What is the cause of the massive conference disparity?

Snippit

Registered User
Dec 5, 2012
16,627
9,957
In the 2000s, the Eastern Conference has produced 3 of the 17 OHL championship teams.

2000-01: Ottawa
2005-06: Peterborough
2014-15: Oshawa

In a two-conference league, that's drastically low.

Even removing the 3 "big market" teams (London, Kitchener, Windsor), the West comes out on top 6-3 in the finals (in a comparison of 7 teams vs 10 teams). I don't expect the East to get a win this year either.

I suspect that the regular season head-to-head stats would paint a similar story (anyone have those numbers over the last several years?).

It's been quite often the case that the OHL title would be all but decided in the Western Conference finals.

What do you think is the main cause of this disparity? Pointing to the big market impact of London/Windsor/Kitchener is fair, but 6-3 when removing those teams indicates there might be more to it.
 

Generalsupdates

@GeneralsUpdates on Twitter
Sep 4, 2017
7,301
4,369
In the 2000s, the Eastern Conference has produced 3 of the 17 OHL championship teams.

2000-01: Ottawa
2005-06: Peterborough
2014-15: Oshawa

In a two-conference league, that's drastically low.

Even removing the 3 "big market" teams (London, Kitchener, Windsor), the West comes out on top 6-3 in the finals (in a comparison of 7 teams vs 10 teams). I don't expect the East to get a win this year either.

I suspect that the regular season head-to-head stats would paint a similar story (anyone have those numbers over the last several years?).

It's been quite often the case that the OHL title would be all but decided in the Western Conference finals.

What do you think is the main cause of this disparity? Pointing to the big market impact of London/Windsor/Kitchener is fair, but 6-3 when removing those teams indicates there might be more to it.

An easy answer to me is that almost everyone will report to LDN/KIT/WSR/GUE etc and in the East there's only a couple teams who you never hear people won't report to. It's very difficult for teams like PBO/SBY/NB etc to get players. So you see teams like London get a guy like Marner late in the 1st round because he'll only report there and then boom, they're good for another 4 years. And then SSM/ER types have to make a ton of trades to keep up with these LND/KIT/WSR powerhouses and the West is always stacked because of that
 

ScoresFromCentre

Registered User
Jan 29, 2016
553
185
An easy answer to me is that almost everyone will report to LDN/KIT/WSR/GUE etc and in the East there's only a couple teams who you never hear people won't report to. It's very difficult for teams like PBO/SBY/NB etc to get players. So you see teams like London get a guy like Marner late in the 1st round because he'll only report there and then boom, they're good for another 4 years. And then SSM/ER types have to make a ton of trades to keep up with these LND/KIT/WSR powerhouses and the West is always stacked because of that

I don't think Marner is a great example of that phenomenon, but I believe the general thrust of that argument is accurate.

In the 2000s, the Eastern Conference has produced 3 of the 17 OHL championship teams.

2000-01: Ottawa
2005-06: Peterborough
2014-15: Oshawa

In a two-conference league, that's drastically low.

Even removing the 3 "big market" teams (London, Kitchener, Windsor), the West comes out on top 6-3 in the finals (in a comparison of 7 teams vs 10 teams). I don't expect the East to get a win this year either.

I suspect that the regular season head-to-head stats would paint a similar story (anyone have those numbers over the last several years?).

It's been quite often the case that the OHL title would be all but decided in the Western Conference finals.

What do you think is the main cause of this disparity? Pointing to the big market impact of London/Windsor/Kitchener is fair, but 6-3 when removing those teams indicates there might be more to it.

I do indeed have the head-to-head information--check out my article for The Hockey Writers on this topic. (Note that the planned four-part series on the topic didn't happen, as it was my single least-read article for the site. It did engender some pretty interesting discussion here, though, towards the tail end of the conference disparity topic.) I haven't run the numbers this year; I should.

The Ottawa title is pre- the modern OHL, and I don't consider those years to be particularly statistically meaningful; a lot of the conference disparity back then can be chalked up to the Mississauga IceDogs being terrible. But it's absolutely true that since London re-wrote the rules for OHL competition, the East has struggled to keep up. There may be a slight "keeping up with the Hunters" factor as well, but I don't think it's particularly meaningful.

I suspect East teams even pay a premium in trades, but I haven't had the time to examine this.
 

