Centrum Hockey
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2018
- 2,092
- 728
The only way they get Houston and Phoenix together is if Calgary moves there or the Senators move to Houston and either the Blackhawks or predators move east and reunite with the redwings
Jeremy Jacobs sends a strong signal Houston is next but relocation is unlikely
- Thread starter Fenway
- Start date
Yeah but now if the Whalers were still around, the would be on NESN and racking in a ton of TV money.
Whalers would be on the NBC Sports regional that traces back to the old Sports Channel New England.
KevFu
Registered User
I assume that's what happens as well.
I think the NHL is going to end up with Seattle, Houston, Quebec relatively soon (by 2030)
and with Portland, GTA2, Hamilton and another Western team eventually (the lynchpin being Rogers/Bell divorce as MLSE owners).
Stumbledore
Registered User
I certainly agree with Seattle, Houston, and Quebec. Portland would be a logical choice and perhaps moved up in likelihood with events this week, but I don't see any new teams appearing in southern Ontario.
KevFu
Registered User
This is my “tinfoil hat” fortune telling logic:
The only way a second team anywhere in Southern Ontario (GTA or Hamilton) can possibly happen is if MLSE takes the totally irrational step of allowing it to happen at little or no cost.
The amount of money MLSE would want to allow a second team in SO would be so large that no one could conceivably afford it (Unless someone from Hamilton has Bill Gates money and wants an NHL team in Hamilton so badly, they don’t care how much it costs).
There’s only ONE circumstance by which MLSE would accept a second team in their territory: It’s forced on them to settle an unreconcilable dispute of MLSE ownership resulting in the divorce of Rogers/Bell as majority owners.
In this scenario, no side is going to walk away without trying to cripple the other,because they are rival companies. “You can buy out our share for X billion dollars which crushes your ability to run your company so you’re left as a sports owner and not a media giant. You’ll win the battle, we’ll win the war.” And the other side saying “No, YOU buy out our share…(same thing).”
The only way to settle “Who walks away” would be to use that massive territory rights fee as “phantom dollar compensation.”
For example:
- Company A retains MLSE
- Company B gets their investment cash + interest back (reasonable), an NHL Toronto expansion team with no territorial rights fees owed to MLSE.
- The Rogers/Bell Leafs media rights deal is extended with the new teams rights bundled in. (Rogers/Bell decided to co-own the Leafs so they don’t have a bidding war on Leafs media rights. So have that marriage apply to both teams).
And the NHL says “We will sign off on this… IF BOTH of you agree to cede Hamilton from your territories” paving the way for someone to buy an expansion team in Hamilton if they can work out territorial rights with Buffalo (which should be MUCH easier/cheaper because TV rights aren’t part of the equation because of the USA-CAN border.
Something like that is the only way a second Toronto team or Hamilton team actually happens. Unless, of course, someone has “Manchester City Abu Dhabi Oil money” and a passion for Southern Ontario hockey to match.
Carry it one step further - MLSE is awarded the second Toronto franchise and somehow have 3 teams in Scotiabank Arena.
The Sabres did have a deal with Bell for 3 seasons but walked away from it 2 years ago.
Inside the Sabres: Canadian TV deal didn't work
It turns out the deal wasn’t quite as “momentous” as Black hoped. Despite thousands of Sabres fans in Southern Ontario, not many cared about watching the team on television. There were a few, however.
“It’s certainly disappointing to see they discontinued it,” said Peter Repple of Niagara Falls, Ont., who recently switched to Bell. “Did they drop it because people weren’t watching? Well, people weren’t watching because the team was historically bad. How can you come to conclusions after the last three seasons?
“The team is supposed to get better, and if it seems if they’re going in the right direction more people might get interested.”
The Sabres had tried for years to get back on the air in Canada, and Black broke through the international barriers in 2013. The team worked out a three-year deal with Bell, and the provider gave its subscribers 50 games in 2013-14, 53 in 2014-15 and 68 games last season.
The deal came with a major drawback. Because the Sabres were on television in Ontario, the area became a home market. Blackout rules came into effect. Fans, bars and restaurants that didn’t have Bell could no longer watch Sabres games through the Center Ice package.
