Divisional Realignment?
by Whiter Mage on Oct 3, 2009 2:33 PM EDT
169 comments
A conversation with Stanley Cup of Chowder over on his blog
(http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2009/10/1/1065344/bruins-fall-to-washington-4-1-in#comments) has got me thinking - the Caps really do play against Atlantic and Northeast foes better than they do against the Southeast. I also got to thinking about the time old conversation of divisional realignments, which I think makes a lot of sense.
We've been in the Southeast since the league adopted the 6 division format, and honestly, I'm tired of it. Our closest thing to a rival in our division is just a team that hates us and throws beer on our fans when we go visit. I can't think of a team in the Northeast and Atlantic who I dislike less than Carolina.
The league insists on geographical divisions, which I'm fine with. They make the most sense to keep travel costs down, but it's completely unfair to the Capitals. Raleigh is 278 miles from DC by car. By contrast, Pittsburgh (246), Philly (138), and New York (227) are all closer. I can't think of a team that is closer to five non-divisional rivals than it is to ONE divisional foe (Except, perhaps Nashville, but I doubt it).
If you look further, the Capitals are 1,035 miles from Sunrise, FL (Panthers). By contrast, the Capitals are closer to MONTREAL (592), and they're about as far away as you need to get.
The facts are, the geographical divisions may hurt the Capitals. It could even be possible that the team is more tired from longer flights to divisional foes. Regardless, I think the divisions are a joke. Five teams compete for a promised 1-3 spot. I'd rather 7 or 8 teams compete for a 1-2 spot. That in mind, I propose a divisional realignment, and if you want to base on geography, that's fine, but leaving the Capitals out of divisional match-ups with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh is marketing the NHL just is letting slip away. And maybe if we were in a new division, we'd find a way to play better more consistantly.
Hell, we're even closer to more teams in the Central division than we are the Southeast. Swap us with Nashville, and the divisional travel schedule wouldn't even change that much.
Regardless, it's just a shame that we can't play as well against Southeast opponents, or I wouldn't even bring this up.
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's authors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
0 recs |
169 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Swap us with Nashville, and the divisional travel schedule wouldn’t even change that much.
Fixed that for you. I’m not keen on playing 18 games or whatever it is against the Pacific and Northwest. That would be a huge difference in travel.
by Knee high to a duck on Oct 3, 2009 2:58 PM EDT reply actions
I can’t think of a team that is closer to five non-divisional rivals than it is to ONE divisional foe
How about BOS? I haven’t looked at the distances but it seems to me that BOS could be closer to all three NY area teams than any division foe. They might even be closer to PHI than any other division foe.
As far as travel wear and tear, I think it’s funny for any team on the east coast to complain about it. Think about what CGY and EDM go through and we’re in no position to complain.
Ultimately I’d like to see the NHL go to 4 divisions of 8 teams, and make at least the first round of the playoffs between division rivals, if not the first two (like the AHL).
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 3, 2009 3:07 PM EDT reply actions
Boston is closer to Buffalo than to Pennsylvania’s teams, though. Also, they actually have rivalry ties to Buffalo and Montreal. We have nada in our division.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
We have nada because of lack of history. BOS has played MON a ton of times so that’s where it comes from. If we have a few brutal playoff series with CAR I think we’ll learn to hate them (I already do).
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 3, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
while we lack play off history I think we have some good beginnings on the carolina rivalry… anyone who’s ever gone down there for a game would agree… (p.s. good cheap seats for games down there… totally worth the drive!)
I agree on the Canes thing. I believe a playoff matchup would really ignite what now is a slow burning ember. Fact is when they changed the format from divisional to conference playoffs it hurt the rivalry factor for almost everyone. Rivalries are born in the playoffs for the most part. Like most everyone else I’d prefer that we were still in the old Patrick, but that ship has sailed.
I think F&B is on the right track about going to four 8 team divisions. That would bring back some of what has been missing. Also, if they went that route it would also be nice if they would bring the old division and conference names. I hate the whole “other sports” do it so we should to aspect of that change. While they are at it they can get rid of the mascots, cheerleaders, and dance teams. If I wanted to go to a college football game why did I buy tickets to a hockey game?
by CP2Devil on Oct 3, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Another good thing about the traditional division names is that it frees the NHL from having to adhere to geographic lines.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 3, 2009 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions
The NFL East still manages to contain Dallas, though. And it used to have Arizona.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Oct 3, 2009 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
And the NFC west has St. Louis. NFC north used to have Tampa Bay. If they called it the NFC Jerk conference nobody would think about how inconsistent the geographic lines are; they’d just agree that it’s a perfect fit for those 4 teams.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 4, 2009 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
just to be anal i’ll mention that it was called the NFC Central when TBay was in there. ah, remember those Bay of Pigs matchups?
Russian Machine Never Breaks
Good point. Still geographically inaccurate.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 4, 2009 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions
The trouble is hockey teams (and sports markets in general) are concentrated in New England, the “Central” area (Ohio, Michigan, etc, + Ontario and Quebec) down to DC. So teams in other markets screw everything up. Someone will always be unhappy. Think of Dallas, forced to go to LA, San Jose, Phoenix, and Anaheim because there are no other closer markets.
i’m all for a divisional realigment. it has gotten boring against the southeast, and im tired of people bashing the Caps about being in a weak division. Every complement the Caps get comes with “and they are in the weakest division in the nhl.”
Ironically, a lot of people are high on the Sharks, but more teams will make it out of the South East this year than the Pacific.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
More than two will make it out of the Southeast? You do know that’s never happened, right?
I’d be very surprised if both SJ and Anaheim didn’t make it, and I think LA has an outside shot.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Oct 7, 2009 7:01 AM EDT up reply actions
You say “that’s never happened” like there is some long standing historical weight behind that. It’s not a big deal. You wanna go by Cups in recent years? The SE stacks up well. You wanna go by high end talent? The SE stacks up well. I don’t necessarily disagree with you that the Pacific should have more playoff teams than the SE (though I would pick DAL to be the third instead of LAK), but saying “3 teams have never made it from the SE” doesn’t really mean a whole lot.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 7, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s been about ten years, I think. Not a hugely insignificant sample size.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Oct 7, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Washington – San Jose (Even)
Carolina – Anaheim (Advantage, Carolina)
Florida – Los Angeles (Advantage, Florida)
Tampa Bay – Dallas (Even)
Atlanta – Phoenix (Even)
The only reason the Ducks have a better chance than the Panthers, in my eyes, is because the Eastern Conference is a better conference. The Southeast is not as awful a division as everyone makes it out to be, and the only reason people aren’t making more southeast picks is because no “Traditional Hockey Market” wants to view Florida, Tampa, and Atlanta as anything but failures.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
Disagree. I’ll give WAS and SJS as even but ANA is better than CAR, DAL and FLA are probably even, LAK is better than TBL, and PHX is better than ATL, IMO.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 7, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Can debate it all day, but Dallas is a joke, and LA and Phoenix really aren’t that much better. The Southeast isn’t the pushover everyone thinks it is.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
I guess there’s nothing left to do but watch the standings then.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 7, 2009 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Dallas has two really solid lines up front. Really, it all turns on health and on the play of one man (Turco). They could be really good or really bad.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 8, 2009 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes. Two years ago they made the WCF. Last year they lost like their four best players to injury plus Avery and Turco’s underwhelming play. They’re a playoff team.
by red army line on Oct 8, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
And I don’t think the East is a tougher conference.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Oct 7, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Neither do I but it’s closer than it has been in recent years.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 7, 2009 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the top four teams are pretty equal, but the West is a lot deeper. Their second tier of teams like Vancouver, Calgary, Anaheim and St. Louis are probably all better than any team in the East after the top 4. CAR and maybe NJ (they haven’t started well, but we’ll see how Brodeur rebounds and what their offense can do under Lemaire) can hang with those teams, but I don’t see anyone else in the East that would beat those four teams in a best of 7.
