2013 NHL realignment

[apuszczalowski]

OKC has the advantage of bringing a new TV market to the league. People from OKC don't have any other hockey team that the natives would naturally root for. Getting them on-board would bring more US TV revenue to the table. That was one of the things that made it attractive to the NBA. (Fort Worth, by way of comparison, has a larger population than OKC but there is no incentive for a major league sport to move/expand there, since the market is already served by other teams- Rangers, Cowboys, Mavericks & Stars.)

It would also replace Phoenix in that division if/when tehy move to Seattle. They would just need one more team in the South West to even things out then.

Move the Avs to the South West and add a team in KC?

[thewookie1]

Why not this:

 

15 in West 15 in East

7 team div and a 8 team div for each

 

 

Top 2 of each Div fight over their Conference's 1-4 slots

The remaining 11 teams fight over the bottom, 5-8 slots

 

1-8 2-7 3-6 4-5

 

Less complicated, logical

[MattPie]

Why not this:

 

15 in West 15 in East

7 team div and a 8 team div for each

 

 

Top 2 of each Div fight over their Conference's 1-4 slots

The remaining 11 teams fight over the bottom, 5-8 slots

 

1-8 2-7 3-6 4-5

 

Less complicated, logical

 

I think you're approaching this as a balance and numbers issue, but the real issue are the teams in the West Conf. in the Eastern time zone that are sick of the late games. The Sabres (generally) take a West swing once a year (various scheduling aside), and we here in the East have these crazy night games that start at 10:30 and run later than the late late show. The die-hards will watch, most of the fans won't. For Detroit and Columbus, that trip is every other week.

 

There's no great solution because there are so many teams in the Eastern time zone. Half of the league is within a decent day's drive (10 hours) of NYC (including Detroit and Columbus, subtracting the FL teams), and 3/4 of those are 6 hours or less (subtract TOR, DET, CBJ, CAR).

[Bmwolf21]

I wonder if Oklahoma City could swing a team? The OKC Thunder is a good rivalry for the Mavericks. An OKC NHL team would go good with the Stars, and would be a closer trip for the Avs. What to name them, though? Sticking with the weather names, maybe the OKC Sleet. Or OKC Hail.

If their arena could be used for Hockey, and theres someone with the money to buy a team, I'm sure the NHL would love having a team there

The NHL needs expansion all over the country (especially the south) to get one of those lucrative TV Deals in the US

 

OKC is struggling to draw fans in the AHL. I wonder if the area would really support an NHL franchise.

[Andrew Amerk]

Or, forget adding 2 more teams to make it 32...instead, eliminate 2 teams and make it 28, with better competition.

[apuszczalowski]

Or, forget adding 2 more teams to make it 32...instead, eliminate 2 teams and make it 28, with better competition.

Thats not going to get you a better TV deal or increase a fanbase to raise league revenues

This will also cost a large amount of jobs for the NHLPA.....

[DaveSnuggerud]

I understand the travel issues for Detroit and Columbus in the west, along with the inconvenience of having a majority of games at 9 or 10pm. It seems to me, however, that 16 teams fighting for 8 playoff spots in the east while 14 teams get a shot at 8 spots in the west is tremendously unfair. From a numbers standpoint this is flat out stupid. Please dont expand in the west to solve this either. I think less is more. Find two teams to contract and rework the divisions.

[IKnowPhysics]

Find two teams to contract

 

Unlikely under Gary Bettman.

 

I was thinking of ways to even things up, and there has to be some reasonable way to even things out. Couple of ideas:

• Take the top three teams from each division and then the next four highest point-getters in the league, but no more than two of those four can come from any one conference. In other words, you get all seeds 1-3, and the best four teams of the eight 4 and 5 seeded teams.
  
• Play-ins between seeds 4 and 5. One game to knock off the 4th seed in a conference is a little brutal- imagine finishing fourth by a wide margin and getting hosed on a blown call to end your season. Instead, try a best-of-three series as a play-in to fourth. Maybe do it in every conference, wild card style. That way we get 20 teams trying to compete their way to the SCF, and you could really start to see some rivalry and cinderella action. Top three seeds get a bye week and time to rest/heal/prepare.
  