NOA

Registered User
Apr 17, 2015
3,157
1,506
An easy answer to me is that almost everyone will report to LDN/KIT/WSR/GUE etc and in the East there's only a couple teams who you never hear people won't report to. It's very difficult for teams like PBO/SBY/NB etc to get players. So you see teams like London get a guy like Marner late in the 1st round because he'll only report there and then boom, they're good for another 4 years. And then SSM/ER types have to make a ton of trades to keep up with these LND/KIT/WSR powerhouses and the West is always stacked because of that
I actually think it’s more about drafting/coaching - it’s stronger in the West. And because of that more players are likely to want to go to western teams. Ssm and Erie have kept up lately because of coaching and drafting.
 

AttackSound

Junior Hockey Fan Since Birth
Aug 25, 2016
2,267
985
Owen Sound, Ontario
I actually think it’s more about drafting/coaching - it’s stronger in the West. And because of that more players are likely to want to go to western teams. Ssm and Erie have kept up lately because of coaching and drafting.

Agreed this league is a bit of an odd one statistically when it comes down to east and west conferences but it's not been because of the talent on ice
 

OSA

Registered User
Jun 11, 2011
1,122
437
There was a conversation about this awhile back and I suggested that the discrepancy over this time has had a lot to do with the extent of US players on rosters in the West versus the East.

Looking at rosters since 2000, the difference is startling.

A great example is Sudbury. They have NEVER drafted an American that reported and, other than Allen Lyz..., they’ve never signed one as a free agent either!!

Edit: Sorry, in 2000 Sudbury drafted American defenceman Jason Hicks who played 51 games for the Wolves and in 2005 they drafted American goalie Michael Swick who played 27 games for the Wolves. Neither played any games elsewhere in the OHL.
 
Last edited:

digiblader

Registered User
Nov 6, 2015
972
75
No defensemen drafted will sign with the Hamilton Bulldogs for some reason.. a number of their D-Men they drafted due to performance or NCAA commitments have still not reported to the team, notably Xavier Henry, 2nd round 2016 pick DJ King, and Noah Lugli--either that or Staios doesn't like drafting defensemen--which is going to have to change, as that team is set to lose the majority of their defense.. and that team isn't even close to challenging anyone in the West, even though they finished 1st in the East, and possibly can't touch Barrie or Kingston..
 

Fischhaber

Registered User
Sep 3, 2014
3,175
1,729
An easy answer to me is that almost everyone will report to LDN/KIT/WSR/GUE etc and in the East there's only a couple teams who you never hear people won't report to. It's very difficult for teams like PBO/SBY/NB etc to get players. So you see teams like London get a guy like Marner late in the 1st round because he'll only report there and then boom, they're good for another 4 years. And then SSM/ER types have to make a ton of trades to keep up with these LND/KIT/WSR powerhouses and the West is always stacked because of that

The Greyhounds actually make very few trades. Their success is built on drafting and developing overlooked players like Mac Hollowell (12th), Keeghan Howdeshell (10th), Conor Timmins (4th), Morgan Frost (4th), Jack Kopacka (8th), and Hayden Verbeek (4th). Any team in the East could do that.

I hear the American argument to an extent, but only Jack Kopacka is seeing time in the top 6. It's not like the team wouldn't be successful without them.
 
Last edited:

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,753
6,925
1> American players have a high tendency of playing only on Western Teams. Part of this is the fact that all the US based teams are in the West. Another aspect of this is proximity to access the locations from the US. It is a tough run to many of the Eastern Teams from US locations. So, the East is VERY unattractive for those players. Even of the Eastern Teams draft those players, they either end up being traded to Western teams or simply never report to the OHL and play NCAA.
2> Rink size and the ability to create large revenue is more slanted towards the west. This allows those teams to invest in management, coaching, and most importantly, the scouting. London is a great example. When they played in the Ice House they were crap. As soon as they moved downtown and put in 9000 seats, they were able to spend a lot of coin on building their franchise. Some will still say they also spent on players for an unfair advantage which is unproven but probably true. Same goes for Windsor when they moved into their rink. Kitchener was always strong on attendance and revenue.
3> Stable franchises are abundant in the west. SSM has been stable for a long long time. And with a new rink generating solid revenue, they can maintain that. OWen Sound has had very strong ownership and they invested in their rink. Guelph has a snazzy new rink and very strong ownership. This matters when attracting players. It is easier for a team to get that player on the bubble between NCAA and the OHL to report.

