How many teams can the NHL support in total?

[Baccus]

then why is Buffalo being brought in when discussing Hamilton, then, if the Sabres are irrelevant in Ontario by the above posting, BD, that discussion has been made numerous times, and you're now claiming that the Sabres can lose Niagra County as a part of their fanbase, maybe the Sabres need to bolt Buffalo entirely so we can move them to Hamilton, would that be any better

I can't even tell what point you were or are now trying to make anymore.

The Sabres get brought up because depending how you measure it, they are within 50 miles of Hamilton. No kidding. If that would get them some sort of veto or compensation and how much is completely unknown for many reasons, all dwarfed by the basic concept of the team in Toronto's claims and that there's no current Hamilton group. The idea that Hamilton can support a team is not really part of the debate if that's what you're arguing.

You brought up the Sabres ownership changes in regards to Hamilton which make no sense and you apparently can't support.

I've made no claims as to the Sabres losing any territory/fanbase, what are you even talking about? Buffalo's territory in Niagara county is irrelevant and won't be 'lost' unless you think people are going to decide to make a hour plus trip to watch some brand new team in a different country and ignore the one that's 30+ minutes away that they've been watching for their entire lives. Or maybe they'll just swim across the lake, that seems convenient compared to the border crossing. Talk about

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Then what?......... Blood Reign. ANARCHY HUTCH! ...........

sounds a lot like Arizona now doesn't it

 

[alko]

Ok, no lets see this.

We have a small territory, say Quebec, where are people crazy for hockey. But its only about 800 000 people there.

And we have a territory like Houston-The Woodlands, football country. But with more than 6 000 000 people there.

Now lets make a choice. Who would you pick? What could be better overall for NHL?

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

Just because Houston is football country doesn't mean that there aren't hockey fans. So if you can take that core fan base in Houston and possibly get one million more interested, that would be better than Quebec.

 

[Mightygoose]

Ok, no lets see this.

We have a small territory, say Quebec, where are people crazy for hockey. But its only about 800 000 people there.

And we have a territory like Houston-The Woodlands, football country. But with more than 6 000 000 people there.

Now lets make a choice. Who would you pick? What could be better overall for NHL?

Bettman has said multiple times that there are 3 criteria to make a franchise sucessful in a given location

1) Market
2) Building
3) Owner

#1 alone would give the edge to Houston. Once you get to #2 and 3, it gets very murky. If the next Rockets owner wants an NHL team too then it meets the other 2 as they would have control of the arena. Something that's not doable if you have someone renting or being the secondary team.

Quebec has #2 and 3 over Houston hands down plus the market size though is small, a smaller one has a viable one too.

 

[Tawnos]

I don't know what the exact number might be, but I do think we are close to it. Mostly, that's because the more teams there are, the more likely you can have a situation where a team is stuck perpetually at the bottom of the standings. That's deadly for a young market. Look at Atlanta, Florida, Phoenix, Carolina and compare to Dallas, Nashville, San Jose, Tampa. The former group all have markets that would probably be fine if the teams ever had any kind of sustained success. And it's not always the result of poor roster management. The Panthers just keep getting unlucky with the high picks they happen to get. Drafted some good players and the right ones on the rankings, but have never gotten a superstar.

 

[cbcwpg]

Ok, no lets see this.

We have a small territory, say Quebec, where are people crazy for hockey. But its only about 800 000 people there.

And we have a territory like Houston-The Woodlands, football country. But with more than 6 000 000 people there.

Now lets make a choice. Who would you pick? What could be better overall for NHL?

4.5 million non-hockey fans in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area say hi.

Let me know when the population size of a city guarantees a financially successful NHL team. I'm not saying that Houston doesn't have potential... I'm just saying you can't put hockey in a city just because of population numbers and expect success.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Why? Because financially they're not as successful as football, baseball or basketball? I mean it's pretty easy to see the correlation there with regards to costs to play. In 3 of the 4, all you need is a field and some very basic and cheap equipment. Basketball needs a parking lot or driveway. And while you can play ball hockey there, to play ice hockey, you need some very specific equipment that's generally not cheap and you need a pretty specific arena (with the associated costs) to play on. In the north, you can play on a frozen body of water or a home made rink, but that only applies to a fraction of the population in North America.

Am I disappointed that more do not share my love of the game? Absolutely. But neither does it surprise me considering that most play football, baseball or basketball as their prime sports growing up. And this is what those TV deals reflect.

