Return to neutral site games?

[HugoSimon]

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.

It'd make sense for teams with weak local attendance.

Putting the Islanders in a game against Ottawa might make a lot of sense if it is done in Hamilton.

You have a large market that could support a team and you have two teams both suffering to draw fans.

Spreading the footprint of weak teams appears to be very good for weaker teams and might be a bargaining chip when trying to renegotiate deals.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

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.

tommy:

that's more due to the Sounders vs the Timbers, than anything else, because if that were true why haven't the Blazers even discussed the probability of Seattle rather than an expansion team route like you're seeing with OVG.....

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The owners would argue about the loss of revenue from a home game, but in reality it filters down to the players and so that "loss" is offset by less money getting paid to the players. High-revenue teams will have a bigger problem with it; low-revenue teams will care less about it. I think there was some kind of offset created to compensate teams for lost revenues, but I don't recall all the details on it and I don't have it handy at the moment. I would suspect that kind of deal would have to be struck again. (Insert comment about players wanting a piece of that pie.)

The group that had a problem with neutral-site games last time? The players. While it's true that arenas today aren't like arenas 25 years ago, there's still a lot of those older arenas around; facilities and accommodations were a huge stink point for the players. It was kind of a chance for locations like Minneapolis, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, and even a Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Saskatoon, Halifax and Hamilton to showcase fan support for potential future expansion. With those, they also got such luxurious locations as Sacramento, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Providence and Peoria (relocated from Birmingham). Most games didn't sell out, including games at Hamilton. (Including an early '92-93 game in Hamilton between the Leafs and still-new Senators.)

 

[Mickey Marner]

I'd be okay with it for novelty events like 'home' openers or the Winter Classic. The Iles & Sens are closer in attendance to the London Knights than they are any other NHL team, not much to lose there.

 

[ChompChomp]

Kraft Hockeyville regular season game please. Been saying this years. I'd love to attend or even watch that on TV.

 

[ChompChomp]

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

Not Vegas-Seattle, but Seattle versus anyone in OKC would be interesting just to have Seattle fans come down and boo the people of OKC. Probably Seattle vs. Dallas in OKC makes sense.

 

[tony d]

I enjoyed the neutral site games. Maybe when we get Seattle each team plays 1 game in a non-NHL city.

That would be 16, those 16 cities would be:

Baltimore
Cincinatti
Kansas City
Milwaukee
Oakland
Omaha
Oklahoma City
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego

Halifax
Quebec City
Hamilton
Saskatoon
Regina
Victoria

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I enjoyed the neutral site games. Maybe when we get Seattle each team plays 1 game in a non-NHL city.

That would be 16, those 16 cities would be:

Baltimore
Cincinatti
Kansas City
Milwaukee
Oakland
Omaha
Oklahoma City
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego

Halifax
Quebec City
Hamilton
Saskatoon
Regina
Victoria

OK, I'll bite. Which 16 teams are going to be the ones to give up a home game for that? And, where those teams are high-revenue generators, how do you propose indemnifying them in some part for the loss of that home game?

 

[MNNumbers]

OK, I'll bite. Which 16 teams are going to be the ones to give up a home game for that? And, where those teams are high-revenue generators, how do you propose indemnifying them in some part for the loss of that home game?

Very simple answer....
None of the above.
The schedule matrix goes to 5/2 which adds up to 83 games. Each team has one game more than presently, and it's a neutral site game.

 

[kaiser matias]

Very simple answer....
None of the above.
The schedule matrix goes to 5/2 which adds up to 83 games. Each team has one game more than presently, and it's a neutral site game.

Why would either the owners or players agree to an extra game?

 

[MNNumbers]

Why would either the owners or players agree to an extra game?

Owners: If the extra game at a neutral site increases revenues, they would be happy about it.
Players: If there is enough extra revenue that they get more in their paycheck.....

I actually don't think it's happening. I was just saying if you add one more game to the season, the schedule totally balances out.

 

[Tawnos]

I enjoyed the neutral site games. Maybe when we get Seattle each team plays 1 game in a non-NHL city.

That would be 16, those 16 cities would be:

Baltimore
Cincinatti
Kansas City
Milwaukee
Oakland
Omaha
Oklahoma City
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego

Halifax
Quebec City
Hamilton
Saskatoon
Regina
Victoria

It's a good list. I'd look to add a northeast US city or 2 besides Baltimore. Perhaps Hartford, Providence?

 

[Yukon Joe]

I enjoyed the neutral site games. Maybe when we get Seattle each team plays 1 game in a non-NHL city.

No.

There's perhaps some room for a one-off neutral site game, but the idea is it has to be made into an event. It has to be special. Hold it on a weekend, put other events around it. It needs to be special to be successful.

Having 16 of them is the opposite of special. That's close to one a week.

 

[kaiser matias]

Owners: If the extra game at a neutral site increases revenues, they would be happy about it.
Players: If there is enough extra revenue that they get more in their paycheck.....

I actually don't think it's happening. I was just saying if you add one more game to the season, the schedule totally balances out.

But would having a game in a smaller arena that isn't owned/operated by the owner going to make any more money than having an extra game in their home arena?

I mean I would be very interested to see games in neutral sites, but just don't see it working financially.

 

[EightyOne]

no

 

[Rob]

Mandatory? No. If certain teams want to have a couple of neutral site games I don't have a problem with it.
ie - The Sens hosting the Jets/Oilers/Flames/Canucks in Saskatoon.

 

[The Lemonheads]

Ottawa being a draw in Saskatoon? In what world? They need to worry about playing in Ottawa.

 

[TheLegend]

People aren’t taking into consideration the lease agreements between teams and their home arenas.

Just off the top of my head, from past discussions on the Winter Classic the Rangers are not allowed to have a home game outside of MSG. There may be other teams that have similar arrangements.

So if you’re going to declare the every team play a home game on a neutral site then you’re going to have to take this into account.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Very simple answer....
None of the above.
The schedule matrix goes to 5/2 which adds up to 83 games. Each team has one game more than presently, and it's a neutral site game.

It "balances" only if the neutral site game is a divisional game. Given how compressed the schedule already is, I'm hard-pressed to see where the NHLPA agrees to add yet another game in a non-NHL arena simply for the hope of more revenue that half-accrues to the players.

The owners won't give a rip about an 83rd game, because it's not money in their pockets. If anything, I suspect they'll fight harder against it because they don't get anything from it but it pads salaries for players.

 

[MNNumbers]

People aren’t taking into consideration the lease agreements between teams and their home arenas.

Just off the top of my head, from past discussions on the Winter Classic the Rangers are not allowed to have a home game outside of MSG. There may be other teams that have similar arrangements.

So if you’re going to declare the every team play a home game on a neutral site then you’re going to have to take this into account.

What would be interesting, Legend, would be if the NHL declared that each team play one neutral site game IN ADDITION TO the usual home schedule. That would be a definition of a 'neutral' site game, and would not interfere with the lease arrangements. MSG would still have 41 home games, and that would be the complete home schedule.

Is that not correct?

 

[TheLegend]

What would be interesting, Legend, would be if the NHL declared that each team play one neutral site game IN ADDITION TO the usual home schedule. That would be a definition of a 'neutral' site game, and would not interfere with the lease arrangements. MSG would still have 41 home games, and that would be the complete home schedule.

Is that not correct?

You’re saying make the season schedule 83 games?? OR are you somehow coming up with a formula that gives everyone:

41 homes games
40 away games
1 neutral site game

???

 

[MNNumbers]

You’re saying make the season schedule 83 games?? OR are you somehow coming up with a formula that gives everyone:

41 homes games
40 away games
1 neutral site game

???

First, it will never happen, and it shouldn't. Not enough money and no reason to try a neutral market.

Second, IF THEY DID, it would be easiest to go 83 games, and the 83rd game would be the 5th against the last division opponent, making the schedule....
Home/away vs everyone
5 games vs division opponents.

But again, it won't happen.

 

[tank44]

tommy:

that's more due to the Sounders vs the Timbers, than anything else, because if that were true why haven't the Blazers even discussed the probability of Seattle rather than an expansion team route like you're seeing with OVG.....

Re: Portland-Seattle - it's a rivalry in many senses in sports and business. Seattle WHL's #1 rival is Portland and then way way down the list at #2 would be the cross-town rivals in Everett. Every game has "Portland sucks" chants akin to the Rangers' Potvin sucks. At the national level, the rivalry only exists in MLS otherwise. It was prominent when NBA was in Seattle. Going with Tommy's initial comment, Portland wouldn't be cheering for a Seattle team when there is any other option.

Re: neutral site games... The players would just see this as another road game even though it may not suggest this in the standings. Any night away from home and in a hotel is an away game.

Re: Preseason neutral site games.... This is where any growing the game in alternative sites needs to be. I remember as a kid, 2-3 teams would have their training camp on Vancouver Island in BC. Even Seattle, who is getting a NHL team, last hosted a NHL preseason game in 2009 (Phx vs TB in Everett). I have no idea why there wasn't 1-3 games in the area this past year and next at the WHL arenas. A lot of the cities listed and even smaller ones would make great sense in the preseason but over saturation can still be a problem. Hey Salt Lake, here's Anaheim vs Calgary C-stringers for the 3rd straight year.

 

[TheLegend]

First, it will never happen, and it shouldn't. Not enough money and no reason to try a neutral market.

Second, IF THEY DID, it would be easiest to go 83 games, and the 83rd game would be the 5th against the last division opponent, making the schedule....
Home/away vs everyone
5 games vs division opponents.

But again, it won't happen.

Oh I know it won't either. Just wasn't sure what you were getting at with the 41 home games and 1 neutral site.

 

[coolboarder]

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)

If they are going to drop 6 games, then increase the number of playoff teams to make up for the downfall. It is playoff revenue that make the most money for the owners and does not pay the players salary in the postseason. NHL covers the prize money for the players playing in the playoffs if I am not mistaken. The big question is how much increase of the spots given to teams and how the playoff structure might look like with uneven brackets? How would players might feel about that, loss of potential salary income in exchange for playoffs dates in their career. Most players will likely vote a "no" to dropping games. They would however say yes if it doesn't cost them some salary or increase hockey-related revenue to 55-45 if the owners want one extra round of playoff and playoff would not count as a hockey related revenue. I am not sure if playoff hockey counts as a hockey related revenue.