer burger, Hank."

  • HoF Booster
  • 3,097 posts
  • Location:Pueblo, CO

Posted 14 August 2010 - 09:08 AM

Contraction would have this effect:

Because there's an overall raise in talent per team, average salary per team rises as players seek to be paid what they're worth.

Either the cap rises to accomodate this, or more (and more talented) players leave the NHL to seek what they're worth elsewhere. Likely, some combination of both.

If the cap rises to accomodate this (more than just to accomodate the rate of inflation), the gap between the teams that can afford higher salaries and those who can't afford quite as much increases. This results in more teams becoming revenue losing bottom dwellers, owners eventually becoming disenfranchised (terrible pun, I know), and eventually this whittles down to the remaining relative handful of teams that can afford to invest within a reasonable range of eachother to become competitive. While this might be cute to some people, it would be a terrible degradation in terms of business and oodles of lost revenue for the league as a whole, which ultimately makes it harder to market and grow the game...

On the other hand, there are a plethora of willing investors in a number of aforementioned locations. In fact, investor 'demand' is high enough at the moment that there were a normal solid investors willing to go for a failing team in the desert, with a number of them prepared to try keeping the team there for a reasonable period. This is indicator that, business-wise, the business is ready to expand. Competitiveness is still an issue, but it has improved on the whole, and I think that soon it will be close enough that the league considers a 2 team expansion.

Expecting every team in the league to be financially strong at every moment is simply unrealistic. Like every other major sport, or for that matter, every other major business, the NHL and its teams are going to experience states of economic flux. Sometimes a franchise is simply badly managed for an extended period, sometimes it was never placed in a good location to begin with, sometimes the state of the economy in a particular area changes. The Wal-Mart serving the upper middle class burbs always outsells the one servicing the lower end neighborhoods even though both remain a viable business. Or a Wal-Mart moves from one part of a metro area to another in response to changing economic situations and population concentrations. This is simply the state of business. Franchises grow, shrink, change, move. Every major sport in North America goes through the same situation, and to mistake such as a sign of unhealthiness and to prevent growth on that false assumption is damaging over the long term.

That said, I think there is an upper limit on how many teams there should be in terms of ability of fans to follow the game, among other limitations. 30 works (NBA, MLB), but 32 works as well (NFL) and makes for much better playoff bracketing. Considering which one of those is the current leader in North American sports, I think I know which example I'd go with.

Edited by Datsyerberger, 14 August 2010 - 09:10 AM.

If some bored artist wants to make me a signature, feel free to cut loose and do so.

Of course, I could get off my lame rear and do something.

#46 Shady Ultima

Shady Ultima

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 584 posts

Posted 14 August 2010 - 12:12 PM

That said, I think there is an upper limit on how many teams there should be in terms of ability of fans to follow the game, among other limitations. 30 works (NBA, MLB), but 32 works as well (NFL) and makes for much better playoff bracketing. Considering which one of those is the current leader in North American sports, I think I know which example I'd go with.


NICE!

I think two new teams would be ok, because I think the talent level is better now than it has been. People are comparing now to the 80's or prior, but they forget that the equipment has changed, the game has evolved. A 4th liner today, could have been a first liner back then. There were so few amazing goalies. I watch highlights from those days, and half the goals scored would rarely, if ever go in on a decent goalie now.

#47 Shaman

Shaman

    Die hard Red Wing fan and realist.

  • Silver Booster
  • 3,843 posts
  • Location:Kalamazoo Michigan (WMU)

Posted 14 August 2010 - 03:55 PM

Posted Image

The NHL needs another team like the world needs 50 hitlers.

Edited by Shaman464, 14 August 2010 - 03:56 PM.

