Jeremy Jacobs sends a strong signal Houston is next but relocation is unlikely

[KevFu]

#1 - I'm just telling you that when the MLB originally did its 16-14 thing, and people asked, they said that scheduling interleague play season long is more difficult.

Yup. But the “difficulty” in scheduling year-round interleague wasn’t actually making a schedule.

Scheduling with symmetrical groups is easier than asymmetrical groups. Scheduling with 5x6 is easier than it is to 4-5-5; 5-6-5, even including interleague.

Getting everyone to ACCEPT Year Round interleague was the difficult part. MLB simply wasn’t there. Interleague was sacrilege when they voted to expand and were trying to figure out the future alignment. They’d gone 93 seasons where AL and NL only met in the World Series.

When Houston was for sale, it was a good opportunity to say “Ok, it’s been 17 years, you’re fine with interleague now, we can have year-round interleague and no one is going to freak out.”

#2 - Having 5-6-5 in one league and 4-5-5 in the other IS unfair, unbalanced, or non-competitive, no matter whether you think so or not. It's not the 16-14 that's the problem. It's the 4-team division and the 6-team division. But a 4 against a 6 is DEFINITELY in some way not fair balance.

I don’t disagree with that specific point. I merely believe it’s moot.

This is a “you’re talking squares and I’m talking rectangles” thing. It doesn’t matter if divisions are four equal sides or four unequal sides if the only “Fair” situation is a CIRCLE (or straight line).

For example, the 4-team division and 6-team division are in different leagues. The argument that “It’s not fair to Cincinnati that they’re in a six-team NL division while Texas is in a four-team AL division” is moot.

Cincinnati is an NL team (in leagues with different RULES), making it 5-5-5 doesn’t make Cincinnati’s division assignment “Fair” compared to Texas.

You still have two groups in separate leagues based on A CENTURY OF HISTORY, and then smaller groups based on ZIP CODES within the history.

The only way to have it based on competitive fairness is “One table, balanced schedule” like Premier League Soccer.

Or maybe you could divide divisions by even distribution after indexing the teams by “historical goodness and financial resources.”

For example:
NYY-WAS-DET-BAL-TB / CWS-TOR-ATL-PHI-MIN / SFG-LAA-ARZ-SEA-SD
BOS-NYM-CLE-CIN-MIA / CHC-HOU-STL-PIT-MIL / LAD-TEX-OAK-COL-KC

 

[KevFu]

Now, back to Houston....I suppose you can say this discussion relates because: Why not just put seattle in the Pacific and make it 9-7-8-8

I think that the grid is designed to SERVE the league, and we tend to make the league SERVE the GRID.

I HATE 4-team divisions.....And, I know your preferred schedule is something like this:
6 games vs own division = 18
4 games vs rival division = 16
3 games vs own conference = 36
1 game vs all others = 12

And, to be truthful, I don't mind that. In fact, come to think of it, maybe your schedule is even more top heavy than that. But, the above schedule is actually very little different in travel from the present.

Here’s the thing, the NHL already HAS an unbalanced schedule within the division. The differences are very slight, and no one seems to mind.

I don’t like four-team divisions either. What if you keep the eight-team divisions for the standings, but your SCHEDULE GROUPS are those four-team divisions?

The old 6x5 format with 1-8 playoffs you had an 11-game difference between teams in different divisions competing for 1-8 seeds (8 vs division teams, 3 non-conferences)

If you did that schedule based on 4-team divisions, and standings with 8-team divisions, you’d have 10 different games (6 division differences, 4 non-conference). Is that massively unfair?

 

[KevFu]

Basically five or six additional road games where added in detriment to the heavy ETZ schedule. That reduction, besides forcing every team to visit every arena once, also slows the growth of the ETZ teams with respect to their TV contracts. It was mainly the ETZ teams that were beneficiaries of large local TV contract when close to 90 percent of the games had "normal" start times.

In other words, I'm simply stating that by forcing a balanced schedule to face all teams, it forces economic balance as the Eastern Conference teams now feel the pain of traveling to the West more often, having their television and travel expenses more impacted to mirror what was happening out West for almost two decades.

THAT is a very outstanding point. The change didn't maximize revenue for all, it was designed to make revenue GROWTH more consistent.

Although, I would say that we tend to overvalue these things as it pertains to TV contracts. We act like there's a direct ratio of "games out of time zone, subtract X dollars of TV revenue." And that's true for the ad revenue of the networks year to year, but NOT for team revenue. These contracts are long-term deals negotiated based on exclusivity.

If the NHL said "We're adding Quebec immediately, moving the Islanders in the Central Division until 2030 when Houston will join the league and be placed in the Central and the Islanders will return to the East." The Islanders aren't losing a dime of TV revenue. Their contract has been locked in since John Spano negotiated it in the 1990s. MSG Network would lose advertising dollars for Islanders games (assuming they sold ads that way. They probably wouldn't lose anything because more Islanders game would be on MSG and they wouldn't be selling Islanders-specific ads to MSG+ or MSG2 or whatever their structure is for having four NHL/NBA teams on one network).

 

[MNNumbers]

I think that the grid is designed to SERVE the league, and we tend to make the league SERVE the GRID.



Here’s the thing, the NHL already HAS an unbalanced schedule within the division. The differences are very slight, and no one seems to mind.

I don’t like four-team divisions either. What if you keep the eight-team divisions for the standings, but your SCHEDULE GROUPS are those four-team divisions?

The old 6x5 format with 1-8 playoffs you had an 11-game difference between teams in different divisions competing for 1-8 seeds (8 vs division teams, 3 non-conferences)

If you did that schedule based on 4-team divisions, and standings with 8-team divisions, you’d have 10 different games (6 division differences, 4 non-conference). Is that massively unfair?

So, let me get this straight:
Your proposal would be, for example (to make things easy)....put Arizona in the Central (move to Houston if you want...this is just an example)...add Seattle. So, you now have 4 8-team conferences.

Now, split the 8-team conferences in half, so you have 8 4-team groups. Then, recombine, NFL style, so there are 2 conference, each with teams from coast to coast. , And, further combine to Wales West and Wales East (for example) again making 8-team groups, which yields:
Wales West: EDM, CGY, VAN, SEA, STL, DAL, HOU, NAS
Campbell West: SJS, ANA, LAK, VGK, WPG, MIN, CHI, COL
Wales East: DET, TOR, OTT, BUF, CAR, NYR, NYI, NJ
Campbell East: MTL, BOS, TBL, FLA, CBJ, WAS, PIT, PHI

And, the schedule would be:
For EDM, CGY, VAN, SEA:
6 games vs each other = 18
4 games vs SJS, ANA, LAK, VGK = 16
3 games vs STL, DAL, HOU, NAS & Wales East = 36
1 game vs Campbell East & WPG, MIN, CHI, COL = 12

That gets you your 4 games at least against all of the West. The schedules are a little more imbalanced in that list than the way you wrote it, but they are nearer that current, if you compare Pacific to Central.

I would be ok with that, but it's a little complicated.

 

[KevFu]

So, let me get this straight:
Your proposal would be, for example (to make things easy)....put Arizona in the Central (move to Houston if you want...this is just an example)...add Seattle. So, you now have 4 8-team conferences.

Now, split the 8-team conferences in half, so you have 8 4-team groups. Then, recombine, NFL style, so there are 2 conference, each with teams from coast to coast.

Oh, I've probably lobbed like seven different alignment/schedule concepts out there and can't remember which one we’re discussing.

