NHL Thread: 2021-2022 Season

[esquire]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

In theory? Dilution of talent and only so many tv spots is probably why North American sports leagues seem to have settled on the equilibrium of ~30 teams. I think the NHL has the capability to go higher (as we're seeing with expansion teams) because it doesn't really draw cross-fanbase interest for big primetime games like football or basketball does. There's less threat of cannibalization which I think could help support upwards of 36 teams.

This is classic SSP "things could only be the way they are" thinking. In much the same way it was impossible to imagine the current 31 team NHL, it is now impossible to imagine the soon to be 40 team NHL. But it will happen. The leagues are too addicted to the expansion team revenue to stop the train now.

Expansion just doesn't economically work in Canada based on where franchise fees are at now. Relocation faces a hostile board of Governors. I agree with what I think Acajack has said recently in that there's nothing wrong with testing the waters in a place like Arizona, but they've hung on for way too long at this point. Let the open market decide and if Quebec City puts up a viable bid, then build from a strong Canadian base and continue to try and make inroads into bigger markets from there. I understand why Bettman operates the way he does, but I think he's too deep into a sunk cost fallacy now.

At some point the bubble will pop and the franchise location calculus will become less about fanciful growth projections and more about how many tickets can you sell for tonight's game. And that will be Quebec's time to shine.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

In theory? Dilution of talent and only so many tv spots is probably why North American sports leagues seem to have settled on the equilibrium of ~30 teams. I think the NHL has the capability to go higher (as we're seeing with expansion teams) because it doesn't really draw cross-fanbase interest for big primetime games like football or basketball does. There's less threat of cannibalization which I think could help support upwards of 36 teams.

Expansion just doesn't economically work in Canada based on where franchise fees are at now. Relocation faces a hostile board of Governors. I agree with what I think Acajack has said recently in that there's nothing wrong with testing the waters in a place like Arizona, but they've hung on for way too long at this point. Let the open market decide and if Quebec City puts up a viable bid, then build from a strong Canadian base and continue to try and make inroads into bigger markets from there. I understand why Bettman operates the way he does, but I think he's too deep into a sunk cost fallacy now. Quebec isn't going to help their TV deal much, but neither is Arizona at this point.

Arizona just feels like Bettman is too pig-headed to admit he got that one wrong.

I will admit that his Sunbelt expansion push has ended up on the sunny side of any definition of "success": Dallas, San Jose, Anaheim and even Nashville and Tampa are viable.

But there are still a few flies in the ointment.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Expansion just doesn't economically work in Canada based on where franchise fees are at now.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I agree with what I think Acajack has said recently in that there's nothing wrong with testing the waters in a place like Arizona, but they've hung on for way too long at this point. Let the open market decide and if Quebec City puts up a viable bid, then build from a strong Canadian base and continue to try and make inroads into bigger markets from there. I understand why Bettman operates the way he does, but I think he's too deep into a sunk cost fallacy now. Quebec isn't going to help their TV deal much, but neither is Arizona at this point.

Arizona holds more potential than QC, though, regardless of how much continues to be sunk into that team. There's no way the NHL is going to relinquish a market that big, that young, that wealthy, and that Latino. It would be a retreat on what they've been trying to build for the last thirty years, and with a half-Latino star player on the league's biggest team i'd say their experiment is working. Give it another generational cycle and Arizona is probably fine (ASU is getting more and more support these days).

Originally Posted by esquire

I'd be curious to know how much of the Canadiens' revenue comes from Quebec City. I'd imagine that beyond some TV viewership it's fairly minimal. Few could realistically go to Habs games on the regular while living in Quebec City. It's not like the Hamilton-Toronto dynamic.

The key point is that the province is already served. Economic and growth issues aside, I don't think the NHLPA looks at a market like Quebec City with a lot of love and desire. High taxes, vast Francophone majority population...it would be difficult for a lot of free agents (as it was in the 80s and 90s).

Originally Posted by Acajack

But how many people are there who live in close proximity to an NHL team have seen their interest in the NHL wane due to various factors, including that one probably, even they can't put their finger on it?

All it takes is one playoff run for these fans to be back on the bandwagon.

And if you're older (and I mean older) your relative future revenue contribution to an NHL team is frankly going to be lower than someone in their 20s and 30s simply due to lifespan.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Arizona just feels like Bettman is too pig-headed to admit he got that one wrong.