The blackout rules are gone. Sabres fans in Canada who want to watch the team can get all the games by purchasing Center Ice or the Game Center app. Some fans have suffered through blackouts when Buffalo played Canadian teams this season, but an NHL spokesman says that is a glitch in Bell’s system that is being investigated.
So, as strange as it seems, the Sabres’ departure from Canada means more people there can actually watch them.
powerstuck
Nordiques Hopes Lies
Make it bigger...
Bell and Rogers found and invest in the Toronto2 franchise.
One teams owns 70% of Leafs and 30% of TO2 while the other team owns 30% of Leafs and 70% of TO2. This would require from Bell to sell their parts in Habs as per the NHL bylaws.
This ensures both companies keep a ''sports franchise friendship'' while each being a majority owner of one company. Everyone walks away happy and they all win many Stanley Cups.
KevFu
Registered User
Sure. I was talking general framework. The details that end up happening will be whatever they are, but that's the general concept.
Except the NHL stepping in and saying "we'll approve this... IF you relinquish the Greater Hamilton Area as your exclusive territory" is a key component. Because the NHL has to think that way.
MLB moved the Astros to the AL because it made their scheduling process a lot easier via symmetry. But they were only able to do it because the Astros were for sale and a new owner has to be approved. So they made it part of the approval process. "
Except the NHL stepping in and saying "we'll approve this... IF you relinquish the Greater Hamilton Area as your exclusive territory" is a key component. Because the NHL has to think that way.
MLB moved the Astros to the AL because it made their scheduling process a lot easier via symmetry. But they were only able to do it because the Astros were for sale and a new owner has to be approved. So they made it part of the approval process. "
Depending on who buys the Portland Trailblazers and Moda Center, Houston may have some competition for a team.
I only can pass on what the man said and provided the audio.
I believe Arizona will wind up in Houston but I was also convinced Quebec would have a team by now.
Eugene Melnyk is the joker in what happens next. If he can't get a new arena in Ottawa, he may look hard at Quebec and the key is his existing deal with Bell (TSN/RDS)
TSN5 and RDS have the same footprint
Jets own the Baffin Island market!
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
KevFu
Registered User
same point, as to balance the NHL AT 16-16
Completely different though, because MLB teams play every day. It was done to ease schedule making. The MLB schedule matrix was a nine-part model due to the divisions being different sizes. Now it's a five-part model.
The NHL doesn't have to worry about "Does everyone have someone to play today?" because the NHL season is the same number of days, but basically only half the games.
uh, then why the discussions ad nauseum over balancing the conferences into 2 8 team divisions after adding Vegas and Seattle, Kev?
Comparing MLB with NHL. There are 2 issues. 1 - Playoff odds. 2 - Schedules
Let's deal with #1:
I believe this is the REAL reason that Milwaukee moved. Prior to that move, you had:
AL: 2 5s and 1 4
NL: 2 5s and 1 6.
While that makes interleague play easier to schedule because you can do it in a block (In other words, if all the teams are playing every week on Tues, Wed, Fri, Sat and Sun - which is normal - then everyone can play within their league MOST of the time). If you have 15 - 15, then you have to interleague play season long, which is more complicated to schedule. But, you have 14 teams in AL, and 16 in NL. That's not fair to the NL clubs. And, THAT, is the major reason for the change.
Compare with the NHL. The Divisions need to have the same or nearly the same number of teams. This is why you won't see, for example, Arizona moving to Quebec and playing in the east. It makes the playoff odds UNNECESSARILY unequal. When Seattle joins, it will be 8*8*8*8. This is identical to what MLB has done.
Now, #2: Schedules.
Both leagues have national broadcast contracts, and local TV as well. SOME MLB teams have very lucrative local contracts. NHL teams get, comparatively, little from national broadcasters. Therefore, the same principles apply to both leagues. Keep as many games in the local or close-to-local time zone as possible.
