NHL Expansion back on agenda?

[sneakytitz]

We don't need more regular season games. Let's assume 36 teams is the target. And they do go to 6x6. So, 60 games for home and home with the 30 other clubs. Leaves 22 (or maybe they cut to 80 even) if they decide to do play in games or increase PO teams from 16 to 20. But, 5 clubs for the final 20 games in division is 4 games each or upwards of 5 with 2 of those 5 if we stay at 82 games.

We have to see where team 36 lands. But, I hope the PA doesn't accept more games in regular season. For MLB, NBA, NHL, more is not good. NFL, I get it to swap all pre-season to get 18 regular season games.

I am almost certain that, these days, the NHL/NBA/MLB/NFL/MLS will never decrease the amount of regular season games. The leagues could hypothetically still come ahead with less games assuming more teams BUT the teams won't.

In the NHL, every home game equates to $1.5 - $3 million in revenue; losing that much by a multiple of whatever games you give up is bad for business. You'd have to raise tickets/concessions/parking considerably to recoup that loss and try to break even AND the whole dollar increases would be so high that you'd actually become cost prohibitive for your customers. Don't get me wrong, advertising and media rights are huge but these teams make A TON of money on home games and I don't ever see team owners, of any NA league, ever being on board with giving up games.

 

[StreetHawk]

I am almost certain that, these days, the NHL/NBA/MLB/NFL/MLS will never decrease the amount of regular season games. The leagues could hypothetically still come ahead with less games assuming more teams BUT the teams won't.

In the NHL, every home game equates to $1.5 - $3 million in revenue; losing that much by a multiple of whatever games you give up is bad for business. You'd have to raise tickets/concessions/parking considerably to recoup that loss and try to break even AND the whole dollar increases would be so high that you'd actually become cost prohibitive for your customers. Don't get me wrong, advertising and media rights are huge but these teams make A TON of money on home games and I don't ever see team owners, of any NA league, ever being on board with giving up games.

If they wish to remain at 82 games, that is fine. But, no reason to increase to 84, 86 or whatever. We are going to see an increase in PO teams when the league expands past the current 32 teams. That's going to add more games anyways. We don't need more regular season games.

Already see fan backlash with the number of pre-season games.

 

[dj4aces]

We don't need more regular season games. Let's assume 36 teams is the target. And they do go to 6x6. So, 60 games for home and home with the 30 other clubs. Leaves 22 (or maybe they cut to 80 even) if they decide to do play in games or increase PO teams from 16 to 20. But, 5 clubs for the final 20 games in division is 4 games each or upwards of 5 with 2 of those 5 if we stay at 82 games.

We have to see where team 36 lands. But, I hope the PA doesn't accept more games in regular season. For MLB, NBA, NHL, more is not good. NFL, I get it to swap all pre-season to get 18 regular season games.

First... less games? Not a chance. They'll stay at 82 or go more. The current proposal cuts preseason by four games and adds two to the regular season, as per the CBA thread.

Second, you know one of the biggest complaints I hear about expansion (in general, not specifically Atlanta, just so we're clear)? That rivalries aren't really a thing anymore. But that's not an expansion problem, that's a scheduling problem. Whether we keep the current division format or go back to six, scheduling is going to change. but it's anyone's guess if that also means the schedule is formatted in such a way to bring rivalries back.