Conversely, when you look at the East, Peterborough has been unstable for a long time and until recently it looked like they may have moved. Belleville, a strong franchise pre-Hunter years is now in Hamilton and that franchise is not on a strong foundation. St Mikes is now in Missy and struggling. Brampton is in North Bay which isn’t great, they will always be struggling. Sudbury is in an old rink and has had ownership issues. Kingston has Springer how is unliked. That leaves only a small handful of teams that can really compete from a strong organization perspective...Barrie, Oshawa, Ottawa and Niagara. So, when you have 60% of the teams in the East handcuffed by either poor revenue, unstable franchises and/or geography issues, it makes it very difficult.

On top of that, because the bar is lower, many of those franchises when it comes time to load up they only load up to win their conference because until the Finals, those are the teams they need to beat. Conversely, if there are two really strong teams in the west battling it out for players, the arms race for them is wayyyyy more aggressive. That creates the gap when you look at Championships.

At the end of the day, does it really matter? The best team wins every year for the most part. So, if the two best teams meet in the semi’s then so be it. It is not like the East representative are doormats.

Four of the last nine Memorial Cup Champs were OHL teams so you could also argue that the OHL vs the other two leagues has a disparity. Heck, four of the other five years the OHL team lost in the Final so it is rare that the OHL team doesn’t make it to the last game.

All you can do is tip your hat to the teams that win that particular season. Life isn’t fair and neither is the OHL. Some franchises have advantages that other don’t because of situations neither can change. Some teams have higher hurdles to jump over. IT is what it is.

Just sit back and enjoy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OSA and cub

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,753
6,925
The thing is that it seems a little easier to fix the OHL than human existence as a whole. But I'm happy to make a go at both. ;)

1> It is impossible to fix geography.
2> It is impossible to fix choice (NCAA vs CHL). You cannot force a kid to play somewhere he doesn’t want to play because there are other options available.
3> It is impossible to fix a market where a community is unwilling to build a rink that can generate reasonable revenue to pay the amount of money required to pay a strong organizations coaching and management.

We see many of the same issues in the NHL. Some markets simply cannot generate the revenue required to attract the top coaches and management. They can’t spent the developmental dollars in the farm system. They cannot spend the needed dollars on scouting either. Some franchises have a hard time spending to the cap to remain competitive. It isn’t a conference imbalance but does that matter?

There are a number of teams int he OHL that have not won a championship in many years or not at all. Many of those teams are int he Western Conference.

SSM ‘92 (Probably wins this year though)
Sarnia hasn’t won
Saginaw hasn’t won since North Bay in ‘94
Kitchener and Flint are about 10 years since their last championship which is fine but it still points to a top heavy conference.

Since London won the Cup in ‘05, nine different Eastern Teams have played in the OHL Final (seven in the West). So, there is parity in the East enough that the cycle runs its course. Unfortunately, the financial aspect of things has made it less likely we see that over the next ten or so years.
 

Fischhaber

Registered User
Sep 3, 2014
3,175
1,729
1> It is impossible to fix geography.
2> It is impossible to fix choice (NCAA vs CHL). You cannot force a kid to play somewhere he doesn’t want to play because there are other options available.
3> It is impossible to fix a market where a community is unwilling to build a rink that can generate reasonable revenue to pay the amount of money required to pay a strong organizations coaching and management.

We see many of the same issues in the NHL. Some markets simply cannot generate the revenue required to attract the top coaches and management. They can’t spent the developmental dollars in the farm system. They cannot spend the needed dollars on scouting either. Some franchises have a hard time spending to the cap to remain competitive. It isn’t a conference imbalance but does that matter?

There are a number of teams int he OHL that have not won a championship in many years or not at all. Many of those teams are int he Western Conference.

SSM ‘92 (Probably wins this year though)
Sarnia hasn’t won
Saginaw hasn’t won since North Bay in ‘94
Kitchener and Flint are about 10 years since their last championship which is fine but it still points to a top heavy conference.

