Home/Away vs Everyone is Bad for Business
- Thread starter KevFu
- Start date
So basically you want NHL to be like MLB where 3/4 of the entire 82 games is basically divisional/conference games? I don't think so. People would rather see Detroit, Washington toronto, Pittsburgh at home than seeing another divisional game or another conference game. So its important that the league has a team have 1 home and away match for everyone opponent.
Not having home and away also loses money. Washington or pittsburgh @ Seattle will be a bigger draw than another Coyotes @ Seattle match.
Not having home and away also loses money. Washington or pittsburgh @ Seattle will be a bigger draw than another Coyotes @ Seattle match.
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 9,467
- 8,157
I don't know if the non conference home and away is a product of marketing, as much as way to level travelling, which gives Eastern teams a distinct advantage, in that respect. And it's a way to ensure that every market gets to see their favourite stars. Going to be harder to schieve in a 32 team environment. Unless the NHL goes 34 games vs division, 5 games for all but one team, and 2 (home and away) for each non divisional rival, for a total of 48. Which I think is fair.
Tommy,
I have no idea what you are trying to say here....
If you are trying to say that, for example, Wild fans would rather see the following teams at the X:
Detroit, Washington, Toronto and Pittsburgh
than they would another game versus:
St Louis, Nashville, Dallas and Winnipeg.....
If that is what you are trying to say....
That's NOT what Kev is saying. What Kev is saying is that, if I am a random Wild fan, I'm more likely to attend this group:
Ariz, San Jose, Edmonton, Calgary, Nashville, Chicago, St Louis and Colorado
than I am this group:
Buffalo, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Rangers and Pittsburgh.
You will notice that I chose a random full spectrum from each conference.
Kev has always said that....
YES: Western fans want to see Pitts, and Wash, but...
NO: They don't want to see Ottawa and Columbus.
And, that the downturn from the NO is greater than the upturn from the YES.
And playing the same teams over over and over gets called one thing boring. No home away for part of the schedule = bad for the NHL.
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
You can't just say the attendance is higher, therefore it is bad. What days are these non-conference matchups taking place?
Every team wants Crosby and other stars once a year.
To me, the best way to tweak things is to make conference games outside the division 1 and 1 as well and play more games in the division.
To me, the best way to tweak things is to make conference games outside the division 1 and 1 as well and play more games in the division.
KevFu
Registered User
People SAY that. But that data above is what tickets fans bought last year.
The travel is the only valid argument I’ve seen, and I’d say the better plan for that would be: 6 vs division (42), 3 vs Conference (24), 1 vs non-conference (16)…
Put the Smythe/Patrick in one conference and Norris/Adams in the other.
That equalizes travel because the biggest “wear and tear” aspect of the Western Conference is that virtually EVERYONE is far apart from other teams, so EVERY GAME on a road trip (Except LA/ANA) requires a long flight.
While in the East 13 teams are really close. The Smythe fly to New Jersey, hop on a bus for NYR/NYI/NJD/PHI twice would be less travel than flying from WIN-MIN-CHI-STL twice.
And that’s my point… The data shows that each market is DOES care about SIX visiting stars from the other conference. But don’t care about the other teams. So it’s a loss.
Of course there’s variety of factors at play. How each teams are in the standings, other city teams in their playoffs, promotional giveaways, flex pricing.
The Sabres use flex pricing to maximize attendance, and their data shows that DAY OF WEEK matters more than anything else.
But it’s not like the NHL schedule is slating “Every Non-Conference Game is on a Tuesday.”
Over the course of 1271 games, the distribution of non-conference games will be spread out over the days of the week pretty evenly.
Eh I disagree too many division games makes divisional games rather stale over time.
So just cause data says something doesn't mean its a great idea to chance the schedule just for the sake of changing the schedule. It messes things up even more. Don't mess with something that doesn't need to be messed with.
its good for the game to have part of the schedule be home and away. Seattle has quite a red wing fan base so basically you are saying that teh NHL should screw red wing fans and tell them i'm sorry you aren't going to see your team play in Seattle you must get some other not so great team like the coyotes again. It is not going to happen.
^^^^ Tommy,
First you act like Seattle is entitled to a team (a few years ago).
Then you act like Seattle gets to choose the alignment that they want (Calgary/Edmonton over Arizona/Colorado),
Now are acting like Seattle gets to choose the scheduling matrix.
The league isn't going to revolve around Seattle.
As to the schedule.....
What actually makes $$ sense is not necessarily what the BOG will do. I fully expect the schedule to be:
Home/Away with everyone
All remaining games in division
Even though I maintain that best would be:
6 games vs all division opponents
2 games vs 2 full divisions of the other 3
1 game vs the last division
with the paired divisions rotating.
Which means that, for example, Seattle fans would get to see the Wings in Seattle 5 years out of 6.
First you act like Seattle is entitled to a team (a few years ago).
Then you act like Seattle gets to choose the alignment that they want (Calgary/Edmonton over Arizona/Colorado),
Now are acting like Seattle gets to choose the scheduling matrix.
The league isn't going to revolve around Seattle.
As to the schedule.....
What actually makes $$ sense is not necessarily what the BOG will do. I fully expect the schedule to be:
Home/Away with everyone
All remaining games in division
Even though I maintain that best would be:
6 games vs all division opponents
2 games vs 2 full divisions of the other 3
1 game vs the last division
with the paired divisions rotating.
Which means that, for example, Seattle fans would get to see the Wings in Seattle 5 years out of 6.
Oh for heaven sakes. I can't use seattle as an example as to why going away from home and away vs all opponents for part of the season is a bad idea.
Home/away vs everyone else and the rest be division games is also a bad idea. Too many division games makes it very very stale and boring. Boring games = bad for the NHL.
So let screw the whole league just for the sake of schedule screw half the league just so one team stays in their division. Its not going to happen and you know that.
Revenue optimization is more complex than butts in seats, both short term and long term.
Have you actually counted@!!!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!
With 32 teams, 8 in each division, let's try counting....
1- You want home/away with the other conference. That's 32.
2- You want 3 games with the other division of your own conference? That would be 24.
Hello!!!! At this point you have 26 games left. You can't even play everyone in your own division 4 times each because that would make an 84 game schedule, and the PA is not likely to go for that.
For Central teams, the change to the schedule which I suggested above amounts to this:
1-Lose 1 game/yr (NOT 1 home game, but 1 game) with the Pacific.
2- Add 4 of those games to the Central versus the new 8th team in the division.
That leaves 4 games. 4 games different than the current schedule. 4 games.
For Eastern Conference teams, who now play (30 vs West), (24 vs other East) (28 vs own East),
the difference would be:
1- Add 2 games against Seattle. These would be lost from somewhere, and in order to make the divisions mean anything they have to be lost from "Other East".
2- Move 6 games from "Other East" to "Own East"
It's 6 games. 6 games. That's very little difference.
If you get the schedule you want:
H/A vs other conf = 32
3 vs other div = 24
Rest in division.....
Then the division break effectively means NOTHING, and you might just as well have 2 16-team conferences.
Is that what you want!?
If i was a season ticket owner for a seattle team. I want to see all 31 teams at home. Not 3/5 of the home games be the same teams over and over and over again just for the sake of $$.
Ruin the game by having the same teams over and over again will cause people to cancel season tickets. Its bad for the league.
And how do you know that the NHLPA will be against making more $$$. And since when the NHLPA get to dictate every darn thing that NHL does that includes schedule. IF the NHL wants to go 84 games then it'll go 84 games and its not worth a loss of season or loss of games for the NHLPA to fight over 2 additional games.
Go back to my initial suggestion of what the schedule will be:
It's 4 divisions of 8 teams each.
In your division you play 6 teams 5 times, and the other team 4 times. That makes 34 games. Comparing to the present schedule, this is 1 (yes 1) extra game per year against 6 of the teams in your division.
And, the rest of the games are home/away with all the other 24 teams.
4 or 5 games against a divisional opponent hardly classifies as "playing the same teams over and over again." At least, to me, it doesn't.
As for Kev's initial idea in the OP:
The numbers suggest, anyway, that if the objective is sheerly # in the seats, or perhaps $$ from ticket-sales, that home/away with everyone is NOT the best.
However, my own analysis of that is that it is NOT a big difference, and that for the appearance of things, a top-level league wants to get everyone everywhere if possible.
KevFu
Registered User
The fact that there's an argument over NUMBERS when there's ONE FORMULA for H/A vs everyone in the league that can possibly work illustrates my point.
There's not enough games to play everyone a number of times that satisfies what people want.
4 vs division = 28 games.
2 vs everyone else = 48 games
That's 76 games and six more to play with. Currently, it's six of seven division teams another time.
So Winnipeg is going to play Florida and Carolina the same number of times as they play Edmonton.
And Boston is going to play Vegas the same number of times as they play the NY Rangers.
And Columbus is going to play Detroit the same number of times they play Anaheim.
But if you dump the H/A vs everyone, you have the freedom to set the schedule in a massive variety of ways.
The only argument AGAINST dumping H/A basically amounts to "People want to see everyone," when we can prove they actually don't.
That data isn't the end-all-be-all of sports finance. But the simple fact is, if generalities like "more local TV games = more revenue" are going to be the reason for everything else people decide with regards to divisions and alignment... why are we disregarding it when it comes to the schedule, AKA TV INVENTORY.
There's not enough games to play everyone a number of times that satisfies what people want.
4 vs division = 28 games.
2 vs everyone else = 48 games
That's 76 games and six more to play with. Currently, it's six of seven division teams another time.
So Winnipeg is going to play Florida and Carolina the same number of times as they play Edmonton.
And Boston is going to play Vegas the same number of times as they play the NY Rangers.
And Columbus is going to play Detroit the same number of times they play Anaheim.
But if you dump the H/A vs everyone, you have the freedom to set the schedule in a massive variety of ways.
The only argument AGAINST dumping H/A basically amounts to "People want to see everyone," when we can prove they actually don't.
That data isn't the end-all-be-all of sports finance. But the simple fact is, if generalities like "more local TV games = more revenue" are going to be the reason for everything else people decide with regards to divisions and alignment... why are we disregarding it when it comes to the schedule, AKA TV INVENTORY.
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
How can you prove that people don't want to see everyone? Slightly less attendance doesn't mean that people don't want to see every team.
The numbers get more complex but I believe it is actually easier with 32 teams to get rid of the 4 division model. Each conference should have 3 divisions, 1 with 6 teams and the other 2 with 5. You play your division 4 times, the other conference teams 3 times, and the 16 teams in the other conference twice. 1 team within each 5 team division would play 4 times against a team that is withing the other 5 team division in that same conference. This is better for the west coast as the NHL will have 6 teams in the pacific time zone, 4 in mountain, and 6 in the central.
Whatever scheduling format you use should be taken into consideration when you determine your playoff format.
I believe there are ways to compensate the teams in the 6 team division fairly for having to have an extra team. I would guarantee 3 playoff spots to the 6 team division, and only 2 spots for the other 2 divisions. There would be 2 wild cards, then for a total of 9 teams. 8 would play 9 in a 1 game playoff.
Whatever scheduling format you use should be taken into consideration when you determine your playoff format.
I believe there are ways to compensate the teams in the 6 team division fairly for having to have an extra team. I would guarantee 3 playoff spots to the 6 team division, and only 2 spots for the other 2 divisions. There would be 2 wild cards, then for a total of 9 teams. 8 would play 9 in a 1 game playoff.
Much easier with that schedule is to go back to:
Division Champs auto-qualify.
Top 8 make the playoffs.
Schedule is very balanced. What you are proposing is essentially this:
2 conferences:
Each conference plays the other conference home/away = 32
Each conference plays everyone else in the conference 3 times = 45
Each team plays 5 more games in conference.
The only thing separating schedules in each conference at that point is 5 games. That's so little that going to a Top8 model is probably best.
But it won't happen.
KevFu
Registered User
It's "slightly less" per game, by virtually every team in the league. And it's happened yet again. I looked up the same data previously and posted it a couple years ago. So this is just like "Yup, still happening."
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
Again, you can't know for sure unless you poll fans. Oh, New Jersey has better attendance in division games? This is a complete shock since two of the teams in their division are in the same metro area, another is 90 miles away and two other teams in the division have large numbers of bandwagon fans. WHAT AN ABSOLUTELY STUNNING DEVELOPMENT. This does not prove that New Jersey fans want to see more of the Rangers, Islanders, Flyers, Penguins and Capitals and not see the Stars, Blackhawks, Canucks, Kings, Sharks and Avs.
There are some very curious things in here, KevFu.
One, Arizona does better against Central teams than Pacific teams. hhmmm, realignment when Seattle joins?
Two, how can Buffalo do better against the West than their own division? Day of the week? Or, Ottawa, TBL and Flo games poorly attended?
Three, there is no reason to change Columbus' alignment.
Four, StL and Nas draw poorly against the West coast. This is expected, but clearly demonstrated here.
KevFu
Registered User
I think what someone else was saying -- (there's a lot of variables, you can't put TOO MUCH stock into each specific number) is totally true. I would NOT say "Put Buffalo in the West" based off that data, for example.
One thing that's heavily affecting the numbers is the fact that the Western teams are playing more non-conference home games (16) than they are "other division in our conference" home games (15) and more than they're playing DIVISION home games (10). When it's the average of 16 vs the average of 10, one big promotion carries a lot of weight.
I'm going to repeat that: Teams are playing more NON-CONFERENCE home games than Division Home Games (16 to 10), just because everyone needs to think about how insane that is.
The better way to look at the data would be: 24 out of 31 teams have "non-conference home games" as their lowest attended. And have for a long time. Buffalo and Nashville in 2016-17 fell in line with "Division > Conference > Non-Conference.
Vancouver is the only team in the league who hasn't fallen in line with that two years in a row (likely because they draw against the Canadian East teams and the Original 6 teams.... and 3 of their 10 division home games were against Arizona one year.
But the data itself isn't the real point. The point is simply: "is this the right way to allocate your inventory? I'd say no.
The schedule IS what you're selling. TV inventory and tickets. Having more non-conference games than MARQUEE division (aka Rivalry) games is simply stunning misallocation
The NHL isn't going to change things just based on some small potentially faulty sample of data. They'll go back looking at years and years of attendance data before doing anything.
And havely way too much division games can ruin things like i said. The job of the NHL is to keep things going good for the fan to continue to be interested in Season tickets. Having it being too bland from playing too many divisional games is not a good thing.
And havely way too much division games can ruin things like i said. The job of the NHL is to keep things going good for the fan to continue to be interested in Season tickets. Having it being too bland from playing too many divisional games is not a good thing.