Of all our iniquities ignorance may be the worst
by Killer_Carlson on Oct 7, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Not to harp on this too much, but I realized that no division has ever sent fewer teams than the Southeast. Which is just bizarre.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Oct 8, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Really, ten years is not that significant. With the exception of the Caps all the SE teams had to build fan bases from scratch and have had to operate with limited budgets as a result. By and large the rest of the EC has more entrenched and devoted fan bases, with deeper pockets as well. I hope you cuddle up with this graph at night and it helps you get to sleep because its days are numbered. If you’re not trying to harp, then don’t. You told us the first time that the SE has never sent 3 teams to the playoffs and nobody disputed it.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 8, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s a pretty sweet graph. Where did it come from? Google docs?
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 11, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
In the same span of time, though, two different teams from the Southeast have won the Stanley Cup. The Atlantic can claim that about two of their teams, and the Northeast can’t at all.
If you want to chalk it to SC appearances, there are 3 appearances in the last 9 cup finals from Southeast teams. If you want the sample size to include 10 cup finals, then there are 4. The Atlantic has 5 appearances (From two teams) in the same timespan, which in my opinion shows it’s potentially top heavy (or was). Regardless, I don’t think that 10 years is a big enough sample size.
Considering that the only two expansion clubs since 1995 are in the Southeast, and the blatant suckage of those teams generally (With the exception of Florida) those numbers are easily skewed. The Central was weak for a long time because it had the Nashville Predators, Columbus Blue Jackets, and then the Blues and Hawks in down years.
Things will change and it’s whatever the reason, times will change. I mean, one of these days the Leafs will actually win another cup. So, it’s just a matter of time until that chart flips.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
Rec’d for both informing me on the Atlantic’s continued contribution to the playoff tree, and for looking like that toy where you’ve got a half-dozen colored pipes swirling around with a single wooden disc on each that you can zip along the spirals and loops. (You know, the Salvador Dali abacus deal.)
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
All teams not in the Eastern Time Zone will be in the Western Conference, no matter where they are, due to the fact that 17 of the 30 teams in the league are in the Eastern Time zone. If a team moves west, the NHL has already told Detroit they would be moved into the East first.
It’d be nice to not be in the Southeast, but there are not enough teams in the Southeast, so it makes sense for the Caps to be there. If a city like Jacksonville gets a team, then the Caps would likely be moved into the Atlantic. Of course, Jax doesn’t have the arena for an NHL team The only cities with NHL capable arenas ready to go are Houston, Kansas City, Portland OR, Seattle and Winnipeg. All of those cities are outside the East….
Let's go Caps!
The NHL better not be prepared to stand by that promise. If a team moves to Hamilton (or is expanded there) the NHL better let that team play in the same division as OTT, TOR, MON and tell DET to go suck an egg.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 4, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
and as it already stands, Columbus is further east than Detroit. The BJs would throw and absolute fit if Detroit got to move to the East. Detroit probably needs two teams to go west before they get to move.
DET is also the biggest draw for the teams out west so them moving east really hurts the other western teams at the gate.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 4, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
You comment cannot be overstated. Western teams would fight such a move.
Realignment is great until you try to figure out how the pieces would fit.
The NHL has no choice...
It’s in writing. When the NHL did the current realignment to 6 divisions, the only team in the Eastern Time Zone that was in the Western Conference was Detroit. Columbus had been awarded a team, but they hadn’t begun playing yet.
The realignment wasn’t scheduled to happen until Minnesota and Columbus joined the NHL in 2000-01, but at the behest of Toronto wanting to get back into the Eastern Conference, the league moved it up to 1998-99 when Nashville joined the league. At the time there were 15 teams in the Eastern Time zone (the present Eastern Conference, minus Atlanta and Detroit) and the Wings lobbied heavily to be moved into the East as well, as opposed to being the only Eastern Time Zone Team in the West. In order to get the Wings on board with the realignment coming early, the NHL had to promise in writing, that if any team moved out of the Eastern time zone to the west, that the Wings would be the first team moved to the Eastern Conference.
I imagine the NHL would be able to get out of that clause with some sort of payoff, but the agreement is there.
Let's go Caps!
Eh, I’m pretty sure that’s not going to be a big deal. There has been a new CBA already and likely will be one more before any expansion/realignment. By that time I think the NHL could probably find a way out of that deal. I sure hope so because DET in the EC doesn’t make much sense.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 6, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Sort of off topic, but Seattle definitely doesn’t have an NHL capable arena ready to go. They’d definitely have to build a new one if they wanted a team (unless you’re talking about using the Key for like a season or something while another is completed but even that would be massively undesirable).
by sixsevenfiftysix on Oct 4, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah that’s why they lost the NBA team, correct?
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 4, 2009 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Basically yeah, and the Key is supposed to be terrible for hockey (though I never saw a Thunderbirds game there).
by sixsevenfiftysix on Oct 4, 2009 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions
No
Key Arena is actually a great place to watch basketball, which is precisely why it sucks for hockey. The seats in the Key for basketball were all tight to the floor with good sightlines, even in the higher levels. Unfortunately, the arena wasn’t terribly large, didn’t have nearly as many corporate suites/luxury boxes as newer arenas (ironic, since the Key was renovated in ‘96), and the Sonics didn’t have a great lease with the city. (The reasons that the Sonics left town are myriad, and it would be way off-topic to get into it, and probably of interest to no one.)
Anyhow, since the surface for hockey is much larger than a basket ball court, one end of the rink juts into the stands, cutting off the view of the corners from much of the arena and vice-versa. If you recall the games the Coyotes used to play at America West Arena, it’s like that. FWIW, the local WHL team, the Seattle Thunderbirds (former home to Brooks Laich), doesn’t even play there anymore. They play in a smaller dedicated hockey-only facility south of the city.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Thanks for the info. If Seattle ever gets another arena can we lead the charge to name it the Metha-dome?
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for going into a little detail on this for me… I’m from Washington St. but haven’t been there in at least 10 years… moving back next August so I’ve been trying to find more info on why the sonic’s left and potential nhl teams…
Sonics
The Sonics situation was a giant clusterfuck. The team had a huge amount of support in the community, despite their crap record at the time of the relocation. They’re still Seattle’s only major pro team to win a championship (Sorry, but the Storm don’t count).