Since London won the Cup in ‘05, nine different Eastern Teams have played in the OHL Final (seven in the West). So, there is parity in the East enough that the cycle runs its course. Unfortunately, the financial aspect of things has made it less likely we see that over the next ten or so years.

If you think that teams like Sault Ste. Marie and Erie spend significantly more on coaching and management than the bottom feeders in the East then you are mistaken. I know that Surbury in particular pays more and that salaries for coaches are fairly similar across the league, with a couple of exceptions in both conferences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old hound

saska sault

Registered User
Jun 5, 2010
3,830
2,964
Sault Ste. Marie
The Sault has been stable financially for years yes... but it was not all that long ago Jordan Mayer refused to report. Catennaci wanted out also. Dubas came in, completely changed our culture and how the team operates from front office to the practice rink. We travel more than any other OHL team by a long shot and are far from where most of our draftees are born. Winning, scouting, drafting and a professionally run organization has got us to be a go-to location lately. Replacing Dubas and Keefe with Raftis and Bannister has been almost seemless, because they all believe in the puck possession and skill style.

The relatively new Essar Center has seem some pretty bad teams not long ago... Jack Campbell and missing the playoffs anyone?
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,753
6,925
If you think that teams like Sault Ste. Marie and Erie spend significantly more on coaching and management than the bottom feeders in the East then you are mistaken. I know that Surbury in particular pays more and that salaries for coaches are fairly similar across the league, with a couple of exceptions in both conferences.

You missed the point. Finance was only one aspect of my overall opinion. There are strong franchises with solid ownership that bridge that gap. I specifically mentioned SSM and Owen Sound as two smaller franchises that have managed to overcome some of those disadvantages. That said, I did mention that SSM did have a new building that allows them to generate more revenue which does help.

It isn’t how much you spend in all cases. But, teams with greater access to financial resources (mostly from revenue) have a bigger advantage than those that don’t. Nothing is absolute. In your reference, I believe Bert Templeton was the highest paid when he was in Sudbury. Brian Kilrea was second. Then things changed with guys like DeBoer. That shift combined with the Hunters changing the way the strong franchises operated did create a divide between the haves and have nots. That is a fact. But, as you mentioned, there are some examples that make my point less credible.
 

Fischhaber

Registered User
Sep 3, 2014
3,175
1,729
You missed the point. Finance was only one aspect of my overall opinion. There are strong franchises with solid ownership that bridge that gap. I specifically mentioned SSM and Owen Sound as two smaller franchises that have managed to overcome some of those disadvantages. That said, I did mention that SSM did have a new building that allows them to generate more revenue which does help.

It isn’t how much you spend in all cases. But, teams with greater access to financial resources (mostly from revenue) have a bigger advantage than those that don’t. Nothing is absolute. In your reference, I believe Bert Templeton was the highest paid when he was in Sudbury. Brian Kilrea was second. Then things changed with guys like DeBoer. That shift combined with the Hunters changing the way the strong franchises operated did create a divide between the haves and have nots. That is a fact. But, as you mentioned, there are some examples that make my point less credible.

I didn't miss your overall point, but I thought that the specific point about coaching and management salaries was off the mark.

I'll stick with the Greyhounds because I know the situation quite well. They have more expenses than any other team because of the travel schedule for both scouts and players. The league offsets a small percentage of this, but certainly nothing close to the total amount. Point being, there's no financial advantage whatsoever.

What makes teams like Erie and Owen Sound do well is cohesiveness between the scouting staff, the management, and the coaching staff. There are rarely players that join the Greyhounds and can't handle the style of play. That's because every staff member is on the same page about what kind of player they need. Teams that are constantly changing staff don't have that and they don't develop players properly because of it. It really has nothing to do with finances.
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,753
6,925
I didn't miss your overall point, but I thought that the specific point about coaching and management salaries was off the mark.

I'll stick with the Greyhounds because I know the situation quite well. They have more expenses than any other team because of the travel schedule for both scouts and players. The league offsets a small percentage of this, but certainly nothing close to the total amount. Point being, there's no financial advantage whatsoever.

What makes teams like Erie and Owen Sound do well is cohesiveness between the scouting staff, the management, and the coaching staff. There are rarely players that join the Greyhounds and can't handle the style of play. That's because every staff member is on the same page about what kind of player they need. Teams that are constantly changing staff don't have that and they don't develop players properly because of it. It really has nothing to do with finances.

