NHL Lockout

[dre]

Business wise, you are right, it’s not all rosy for the NHL. But overall in the last 20 years it has definitely improved. I suggest that the best metric is the combined net worth (adjusted for inflation) of the entire league:

“The average NHL team is worth 47% more than it was before the lockout that cancelled the 2004-05 season”

http://www.forbes.co...ness-of-hockey/

Remember, this is despite the Great Recession.

Yes, IMO your assumption “that the number of hockey players is roughly proportional to the population” is a bad assumption. You didn’t even include the expanding pool of players outside of NA.

Your own article seems to contradict your point. Yes, ten years from now there may be a dip in the pool of available Canadian hockey players – but notice that “Hockey Canada membership peaked in 2008-09”, to me this means that the current pool of potential Canadian NHL players is at/near its peak.

Training has been getting better every year so today’s group of NHL players have been through better training than those of the 80’s and 90’s. My friends and colleagues that played competitive hockey as youngsters and now have kids in the game are amazed at what today’s kids do! I maintain that NHL Hockey in 2011-2012 is at its highest “quality” ever.

You equate quality with skill. But quality is how entertaining the spectacle is. Yes players today are bigger and faster and more skilled, but theres penalties for clean hits, mostly unspirited play, not much scoring, and it looks like everyone is best friends out there. And the equipment they wear is causing a mountain of injuries.

This was a WAY funner game to watch in the late 80's and early 90's than it is now.

[segnosaur]

Business wise, you are right, it’s not all rosy for the NHL. But overall in the last 20 years it has definitely improved. I suggest that the best metric is the combined net worth (adjusted for inflation) of the entire league:

“The average NHL team is worth 47% more than it was before the lockout that cancelled the 2004-05 season”

http://www.forbes.co...ness-of-hockey/

The problem with looking at averages is that the average is artifically increased by a small number of successful teams (The Leafs, Canadiens, Rangers, etc.)

I could point out a bunch of other problems:

- According to the biggest increase of value for any team was from the Thrashers moving to Winnipeg. But there are only limited opportunities for such moves to take place

- Much of the "net worth" of teams is more or less on paper only (i.e. what people are willing to pay). Its not like there is significant capital involved. A bad season, injury to a few key players, etc. and some teams will see their net worth go down.

Yes, IMO your assumption “that the number of hockey players is roughly proportional to the population” is a bad assumption. You didn’t even include the expanding pool of players outside of NA.

No, I didn't. But then, not all those players will end up in the NHL. Canadians still make up the majority.

Your own article seems to contradict your point. Yes, ten years from now there may be a dip in the pool of available Canadian hockey players – but notice that “Hockey Canada membership peaked in 2008-09”, to me this means that the current pool of potential Canadian NHL players is at/near its peak.

That may be beneficial to the league in a few years when the players mature, but in a decade things will start to taper off.

So, there's kind of a double dip... league expands quickly and talent is watered down. More players come into the system and things improve, but then they get hit by that second dip caused by having a smaller pool of players.

And here's another thing we should keep in mind.. instead of comparing teams today to the teams from the 80s, we should also compare today's teams with the potential teams we could have if expansion didn't happen.

Lets say you're right and that better training, coaching, equipment, etc. have given us better players now than they had in the 80s. Could you imagine how great each team would be if they only had to pick the top ~400 players (for a ~20 team league) rather than ~600 players (for a 30 team league)? Those extra 200 players may be good (possibly even when compared to top 1980s players), but they're still below the top 400.

[The_Squid]

A large part of increased revenues are due to the Canadian teams. And this is largely due to a 63 cent dollar going to par. If ever there is another drop in the dollar, look for the smaller Canadian teams to be in trouble again.

Moving teams into deserts and the southern USA was simply idiotic. Phoenix has been a complete debacle...

[cybercoma]

I know we have minors up here, but would it be that insane for someone to just start up a pro Canadian only league?

[The_Squid]

I know we have minors up here, but would it be that insane for someone to just start up a pro Canadian only league?

Collectively, the NHL would be a much larger league. THe Canadian teams wouldn't choose to leave, so you would have to have pro teams in this new league directly competing in NHL cities.

I don't think it would fly... not on par with the NHL at least...

[blueblood]

I know we have minors up here, but would it be that insane for someone to just start up a pro Canadian only league?