In this thread, I was saying that if we’re doing an 8-8-8-8 with Western & Eastern conferences, instead of:
5 vs division (except one team, 34 games)
2 vs non-division (48)

Do this with the schedule
6 vs 3 division opponents (18)
4 vs 4 division opponents (16)
4 vs conference opponents (32)
1 vs other conference (16)

Which is exactly the same schedule as 4 divisions per conference, 6 divisions, 4 vs conference, 1 vs other conferences.


I'm all for a radical MLB-style Wales/Campbell solution. But the "radical realignment" isn't happening with the expansion to Seattle. If they add Houston and Quebec for 34... 4 vs conference (64), 1 vs other conference (17), 1 vs main rival. Done.

Put the standings into divisions, whatever. Doesn't matter since the schedule is 81 balanced games and 1 different game

 

[gstommylee]

Oh, I've probably lobbed like seven different alignment/schedule concepts out there and can't remember which one we’re discussing.

In this thread, I was saying that if we’re doing an 8-8-8-8 with Western & Eastern conferences, instead of:
5 vs division (except one team, 34 games)
2 vs non-division (48)

Do this with the schedule
6 vs 3 division opponents (18)
4 vs 4 division opponents (16)
4 vs conference opponents (32)
1 vs other conference (16)

Which is exactly the same schedule as 4 divisions per conference, 6 divisions, 4 vs conference, 1 vs other conferences.


I'm all for a radical MLB-style Wales/Campbell solution. But the "radical realignment" isn't happening with the expansion to Seattle. If they add Houston and Quebec for 34... 4 vs conference (64), 1 vs other conference (17), 1 vs main rival. Done.

Put the standings into divisions, whatever. Doesn't matter since the schedule is 81 balanced games and 1 different game

There is no way they are going just 1 game per team for other Conference with 34 teams (thats assumption that they will do anyways) that would be bad for ticket sales and TV ratings.

 

[KevFu]

There is no way they are going just 1 game per team for other Conference with 34 teams (thats assumption that they will do anyways) that would be bad for ticket sales and TV ratings.

That's a ridiculous statement I've statistically disproven multiple times.

 

[MNNumbers]

Oh, I've probably lobbed like seven different alignment/schedule concepts out there and can't remember which one we’re discussing.

In this thread, I was saying that if we’re doing an 8-8-8-8 with Western & Eastern conferences, instead of:
5 vs division (except one team, 34 games)
2 vs non-division (48)

Do this with the schedule
6 vs 3 division opponents (18)
4 vs 4 division opponents (16)
4 vs conference opponents (32)
1 vs other conference (16)

Which is exactly the same schedule as 4 divisions per conference, 6 divisions, 4 vs conference, 1 vs other conferences.


I'm all for a radical MLB-style Wales/Campbell solution. But the "radical realignment" isn't happening with the expansion to Seattle. If they add Houston and Quebec for 34... 4 vs conference (64), 1 vs other conference (17), 1 vs main rival. Done.

Put the standings into divisions, whatever. Doesn't matter since the schedule is 81 balanced games and 1 different game

Thanks. My comments???

1- I really doubt that they expand to Houston and Quebec. Really doubt it. I agree they want Houston, but I don't think they care at all about Quebec. So, if QC ever gets a team, it's an emergency relocation.

2- Concerning your schedule. The only thing I don't like about that is that I think the intention is to go to 4 independent conferences. I know that no one here talks about that, but I think the league tipped their hand about that way back before the present realignment. In that case, the "6vs 3 teams, but 4 vs everyone on your side of the continent" doesn't seem like it fits the 4-independent conference narrative. It's too strong a link between the Pacific and the Central, for example.

Generally, as much as it doesn't really matter, I think the league itself is sold on the home/away with everyone idea. And, I think that as much for national marketing as it is for local ticket sales. They want to appear like a big, major player who has a large presence all around the US. In order to do that, they can't really be seen limiting their schedule. (Again, I think this is internal BOG thinking - whether it actually makes sense or not doesn't matter because they are the ones making the decisions.) So, to look that way, they want to be able to say, "Hey, look at us. All the stars get to all the corners of the earth every year....."