There were so many contributing factors, but the primary one for me was “stadium fatigue.” Within the last decade, the city of Seattle and King County spent tons of taxpayer money funding two gorgeous, but hugely expensive, stadiums (Safeco and Qwest) for billionaire owners (head of Nintendo and Paul Allen, Microsoft co-founder). Local governments pushed both of the stadiums through despite concerted local opposition – I know that the levy for Safeco was voted down at least once, and more than that IIRC. There was a general consensus that the city and county had bent over enough for billionaires, and Howard Schultz (CEO of Starbucks) didn’t exactly do a great job of making a case why a stadium that had been totally gutted and renovated about 10 years prior (at taxpayer expense) needed to be replaced. That being said, it’s fairly clear that once Clay Bennett bought the Sonics, they were headed out of town. Part of the agreement was that the new ownership group had to make a “good faith effort” to keep the team in Seattle. No such effort occurred. The new ownership group just made some ridiculously outlandish demands, and then promptly moved the team when the city/county rightly rejected them.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
yep...
caps fan in seattle here….yep exactly the reasons as stated above. the sonics and the nba can go to hell afaik and people in seattle have moved on since the thunder went downunder (oklahoma). . I went to many t-birds games @ the key, not a bad atmosphere. Still havent checked out the arena in kent. though.
by the way no NHL team should move here, and not just b/c of the stadium situation. There is pretty much no interest in hockey except for a few suburbs, and the rest of the state more than 100 miles to the east (think tri-cities/spokane).
d’ohboy if you’re in seattle and want to catch some caps games (on tv) , email me aminoacid at hotmail^dot^ com
KC is most likely to get a team that moves next given their active interest and their new arena.
Winnipeg isn’t getting NHL back. Don’t have the corporate support. Manitoba is primarily an agricultural province. It’s why they lost the Jets in the first place. They could sell out all the general seats if the team was playing well, but selling enough advertising and luxury seats is impossible for a market like that at NHL prices.
I have been surprised Houston hasn’t been involved in trying to get a team. They have a huge population base and the Aeros if memory serves me correctly draw very well.
Dallas has decent ice, no? As long as it’s a dedicated hockey building, especially in the south, then it should be fine. Think of how many goals Ovie could score and how many fewer man-games lost to injury this team would have had if Verizon Center was hockey-only.
by red army line on Oct 4, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m pretty sure that humidity plays a part in crappy ice and Houston is smotheringly humid – worse than here.
I’m not sure how well a hockey-only building would fare with those weather conditions, it’s possible it could work out if they keep it climate conditioned at all times, I just don’t know.
by Knee high to a duck on Oct 4, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
No doubt in the south it’s way more expensive than in the north.
by red army line on Oct 4, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
This. Humidity is at least as important as heat. Vegas had great ice because it was so dry; once you got the building and ice cool it was relatively simple to keep it cool (talking about ice rinks devoted to hockey/skating events only).
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 4, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
now imagine if the Houston building is a multi-use facility. You think the VC is bad? Houston would make the DC ice look like the best ice in the history of hockey.
I can’t imagine they’d pass up the concert and event revenues for something like that – Houston is a huge market, as was pointed out above.
by Knee high to a duck on Oct 4, 2009 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Islanders do move to KC, this will be incredibly easy. Put the KC Landlockers (or whatever they’re called) in the Central, Nashville in the southeast, and the Caps in the Atlantic.
Then the already scary Atlantic would be horrifyingly tough.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Oct 4, 2009 4:42 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Nashville will not move into the East...
…not until Detroit and Columbus move into the East. The city of Nashville is a southeastern city, but it is on Central Time, so it would stay in the West.
If the Isles move to KC, then the void in the Atlantic would be filled by either Buffalo or Boston with Detroit moving into the Northeast.
Let's go Caps!
Here are four divisions of eight, with KC and Hartford as the expansion teams, and the Coyotes moving to Las Vegas. I tried to promote rivalries by keeping cultural affinities together. for example, the entire American South is in the Norris. And my crackpot theory is that Minnesota has more in common culturally with Edmonton/Calgary/Vancouver than it does with the Norris or Adams teams here.
Since the geographic divisions aren’t as clean as they could be, this would go with a division-heavy schedule, but not necessarily a conference-heavy schedule. The Ducks would probably see the Caps almost as often as they see the Stars.
Campbell Conference
Adams Division
Montreal Canadiens
Boston Bruins
Buffalo Sabres
Toronto Maple Leafs
Ottawa Senators
Detroit Red Wings
Chicago Blackhawks
St. Louis Blues
Patrick Division
Washington Capitals
Philladelphia Flyers
Pittsburgh Penguins
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey Devils
Columbus Blue Jackets
Hartford Whalers
Prince of Wales Conference
Norris Division
Atlanta Thrashers
Nashville Predators
Florida Panthers
Dallas Stars
Tampa Bay Lightning
Carolina Hurricanes
Kansas City
Colorado Avalanche
Smythe Division
Los Angeles Kings
Calgary Flames
Las Vegas Coyotes
San Jose Sharks
Edmonton Oilers
Anaheim Ducks
Vancouver Canucks
Minnesota Wild
Atta dinnin stick a who!
Changes I’d make to your realignment on 1st glance. I’d move Avs to Smythe. Wild to the Adams. St Louis to Norris. I don’t see Hartford ever getting a team again unless that city/area grows exponentially. That alone would throw things out of whack because the expansion team is more likely to be a western team unless you went the Ontario route.
Vegas can have a team, just not my city’s team.
I agree with much of this.
Hartford’s not getting a team back; that ship has sailed. I also think that KC is short-run sideways step. As much as people have ripped Bettman and the NHL for the “Sun Belt Strategy,” the moves generally followed demographic trends. Over the last 25 years+, people have been moving toward the coasts and southward in general, and there’s little sign that the trend will abate soon.
I don’t think Vegas is a place that the NHL should go, for a whole host of reasons. Before the league starts talking expansion, they have to figure out the fates of the three zombie franchises: ATL, FLA and PHX (I also think you could throw Nashville into this group). I feel sorry for the hard-core fans in all three areas, and this isn’t a commentary on whether or not all three could be hockey towns. I think FLA has been screwed by the location of the arena combined with years of mismanagement. Atlanta has simply been a case of mismanagement/confused ownership in what was destined to always be a tough market for hockey. PHX could say much the same as the previous two, with the exception that the team seemed to not have the greatest lease deal money-wise with the city of Glendale.
Figure out the fate of these three/four first so that we can dispense with the yearly “will they/won’t they” questions. I’d love to go through an entire year without hearing the name Jim Balsillie once in relation to the NHL.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
I agree that the zombie franchises (you forgot NYI, I forgot ATL) should be settled before expansion, but I think that by the time they straighten out those ownership situations the economy will have turned around and it will be time for the NHL to expand to 32. They should be thinking about that already. I believe there is enough talent depth to field two more competitive NHL teams, the problem is finding the ownership depth. The NHL should move to Las Vegas and your reasons against it are stupid (whatever they are).