Because we all know how the cfl compares to the NFL. The NHL is fine the way it is. It has to be 30 teams because every other relevant league in the big 4 has approx. 30 teams. A Canadian only pro league would be a disaster as players want to play in the best league they can, and that league knows that expansion into the USA is a necessity.

Americans like teams that win, look at any sporting venue in the states when the team isn't winning it's a ghost town, not only that the country as a whole is hurting financially. For example st. Louis was losing for the better part of the decade and had poor attendance, when they started winning, their attendance was comparable with other high attendance teams in the league.

[The_Squid]

Because we all know how the cfl compares to the NFL. 

Bad example. The CFL compares favorably to the NFL, despite the fact that the American league has the money and access to the best players. The game is also different enough that they are not directly comparable.

It has to be 30 teams because every other relevant league in the big 4 has approx. 30 teams.

No, it doesn't. That's arbitrary. If there aren't enough hockey markets, then there shouldn't be 30 teams. And it has been proven by poor attendance that 3 teams is too many.

[cybercoma]

Collectively, the NHL would be a much larger league. THe Canadian teams wouldn't choose to leave, so you would have to have pro teams in this new league directly competing in NHL cities.

I don't think it would fly... not on par with the NHL at least...

I guess I was assuming the Canadian NHL teams would leave the NHL to join the Canadian league. Of course, why would the owners do that? They love Bettman.

Edited October 16, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Americans like teams that win, look at any sporting venue in the states when the team isn't winning it's a ghost town

Attn: Maple Leafs fans.

[dre]

I guess I was assuming the Canadian NHL teams would leave the NHL to join the Canadian league. Of course, why would the owners do that? They love Bettman.

Id love to see the NHL fold up, and get replaced with a more spirited game.

Heard they are going to broadcast the KHL on ESPN. Maybe Ill check that out.

[The_Squid]

I guess I was assuming the Canadian NHL teams would leave the NHL to join the Canadian league. Of course, why would the owners do that? They love Bettman.

That would be terrific! If we are being unrealistic here, a truly Canadian hockey league would be great. Then again, it would be nice if the NHL would simply ditch 10 teams and this would produce a fantastic league as well.

Imagine 10 of the worst players per team being replaced by better caliber players and having each team with 50% more "superstars" than they currently do.

[carepov]

The problem with looking at averages is that the average is artifically increased by a small number of successful teams (The Leafs, Canadiens, Rangers, etc.)

I could point out a bunch of other problems:

- According to the biggest increase of value for any team was from the Thrashers moving to Winnipeg. But there are only limited opportunities for such moves to take place

- Much of the "net worth" of teams is more or less on paper only (i.e. what people are willing to pay). Its not like there is significant capital involved. A bad season, injury to a few key players, etc. and some teams will see their net worth go down.

...

So, there's kind of a double dip... league expands quickly and talent is watered down. More players come into the system and things improve, but then they get hit by that second dip caused by having a smaller pool of players.

OK, how about you (and other modern day NHL poo-pooers) tell us what were the glory days of hockey? Business wise and "quality" wise what were the best years?

[dre]

That would be terrific! If we are being unrealistic here, a truly Canadian hockey league would be great. Then again, it would be nice if the NHL would simply ditch 10 teams and this would produce a fantastic league as well.

Imagine 10 of the worst players per team being replaced by better caliber players and having each team with 50% more "superstars" than they currently do.

I dont think the NHL's problem is the ammount of talent per team. They have the best players in the world, and theres more talent on each team than every before. The problem is the unspirited play, weak calls, lack of flow, and inconsistancy.

[blueblood]

Bad example. The CFL compares favorably to the NFL, despite the fact that the American league has the money and access to the best players. The game is also different enough that they are not directly comparable.

No, it doesn't. That's arbitrary. If there aren't enough hockey markets, then there shouldn't be 30 teams. And it has been proven by poor attendance that 3 teams is too many.

Good example, best players play in the big show, ask Fantuz who tried out for the bears. Same goes with hockey, I don't see any Canadians beating a path to the khl. Even if there was just a Canadian only league, the NHL would crush it because the best players go where the money and glory are.

There has to be 30 teams. Every sports league is going with 30 and they are placed in markets throughout north America. Should the NBA and MLB start shutting down teams because of poor attendance? League revenues are increasing and growth in the USA is slow

but steady. I'll go with the opinion of billionaires who own the teams and who know how to grow a business over Joe hockey fan any day of the week.

[The_Squid]

I'll go with the opinion of billionaires who own the teams and who know how to grow a business over Joe hockey fan any day of the week.

Billionaires invest and take risks hoping for a return either in profits and/or when they flip the team down the road. An American team moved back to Winnipeg. The owner was probably a very smart investor... but he obviously was wrong about hockey and probably lost millions (which he could afford)!

Plus fans can understand the product on the ice, and with 30 teams, it is a watered-down league.

There has to be 30 teams. Every sports league is going with 30

No, that's arbitrary. There may not be 30 hockey markets, or 30 teams worth of good players to keep the product entertaining. I know why owners want to force teams into places that shouldn't have them becasue they share in the expansion money.... whether the team is a good investment or not, the current owners make millions.

[blueblood]

Billionaires invest and take risks hoping for a return either in profits and/or when they flip the team down the road. An American team moved back to Winnipeg. The owner was probably a very smart investor... but he obviously was wrong about hockey and probably lost millions (which he could afford)!

Plus fans can understand the product on the ice, and with 30 teams, it is a watered-down league.

No, that's arbitrary. There may not be 30 hockey markets, or 30 teams worth of good players to keep the product entertaining. I know why owners want to force teams into places that shouldn't have them becasue they share in the expansion money.... whether the team is a good investment or not, the current owners make millions.

It's all about the money and attracting skilled athletes. To be competitive with the NBA, NFL, and MLB, and perhaps soccer, the NHL needs 30 teams in strategic locations to grow the prestige of the league in order to grow the fan base, make money, and attract skilled athletes. Given the NHL growth over the past 20 years, check.

Is the league watered down, given growth of the pool to draw players from and the levels of conditioning that players go through, I'd say the talent is there. We now draw players from all over the USA, europe, and Canada.

The owners wanted to expand south because of the competition of the NBA, NFL, and MLB. If the league just stayed in Canada, growth would be capped, and any person wanting to pursue a career as an athlete would play another sport, thus relegating hockey to a shadow of what it can be. Given growth in Europe, the owners are going after the ultimate prize in the sporting world, a league as elite as the UEFA and all the money that goes with it, that would take a hundred or so years to do, but in order to start it has to expand in the USA.

To do all that, it starts with 30 teams and steadily grows market share. Right now the NHL is tooth and nail with the NBA which is a major accomplishment. A far better position then the NHL was in 25 yrs ago before proper management came in and the league was in trouble.

[segnosaur]

OK, how about you (and other modern day NHL poo-pooers) tell us what were the glory days of hockey? Business wise and "quality" wise what were the best years?

Not sure if I would consider them "glory years" (since I do recognize that there were still problems with the league) but I'd probably have to say the 1980s for a few reasons:

- Goal scoring was at a peak (and many people do equate goals=excitement, with a bit more open play than they had previously

- Costs (and player salaries) were still reasonable. (Tickets were a bit more affordable to the average person.)

- Equipment and conditioning had improved from previous decades. (Yes, those things might be even better now, but they were still decent back in the 1980s.)

- Relative labor peace. (Remember all the work stopages have occured since the early 1990s. Its all fine and good to talk about how great the rules are and how talented current players are, but if they aren't playing hockey, why does it matter?)

- Yes, there were teams that struggled. However, to me the problems seemed to be more localized... i.e. individual teams not doing well. The problems seem to be more widespread now, despite the salary cap and supposed big TV contracts.

[segnosaur]

It's all about the money and attracting skilled athletes. To be competitive with the NBA, NFL, and MLB, and perhaps soccer, the NHL needs 30 teams in strategic locations to grow the prestige of the league in order to grow the fan base...

I've asked this question before, but nobody answered, so I'll ask again...

How exactly does growning the league and the "fan base" help me as a current fan? How does placing a team down in (for example) Florida or Arizona give me a better experience?

I doubt the NHL was ever going to "go away" without these new teams. So all of those extra teams means that there's even more competition for the existing pool of players (which can drive up salaries and increase ticket prices).

...make money...

Why should that matter to the average fan?

Back before the recent expansion idiocy teams could make money. Having the team owners/players become richer doesn't really provide any benefit for me (the fan). In fact it can hurt me if part of their plan to make money increases ticket prices.

...and attract skilled athletes.

The NHL was always going to have the "cream of the crop" of available players, even without expansion. There was enough money from the existing franchises to lure players away from whatever European teams existed.

The owners wanted to expand south because of the competition of the NBA, NFL, and MLB. If the league just stayed in Canada, growth would be capped, and any person wanting to pursue a career as an athlete would play another sport

Keep in mind that there are very few cases where a person can make a concious decision about what sport to play. If they're a hockey player, that's what they're doing. If they're a baseball player, that's what they're stuck doing.

Barry Bonds might have been a great baseball player, but even if the NHL offered him a $500 millon contract, I doubt he'd want to play hockey (or even be any good at it.)

To do all that, it starts with 30 teams and steadily grows market share. Right now the NHL is tooth and nail with the NBA which is a major accomplishment.

No, they're not.

The NHL has a U.S. TV contract worth $2 billion over 10 years. The NBA has a contract worth roughly 4 times as much.

Furthermore, the NBA actually has actually established revenue sharing, and have a new collective bargaining agreement.

A far better position then the NHL was in 25 yrs ago before proper management came in and the league was in trouble.

And having 9 out of the 30 teams loose money is being in a 'better position'? Having 4 work stopages in 2 decades is being in a "better position"?

[segnosaur]

Americans like teams that win, look at any sporting venue in the states when the team isn't winning it's a ghost town, not only that the country as a whole is hurting financially. For example st. Louis was losing for the better part of the decade and had poor attendance, when they started winning, their attendance was comparable with other high attendance teams in the league.

You know, some people might think placing teams in areas where they have to win to be successful financially is rather foolish.

All teams will go through slumps... some temporary (like during a rebuilding phase) others longer. Putting a team in a city where they'll loose money and go bankrupt because they have a few loosing seasons makes the league less stable.

[guyser]

I've asked this question before, but nobody answered, so I'll ask again...

How exactly does growning the league and the "fan base" help me as a current fan? How does placing a team down in (for example) Florida or Arizona give me a better experience?

The more fans there are, the more excitement it generates. The more excitement generated gets translated into a multitude of things from coverage in newspapers , magazines , TV , radio etc.

The larger the fan base the better the rivalry as that is what drives the fans in many cases.

The Leafs have sucked for quite some time now (forever?) but Leafs vs Sens games are well attended in Ottawa which fuels fan frenzy and brings excitement.

Leaf vs Habs (and they have sucked too for awhile) are always exciting nights in either town because of the large fan base and a history that is unrivalled.

[segnosaur]

How exactly does growning the league and the "fan base" help me as a current fan? How does placing a team down in (for example) Florida or Arizona give me a better experience?

The more fans there are, the more excitement it generates. The more excitement generated gets translated into a multitude of things from coverage in newspapers , magazines , TV , radio etc.

But the thing is, in the more traditional hockey markets (Canada, Northern-East US, etc.) there was already significant media coverage.

The larger the fan base the better the rivalry as that is what drives the fans in many cases.

Its not necessarily the number of fans that build rivalries. Such things tend to be built on things like history and geography. i.e. Calgary doesn't have a rivalry because there are plenty of hockey fans around... they have a rivalry because: They're from the 2 biggest cities in Alberta (which causes conflict), and because they've both had strong hockey teams in past years.

If anything, the recent expansion (coupled with changes in the playoff format) have actually harmed rivalries. With more teams in the league, you have less opportunity to face your "traditional rivals". Less conflict, less build-up of fan frenzy.

The Leafs have sucked for quite some time now (forever?) but Leafs vs Sens games are well attended in Ottawa which fuels fan frenzy and brings excitement.

Leaf vs Habs (and they have sucked too for awhile) are always exciting nights in either town because of the large fan base and a history that is unrivalled.

I find it ironic that you talk about how expansion helps traditional hockey fans because it promotes rivalries, yet you end up referencing 3 teams that are in traditional hockey markets.

[guyser]

But the thing is, in the more traditional hockey markets (Canada, Northern-East US, etc.) there was already significant media coverage.

Not quite true in my estimation, however we have experienced quite the shift in coverage from before. More games, more shows devoted to the game. Witness, Thats Hockey on TSN, Sportnets Hockey Show and (IIRC) most teams have channel a la Leafs TV dedicated to the team .

All of those are recent incarnations,

Its not necessarily the number of fans that build rivalries. Such things tend to be built on things like history and geography. i.e. Calgary doesn't have a rivalry because there are plenty of hockey fans around... they have a rivalry because: They're from the 2 biggest cities in Alberta (which causes conflict), and because they've both had strong hockey teams in past years.

Sorry seg, no go on that.

Without the fans there is no rivalry.To-Detroit is not geography nor history driven anymore and is in fact pretty much a lost one.

Edm-Cal is driven by many factors, the prime being both residents hate the other (so to speak) But we have seen the lessening of that rivalry while the 2 teams flounder in the pastfew years.

If Geo/His was the go to indicator, why is Buff/Leafs not a huge rivalry?

If anything, the recent expansion (coupled with changes in the playoff format) have actually harmed rivalries. With more teams in the league, you have less opportunity to face your "traditional rivals". Less conflict, less build-up of fan frenzy.

I would say yes to some degree, but rivalries need time to develop and for reasons we do not have yet. ie, Det-Colorado. Its a rivalry mainly because of past playoffs together but a large part is the hit on Chris (someone help me here) by Claude Lemieux years ago.

I find it ironic that you talk about how expansion helps traditional hockey fans because it promotes rivalries, yet you end up referencing 3 teams that are in traditional hockey markets.

I referenced them because I was trying to show what some of them could become. If the Panthers and Lightning develop a rivalry then what I said comes true. With the number of snowbirds down there a rivalry will entice them to buy more tics to games.

If Columbus and Detroit get strong (I know diff divisions) then the same happens.

[segnosaur]

But the thing is, in the more traditional hockey markets (Canada, Northern-East US, etc.) there was already significant media coverage.

Not quite true in my estimation...

Lets see:

- Hockey night in Canada started in the early part of last century

- The Hockey news (magazine) started in the 1940s

- Hockey teams have always had local broadcasts (with plenty of pre-game and discussion shows) both on TV and the radio

however we have experienced quite the shift in coverage from before. More games, more shows devoted to the game. Witness, Thats Hockey on TSN, Sportnets Hockey Show

Ummm... Sportsnet didn't have any shows on in the 1980s because the channel didn't exist until the late 1990s.

That's something else you have to keep in mind... in many cases, all those extra shows may be on not because the league expanded, its because the number of cable channels expanded, which means that there would be more hockey shows on locally simply because all those new networks have empty hours to fill.

...and (IIRC) most teams have channel a la Leafs TV dedicated to the team.

And prior to expansion most teams probably had local TV broadcasts.

The Leafs had regular games shown on Global when I lived in southern Ontario in the late 1990s.

All of those are recent incarnations,

Its not necessarily the number of fans that build rivalries. Such things tend to be built on things like history and geography.

Sorry seg, no go on that.

Without the fans there is no rivalry.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that while you do need fans for there to be a rivalry, there were already enough fans in the traditional hockey markets to carry on rivalries without expansion.

The leafs, Canadiens, etc. had no problem selling tickets even without teams in Arizona, Columbus, and Florida.

Edm-Cal is driven by many factors, the prime being both residents hate the other (so to speak) But we have seen the lessening of that rivalry while the 2 teams flounder in the pastfew years.

It also doesn't help when, due to expansion they play each other fewer times every year.

If Geo/His was the go to indicator, why is Buff/Leafs not a huge rivalry?

Because the teams are in different countries, in cities that don't have any particular reason to dislike each other.

I referenced them because I was trying to show what some of them could become. If the Panthers and Lightning develop a rivalry then what I said comes true.

How would a rivalry between those particular teams interest someone like me, who will probably never see any of their games because I live so far away?

With the number of snowbirds down there a rivalry will entice them to buy more tics to games.

Making a few big assumptions there...

- That snowbirds would have the needed disposable income (remember, many retiries are on fixed income)

- That those snowbirds would feel any interest in acually seeing hockey (after all, many are down there to get away from any reminders of winter)

- That they would actually have any sort of connection to teams in towns that they only visit a few months of the year.

[blueblood]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/940655-nba-lockout-5-reasons-the-nhl-is-surpassing-the-nba

Looks like trouble to me. The trend is your friend and the trend is favoring the NHL to the dismay of whiny Canadian purists, thank goodness they are disposable fans.

[blueblood]

You know, some people might think placing teams in areas where they have to win to be successful financially is rather foolish.

All teams will go through slumps... some temporary (like during a rebuilding phase) others longer. Putting a team in a city where they'll loose money and go bankrupt because they have a few loosing seasons makes the league less stable.

And people who have billions of dollars say otherwise. Does Joe hockey fan know how to make billions of dollars and grow a business? I doubt it. I like the direction the owners have taken, the business side of the game is doing far better than before.