And, for that case, I still like the logical arrangement is going to be

Vs conference (remember, there are only 4 conferences - no divisions) = 5 or 4 games = 34
Vs every one else = 2 games = 48.

And, if one tries to do the math otherwise and keep the current model.....
Vs other half of world - 32 games
vs other 8 teams in own half of world - 3 games = 24
And, now you have only 26 games left, and that's not enough to play your own group ALL 4 times each, because that would be 28.

So, something has to give. And, it just makes sense to go back to what I wrote above: 5/4 - 2

Although my own preference would still be:
vs own group: 6 games = 42
vs 2 of the other groups: 2 games = 32
vs 1 of the other groups: 1 game = 8
And, rotate who plays who only once. Calgary would miss Crosby and Buffalo would miss McDavid ONE time in 6 years. That's not much.

 

[KevFu]

2- Concerning your schedule. The only thing I don't like about that is that I think the intention is to go to 4 independent conferences. I know that no one here talks about that, but I think the league tipped their hand about that way back before the present realignment. In that case, the "6vs 3 teams, but 4 vs everyone on your side of the continent" doesn't seem like it fits the 4-independent conference narrative. It's too strong a link between the Pacific and the Central, for example.

Yeah, I remember the whole "two vs everyone else" and the rest in division thing.

And I'm not a fan. You're going to make everything in the standings be about the division, and I'm sure for TV purposes the Central and Pacific champs will square off in the semis. So why play 48 of 82 games against non-conference teams? NBA plays 30 of 82, MLB plays 10 of 81 (adjusted for comparison).

It does "balance travel" more so than the Western/Eastern Conferences (since the East is so much more compact).

But so would making the conferences "Coasts" and "Interior" (Patrick/Smythe in one, Norris/Adams in the other). Which I realize SOUNDS crazy, but really isn't. Western travel is grueling because almost EVERY GAME requires a pretty long flight. Flying from Vancouver to NY, camping in North Jersey and playing four games against NYR-NYI-NJD-PHI is a lot easier than going COL-ARZ-DAL-NASH because it's two really long flights vs five pretty long flights.

 

[MNNumbers]

Yeah, I remember the whole "two vs everyone else" and the rest in division thing.

And I'm not a fan. You're going to make everything in the standings be about the division, and I'm sure for TV purposes the Central and Pacific champs will square off in the semis. So why play 48 of 82 games against non-conference teams? NBA plays 30 of 82, MLB plays 10 of 81 (adjusted for comparison).

It does "balance travel" more so than the Western/Eastern Conferences (since the East is so much more compact).

But so would making the conferences "Coasts" and "Interior" (Patrick/Smythe in one, Norris/Adams in the other). Which I realize SOUNDS crazy, but really isn't. Western travel is grueling because almost EVERY GAME requires a pretty long flight. Flying from Vancouver to NY, camping in North Jersey and playing four games against NYR-NYI-NJD-PHI is a lot easier than going COL-ARZ-DAL-NASH because it's two really long flights vs five pretty long flights.

Actually I'd reseed the SemiFinals. They are going to play on opposite days anyway, so it really doesn't matter. Every game in every market is going to stand alone on TV.

Here's an interesting question Kev....

Let's assume that the league is sold on the home/away with all teams concept. (Complain about that somewhere else, let's just assume it isn't going away).....

Then, if that's true, what's your best alignment idea and schedule? Use the current alignment and tell me....

NBA, as you know plays 52 games in conference. That's 4 games against everyone (minus) one game against each of 4 teams.
NHL to do the same, has to start with only 50 games available. And, 15 teams to play. How would YOU do that?

 

[KevFu]

If that's how they're going with the H/A vs other conference, then I think you've got to 16 vs other division and 34 vs division. Which is the four-conference model.

But I still don't like it.

