Daly on impact of realignment on expansion, negotiations w/NHLPA

[Shockmaster]

So they won't deal in hypotheticals, but they will sit down and discuss this alignment after 2015-16? Hmm, I wonder why.

So, we have this alignment for 3 years, and then everything is up for grabs once again once they expand to Quebec and Markham.

I guess this is good because there doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus on this. Of course, it doesn't figure to get any easier with two more Eastern Time Zone clubs to deal with. Although, the second Toronto team in the Western Conference seems like a no-brainer to me.

Perhaps they plan on expanding out west instead.

 

[MoreOrr]

But if they're doing home and home, then the Rangers, Bruins, Flyers, Leafs, Canadiens, and Penguins are all playing games in western buildings. 2 home games a year against the Wings, and maybe 1 or 2 against those other teams, or 7 home games a year against Bos, Mtl, Tor, NYR, Phi, Pit, and Det aren't a bad trade financially.

But those games are simply not the same as games against Conference rivals. They don't have the same atmosphere, the same significance in the Standings, and they're also not Playoff games.

Again, out the top-16 teams in Revenue last Season, only Chicago and LA, plus the western Canadian teams, weren't from the ETZ. LA was in the top-16 mostly because of the long Playoff run. And of the western Canadian teams, only Vancouver was in the top-11. Taking Detroit away just syphons off more revenue into the East, and widens the revenue imbalance between the two Conferences. And the West becomes more and more dependent on the East. I sort of joked the other day and called the West, the "Rest", a sort of sub-League. Not sure it's completely a joke.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I think the reality was this, LS, those far-western teams know that the biggest audiences and the $ are in the east; and especially if they were going to lose games against Detroit and the CTZ teams that then they wanted that loss balanced out by having more games against the Eastern Conference teams.

Sorry, but if teams out west are relying on east teams to fill their buildings rather than their own division rivals, then I have to question whether those teams belong in the league. The big audience in the east does NOT help the west teams. If the Rangers play in Phoenix, the rating the Rangers get on MSG has NO BEARING on Phoenix's bottom line. Yes, I know the Rangers and Flyers etc are a draw in Phoenix, because like Florida a bunch of northeasterners moved there, but the focus NEEDS to be on building excitement and rivalries with the teams they are competing with for play-off spots.

 

[Grudy0]

If Detroit has so much pull, why'd they go to the west in the first place?

In 1983, there were 21 teams in the NHL:

The entire Patrick Division
The entire Adams Division
Toronto
Detroit
Chicago
St. Louis
Minnesota
The entire Smythe Division

That made Detroit the thirteenth westernmost team in the league. And does anyone think they'd be placed in the East?

It's not all about what the Red Wings want, there are other teams in the league as well that could potentially have a vested interest in having Detroit in the western conference.

Not enough.

The teams in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zone all voted in favor to halve the amount of games the Red Wings play against their team in the NHL-approved December 2011 vote, reduced only to one visit by the Wings per season. The teams in the Central Time Zone also agreed, but they'd be playing the Wings almost the same as today. So the only teams that would necessarily miss playing the Wings are Chicago, St. Louis and Nashville, their current Central Division brethren.

One only needs to see the massive increase in revenues the Maple Leafs have garnered since moving to the East to understand that the Red Wings are missing out on revenues by being staying in the West.

 

[patnyrnyg]

So they won't deal in hypotheticals, but they will sit down and discuss this alignment after 2015-16? Hmm, I wonder why.

So, we have this alignment for 3 years, and then everything is up for grabs once again once they expand to Quebec and Markham.

I guess this is good because there doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus on this. Of course, it doesn't figure to get any easier with two more Eastern Time Zone clubs to deal with. Although, the second Toronto team in the Western Conference seems like a no-brainer to me.

No, because there is no guarantee Quebec or Markham ever happens. They will cross that bridge when they come to it, which is the smart thing to do. I know the arena is going up, but KC also built an arena. It could be 10 years before they ever go to Quebec, Markham, or Seattle.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Perhaps they plan on expanding out west instead.

Which would be another major mistake.

 

[Shrimper]

I seem to recall a week or two ago that Dreger or someone said that news would be announced within a week or two?

 

[Jag68Sid87]

No, because there is no guarantee Quebec or Markham ever happens. They will cross that bridge when they come to it, which is the smart thing to do. I know the arena is going up, but KC also built an arena. It could be 10 years before they ever go to Quebec, Markham, or Seattle.

KC is a non-NHL market with an arena. Quebec is an NHL market getting an arena. Markham is a MASSIVE NHL market getting an arena. No comparison whatsoever.

If there isn't a guarantee the NHL is expanding to two more Canadian markets, there should be.

 

[patnyrnyg]

In 1983, there were 21 teams in the NHL:

The entire Patrick Division
The entire Adams Division
Toronto
Detroit
Chicago
St. Louis
Minnesota
The entire Smythe Division

That made Detroit the thirteenth westernmost team in the league. And does anyone think they'd be placed in the East?Not enough.

The teams in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zone all voted in favor to halve the amount of games the Red Wings play against their team in the NHL-approved December 2011 vote, reduced only to one visit by the Wings per season. The teams in the Central Time Zone also agreed, but they'd be playing the Wings almost the same as today. So the only teams that would necessarily miss playing the Wings are Chicago, St. Louis and Nashville, their current Central Division brethren.

One only needs to see the massive increase in revenues the Maple Leafs have garnered since moving to the East to understand that the Red Wings are missing out on revenues by being staying in the West.

In 83, the Red Wings were terrible and I doubt they had the revenues (relatively speaking) they do today. So, at the time, they probably didn't have any pull at all.

 

[patnyrnyg]

KC is a non-NHL market with an arena. Quebec is an NHL market getting an arena. Markham is a MASSIVE NHL market getting an arena. No comparison whatsoever.

If there isn't a guarantee the NHL is expanding to two more Canadian markets, there should be.

RIght, but they built the arena, had someone interest in luring a team. He went to jail and it was still being discussed. Wang had set-up exhibition games for the Isles out there. I agree, Quebec and Markham would be great markets, but no guarantee of anything. It is not simply a matter of the NHL wants to put teams in those markets. Need an owner, with lots of dough. I am sure there are lots of wealthy people in those areas, but need someone interested in this kind of venture. I know they have people now, but things could fall apart for those people real fast.

 

[Shockmaster]

In 83, the Red Wings were terrible and I doubt they had the revenues (relatively speaking) they do today. So, at the time, they probably didn't have any pull at all.

If how much "pull" a team has depends on how good they are on the ice, then Toronto must not have any.

 

[Grudy0]

There are western teams that would have voted down realignment unless everyone played in all buildings/season.

I think the reality was this, LS, those far-western teams know that the biggest audiences and the $ are in the east; and especially if they were going to lose games against Detroit and the CTZ teams that then they wanted that loss balanced out by having more games against the Eastern Conference teams.

Sad if true.

If I'm not mistaken, the 6-4-18 matrix was started in 2000 with the addition of Atlanta and Minnesota. That is when everyone played within their division 6 games, everyone else within the conference four games, and the other conference 18 games.

That changed after the 2004 lockout. The matrix went to 8-4-10, where it was 8 games in-division, 4 within conference and 10 games against a division in the other conference, home-and-home, and the division would rotate each year. That lasted for the three years, when the League reinstituted the 6-4-18 matrix in 2008.

Prior to the expansion, home-and-homes were expected. I have to believe the Western teams sorely miss it.

As it stands now, those 18 out-of-conference games mean nothing. They are so disparate between teams that they're almost unimportant.

If you make them so they are now home-and-homes, you are making those teams in a middling division fight to get extra points in those games, as it is a spot to gain ground.

If you are a team that goes 21-7 out-of-conference while another is 14-14, that makes a big difference. And it also allows the non-conference games to be that much more important.

 

[MoreOrr]

If you make them so they are now home-and-homes, you are making those teams in a middling division fight to get extra points in those games, as it is a spot to gain ground.

If you are a team that goes 21-7 out-of-conference while another is 14-14, that makes a big difference. And it also allows the non-conference games to be that much more important.

Definitely yes, they'll become more important simply because of the total number of them in the whole Season schedule. But 2 games against other Conference teams are in the great majority of cases unlikely to be intense atmosphere games. It's the exact opposite to those Divisional rivalry matchups, and as a result a lot less attractive to many fans. At least even with Conference opponents, and with the 4-games against that the current schedule provides, fans know that some of those matchups get intense over the transcourse of the 4-game series; and that those teams could also possibly continue that in the Playoffs. Playing other Conference teams doesn't have any hope of any of that.

 

[MuckOG]

Again, out the top-16 teams in Revenue last Season, only Chicago and LA, plus the western Canadian teams, weren't from the ETZ. LA was in the top-16 mostly because of the long Playoff run. And of the western Canadian teams, only Vancouver was in the top-11. Taking Detroit away just syphons off more revenue into the East, and widens the revenue imbalance between the two Conferences. And the West becomes more and more dependent on the East. I sort of joked the other day and called the West, the "Rest", a sort of sub-League. Not sure it's completely a joke.

I guess I fail to see how Detoit going to the ETZ somehow "siphons" revenue from the West?

Detroit's revenues are Detroit's revenues, and what's not is spread through revenue sharing. Outside of the "mega" hockey markets like Toronto and New York, who can print money due to nothing else other than their large population bases, there are other markets in the east that will fluctuate based on the product on the ice... such as Pittsburgh and Washington. It's the same in the West...Outside of the traditional hockey markets like Western Canada, Chicago and Minnesota - most others fluctuate based on interest.

This whole superiority-complex the Easterners have is becoming quite nauseating.

 

[KingsFan7824]

But those games are simply not the same as games against Conference rivals. They don't have the same atmosphere, the same significance in the Standings, and they're also not Playoff games.

Again, out the top-16 teams in Revenue last Season, only Chicago and LA, plus the western Canadian teams, weren't from the ETZ. LA was in the top-16 mostly because of the long Playoff run. And of the western Canadian teams, only Vancouver was in the top-11. Taking Detroit away just syphons off more revenue into the East, and widens the revenue imbalance between the two Conferences. And the West becomes more and more dependent on the East. I sort of joked the other day and called the West, the "Rest", a sort of sub-League. Not sure it's completely a joke.

Everyone knows where the bread is buttered. The West was the Rest as far back as 1998. Toronto got out, Detroit wanted out, and nobody really likes the alignment. In the one division that really works, the Central, it's still connected to the west coast.

Is one extra game against Detroit better or worse financially than more games against the important teams in the northeast corridor? We just have to wait and see.

Sorry, but if teams out west are relying on east teams to fill their buildings rather than their own division rivals

Teams out west don't rely on eastern teams to fill their buildings. I'd say most of them do a pretty good job of bringing people in. It's not to the O6 team level, but it's not bad.

Phoenix is certainly an issue, but it's not the norm.

Many fans out west would just like to see some of those big name teams and star players in person. They say there's no better game to watch live than a hockey game. Well, people would like to see Crosby, or Malkin, or Stamkos, etc. Not just on TV, not just on highlights, but in person.

Home and home isn't something that just western fans want. Owners want it. Western owners more than Eastern owners I'm sure. The PA also seems to want it. Whether it's to balance out the travel a little more to make it fair for the PA as a group, or to go to every city, or to just potentially increase revenue to put more money in their own pockets.

but the focus NEEDS to be on building excitement and rivalries with the teams they are competing with for play-off spots.

And they do that. Yet some people want to split Vancouver from Edmonton and Calgary, to make the Pacific work better. Sure, they would still be conference rivals if they kept everything else the way it is, but is that enough? Can Philly be split from Pittsburgh because they would still be conference rivals? Philly and NY? Boston and Montreal?

 

[MoreOrr]

I guess I fail to see how Detoit going to the ETZ somehow "siphons" revenue from the West?

Detroit's revenues are Detroit's revenues, and what's not is spread through revenue sharing. Outside of the "mega" hockey markets like Toronto and New York who can print money do to nothing else than the large population base..there are other markets in the east that will fluctuate based on the product on the ice such as Pittsburgh and Washington. It's the same in the West...Outside of the traditional hockey markets like Western Canada, Chicago and Minnesota - most others fluctuate based on interest.

This whole superiority-complex the Easterners have is becoming quite nauseating.

I'm personally not trying to make it sound like the eastern part of the League is somewhat "superior"; but think about this, MucKOG... The League owners we're already fairly aware have a hierarchy amongst them, and the amount of $ a team brings to the table likely has a fair bit to do with that. Now, if the majority of big revenue winners are in the East, that might not work well when it comes to decisions being made and how they might ill-effect the West and yet not ill-effect the East. I'd want both Conferences to have an equal say at owners meetings and decision-making.

 

[MuckOG]

Many fans out west would just like to see some of those big name teams and star players in person. They say there's no better game to watch live than a hockey game. Well, people would like to see Crosby, or Malkin, or Stamkos, etc. Not just on TV, not just on highlights, but in person.

Agreed...and it just so happens that these star players are currently rostered on Eastern teams...Luck of the draw. If these players were in the West, no one west of the Mississippi would care about Pittsburgh, Washington, or Tampa Bay (in terms of star power).

 

[MuckOG]

I'm personally not trying to make it sound like the eastern part of the League is somewhat "superior"; but think about this, MucKOG... The League owners we're already fairly aware have a hierarchy amongst them, and the amount of $ a team brings to the table likely has a fair bit to do with that. Now, if the majority of big revenue winners are in the East, that might not work well when it comes to decisions being made and how they might ill-effect the West and yet not ill-effect the East. I'd want both Conferences to have an equal say at owners meetings and decision-making.

True..but even the owners at the top of the "hierarchy" realize that in order for them to remain profitable, they need to be good "citizens" of the League. As powerful as they are, they know that they need the other teams as much as the other teams need them. They want the NHL brand to succeed in the smaller markets as well.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I like that this thread has resumed hypothetical world for alignments vs what is happening.

If they'd just moved Carolina back to Hartford all of this would work out fine - you could just dump the 2 Florida Teams in that division and put CBJ and Hartford into the Central (which would become the Northeast of course). So I blame Karamanos

I think the NHL has settled on this for a bunch of practical reasons:

1) If the Phoenix saga has proved anything it's that sometimes these things take for ever and nothing should ever be assumed. Sometimes things stay unsettled longer than anyone expects.

2) They just had to get Winnipeg out of the Southeast. Heck they are the only team moving into the western conference. Had to be done.

3) No matter the alignment, the Florida teams have to travel. They just aren't that close to anyone else in the same way that, say Vancouver is. What is the real difference in being in a division with all 3 hour flights instead of 2 hour flights?

4) Columbus is dead in the water without any change. The league already has shown that it tries to go to the last full measure to save it's locations (and the Blue Jackets are the only pro game in town - an advantage I think the NHL would like to keep).

5) By doing this realignment it shuts the most complainers up. Obviously the central time zone teams like Dallas but it shuts up the biggest complainer of all of this which is Detroit. The bigger thing is that now the "promise" to Detroit to be the next to go east has been fulfilled. It's done. By dealing in the concrete and not dealing with hypothetical the NHL is sorta off the hook here. They don't "owe" them anything next realignment if teams are moved or added. So, yes, I totally think they can shift them back if the situation calls for it.

6) I think we're thinking way inside the box with all of these contingency scenarios. A 32-team NHL might not be arranged similarly at all. This league has had a whole ton of alignments. Heck Montreal and Los Angeles were in the same division for a time! I can see things getting podded out if they got to 32, making localized more friendly geographies which can even put Detroit in a more midwestern 4-team division. I can see two all-Canadian divisions in such a scenario.

So acting on the situation as it stands really was the NHL's only play here IMO.

-QG

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

Its seems as though the NHL thinks that showcasing star players from other teams is a better way to generate revenues than focusing on rivalries and the atmosphere that comes out of them.

Having experienced both, in person, for a number of years, the divisional or conference rivalry games trump the showcase games every day of the week.

 

[MoreOrr]

Its seems as though the NHL thinks that showcasing star players from other teams is a better way to generate revenues than focusing on rivalries and the atmosphere that comes out of them.

Having experienced both, in person, for a number of years, the divisional or conference rivalry games trump the showcase games every day of the week.

And on top of that, Morris, are there really that many big-name stars on enough different teams in order to make the League-wide "showcase" of Home-and-Home games worthwhile? I don't think so. A few of the those visiting teams from the other Conference will draw some fans, but most are more likely to be dud-games.

And I'm personally not at all against a Home-and-home between all teams in the League; I just think there are bigger priority games to be played within the Conference and within the Division.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Its seems as though the NHL thinks that showcasing star players from other teams is a better way to generate revenues than focusing on rivalries and the atmosphere that comes out of them.

Having experienced both, in person, for a number of years, the divisional or conference rivalry games trump the showcase games every day of the week.

Rivalries in the east and west are also different.

Many rivalries in the east have decades of history to them. Generations of fans talking about them. The league did everything it could to make sure the current NE and Atlantic divisions were kept and put together.

It's not the same world in the west. The teams haven't been around as long. They haven't been able to play in the playoffs against each other all the time. There are just more teams today, with the west facing much more change than the east. More relocated teams, more expansion teams. More than half of the current Western Conference didn't exist prior to 1990, if you include Winnipeg, which didn't have a team for 15 of those years.

Plus you have teams that don't want to be in the conference, or in their given divisions. You have teams that have fans that have weird times for games, where they have to stay up later, or aren't home from work yet.

The east and west are two very different worlds.

 

[Seattle Totems]

I guess I fail to see how Detoit going to the ETZ somehow "siphons" revenue from the West?

Detroit's revenues are Detroit's revenues, and what's not is spread through revenue sharing. Outside of the "mega" hockey markets like Toronto and New York, who can print money due to nothing else other than their large population bases, there are other markets in the east that will fluctuate based on the product on the ice... such as Pittsburgh and Washington. It's the same in the West...Outside of the traditional hockey markets like Western Canada, Chicago and Minnesota - most others fluctuate based on interest.

This whole superiority-complex the Easterners have is becoming quite nauseating.

Agreed. So much of this "superiority" is based on circumstantial things such as lottery wins and teams that happen to own cable networks. There are a handful of teams in the East that people in the West really care about. Whatever team Crosby and Ovechkin play for, then the Leafs, Bruins, Habs, Detroit and that's about it. The Rangers don't really have much following outside of Manhattan and even Chicago was a nothing draw before they started winning the draft lottery and won a cup.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Everyone knows where the bread is buttered. The West was the Rest as far back as 1998. Toronto got out, Detroit wanted out, and nobody really likes the alignment. In the one division that really works, the Central, it's still connected to the west coast.

Is one extra game against Detroit better or worse financially than more games against the important teams in the northeast corridor? We just have to wait and see.



Teams out west don't rely on eastern teams to fill their buildings. I'd say most of them do a pretty good job of bringing people in. It's not to the O6 team level, but it's not bad.

Phoenix is certainly an issue, but it's not the norm.

Many fans out west would just like to see some of those big name teams and star players in person. They say there's no better game to watch live than a hockey game. Well, people would like to see Crosby, or Malkin, or Stamkos, etc. Not just on TV, not just on highlights, but in person.

Home and home isn't something that just western fans want. Owners want it. Western owners more than Eastern owners I'm sure. The PA also seems to want it. Whether it's to balance out the travel a little more to make it fair for the PA as a group, or to go to every city, or to just potentially increase revenue to put more money in their own pockets.



And they do that. Yet some people want to split Vancouver from Edmonton and Calgary, to make the Pacific work better. Sure, they would still be conference rivals if they kept everything else the way it is, but is that enough? Can Philly be split from Pittsburgh because they would still be conference rivals? Philly and NY? Boston and Montreal?

I agree with you. I was simply commenting to the other poster. Frankly, I do not think that poster knows what he is talking about. He has this idea that the West can't survive without games against the east and I simply do not believe it is true.

 

[MoreOrr]

Agreed. So much of this "superiority" is based on circumstantial things such as lottery wins and teams that happen to own cable networks. There are a handful of teams in the East that people in the West really care about. Whatever team Crosby and Ovechkin play for, then the Leafs, Bruins, Habs, Detroit and that's about it. The Rangers don't really have much following outside of Manhattan and even Chicago was a nothing draw before they started winning the draft lottery and won a cup.

It seems to me that as many Western teams have won the Cup over the past 15 years as has Eastern teams.