It absolutely has to do with finances. The more financial flexibility a team has, the more resources they can expend. That is a fact.

I will agree with you that SSM has done a great job but they have also had stable ownership which solidifies your main point regarding the cohesiveness of their organization.

If we look at a team like Peterborough, we saw Dick Todd running the organization in a small market with small rink and relatively little in the way of added revenue but he managed to continually have a good team. More to your point, when he left the organization has been floundering quite a bit. A big part of that is the loss of Dick Todd but another reason for that is finances. They simply don’t have the finances to acquire a management team that can deploy a continual winning system.

I would suggest that if Owen Sound were to sell their team to another owner and DeGray were to leave, because they are a small market with limited resources, they will have a harder time maintaining their level of success.

Conversely, if Oshawa were to do a complete change over, with their financial resources, they will have access to high level candidates which gives them an advantage.

You are correct that financial resources is not the be all and end all but it sure does help attract high level management and coaching. If means a team can go out and get someone proven as opposed to hiring out of tier II and hoping that guy can make the transition which is what small markets tend to do when faced with turn over. Kitchener is a good example. They have had coaching move on to higher levels and have alsoways been able to spend to attract the best candidates.

Also, regarding scouting, most teams have regional guys that go to games within an hour radius of their home. They typically don’t travel. Only the head scout and GM/Assistant GM do significant travel. I would suggest that SSM Scouting costs are relatively similar to most teams in the grand scheme of things.
 

Fischhaber

Registered User
Sep 3, 2014
3,175
1,729
It absolutely has to do with finances. The more financial flexibility a team has, the more resources they can expend. That is a fact.

I will agree with you that SSM has done a great job but they have also had stable ownership which solidifies your main point regarding the cohesiveness of their organization.

If we look at a team like Peterborough, we saw Dick Todd running the organization in a small market with small rink and relatively little in the way of added revenue but he managed to continually have a good team. More to your point, when he left the organization has been floundering quite a bit. A big part of that is the loss of Dick Todd but another reason for that is finances. They simply don’t have the finances to acquire a management team that can deploy a continual winning system.

I would suggest that if Owen Sound were to sell their team to another owner and DeGray were to leave, because they are a small market with limited resources, they will have a harder time maintaining their level of success.

Conversely, if Oshawa were to do a complete change over, with their financial resources, they will have access to high level candidates which gives them an advantage.

You are correct that financial resources is not the be all and end all but it sure does help attract high level management and coaching. If means a team can go out and get someone proven as opposed to hiring out of tier II and hoping that guy can make the transition which is what small markets tend to do when faced with turn over. Kitchener is a good example. They have had coaching move on to higher levels and have alsoways been able to spend to attract the best candidates.

Also, regarding scouting, most teams have regional guys that go to games within an hour radius of their home. They typically don’t travel. Only the head scout and GM/Assistant GM do significant travel. I would suggest that SSM Scouting costs are relatively similar to most teams in the grand scheme of things.

I don't know if I would call the Greyhounds ownership stable, but it's been pretty good recently. I guess in regards to ownership stability, I don't really see what that has to do with East and West. Peterborough is a bigger market than the Soo and it seems to me like it's mostly random chance whether a team has a good owner or not.

I understand what you are saying about finances and it's clear when London rolls into town with NHL calibre resources that other teams can only dream of. In terms of management though, I don't necessarily agree. To use your examples, I'm confident that Roger Hunt doesn't make that much more than Mike Oke, if he does at all. There are good exectlutives that will go to any team for a reasonable price. The Greyhounds basically pulled Kyle Dubas out of the stands and put him in the GM chair.

Regarding scouting, the regional scouts are in town a minimum of once per month for meetings. It's not a huge cost, but it adds up. I think this point is kind of irrelevant to the whole conversation though. I shouldn't have mentioned it earlier.
 

digiblader

Registered User
Nov 6, 2015
972
75
You said Hamilton had a poor foundation--is Andlauer that deep in the red with that franchise, or is it the arena's poor condition that is scaring off players? I mean, I know it was struggling in Belleville because of terrible ownership (Simmonds was possibly the worst owner in the OHL at the time), but the team's now back in the same situation in Hamilton--it needs a new arena or significant renovations, but the city isn't biting--and unlike in Belleville, there's no plan for renovation anytime in the next few years--Belleville had reno plans for 2017 (which have since happened), but the Bulldogs are still waiting for the city to do something.
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,753
6,925
I don't know if I would call the Greyhounds ownership stable, but it's been pretty good recently. I guess in regards to ownership stability, I don't really see what that has to do with East and West. Peterborough is a bigger market than the Soo and it seems to me like it's mostly random chance whether a team has a good owner or not.