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I think ownership in Vegas may be easier than in other cities. Jerry Bruckheimer has made it clear he’d be interested in getting a group together.
Between the local population base and tourists they’d draw well. I could see a fair amount of NHL fans planning roadies to see their team play in Vegas. They’d get corporate money from the casinos for advertising and suites. I’ve always felt whoever the first team is in a market that size gets a tremendous competitive advantage down the road.
Local Population?
Really? The only town with more transplants than DC is Vegas. Of the permanent residents, I’d imagine a huge portion work in service industries that don’t have regular 9-5 hours that would allow them to get season tickets. You’re essentially consigning a team to a teensy-tiny little season ticket base (probably less than 5k), then praying that they draw well on walk-ups in what is probably the most entertainment-saturated place in the world. It’s the equivalent to opening a store selling high-end Gore-tex raincoats in the Atacama Desert.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
No it’s not. The transplant population works in the favor of putting a team in Las Vegas. There are A LOT of people there from traditional hockey markets; so much so that Vegas has a very strong men’s league out there, fwiw. I also skated pick up over the summer with 3 guys from the CHL who’s parents lived there. There is a lot of local support for hockey, the ECHL team is top ten in ECHL attendance. Between Las Vegas and the surrounding towns there is quite a substantial population base looking for a team to call their own. So far every pro league has only seen them fit to own a lower level minor league team. Once they are bestowed a major franchise I think the community will support it.
The service industry thing is a minor issue, IMO. I worked service industry there and my particular schedule left me guaranteed 3 nights off a week, usually 4. There are lots of professionals in NYC and DC that know they are going to work late and miss some games, but still have season tix, I don’t know why it would necessarily be different in Vegas.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Transplant Arguments
Are bunk. Similar arguments were made in favor of expansion to Florida back in the 90s. People kept saying that the snowbirds would support the teams, or at least come out in strength to support their “hometown” teams. They didn’t and haven’t. The fans in those areas are primarily homegrown.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Both FLA teams drew well when they were winning. Transplant arguments are not bunk. There doesn’t even need to be a transplant argument for it to work. Where was the transplant argument in DAL? A notoriously “football first and only” city. Where was the transplant argument in LA? Another city with plenty of entertainment options? SJS? Nashville? Any of the other new franchise locations? If there are fans (i.e. people), and the team wins, then the franchise will succeed. Las Vegas would not be encumbered with the same arena problems as so many other places because of the gambling subsidization.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Tampa
Tampa has drawn well, Florida. . . not so much. Yes, they did well in ‘96, and they had a small resurgence during the Bure years. I don’t blame the Panthers’ fans, they’ve just had crappy teams and an arena in the middle of nowhere.
My point wasn’t about overall attendance, my point was about transplant attendance. Survey after survey of the fan populations in south Florida have shown that the fans of the south Florida teams tend to NOT be transplanted fans from elsewhere. They tend to be homegrown fans.
I just think that, given the struggles of the teams in FLA, ATL and PHX, why move into another market that faces all of the same hurdles? Why not move into a market like Portland, where there’s already an arena, plenty of opportunities for corporate support, and a population that has demonstrated a willingness to support hockey?
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Selection bias: Most people from Miami area are “homegrown” not transplants; therefore most fans will be as well. Most people in Vegas are transplants (or born from them) so most fans will be as well. That’s not a reason to dismiss the fan base.
You want to advance the argument that there is a better chance for corporate support in Portland, OR than in Las Veags? Be my guest. Las Vegas doesn’t face the same struggles as FLA (bad arena situation), PHX (bad arena situation/terrible lease), or ATL (terrible ownership situation), so Las Vegas wouldn’t have to clear those hurdles.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Semantic difference. When I’m shooting down the “transplant fan” argument, I’m not just talking about people from elsewhere. I’m talking about the notion that people in Vegas will bring with them their love of hockey from wherever they came from.
I’m not saying that non-native folks can’t ever be fans, I just think it makes things more difficult. Lest we forget, this franchise is only two years removed from Weds night games against the Thrashers or Panthers drawing sub 8k actual attendees.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Which is why it comes down to winning. Not transplants. Not other entertainment options. You can pick on the teams that have sucked on ice but there are plenty of other non-traditional markets that thrive because they win. Sure, if you put a stinker in Vegas it won’t do so well, but that’s the same anywhere.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Nope
Look, the Leafs and Habs could come out on the ice, pull down their pants and shart at center ice and people in those two markets would pay plenty to watch.
Winning cures many ills, to be sure, but not all. Nashville has repeatedly iced a competitive squad, and they even had some star power with Forsberg and Kariya. And yet they’ve struggled financially. The Devils are one of the most successful franchises in the league, and yet they have a hard time selling out their brand-new arena.
My point regarding Vegas is this: looking at the Vegas area, one sees many of the same factors in play that caused Bettman to double down on the NHL’s “Sun Belt Strategy:” large and growing population, relative lack of other major league sports, corporate sponsorship potential, and a belief that eventually, the city would support the team.
The problem is, the record of the Sun Belt Strategy has been spotty. In some places, it seems to have worked (Anaheim, Dallas, Carolina, TB). In other places (FLA, ATL, PHX, NSH), not so much. I think in the long run, it was probably the right call given the trends, but it might be time to reevaluate the viability of some of those franchises.
With regard to Vegas, I don’t see the reason to “gamble” that another town with potential will necessarily develop into something worthwhile. This is the franchise equivalent of drafting a clumsy 6’7" defenseman in the first round. You think you might end up with the second coming of Chris Pronger or Zdeno Chara, but you’re more likely to end up with Joe Finley or Sasha Pokulok.
If I were the NHL, I’d be far more interested in relocating to locations like Portland, KC or Ontario where the arena and local support are less of a risk.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Seriously? You start with Leafs/Habs as the counterpoint? I should almost not even read the rest of this. If you can’t figure out the difference between the Leafs/Habs and the rest of the NHL then I don’t know what to tell you (but I know you already know that).
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
There are plenty of teams that win consistently and don’t draw as well as they “ought” to: NSH and NJD come readily to mind.
There are other places (MTL, TOR, CGY, EDM, MIN, VAN) where the attendance is less tied to on-ice performance (although it has some effect).
Then there is the whole rest of the NHL where attendance is almost entirely tied to on-ice performance.
My feeling is that Vegas more likely falls into the ATL, FLA, NSH, PHX group where building a fan base is a constant uphill struggle. Add this to the fact that Vegas currently has no arena, and I think there are better options.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
I believe Nashville is turning/has turned a corner. It’s amazing what finding the right owners will do.
Atlanta is the perfect counterpoint. They’re screwed because their ownership situation is broken.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 5, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
That and
Don Waddell couldn’t find his ass with both hands, a GPS and a seeing-eye dog.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Although I think this offseason was better for them, Waddell’s performance has been so bad overall that it really is an ownership issue at this point. You get the sense they’re so paralyzed in bickering over there, they can’t even take basic steps like find a competent GM.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 5, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s no reason to necessarily lump Las Vegas in with ATL/FLA/NSH/PHX except that you don’t want a team there. I can counter with LAK, ANA, DAL, TBL, CAR, CBJ, COL, SJS and basically ever other non-traditional market.
