NHL to Vegas part III: The Black Knight Rises

[BattleBorn]

Doubt anyone is questioning the first two criteria for Vegas. It's the third one that the skeptics (including myself) tend to focus on. Are there hockey fans in Vegas? Clearly there are but are there enough to survive long-term? 12K seasons tickets is a good sign but with the change in franchise launch date, how many of those 12k will re-up their deposits?

IMHO, if Vegas was first awarded an AHL team and seen to succeed for 5-10 years, that loyalty pipeline would be very well established. From there, landing an NHL franchise would be fairly seamless.

Jumping from no team to an NHL team does incorporate a fair amount of risk.

I get where you're coming from. However, as you stated, the loss of our IHL and ECHL teams had very little to do with the fans in town. They both left due to arena issues. The Thunder left a few years before the IHL folded.

If the AHL had made this westward push ten years ago, it's all but guaranteed we'd have had an AHL team instead of the ECHL team recently. We'd likely have lost them as well to the same arena issue, but it wouldn't have been the step down you mentioned.

The whole point is that these fans didn't leave town for the most part. In my post from this morning criticizing the Silver article and some of my previous posts I've specified a few things that lead me to believe Vegas is a town ready to support a hockey team. To touch on a few of those points, LV is 9th best US TV market for games, 11.8% of the population is characterized as "avid" hockey fans, 18 years of preseason games, above average at the time (and even more so now) IHL attendance, population growth, only pro sport in town for the foreseeable future.

I can see why the world would want us to have an AHL team first, Vegas is seen as a risk by many out there in the world. However, we've done as much to prove we're ready, if not more, than any other US city without an NHL franchise. Delaying the expansion while we see how an AHL team does is essentially looking for an excuse to never put a team here.

 

[detredWINgs]

Can we stop with the Arizona comparisons just because it happens to be a dry heat in the summer in both places?

Egads, that's a stupid comparison to make.


Furthermore, adding Vegas helps Quebec and Hamilton get teams, as stated before. So does more revenue sharing.

The list of US cities better for NHL hockey than Vegas would be:
- Seattle
- Houston
- Portland

End of list. And considering the NHL would be alone among Big Five in Vegas, it might be better off than the mega-markets.

Of course, all of it hinges on ownership and management. The teams everyone likes to rail on for being bad hockey markets have one thing in common: their ownership has said "NHL? Sure, what the hell." Instead of striving for an NHL franchise, the owners of PHX/ARZ, ATL, FLA (TB at times even though their attendance has been just fine) have not been involved for the love of hockey.

Owners who aren't that interested and make little effort to sell hockey to their market have been terrible. But if there's one thing Vegas knows, it's promotion and publicity.

Came here to post exactly this. Some folks are talking about Vegas like its any other town. The viability of a franchise in Vegas is not going to be about some traditional fanbase where you have an individual or a group of blue-collar nobodies getting season tickets and having a bedrock fanbase. Its going to be transient. Its going to be gimmicky. But tickets are going to get sold either way. Butts are going to be put in seats through (a) promotions and (b) the marketing of the sport like no other franchise.

I mean, we're talking about a town where gas stations and car washes have slot machines and video poker games in their lobbies. However it comes to fruition, there's going to be something unique about seeing a hockey game in Vegas.

The way I see it, with Vegas-style promotion backing the team, it could be just like the Guggenheim. Or the San Diego Zoo. Or the St. Louis Archway. Or the Golden Gate bridge. Everyone and their brother has been to a zoo or an art museum. Everyone has seen a big bridge or a large national monument. But you go anyways because its just one of those things that you do. In any other town, would I go out of my way to see a hockey game? If I were a casual fan, probably not. But if I have a ton of ads and promos insinuating that going to a Vegas hockey game is something I simply can't experience anywhere else, I'd probably think it was something I should check out, even if I weren't a sports fan.

Also, you can't underestimate the transplant make-up of Vegas in combination with there not being any other major sports team with which to either (a) ally yourself or (b) use as a means of seeing your hometown team play.

Personally, I hope to god this happens. I've never lived in Vegas but, once upon a time, I dated a girl who moved to Vegas and kept it going for about a year while she lived there. I was out there about once a month and I lost count of how many times I saw a University of Michigan and/or Red Wings insignia while I was off the strip, which is where we spent most of our time.

 

[detredWINgs]

I get where you're coming from. However, as you stated, the loss of our IHL and ECHL teams had very little to do with the fans in town. They both left due to arena issues. The Thunder left a few years before the IHL folded.

If the AHL had made this westward push ten years ago, it's all but guaranteed we'd have had an AHL team instead of the ECHL team recently. We'd likely have lost them as well to the same arena issue, but it wouldn't have been the step down you mentioned.

The whole point is that these fans didn't leave town for the most part. In my post from this morning criticizing the Silver article and some of my previous posts I've specified a few things that lead me to believe Vegas is a town ready to support a hockey team. To touch on a few of those points, LV is 9th best US TV market for games, 11.8% of the population is characterized as "avid" hockey fans, 18 years of preseason games, above average at the time (and even more so now) IHL attendance, population growth, only pro sport in town for the foreseeable future.

I can see why the world would want us to have an AHL team first, Vegas is seen as a risk by many out there in the world. However, we've done as much to prove we're ready, if not more, than any other US city without an NHL franchise. Delaying the expansion while we see how an AHL team does is essentially looking for an excuse to never put a team here.

This is all kind of a moot point, IMO. IHL/AHL teams may have been/be just a step below the NHL in terms of talent and development, but they are nowhere near the NHL in terms of exposure. How do you even promote going to an AHL game? You might as well promote going to a viewing of the best bowling league in the entire universe. Its not about hockey but about the level of the sport being promoted.

IMO, its akin to promoting a division II college football team versus a division I-A team. Being from Michigan, I'll use it as an example: Nobody is going to come to an NCAA football game in Vegas if I'm promoting Grand Valley State. Nobody knows or gives a **** about Grand Valley State because nobody is threatened by GVS and nobody knows about GVS. But what if I'm in Vegas promoting Michigan State or the University of Michigan? Its a whole different ball game then. Because not only am I promoting a team that other people know, but there's a decent chance that many of the tourists there have some sort of allegiance to the team being promoted or the team they're up against: Notre Dame? Ohio State? Baylor? Duke? There will either be interests in the outcome or interests in the teams themselves.

There's no point getting caught up in the nature of the sport. At the end of the day, promoting a major sport in Vegas is not going to be about the sport but about how it is marketed and how going to a Vegas game is differentiated from going to any other NHL game.

 

[BattleBorn]

So I have a question for the real business gurus here on the board.

With the delay to the Las Vegas effort, it got me thinking. Standard belief and previous experience says that a Las Vegas team announced in mid 2015 should be able to start play in the 2016/2017 season. (see past expansion timelines for reference) I'm not looking to discuss the merits of that belief or examples of that happened in the past, although that's not a bad discussion.

My question is: What is happening prior to the 2017/2018 season media contract/advertising/etc wise?

I'm wondering if the league is positioning itself for negotiations that will occur prior to that season. For example, if there's a media contract "look in window" (as they call it in college football) in that time period, it seems like it would make more sense to have Las Vegas (and potentially QC, with a Seattle announcement for a later season) start play in 2017/18 with the promise of increased exposure versus 2016/17 when there's already a track record for Las Vegas ratings, revenues, etc., no deal for Seattle in the works, and a franchise for small market Quebec.

Any merit to this thought?

 

[Fugu]

So I have a question for the real business gurus here on the board.

With the delay to the Las Vegas effort, it got me thinking. Standard belief and previous experience says that a Las Vegas team announced in mid 2015 should be able to start play in the 2016/2017 season. (see past expansion timelines for reference) I'm not looking to discuss the merits of that belief or examples of that happened in the past, although that's not a bad discussion.

My question is: What is happening prior to the 2017/2018 season media contract/advertising/etc wise?

I'm wondering if the league is positioning itself for negotiations that will occur prior to that season. For example, if there's a media contract "look in window" (as they call it in college football) in that time period, it seems like it would make more sense to have Las Vegas (and potentially QC, with a Seattle announcement for a later season) start play in 2017/18 with the promise of increased exposure versus 2016/17 when there's already a track record for Las Vegas ratings, revenues, etc., no deal for Seattle in the works, and a franchise for small market Quebec.

Any merit to this thought?

The NHL-NBC deal runs through the 2020-21 season:

In a deal that will deliver more nationally televised hockey to American fans than ever before, the National Hockey League and the NBC Sports Group have reached agreement on a record 10-year television and media rights deal, taking the partnership through the 2020-21 season.

It's getting closer to the time they'd be looking at the next deal. I think recent signings show that talks commenced a couple years before the next deal would kick in.

I'm not sure if that's really the driving factor. I think getting arenas approved and built may be the greater factor, and considering how they will want to implement expansion. Nothing says they won't consider an odd number of teams, but they may want to be certain about who' going to where and when before making an announcement about a single addition.

 

[BattleBorn]

The NHL-NBC deal runs through the 2020-21 season:



It's getting closer to the time they'd be looking at the next deal. I think recent signings show that talks commenced a couple years before the next deal would kick in.

I'm not sure if that's really the driving factor. I think getting arenas approved and built may be the greater factor, and considering how they will want to implement expansion. Nothing says they won't consider an odd number of teams, but they may want to be certain about who' going to where and when before making an announcement about a single addition.

So there's no "look in" windows in the contract?

The reason I ask is in college football, which has had a lot of realignment lately, there are windows in which the contract could be changed based on changes in the makeup of a conference.

So, for example, if the SEC signs a 10 year contract with ESPN today that is based on their current 14 team membership and game inventory and three years down the road there's another large realignment in the conferences and the conference adds two teams, the contract signed today would have a period prescribed within the document that would allow for a renegotiation based on the situations in place at the time during the window. Meaning, the SEC would be in a position to request additional revenue for the increased inventory/teams or ESPN could ask for a decrease if the inventory or teams decreased.

Do we know if there's anything like that in the league's contract, or do we know for sure that there isn't? A window in the middle of the contract would make a 2017/18 expansion versus a 26/17 make a lot of sense.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

 

[Fugu]

So there's no "look in" windows in the contract?

The reason I ask is in college football, which has had a lot of realignment lately, there are windows in which the contract could be changed based on changes in the makeup of a conference.

So, for example, if the SEC signs a 10 year contract with ESPN today that is based on their current 14 team membership and game inventory and three years down the road there's another large realignment in the conferences and the conference adds two teams, the contract signed today would have a period prescribed within the document that would allow for a renegotiation based on the situations in place at the time during the window. Meaning, the SEC would be in a position to request additional revenue for the increased inventory/teams or ESPN could ask for a decrease if the inventory or teams decreased.

Do we know if there's anything like that in the league's contract, or do we know for sure that there isn't? A window in the middle of the contract would make a 2017/18 expansion versus a 26/17 make a lot of sense.

I'm not aware that those types of details were ever released with regard to this contract.

 

[powerstuck]

If I am not wrong, national type deals do not include 82 games for every team. At least not for all teams.

Habs have 22 regular season games on TVA Sports (thru the Rogers deal) while other games are still on RDS. TVA Sports has all playoff games and the 22 games in the national deal are considered prime time (most are on Saturday nights).

So, I doubt a new team would bring extra 82 games to the NBC deal. When it comes to playoffs, there is always only gonna be 16 teams making them so the number of possible games remains the same.

 

[GuelphStormer]

these sure seem to indicate a 'done deal'. i could easily see Bettman and the BoG being a bit miffed about the presumptive nature of them if they had not already implicitly signed off on the franchise.

also, i think it is a huge mistake to restrict the naming contest only to season ticket holders. that would likely alienate marginal fans and forfeit the unique and crucial opportunity for wider buy-in to the whole idea.

 

[cutchemist42]

Been away on the road for a week, the LV team is delayed a year to wait for Seattle? Not a good look IMO unless I have something wrong? I thought they had enough time to put an organization together.

So does this pretty much confirm LV/Sea are expansions and Quebec gets relocated Florida?

 

[BattleBorn]

Been away on the road for a week, the LV team is delayed a year to wait for Seattle? Not a good look IMO unless I have something wrong? I thought they had enough time to put an organization together.

So does this pretty much confirm LV/Sea are expansions and Quebec gets relocated Florida?

Who knows what they're doing? Putting Vegas on hold while the Seattle Process processes itself seems pretty dumb and counterproductive, though. There's got to be something else in the works, which is why I posed my question yesterday. There's almost got to be something media or union-wise going on behind the scenes.

It really doesn't make sense to hold off just to do a double expansion instead of a couple singles when places are ready.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

also, i think it is a huge mistake to restrict the naming contest only to season ticket holders. that would likely alienate marginal fans and forfeit the unique and crucial opportunity for wider buy-in to the whole idea.

I see your point and agree with it somewhat, but then you think about the people with the actual financial stake in the game - the ones who made the commitment to get this going in the first place - and it kinda makes sense that you reward them with one of the biggest perks available.

I know if I put down STH money and then was allowed to help name the team, I'd be far more likely to renew when the time came - call it a "founder's feeling."

 

[Stonewall]

also, i think it is a huge mistake to restrict the naming contest only to season ticket holders. that would likely alienate marginal fans and forfeit the unique and crucial opportunity for wider buy-in to the whole idea.

Not necessarily. I don't think the casual fan cares what the team name is, even if it's terrible (see the Minnesota Wild).

What that does prevent though is a stupid social media campaign to name them the Wranglers or something else generic.

 

[BattleBorn]

Not necessarily. I don't think the casual fan cares what the team name is, even if it's terrible (see the Minnesota Wild).

What that does prevent though is a stupid social media campaign to name them the Wranglers or something else generic.

Fighting off the Scorpions is going to be tough enough with just STH.

I figure seeding the idea of calling the team Black Knights last December was all that was really needed to have the contest turn out that way. People are referring to the potential team at the Black Knights the entire time it's been a real possibility, we need look no further than this thread to see that.

 

[IceAce]

Fighting off the Scorpions is going to be tough enough with just STH.

I figure seeding the idea of calling the team Black Knights last December was all that was really needed to have the contest turn out that way. People are referring to the potential team at the Black Knights the entire time it's been a real possibility, we need look no further than this thread to see that.

"Black Knights" has a very college feel to it, and add in the littany of Monty Python jokes that will follow, I'd prefer they not use that.

I think sparky's idea for the "Aces" with the whole double entendre of aviation/cards theme works really well and fits the color scheme that Foley seems to like.

Scorpions isn't terrble. There aren't many arachnid/insect names in pro sports. So it would be unique. Plus its got loads of marketing potential. Claws, stingers, uniforms that glow under a black light, etc.

 

[BattleBorn]

"Black Knights" has a very college feel to it, and add in the littany of Monty Python jokes that will follow, I'd prefer they not use that.

I think sparky's idea for the "Aces" with the whole double entendre of aviation/cards theme works really well and fits the color scheme that Foley seems to like.

Scorpions isn't terrble. There aren't many arachnid/insect names in pro sports.

My list/vote:

1. My Idea.
2. Aces (with aviation theme)
3. Black Knights
4. Something else "normal" (Lions, Falcons, etc.)
5. Scorpions
6. Anything western. (Outlaws, Wranglers, Mustangs)
7. Anything gaming related. (Already eliminated)

 

[The Feckless Puck]

My list/vote:

1. My Idea.
2. Aces (with aviation theme)
3. Black Knights
4. Something else "normal" (Lions, Falcons, etc.)
5. Scorpions
6. Anything western. (Outlaws, Wranglers, Mustangs)
7. Anything gaming related. (Already eliminated)

My list:

1. Thunderbirds
2. Knights (or Black Knights)
3. Falcons
4. Vipers
5. Arrows/Aeros

I love the Aces name but with the Reno Aces just up the road it might not be feasible.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

Best name ever:

Las Vegas Llamas.

 

[Mightygoose]

I've always liked the Lions as generic name yet having ties to the arena.

Black Knights is growing on me.
Aces is the only gaming reference I like and there's a double meaning too. Re: Aviation.
Scorpions has a nice ring.
Or if they really want to be different, have a Euro sounding name - HC Vegas anyone?

 

[BattleBorn]

Or if they really want to be different, have a Euro sounding name - HC Vegas anyone?

Battle Born HC.

 

[Jonas1235]

Las Vegas 51's

 

[Llama19]

 

[Fugu]

Translation from Bettmanese: The BOG will rubber stamp the expansion in June.

 

[BattleBorn]

And if they choose to pursue it, I'm sure a city with all the things Vegas has going for it in June will be pretty easy to consider.

I'm still holding out hope this whole thing is legal and that they have to officially open up for expansion prior to actually considering expanding awarding a team, and that anything said before the actual vote to consider expansion could get the league into trouble.

I'd be a little more nervous about the whole Foley not being invited to the meeting thing if he wasn't going to be sitting in his house 10 miles away once they consider opening the expansion process.