• In the 8 team conferences, determine 4th seed not by points, but by the head-to-head record between the 4th and 5th seed teams that year. If it's tied, then play a play-in game or something.
  

[Derrico]

Unlikely under Gary Bettman.

 

I was thinking of ways to even things up, and there has to be some reasonable way to even things out. Couple of ideas:

• Take the top three teams from each division and then the next four highest point-getters in the league, but no more than two of those four can come from any one conference. In other words, you get all seeds 1-3, and the best four teams of the eight 4 and 5 seeded teams.
  
• Play-ins between seeds 4 and 5. One game to knock off the 4th seed in a conference is a little brutal- imagine finishing fourth by a wide margin and getting hosed on a blown call to end your season. Instead, try a best-of-three series as a play-in to fourth. Maybe do it in every conference, wild card style. That way we get 20 teams trying to compete their way to the SCF, and you could really start to see some rivalry and cinderella action. Top three seeds get a bye week and time to rest/heal/prepare.
  
• In the 8 team conferences, determine 4th seed not by points, but by the head-to-head record between the 4th and 5th seed teams that year. If it's tied, then play a play-in game or something.
  

 

I think I may have lost you a bit along the way. I think in the west the top 4 out of 7 make it, period. In the east, the top 3 make it and the 4th and 5th play a one game elimination, hosted by the 4th place team. I know your season could be over by a blown call or whatever but that's how it's done in football and March Madness and I love it. If you don't want to lose on a one gamer then finish in the top 3.

[MattPie]

Play-ins between seeds 4 and 5. One game to knock off the 4th seed in a conference is a little brutal- imagine finishing fourth by a wide margin and getting hosed on a blown call to end your season. Instead, try a best-of-three series as a play-in to fourth. Maybe do it in every conference, wild card style. That way we get 20 teams trying to compete their way to the SCF, and you could really start to see some rivalry and cinderella action. Top three seeds get a bye week and time to rest/heal/prepare.

 

I'm not sure about the 'bye week'. It seems like hockey is one of those sports where time off isn't necessarily a good thing. We've seen plenty of times were a team looks rusty in the playoffs because they had a bunch of time off between rounds. Plus, the playoffs are already 8 weeks long, adding another week is just madness. A play-in game would be awesome though, although I'd probably put some limit on it such as 4-5 need to be within 3 points of each other.

[DaveSnuggerud]

It's my understanding that in all divisions the top 3 teams are guaranteed berths, totaling 6 per conference. The remaining 2 berths are wild cards based on standings, meaning that up to 5 teams in a division could make the playoffs while only 3 make it from the other. This is good IMO, but 16 in the east vs 14 in the west is still the beef I can seem to let go.

[etiennep99]

There have been a few teams (the Eulers come to mind immediately) that have been pushing for a 20 team playoff since at least the lost season lockout.

 

Now you've got me thinking about Euler's Rule, Euler's Equations, eigen values, and, quite appropriately, the Seven Bridges of Königsberg graphing problem.Where is good ol' Leonhard Euler when you need him?

[IKnowPhysics]

I'm not sure about the 'bye week'.

 

I'm not either, but I haven't yet seen any real statistics about time off and its effect on win streaks or the like. Maybe examining the Olympic breaks could offer some clues.

[etiennep99]

I think the Sabres could do really well in a division with Abbotsford, Lake Erie, Rochester, and Hamilton. The Marlies might prove to be a bit much, though.

 

The way I figure it, "Heat strengthens steal", Sabres slay dragons, Americans defend with a big shield, the Bulldogs would fall by the blade. But what's a Marlie?." So, Buffalo would really only need to worry about Rochester.

[Taro T]

Now you've got me thinking about Euler's Rule, Euler's Equations, eigen values, and, quite appropriately, the Seven Bridges of Königsberg graphing problem.Where is good ol' Leonhard Euler when you need him?