3/4 of the teams you are knocking have ownership/arena problems, and NSH has corporate sponsorship problems. Vegas has exponentially more potential for corporate support than NSH (the only real problem for that franchise). Vegas won’t have an arena lease problem because of legal gambling. Therefore, as long the NHL approves a solid owner for Las Vegas they’ll avoid the pitfalls of FLA/NSH/PHX/ATL.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Colorado is a particularly close analog to Vegas. So is Phoenix. The lesson is “win right away”
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 5, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Phoenix, yes. Colorado, not so much. Colorado had lots of hockey before the Avs. Yes, the Rockies folded, but they had DU, CC, vibrant youth leagues and the IHL’s Grizzlies, who won the Turner Cup before leaving for Utah when the Avs arrived.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
So an ECHL championship and vibrant youth hockey in Vegas don’t count? They have a club team for UNLV and a pretty good midget AAA team. I think they have to leave the area for Juniors or NCAA hockey, but that’s no different from most of the country.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
If you’re trying to compare the hockey scene in Vegas to what existed in Front Range Colorado prior to the Avs’ arrival, that’s just silly. DU and CC are perennial competitors for the Frozen Four. The club teams at CU and CSU are usually at the top of the ACHA rankings.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
It’s a matter of degree, and given historical hockey exposure I’d say Vegas is closing quickly at the youth level. The NCAA isn’t really expanding D I hockey so it’s going to be a long time before UNLV has a chance to be in the same breath as DU or CC but if you’re going to use strong youth and minor hockey interest as a reason COL was a good place for hockey then you just can’t ignore the same support in Vegas, even if to a lesser degree.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
ECHL Attendance
It’s a little tough to buy this argument when Vegas is 2-20 times larger than some of the other “cities” hosting ECHL teams. Given relative population sizes, they should be dominating, but they don’t, at least not according to Mirtle.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
That chart is ranked by change in attendance as a %. Not overall attendance. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Sure Las Vegas is bigger, but they still out draw several “traditional market” teams. Also, I can’t speak for the other teams but the arena where the Wranglers play is tiny. (And, oddly enough, those attendance numbers have a striking relationship to on ice success. If you put a good team in Vegas, people will go.)
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t say “win right away”, but you need to be competitive within a couple of years and win at least a playoff series or two once things start rolling.
Every city has its own peculiar situations, demographics, etc. but the bottom line is if its Edmonton, DC, Dallas, Phoenix, or wherever. You have to win consistently to build up a fanbase. If you have 40 years history in a city you can skate by for a couple of years during a rebuild, but almost nowhere can you stink for years in a row with no end in sight and expect to be making money.
Look at what Angelos has done to the once proud Orioles franchise. No one believes in ownership anymore. Once that happens you aren’t going to have people showing up to your games no matter what city it is.
I’m reminded of Caps history in DC. No playoffs for 1st 8 years. 1st game I went to was in a 1/2 empty Cap center in ‘81 if memory serves me right. Caps were keeping the Dips out of the DC sports basement. Pollin talks about selling the team and we get the “Save the Caps” campaign. Next year the Caps make the playoffs and the Cap Center goes from half empty to almost full or full most nights. I lost track of how many times over the years I’ve heard hockey will never succeed in DC.
Aside from the arena there is no reason to think there will be any fan support in KC. Las Vegas is TOP TEN in ECHL attendance. A crappy league, in a town with “tons of other entertainment options” and they still outdo almost all other ECHL teams, including many in traditional hockey areas. As much as you keep throwing out the Portlant Winterhawks attendance stats WHL hockey is still lower on the ladder than ECHL is.
NSH is a good example of where not to go because of the problems with corporate sponsorship. That, most certainly, does not apply to Vegas.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
They're 10th
Behind such teeming metropolises as:
Victoria, BC
North Charleston, SC
Gwinnett, GA
Bakersfield, CA
Estero, FL
Stockton, CA and
Reading, PA.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Reading and Victoria are definitely traditional markets. SC and I think Bakersfield have had really successful teams of late. I assume the same is true of Stockton. Don’t know much about Gwinnett or Estero. The bottom line is they get people to go watch hockey in a place where supposedly nobody cares about hockey.
(And I forgot to comment wherever you mentioned it, but I don’t particularly care if a team is relocated to Vegas or expanded there, I just think a team should be there one way or another.)
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
The Everblades prove my points of why Vegas is a good fit. The team is in a non-traditional growing market (Naples/Estero/Ft. Myers) full of transplants. The team has no major league competition nearby.
Hockey is an easier sell
at $10 per ticket.
When I was a poor soldier back in the day, I’d spend around $20 for me and my girlfriend to attend Tacoma Sabercats games. The hockey was decent and the price was right. If those tickets had been $75+ for the two of us, I would have gone about once or twice a year, if that, which was exactly how often I attended Canucks games.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
$10 a ticket??? You must not have gone to an ECHL game in a long time.
Paid $45 a ticket when I saw the Everblades last Winter. Seats were in the corner not center ice I might add. Roadrunners tickets here a few years ago before they folded certainly weren’t $10 either. I told sales rep when he called me I could pay just a little more and go see an NHL game.
Yeah
This was 1997-99, and I got a military discount. Still, I have to imagine that they’re cheaper than a comparable NHL ticket. I paid around $25 for great seats to the Bears’ playoff games in Hershey.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Paid about $20-25 for a regular season Wranglers game. A little more for a playoff game. $4 beers made it an even better deal.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
But I bet that bought you a damn good seat. Also, I’m surprised that the playoffs cost more given this.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
This was the point I’m making in my post below. How ECHL teams survive is beyond me. The ones that do should be celebrated. It’s fairly pedestrian brand of hockey. I’d much rather watch an OHL or QMJHL game.
Living in Tacoma, I used to get to see a lot of the WCHL (before it folded into the ECHL), and the WHL back to back.
The kids in the WHL clearly had more talent, but most of them also lacked a clue on the ice. This made for more exciting hockey, in my opinion, but it was sloppier. Admittedly, the WCHL team I watched was one of the best in the league. I think the WinterHawks teams from back then would have spanked them, but that team had Brenden Morrow, Marian Hossa and Andrew Ference.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
I agree about the CHL. I love the Memorial Cup in part because they have a TON of skill but also because they can’t play D. Lots more 7-5s than 2-1s.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Well as I said before the Orleans arena is tiny. There are no bad seats. I lived in Vegas in 2006-07 so I’m not sure what the economics of the ECHL were at that point (and I haven’t read through that whole article yet, but I will).
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah. I’ve gotta say, I love hockey, but I’d have a hard time shelling out $40+ on regular basis for me and a lady friend to attend an ECHL game.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Me too. Normally I wouldn’t have, but I was down in the area visiting relatives and an old friend. My stepdad and I needed a relative break and since we are both puckheads…
College Night
In a way, I’m kind of sad that the Caps’ success at the box office killed the College Nights and Student Discount availability. When I first moved here, that was how I afforded to go to games, and it got me hooked. I likely would have become hooked either way because I’m an inveterate puckhead, but still. It’s a good way to grow the fanbase.
