Should the NHL be thinking about contraction?

Diehardfan419

Registered User
Jul 24, 2005
449
2
Branchburg, NJ
Well even that doesn't necessarily work. Look at the Capitals. But yes the Rangers directly benifit from being in the smack damn middle of Manhattan directly above Penn Station. Move the team to another part of the city (say Queens) and the Rangers won't draw as well.


I doubt that. The Rangers are arguably the leagues signature franchise (Like The Yankees in MLB, the Lakers in the NBA, and the Cowboys of the NFL.) The Rangers would draw just as well if they were in a different part of Manhatten.( I do agree that it is very easy to get to a game now, though.) The fan base is all over NEW YORK, Conn, and NEW JERSEY. Not to mention, spread all over the country. Ever been to a Rangers road game? Tons of Rangers fans.
 

jkrdevil

UnRegistered User
Apr 24, 2006
42,634
12,477
Miami
A different part of Manhattan probably. But say if they were out near Shea in Flushing I think it would drop off just a bit. It still would be better than the Islanders and Devils just not every game sold out because of the coporate dollar.
 

discostu

Registered User
Nov 12, 2002
22,512
2,895
Nomadville
Visit site
First off, the talk of diluted talent is a weak arguement. I think the rough content of Canadian born NHL players right now is about 400. During the heydays of the offensive era of the 80's and early 90's before expansion, there were only 21 teams in the league. I'd have to see the numbers, but, I'm willing to bet that the number of Canadian players in the league at that time was also roughly about 400 (roughly 80%). Presumably, all the European and American players that are in the league today are in the league because they are better than the 401st best Canadian player. So, if our standard for being good enough during the 80's was that to make the NHL, you had to be better than the 401st best Canadian hockey, and, today, that same standard holds true, how can the talent be diluted? The only way is if you believe that today's top 400 hockey players aren't as talented as the top 400 from 15 years ago, and the league should contract because of it.

Secondly, the talk of "marginal franchises" is silly. If the team's owner is making enough money to stay in that market, how does it hurt the league to have him there. Each market gives the NHL more exposure, and a broader fan base. It gives the NHLPA more jobs.

If the market is truly not feasible, it will die on its own. We likely won't be seeing that any time soon though. Teams that are being put up for sale are having success finding new owners. The people that matter seem to think that these markets are viable.
 

Makel

Guest
I'm not saying the NYR aren't the leagues premier team, because their one of them, but being directly above a train station doesn't help? :shakehead

Put the Islanders above a train station and attendance improves. Sometimes, the on ice product doesn't tell the entire story.

The Islanders are stranded in Hempstead in a dump. Don't get me wrong, during playoff time this dump is a place about to explode, but that's during the PLAYOFFS. Put a team that struggles year after year and people find no need to ruin their night by attending a game at the place. It's that bad people.

Wang is doing all he can to get this transformation underway but the county won't let him. He has said time and time again he has no problem moving to Suffolk and if in a few months you don't see any progress - you may just see the Islanders in a brand new arena in Suffolk.

Let's talk attendance issues then. :teach:
 

katodelder

Registered User
Apr 22, 2004
660
0
Not only should the NHL not be thinking about contraction, it wouldn't at all surprise me to see them thinking about expansion in about 5-10 years if the current CBA results in 30 financially stable and successful franchises.


I agree. The league will consider relocation before it resorts to contraction.

Especially since it has been made public that there are at least three or four cities that want into the league, namely Kansas City with its new arena and no tenant, Winnipeg with its die hard fanbase and new building, Houston with its large market and an interested basketball owner, and maybe even Seattle if they lose their NBA team which was recently bought by a group out of Oklahoma City, etc, etc.

If, for example Pittsburgh cannot build a new arena or the contentious ownership situation in Atlanta doesn't get resolved, these and any other troubled franchises will be moved before they are contracted.

And yes, though many HF posters would be staunchly opposed to it, like EventHorizon mentioned, I would not at all be surprised if the NHL grew to 32 teams by 2015, depending on the state of the league's economics at the end of the current CBA in 2011.

As the population rises, the talent level increases. It's evolution, baby! (Not to mention the fact that the current owners would love the expansion revenue and the PA would love for more jobs to be created.)

