Return to neutral site games?
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
Yukon Joe
Registered User
It could probably work, in that you'd sell lots of tickets. But what's in it for the league?
Playing a game outside makes sense for the league because you can make a lot more money selling 30k, 50k, or even 100k tickets to a single game, rather than 15-20k.
But if you're playing in Kansas City, or Quebec City - are you really going to make any more money than you do in your home rink?
Playing a game outside makes sense for the league because you can make a lot more money selling 30k, 50k, or even 100k tickets to a single game, rather than 15-20k.
But if you're playing in Kansas City, or Quebec City - are you really going to make any more money than you do in your home rink?
cutchemist42
Registered User
I went to the game in Regina and really enjoyed it except for the 35 minute to get into the game in that weather.
What I thought worked was having it in a city that was not far for the fanbases to get to easily or already lived in Regina. I wouldnt stick NYR/Boston in Austin as an example. I'd put a game like that in New Haven or something.
I have no memory of what sort of markets got games back then or what teams were put into those games so wont comment there.
What I thought worked was having it in a city that was not far for the fanbases to get to easily or already lived in Regina. I wouldnt stick NYR/Boston in Austin as an example. I'd put a game like that in New Haven or something.
I have no memory of what sort of markets got games back then or what teams were put into those games so wont comment there.
Bixby Snyder
IBTFAD
Mightygoose
Registered User
With teams owning and/or controlling their building what incentive is there to give up a home game? The league would have to buy them out and aside from playing in a unique location (stadium type game or Europe), why would the league want to?
Maybe if a team has building issues down the road and want to 'send a message' but that's about it.
Maybe if a team has building issues down the road and want to 'send a message' but that's about it.
25 years has changed things when it comes to arenas.
Couple of main issues is that there are arenas in NBA cities that are not capable of holding 17K for hockey. Likely down to maybe 14K at best. Sacramento, Golden State, etc. So, that likely doesn't make it economical to do a neutral site game.
Second is the control of the arena revenue streams. If you do a game in say Cleveland, KC, Houston, Atlanta, Milwaukee, etc. how much money are you going to make compared to playing a regular home game?
Couple of main issues is that there are arenas in NBA cities that are not capable of holding 17K for hockey. Likely down to maybe 14K at best. Sacramento, Golden State, etc. So, that likely doesn't make it economical to do a neutral site game.
Second is the control of the arena revenue streams. If you do a game in say Cleveland, KC, Houston, Atlanta, Milwaukee, etc. how much money are you going to make compared to playing a regular home game?
BruinsFan37
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2015
- 1,597
- 1,710
Do you really want the schedule to get longer?
Last time they had neutral site games they extended the season to 84 games.
The season is probably going to be extended to 84 games anyway with the Seattle expansion to maintain the 4 (division), 3 (conference), 2 (non-conference) format, and adding neutral site games would likely push it to 85-86 games.
Last time they had neutral site games they extended the season to 84 games.
The season is probably going to be extended to 84 games anyway with the Seattle expansion to maintain the 4 (division), 3 (conference), 2 (non-conference) format, and adding neutral site games would likely push it to 85-86 games.
Unlike the current "Premiere Series", the games back then were limited to North America cities. Many would eventually get NHL hockey (permanently) thanks to expansion or relocation: Dallas, Minneapolis (/St.Paul), Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami.
Other locations were Hamilton, Halifax, Saskatoon in Canada and
Providence, Sacramento, OKC, Clevland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and Peoria in USA.
As for the teams, all teams were involved. In many cases, the teams and locations "made sense", ie. Toronto or Buffalo playing in Hamilton, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Calgary in Saskatoon, Penguins in Cleveland, Sharks in Sacramento, Bruins in Providence. Other games it seemed entirely random. For instance Buffalo vs.NYI in Minneapolis or NJ vs NY in
The full list, with attendance is available here
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
84 with round robins for league, conference and division is possible.
83 where you RR the league and play an additional 3 in division games.
82 by league RR, 2 division RR and a RR for by division placement for competitive parity purposes.
But in a new CBA(if the financial numbers work) you could see a reduction to 76 games (league & division RR)
No way they'll drop 6 games for each team and expect the national tv deal to pay more $$ for less games. On top of that less games = increasing ticket prices just to make up for the loss revenue from less games.
The national TV deal would not necessarily have fewer games just because all the teams play fewer games.
However, you are right in that the owners won't give up the home dates. And, the players will likely not play 2 extra games, so it will be an 82 game sched.
frontsfan2005
Registered User
Looking at the list, there were some interesting games played:
Oct. 20/92 - The very first Battle of Ontario between Toronto and Ottawa played in front of 7,186 fans in Hamilton.
Dec. 9/93 - The Stars return to Minnesota in front of 14,058 fans at the Target Center.
Jan. 5/94 - The Battle of Quebec played in front of 11,393 fans in Phoenix.
The difference in total inventory of games from the last contract to the next one would be 22 games. The loss of 3 home games per team would likely be a wash and is irrelevant in a 50/50 CBA world.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
The loss of 3 home games, which is at least $2m in revenue, is likely the difference between profitability and loss for some teams.
The loss of 3 road games (and the travel costs involved) largely make it a wash.
The NHL has revenue sharing to cover any shortfall.
This isn’t rocket science.
I disagree. If travel costs offset home revenue, then the whole league works on national sponsorships. I don't believe that to be true.
In contrast, the problem with this league is that it is too dependent on local revenue.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
It does not wash out. Come on. You think travel costs and gate revenue are the same?
They aren’t. *That* isn’t rocket science.
What part of “largely” did you miss?
You obviously aren’t counting up game night operation expenses; like concessions staff, security, ticket takers and whatnot.
They’re not giving up playoff dates, where the real money is made.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
It's not even largely. I am including game night operation expenses in my thinking... if anything, you're probably overestimating how expensive travel is.
sctvman
Registered User
There are so many more arenas now that could host these games, but given since preseason NHL has comparatively few neutral site games compared to say 20 years ago, the infrastructure might have to be different.
Markets like Greenville and Charleston haven’t hosted preseason games in 20 years. Where would you sneak an additional 2 games in the schedule? The season can’t start much earlier.
Markets like Greenville and Charleston haven’t hosted preseason games in 20 years. Where would you sneak an additional 2 games in the schedule? The season can’t start much earlier.
crobro
Registered User
- Aug 8, 2008
- 3,873
- 720
One game for each team
Vancouver -Seattle in Portland
Edmonton Calgary in Saskatoon
Anaheim- Losangeles in San Diego
Phoenix-Dallas in Houston
Vegas-? In OKC
Minnesota- Winnipeg Kansas City
Toronto-Montreal Quebec City
Ottawa-Boston Halifax
New York Rangers- Islandes Hartford
Philly-Pittsburgh - Cincinnati
That about the Gist
Vancouver -Seattle in Portland
Edmonton Calgary in Saskatoon
Anaheim- Losangeles in San Diego
Phoenix-Dallas in Houston
Vegas-? In OKC
Minnesota- Winnipeg Kansas City
Toronto-Montreal Quebec City
Ottawa-Boston Halifax
New York Rangers- Islandes Hartford
Philly-Pittsburgh - Cincinnati
That about the Gist
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
And nevermind it won't be exactly neutral. Seattle vs Vancouver in portland Oregon. It would be basically a Vancouver home game as it concerns portland hockey fans. Portland and Seattle hate each other guts in regards to hockey.
Sharks vs Canucks would make way more sense.
The bigger problem is you don't want a pairing of two strong teams.
Ideally you want weak markets like Buffalo using their home games in markets that'll draw. I.e. have a Red Wings/Sabres match up in Hamilton.