Feuer und Wasser kommt nicht zusammen
Kann man nicht binden sind nicht verwandt
In Funken versunken steh ich in Flammen
und bin im Wasser verbrannt
Im Wasser verbrannt

#48 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 14 August 2010 - 04:33 PM

How do you know that? Maybe the world already had already had 49 more Hitlers and the Third Reich ended up the way it went because there were 50, and had there only been 1 it would have been Nazi domination!
"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#49 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 14 August 2010 - 04:41 PM

NICE!

I think two new teams would be ok, because I think the talent level is better now than it has been. People are comparing now to the 80's or prior, but they forget that the equipment has changed, the game has evolved. A 4th liner today, could have been a first liner back then. There were so few amazing goalies. I watch highlights from those days, and half the goals scored would rarely, if ever go in on a decent goalie now.


The skaters in the 80s were fairly equal, mildly less talented. The goaltending is something I am glad you mentioned because there are usually maybe a handful of goaltenders per decade as you go through the years who could honestly be called all-time greats. Many of the Hall of Famers who players in the early 1900s likely would not be able to goal nowadays.

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#50 betterREDthandead

betterREDthandead

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,744 posts
  • Location:GPP, MI

Posted 14 August 2010 - 08:10 PM

All you people in favor of contraction don't seem to grasp what the cost of contraction would be. Prohibitive. The only way it wouldn't be is if a team is liquidated through bankruptcy, and while that sounds attractive to those of us who can speak from the ivory tower of having a team comfortably in place, I'm not sure the cost to the league in terms of image is worth it.

TV exec: "Why should we pay your league millions of dollars to broadcast it when your teams are folding? What assurance can you give us that more teams won't fold and the value of your product won't continue to nosedive?"

League: "Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....."
Posted Image
"Before Detroit games, the meetings are always longer." - Nashville's Paul Kariya

#51 Shaman

Shaman

    Die hard Red Wing fan and realist.

  • Silver Booster
  • 3,843 posts
  • Location:Kalamazoo Michigan (WMU)

Posted 14 August 2010 - 11:48 PM

All you people in favor of contraction don't seem to grasp what the cost of contraction would be. Prohibitive. The only way it wouldn't be is if a team is liquidated through bankruptcy, and while that sounds attractive to those of us who can speak from the ivory tower of having a team comfortably in place, I'm not sure the cost to the league in terms of image is worth it.

TV exec: "Why should we pay your league millions of dollars to broadcast it when your teams are folding? What assurance can you give us that more teams won't fold and the value of your product won't continue to nosedive?"

League: "Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....."

Keep the teams they have, don't even think about expanding until they are able to keep what the league already has and make them at least marginally successful.
Feuer und Wasser kommt nicht zusammen
Kann man nicht binden sind nicht verwandt
In Funken versunken steh ich in Flammen
und bin im Wasser verbrannt
Im Wasser verbrannt

#52 Red Storm

Red Storm

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 71 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 12:14 AM

it Is simple no more teams, maybe get rid of 1 or 2 and move a few back where they came from Quebec, Hartford and Winnipeg :clap:

Bang on Devil - and perhaps the Wild back to the North Stars.

#53 tjinaz

tjinaz

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 19 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 03:58 AM

Bang on Devil - and perhaps the Wild back to the North Stars.


Really depends on what the league is trying to do.

If everyone is content and wants to keep the league and the fan base how it is and maybe make some more money, by all means go to Winnepeg, Quebec and Hartford. Continue to be the 4th tier league and possibly be passed by the World Poker Tour and MMA in fanbase and profitability.

You will always have a solid fanbase in Canada that much is sure. It will not grow the sport and may actually contract the fanbase. It seems that as the native Canadians are declining in number and immigrants are becoming more common the traditional Canadian sport is actually becoming less popular. hockey on the decline in Canada.

So that leaves the ol' USA... and where are the people going in the US? Wait.. they are leaving the "Traditional Hockey Markets" ie Cold States and moving to the "Sun Belt" where everyone wants to contract. Oh and by the way... more players are being drafted out of California, Nevada and even Arizona than Oregon and Washington. So much for the "strong developmental programs there". I don't understand why people seem to think that Hockey can only exist where it is cold. You seem to view it as a reward for having to live in an icy hell for 5 months. If that is true then we are really on our way back to an original 6 senario.

Also another hint... Joe American fan living in the markets where the NHL needs to be to grow and be healthy doesn't want a rivalry with Winnepeg or Quebec. That is like having a rivalry between Toronto and Bakersfield. One it a giant metro area and the other a backwater. How do you even get behind that? Even if they do go back to the smaller Canadian cities does anyone see that as a good thing? What good will it do the league in the long term to have a team in a city like Winnepeg? It has 700k people and is growing at a rate of like 2% that means in 25 years at that rate it will be the size of one of Phoenix's suburbs. It may be profitable in the short term but anything that makes them a good choice now truly shows the the NHL is in trouble.

What needs to happen is the NHL needs to continue to grow the game by going to the areas where there are a lot of people and selling the sport. It is an awesome sport and people will become fans if they see it for what it is. If the NHL goes backwards to smaller markets it will take that much longer to reach the top tier again.

#54 RinkRat82

RinkRat82

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 23 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 07:03 AM

More teams? .....s*** drop 2 teams ( The Jackets or preds in the west and Atlanta in the East ) Then move the Panthers to Quebec city and Pho. back to Winnepeg . The Nhl is in no shape to be taking risks like putting more teams in Tx or Mo We would all love it if Hockey could be on par with football or Baseball in the States but face it we just don't seem to give it a shot here . I wan't the cap to go up and with Canada making up like 35% of the take in the Nhl with only 6 teams thats where the money is. Maybe later on down the road we can expand here in the US but not right now.

#55 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,824 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 15 August 2010 - 07:29 AM

No. No new teams. Get rid of Florida and Chicago-lite.

Edited by Hockeytown0001, 15 August 2010 - 07:30 AM.

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#56 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 15 August 2010 - 07:30 AM

All you people in favor of contraction don't seem to grasp what the cost of contraction would be. Prohibitive. The only way it wouldn't be is if a team is liquidated through bankruptcy, and while that sounds attractive to those of us who can speak from the ivory tower of having a team comfortably in place, I'm not sure the cost to the league in terms of image is worth it.

TV exec: "Why should we pay your league millions of dollars to broadcast it when your teams are folding? What assurance can you give us that more teams won't fold and the value of your product won't continue to nosedive?"

League: "Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....."


The size of the League has nothing to do with the games broadcast nationally, especially when it comes to NBC; they still think the schedule begins on New Year's Day.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#57 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,824 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 15 August 2010 - 07:33 AM

The size of the League has nothing to do with the games broadcast nationally, especially when it comes to NBC; they still think the schedule begins on New Year's Day.


Or when Pittsburgh is playing.

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#58 Andy Pred 48

Andy Pred 48

    Coming soon,"the slovak line" Marek and 2 Toms!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,865 posts
  • Location:Peterborough England

Posted 15 August 2010 - 08:23 AM

If you really want to expand the sport, take it where the fan base has been stable for some years. In the AHL, what teams are supported well enough to have a NHL side instead? Attendance alone last year only Hershey Bears,Manitoba Moose,Chicago Wolves and our own Griffins topped above the 7000 mark. The idea of Manitoba/Winnipeg being back in is good, but could they increase their ave of just over 8000 by nearly double to what they would need to have any chance of surviving in the NHL. Chicago Wolves ave just under 8000, but is that Hawks fans going to Wolves home games when they are playing away? The two are too close i feel to finacially support 2 NHL teams, would be rivarly thou. Hersey thou could be viable.Highly successful AHL team, ave over 9500 fans and not too close to neighbouring NHL sides, may be there are too many NHL teams in that part of the NHL map to warrant putting another one in there.