The league will only contract if there aren't enough viable markets to go around.
 

puckhead103*

Guest
Contraction would kill the league. Contraction means the league ultimately failed, now tell me what sponsors, fans, television channels would touch the NHL after contraction? No one. Also last night, Nashville and Atlanta outdrew many hockey markets in attendance. Let the ignorant/traditional hick statements go. Contraction isn't going to get people to notice the NHL, they'll just laugh even more.
why not contract or move all the canadian franchises to the US and call it a day, eh?
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
The talent dilution argument completely ignore the influx of Europeans. And even if talent has been diluted, how has that possibly decreased scoring? The QHL has far inferior talent, yet superior scoring totals to the NHL. How does that make sense according to the logic presented by the thread starter? :shakehead

People always pass over this kind of stuff.

Back before the 90s. Every player from the old repulics of USSR, Czek, East Germany were not in the NHL they were off playing in their own countries. There have been many of these players added.

it was also considered a highly Euro team if you had about 6 guys that weren't Canadian on your team.

the US has also improved and brought more talent into the league over the years.

I would say hockey can handle the addition of about 8 teams through the 90s, because hockey has enough Worldwide support to allow for these added teams.
 

Jazz

Registered User
Oh why do these contraction threads happen over and over? :banghead:

Look, there has been no history of contraction in any of the major North American sports since the sporting business boomed in the late 80s/early 90s, and it is not going to start with the NHL, so you all can continue to humour yourselves with this, but it is not going to happen.

Simple reason - the league is not going to buy out the owners of any franchise, because we will be talking about huge $$$$ as franchise values are over $150 million.

Any troubled marked will result in a team being moved.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
I doubt that. The Rangers are arguably the leagues signature franchise (Like The Yankees in MLB, the Lakers in the NBA, and the Cowboys of the NFL.) The Rangers would draw just as well if they were in a different part of Manhatten.( I do agree that it is very easy to get to a game now, though.) The fan base is all over NEW YORK, Conn, and NEW JERSEY. Not to mention, spread all over the country. Ever been to a Rangers road game? Tons of Rangers fans.
The Rangers are the league's "signature team"?

Man, what planet are you on?

Never have they had that designation. Not ever.

Check a list of franchises with the most Stanley Cups and look up at the top. There you will find hockey's version of the Yankees, Lakers and Cowboys.

That has to be one of the most outlandish statements in a thread filled with them.
 

Jazz

Registered User
The Rangers are the league's "signature team"?

Man, what planet are you on?

Never have they had that designation. Not ever.

Check a list of franchises with the most Stanley Cups and look up at the top. There you will find hockey's version of the Yankees, Lakers and Cowboys.

That has to be one of the most outlandish statements in a thread filled with them.
I am sure he was speaking from an American perspective, where the Rangers are the most popular team.
 

DrVanntastic

Registered User
Jun 15, 2006
1,918
7
Wentzville, MO
I am sure he was speaking from an American perspective, where the Rangers are the most popular team.

I wouldn't even say that the Rangers are the signature US team. I would think that honor would go to Detroit simply because of the success they had from 96-04. Most of that time period the Rangers did not make the playoffs. I know that if I were to ask my friends that don't follow hockey the names of the teams in certain cities, they would probably get the Blues first and foremost (due to location, not popularity nationwide) and they would probably get the Hawks and the Wings. Now, this may just be because of location, but I would think that because the Wings have been a more successful franchise recently, they would be more popular throughout America.
 

Pete Rock

Registered User
Oct 22, 2005
2,180
0
Mrs. Sauga
C) Do you think it's fair that the nut running the Blackhawks refuses to televise games while icing pathetic AHL comparison teams?

I'd say that's an inappropriate generalisation.

I've met people in downton Toronto that try and sell me tin foil hats to block out alien rays that have more sense than "Wirst".
 

weezman

Guest
Need to set a quota on these types of threads.

Operating at 78% capacity? May as well burn down the building and get the heck out of dodge. Those numbers couldn't be worse! :sarcasm:

IOW, contraction for the reasons listed aren't good ones. By the by, you don't increase a talent pool by contraction. In fact you stifle it.
 

mfw13

Registered User
Oct 20, 2006
300
51
I think people are misunderstanding my post....it was not meant to be a "these are the teams that should be contracted" post, it was meant to examine which teams are not doing well attendance-wise.

Irrespective of the financial strength of individual franchises, the NHL as a whole cannot afford to have teams in weak markets. You wonder why the NHL is stuck with a mediocre TV contract on a network most people have never heard of? It's because it has too many teams in lousy hockey markets. TV executives aren't stupid....they know that if people aren't going to go see the product in person, the probably aren't going to watch it on TV. When they see original six teams in big markets like Chicago and Boston being mismanaged and drawing poorly, that makes them even less likely to want to pony up $$$ for a big TV contract.

If I was Gary Bettman right now, my top priority would be putting together ownership groups to buy out Bill Wirtz in Chicago and Jeremy Jacobs in Boston and get those franchises back on track. I'd be keeping a careful eye on the Carolina and Anaheim markets (if either of those teams do not sell 90% of their tickets this year its a very bad sign), and wondering why the hell I've got teams in Miami and Nashville but not in Houston and Winnipeg. I'd also be concerned about the New Jersey Devils, who routinely sell only 80-85% percent of their tickets even though they are perennial Stanley Cup contenders, and would be wondering if the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia market really needs four teams.

If the NHL wants to be taken seriously by the sporting public, and wants to get back on a major TV network, then it needs every franchise to be a strong one. It can't afford to have a quarter of its franchises selling only 80% of their tickets, because unlike other sports, it doesn't have a big TV contract and lots of merchandising to generate revenue. It needs 30 successful franchises, and if there aren't 30 strong hockey markets then its needs to consider contraction or relocation.
 

jerseydevil

Registered User
Mar 9, 2003
1,914
0
Visit site
For the last time...the Devils average approx 14,000 - 16,000 every year..whether they win, lose//have offensive or defensive system..whether it's a give away night..whether it's raining or snowing or sunny...We play in a swamp, have very average fan base, in an older arena..yes, we hope that changes with new ownership and a new arena. We'll let you know next year.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
I think people are misunderstanding my post....it was not meant to be a "these are the teams that should be contracted" post, it was meant to examine which teams are not doing well attendance-wise.

Irrespective of the financial strength of individual franchises, the NHL as a whole cannot afford to have teams in weak markets. You wonder why the NHL is stuck with a mediocre TV contract on a network most people have never heard of? It's because it has too many teams in lousy hockey markets. TV executives aren't stupid....they know that if people aren't going to go see the product in person, the probably aren't going to watch it on TV. When they see original six teams in big markets like Chicago and Boston being mismanaged and drawing poorly, that makes them even less likely to want to pony up $$$ for a big TV contract.

If I was Gary Bettman right now, my top priority would be putting together ownership groups to buy out Bill Wirtz in Chicago and Jeremy Jacobs in Boston and get those franchises back on track. I'd be keeping a careful eye on the Carolina and Anaheim markets (if either of those teams do not sell 90% of their tickets this year its a very bad sign), and wondering why the hell I've got teams in Miami and Nashville but not in Houston and Winnipeg. I'd also be concerned about the New Jersey Devils, who routinely sell only 80-85% percent of their tickets even though they are perennial Stanley Cup contenders, and would be wondering if the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia market really needs four teams.

If the NHL wants to be taken seriously by the sporting public, and wants to get back on a major TV network, then it needs every franchise to be a strong one. It can't afford to have a quarter of its franchises selling only 80% of their tickets, because unlike other sports, it doesn't have a big TV contract and lots of merchandising to generate revenue. It needs 30 successful franchises, and if there aren't 30 strong hockey markets then its needs to consider contraction or relocation.


Fortunately you're not, because you've already got a formula for failure brewing in your head.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
First off, the talk of diluted talent is a weak arguement. I think the rough content of Canadian born NHL players right now is about 400. During the heydays of the offensive era of the 80's and early 90's before expansion, there were only 21 teams in the league. I'd have to see the numbers, but, I'm willing to bet that the number of Canadian players in the league at that time was also roughly about 400 (roughly 80%). Presumably, all the European and American players that are in the league today are in the league because they are better than the 401st best Canadian player. So, if our standard for being good enough during the 80's was that to make the NHL, you had to be better than the 401st best Canadian hockey, and, today, that same standard holds true, how can the talent be diluted? The only way is if you believe that today's top 400 hockey players aren't as talented as the top 400 from 15 years ago, and the league should contract because of it.

Exactly. The expansion of the 90's coincided perfectly with the biggest influx of talent in NHL history - from post communist Russia and Eastern Europe.

Someone here did an analyses a year or so ago that showed that there were actually fewer Canadians in the league than there were pre-expansion. So unless you want to argue that either the average Canadian player today is less talented than he was a decade or so ago or that there has been some kind of affirmitave action program to hire less talented Europeans over those good ole Canadian boys, it's hard to argue that the talent level has been watered down due to expansion.

Now it could be legitimately argues that without expansion (and with the same influx of Euro talent) that the average level of talent would be higher than it it is now - but that's a completely seperate question from whether expansion has reduced the talent level. And a good chunk of the influx of talent was in part due to expansion - expansion, by necessity, led to a significant increase in scouting in Europe. Also, in a pre-expansion world, many players who were late bloomers (see St Louis, Martin) would likely never have had a chance to develop.