Ok, but swimming, skiing, snowboarding are also expensive and the last two are also winter sports. Yet more people would be more inclined to sign up for those. There's a marketing problem in the NHL and it's hurt the league for years.

Yeah, hockey's really in big trouble.

It's not about attendance, it's about the huge TV deal. Which the NHL still doesn't have.

 

[alko]

4.5 million non-hockey fans in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area say hi.

Let me know when the population size of a city guarantees a financially successful NHL team. I'm not saying that Houston doesn't have potential... I'm just saying you can't put hockey in a city just because of population numbers and expect success.

That is also a point. I understand you.

But where do you have more potential to grow?

And im not saying, i vote for Houston. Im for open debate.

 

[zetajerk]

4.5 million non-hockey fans in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area say hi.

Let me know when the population size of a city guarantees a financially successful NHL team. I'm not saying that Houston doesn't have potential... I'm just saying you can't put hockey in a city just because of population numbers and expect success.

No one suggests a population is all you need, put the straw man away. With a decent product and smart, savvy ownership (Things that the yotes and panthers haven't had, but the Stars, Bolts, Sharks, Ducks have) a large population becomes a good mine. It's not rocket science. Just because you could serve QC a garbage sandwich and they'd beg for more, doesn't mean it's superior or has more merit than Houston or anywhere else.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

It's not about attendance, it's about the huge TV deal. Which the NHL still doesn't have.

If 30 years from now the NHL has fallen to the level of niche sport in NA alongside other sports now shown on NBCSN that I watch (F1, Indycar, NASCAR, EPL, Cycling), but the number of teams and structure were still more or less the same as now, would you still watch? (to everyone, not just MM)

Because that's my "worst case scenario". It will always have it's niche, you either follow it or you don't, but it's not going away. You can gnash (sorry gnashville) your teeth about whether or not it's bigger than the NBA, or whine about how many more fans of football and baseball there are and how those sports "suck", or worry about - heaven forbid! - whether the MLS will catch up in revenue/attendance/coverage someday...

...or you can enjoy it.

Thing is, I suppose some people might think the worst case is the financial and structural collapse of the NHL...but then again many here would *celebrate* that it seems, soooo.....

 

[Sydney Cosby]

I can't believe that Milwaukee doesn't have a team. Mind blowing

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I can't believe that Milwaukee doesn't have a team. Mind blowing

Milwaukee has had a pro hockey team since 1977.....

 

[TheLegend]

Milwaukee has had a pro hockey team since 1977.....

I'm sure he's referring to an NHL team, Hutch.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I'm sure he's referring to an NHL team, Hutch.

and Milwaukee fans have answered that in numerous threads, same with every other (insert city) thread

 

[Name Nameless]

Ok, no lets see this.

We have a small territory, say Quebec, where are people crazy for hockey. But its only about 800 000 people there.

And we have a territory like Houston-The Woodlands, football country. But with more than 6 000 000 people there.

Now lets make a choice. Who would you pick? What could be better overall for NHL?

There can not be a biologicial reason why people in the USA should be less interested in hockey than Canadians. I believe this is all about marketing: getting people infected with the hockey virus. At least better TV-sets (easier to see the puck) is working in favour of hockey. But I really think the TV-production is wrong. Instead of presenting the lines, with faces people can fall in love with, you send the national anthems. Can the lines not at least be sent as pictures while people hear the anthems? Something.

The weather? Because they play hockey in the winther as amateurs? Many people are fans in Canada despite not playing. I am sure

According to Says Law, supply creates it's own demand. Granted, this seems unimpressing and falsified in Phoenix or in Miami. But then it just might not have been done right.

With 350 mill people in the North-Americas you should of course(!) be able to support a league with the number of teams you want to. Limited only by how many teams a league in it self should be able to hold and still be one league.

Also, the divisions of the table into conferences seems like a little failure to me. Better to let the top 16 go to the play-offs, or even better: cut down the series a little, but let the teams from #15 to 22 have a little intermediate series, where 15 plays against 22 over the right to play 17 to 20 for a playoffspot, and then the same with 16 and 21 and 18 and 19. (or only #16 to 19 over one spot. Something.) You could have best of three (or 5) instead of best of 7 to mark the difference from the real play-offs. So, not the massive cut off (play-off or no play-offs), but three tiers: directly, or intermediate series, or no play-off. This would be good for the weaker teams, and give some extra PR for them.

