NHL Reorganization

[pboily]

According to SuBI (and the Calgary Herald, that bastion of sports journalism integrity), a group of Hamilton investors is looking to buy one of several ailing NHL franchises to move it to Hamilton, Ontario (or as I like to refer to it, the Cornwall of Southern Ontario).

So I thought it would be as good a time as any to re-introduce one of my favorite hockey related question.

We will assume that somehow, somewhere, a coherent business plan is in place that would allow both hockey-crazy cities in Canada AND business centers in the USA (as well as hockey-crazy regions in the USA) to compete on a somewhat equal footing.

How many teams would your North American Hockey League contain, and where would they be located? Would you keep things as they are, would you change it dramatically? Maybe you want an all-Canada league? Or you'd go back to the original 6? Original 12? 14? 21? Would you introduce relegation?

I will get the ball rolling. Preferably, I would bring the number of teams down to 24, 10 in Canada, and 14 in the US. I know of at least 2 Hurricanes fans on this board alone, so I am not deluded into thinking that there are 0 hockey fans in Carolina, say, but if I have to choose between Winnipeg, where the Jets were the only game in town during winter months, or Raleigh, where the Hurricanes will always play second (or sixth) fiddle to a college basketball team...
anyways, here are my teams:

• Boston Bruins (New England gets a team, but Jacobs won't be let near my league)
• Buffalo Sabres (Hockey's not the only game in town, but it's one of two games in town)
• Calgary Flames (obviously)
• Chicago Blackhawks (Can hockey work in the Windy City? Maybe after the ^*%&%&^%$@$%@ Wirtzes have been dead a while. Bring back Chicago Stadium!)
• Cleveland Barons (I'll be honest, I don't know a lot about Columbus. Cleveland sounds like a better choice...)
• Colorado Avalanche (Can't believe I forgot these guys...)
• Dallas Stars (apparently, there's plenty of grassroot interest in the game)
• Detroit Red Wings (hockeytown)
• Edmonton Oilers (obviously, again)
• Halifax Mariners (would be the Green Bay Packers of the League)
• Hamilton Steelers (the reason I'm starting this thread in the first place)
• Los Angeles Kings (market, market, market)
• Canadiens de Montreal (they like hockey enough to get two teams, but I can't imagine a Montrealer cheering for a team other than the Habs)
• New Jersey Devils (Based on Cuchullain's suggestion)
• New York Rangers (R.I.P. NY Islanders)
• Ottawa Senators (Maybe we won't choke as much in this new league... chokers...)
• Philadelphia Flyers (If there was any justice, the Flyers would have won something over my 30 years of exitence, but that's the Curse of Bobby Clarke for you...)
• Nordiques de Quebec (The good people of Quebec have not suffered overly much in the absence of hockey, but I'm sure they'd welcome it back if the price was right)
• San Jose Sharks (not hockey fanatics, but the Sharks have done well at the gate from the get-go)
• St. Louis Blues (cannot compete with the Cards or the Rams, but I remember many packed houses in the Brett's days)
• St. Paul Saints (hockey hotbed of the US, what was the NHL thinking by leaving in the first place? But the Wild?... that's got to go...)
• Toronto Maple Leafs (another city that could easily have two teams... would make for interesting "derbys")
• Vancouver Canucks (rabid following, in spite of years of sucking. They're in.)
• Winnipeg Jets (if I was a sports' bigamist, this would be the other woman...)

EDITTED to correct a number of oversights...

 

[Cuchullain]

Interesting. If the New York area would only get two teams, which one would go (as they now have three)? My guess would be the Islanders, though I've never been a big fan of the New Jersey Devils. The Devils have a larger fan base than the Islanders, though. The Rangers would absolutely have to stick around. Any mention of removing them is just crazy talk.

And didn't Montreal already have two teams? The province didn't seem to support the Nordiques enough to make them economically viable.

I think Seattle makes sense only if you can create a local rivalry with Vancouver. Play on their pride.

I disagree with Milwaukee; I don't think their market would be able to sustain a professional team (minor league, perhaps, but not pro). Instead, I'd choose Cleveland.

Otherwise, a very interesting post indeed.

 

[pboily]

Interesting. If the New York area would only get two teams, which one would go (as they now have three)? My guess would be the Islanders, though I've never been a big fan of the New Jersey Devils. The Devils have a larger fan base than the Islanders, though. The Rangers would absolutely have to stick around. Any mention of removing them is just crazy talk.

The way the Islanders have been going over the last 20 years, it would appear they are the leading candidates.

And didn't Montreal already have two teams? The province didn't seem to support the Nordiques enough to make them economically viable.

The Wanderers died in the late 1910s, I think, and the Maroons in the 30s. Of course, for the Nordiques, you'd need a viable economic plan (such as there does not exist right now, but that's the point of the exercise, if we had such a plan, would Quebec be a good hockey city? hell yeah!)

I think Seattle makes sense only if you can create a local rivalry with Vancouver. Play on their pride.

For all we know, Seattlers (?) are already Canucks fans... maybe not that great of an idea.

I disagree with Milwaukee; I don't think their market would be able to sustain a professional team (minor league, perhaps, but not pro). Instead, I'd choose Cleveland.

That reminds me, I forgot Denver.

 

[Shaunold]

First off there is no way the leafs are ever going to let a team go to hamilton....ever.
And I think that 30 teams is a good number but maybe some relocations.
Teams like florida and Atlanta and other U.S markets that have there buildings half empty every game could move to other citys that deserve it more and could support them better. If there was a team in Winnepeg it the building would be sold out every night.

 

[ChrTh]

You might want to add Tampa Bay to your list. They were second in overall attendance and second in average attendance last season, ahead of every team except Montreal.

Forget Boston. You think Raleigh's a tough place for Hockey? No one cares about the Bruins anymore in Boston. Give Hartford the New England team.

As for Carolina, you're just bitter we're the STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

(speaking of which, I got to see Lord Stanley's Cup a couple weeks ago ... nice to see it in the Southeast where it belongs )

EDIT: You can't blame Atlanta fans for low attendance ... EVERY sport in Atlanta has poor attendance, it's sort of a running joke. Of course, Atlanta and Florida still drew way more than Chicago and St. Louis. Here's a link to last year's attendance figures.

 

[pboily]

Yeah, I think hockey is done and done in Chicago. I can't really see the Blackhawks survive as a meaningful sporting entity. But no major mid-west market would be disastrous for my league.

And you're probably right about Boston, although the handful of Bruins fans I have spoken say that would probably change if Jacobs disappeared in a strange multi-dimensional vortex. Alright, I'll turn it into a New England Whalers-type entity.

St. Louis will bounce back this year (in the standings and at the gate), I promise you that.

And while Tampa Bay is certainly amongst the league leaders in attendance, I have a sneaking suspicion not all of those are paying customers...

Is there a place where we can see which team made the most money over the last ten years?

EDIT: And bitterness has nothing to do with it. I'd be bitter if the Leafs won the Cup, but I wouldn't suggest contracting them. I'm bitter the Expos left Montreal, but that doesn't change the fact that Montreal is not a baseball city. Like I said, Carolina has hockey fans, knowledgeable hockey fans, but Raleigh is just not a hockey city, and it is not a major market in the USA (unless I'm clearly forgetting something from my geography days). On that basis (see assumptions in the OP) and because I desire less teams in the league...

 

[ChrTh]

Here is a Forbes article about the value/revenue/income of the NHL franchises as of the lockout. I'll see if I can find 2005-6 numbers. Tampa had good numbers, but of course they had won the Stanley Cup the previous spring.

 

[ChrTh]

No luck finding 2006 numbers ... I suspect they haven't been reported yet


EDIT: I didn't really think you were bitter, I was joking. The fact remains that the NHL should have a Southeast team. Your choices are Nashville, Atlanta, and Carolina ... of the three, Carolina is your best bet. And the Panthers should go with the Lightning staying (Florida isn't really "Southeast" -- it's a totally different demographic base).

Also, what is the goal of your league? Is it gate revenues or TV revenues? If it's the latter, you're going to want to make sure that every region in the US is covered.

 

[pboily]

Don't get me wrong, I am bitter that you guys won the Cup. But I'm bitter every year the Sens don't win the Cup, so...

I think the TV revenue experiment has been shown to be a failure in the US. Maybe the point is that the NHL will not (cannot) compete with the NFL and MLB (and the NBA, to a lesser extent) and so it cannot hope to play by the same rule. A league in which TV revenues are important is not a league in which Winnipeg, Halifax, Quebec, and Hamilton can thrive... I guess the thought experiment should be stated as:

Imagine the NHL comes to its senses and realizes it cannot compete with the big 3. So it sets aside its dreams of a continent wide organization and decides to organize on a regional basis (in the US) and on a national basis (in Canada). Which (and how many) teams do you involve?

 

[Shaunold]

I also wanted to say that almost any team can be a huge draw if they are winning. I'am sure Bruins fans and may even chicago fans would come out in droves if they were a cup contender. The blacks hawks are a mess though I'am not sure about that one.

 

[evil potato]

[*] Canadiens de Montreal (they like hockey enough to get two teams, but I can't imagine a Montrealer cheering for a team other than the Habs)

Your damn right about this one. And i also have think the same would apply for Toronto.

And i also disagree for Quebec. It's simple math. They get good hockey from the QHJML Remparts some not too bad from the Radio X of the North American League at a fraction of the price. I remember like a year or two ago, there was an exhibition game between Canada vs USA, at the Quebec Collisee, during the lock-out, and the place was like 1/3 full. You know, the time the anthem singer didnt remember the USA lyrics and fell on the ice?

 

[Dusty4prez]

You need a team in Regina/Saskatoon.

 

[Low Tier Hero]

Look in Boston we care about every team, well, except the MLS teams. Soccer doesent really stick well here. Were infamous for showing our love for our teams with contempt. Its that hard a$$ irish "tough love" vibe the city has had for years.

Anyways, the bottom line is, if you cant fill the arena, you dont deserve a team, no matter where you are.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

No offence, pboily, but your idea is a good way to relegate the NHL to beer league status real fast. For my idea, I'll just copy a post I made on the NHL.com message boards a while back.

1) Expand the league to 32 teams, one more in each conference. I'm going to throw out Houston and Hamilton, but the specific cities are not relevant to this discussion.

2) Remove one division per conference, so you have four divisions of eight teams each. Return to non-geographical divisions, Smythe, Norris, etc. Among other things, this would prevent the Canadian teams from eliminating each other in the first round year after year.

3) Return the playoffs to divisional format. The top four teams from each division make the playoffs. Team 1 plays against team 4, team 2 against 3, in the first round. Second round is division finals, then conference finals, then cup finals. Well, you all know how division based playoffs work.

I think this would make the playoffs a lot better. Division rivalries would be magnified.

The only team I would seriously consider moving is Anaheim, and that's to Houston.

The Predators will never leave because the deal they have on their arena is too good and would never be found anywhere they'd be allowed by the league to move to. The city of Nashville wants them there so they cover all operational losses from the arena, meaning it's essentially impossible for the Predators to lose money now that they're a regular winner.

Tampa has always had good attendance.

Carolina has just won the cup, a team so recently having won the cup will never move.

 

[pboily]

No offence, pboily, but your idea is a good way to relegate the NHL to beer league status real fast.

I'm not offended, but I think the NHL is already a beer league...

Although I would also prefer meaningful 4-divisional alignment.

 

[ChrTh]

Ok, here's an idea:

2 Leagues
3 Divisions of 6 teams each: Canada, US, and Europe
Relegation for the teams that finish last in the 'top' league
Schedule would be heavily tilted towards your own region, most games in the same league (teams in Canada top league would play games against the team in the other league, but would not play other divisions in the other league)
Don't ask me how the playoffs would work with three divisions ...

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

• Boston Bruins (New England gets a team, but Jacobs won't be let near my league)
• Buffalo Sabres (Hockey's not the only game in town, but it's one of two games in town)
• Calgary Flames (obviously)
• Chicago Blackhawks (Can hockey work in the Windy City? Maybe after the ^*%&%&^%$@$%@ Wirtzes have been dead a while. Bring back Chicago Stadium!)
• Cleveland Barons (I'll be honest, I don't know a lot about Columbus. Cleveland sounds like a better choice...)
• Colorado Avalanche (Can't believe I forgot these guys...)
• Dallas Stars (apparently, there's plenty of grassroot interest in the game)
• Detroit Red Wings (hockeytown)
• Edmonton Oilers (obviously, again)
• Halifax Mariners (would be the Green Bay Packers of the League)
• Hamilton Steelers (the reason I'm starting this thread in the first place)
• Los Angeles Kings (market, market, market)
• Canadiens de Montreal (they like hockey enough to get two teams, but I can't imagine a Montrealer cheering for a team other than the Habs)
• New Jersey Devils (Based on Cuchullain's suggestion)
• New York Rangers (R.I.P. NY Islanders)
• Ottawa Senators (Maybe we won't choke as much in this new league... chokers...)
• Philadelphia Flyers (If there was any justice, the Flyers would have won something over my 30 years of exitence, but that's the Curse of Bobby Clarke for you...)
• Nordiques de Quebec (The good people of Quebec have not suffered overly much in the absence of hockey, but I'm sure they'd welcome it back if the price was right)
• San Jose Sharks (not hockey fanatics, but the Sharks have done well at the gate from the get-go)
• St. Louis Blues (cannot compete with the Cards or the Rams, but I remember many packed houses in the Brett's days)
• St. Paul Saints (hockey hotbed of the US, what was the NHL thinking by leaving in the first place? But the Wild?... that's got to go...)
• Toronto Maple Leafs (another city that could easily have two teams... would make for interesting "derbys")
• Vancouver Canucks (rabid following, in spite of years of sucking. They're in.)
• Winnipeg Jets (if I was a sports' bigamist, this would be the other woman...)

EDITTED to correct a number of oversights...

My list would be pretty much the same, except leave the Wild alone, and instead of Hamilton/Halifax, teams in Kansas City and Seattle. Not sure how popular hockey is in Seattle, but there are alot of people in the area around Seattle, so they could give it a shot.

 

[Cuchullain]

My list would be pretty much the same, except leave the Wild alone, and instead of Hamilton/Halifax, teams in Kansas City and Seattle. Not sure how popular hockey is in Seattle, but there are alot of people in the area around Seattle, so they could give it a shot.

I don't think hockey would work in Seattle. With football, basketball, and baseball being as popular as they are, I think all hockey could hope for is a very distant fourth place amongst the public (especially with the hockey and basketball seasons overlapping as much as they do). As for Kansas City, I'm not all that familiar with the area, but with attendance struggling in St. Louis, can the Kansas City marketplace be much more viable?

 

[ChrTh]

Seattle is about to lose the Sonics to Oklahoma City; it's unknown if they'll get one back (doubtful, as there are other cities better suited for a new franchise, such as Las Vegas). Hockey should be able to prosper as a winter sport there.

I'm not sure why people think KC would be a good spot.

 

[DBear]

Cleveland Barons? Dear Gawd, didn't they last one season before becoming the original Colorado Rockies, now the New Jersey Devils? Columbus is the bigger city, and hockey is the only game in town. Leave Columbus alone.