The NHL BoG did not get Arizona wrong.

Some of y'all really don't understand that Bettman does as the BoG wishes and that the sunbelt expansions (TB/FL) were initiated prior to Bettman becoming Commissioner.

Originally Posted by esquire

At some point the bubble will pop and the franchise location calculus will become less about fanciful growth projections and more about how many tickets can you sell for tonight's game. And that will be Quebec's time to shine.

Wouldn't be difficult to go back ten years and find posts saying this exact same thing.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Hardly anyone would point that as the reason, actually.

But how many people are there who live in close proximity to an NHL team have seen their interest in the NHL wane due to various factors, including that one probably, even they can't put their finger on it?

Quite a few no doubt.

I think most people have an entertainment "pie chart" if you will, that is occupied by various sports. Introducing other slices has to come at the expense of existing ones. Changing Canadian demographics and the growth of basketball is probably a greater threat to hockey than any tangible action the NHL itself can take. I just don't see how a more Canadian-centric league insolates us from those external factors. If anything, being more Canadian is a detriment to the same crowd that belittles the CFL, and unfortunately drives a lot of sports viewership in our country.

We have a fucked up cultural identity and it bleeds into sports. I think there are ways we can be opportunistic and try and "take back" some of the NHL, but realistically it's an uphill battle.

[Acajack]

The idea that hockey-lukewarm 20-something Arizonans are more likely to become big-time NHL fans than hockey-lukewarm 20-something Quebecers is a bit of stretch, I'd say.

Though anything is possible I suppose.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is classic SSP "things could only be the way they are" thinking. In much the same way it was impossible to imagine the current 31 team NHL, it is now impossible to imagine the soon to be 40 team NHL. But it will happen. The leagues are too addicted to the expansion team revenue to stop the train now.

It will, it's also funny to note that part of the reason further expansion is imaginable now is because of the injection of international talent that has helped turn the NHL into a skill-based league. Adding another franchise in the 70's and 80's when teams still had full lines of brawlers (and we're probably 80% Canadian) was an arduous task. The expansion Washington Capitals will probably forever hold the record of being the worst NHL team ever. Contrast that with what was able to be achieved with Las Vegas without seriously hamstringing any of the existing teams. There's a surplus of talent to the point that putting up over a point per game in the CHL is almost unnoteworthy at this point since we've seen so many come and go.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The idea that hockey-lukewarm 20-something Arizonans are more likely to become big-time NHL fans than hockey-lukewarm 20-something Quebecers is a bit of stretch, I'd say.

The idea is that no-hockey 20-something Arizonans provide more revenue potential than hockey-lukewarm-know-what-it-is-already 20-something Quebecers.

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I think most people have an entertainment "pie chart" if you will, that is occupied by various sports. Introducing other slices has to come at the expense of existing ones. Changing Canadian demographics and the growth of basketball is probably a greater threat to hockey than any tangible action the NHL itself can take.

The biggest red flag for hockey in Canada, for me, is the fact that the Marlies AHL play in downtown Toronto and not in Brampton or Mississauga. The fact that a team that has no incentive to be profitable and can afford to lose piles of money isn't located in an immigrant-heavy, new-Canadian heavy area and is instead in an incredibly safe, if boring, location speaks volumes to the viability of hockey in diverse neighbourhoods, and hockey's future in these markets as a whole.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Wouldn't be difficult to go back ten years and find posts saying this exact same thing.

Well sure, but it's still going to happen. It's not like pro sports has somehow figured out a way to do what no other industry has ever accomplished and achieve endless growth. At some point it will come back down to earth.

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It will, it's also funny to note that part of the reason further expansion is imaginable now is because of the injection of international talent that has helped turn the NHL into a skill-based league. Adding another franchise in the 70's and 80's when teams still had full lines of brawlers (and we're probably 80% Canadian) was an arduous task. The expansion Washington Capitals will probably forever hold the record of being the worst NHL team ever. Contrast that with what was able to be achieved with Las Vegas without seriously hamstringing any of the existing teams. There's a surplus of talent to the point that putting up over a point per game in the CHL is almost unnoteworthy at this point since we've seen so many come and go.

The international factor is pretty big, but let's not lose sight of the fact that one of everyone's favourite gripes about hockey, the obsession with elite development, has also had a big factor in creating the surplus of talent. It's not like all these European and USNTDP players are coming to save us from a fate of unskilled goons. If you look at the amateur ranks in Canada, they are also playing a highly skilled game that closely resembles the NHL.