 

[edog37]

Why? Because financially they're not as successful as football, baseball or basketball? I mean it's pretty easy to see the correlation there with regards to costs to play. In 3 of the 4, all you need is a field and some very basic and cheap equipment. Basketball needs a parking lot or driveway. And while you can play ball hockey there, to play ice hockey, you need some very specific equipment that's generally not cheap and you need a pretty specific arena (with the associated costs) to play on. In the north, you can play on a frozen body of water or a home made rink, but that only applies to a fraction of the population in North America.

Am I disappointed that more do not share my love of the game? Absolutely. But neither does it surprise me considering that most play football, baseball or basketball as their prime sports growing up. And this is what those TV deals reflect.

I really don't see why it matters. So the NHL isn't the NFL in terms of popularity, who cares....

 

[Tawnos]

I really don't see why it matters. So the NHL isn't the NFL in terms of popularity, who cares....

It doesn't, really. All the feelings of inferiority, for whatever reason, because the NHL is a somewhat distant 4th sometimes obscures the fact that it's still a $4 billion business.

 

[KevFu]

THE HIGH REVENUE TEAMS DON'T WANT TO LOWER THEIR FRANCHISE VALUES, AND THEIR YEARLY BOTTOM LINE BY PAYING ANY MORE INTO REVENUE SHARING THAN THEY HAVE TO.

But here's the thing: Franchise values go up the more popular the league is, right?

If popularity increases, TV rights $$ are going to go up. Franchise values for franchise sales. Expansion fees are going to go up. That's what the NHL wants.

How do you start that? Selling tickets, putting a good product on the ice and a good in-game presentation in the arena.

Now, let's say you're 30th in revenue at $90 million. The Floor is $54 million. The average "non-payroll expenses" for the league is like $47 million. That's $101 million.

This team has to trim their expenses and spend $11 million less than other teams on "non-payroll expenses." Those non-payroll expenses include things that makes your operation better:

- more/better scouts which make your team better (and more fans come to see a winning team).
- MARKETING BUDGET: Spending money to CREATE NEW CUSTOMERS, which raises revenue.
- FAN EXPERIENCE: Extra little things that makes the game-day experience first class and makes FANS COME BACK.

The NHL has less revenue sharing simply because there's less central revenues to share.

Everyone shares central revenue. And while it "matters" that there's less revenue than other leagues, it's really not a factor in "should we increase revenue sharing?" because we're talking about percentages here.

The reason to increase the percentage is that increased sharing of local revenues creates an "all for one" or "rising tide raises all boats" situation.

Like I said right above your quote. The things the poor teams can't afford because the floor is a higher percentage of revenues then everyone else are EXPENSES THAT ENABLE GROWTH.

Linking the cap/floor to the median instead of average and increasing revenue creates:

- An even number of "above median" and "below median" teams. This creates a "rising tide."

- An increase in the ability of the "below median teams" to market their product, bring in new fans and INCREASE REVENUES.

- New fans makes the league as a whole more popular, which increases CENTRAL revenues for everyone. A more popular NHL makes TV rights and franchise values go up.


Revenue sharing NOW with the "Average Revenue CBA" is a system which the poor teams are subsidized to simply survive longer while falling further behind and needing to spend more and more of their revenues on players to meet the floor obligation. That BREEDS LOCKOUTS.

Revenue Sharing with a Median Revenue CBA would be the poor teams having their MARKETING BUDGETS subsidized to increase the popularity of the league and make everyone more money long term.

 

[Killion]

Milwaukee has had a pro hockey team since 1977.....

Since long before then. Milwaukee's 1st pro team was the Drueckers, 1922/26 & thereafter the Luicks mid to late 30's on (Semi-Pro)..... Post WW2, several USHL (which was originally pro) & IHL Teams, AHL, tha Admirals, forerunners to todays AHL club going pro in 1973 in the USHL.... And do you know why there called the "Admirals" HUTCH?.... Long, rich & colorful history of hockey in Wisconsin. First recorded game I'm aware of is 1887 but it was being played in the State for years before that date. Country game. Pickup. Shinny. The old clamp on skate's the oldtimers used before boot n' blade skates were manufactured were nicknamed "Cheese Cutters"..... come in real handy.... in Wisconsin.

