Should NHL Home Game Scheduling Favor "Weak Markets"?

[optimus2861]

As far as who is in these games, at some point the League needs to dictate its own schedule.

So long as the NHL needs an American broadcast network more than an American broadcast network needs the NHL, that won't happen. Maybe after green cheese starts growing on Mars.

 

[Spydey629]

I'll admit, I jumped to page 4 without reading everything, so if this repetitive, I apologize in advance.

The NHL does help teams with the schedule right now.

I'd have to dig thru the internet, but I remember an interview with Pens VP of Communications Tom McMillan a couple years ago.

Basically, when the team was awful (Pre-Sid) the NHL 'helped' the Pens by giving them more weekend home games, and tried to make marquee opponents the team they played for a week night game.

The statement came after Sid arrived, and the sellout streak started. He was acknowledging the fact that the Pens were a marquee team again, and they would be the ones playing fewer Saturday night home games, so that they could "return the favor" and help some struggling teams at the gate.

It's purely a business move. If you can do it for teams not through things horribly out of whack, you should do it.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I hope any American that thinks this is a good idea is also supportive of a National Healthcare program and agreed with the auto-industry bailouts.

Because this is along similar lines....tossing the capitalism aside and propping up businesses. If a team can't be viable in their market when they are treated like every other team....they shouldn't be stopped from failing.

Revenue sharing is one thing....going farther than that is too much. This would put additional strains on franchises that are successful. There is a point where you have to stop relying on successful franchises to hold up the unsuccessful franchises.

Revenue sharing should be more than enough for "soft market" teams to make a go of it....if you still can't....you should fail and the team should be moved. Relocation isn't so bad that it is worth adding another way to assist weak teams/markets.

If this sounds like a good idea why not just go all the way? All revenues are pooled and divided up 30 ways. Who cares who makes more or who has made their NHL franchise successful? Just split up the revenues equally and everybody wins!

 

[tarheelhockey]

I hope any American that thinks this is a good idea is also supportive of a National Healthcare program and agreed with the auto-industry bailouts.

There's no connection whatsoever, philosophical or otherwise, between a pro sports league's franchise locations and government healthcare policy. Let's leave politics out of this.

Revenue sharing should be more than enough for "soft market" teams to make a go of it....if you still can't....you should fail and the team should be moved.

What happens when there are 5 teams needing to move today, then 5 different teams in 10 years, the 5 different teams 10 years after that? Are you down with relocating half of the league in a 20-year period?

 

[Jeffrey93]

There's no connection whatsoever, philosophical or otherwise, between a pro sports league's franchise locations and government healthcare policy. Let's leave politics out of this.



What happens when there are 5 teams needing to move today, then 5 different teams in 10 years, the 5 different teams 10 years after that? Are you down with relocating half of the league in a 20-year period?

The league added or moved 13 teams in the span of 10 years. Just shy of your "half of the league".

The point of relocation is to put teams in a market where they will be sustainable and take them out of a market where they clearly are not.

What happens when making a lopsided schedule to favour weak markets isn't enough? What happens when it works and then a historically strong market struggles because they lost a pile of weekend games?

The NHL is usually pretty good at this....jerk your long-time loyal fans around in an effort to create new fans. Personally....I've had enough of it already and think monkeying with the schedule is taking it too far.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The league added or moved 13 teams in the span of 10 years. Just shy of your "half of the league".

That's off-point from what I asked. Do you think it is good policy to relocate every team that becomes vulnerable, even if that means relocating a team every year? Or do you think there is a rational limit to the amount of moving-around that teams should be allowed to do, and a logistical limit to the number of viable markets in North America, and a legal/ethical limit to the circumstances under which new owners should be admitted?

If your stated principle of "fail and move" applied, Balsillie would have been allowed to buy the Pens and very likely would have moved them. Edmonton would have been allowed to move to Houston. The Blues would have moved to Saskatoon ages ago. How's that for "jerking around" the longtime fans? Also, the Predators would likely have moved to Hamilton, eliminating a potential destination market.

What happens when the small-market Canadian cities get teams, and all of a sudden the economy falls out again and they are the ones in trouble? Do you re-relocate them after a decade? What happens when you shuffle all the teams around to the point that there are no more available markets... then another team starts to go under? There are massive logistical issues here that you're either not acknowledging or have not considered.

What happens when making a lopsided schedule to favour weak markets isn't enough? What happens when it works and then a historically strong market struggles because they lost a pile of weekend games?

Needless to say, one season's home schedule is a lot less permanent of an issue than relocating an entire franchise.