Case in point, I started going to MJHL games this fall before COVID pulled the rug out from under the season. The game was totally different than what I remember from the last time I attended MJHL games, when I was a regular at the Kildonan North Stars games in the late 80s. Back then there were multiple fights every game, and one of the most professionally successful players from that team was Frank "The Animal" Bialowas, a famous AHL brawler who spent a bit of time in the NHL. The current MJHL game is much more disciplined and organized than it was then... it makes the 80s game look a bit like pick up hockey with lots of fists thrown into the mix.

So it's good to know that when the time comes, the NHL could easily fill the rosters of several more teams without even skipping a beat.

(Incidentally, former CFL OL Chris Walby, a giant of a man, used to play for the North Stars in the 70s and was famously arrested in the arena for a pregame brawl that erupted one night...)

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I have no energy left to go into another Lakelocker post. So much complaining about how things "ought to be" as opposed to coming up with a cohesive strategy that addresses how things "actually are".

Ironic you think I should be "coming up with a cohesive strategy" while you simultaneously claiming I'm confusing what is with what ought to be.

This is well past the point of "intervention". The NHL is fucked, the best case scenario is something along the lines that it suffers such a horrid economic circumstances that safe bet Canadian markets get embraced.

If the American TV contract bombs out, all hope logically should be placed on the Rogers contract. At that point and time they should be doing everything they can to keep the Canadian viewers happy.

The Canadian division might of been a great way of pissing through the ownership nonsense but that isn't gonna happen at this point.

Regardless I'm tired of this.

The way that things ought to be is exactly how it is, the Americans say fuck you to Canadian fans/markets, and the non submissive Canadians say fuck you back.

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I'd love to hear some real concrete ideas on how professional hockey in Canada should be handled if the NHL is just so stupid for not putting a team in every city from Regina to St. Johns.

There's no solution the NHL has monopolized Canadian sports. It isn't any more complicated than that. They control virtually everything in Canadian Hockey.

I'm not asking to change things, I'm asking people to have the integrity to admit the situation.

The NHL has hijacked sporting in this country.

The nonsensical idea that Gary Bettman has made the NHL richer is complete nonsense. Virtually everywhere on the planet has experienced a massive economic boom in spectator sports.

The worst affect is they've created an environment where most of the television revenue is generated by people who can't goto a bloody game. Either because the reach of the league is too limited our markets like toronto are bottlenecking attendance figures.

I'm not interested in viewing this in nationalistic terms. We live in a market that has fallen victim to an obvious monopoly. If a hockey team is just a franchise I'm tired of having 7 mcdonalds in the country, because the league has worked out a scheme where they can charge 50 buck a burger.


My initial interest in sports is in the business of sports. I"m not complaining that those greedy billionaires are out to get us. I"m complaining their monopolistic practices have allowed them to short our market. I'm a huge proponent in free markets i.e. where monopolistic practices are not tolerated.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Indeed.

Arizona holds more potential than QC, though, regardless of how much continues to be sunk into that team. There's no way the NHL is going to relinquish a market that big, that young, that wealthy, and that Latino. It would be a retreat on what they've been trying to build for the last thirty years, and with a half-Latino star player on the league's biggest team i'd say their experiment is working. Give it another generational cycle and Arizona is probably fine (ASU is getting more and more support these days).

Arizona also holds a radically higher level of risk. There is more competition for attention, there's a massive transplant population making it harder to get local loyalties etc.

Gary Bettman bet the sport on a high risk strategy of leveraging off the big 3, pooling arena resources, corporate contracts, tv deals, and gouging on expansion fees. It's a deck of cards that has just collapsed.

Originally Posted by JHikka

The key point is that the province is already served. Economic and growth issues aside, I don't think the NHLPA looks at a market like Quebec City with a lot of love and desire. High taxes, vast Francophone majority population...it would be difficult for a lot of free agents (as it was in the 80s and 90s).

By your logic the flames and Jets shouldn't exist as they are served by the Oilers. I've never heard the argument that attendance dropped for the flames because of the jets. Find some evidence of this and we'll talk.

Originally Posted by JHikka

All it takes is one playoff run for these fans to be back on the bandwagon.

And if you're older (and I mean older) your relative future revenue contribution to an NHL team is frankly going to be lower than someone in their 20s and 30s simply due to lifespan.

Originally Posted by JHikka

The NHL BoG did not get Arizona wrong.

Some of y'all really don't understand that Bettman does as the BoG wishes and that the sunbelt expansions (TB/FL) were initiated prior to Bettman becoming Commissioner.

This is a semantics game, Bettman is the figurehead for the league. He takes the heat. I don't think anyone is in denial the biggest problem in ontario is MLSE.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is classic SSP "things could only be the way they are" thinking. In much the same way it was impossible to imagine the current 31 team NHL, it is now impossible to imagine the soon to be 40 team NHL. But it will happen. The leagues are too addicted to the expansion team revenue to stop the train now.



At some point the bubble will pop and the franchise location calculus will become less about fanciful growth projections and more about how many tickets can you sell for tonight's game. And that will be Quebec's time to shine.

And that bubble has popped. I mean seriously two seasons without regular hockey, a play off run with abysmal viewership despite everyone being stuck indoors.

And now we have a fight to the death between the owners and the players.


The deal is shit, the owners need to shaft the players on pay, and the older players will just retire, and the younger players might as well goto Europe.

The league has just hit a brick wall. All the speculative bubbling has failed on a radical level.

The "big tv deal" is DOA, Gary's master plan is sunk.

Who in the sweet hell would spent a dime on an nhl team when they've witnessed Seattle get shafted so hard.

That $650 milllion was based on a growing market share, a majority of franchises being in the green, a player owner relationship that is safe from lockouts/chaos.

Now that same league is stuck either carying a bunch of ownerless franchises or selling the teams for bargain pricing.

Add to all that the rogers deal has become a trainwreck, so even that safe Canadian money is softning.

Not to mention the growth of NBA/Soccer etc in the country.

The cute narrative of immigrant kids picking up hockey sells newspapers but the reality is people are bailing out on hockey. It's lost it's organic pond hockey traditions and instead has devolved into a prick waving contest of who can send their kid to the most elite camps.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

This is a semantics game, Bettman is the figurehead for the league. He takes the heat.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Arizona also holds a radically higher level of risk. There is more competition for attention, there's a massive transplant population making it harder to get local loyalties etc.

Gary Bettman bet the sport on a high risk strategy of leveraging off the big 3, pooling arena resources, corporate contracts, tv deals, and gouging on expansion fees. It's a deck of cards that has just collapsed.

No, he didn't - the NHL's Board of Governors did.

Bettman's true masterstroke of being one of the best Commissioners in the history of all franchise sport is that he's convinced so many fans that he's actually the one pulling the strings when in actuality it's the 32 owners behind the scenes. It's amazing how much hockey fans loathe him and not the owners, despite the league taking tremendous strides in the past 25 years. Bettman's probably the best Commissioner the NHL has ever had and I know that makes some of you very angry to even consider.

For those unaware, in the 1994 CBA negotiations Bettman recommended that the owners stand firm on having a salary cap in place for 1995. Such a resolution would have potentially saved franchises like Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford from unsustainably rising costs (although their arena situations were still very poor). As it turns out, the bigger market owners caved during negotiations, and those three teams were swifty relocated because they couldn't keep up. It's not unfathomable to consider a scenario where, had Bettman gotten his way, those three teams wouldn't have relocated with a salary cap in place for 1994-1995, and expansion efforts in Nashville, Arizona, Atlanta, and Colorado would have been more competitive from the get-go.

Basically from then on, Bettman's CBA recommendations required a supermajority veto from owners instead of a simple majority, and thus the league got the salary cap a decade later.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

By your logic the flames and Jets shouldn't exist as they are served by the Oilers.

The NHL prevented these teams (Alberta) from relocating when the Canadian dollar tanked decades ago because franchise stability is worth more than moving teams around at a whim. Winnipeg is not anywhere close to Alberta.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

I've never heard the argument that attendance dropped for the flames because of the jets. Find some evidence of this and we'll talk.

Probably because I didn't make that argument.

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

I don't think anyone is in denial the biggest problem in ontario is MLSE.

You're just making stuff up at this point.

The rest of your posts are just you projecting what you hope happens to the NHL onto reality. I can't imagine the two meet in very many places.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I think most people have an entertainment "pie chart" if you will, that is occupied by various sports. Introducing other slices has to come at the expense of existing ones. Changing Canadian demographics and the growth of basketball is probably a greater threat to hockey than any tangible action the NHL itself can take. I just don't see how a more Canadian-centric league insolates us from those external factors.