 

[JMROWE]

I believe the NHL. can support 34 teams so that means 3 more expansion teams within the next 15 - 20 years plus the possibility of 3 - 4 relocations namely the Coyotes , Panthers , Hurricanes & Golden Knights .

In my opinion the cities that deserve NHL. franchises most of them are in the north
& 2 of them are in Canada because those are the cities in the north are traditional hockey markets & would be huge cash cows for the NHL. also the NHL. has to realize that hockey is one of the least popular sports in the USA. & has to stop shoving it down peoples throats in markets that don't like hockey & don't want a team .

Cities that deserve NHL. teams
Quebec City
Southern Ontario (Hamilton)
Seattle
Portland
Milwaukee
Salt Lake City

I left Houston & Kansas City off the list because there is 0 interest in an NHL. team in those 2 cities .

 

[Albatros]

To be fair Houston had better attendances than Milwaukee in the AHL.

 

[MNNumbers]

But here's the thing: Franchise values go up the more popular the league is, right?

If popularity increases, TV rights $$ are going to go up. Franchise values for franchise sales. Expansion fees are going to go up. That's what the NHL wants.

How do you start that? Selling tickets, putting a good product on the ice and a good in-game presentation in the arena.

Now, let's say you're 30th in revenue at $90 million. The Floor is $54 million. The average "non-payroll expenses" for the league is like $47 million. That's $101 million.

This team has to trim their expenses and spend $11 million less than other teams on "non-payroll expenses." Those non-payroll expenses include things that makes your operation better:

- more/better scouts which make your team better (and more fans come to see a winning team).
- MARKETING BUDGET: Spending money to CREATE NEW CUSTOMERS, which raises revenue.
- FAN EXPERIENCE: Extra little things that makes the game-day experience first class and makes FANS COME BACK.




Everyone shares central revenue. And while it "matters" that there's less revenue than other leagues, it's really not a factor in "should we increase revenue sharing?" because we're talking about percentages here.

The reason to increase the percentage is that increased sharing of local revenues creates an "all for one" or "rising tide raises all boats" situation.

Like I said right above your quote. The things the poor teams can't afford because the floor is a higher percentage of revenues then everyone else are EXPENSES THAT ENABLE GROWTH.

Linking the cap/floor to the median instead of average and increasing revenue creates:

- An even number of "above median" and "below median" teams. This creates a "rising tide."

- An increase in the ability of the "below median teams" to market their product, bring in new fans and INCREASE REVENUES.

- New fans makes the league as a whole more popular, which increases CENTRAL revenues for everyone. A more popular NHL makes TV rights and franchise values go up.


Revenue sharing NOW with the "Average Revenue CBA" is a system which the poor teams are subsidized to simply survive longer while falling further behind and needing to spend more and more of their revenues on players to meet the floor obligation. That BREEDS LOCKOUTS.

Revenue Sharing with a Median Revenue CBA would be the poor teams having their MARKETING BUDGETS subsidized to increase the popularity of the league and make everyone more money long term.

The problem with this idea is not whether or not you can convince anyone here. It's getting the owners on board. And, as I have said, the issue there is short term vs. long term. I don't think the owners have the patience to change to a system that shares more local profit when the short-term bottom line won't be as good.

Some of your ideas here seem like they would work, but they have never been tested, and that's another problem with getting the owners on board.

But, good thinking outside the box anyway.

One thing that comes to my mind....

If the BOG were inclined to do this, they don't really need to change the current definition of Cap floor/ceiling. Since the players will get 50% no matter what, the owners could simply institute a local revenue sharing program in and of themselves.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

To be fair Houston had better attendances than Milwaukee in the AHL.

To be fair, 4 of those years the Admirals were put in a trust and there was no money to promote the team at all. The attendance got quite a bit closer after new ownership took over.

Also to be fair, the Admirals never averaged less than 7,000 in the IHL after the Bradley Center opened and got up to as high as 9,861 for average attendance in 1994-95.

 

[Albatros]

Well, last season the Admirals had an average attendance of 5408. Houston had 6793 in 12/13 (Milwaukee 5624), 7323 in 11/12 (Milwaukee 6226), and 6326 in 10/11 (Milwaukee 5796).

Milwaukee might be more of a hockey town per se than the much bigger Houston, but with the Brewers and the Bucks in town and the Packers and the Hawks nearby it's a tough market.