:)

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

So assuming we are left with the current proposal:

 

Conference 1

Carolina

Columbus

New Jersey

Philly

NYR

NYI

Pittsburgh

Washington

 

Conference 2

Boston

Toronto

Montreal

Detroit

Ottawa

Buffalo

Tampa

Florida

 

Conference 3

Chicago

Dallas

Colorado

Minnesota

Nashville

St Lous

Winnipeg

OPEN SLOT

 

Conference 4

Anaheim

Calgary

Edmonton

Los Angeles

Phoenix

San Jose

Vancouver

OPEN SLOT

 

I think its safe to say the league has expansion in its plans. switching to a 4 conference model in a 30 team league makes no sense otherwise, and given the setup of this proposal, the league may be showing its cards a little bit here. Looks like cities out west are gonna be have the best shot at getting new teams. It's curious because i would consider Quebec a pretty obvious choice for expansion, but you would think that would be taken into consideration and an eastern conference in this list would have been allocated an "open slot" to work with.

 

Thoughts?

[Trettioåtta]

So assuming we are left with the current proposal:

 

Conference 1

Carolina

Columbus

New Jersey

Philly

NYR

NYI

Pittsburgh

Washington

 

Conference 2

Boston

Toronto

Montreal

Detroit

Ottawa

Buffalo

Tampa

Florida

 

Conference 3

Chicago

Dallas

Colorado

Minnesota

Nashville

St Lous

Winnipeg

OPEN SLOT

 

Conference 4

Anaheim

Calgary

Edmonton

Los Angeles

Phoenix

San Jose

Vancouver

OPEN SLOT

 

I think its safe to say the league has expansion in its plans. switching to a 4 conference model in a 30 team league makes no sense otherwise, and given the setup of this proposal, the league may be showing its cards a little bit here. Looks like cities out west are gonna be have the best shot at getting new teams. It's curious because i would consider Quebec a pretty obvious choice for expansion, but you would think that would be taken into consideration and an eastern conference in this list would have been allocated an "open slot" to work with.

 

Thoughts?

 

I'd like to know which cities are short listed for expansion - obviously Seattle, but it looks like the Yotes might move there. So that means another 2 cities would be needed. Las Vegas? Kansas used to have a team didn't they?

[IKnowPhysics]

I'd like to know which cities are short listed for expansion

 

US locations for expansion were discussed back in 2011, here's what I had. That was before the city leadership in Seattle started to un###### itself and the reality of moving a team there became much more realisitic in the event they could build an arena.

 

TL;DR:

Maybe: Houston, Kansas City

Maybe not: Milwaukee, Sacramento, Indianapolis

Hell no: Las Vegas, Salt Lake

 

 

 

Downtown Milwaukee is VERY close to the 90 mile radius from the United Center. I think it's definitely a market that would embrace a new NHL team, but I question whether the metro Milwaukee area, being only 1.7M people, is a town that has enough high-end luxury advertising and spectating dollars to support all four major sports (Bucks, Brewers, and essentially Packers). They'd probably grab the attention/money of a lot of the state of Wisconsin (some just to spite the Wild and the Blackhawks), but Wisconsin seems to be pretty hockey-happy with college (Badgers), juniors (Gamblers), and the AHL (Admirals).

 

I HATE the idea of Las Vegas, and it's not just a well-founded anti-southern hockey bias. I have a hard time believing that a Las Vegas fan base would be well rooted in the community and that the team would not just be a marketing attraction for tourists. I know people actually live in LV, but most major corporate sponsors, obviously, would be tourism dollars. That, and that town is over-saturated with entertainment attractions to distract sports spectating dollars. No major sports teams have taken root there, despite the existence of population and wealth, and that's likely for a reason.

 

Salt Lake City only has 1.1M in its metropolitan area. Probably a good spot for Western expansion by the AHL, unless SLC is surprisingly NUTS about hockey, like Buffalo-nuts about hockey. Hard to believe.

 

Kansas City has a good chance at a team. The metro area has 2.1M people. The Sprint Center opened in 2007 and isn't in use (but it only seats 17,500 for hockey- marginal). KC already has the Royals and the Chiefs, so whether the town could support another major team might be a little questionable. I'm not sure how popular hockey is in Missouri outside of St Louis.

 

Houston, being the 4th largest city in the US, is an enormous TV market ($$$$, Bettman = 8-D). The Aeros seem to do well and hockey seems to have taken root surprisingly well in Dallas. The city has a lot of large corporate sponsor possibilities (oil money). There might some distraction/money-competition from the three other major sports teams (Royals, Texans, Rockets). The Toyota Center seats 17,800 for hockey and is the home of Rockets and Aeros (probably movable). On paper, like I'm sure Phoenix did, it looks like a solid prospect, but this hockey-in-the-south thing is far from a sure bet. I can see why the availability of huge, rich cities like Houston make it hard for Bettman to do the right thing and put hockey back in Winnipeg or QC.

 

Sacramento, for the same reasons as the more populous San Diego, seems like AHL expansion territory. There's a lot of people and money, but hockey in California is a surely-but-slowly growing endeavor. Sacramento is also almost exactly 90 miles from San Jose. The upside is that with the Sacramento Kings departing for Orange County, Sacramento has an open arena, no other major sports teams, and likely a large number people hungry for pro sports, albeit not necessarily hockey-crazy.

 

Indianapolis is also another decent candidate. It's a large TV market (2M people + rest of Indiana) and a midwestern hockey climate. But the HUGE detractor is that there's no arena suitable for an NHL team. The Conseco Field House could be used temporarily (it seats 14,400 for hockey) while a new arena is being built. There would be competition with the Pacers, Colts, and motor sports.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

I'd like to know which cities are short listed for expansion - obviously Seattle, but it looks like the Yotes might move there. So that means another 2 cities would be needed. Las Vegas? Kansas used to have a team didn't they?

Kansas City currently has the sprint center, which i would daresay is a nicer facility that our own First Niagra Center and is comparable if not larger in size, I could see Houston possibly acquiring a team. Oklahoma City and Seattle both make sense as well.

 

With Bettman running the show i think he tries to fill in some of that empty space out west before he puts yet another team in the northeast (Quebec).

[Trettioåtta]

US locations for expansion were discussed back in 2011, here's what I had. That was before the city leadership in Seattle started to un###### itself and the reality of moving a team there became much more realisitic in the event they could build an arena.

 

Yeah that was my thought about LV as well - they might fill the arena but they wouldn't have fans.

 

Kansas City currently has the sprint center, which i would daresay is a nicer facility that our own First Niagra Center and is comparable if not larger in size, I could see Houston possibly acquiring a team. Oklahoma City and Seattle both make sense as well.

 

With Bettman running the show i think he tries to fill in some of that empty space out west before he puts yet another team in the northeast (Quebec).

 

So realistically the top 3 are probably Seattle, Kasas City and Houston (which surprises me because i wouldn't think Texas, despite its size, could support 2 teams)

 

Why did they move teams from Canada in the first place? I have never understood that as I presume the population could support the teams?

[Taro T]

Yeah that was my thought about LV as well - they might fill the arena but they wouldn't have fans.

 

 

 

So realistically the top 3 are probably Seattle, Kasas City and Houston (which surprises me because i wouldn't think Texas, despite its size, could support 2 teams)

 

Why did they move teams from Canada in the first place? I have never understood that as I presume the population could support the teams?

If a team moves to Houston / an expansion team is placed there I would be shocked if it doesn't fold/move within a decade. It might last as long as the Flames lasted in Atlanta but I don't see it sticking around even as long as the Thrashers did.

 

Houston is a tough place to establish a pro sports team. The Aeros do alright, but people won't support NHL prices and they don't support bad teams. A moving team or an expansion team would likely be lousy. (The Avs caught lightning in a bottle with a team that had already been in the tank for a long time so they'd had a lot of top picks, the bounty that Lindros became, and the Habs decision to dump St. Patrick. I don't expect to see a perfect storm like that happen again anytime soon. Heck they even lucked into the Cats not being horrible enough to not make it through the East for that initial run of theirs. The only season the Cats ever come close to doing that prior or since.) I just don't see that city catching NHL fever.

[Doohickie]

As someone who lives in Texas, I see Houston as more like Atlanta than Dallas. Whether that would spell hockey doom, I don't know, but Houston and Atlanta give off the same vibe to me.

[apuszczalowski]

Yeah that was my thought about LV as well - they might fill the arena but they wouldn't have fans.

 

 

 

So realistically the top 3 are probably Seattle, Kasas City and Houston (which surprises me because i wouldn't think Texas, despite its size, could support 2 teams)

 

Why did they move teams from Canada in the first place? I have never understood that as I presume the population could support the teams?

Money, the Canadian Dollar was hitting some all time lows at the time that the Nords and Jets moved

Then throw in the fact that both teams needed new arenas that the cities wouldn't pay for

 

If a team moves to Houston / an expansion team is placed there I would be shocked if it doesn't fold/move within a decade. It might last as long as the Flames lasted in Atlanta but I don't see it sticking around even as long as the Thrashers did.

 

Houston is a tough place to establish a pro sports team. The Aeros do alright, but people won't support NHL prices and they don't support bad teams. A moving team or an expansion team would likely be lousy. (The Avs caught lightning in a bottle with a team that had already been in the tank for a long time so they'd had a lot of top picks, the bounty that Lindros became, and the Habs decision to dump St. Patrick. I don't expect to see a perfect storm like that happen again anytime soon. Heck they even lucked into the Cats not being horrible enough to not make it through the East for that initial run of theirs. The only season the Cats ever come close to doing that prior or since.) I just don't see that city catching NHL fever.

Well they have had their choices for years being the Astros or the Texans to support.......

[IKnowPhysics]

Why did they move teams from Canada in the first place? I have never understood that as I presume the population could support the teams?

 

Owners and league management wanted to increase league revenue, and bean counters decided that the easiest way to do that is to seek big American market TV dollars. After successfully coming out of the 2004 lockout, signing a dogshit deal with Outdoor Life Network, and posting record ratings for that network, NBC bought OLN/VS and signed a new deal paying the NHL $200M per season for a 10 seasons. Compare that annual $200M to the annual profit of the NHL's most profitable team (Toronto) at $82M, then guarantee that for 10 seasons. That's the motivation. The more large market American teams there are, the more American corporate dollars can be had, driving the price of the TV agreement upwards.

 

BUT what the bean counters got wrong is that the majority of what comprises the average NHL team's indiviual revenue is not national TV dollars, it's gate sales. So when hockey goes into a non-traditional market, it might not fill the seats, thereby losing tons of money, ending up non-competitive becaues of financial restraints, and then withering and dying altogehter. That's why significant revenue sharing must occur in our modern NHL- to spread those TV dollars into the weaker markets' pockets so that they may still remain competitive and help to command a larger national TV contract.

 

So it's a lose-lose situation in a way: go to American markets that bring in TV dollars but don't fill seats and suck revenue sharing OR go to Canadian markets that don't bring in TV dollars but hold their own with ticket sales, etc.

 

Guess which one Joe Owner of NHL Team X votes for at the Board of Governors meetings. That's right, the one that brings his team the TV money, even if he has to revenue share it a little. And why shouldn't he vote this way? If that non-traditional market actually takes a liking to hockey, he and the other owners just won big time- no revenue sharing and plenty of TV dollars. Check out San Jose. Check out Tampa.

 

But if he's wrong, they cost the taxpayers in that market hundreds of millions in new arena money and the team withers and relocates 11 years after its inception. Check out Atlanta.

[shrader]

NBC bought OLN/VS and signed a new deal

 

Random nitpick just to make sure my memory isn't completely shot. Didn't comcast, who at that point owned VS buy NBC?