MLB: All teams are in divisions with only one or two time zones EXCEPT the AL West, and that is for the simple reason that there are only 8 teams combined in both leagues in the MTZ and PTZ. (Interestingly, they are the same cities as NHL has, except San Jose and the Canadian cities are missing). Since there are ONLY 8, then it necessitates one division spanning 3 time zones. Actual schedules: About 45% of games in division.
NHL: Every effort has been made to keep division with only 2 time zones. Schedules: About 35% in division.
So, really, there is no difference. Both leagues are doing exactly the same things.
KevFu
Registered User
I never really had a problem with it. The logic behind a lot of these decisions is faulty....
"Oh, it's not fair to have different number of teams!" people say.
Yet, it's not fair to have imbalanced schedules and zip codes deciding what playoff berth you're eligible to compete for.
I also think tying divisions to your schedule is a stupid thing to do, and Home/Away with everyone each year is a stupid thing to do.
These leagues are trying to balance "Competitive fairness" with "TV start times and rivalries so we can make money." And the things they choose to care about and not care about is baffling when you apply the logic of each complaint to everything else that makes no sense.
KevFu
Registered User
#1 - It's easier to schedule a symmetrical league, period. Sure, interleague is a little more detailed. But because it's symmetrical,
you can build a formula...
Does anyone remember pre-website fantasy football? You'd buy a magazine that had player lists and previews and stuff. Then one of the pages had a sample schedule based on your league size: 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5; 1 vs 7, 2 vs 6, 3 vs 5, 4 vs 8; etc.
MLB can make THREE models (one for each year of interleague), where you have Team 1, Team 2, Team 29, Team 30. And it works to hit their number of games vs each at all times. Each year you just slot in a different "Which division is 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc. Does that make sense?
#2 - I still don't understand the idea that 5-6-5 and 4-5-5 isn't fair competitively.
People bring up "the odds" as if you're picking playoff spots out of a hat. Whether you're playing 18/19 games vs four other teams or 15 vs five teams, you still have to beat the other guys enough to finish first.
The idea that "the chances someone is better than you" is inconsequential. The GM's job is to build a team better than the others.
And the argument that "Yeah, but the odds someone who's bigger, richer, smarter and just better than you is in your division is higher because there are five others instead of four others" I'd say "then why are they dividing divisions by zip codes, and not balancing rich and smart vs small and dumb?" It's ALL not totally fair. Fair is no divisions, balanced schedule.
If you're willing to sell out fairness for TV money, that's what you get.
#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. In general, I agree with you, though. I'm just telling you what they said. Now, it could be that the real issue that MLB would like to have as many teams as possible playing division rivals at the end of the year, for the sake of playoff races and the resultant excitement. I'm not sure. But that is what they said when they first went to 16 - 14. (More on schedules later....and I need to look and see how this relates back to Houston.)
#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. If you look at the NFL standings for the last 10 years, you will find many many years in which one of those 4-team divisions has had a 9-7 or so champion, often even with a weak schedule. The 4 teams in the AL West were simply working with a situation that lowered the bar for them. Moving Houston over there a few years ago leveled that out. Now, I would agree that, if you get to the difference between 7 teams and 8, that squashes out and becomes irrelevant. But a 4 against a 6 is DEFINITELY in some way not fair balance.
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, and wait for Houston to come in as expansion and then go to 9-8-8-8? And, the clear answer is: If there is a Wild Card, is doesn't make any difference, because the schedule is really balanced enough, and therefore it would be FINE.............EXCEPT that you won't be able to convince the fans of those 9 teams in the Pacific that that is the case. And, it LOOKS like a bush league, because real leagues should be strong enough not to have to do things like that. So, the league will go for 8888, because of appearance, and appearance is important to the bottom line.
Now, schedules:
MLB.....They do interleague play for ONE reason. They couldn't keep their hands off of the potential money of yearly NY-NY and CHI-CHI series. And, it was great at first, but now it's dull and doesn't make a difference any more. I wish they would cancel it. But, sitting on their 6 division model, it sure makes it easier to do that.
NHL: I know you keep talking about a melded conference/rival schedule, with 4-team divisions. I HATE 4-team divisions, because of what I see happen in the NFL every year. Some division champ is actually a bad team. But, if only the champ is guaranteed a playoff place, it would be ok.....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. As a Wild fan (western half of the league), it has me playing, as far as I can see, equal numbers of games in the ETZ as present, because it basically swaps 1 game versus NY, NY, NJ, WAS (for example) for 1 game vs CAR, CLB, PIT, PHI. So, the travel is no change.
The playoffs would have to be set up like this for TV and travel (you have to appease the union):
Who qualifies? Division champs, plus 2 WCs from each pair of divisions; Wales West, Campbell West, Wales East and Campbell East.
Bracket?
2 rounds of series between the 4 teams from Wales West, Wales East, Campbell West and Campbell East. Then either re-seed or a Wales and Campbell Championship.
But, as always, the problem is:
How is this really better at the beginning? The theory is that the 36 games versus your conference have more meaning, so you can develop cross-continental rivalries. But that would take time, right?
Fill me in if I forgot anything.....
And, I still think Houston is a landing place for Coyotes.
I could be wrong about this, but I recall the first batch of interleague play had to be passed by the MLB Players' Association (MLBPA). The scheduling was stringent; there were only specific periods that interleague games could take place, i.e., it couldn't occur all year long. I believe full-season interleague play was agreed to by the MLBPA for the sole purpose of having six five-team divisions, fixing the divisional imbalance.
I did manage to find an article from the Washington Post regarding the CBA that was negotiated in 2011 allowing for expansion of interleague play all season long.
But you have to ask yourself why it happened in the NHL.KevFu said:
I'll give you a hint; prior to the realignment in 2013, the Kings/Ducks/Sharks schedule looked something like this:
41 home games
17 away games in MTZ/PTZ
11 away games in CTZ
13 away games in ETZ
The current schedule for those same teams looks like this:
41 home games
15/14 away games in MTZ/PTZ
10/11 away games in CTZ
16 away games in ETZ
The Pacific Division teams added a few ETZ games in detriment to their MTZ/PTZ schedules.
Of course, the imbalance for those teams is nowhere near the imbalance caused to all the Eastern Conference teams due to the realignment.
Prior to 2013 realignment, any Eastern Conference team's scheduling was:
41 home games
29/30 in-conference away ETZ games
3/2 in-conference away Winnipeg CTZ games
9 games in CTZ/MTZ/PTZ
After realignment and the addition of Vegas, current scheduling is:
41 home games
26 in-conference away games
6 games in CTZ
3 games in MTZ
1 game in AZ
5 games in PTZ
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.
Or, just looking at it from my Capitals point of view this year:
Road trips occur in groups -
This week is the Canadian Northwest swing
Mid-November is the North-Central (WPG, MIN, COL) swing
First week of December is the Southwest (AZ, LV) swing
Early January is the St Louis / Dallas back-to-back
Mid-February is the California swing
These trips now more or less mirror the issues that were plaguing the Western Conference teams since the inception of the 1998 six-division format.
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.
Doesn't this hurt the TV contract? NBC doesn't want to show those western teams besides Chicago, LA and Dallas.
For lack of a better term, the NHL national TV contract with the NBC family likely predicated its value with the playoffs, in deference to the regular season.
And since the current contract had started in the 2011-12 season, where there were discussions to realign by time zone as the relocation of the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg was definitely going to force a realignment, the fact that it didn't come to fruition until 2013 probably didn't impact the contract much at all.
Remember, the realignment only slightly reduced inventory in the Eastern Conference, but technically washed it with the addition of Detroit and Columbus.
And since the current contract had started in the 2011-12 season, where there were discussions to realign by time zone as the relocation of the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg was definitely going to force a realignment, the fact that it didn't come to fruition until 2013 probably didn't impact the contract much at all.
Remember, the realignment only slightly reduced inventory in the Eastern Conference, but technically washed it with the addition of Detroit and Columbus.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Of course not & who could blame them when the average life span of the head of sports is less than 18months. Go for the low hanging fruit. The obvious market leaders. Matter of survival. Dog eat dog.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Sacramento Kings @ New Orleans PelicansWagers: 5Staked: $318.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 12Staked: $16,404.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 8Staked: $3,310.00Event closes
- Updated: