League News: 2015-16 Around the League V (NHL News n' Scores n' Stuff)

[Corby78]

I really don't want to see the big the big rinks. There'll be no physical game left. If they could somehow split the difference... Bigger rinks but not that big, maybe.

I like the physical play too (trust me, thats the only reason I made teams), but I think we can go to international rinks and still have the physical play. Its not like everyone will turn into Swedes. To me, more ice means less clutching, less obstruction, more skating, more passing.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

I think bigger rinks are the one non-starter as a rule change. They're not taking away paying seats.

 

[trick9]

I wonder how many teams there are in Hamonic's list that he actually wants to get traded to. I wouldn't be shocked if most of those teams were a smokescreen to create leverage in negotiations with the Jets. Calgary and Edmonton might be the secondary choices if everything fall apart with the 'peg but that's it.

Buff + for Hamonic +. Only a matter of time.

 

[ChibiPooky]

I'm a pretty big Hamonic fanboy, so I propose this:

Move Caps to Western Canada
Acquire Hamonic in exchange for Brooks Laich

 

[g00n]

I think bigger rinks are the one non-starter as a rule change. They're not taking away paying seats.

I would like to see the math regarding how much money each team would lose. I'm sure they could spread it out amongst the rest of the revenue sources or tickets in the building to make up the difference.

Not that I'm necessarily for it, just saying there's a way to overcome the seat/revenue objection.

 

[usiel]

During the game that the Caps just won in OT, EddieO mentioned possibly having the long change for 2 periods as a way to increase scoring. I like that idea. But I imagine you'd basically have to swap all the STH who have "shoot twice" end seats.

It also occurred to me recently that they should not let teams ice the puck on the PK.

Also, hybrid icing has been awful for offense. I don't hate it because it is a player safety issue, but I'd look for ways to tweak it if I were the league.

Like the idea of the long change for the 1st and 3rd period and the no icing while killing a penalty. I wonder historically what even strength scoring is in the last few years for the 2nd period (i'm too lazy to check).

 

[AlexBrovechkin8]

I'm a pretty big Hamonic fanboy, so I propose this:

Move Caps to Western Canada
Acquire Hamonic in exchange for Brooks Laich

What Metro line would that stop be off of? Silver?

 

[Hivemind]

I don't really anticipate any plans that would involve the physical redesign of arenas as being reasonable options. Simply put, not every arena would be able to handle an Olympic sized rink without renovations.

 

[g00n]

I don't really anticipate any plans that would involve the physical redesign of arenas as being reasonable options. Simply put, not every arena would be able to handle an Olympic sized rink without renovations.

Of course each facility would have to go through some kind of renovation. How much is going to vary as many facilities are multi-purpose anyway. And I do wonder how easy it is to make a rink larger like that. I imagine it's not as simple as just moving the boards back...the cooling systems and all the pieces that fit together might have to be replaced if they can't be expanded, which means NEW rink entirely.

But specifically what about the "lost seats=lost revenue" angle? How many seats are we talking about and at what price per seat? I would think they could spread THAT part of the cost around the arena pretty easily.

 

[txpd]

I would like to see the math regarding how much money each team would lose. I'm sure they could spread it out amongst the rest of the revenue sources or tickets in the building to make up the difference.

Not that I'm necessarily for it, just saying there's a way to overcome the seat/revenue objection.

Those are the most expensive seats in every arena.

 

[MoJoSauce]

Those are the most expensive seats in every arena.

Now you just make rows 3&4 to 1&2, 4&5 to 3 &4 and get rid of the last two rows in the arena. Hell you can even raise the price of every seat in the nose bleeds $0.50 to cover the cost of those lost rows

 

[Calicaps]

Engblom saying that Oates is consulting with Stamkos and slurping Oates about all his knowledge and insight into the game.



At BE and 91.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

There are 22 lower bowl sections (one mostly blank, players entrance). They'll still make the first two rows premium, so the lost rows will be behind those.

For ease of discussion, 2 rows * 20 seats per row * 21 sections * 41 regular season games * $100 average price (range is 80-130) = $3.45 mil.....that's a lot to "spread around"....and that doesn't include preseason or playoffs (much higher priced).

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Now you just make rows 3&4 to 1&2, 4&5 to 3 &4 and get rid of the last two rows in the arena. Hell you can even raise the price of every seat in the nose bleeds $0.50 to cover the cost of those lost rows

Let's assume for ease of discussion there are 10k upper bowl seats.


