Bettman says no expansion or relocation; why were Conferences made unequal?

[Grudy0]

Biggest myth that people believe on this board right now:

That the NHL will give any consideration whatsoever to balanced conferences when relocating or expanding.

...It's a non-factor.

I think that some of us who've been saying this are simply being ignored. For example, check most of my posts on this thread.

First consideration is simple: MONEY. Does a team in Seattle, Quebec, or anywhere else generate more money for the LEAGUE, which in turn will trickle down to the teams.

Second consideration is also simple: POLITICS. Balsillie couldn't buy his way into the boys club. There's a chance that some potential host cities may ruffle the feathers of others *cough* GTA *cough*.

There really aren't any other considerations. Realignment can be put into both the above categories, but unless realignment causes a major upset in the balance of the money or the politics, it's a moot point.

 

[MoreOrr]

I think that some of us who've been saying this are simply being ignored. For example, check most of my posts on this thread.

First consideration is simple: MONEY. Does a team in Seattle, Quebec, or anywhere else generate more money for the LEAGUE, which in turn will trickle down to the teams.

Second consideration is also simple: POLITICS. Balsillie couldn't buy his way into the boys club. There's a chance that some potential host cities may ruffle the feathers of others *cough* GTA *cough*.

There really aren't any other considerations. Realignment can be put into both the above categories, but unless realignment causes a major upset in the balance of the money or the politics, it's a moot point.

Perhaps we didn't put it in simple enough terms, Grudy0. But yea, I had been thinking to make a similar comment but decided, ahh, whatever, someone is being applauded for it.

 

[tsanuri]

I think that some of us who've been saying this are simply being ignored. For example, check most of my posts on this thread.

First consideration is simple: MONEY. Does a team in Seattle, Quebec, or anywhere else generate more money for the LEAGUE, which in turn will trickle down to the teams.

Second consideration is also simple: POLITICS. Balsillie couldn't buy his way into the boys club. There's a chance that some potential host cities may ruffle the feathers of others *cough* GTA *cough*.

There really aren't any other considerations. Realignment can be put into both the above categories, but unless realignment causes a major upset in the balance of the money or the politics, it's a moot point.

There is also another consideration that many of the small market teams that want to keep the cap lower. And that is how long would said team take to start making money? I think all of us know that a second team in GTA would be amount the league leaders in revenue but that would also raise the cap. We don't know how many of the teams don't want this and never will. Where a team in Seattle should be ok it would take them maybe the 20 years it's taken San Jose to get to where they are. That is another big angle to the politics behind it.

 

[Killion]

There is also another consideration that many of the small market teams that want to keep the cap lower...

Yes I believe your quite correct about that, certainly a factor. Cap system would be seriously skewered as it is if the Leafs for example went seriously deep in the playoffs even one year let alone 2, 4 or 6 as it is. Adding another team be it Relo or Expansion to a market like that causing serious pains for half the league at least.

 

[Mightygoose]

Yes I believe your quite correct about that, certainly a factor. Cap system would be seriously skewered as it is if the Leafs for example went seriously deep in the playoffs even one year let alone 2, 4 or 6 as it is. Adding another team be it Relo or Expansion to a market like that causing serious pains for half the league at least.

mathematically, that could be the case. Though the league increasing the servings of outdoor games to 6 would cause those same kind of pain to the lower revenue teams, so I doubt that would be a serious factor on where future teams are placed.

But if that theory is true, then at least the Leafs mediocrity can be explained

 

[BigZ65]

Yes I believe your quite correct about that, certainly a factor. Cap system would be seriously skewered as it is if the Leafs for example went seriously deep in the playoffs even one year let alone 2, 4 or 6 as it is. Adding another team be it Relo or Expansion to a market like that causing serious pains for half the league at least.

Do the Leafs get more media money for playoffs? Otherwise, the difference between the Leafs and another team going on that run isn't going to be notable.

 

[Grudy0]

Yes I believe your quite correct about that, certainly a factor. Cap system would be seriously skewered as it is if the Leafs for example went seriously deep in the playoffs even one year let alone 2, 4 or 6 as it is. Adding another team be it Relo or Expansion to a market like that causing serious pains for half the league at least.

mathematically, that could be the case. Though the league increasing the servings of outdoor games to 6 would cause those same kind of pain to the lower revenue teams, so I doubt that would be a serious factor on where future teams are placed.

But if that theory is true, then at least the Leafs mediocrity can be explained

Increasing the outdoor games to 6 doesn't really affect the lower revenue teams. Let's keep in mind that the League pays each "home" team a sellout gate, so the team isn't missing out on much, and then the profits after the payout go directly to the League, which then splits that revenue approximately 30 ways.

In other words, it doesn't hurt if the League generates more and more revenue; it's only the disparity between large and small revenue teams that causes the issues, i.e., if the Leafs make a handy run through the playoffs.

 

[Fugu]

Do the Leafs get more media money for playoffs? Otherwise, the difference between the Leafs and another team going on that run isn't going to be notable.

No, but the Leafs get about $2 million per game during the regular season in gate receipts. Playoff prices are always much higher, so one could figure $15 million+ per playoff round. If they make it to 2-3... that's a lot of incremental revenue.

 

[BigZ65]

No, but the Leafs get about $2 million per game during the regular season in gate receipts. Playoff prices are always much higher, so one could figure $15 million+ per playoff round. If they make it to 2-3... that's a lot of incremental revenue.

How much more would that be than say Boston or Montreal going on that same run?

The difference between a Leaf dynasty and a Panther dynasty would be notable for sure, I don't think the difference is big enough to make a notable impact on overall HRR if you're looking at the Leafs, or the Habs, or the Bruins, or the Flyers or Pens or any of the teams that really have the financial ability to have sustained success hosting those playoff games.