 

[Jokerit 16]

Rivalry with Dallas would be Good thing? Will Arizona moved to Houston?

Can Houston be hockey market?

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

I think expansion after Seattle won't happen for some time. 32 was a formula the NFL showed could work. 34 would be uncharted territory.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Rivalry with Dallas would be Good thing? Will Arizona moved to Houston?

Can Houston be hockey market?

Yes. No. Yes.

 

[rkhum]

Odds and timeline Houston gets a team?

 

[SkalbaniasGhost]

Odds and timeline Houston gets a team?

50% chance.
2021 - Labor peace/Media rights deal done.
2021 - Bettman retires
2023 - Expansion to 34
750 million expansion fee.
Fertitta has 40% stake in team.
Consortium (private equity - local entities) takes other 60% percent.

 

[voyageur]

50% chance.
2021 - Labor peace/Media rights deal done.
2021 - Bettman retires
2023 - Expansion to 34
750 million expansion fee.
Fertitta has 40% stake in team.
Consortium (private equity - local entities) takes other 60% percent.

I think Florida to Houston would be interesting. 2023. At no more than $500 million.

Then move all the Original Six teams into one division. With Buffalo and Ottawa??? That's a television gold mine (minus Ottawa). Tampa into the Patrick, replacing the Rangers.

Central division becomes the small market division.

 

[BigT2002]

Then move all the Original Six teams into one division. With Buffalo and Ottawa??? That's a television gold mine (minus Ottawa). Tampa into the Patrick, replacing the Rangers.

Central division becomes the small market division.

That is never going to happen.

 

[Hooby Dooby Doo]

I think Florida to Houston would be interesting. 2023. At no more than $500 million.

Then move all the Original Six teams into one division. With Buffalo and Ottawa??? That's a television gold mine (minus Ottawa). Tampa into the Patrick, replacing the Rangers.

Central division becomes the small market division.

At least you have the year correct for Florida's out clause, instead of everyone's "move them today!! "

 

[GuelphStormer]

I think Florida to Houston would be interesting. 2023. At no more than $500 million.

Then move all the Original Six teams into one division. With Buffalo and Ottawa??? That's a television gold mine (minus Ottawa). Tampa into the Patrick, replacing the Rangers.

Central division becomes the small market division.

i would be shocked if the league authorized the (relocation) purchase of any franchise for less than the established (expansion) price of $650M. certainly they have some flexibility in terms of relocation fees and who actually gets what money in the total transaction, but the minimum entry fee is now $650M. less than that would devalue all assets.

 

[gstommylee]

50% chance.
2021 - Labor peace/Media rights deal done.
2021 - Bettman retires
2023 - Expansion to 34
750 million expansion fee.
Fertitta has 40% stake in team.
Consortium (private equity - local entities) takes other 60% percent.

You do realize Bettman has no actually say in whether the league expands again and it always been the owners decision. NHL isn't going to expand again and who exactly is going to pay 750m... No one.

 

[GuelphStormer]

You do realize Bettman has no actually say in whether the league expands again and it always been the owners decision. NHL isn't going to expand again and who exactly is going to pay 750m... No one.

nonsense

 

[BKIslandersFan]

nonsense

I am sure he can make recommendations but his 31 bosses are billionaires with healthy egos. They can’t be manipulated so easily.

 

[Bookie21]

I am sure he can make recommendations but his 31 bosses are billionaires with healthy egos. They can’t be manipulated so easily.

Agreed. Bettman can try to sway an owner, but he sure as hell isn't going to tell the owners what they can and can't do. He'd be on the unemployment line if he started barking orders at Jacobs or Tannenbaum lol

 

[GuelphStormer]

every single owner, including almighty jacobs, would be a fool not to heed bettman's advice. their franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars not for what they have done but for what the commissioner has done. they should kiss his boots when he enters the room.

does he control the show? no.

does he run the show? yes.