Point of order, but the NFL dropped the market-cross-ownership rule a few years back. It's why Harris is being allowed to buy the Commanders despite already owning the 76ers and Devils. (In fact, supposedly the rule was rescinded specifically to grease the wheels to allow Kronke to buy the Rams and relocate them back to LA.)
Stan Kroenke joins real estate group building NHL/NBA quality arena in San Diego
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
KevFu
Registered User
Yup. I caught myself from using present tense and changed it to past tense.
However, that rule going away wouldn't change anything. It just means that the NFL will allow Stan and Ann to re-consolidate their holdings into one empire and not need the technicality.
But it doesn't alter the fact that the NHL can't allow a married couple to own TWO NHL TEAMS.
Last edited:
KevFu
Registered User
Who cares? The NFL isn't doing smart things because they don't have to do smart things. They print money no matter what they do.
Letting Zip Codes decide playoff positions is fine by them, because it keeps people arguing on talk radio all spring/summer.
They don't even need divisions, period. The whole reason for NBA, NHL and MLB divisions are getting more games starting at 7 pm local time on a Tuesdays. NFL doesn't have that issue because all TV contracts are national, and all the games are at 1 or 4 (or the exclusive windows).
I think we covered this before, but the NFL has the least reason to expand because their TV deals are all national and their TV time slots are essentially maxed out anyway.
Adding MLB, NHL, NBA teams create inventory to sell to TV. Total local TV revenues go up.
Nationally, you have two new cities who now have teams, and national TV pays more for that.
With football, the networks are paying for 1.5 games per Sunday, at 1 pm and 4 pm, providing regional coverage to the entire country. All you're doing is changing which game the region gets. That's why the NFL went so long without a team in LA (and why teams actually left LA to begin with. In the other sports, leaving LA -- as a team or leaving it open as a league -- is financial suicide. It just isn't for the NFL).
Last edited:
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,412
- 43,695
They care a lot because they promote heavily around having them and produce some of the most significant games of the season.
KevFu
Registered User
The "significant" part is just statistically untrue. Non-conference games by definition ARE the least significant, because only half the results show in your conference standings.
If 7-8 Chicago beats 8-7 Detroit, the Bears catch the Lions in the standings (possibly move ahead depending on tie-breaker).
If 7-8 Chicago beats 8-7 Indianapolis, the Bears might not have gained any ground on the Lions at all.
Division games have the most significance, conference games have the same significance for wild card but not division, and non-conference games are half of that.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,412
- 43,695
It’s not statistically untrue to the networks who want those games.
KevFu
Registered User
That's silly to me because these games are created by a matrix that was decided years in advance.
It's very similar to the whole NHL Home/Away with everyone thing: The "marquee matchups" that happen because of this schedule policy are a small number of games compared to the amount of NON-Marquee match-ups the policy creates.
The TV networks pick and choose the highlight the best games period. But STAKES make the best games and non-conference games have the least stakes.
Everyone goes gaga for AFC leader vs NFL leader in Week 14 playing on MNF, sure. But if they had no divisions, you'd have NFC 1 vs 2 and AFC 1 vs 2 guaranteed to happen at least once per conference each season, probably multiple times.
You'd also have MORE TEAMS alive for the playoffs for a longer time because ALL THEIR GAMES can give a loss to the someone in the conference standings.
MMC
Global Moderator
It will never happen but I for one greatly support NHL teams in both San Diego and Riverside and I support your endorsement as a non-Californian
KevFu
Registered User
The idea is to get the project going... through the red tape, and get okay to build. THEN they build for what they need.
If there's a chance for an NBA/NHL arena, they bust out the blueprints for the 18-20k place. If there's no chance, then they build the 14-16k version.
Yup. Hopefully his presence makes someone interested in San Diego. I think the NHL needs to get to San Diego first, because that market is basically the size of Denver, but only has MLB and MLS and no NFL/NBA competition!
awfulwaffle
Registered User
KevFu
Registered User
It will never happen but I for one greatly support NHL teams in both San Diego and Riverside and I support your endorsement as a non-Californian
I wouldn't say "Never"
100 years ago, you had 38 Big Four teams.