I understand what you are saying about finances and it's clear when London rolls into town with NHL calibre resources that other teams can only dream of. In terms of management though, I don't necessarily agree. To use your examples, I'm confident that Roger Hunt doesn't make that much more than Mike Oke, if he does at all. There are good exectlutives that will go to any team for a reasonable price. The Greyhounds basically pulled Kyle Dubas out of the stands and put him in the GM chair.

Regarding scouting, the regional scouts are in town a minimum of once per month for meetings. It's not a huge cost, but it adds up. I think this point is kind of irrelevant to the whole conversation though. I shouldn't have mentioned it earlier.

I get what you are saying. I think where the ownership influence comes into play more for stability is:
1> Interference and meddling
2> Trust
3> A deep understanding of Major Junior Hockey operations

Teams with long standing ownership that understands the cycles and nature of revenue/costs usually have better year to year results. Teams with newer owners that are trying to learn on the fly and look at it more a kin to their other businesses tend to be less successful. They tend to make poor decisions and have poor expectations.

You are right that Roger Hunt probably doesn’t make much more if any than Oke but that is just one cost. The total cost of a management team can be staggering from franchise to franchise.

I remember back in the Earl Montagano days (prior to Jeff Hunt) in Ottawa, a guy named Doug Drain was the one person that handled all marketing, advertising, communications, season ticket holder liaison and game day ticket sales. ONE PERSON! It was ridiculous. The 67’s organization was a disaster. Poor attendance, no significant revenue outside of ticket sales etc. Jeff Hunt came in a bank rolled the whole organization from top to bottom and filled the seats and sold a tremendous amount of advertising, he pretty much pimped out all the available space in the rink. It was a dramatic shift.

The point is to do that you have to have the coin. You have to either have an owner willing to make that financial gamble or have enough revenue to reinvest. If you don’t, you are always going to be at the same spot. Costs will rise but revenues won’t rise to match those costs. That shortfall has to come out of someone’s pocket. That could means spending les son administration, game day experiences, management salaries, scouting, road expenses etc. As soon as a team starts to tighten the belt, those on the inside notice and word gets around. It makes it a less desirable place for recruits to play.

To come full circle on the topic at hand, EAST vs WEST, what we’ve seen from many of the Eastern teams is belt tightening. In moderately recent years, we’ve seen Newmarket move to Sarnia, North Bay move to Saginaw, Brampton move to North Bay, Mississauga move to Niagara, St Mikes move to Mississauga, Belleville move to Hamilton. We’ve heard news of the Petes struggling up until last season. Most of this involves Eastern Teams. That suggests that, in general, the Eastern Teams are having a rougher time financially. I didn’t include the Detroit to Plymouth to Flint situation because that wasn’t financial as much as it was a pissing contest between Karmonos and Illitch. Relatively speaking, the Western Teams haven’t had much movement in the last 25 years. In fact, the trend has been teams moving to Western locations.

I guess my point is that a strong foundation starts with stable ownership, follows with stable revenue, and then strong management and coaching. IT is rare for a team to have solid management and coaching if the franchise has bad ownership and poor revenues. The 67’s managed to do it because of Kilrea back before Hunt took over. But, it is rare you see that as a sustainable way forward.
 

digiblader

Registered User
Nov 6, 2015
972
75
Mississauga isn't going anywhere--as they're set to renew their lease for another 5 years.

Do You Watch the Steelheads in Mississauga?

Sudbury's getting a new arena--the only teams in the East possibly in the most danger right now of moving are the Petes (depending on what the city does with plans for a new arena--Memorial Arena is obsolete and needs to be replaced) and depending what happens with the city, the Hamilton Bulldogs, as FirstOntario Centre is near the end of its life and is in major need of replacement, but the city has no money to fix or replace it, even if Andlauer splits the cost.
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,753
6,925
Mississauga isn't going anywhere--as they're set to renew their lease for another 5 years.