By contrast, when I go back to Colorado, my family usually tries to go to a game. It’s at least $60/ticket for totally crappy seats. They could get away with that (sort of) when they had Sakic and Forsberg. Now, not so much.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Totally agree. Loved the student (not just college) ticket night.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Some Census Data
1980 164,674 30.9%
1990 258,295 56.9%
2000 478,434 85.2%
Vegas has completely blown up over the last decade or so. The percentage of the population coming from elsewhere is larger in Vegas than perhaps anywhere else in the US.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Right. What’s your point? Most of the US’s population came from Europe, should we ship all our pro teams over there? Where the people at now?
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Take the arena experience we had a few years ago – empty arenas on nights against FLA and ATL, packed houses against PIT, PHI, etc., but not packed with Caps fans. Now increase the percentage of people in the town with prior loyalties. Now remove Ovie.
I think the result would be a team that could claw its way to a few sellouts vs. teams like us, Pit and Det, but would struggle at the gate otherwise.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Now subtract the Redskins, United, Wizards, whatever those women basketball players are called, and add a community sense of insecurity because everyone agrees “they don’t deserve a pro team.”
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I live in a ‘transplant’ area. It’s always a mix. Myself and group of friends had Yotes tickets for years until the Wayne era. Our group was mainly transplants. I knew other season ticket holders around us. Some were natives and others were originally from all over North America.
The issue is you have to build a fanbase. Every team in every city has had to do this since leagues began. If you have a franchise that cares about winning and has some success they’ll succeed. Look at the Stars. I remember all the crazy arguments I heard about how hockey wouldn’t succeed in Texas. What about the Ducks in Anaheim? SoCal is full of people from other places.
I’m not sure what your personal experiences are or who you have gotten your info from but all the people who I currently know who live in Vegas, and one who previously did so, could afford to go to hockey games and certainly would like some different entertainment options.
You’re telling me in a metro area of approximately 2 million people you couldn’t find 12,000 – 14,000 season ticket holders for the only major league level sport in town? They have larger population than the metro areas of C-bus, Nashville, or Raleigh. Median income income in the city is just above the national average last I checked. I think you have fixated on the casinos as being the only major employers in town. That simply is not the case.
I’d argue that there are many more entertainment choices where I live or in Southern California than there are in Vegas. Locals are not clamoring to spend every Friday night at the MGM or seeing Lance Burton.
I live in a city with plenty of transplants (technically one myself). Most of the warm weather growing places are in the same boat. That doesn’t mean a team can’t be successful there. I might add plenty of transplants come from areas that had NHL hockey.
As for metro areas, there are many larger metro areas without an NHL franchise. Yes, Vegas lacks other pro sports franchises, so it does have that going for it. I still think the franchise would struggle to find fans among the local population.
As for the “entertainment choices” argument – you brought up the idea of tourists going to games, not me. I think that’s a silly assertion. Yeah, maybe 100-200 people might walk up and take in a game. Possibly. But in an area with that much else to do, it’s unlikely.
Both Portland and KC are better options right now. They both have existing arenas, larger metro-area populations, and have demonstrated in the past that they’ll support hockey. Portland gets my vote, in part because I’m from there, but also because they’ve shown an ability to support hockey – they’ve sold out the Rose Garden (19k+) for junior hockey.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
How much time have you spent in Las Vegas, D’ohboy. I don’t think you have a good (or accurate) grasp on how entertainment works there. Plenty of people go to events there simply because it’s something to do. A lot of it goes to marketing and Las Vegas has some of the best entertainment marketing in the country (world?). Could the NHL use a little marketing savvy? Having plenty of other stuff to do in Las Vegas doesn’t slow the growth of entertainment options, it actually increases it. I guess it’s something akin to network effects; the more people that go there for the entertainment options, the more entertainment options grow, the more people go, etc.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Hockey tickets would make a phenomenal comp to give gamblers.
I mean, the proof is in the pudding. The current Vegas professional hockey team does very well. I don’t see any reason the NHL couldn’t do well.
The other thing about this whole thread is that it assumes 32 teams. Right now, there are about 26-28 solid, successful hockey teams. Really, we’re talking about potentially adding 3, 4 or even 5 new markets to the mix. I think Vegas is certainly a top-5 option. I also think nothing compares with putting another team in the Toronto metro area (and Hamilton’s as good a choice as any).
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 5, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d like to see another team either in Toronto or Hamilton. The area could surely support it and I have little sympathy for the Leafs considering how they run their franchise/treat their fans. Another Canadian franchise would do wonders for the NHL’s economic outlook, I think.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
And yes, the comp angle is huge. That’s how lots of people go see Vegas shows. Once a thing becomes “the thing to do” then people go just because. There’s a strong herd mentality out there.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Entertainment Options
Having extra entertainment options has never, ever helped sports attendance in practice. Holding population and income levels relatively constant, there are only so many entertainment dollars to go around, and no single consumer can be in two places at once.
Using myself as an example, I’m also a DC United fan (as are many people on here). I have season tix to the Caps, and attend as many United games as I can. I’ll probably get some kind of ticket package for United games next year, but for now, I go game-to-game. Why? 1) Because I can’t afford both and I prefer hockey, and 2) There’s enough overlap to the season’s that I’ll inevitably miss some games, like I would have on Saturday.
To me, the one thing Vegas has going for it as an NHL city is the lack of other pro sports franchises.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
That is how entertainment works in almost every city, yes. But Vegas is entirely different from most cities. As GOD pointed out, tickets would be used for Comp purposes. There’s another huge factor you are missing. Every DC United game, and every Caps game, is different from the one before. Every time you go see Love it’s the same show. How many times are you gonna go? Then you go see Blue Man Group. How many times? Then you go see Cirq de Soleile. There are a ton of shows yes, but they aren’t the same as sporting events. Vegas loves sports. They want a sports team.
UNLV, minor league baseball, and ECHL hockey all thrive there just because there are no other sports. You think it’s hard to generate interest in hockey out there, but the ECHL team does great. I’ll tell you what’s harder than getting people to an ECHL game, getting them to go to a minor league baseball game and sit outdoors in the summer. NOBODY wants to be outdoors during the summer in Vegas, but their minor league baseball team still draws well (yes, with some creative marketing).
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Points taken
I take your points about the entertainment. Still, I look at Vegas and I see Phoenix/Atlanta 2.0. I see a town where hockey could theoretically thrive if everything breaks right. However, I think the NHL can and should do better than gamble on everything breaking right.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m just saying it’s a lot more difficult than other existing markets like Portland, KC, or Ontario.
I think Vegas would be a much better candidate for a relocated team rather than an expansion franchise for the same reasons – a relocated team would be more likely to win in the short-term, thereby hooking some fans in.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
If we are looking at particular entertainment situations than Vegas should be looked at even more favorably than those 2 cities. ATL/PHX have all 4 majors, WNBA franchises, and more established arts communities. If anything Vegas is much more attractive than those 2 cities.