Looking at another ex NHL area Quebec, supports its jnr team the Remparts to the tune of over 12000 a game. Would these same fans pay extra to watch a NHL team and would it impact the support that the jnr team currently gets? Its a tricky situation and the other aspect is all of these options would add to the East side of the NHL map.

The logical options would be Winnipeg, Quebec, and maybe a team on the east coast in Seattle/Portland. The NHL would then have 33 teams which would cause an uneven amount for current 4 leagues, so my solution would be to have 3 Conf of 11 teams. They would be put into the following conf.
WEST CONF:
Edmonton, Calgary,Vancouver,Seattle/Portland,San Jose,Anaheim,LA,Phoenix,Colorado,Winnipeg and Dallas.

CENT CONF:
Montreal,Quebec,Ottawa,Buffalo,Toronto,Pittsburgh,Columbus,Detroit,Chicago,Minnesota and St Louis.

EAST CONF:
Tampa,Florida,Carolina,Atlanta,Washington,Philadelphia,Nashville,Boston,NYR,NYI and New Jersey.

Each team to play each other twice at home and away in the same conf. Then once at home and away against each of the other 2 conf's. Making a total of 84 regular season games. The playoffs would be the top 4 of each conf qualify, and then the next best 4 overall point total's would make up the 16 qualifying teams. My idea would be the top overall team, ie president trophy winner plays the 16th placed team
then the 2nd place plays the 15th place team and so on. This proceedure would carry thru until the cup final series. I just think that this would give us in the main, the best 2 sides competeing for the stanley cup each year.
"What are you guys doing?" Reggie Dunlop
"Putting on the foil coach" Jeff Hanson
"Yeah, every game, you want some coach?" Steve Hanson
"Er, no. No thanks guys." Reggie Dunlop
"Make sure they don't leave the bench!" Reggie Dunlop.

#59 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 08:38 AM

More teams? .....s*** drop 2 teams ( The Jackets or preds in the west and Atlanta in the East ) Then move the Panthers to Quebec city and Pho. back to Winnepeg . The Nhl is in no shape to be taking risks like putting more teams in Tx or Mo We would all love it if Hockey could be on par with football or Baseball in the States but face it we just don't seem to give it a shot here . I wan't the cap to go up and with Canada making up like 35% of the take in the Nhl with only 6 teams thats where the money is. Maybe later on down the road we can expand here in the US but not right now.


The average NHL Ticket in 2009-10 was US$51.27. Only Ten teams made more than that, and you want to know the average Canadian ticket price? US$70.09. Want to know how strongly Canadian ticket prices controlled the market?

1) US$114.10 Toronto Maple Leafs
2) US$ 72.80 Montreal Canadiens
-- US$ 70.09 Canadian Dollar Average
3) US$ 62.05 Vancouver Canucks
4) US$ 61.28 Minnesota Wild
5) US$ 60.25 Philadelphia Flyers
6) US$ 59.73 Calgary Flames
7) US$ 59.71 Edmonton Oilers
8) US$ 58.57 New York Rangers
9) US$ 54.94 Boston Bruins
10) US$ 52.77 Ottawa Senators
11) US$ 51.46 New York Islanders
--NHL Ticket Average

As you can see, simply from the average ticket the Canadian teams have a much higher average price, especially in larger markets that can maintain high attendance figures. Complain all you want about about markets in the south with lower attendance, remember that their low revenue numbers come more primarily from the ticket prices.

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#60 NomadFromKazoo

NomadFromKazoo

    Kaz

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 500 posts
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 15 August 2010 - 09:23 AM

Complain all you want about about markets in the south with lower attendance, remember that their low revenue numbers come more primarily from the ticket prices.[/font]

And if the ticket prices were higher, the attendance would be even lower
Frank Herbert: Fear is the mind-killer

Groucho Marx: Sincerity is the key to success. If you can fake that, you've got it made

George Patton: If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking

Doctor Who: Don't turn your back, don't look away, and don't blink





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users