Do You Watch the Steelheads in Mississauga?

Sudbury's getting a new arena--the only teams in the East possibly in the most danger right now of moving are the Petes (depending on what the city does with plans for a new arena--Memorial Arena is obsolete and needs to be replaced) and depending what happens with the city, the Hamilton Bulldogs, as FirstOntario Centre is near the end of its life and is in major need of replacement, but the city has no money to fix or replace it, even if Andlauer splits the cost.

It isn’t about moves at this point. It is about strength of existing market. The reality is, many of the Eastern Conference teams are in the bottle third of value.

The 67’s are in very rough shape but their ownership will continue to dump coin into the franchise to maintain. As you mentioned, the Petes are still in tough but it looks like there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Kingston is OK but not great. Hamilton is in a precarious situation. That leaves Oshawa as the only East division team in a strong position. North Bay is still wonky and will never be considerably better than they are now. Barrie is always solid but even their value would be considered middling. Until Sudbury gets their rink, they are on the low side. Mississauga has low costs which helps them but their attendance is not great. Niagara is probably the best in the division.

So, if we were to evaluate the Eastern Conference, Oshawa and Niagara are strong. Ottawa is strong even though they are losing a lot of money. Barrie is decent. Hamilton will be ok as long as Andlauer continues to spend more than he earns. Kingston is ok but should be a lot better. Springer is a virus. But, other than that, the others are somewhat handcuffed to in bad shape.

A look at the West sees Flint being in the worst situation and not because of market but because of ownership. Who’s next on the poor scale? Sarnia? SSM? Owen Sound? Erie? It is really tough to identify a team in the West in a difficult position financially and ownership stability. So even if there is a small market, they are all in good rinks that are either relatively new or renovated.
 

soo hound girl

Registered User
Oct 20, 2017
995
692
I don't know if I would call the Greyhounds ownership stable, but it's been pretty good recently. I guess in regards to ownership stability, I don't really see what that has to do with East and West. Peterborough is a bigger market than the Soo and it seems to me like it's mostly random chance whether a team has a good owner or not.

I understand what you are saying about finances and it's clear when London rolls into town with NHL calibre resources that other teams can only dream of. In terms of management though, I don't necessarily agree. To use your examples, I'm confident that Roger Hunt doesn't make that much more than Mike Oke, if he does at all. There are good exectlutives that will go to any team for a reasonable price. The Greyhounds basically pulled Kyle Dubas out of the stands and put him in the GM chair.

Regarding scouting, the regional scouts are in town a minimum of once per month for meetings. It's not a huge cost, but it adds up. I think this point is kind of irrelevant to the whole conversation though. I shouldn't have mentioned it earlier.
Lots of talk about teams wanting the next Dubas I remember when the hounds made him the GM I think he was only 26 at the time. Lots of fans in this city thought they were crazy for this move taking a former player agent now look at what he has done for this franchise other teams can only hope to find the next Dubas good luck
 

Snippit

Registered User
Dec 5, 2012
16,627
9,957
the biggest cause is your imagination

How do you explain the last 2 decades of the OHL finals?

Some of them haven't even been particularly close. For example, in 2 separate series against Niagara, London has won 8 games to 1.
 

EvenSteven

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
7,482
6,453
It absolutely has to do with finances. The more financial flexibility a team has, the more resources they can expend. That is a fact.

Kitchener is a good example. They have had coaching move on to higher levels and have alsoways been able to spend to attract the best candidates.

.

You are right about the financial part of it all. But you can't really use the Kitchener Rangers as a good example. I've been following this team for decades. Only once since 1985 have they gone out and used money to hire the best guy available. That would be when they brought in Peter DeBoer in 2001. Otherwise, each and every head coach hiring was done the cheap way - promotion of an assistant who was just happy to have the job while not truly considering more worthy candidates/applicants from outside the organization.

(Some may point to the hiring of Steve Spott as a little bit of an exception. He may have been the best man available but just so happened to be our assistant coach at the time).

Were some of these assistants worthy of a head-coaching position? Some were but many were not. Perhaps the Rangers use their finances to hire the best available assistant coach. That person may be an aspiring head coach who accepts an assistant coaches job knowing that there is a very good chance down the road they will be given an opportunity to be the head coach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Wallach

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad