Potential markets for potential NHL expansion beyond 32

[gstommylee]

Why would you have to add eight teams? For years the NFL had divisions with unequal numbers of teams. Just because they have a tidy 8x4 format now doesn't mean they always will.

IMHO the NFL is far more likely to go beyond 32 teams anytime soon than the NHL. At least as long as the NHL is stuck on its fixation of having each team visit each other team at least once per season.

The NFL, for obvious reasons, has no such hangup. Its fans are used to teams playing certain other teams as infrequently as every four years. Such flexibility makes it much easier to go beyond 32.

Cause it completely they would have to completely change the alignment around nvm requires probably going to 18 games and there was huge push back by the NFLPA just on the league going to 17 games.

they would have to go 8 division of 5 teams and there probably isn't any out there worth doing market wise.

NFL will remain at 32 just as the NHL will remain 32.

 

[TheLegend]

The maximum number of teams a league chooses to have has never been based upon a number that is equally dividable....... never.

People who keep holding tight to that narrative are kidding themselves, and KevFu's point was you can't sit there and say they will never go beyond a specific number because history has proven it to be a fallacy......... over and over again. NHL has operated with an odd number of teams twice now in it's history. 31 teams now.... and from 1979 to 1991 it was 21. Alignments be damned. With the current two conference system in the NHL adding two teams at a time is ideal...... but it isn't the end of the world if they add one, with the other coming within a relatively short time.

Pro sports leagues are driven by money....... period. If the money says more than 32 teams works then they will go more than 32 teams.

Money talks..... not common denominator math.

 

[gstommylee]

The maximum number of teams a league chooses to have has never been based upon a number that is equally dividable....... never.

People who keep holding tight to that narrative are kidding themselves, and KevFu's point was you can't sit there and say they will never go beyond a specific number because history has proven it to be a fallacy......... over and over again. NHL has operated with an odd number of teams twice now in it's history. 31 teams now.... and from 1979 to 1991 it was 21. Alignments be damned. With the current two conference system in the NHL adding two teams at a time is ideal...... but it isn't the end of the world if they add one, with the other coming within a relatively short time.

Pro sports leagues are driven by money....... period. If the money says more than 32 teams works then they will go more than 32 teams.

Money talks..... not common denominator math.

good luck getting owners to divide the money even more and more where more than 32 teams wont increase the total pie the to be divided. it has to make finicial sense to the owners and you need basically more than 8 owners to where to they wont fet 3/4 of the owners to approve. Guess what i doubt you find 3/4 agreeing to expand just to expand and owners get less of the pie.

Its not that easy as you think. Too many teams and you run into talent problems and more teams that cant compete cause the superstars dont want to play in your market. ( NBAs biggest problem). oh btw nba is on record saying they do not want to add more teams and split the pie further

 

[93LEAFS]

MLSE owns the raptors and the original plans for scotiabank arena where for a nba only arena. The leafs merged with the raptors ownership group late in the process. If the arena was made with the leaf's in mind from the start it would probably have Nod's to Maple leaf garden's and blue seats.

Wasn't a merger. Raptors and the ACC development were outright bought from Slaight (90%) and Bank of Nova Scotia (10%) by MLSE. Raptors always wanted to share an arena with the Leafs, over the Leafs building a 2nd nearby arena (we almost had two within blocks of each other) because they would kill each other over competing concerts. Just took awhile for a deal to be found with both side bluffing each other until one folded. Due to the Raptors ownership structure, Slaight activated the shotgun clause to force Bitove out to eventually reach a deal with MLSE (MLGL as it was known then). But, the changes in design were quite early on in the process.

 

[KevFu]

anything more than 32, Kev.... triggers another realignment..... that's why there's 8 divisions per conference with a maximum of 4 per division

Yeah. The configuration changes when they add more teams. What's your point.

50 years ago, there were 12 teams. Now there's 31, about to be 32. If you think the NHL in 50 years, 100 years, 200 years... will still be at 32 and never add a 33rd team, you're nuts. We know the NHL is going to grow in size, because it always has.

Stop acting like because there is no plan to add team #33 TOMORROW, that expansion will NEVER happen. That's silly.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Yeah. The configuration changes when they add more teams. What's your point.

50 years ago, there were 12 teams. Now there's 31, about to be 32. If you think the NHL in 50 years, 100 years, 200 years... will still be at 32 and never add a 33rd team, you're nuts. We know the NHL is going to grow in size, because it always has.

Stop acting like because there is no plan to add team #33 TOMORROW, that expansion will NEVER happen. That's silly.

no it hasn't.....

 

[MNNumbers]

There is an old expression that says "Never is a mighty long time". Probably applicable here.

Nevertheless, one can say that 'right now, it doesn't seem as if the NHL will be expanding any time soon.'

My own ideas are that, in spite of COVID, which surely is going to decrease revenues for 19-20 and 20-21, the owners will likely bunker down and try to survive that, so that when a vaccine appears, things can go back to 'normal.' For that reason, I do not see any real reason for them to to give an expansion team at a lessened rate than present.

In fact, it's difficult to see them decreasing that expansion price at any time. So, it seems fair to say that, "unless unforeseen circumstances arise" there will not likely be any expansion.

However, the world is full of unforeseen circumstances, so it all is logical to assume that SOMETHING will happen in the next 20 - 50 years that none of us expected. And, then, who knows???

 

[Mightygoose]

Also what bears in mind is what the value of money today will be different 20-50 years from now.

When the league expanded in the early 90s, fees we're 50 million and many were considered high. By the end of the decade the fees were 80 million. In the middle the Jets left Winnipeg, who would have though back then 15 years later a group would pay 170 million to bring the NHL back? Those numbers all look like peanuts now. 5 years later a group paid 500 million for Vegas to join, 1 1/2 years after that 650 million was agreed upon for Seattle to join.

How much will 650 million be worth 5 years from now, never mind 10, 20 etc.....

 

[KevFu]

no it hasn't.....

I'm sorry? You know that the current 31 is greater than the number of teams it's ever had before, and you know 32 is bigger than 31, right?

 

[Hoser]

The maximum number of teams a league chooses to have has never been based upon a number that is equally dividable....... never.

People who keep holding tight to that narrative are kidding themselves, and KevFu's point was you can't sit there and say they will never go beyond a specific number because history has proven it to be a fallacy......... over and over again. NHL has operated with an odd number of teams twice now in it's history. 31 teams now.... and from 1979 to 1991 it was 21.

Preach! The NHL don't give a crap about equal divisions and never have!

And the NHL has had an unequal number of teams many times more than the last few years and '79-'91. In '78-'79 they only had 17 teams, after the Barons and North Stars merged, and prior to the "Original Six" era they were often playing seasons with an unequal number of teams:

• seven teams from '38 to '42; the Maroons folded in '38 and Americans hung on until they suspended operations in '42
• nine teams from '32 to '35; the original Senators had suspended operations during the '31-'32 season, but came back and played in Ottawa two more seasons and one final one in St. Louis before folding
• seven teams in '25-'26; the Pirates and Americans began playing, and Tigers folded
• three teams in '18-'19; Montreal Wanderers folded mid-season the year before, and they didn't bring Quebec back in until the next year

 

[Hoser]

I'm sorry? You know that the current 31 is greater than the number of teams it's ever had before, and you know 32 is bigger than 31, right?

I think what they're getting at is that teams have folded and the league has shrunk before. Much more rarely than expanded, but it happens.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Preach! The NHL don't give a crap about equal divisions and never have!

This is why I want the NHL to adopt a 3-division alignment for the Western Conference upon Seattle's admission but keeping the 2-division alignment in the East. The Central Time teams would make up a smaller Central Division, The five northernmost Mountain and Pacific Time teams would form the Northwest Division, and the five southernmost Mountain and Pacific teams would form the Pacific Division.

The alternative, putting Arizona in the Central, is sure to result in complaints from the Central Time teams, because during parts of the season, Phoenix is effectively on Pacific Time due to the fact that most of Arizona does not observe DST. Thus, during these parts of the season, a Central Time team coming home from a road game in Phoenix would lose 2 hours. This was the kind of situation the NHL eliminated in 2013. But the NHL's decisions to put 2 more teams in the Pacific Time Zone rather than the Central has complicated things (logically, #31 and #32 should have gone to Houston and Kansas City, which would move Colorado to the Pacific).

Under my proposed alignment, teams would play every non-division foe twice, and between 28-34 division games (4-7 per opponent) depending on the size of the division.

 

[TheLegend]

good luck getting owners to divide the money even more and more where more than 32 teams wont increase the total pie the to be divided. it has to make finicial sense to the owners and you need basically more than 8 owners to where to they wont fet 3/4 of the owners to approve. Guess what i doubt you find 3/4 agreeing to expand just to expand and owners get less of the pie.

Its not that easy as you think. Too many teams and you run into talent problems and more teams that cant compete cause the superstars dont want to play in your market. ( NBAs biggest problem). oh btw nba is on record saying they do not want to add more teams and split the pie further

C’mon Tommy.... you’re better than this.

$650 million divided 32 ways is $20.3 million per

$650 million divided 33 ways is $19.7 million per

You honestly think the owners (most are billionaires) are going to balk about $700k against nearly $20 million in free money??

More markets also means more tickets..... it commands bigger TV/ad contracts.... merchant sales..... and so on.

Money is the common factor here. If the owners think it’s there for the taking they aren’t going to give a rat’s arse about alignments, or where “superstars” play.

 

[MNNumbers]

C’mon Tommy.... you’re better than this.

$650 million divided 32 ways is $20.3 million per

$650 million divided 33 ways is $19.7 million per

You honestly think the owners (most are billionaires) are going to balk about $700k against nearly $20 million in free money??

More markets also means more tickets..... it commands bigger TV/ad contracts.... merchant sales..... and so on.

Money is the common factor here. If the owners think it’s there for the taking they aren’t going to give a rat’s arse about alignments, or where “superstars” play.

And, Legend, you are better than this.....
Do you really think that a team in Kansas City will increase the TV contract?

As has been said many times....money talks. A dude with 800M and an arena to play in will have a team. The question is whether that dude exists anywhere, given what his options are for an arena to play in, and also given the fact that most of NHL revenue is local.

 

[gstommylee]

And, Legend, you are better than this.....
Do you really think that a team in Kansas City will increase the TV contract?

As has been said many times....money talks. A dude with 800M and an arena to play in will have a team. The question is whether that dude exists anywhere, given what his options are for an arena to play in, and also given the fact that most of NHL revenue is local.

and a dude with 800m can told to take a hike by the league owners or be pushed to buy in at a current NHL franchise. Sports leagues don't expand just for the sake of expanding it has to actually make sense and for the NHL it makes no sense to go beyond 32.

 

[dkitson16]

Preach! The NHL don't give a crap about equal divisions and never have!

And the NHL has had an unequal number of teams many times more than the last few years and '79-'91. In '78-'79 they only had 17 teams, after the Barons and North Stars merged, and prior to the "Original Six" era they were often playing seasons with an unequal number of teams:

• seven teams from '38 to '42; the Maroons folded in '38 and Americans hung on until they suspended operations in '42
• nine teams from '32 to '35; the original Senators had suspended operations during the '31-'32 season, but came back and played in Ottawa two more seasons and one final one in St. Louis before folding
• seven teams in '25-'26; the Pirates and Americans began playing, and Tigers folded
• three teams in '18-'19; Montreal Wanderers folded mid-season the year before, and they didn't bring Quebec back in until the next year

Technically the NHL finished the 1918-1919 season with 2 teams. Montreal and Ottawa. Toronto withdrew with 2 weeks to go in the season. The 1919-1920 Toronto team was technically a new franchise.

 

[TheLegend]

And, Legend, you are better than this.....
Do you really think that a team in Kansas City will increase the TV contract?

As has been said many times....money talks. A dude with 800M and an arena to play in will have a team. The question is whether that dude exists anywhere, given what his options are for an arena to play in, and also given the fact that most of NHL revenue is local.

Never specified a particular market, did I?

Besides I was addressing the point about owners and money sharing.

I’m still going to maintain that the money will drive whether or not a sports league expands beyond some fictitious number that anyone wants to set because it’s easy to divide into.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

The only markets that would be a factor in possibly increasing TV revenues would be Toronto 2 or Quebec City up north on the Canadian deal and Houston or Atlanta again down south on an American deal.

With those exceptions, the reason why almost every other open market doesn't have a team is because it's a relatively small market. It might not move the needle on TV deals, but a well put-together expansion plan in loads of smaller markets, like KC or Portland, could (and, in my opinion, would) still be net positives to revenue generation. The NHL just got over a billion bucks expanding into two relatively smaller markets, albeit with the obvious hope that the American Pacific Northwest is an untapped hockey hotbed for them. I don't buy that they're looking for home runs for TV deals if they want to expand again.

 

[Hoser]

Technically the NHL finished the 1918-1919 season with 2 teams. Montreal and Ottawa. Toronto withdrew with 2 weeks to go in the season. The 1919-1920 Toronto team was technically a new franchise.

Okay. Irrelevant to the point, because the season was still played with three teams, but okay.

 

[Hoser]

This is why I want the NHL to adopt a 3-division alignment for the Western Conference upon Seattle's admission but keeping the 2-division alignment in the East. The Central Time teams would make up a smaller Central Division, The five northernmost Mountain and Pacific Time teams would form the Northwest Division, and the five southernmost Mountain and Pacific teams would form the Pacific Division.

The alternative, putting Arizona in the Central, is sure to result in complaints from the Central Time teams, because during parts of the season, Phoenix is effectively on Pacific Time due to the fact that most of Arizona does not observe DST. Thus, during these parts of the season, a Central Time team coming home from a road game in Phoenix would lose 2 hours. This was the kind of situation the NHL eliminated in 2013. But the NHL's decisions to put 2 more teams in the Pacific Time Zone rather than the Central has complicated things (logically, #31 and #32 should have gone to Houston and Kansas City, which would move Colorado to the Pacific).

Under my proposed alignment, teams would play every non-division foe twice, and between 28-34 division games (4-7 per opponent) depending on the size of the division.

I think you've missed the point entirely, Z Man. You're still thinking up ways of balancing out divisions somehow, you're still thinking "logically" they should have added teams in cities in the Central time zone to even out divisions, as if it matters: it doesn't. NHL knows, NHL don't care.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I think you've missed the point entirely, Z Man. You're still thinking up ways of balancing out divisions somehow, you're still thinking "logically" they should have added teams in cities in the Central time zone to even out divisions, as if it matters: it doesn't. NHL knows, NHL don't care.

Z:

NBA has a Northwest division....fyi.....

 

[dkitson16]

Okay. Irrelevant to the point, because the season was still played with three teams, but okay.

I just find it fascinating the NHL was briefly a 2 team league. So no, not relevant to your point.

 

[KevFu]

I think what they're getting at is that teams have folded and the league has shrunk before. Much more rarely than expanded, but it happens.

Sure, but we're talking overall trajectory here.

The NHL has shrunk twice and expanded 8 or 9 times now. MLS contracted teams in the pasts, but are adding left and right.
MLB went from 25 teams to 12 in the 1890s, but has grown from 16 to 30 over the last 100 years. NFL has grown. NBA has grown.

The sports world expands constantly and shrinks rarely.

This is why I want the NHL to adopt a 3-division alignment for the Western Conference upon Seattle's admission but keeping the 2-division alignment in the East. The Central Time teams would make up a smaller Central Division, The five northernmost Mountain and Pacific Time teams would form the Northwest Division, and the five southernmost Mountain and Pacific teams would form the Pacific Division.

The alternative, putting Arizona in the Central, is sure to result in complaints from the Central Time teams, because during parts of the season, Phoenix is effectively on Pacific Time due to the fact that most of Arizona does not observe DST. Thus, during these parts of the season, a Central Time team coming home from a road game in Phoenix would lose 2 hours. This was the kind of situation the NHL eliminated in 2013. But the NHL's decisions to put 2 more teams in the Pacific Time Zone rather than the Central has complicated things (logically, #31 and #32 should have gone to Houston and Kansas City, which would move Colorado to the Pacific).

Under my proposed alignment, teams would play every non-division foe twice, and between 28-34 division games (4-7 per opponent) depending on the size of the division.

Well, whole other kettle of fish, but the problems you see there could be easily avoided and create better inventory if they simply abolished the pure geographic alignment structure, accept that the league is simply too big to play everyone home/away, and make a structure that maximizes both TV times and quality inventory.

Like:
Wales: Smythe 4, Norris 4, Adams 4, Patrick 4
Campbell: Smythe 4, Norris 4, Adams 4, Patrick 4
> Only play games against 5 of the 8 divisions or 6 of the 8 divisions.

Or
Wales: Smythe 8, Patrick 8
Campbell: Norris 8, Adams 8
> 6 vs division (42), 3 vs conference (24), 1 vs non-conference (16).

By making the alignment/schedule based on geographic groups, you have to have a symmetrical allotment of teams and we don't. The NHL is configured as if we have 8 Pacific/8 Central in the West, 16 in the East and the line is between Nashville and Detroit.

The line of East/West is really in Nebraska. We really have 10 West teams and 22 East teams. That's why alignments always suck for a group of teams.

 

[KevFu]

I think the whole "Adding a TV market drives the TV contract revenue up" is misunderstood by people. It is a description of a path that was shortened to the point it is misleading.

The 1990s expansion to the large southern/western cities to boost TV contracts wasn't because "Phoenix is 6 million viewers, valued at X; Miami is 8 million, valued at X" like an itemized menu the NHL could say "Okay, that's 137 million total people in the footprint, you owe us X for the rights."

TV could say "Your product only appeals to the people in the Northeast. Why would we give you $200 million when half the country doesn't care?"

Expansion increases TV dollars because expansion increases the number of quantifiable viewers with a vested interest in your product, because each team has a fan base. You're giving people in those markets a reason to like hockey.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

I think you've missed the point entirely, Z Man. You're still thinking up ways of balancing out divisions somehow, you're still thinking "logically" they should have added teams in cities in the Central time zone to even out divisions, as if it matters: it doesn't. NHL knows, NHL don't care.

No I didn't miss the point. I acknowledged that the NHL doesn't care about having balanced divisions by proposing the 3-division split in the West but keeping the East 2-divisions. If they did that, that would definitely show the NHL did not care about balancing divisions but more about time zone restrictions.