Toggle sidebar

And what about NHL Reduction?

Fenway

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
68,796
98,889
Cambridge, MA
alko said:
Last time, when they kicked some teams, were back in 40s?

And from that time its always + + + .

What all must happen, that the NHL will take "KHL route"? That the will decide, it is too much, we need only 24 teams.
Click to expand...

The last NHL franchise to vanish was the Cleveland Barons in 1978 as they 'merged' with the North Stars. Cleveland had relocated from Oakland in 1976 but it was doomed from the start.

Cleveland's not barren

 
Nino33

Nino33

Registered User
Jul 5, 2015
1,828
441
alko said:
Last time, when they kicked some teams, were back in 40s?

And from that time its always + + + .

What all must happen, that the NHL will take "KHL route"? That the will decide, it is too much, we need only 24 teams.
Click to expand...
I didn't think it was the KHL that decided "we need only 24 teams," I thought they were forced to do something because they couldn't afford the loses anymore

The KHL makes about 20% of the revenue the NHL does, and doesn't seem to have a sustainable business model (hard to know things for sure as basic facts are hidden/unknown compared to NA but their efforts in recent years show even they realized there's issues), so I think the KHL's problems are largely self induced (trying to compete with the NHL)

The NHL would need a competing league that was actual competition for players/attention (financially), and there's nothing like that around (the WHA existed the last time the NHL contracted the Cleveland Barons)


P.S. Look at how the NHL does expansion, what the cost is for a team and what has to be in place (including a season ticket base), and compare it to the KHL's process...the KHL's doesn't seem to have the same concern for business/sustainability
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anisimovs AK and smitty10

patnyrnyg

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
10,849
875
alko said:
Last time, when they kicked some teams, were back in 40s?

And from that time its always + + + .

What all must happen, that the NHL will take "KHL route"? That the will decide, it is too much, we need only 24 teams.
Click to expand...
OK. I will play along. In 3 years, they will wake up and realize they should only have 24 teams. So, that means 8 teams have to go. Should they just dissolve? What happens to those who are in a lease with a city for an arena? Will the city just free them from their financial obligation after the city/state spent millions building the arena? Are the owners of those 8 teams just going to be ok with leaving because "that is what is best for the league"? So, now I ask which lawsuit should the nhl deal with first? Municipalities? Owners? NHLPA? Yes, just getting rid of 8 teams would be such a simple task.

I always thought 24 was the perfect number. In the late 80s, I thought they should add 3 teams to get to 24 and 4 divisions of 6. They added San Jose, then Tampa and Ottawa and I thought it was perfect. Then they announced Anaheim and Florida quickly after and the idea of 24 went bye-bye.
 

SCBlueLiner

Registered User
Dec 27, 2013
327
100
There is more than enough talent worldwide to support the, now 32, NHL teams, and probably enough to go to 36. Why are we talking about contraction? Did you all not watch what Vegas did last year? A team made up of mostly 3rd liners finally gets the chance to play some top level minutes and, boom, made it to the SCF.

There is a depth of talent out there today, much, much, much more than there was decades ago. The NCAA is now contributing 30+% of the players to the league, and there aren't even enough NCAA D1 hockey schools in the USA for all the talent so very good players are ending up in D3 and ACHA D1. The USA overall is contributing more and more depth and high level players to the NHL. European talent all over the NHL. The NHL is no longer just a league of mostly Canadian players, it is truly a worldwide league. The talent depth is there for even more expansion if the NHL wants to do it, but it may be a good idea to what a decade or two before adding on. Give it 10 to 20 years before adding more teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henkka, oknazevad, ponder719 and 5 others
Summer Rose

Summer Rose

Red Like Roses
Sponsor
May 3, 2012
91,099
21,401
Gainesville, Florida
There are too many financial safety nets in place in the United States and Canada for a team to ever have to fold again. If what happened to the Coyotes with bankruptcy and league ownership happened in the 1920's, they would have folded as a franchise too, like the Maroons/Pirates/Quakers/etc. did. It did set the precedent that the league would rather buy a team and have the league own it than allow a franchise to shut down, though.

Edit: also, the NHLPA would throw a fit (and rightly so) if the league ever made an attempt to intentionally contract.
 
edog37

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,079
1,628
Pittsburgh
SCBlueLiner said:
There is more than enough talent worldwide to support the, now 32, NHL teams, and probably enough to go to 36. Why are we talking about contraction? Did you all not watch what Vegas did last year? A team made up of mostly 3rd liners finally gets the chance to play some top level minutes and, boom, made it to the SCF.

There is a depth of talent out there today, much, much, much more than there was decades ago. The NCAA is now contributing 30+% of the players to the league, and there aren't even enough NCAA D1 hockey schools in the USA for all the talent so very good players are ending up in D3 and ACHA D1. The USA overall is contributing more and more depth and high level players to the NHL. European talent all over the NHL. The NHL is no longer just a league of mostly Canadian players, it is truly a worldwide league. The talent depth is there for even more expansion if the NHL wants to do it, but it may be a good idea to what a decade or two before adding on. Give it 10 to 20 years before adding more teams.
Click to expand...

agreed. I thought the talent pool would be reduced, but it is very strong. New sources of talent are popping up (Matthews came out of Arizona), so it looks like the NHL's strategy of going to non-traditional markets is beginning to pay off.
 
vorky

vorky

@vorkywh24
Jan 23, 2010
11,413
1,272
Nino33 said:
I didn't think it was the KHL that decided "we need only 24 teams," I thought they were forced to do something because they couldn't afford the loses anymore

The KHL makes about 20% of the revenue the NHL does, and doesn't seem to have a sustainable business model (hard to know things for sure as basic facts are hidden/unknown compared to NA but their efforts in recent years show even they realized there's issues), so I think the KHL's problems are largely self induced (trying to compete with the NHL)

The NHL would need a competing league that was actual competition for players/attention (financially), and there's nothing like that around (the WHA existed the last time the NHL contracted the Cleveland Barons)


P.S. Look at how the NHL does expansion, what the cost is for a team and what has to be in place (including a season ticket base), and compare it to the KHL's process...the KHL's doesn't seem to have the same concern for business/sustainability
Click to expand...
What you wrote is only 10% of reasons for the KHL´s contraction. The rest is the league´s history and the future.

The KHL´s biggest problem is a list of teams. Some clubs need to go and be replaced by another one. The same has happened to the NHL during its history. All relocations are about this. The KHL needs to get rid of some clubs to accept new clubs. As simple as that.

Regarding the NHL. Agree, the NHL needs a competitor. The NHL level is not what it used to be. An expansion is one of reasons.
 
Nino33

Nino33

Registered User
Jul 5, 2015
1,828
441
vorky said:
What you wrote is only 10% of reasons for the KHL´s contraction. The rest is the league´s history and the future.

The KHL´s biggest problem is a list of teams. Some clubs need to go and be replaced by another one. The same has happened to the NHL during its history. All relocations are about this. The KHL needs to get rid of some clubs to accept new clubs. As simple as that.
Click to expand...
I don't get your spin, as that's still 100% financial
The "history and future" is the KHL spent money in it's history it didn't have, and now in the future it can't keep doing that...the teams leaving can't afford to stay, and they're hoping the teams they add can afford it...that's all financial, as simple as that
 
Glacial

Glacial

Registered User
Jan 8, 2013
1,704
116
Expanding population in Canada & the US... check
Expanding economies in Canada & the US... check
Pipeline for NHL-level talent from Europe to come over... check

Yep, looks like the time to start contracting. Let's start with the Maple Leafs & Rangers. :sarcasm:
 
Dirty Old Man

Dirty Old Man

So funny I forgot to laugh
Sponsor
Jan 29, 2008
7,951
6,041
Ostrich City
patnyrnyg said:
OK, so start by contracting the Bruins since you want to improve things for the fans.
Click to expand...

Oh, come now, try to see it from his Original 6 perspective...

What if the NHL had 6 teams, and each of those teams had 4 or 5 farm clubs each in NHL-B, where all those other non-all-star-caliber players belong? :rolleyes:
 
smitty10

smitty10

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
9,805
2,647
Toronto
North America has enough money and large markets that the NHL could realistically have 34 teams. Houston, Quebec City, Toronto and Portland could all support an NHL club. Atlanta was run out of the league due to terrible ownership in 2011, but could take on a franchise almost immediately. I think you grant Toronto and Portland expansion franchises. Relocate Florida to Quebec City and Arizona to Houston. Doesn't really affect the balance of conferences and two teams that aren't financially successful get a fresh start.

I would also like to see Atlanta get back in the league after their last ownership group screwed them. I feel like that won't happen any time soon though...
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,420
4,280
Auburn, Maine
smitty10 said:
North America has enough money and large markets that the NHL could realistically have 34 teams. Houston, Quebec City, Toronto and Portland could all support an NHL club. Atlanta was run out of the league due to terrible ownership in 2011, but could take on a franchise almost immediately. I think you grant Toronto and Portland expansion franchises. Relocate Florida to Quebec City and Arizona to Houston. Doesn't really affect the balance of conferences and two teams that aren't financially successful get a fresh start.

I would also like to see Atlanta get back in the league after their last ownership group screwed them. I feel like that won't happen any time soon though...
Click to expand...
what the majority of posters are not admitting to themselves, is where do NHL franchises assign players,

as has been stated ad nauseum FLORIDA cannot be relocated ANYWHERE unless posters want to send 40 M to Broward County
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom