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.

 

[varsaku]

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.

I don't think we will ever go away from hosting every team once home. Every team will want to be able to sell those marquee games at a premium where fans want to see that specific star or team.

 

[aqib]

I don't think we will ever go away from hosting every team once home. Every team will want to be able to sell those marquee games at a premium where fans want to see that specific star or team.

a 42 team league everyone plays a home-and-home against everyone. No conferences. Top 20 teams make the playoffs. Teams 1-12 get a first round bye. Teams 13-20 play a best two out of 3.

 

[dj4aces]

I don't think we will ever go away from hosting every team once home. Every team will want to be able to sell those marquee games at a premium where fans want to see that specific star or team.

While I certainly understand it, I don't think there's many options for seeing every team *and* bringing back some of those old rivalries (and forming new ones). I suppose that's a decision for the BoG and PA to decide.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

While I certainly understand it, I don't think there's many options for seeing every team *and* bringing back some of those old rivalries (and forming new ones). I suppose that's a decision for the BoG and PA to decide.

That is already pretty much impossible today, with 32 teams. Just spitballing the numbers, 31 other teams with 2 games each is 62. That leaves 20 and if they are all within the division that is 3 more games against 6 of those 7 and 2 against another. That's about as much as those conflicting priorities can be balanced.

From a purist perspective, if you are going to determine playoffs and seeds by conference (rather than division), then the schedules across the conference need to be pretty similar. Taken to the extreme, if a conference has the best and worst division top to bottom, you wind up giving teams in the worst division an advantage because they had 20 games against lesser opponents, save maybe one or two.

If the divisions are just window dressing, you could split those odd 20 games with 1 additional game against every team in the conference and have 5 left over to play within the division. That mostly balances out the problem within the conference, but it annihilates any rivalries.

Now play that game with 33 or 35 other opponents.

 

[RBH]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1841615315450429885

 

[varsaku]

While I certainly understand it, I don't think there's many options for seeing every team *and* bringing back some of those old rivalries (and forming new ones). I suppose that's a decision for the BoG and PA to decide.

They will 100% make the decision on which makes them the most money. My bet is the seeing every team would net a higher revenue. Aside from your old rivalries, most newer rivalries wouldn't be able to command as much of premium. Additionally, focusing on rivalries would only help the well established teams and not your newer teams.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

We're talking about a 32-team league, maybe soon to be 34 or 36 teams. Even with double the games and less teams, MLB can't make everyone happy with their scheduling, so no way the NHL can balance all the competiting demands as they add teams.

 

[aqib]

We're talking about a 32-team league, maybe soon to be 34 or 36 teams. Even with double the games and less teams, MLB can't make everyone happy with their scheduling, so no way the NHL can balance all the competiting demands as they add teams.

MLB's problem is that they don't play one game against a team at a time. They play series. They are also the only sport with weather delays. They are also the only sport that can't make it work with an odd number of teams. Even the NFL can pull it off even though its a pain to do it.

 

[Voight]

I think it's incredibly optimistic for them to expect five years, not unless they have someone on the ground there right now building political alliances so they can either get a barn constructed or fund further renovations of Footprint to make it hockey-friendly.

Arizona, as you said, already has a hockey culture, but I would also say it's hard to ignore Houston, it being the largest market without a NHL franchise. I think the league wants *both* HOU and ARI, but I also think Fertitta's hemming and hawing about the fee is part of what spawned this. Make no mistake, the league will go back to Phoenix, but I think they're being used right now to leverage Fertitta to shut up and pay.

IMO Fertitta will hit and see if they give Ishbia a sweetheart deal on the expansion fee (i.e. cheaper price than normal because of their obsession with phoenix) and then try and use that to his advantage.

Not saying any of that would happen, but who knows.

 

[StreetHawk]

MLB's problem is that they don't play one game against a team at a time. They play series. They are also the only sport with weather delays. They are also the only sport that can't make it work with an odd number of teams. Even the NFL can pull it off even though its a pain to do it.

It was painful for the NFL during those 3 seasons after the Browns returned and before Houston got their team. Teams hated being the week 1-3 bye week club.

Can't imagine any future expansion would be just 1 team at a time for them.

 

[aqib]

It was painful for the NFL during those 3 seasons after the Browns returned and before Houston got their team. Teams hated being the week 1-3 bye week club.

Can't imagine any future expansion would be just 1 team at a time for them.

yeah it did suck and they won't do it again. Just saying that baseball is the only sport where its actually impossible.

 

[StreetHawk]

yeah it did suck and they won't do it again. Just saying that baseball is the only sport where its actually impossible.

Yep, agreed. Cause, then they'd have to extend the season by 2-3 weeks, as a team would need to take 2-3 days off to wait for their next opponent.

 

[GKJ]

It was painful for the NFL during those 3 seasons after the Browns returned and before Houston got their team. Teams hated being the week 1-3 bye week club.

Can't imagine any future expansion would be just 1 team at a time for them.

They hated the bye being at the end more, which they gave to teams they thought would be bad. 2 years in a row the eagles had theirs in Week 16, but the latter of those years they made the playoffs

 

[Headshot77]

Baseball needs to cut like 60+ games from their schedule. I think it's a big reason why they went from the most profitable major sports league in North America to third (the NBA has tied them and will surpass them soon). When so many games are relatively meaningless, and there's so much volume of games that it's impossible to watch it all, it doesn't breed a obsessive fandom. For football, you just gotta commit 4 hours a week. In baseball that is closer to 20.

 

[nhlfan79]

Baseball needs to cut like 60+ games from their schedule. I think it's a big reason why they went from the most profitable major sports league in North America to third (the NBA has tied them and will surpass them soon). When so many games are relatively meaningless, and there's so much volume of games that it's impossible to watch it all, it doesn't breed a obsessive fandom. For football, you just gotta commit 4 hours a week. In baseball that is closer to 20.

Disagree. Baseball and football watching are totally different experiences. Baseball can be fully enjoyed passively. You don't have to watch every single second of every game with full attention. Dilution is not a problem. The season is intentionally a marathon, and the game is meant to be played every day.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Disagree. Baseball and football watching are totally different experiences. Baseball can be fully enjoyed passively. You don't have to watch every single second of every game with full attention. Dilution is not a problem. The season is intentionally a marathon, and the game is meant to be played every day.

Agreed. The real way to make a regular season meaningless is to do what college basketball did. What is it now...68 teams in the tourney? Only point of the regular season is to scout teams for your brackets.

 

[The Marquis]

Disagree. Baseball and football watching are totally different experiences. Baseball can be fully enjoyed passively. You don't have to watch every single second of every game with full attention. Dilution is not a problem. The season is intentionally a marathon, and the game is meant to be played every day.

I fully agree with your disagreement. Baseball is perfect how it is because you can passively follow it so easily. It's also not too hard to follow obsessively, but it does require a LOT of commitment if you want to do so in person. It's an experience in person that is one of a kind, which is part of the charm. There are 81 home games per year to get yourself a ticket to see your team. That's great. I usually hit 1-2 games a year in Seattle. I get to largely pick my days and align them with whatever else I want to do up in that part of the state. It's an event for me and my family, even though there are 81 of them.

I still haven't been to a Kraken game (fewer games to choose from and price of tickets are both to blame) and I'm a MUCH bigger NHL/hockey fan than I am of any other league/sport. I don't watch much football, but I understand how wildly different it is than baseball and hockey/basketball. There are few games so you can really focus on them and go ridiculously hardcore. Every game of the season for your team is a legit event for every fan. Yet, you can also very much passively watch. I'd argue the MLB and NFL have the premier set-ups, while the NHL and NBA have theirs more as a necessity. That's just spitballing at the end there.