Maybe the re-emergence of this allready talked to death topic will give me the jump start to finish something I've worked on on-and-off - parsing hockeydb.com data to come up with a count of Canadian/American/European players per year since before the 1967 expansion.

Now, that was an expansion that did seriously dilute talent - doubling the number of teams with no appreciable increase in the talent pool. That may give some insight into the statistical effect on talent dilution that could be applied against the 90's expansion as a comparison, but that's a task I'll leave to later.

But a discussion on what stats one could/should look at to determine the effects of talent dilution could be interesting.
 

OG6ix

Registered User
Apr 11, 2006
4,453
1,350
Toronto
ok, the day this league contracts, the day it is officially not considered a major sport!
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,856
8,110
Maybe the re-emergence of this allready talked to death topic will give me the jump start to finish something I've worked on on-and-off - parsing hockeydb.com data to come up with a count of Canadian/American/European players per year since before the 1967 expansion.

Now, that was an expansion that did seriously dilute talent - doubling the number of teams with no appreciable increase in the talent pool. That may give some insight into the statistical effect on talent dilution that could be applied against the 90's expansion as a comparison, but that's a task I'll leave to later.
Actually, it's been argued that the 1967 expansion didn't dilute talent too much b/c there were only 6 teams and there were players who could have played in the NHL that just couldn't due to the lack of available positions. The Original Six got to protect their best players, the expansion teams got those under but the talent eventually spread out among all the teams ... however, expanding to 17 teams plus the startup of the WHA did dilute the talent base pretty seriously. That first expansion wasn't as bad as it seems ... the next couple and the WHA starting up with 10 teams and raiding the NHL for players hurt though.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
I think people are misunderstanding my post....it was not meant to be a "these are the teams that should be contracted" post, it was meant to examine which teams are not doing well attendance-wise.
Well, even if you are new (can't see why someone would sign up here only to post something like this), you can see just on the front page alone that we've had so many attendance threads lately that they all got merged together.

And to say that attendance is more important than the overall financial health of a team doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
 

Diehardfan419

Registered User
Jul 24, 2005
449
2
Branchburg, NJ
I wouldn't even say that the Rangers are the signature US team. I would think that honor would go to Detroit simply because of the success they had from 96-04. Most of that time period the Rangers did not make the playoffs. I know that if I were to ask my friends that don't follow hockey the names of the teams in certain cities, they would probably get the Blues first and foremost (due to location, not popularity nationwide) and they would probably get the Hawks and the Wings. Now, this may just be because of location, but I would think that because the Wings have been a more successful franchise recently, they would be more popular throughout America.

Nope. I think the Wings are the 2nd most popular team. But, across the country, I would take a pretty good bet that the New York Rangers are the most popular NHL team. They are also the most hated and also the most recognized. Just like Dallas in the NFL, etc. Thats why I would call them the leagues signature franchise. Even over the Maple Leafs. If the Leafs win the cup, no doubt, Canada would be fixated and partying for months. In the USA, eh. But, if the Rangers win the cup? Most of America will know about it, HAVE AN OPIONION one way or the other, and of course Canada will because hockey is king there.

And as far as someone thinking that the Islanders will draw like the Rangers if the Isles get a new stadium.......:biglaugh: Cmon. Take off the Wang glasses. The fanbase is no where near what the Rangers have.Heck, when the Rangers and Isles play in Long Island, 1/2 the place is Rangers fans.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
Would a Detroit vs Rangers final be a TV exec's dream or what?

ok, the day this league contracts, the day it is officially not considered a major sport!

Agreed, contraction shows that this is an amatuer league not worthy of dedicated fan support.

So unless you want to argue that either the average Canadian player today is less talented than he was a decade or so ago or that there has been some kind of affirmitave action program to hire less talented Europeans over those good ole Canadian boys, it's hard to argue that the talent level has been watered down due to expansion.

I would argue that players drafted between 92 and 99 are weaker than any other 8 year period. Significantly so. The combined factors of a creatively stiffling Canadian development system and the collapse of the Soviet system led to really poor prospect development. Seriously, how many stars were drafted during that period? Thornton. Pronger. Uhm... Would you concider Iginla and Kariya stars? Fortunatly 2000-2005 has been significantly better and bring alot more talent than the previous years. While I would say the 400th player is better than the 400th player in the past, the top 10 players were weaker a few years ago. But Crosby, Staal, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk etc are helping repair that problem.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->