50 years ago, you had 83
Today we have 124.
We could have 160 Big Four teams (and 200+ Big Five teams) in 50 to 100 years.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,412
- 43,695
KevFu
Registered User
Right, but the point is that given the fact that every game changes the standings, you can get multiple 1 vs 2 in each conference simply because each conference is guaranteed to play everyone in the conference once.
The stakes are higher for every single game (because all games put a W and a L (or two ties) in the conference standings, which also means teams control their own destiny longer.
The argument that non-conference play is good for TV assumes that because we have a couple games like the Super Bowl rematch early in the season on TNF/SNF/MNF, that it's "worth it" to book EIGHTY AFC vs NFC games.
It's gonna be a 3-to-1 ration of ordinary, less significant games to marquee games, simply because for every division leader, there's three teams not leading that division.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,412
- 43,695
The NFL is big enough that you don’t really need it. Yes, obviously that means they can do whatever they want. So, they might as well just satisfy an appetite for matchups that rarely happen as opposed to not having them at all. These affiliates want to have Mahomes or the Cowboys on their air against the home team too.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,412
- 43,695
By the way, interesting this project came up at the end of 32 Thoughts and that the Coyotes looked into the market before.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,412
- 43,695
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
... in reference to the potential of market.
Back in 2014, when Glendale cancelled the original 15-year lease with IceArizona, the league gave them permission to look for a new location. In addition to San Diego they had also looked at Hartford.
That's probably what Friedman was referring to.
Then you run the chance of having the situation the Coyotes wound up in. They built America West the way it was because they were told they would never get the NHL and 4 years after opening a team became available and they had no place to put it.
You an can always do what OKC did and build the full size arena and then add the bells and whistles when a team arrives. Even Tulsa has a 17K arena and the closest they've gotten to a major league franchise was the WNBA
Who else did they look at it? Was IA going to move the team themselves or was it a sale?
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
It was movement only. It was also only a 30 day window.
Hartford was the only location confirmed in the media. San Diego was rumored, and Friedman seems to have confirmed that.
KevFu
Registered User
They won't be in the America West situation, it's going to be built FOR HOCKEY because they have the American Hockey League San Diego Gulls if they don't upgrade to an NHL team.
We're talking how many upper bowl seats the place has. If you're building a new, modern arena, you're building it for suites, premium seating, and the "normals" will have congregating social spaces on the upper levels more than "spend the whole game in your upper bowl seats."
The general consensus is that building smaller venues increases demand. MLB stadiums have been shrinking capacity for decades now. Tons of ballparks are removing seats and putting in social areas. Five of the last eight NHL arenas that opened are smaller than the average NHL capacity (WIN, NJD, VGK, SEA, NYI).
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Wow, I definitely thought I had responded in this thread. Turns out I was on the main boards. The question about that is... why?
Anyway, like I said there... I've had San Diego as the most viable mid-sized market available to the NHL for a while. It's the only 3m+ MSA without NHL or NBA (excepting the de-centralized Inland Empire). It's a distinct market from LA/Anaheim. Austin takes a hit because there's a massive market nearby that doesn't yet have a team. If you're going to put another team in TX, Houston would need to be the priority. It has 50% more people than KC.
That's just market though... the arena was the big roadblock. Really, if they could figure out an arena, it's a perfect place for the NHL IMO. And if I were Meruelo, I'd be seriously looking to relocate there if all the alternatives in PHX fall through.
Anyway, like I said there... I've had San Diego as the most viable mid-sized market available to the NHL for a while. It's the only 3m+ MSA without NHL or NBA (excepting the de-centralized Inland Empire). It's a distinct market from LA/Anaheim. Austin takes a hit because there's a massive market nearby that doesn't yet have a team. If you're going to put another team in TX, Houston would need to be the priority. It has 50% more people than KC.
That's just market though... the arena was the big roadblock. Really, if they could figure out an arena, it's a perfect place for the NHL IMO. And if I were Meruelo, I'd be seriously looking to relocate there if all the alternatives in PHX fall through.