Never imagined the day when I’d be a Vegas booster. LOL.
Neither did I. Before I moved there I thought I’d hate Vegas. I think it’s pretty clear how much I love it now.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Ontario will succeed no matter what, I’m not arguing against that.
This is like one of those optical illusions. You see the lamp, I see the lady. You see the connections to PHX/ATL but I see a host of competitive advantages that no other city enjoys. PHX is killed by the arena lease, but legal gambling makes the lease agreement a non-issue. Whoever owns the arena is going to make a killing just because there will be gambling in the same building, if only slot machines and video poker. That means the arena owner (if not the team then it will either be MGM or Harrah’s) doesn’t need to try to gouge the team. You see a city that probably doesn’t care about hockey; I see a city that wants a pro sports team and has none to compete with a prospective NHL team. I also think Vegas is a unique city in that it gives the NHL a chance to reach new fans both in the local community and the tourist community (even if only occasional). There are a lot of entertainment options in Vegas, but how many would you (could you, from a legal perspective) take your kids to? If you are a guy that gets comp’d some tickets to an NHL game and you have your kids in town, you may as well go check it out, right? The family friendly entertainment angle is one of the fastest growing entertainment options in Vegas right now (or at least right before the economy crapped out).
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps
I think you’re a little too sanguine on the ability to use gambling money to fund the arena and/or bankroll the team. I think it will likely be a little more difficult than that.
Regardless, I look at Vegas and I see a town like Phoenix in the NHL or OKC in the NBA. Yes, there might be some attraction for a bit due to the “one-horse town” aspect. But once that wears off, if the team isn’t winning consistently, they’ll struggle and face a bigger challenge than if they were in a different market. Comping tickets will help, but likely not enough.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
PHX has an NBA and NFL team. Not exactly a one-horse town.
Maybe I am optimistic about gambling subsidies, but I think it’s realistic given that was one of the biggest battles when the Pens wanted to get a new arena deal (iirc they really really wanted the NHL and the city of Pittsburgh to let them have slot machines in the building). When an arena owner doesn’t have to rely solely on concessions and NHL ticket revenue to make their money back they are less likely to bend the team over the barrel; that just makes sense to me from a logical perspective, though it surely is an empirical question.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I look at Vegas and I see Phoenix/Atlanta 2.0.
There’s no particular reason why a competently run NHL team couldn’t thrive in either of those markets. Atlanta, in particular, is doing remarkably well when you consider just how bad the on-ice product has been. Those two cities simply have never had a chance.
I think the economic downturn hit Phoenix disproportionately hard, so it may be years before a team could do really well there, but I think Atlanta would be a solid market tomorrow if they got their act together.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 5, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
The only issue I see with this is: if these franchises were struggling even in good economic times, I don’t think they’ll suddenly rebound when the economy picks up. Of the zombie franchises, I think Florida is the worst off. Their arena situation is a joke (it’s like a day trip if you live in Miami), and they’re not likely to get a new one anytime soon.
ATL and PHX have nice, new arenas in decent locations, so in that regard they’re set. They just need ownership stability and a few winning seasons strung together. The Isles have a clusterf*** of an arena situation and a team that’s been awful for the better part of two decades. However, I still think there’s enough history there to overcome that, though.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
The teams that struggled in the good economy had arena/ownership issues. That’s separate from my point that the NHL should expand when the economy turns around. I think now is a bad time to expand but within 5 years the NHL should go to 32.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
There are so many reasons that moving to Las Vegas would be a bad idea
And that’s without even touching on the issue of gambling. It’s a town similar to DC in that much of the population there has come from elsewhere. Many of the permanent residents work in the service industries without regular 9-5 hours. The town is, quite literally, filled with entertainment alternatives. Heck, the town itself is an entertainment alternative.
If there’s going to be another franchise, or a franchise needs to move, the next place to get it (if we’re not considering Ontario) should be Portland, OR. That town has managed to sell out the Rose Garden (19k+) for junior hockey.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Gambling is so not an issue. What century do we live in? If the guys want to gamble they will. They can do it online or through a local (illegal) bookie. The casinos all have high-tech face recognition software that could effectively keep every NHL player out of the sports book, if that’s what the NHL wanted.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
My point was that there are reasons not to move to Vegas without even touching on the issue of gambling, which is the objection that many have. I personally don’t care one way or the other.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
I’m shooting down every argument you toss me, gambling or not.
/Pull!
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions
And everyone else is reaping the benefits!
Keynes/Friedman II finally arrived. Now if only we could stick a poll in our comments…
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d put a team in Hamilton, ON instead of Hartford. Then my divisions would look like:
OTT, TOR, MON, HAM, BOS, BUF, PIT, PHI
WAS, FLA, CAR, ATL, TBL, NYR, NYI, NJD
EDM, CGY, VAN, MIN, DET, STL, CHI, CBJ
SJS, ANA, LAK, PHX, Las Vegas, DAL, NAS, COL
The big problem is that I think at least one of NAS/FLA/NYI/PHX ends up moving but until you know which one it’s hard to figure out where to put the other pieces.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Quebec City over Hamilton.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
QC already lost a team for the same reasons PHX is about to lose a team. They don’t have the same population or financial base as Hamilton. There is really no good reason to put a team in QC over Hamilton, unless you are a Leafs/Sabres/Wings fan and don’t want another team encroaching on your territory.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 6, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t see a reason to put a FIFTH team in that market(Ottawa’s not far away either). I’d rather place a team in KC or QC
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
Well when TOR is gauging the hell out of their fans, even in pre-season, it’s a sign to me that there are a ton of people that want to watch hockey there but can’t. Why does QC deserve another shot?
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 6, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Washington Redskins gauge the hell out of their fans, and sell tickets to other teams fans. That doesn’t mean this area needs another NFL team.
Didn’t QC just approve funding for a new stadium capable of housing an NHL team? Trying to find the link.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
The NFL is a different animal. DC could probably support another NFL team, but NFL owners are really into protectionism so it won’t happen. If greater NYC can support NYR, NYI, NJD I think greater Toronto can handle more than just the Leafs.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 6, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not saying they can’t. I’m saying they don’t deserve it over other markets. It doesn’t make sense to put a team in Hamilton, where right now a lot of hockey fans exist of NHL teams, when you can put a team in a place that doesn’t have a location nearby that has an NHL team to get behind. It’s why they put teams in markets like Phoenix, San Jose, and Dallas. Honestly, it’s throwing darts at a wall and seeing if they stick, but my opinion tells me Quebec can handle a team, and most of the people who are clamoring for a team in Hamilton are Leafs fans pissed off they can’t get seats to Leafs games.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
Which means there’s demand and therefore support.
by Knee high to a duck on Oct 6, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
But doesn’t mean they deserve at the expense of four other markets. Same reason Alexandria doesn’t need a football team, even though they could support one.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
Out of curiosity
How do you define which markets deserve NHL franchises and which do not if you’re willing to eliminate the capability to actually support a team (in terms of fan support, financing and infrastructure) as a factor, which you seem willing to do in the case of Toronto/Ontario?
For example, I guarantee that there are more hockey fans in Winnipeg than there are in Atlanta, Nashville, Miami, or even Metro DC. In fact, I’d wager to say that there are more hockey fans in Winnipeg than in all the cities of all the teams in the Southeast Division put together. Does this mean Winnipeg “deserves” a team even though the city apparently can’t support one?
Once you get set aside the ability to actually support an NHL franchise, or the opportunity for the NHL to grow its revenue base (of which they would like television to be a larger portion), it’s hard to find reasons for why any non-traditional market (in other words, anywhere outside Canada, the Great Lakes region, and the Northeast) “deserves” a team. Of course, I wouldn’t agree with such an argument, but my point is that it’s hard to define how deserving a community is of an NHL franchise if you remove the capability to actually support said franchise, or grow the league as a whole, from the equation.
I believe the reasons that the NHL and Bettman have avoided further expansion or relocation into Canada are three-fold. First, the remaining vacant markets are marginal. Winnipeg’s a decent size city, but it doesn’t have the arena, nor does it apparently have the necessary corporate funding/sponsorhips – there are reasons that the the NHL failed there once and those haven’t changed. Hamilton seems to be better off financially and stadium-wise, but it’s smack-dab in the middle of three other franchises’ territories, and the primary potential owner seems completely unwilling to play by the NHL’s rules, so the NHL is essentially taking its puck and going home.
The second reason is tied to the first – given that Canadian franchises take in their revenue in Canadian dollars, but have to pay out contracts valued in (if not paid out in) US dollars, all but the most established/wealthy franchises (e.g., Toronto and Montreal) have difficulty competing and staying afloat when the Canadian dollar dips in value against the US dollar. Part of the reason there have been so many rumors floating around over the last few years is due in no small part to the strength of the Canadian dollar versus the US dollar, combined with Canada reaping windfalls from the increased price of oil. Neither of these two conditions will obtain indefinitely, and at some point, franchises like Edmonton, Ottawa, and perhaps even Calgary and Vancouver, will again struggle to compete when the CDN$ weakens vs. the US$. Why add a franchise that will be guaranteed to struggle when the currency and/or oil markets shift?
Third, the NHL is still holding out for a big US television contract, and expansion has been a major aspect of that from the beginning. Adding another team to Ontario or Winnipeg doesn’t “grow” the sport or make it more attractive to potential advertisers (and therefore network executives). It simply serves existing demand. The NHL has surmised that if it wants to increase overall viewership in the US, it has to increase its customer/viewer base by moving into new, large markets – hence the “Sun Belt Strategy.”
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
First off, well done.
Hamilton seems to be better off financially and stadium-wise, but it’s smack-dab in the middle of three other franchises’ territories, and the primary potential owner seems completely unwilling to play by the NHL’s rules, so the NHL is essentially taking its puck and going home.
If the NHL made it known that they were going to expand to Hamilton or Toronto there would be a lot more potential investors than just JB. Most of the other legitimate ownership options stayed out of the PHX mess because they knew the NHL had no intention of just letting the team be bought and moved.
Why add a franchise that will be guaranteed to struggle when the currency and/or oil markets shift?
I think this applies to Winnipeg and Quebec City much more than Hamilton/Toronto. The population base in southern Ontario is such that the team would still be able to sell out games and maintain huge TV ratings.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 7, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
What adding Hamilton really does, is drive a nail in Buffalo’s coffin. The cross-border Sabres fans are already a bit iffy, and Buffalo is not the most financially sound team.
This may not be a bad thing. Hamilton might be a more natural place for a team than Buffalo — especially given the demographic/migration trends of the last couple decades.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Oct 8, 2009 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s one of the upsides of putting a team right in downtown Toronto. People from Toronto aren’t really commuting to Sabres games and there are so many of them that they would still sell out a second team in Toronto. Mirtle has talked a little about it, maybe when I have time I’ll go find a link.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 8, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=294991 Oh snap.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
Sorry
Whiter Mage,
Sorry for hijacking your thread. At least you know that other people find the topic interesting!
Yours,
D’ohboy
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
Give it time
After jacking this thread, I thought I’d actually contribute something to the conversation. I think the current alignment isn’t perfect, but I also think that any realignment is going to screw someone, no matter how rational it may seem. Yes, the Caps have rivalries with Pitts and Phi, and historically with the Isles. However, I agree with earlier posters that we’re one knock-down, drag-out playoff series from a good rivalry with either Carolina or TB, while some old rivalries, such as the Isles, are fading in the rear-view.
Anyhow, if you wanted to keep it at six five-team divisions:
Campbell Conference
Northeast: BOS, MTL, TOR, OTT, BUF
Atlantic: NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI, WAS
Southeast: NSH, FLA, CAR, TB, ATL
Prince of Wales Conference
Central: PIT, DET, CHI, STL, CBS
Northwest: COL, MIN, CGY, EDM, VAN
Pacific: ANA, LA, SJS, DAL, PHX
Yes, this paradoxically puts Pittsburgh in the Central/West, but geographically, this is a closer fit for them than the SE is for the Caps. Otherwise, this isn’t that big of a change.
If the league went to four seven or eight-team divisions, I’d do it thusly:
Campbell Conference
Northern Division: MIN, DET, CHI, BUF, TOR, MTL, OTT, Ontario*
Atlantic Division: PHI, PIT, NJD, WSH, NYR, NYI, BOS, CBJ
Prince of Wales Conference
Southern Division: CAR, FLA, ATL, TB, NSH, STL, DAL, KC*
Pacific Division: VAN, CGY, EDM, COL, SJS, ANA, LAK, PHX
Geographically, this benefits the Caps at the expense of the Stars, Wild and Blues. In fact, I think StL would raise enough of a stink to shut this down, since their travel would suddenly increase and they’d lose the gate draws from DET and CHI. It’s pretty tough to draw these up without someone coming out on the losing end.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
I don’t like splitting up PHI and PIT. I love seeing them in the playoffs and I would have to gouge my eyes out if they were playing for the Cup.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
It was the least-bad and most geographically sensible way of removing us from the SE though.
I personally think that, until some team moves or there’s more expansion, we should just leave well enough alone. Give the current alignment time to develop rivalries. I think the best rivalries in the league right now aren’t necessarily within divisions. There’s a pretty healthy thing going between us and Pitt, and between Anaheim and Det.
I'm trying to work out a deal with a club in Europe
I personally think that, until some team moves or there’s more expansion, we should just leave well enough alone.
Agreed. And I love watching ANA/DET playoff series. I went to one WCF game between the two the year ANA won the Cup. Just awesome.
If you're after gettin' the honey, then you don't go killin' all them bees.
by Fehr and Balanced on Oct 5, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
82 | 54 | 15 | 13 | 121 |
|
Atlanta
|
82 | 35 | 34 | 13 | 83 |
|
Carolina
|
82 | 35 | 37 | 10 | 80 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
82 | 34 | 36 | 12 | 80 |
|
Florida
|
82 | 32 | 37 | 13 | 77 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
