snowy_owl's proposal to make the NHL more viable

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:26 am

I'm unsure of how many people here watch hockey, but a name like snowy_owl gives a hint that I do. Anyway, the NHL isn't as financially viable as the MLB, NFL, and NBA, for a number of reasons. I think that this proposal would make the league more financially viable:

-Six teams are altogether eliminated from the league, leaving 24 teams.
-Six more teams are relocated.
-Of the twelve owners who's teams are being eliminated/relocated, six will be paid a fixed contraction fee, and the other six will have the option of keeping their team in its new market, selling it to another owner, or being paid the contraction fee and having the NHL run the team until a buyer can be found.

The new divisions would be as follows:

America Eastern Divison:
1. Boston Bruins
2. Buffalo Sabres
3. New York Rangers
4. Philadelphia Flyers
5. Pittsburgh Penguins
6. Washington Capitals

America Western Divison:
1. Chicago Blackhawks
2. Detroit Red Wings
3. Los Angeles Kings
4. Minnesota Wild
5. San Jose Sharks
6. St. Louis Blues

Canada Eastern Division:
1. Montreal Canadiens
2. Ottawa Senators
3. Toronto Maple Leafs
4. Halifax, Nova Scotia
5. Hamilton, Ontario
6. Quebec City, Quebec

Canada Western Division:
1. Calgary Flames
2. Edmonton Oilers
3. Vancouver Canucks
4. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
5. Winnipeg, Manitoba
6. Regina, Saskatchewan/Victoria, British Columbia/Yellowknife, Northwest Territories (depending on what the situation would be with public funding for a new arena and so forth)

All players in the NHL and who are property of an NHL team are placed into a pool. A draft order is randomly selected, and snakes back and forth between rounds (like in a fantasy football draft).
i.e. 1 through 24, then 24 through 1, then 1 through 24

All players' current contracts become property of their new team. Salary cap rules still apply.

What do you guys think?

EDIT: Winnipeg and Quebec City previously had teams. The Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver after the 1994-95 season and the Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix after the 1996-97 season. The reason why it was hard for Canadian teams to make money at that point is because of the exchange rate. It was approx. CAD$1.50=USD$1. Players wanted to be paid in American dollars, and fans paid for their tickets in Canadian dollars. That more than offset the fact that hockey is so much bigger in Canada than it is in the southern United States. Today, the exchange rate is CAD$1.0087=USD$1.

Baiting Guru Joined: 29 Jan 2008 Posts: 2531 Location: AU

go the canucks

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:16 am

If you're a fan of the Devils, Islanders, Thrashers, Panthers, Hurricanes, Lightning, Blue Jackets, Predators, Avalanche, Ducks, Stars, or Coyotes...please don't flame me over this. Your team just doesn't have a lot of fan support. Most of these teams (with the exception of the Blue Jackets, Islanders, Devils, and Avalanche) are in the southern United States. People just don't tend to follow hockey that much in that area. There just aren't many skating rinks, and the weather is very rarely cold enough to permit skating on a frozen pond. People who skate and play hockey from a young age tend to be much more likely to be a hockey fan for life.

The 2004-05 NHL lockout severely hurt the league, especially in the non-traditional hockey markets. Many haven't recovered, and the likelihood of them recovering isn't very good. In Canada, hockey and curling are the top sports. I feel that with the Canadian dollar having recovered, the Canadian markets would have much more success than some of their American counterparts.

And no, I'm not Canadian.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:24 am

Nobody here watches the NHL?

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:48 am

Apparently not, but I believe it is rather big in Canadaland.

Anyone fancy getting lads to wear hockey kit and adopt skating poses? You can tell them that the ice and skates will be photoshopped in later. Smile

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:03 pm

^^^And pray tell what's wrong with having lads strap actual knives to their feet?

snowy_owl wrote:

There just aren't many skating rinks, and the weather is very rarely cold enough to permit skating on a frozen pond

So why keep San Jose and LA (she asked, being a Islanders fan in her youth)?

*** BANNED *** Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 2049

...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:13 pm

The problem with your plan is that it forces owners, who obviously don't share your concerns, to sell their teams for a price that is determined by the league (not the open market) or involuntarily re-locate. If the owners of the "non-viable" teams wanted out they would sell and the team would be moved.

You also failed to consider existing contracts which would have to be honored by the team, regardless of what the league does. Forcing another team to assume the contracts of involuntarily traded players would also likely break some teams (Penguins). The resulting lawsuits between players/teams and teams/league would have longer lasting consequences than the lock-out.

Lastly, the player's union might have a thing or two to say about this as a sudden surplus of franchise players would certainly lower league salaries overall.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:53 pm

How did you rate fan support? Asks the Avalanche fan, trying hard not to flame.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:20 pm

Go Wings...

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:17 pm

mr.scissorkick wrote:

How did you rate fan support? Asks the Avalanche fan, trying hard not to flame.

Attendance rankings for the last three seasons for the Avalanche...

2009-10: 27th
2008-09: 26th
2007-08: 17th

By comparison, the Edmonton Oilers, who were the worst team in the NHL by far last season, ranked 19th in attendance for 2009-10. Any time your team is in the bottom 5 in the league (in ANY season) it starts to bring up the question of whether your team is viable in its current market. Not to say the Avalanche aren't viable in their market, but I will say that looking at the attendance figures for both the Avalanche and the Devils were disappointing.

EDIT: And the Avalanche made the playoffs both last year and in 2007-08, so they can't use the excuse of "our team sucked and that's why no one came to the games".

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:26 pm

jose_cuervo wrote:

The problem with your plan is that it forces owners, who obviously don't share your concerns, to sell their teams for a price that is determined by the league (not the open market) or involuntarily re-locate. If the owners of the "non-viable" teams wanted out they would sell and the team would be moved.

I agree, this is the biggest hurdle to get over. Although, I'd imagine that at least some of the owners would go along with it because they are losing money with the way the league is set up now.

jose_cuervo wrote:

You also failed to consider existing contracts which would have to be honored by the team, regardless of what the league does. Forcing another team to assume the contracts of involuntarily traded players would also likely break some teams (Penguins). The resulting lawsuits between players/teams and teams/league would have longer lasting consequences than the lock-out.

I did say in my OP that players' contracts would have to be honored as-is by their new teams. And yes, it would break up some good teams and make some bad teams better.

jose_cuervo wrote:

Lastly, the player's union might have a thing or two to say about this as a sudden surplus of franchise players would certainly lower league salaries overall.

Not if there was an increase in the salary cap, and there likely would be due to the increase in league profits.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:46 pm

So as soon as any other team reaches the bottom 5 for attendance would you want them moved as well?

And I don't care if the Avs reach the playoffs, they still suck. We used to have the best goalie of all time and one of the greatest 2-way players of all time. 1st round exits are not my idea of a successful season. Compare these meager attendance numbers to them 8th in 2000-01 when they brought the cup home, and 10th the year after. Not bad for a football town.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:49 pm

Also, Mr. Scissorkick...I would consider putting the Avalanche in there, but at the expense of which of those other teams? The Avalanche DID sell out 487 consecutive games from 1995-2006, although McNichols Arena only held just over 16,000 fans. But, the question remains, why were almost 25% of tickets unsold last season when the Avalanche were a playoff team?

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:48 pm

Beginning to sound like MLB fans...or staticians.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:39 pm

I wish I could debate it!
Ice Hockey is the favoured sport of my family.

Footy (soccer) is full of hair-dressers who fall over and cry at the slightest nudge.
They call themselves sportsmen!
In the UK, everybody likes footy as it's slow enough for them.

The yanks watch games of cricket ( invented to let the rest of the commonwealth think that they could be on a par with over-paid diplomats) with a rounders bat where they see 11 mins. of action in a whole game or, spend half a day watching amateur rugby with hockey gear on.

You expect people who find these pastimes exciting to be interested in your post?
Never!...It's too fast for them! Rolling Eyes

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:51 pm

Fowan said:

Quote:

spend half a day watching amateur rugby with hockey gear on.

Three words...salary cap gone?

It would ruin the NFL as we know it. Those teams who could afford the players would get them the rest would remain mediocre for just about forever. Even the players are against it and they have all that money to gain. The fans still haven't come back to "rounders" the way they used to. Even the regulations and rules of the league are far from what they used to be, almost making the game easier. Gone are the days of rough and tumble games.

All other sports are overpaid.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:57 pm

Quote:

All other sports are overpaid

My son is a pro hockey player and gets nothing apart from kit.
That's what makes a sportsman!

Money ruins all sports.
Including the pussy "sports" that I mentioned earlier

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:05 pm

What level?

Major Pro hockey players get plenty(NHL). Now other minor pro leagues (USHL, CHMA,WCHL, etc.) don't pay so much. I have spent some time with the Great One and know it's business, not just playing the game.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:41 pm

At the expense of which team? Go ahead and take Saskatoon off of that list, or take Regina off. Both have a population 1/3 the size of Denver, which is itself a small market team.
And how did Yellowknife make your list? Every man woman and child city living in Yellowknife could be seated comfortably in the Pepsi center (Denver's Arena).

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:04 pm

Snowy_owl wrote:

I'm unsure of how many people here watch hockey, but a name like snowy_owl gives a hint that I do.

I thought you made cigars. Shocked

Snowy_owl, who doesn't make cigars wrote:

What do you guys think?

This seems to be rhetorical in nature as you have an argument for what everyone else thinks. Hmmm....

I never attended an Avalanche game. I did how ever have to pay the taxes that paid for the arena so others could attend.

If I wanted to watch people beating each other with sticks while hundreds watch and cheer, I would own Roller Ball (the older version and the newer version), or I would watch Jai alai.

It always surprises me how people think that Motorsports fans watch for the crashes, yet Hockey gets a free pass about the violence in that activity. Rolling Eyes

Ooops, seems I have strayed into a subject I don't care about and made comments. Beg your forgiveness...

Note to self: Don't post in threads where they use sticks and score by knocking out teeth. Laughing

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:08 pm

Two words:

Go Hawks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate the NFL and I can't believe the Bears have a 4-1 season. They suck.

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:05 pm

To be honest, Yellowknife made the list as a potential 12th Canadian team out of pity for the people that live up there more than anything else. I really don't think they'd be a viable home for a NHL team.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:40 am

mr.scissorkick wrote:

Not bad for a football town.

What is a hockey town these days? By hockey town, I mean "the sports media of that city focuses on hockey more than any other sport". They do exist, but they are few and far between (in the United States, that is). Even in a place like Boston, the Bruins are heavily overshadowed by the Patriots, Red Sox and Celtics, as far as sports media coverage goes.

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:12 am

Hockey sucks. Go Jets in the NFL

snowy_owl's proposal to make the NHL more viable	View next topic View previous topic