10000 * .50 * 41 games = $205k recovered out of the $3+ mil in lost revenue.

Each seat would have to go up about $8 to recover that. In the upper bowl that's about a 15-35% increase in pricing.

 

[Langway]

Engblom saying that Oates is consulting with Stamkos and slurping Oates about all his knowledge and insight into the game.



At BE and 91.

Ovechkin still uses him too:

His decision to accept a Blues tryout was helped by former Devils coach Adam Oates, whom Gomez has hired as a paid consultant.

"I spent a lot of time going over teams with Oatsie. I was actually golfing with Oatsie and we went over teams," Gomez recalled. "Marty and Armstrong kind of laid out the opportunity. At this age it was a tryout. My mindset was once I got in there I was going to stay....

"I hired him as a consultant. Nothing free in this life," Gomez said. "Probably every other day he goes over my offense and makes sure my angles are right and my passing. We don't go over systems. Lots of guys are working with him.

"That guy brought me back from the dead. You bet I was going to take advantage. Zach (Parise) works with him, (Alex) Ovechkin, (Steven) Stamkos. There is a list of guys working with him."

He said Oates doesn't interfere with anything, just makes suggestions.

Kind of a weird role all-around, albeit much more suited to the strengths Oates brings to the table.

 

[ChibiPooky]

There are 22 lower bowl sections (one mostly blank, players entrance). They'll still make the first two rows premium, so the lost rows will be behind those.

For ease of discussion, 2 rows * 20 seats per row * 21 sections * 41 regular season games * $100 average price (range is 80-130) = $3.45 mil.....that's a lot to "spread around"....and that doesn't include preseason or playoffs (much higher priced).

Let's assume for ease of discussion there are 10k upper bowl seats.


10000 * .50 * 41 games = $205k recovered out of the $3+ mil in lost revenue.

Each seat would have to go up about $8 to recover that. In the upper bowl that's about a 15-35% increase in pricing.

This is also to say nothing of the fact that if they could feasibly increase prices, they would have already. These sports franchises and arenas have very good pricing and market analysts who do a lot of work to make sure everything is optimally priced to generate the maximum gross margin. Changing price point would mean a net decrease from that maximum.

That would, in turn, affect HRR and the salary cap - so maybe the PA would be against it as well.

 

[Calicaps]

Ovechkin still uses him too:

Kind of a weird role all-around, albeit much more suited to the strengths Oates brings to the table.

Well, he did help Ovie is some very obvious ways, so ok. Yeah, I suppose it makes sense for him to work with specific players who he truly gets.

But I persist in LMAO at Engblom for the all the gushing.

 

[g00n]

There are 22 lower bowl sections (one mostly blank, players entrance). They'll still make the first two rows premium, so the lost rows will be behind those.

For ease of discussion, 2 rows * 20 seats per row * 21 sections * 41 regular season games * $100 average price (range is 80-130) = $3.45 mil.....that's a lot to "spread around"....and that doesn't include preseason or playoffs (much higher priced).

Let's assume for ease of discussion there are 10k upper bowl seats.


10000 * .50 * 41 games = $205k recovered out of the $3+ mil in lost revenue.

Each seat would have to go up about $8 to recover that. In the upper bowl that's about a 15-35% increase in pricing.

21 sections? The rink only needs to be made 15 feet wider in total to be olympic size (7.5 feet either direction). The ends don't have to change. It would probably only be 10 sections directly to the side of the rink (101,102,109-113,120,121), or maybe 14 depending on how much as to be taken off the very corners (103,108,114,119).

http://cdn.mse.psddev.com/53/48/5b5a25ef49cb904db48be59888bd/caps-seating-chart-2015-16.jpg

It's probably about 200 seats at whatever cost per ticket in the back of those side 100s (there are so many plans I can't tell what's normal). The capacity for hockey is 18,506. Spread the money lost per game from those 200 seats to the rest of those 18,306 we supposedly sell out.

Let's say it's $125 per ticket at 200 tickets lost per game. That's $25,000 split 18,306 ways, or $1.36 per ticket. And that's only if you want to distribute it evenly instead of putting more of the difference on the pricier seats so it hits those who are more likely to absorb the cost.

Even if it's 400 lost seats that's still not much when spread around. Unless I'm missing something here.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

200 seats? I think it's much more, but maybe less than I suggested initially. This overlay shows that all but the 2 sections at each end would be affected. Those are also the smallest sections width wise at the end.

7.5 feet on either side = 2 rows * 20 seats * 18 sections * 41 games * $100 = $2.95 mil, again NOT including preseason, playoffs, ANNUALLY. PLUS construction costs.

 

[g00n]

200 seats? I think it's much more, but maybe less than I suggested initially. This overlay shows that all but the 2 sections at each end would be affected. Those are also the smallest sections width wise at the end.

7.5 feet on either side = 2 rows * 20 seats * 18 sections * 41 games * $100 = $2.95 mil, again NOT including preseason, playoffs, ANNUALLY. PLUS construction costs.

There would probably only be 10 sections affected significantly. You can see all 5 on one side in this image:

https://seatgeek.com/venues/verizon-center/seating-chart/washington-capitals-3764/section-100/

Seats lost on the corners would be minimal (see the overhead chart with the maintenance tunnels leaving only a few seats rinkside).

If you count the seats it's about 12 in the front for the wedge shaped sections like 113, and 20 or so in the middle 3. So one row per side is around 85 seats for sake of argument, and about 170 per side so 340 which is under that 400 number I threw out but over 200. Even at 340 seats that's still a redistribution among 18,000 other tickets, which isn't that much.



But someone (chibi?) mentioned earlier, how much of this is practical with the renovation aspect? This view shows the problem clearly:

https://seatgeek.com/venues/verizon-center/seating-chart/washington-capitals-3764/section-103/


The concrete base at rink level of the VIPs might be OK to adapt to the new rink size, but the new VIP seats would be much higher than the current ones. It would be impractical to tier down one row as you'd need to change them all, and that would mean significant restructuring.

So imo it ain't happening, but not because of ticket loss so much as structural issues. The league is not going to gamble on a slight percentage increase in scoring at the cost of dozens of expensive arena makeovers.

 

[Devil Dancer]

So imo it ain't happening, but not because of ticket loss so much as structural issues. The league is not going to gamble on a slight percentage increase in scoring at the cost of dozens of expensive arena makeovers.

There won't be any increase in scoring, Olympic ice is bad for offense. Hasn't the big ice myth been busted here? The boards are too far away from the goal, so turnovers don't lead to scoring chances as much, and teams tend to pass the puck around the perimeter more.

It's boring hockey.

 

[Acallabeth]

Hockey can be boring or exciting on any ice.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

As one article said about NHL players on Olympic ice. Faster players look slow and slow players looked terribly slow. Never happen, but primarily due to the economics of it.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

There would probably only be 10 sections affected significantly. You can see all 5 on one side in this image:

https://seatgeek.com/venues/verizon-center/seating-chart/washington-capitals-3764/section-100/

Seats lost on the corners would be minimal (see the overhead chart with the maintenance tunnels leaving only a few seats rinkside).

If you count the seats it's about 12 in the front for the wedge shaped sections like 113, and 20 or so in the middle 3. So one row per side is around 85 seats for sake of argument, and about 170 per side so 340 which is under that 400 number I threw out but over 200. Even at 340 seats that's still a redistribution among 18,000 other tickets, which isn't that much.



But someone (chibi?) mentioned earlier, how much of this is practical with the renovation aspect? This view shows the problem clearly:

https://seatgeek.com/venues/verizon-center/seating-chart/washington-capitals-3764/section-103/


The concrete base at rink level of the VIPs might be OK to adapt to the new rink size, but the new VIP seats would be much higher than the current ones. It would be impractical to tier down one row as you'd need to change them all, and that would mean significant restructuring.

So imo it ain't happening, but not because of ticket loss so much as structural issues. The league is not going to gamble on a slight percentage increase in scoring at the cost of dozens of expensive arena makeovers.

Well hey at least you raised your estimate based on the clear pictures that most sections would be impacted and it's clearly more 10 sections and even so, those are the most expensive seats in the building. I'd bet it's closer to 600+, but I don't care to argue what's right there in the overlay diagram. As I also said, construction costs and complications plus the annual lost revenue, that's not insignificant and you have enough financial deterrent. Then add on top of that, the hockey would probably suck and the idea is sunk.

A quick google search shows an article that says at a minimum it would cost each team several million to make the transition, not including annual losses of seating.

 

[hb12xchamps]

Draisaitl certainly is making the Oilers feel better about the McDavid injury. 17 points in 10 games is pretty impressive