And this is the whole flipping point.

The pie is drifting away from hockey because we don't live in a free market.

For 2/3rds of the country you're either a Habs fan or a Leafs fan, or it's "hey joint, lets blow these guys and go home".

Originally Posted by suburbanite

If anything, being more Canadian is a detriment to the same crowd that belittles the CFL, and unfortunately drives a lot of sports viewership in our country.

The CFL is not a national sport. It's a fringe prairie sport. There's no debate on this. You either live on the prairies or you live in the rest and laugh.

I have no direct issue with the CFL it's neat the prairies has its own thing, but it is not a national thing.

Originally Posted by suburbanite

We have a fucked up cultural identity and it bleeds into sports. I think there are ways we can be opportunistic and try and "take back" some of the NHL, but realistically it's an uphill battle.

We don't even need to get into that side of the equation.

A simple admission would suffice, the NHL has a monopoly on Canadian sports, there's no way out, admit the monopoly and the fall out of that monopoly exists.


I want to buy a cheese burger, I can't because McDicks only allows for 1 restaurant in my "market" of 850k people.

[suburbanite]

How are you arguing that the NHL has a monopoly on Canadian sports and is simultaneously losing its share to all these other new sports? The NHL's monopoly slips away more and more every year.

I don't really have the desire for a point-by-point 20 paragraph debate on the rest of this rant.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

The NHL serves more than 30,000,000 of the people within a 37,000,000 country. I can't see them gaining a lot more cash out of Canada expanding into the hinterlands. There's a couple of spots, maybe. Quebec City (but that province is already served). But it's pretty slim pickings in Canada when you have a myriad of 2,000,000+ MSAs in the United States.

Do I not exist? Did I not literally have a fat stack of cash in my hands last Christmas with the intention of going to a leafs game? Did I not literally book my Christmas plans around going to ottawa instead for a more affordable game?

I really don't know what is going through your mind when you think the only ticket that could be sold in southern ontario goes to the leafs.

If it weren't for covid I'd be paying American NHL prices to goto an ohl game.

It's this kind of reasoning that fills me with nothing but contempt for leafs fan.

No one can have a girlfriend but them because their's hasn't put out in 50 years.

I don't know where you work or who you associate with but this country is obsessed with hockey.

I'm not interested in hockey because I have this innate calling, I like hockey because my christmas gets hijacked by the juniors, I like hockey because it's an easy goto conversation with my family who are on the other side of the literal continent.

I'm not a fan of having to hide between the entitlement of habs and leafs fans.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

How are you arguing that the NHL has a monopoly on Canadian sports and is simultaneously losing its share to all these other new sports? The NHL's monopoly slips away more and more every year.

I don't really have the desire for a point-by-point 20 paragraph debate on the rest of this rant.

EDIT: has a monopoly on Canada's national sport.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

The CFL is not a national sport. It's a fringe prairie sport. There's no debate on this. You either live on the prairies or you live in the rest and laugh.

I have no direct issue with the CFL it's neat the prairies has its own thing, but it is not a national thing.

That's just silly. How is it not national? At worst, it's the second most national thing Canada has ... if it's not national, what is? Foreign sports leagues with one team of non-Canadian players in Toronto and nothing else? Or the NFL? Curling is the only other sport that comes close to being national, besides the NHL, CFL and perhaps CHL.

[blueandgoldguy]

Jeremy Jacobs is the NHL's version of Mitch McConnell in that he has an undue amount of influence over the NHL Board of Governors and its mandate.
Word is old Mitch,,,uh I mean Jeremy absolutely despises the idea of a franchise relocation to a Canadian city like Quebec City.

When negotiations for the original Jets relocation to the Target Centre in Minneapolis fell through, the new owners had to scramble to reach an agreement with Phoenix Sun's owner Jerry Colangelo to move the team to the America West Arena. This was an ill-conceived rush job - moving an NHL team to an improperly vetted market with next-to-zero hockey history. To make matters worse the team moved into a basketball-centric arena with limited revenue streams.

Think of the NHL relocation to Phoenix as the equivalent of the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Andy6

That's just silly. How is it not national? At worst, it's the second most national thing Canada has ... if it's not national, what is? Foreign sports leagues with one team of non-Canadian players in Toronto and nothing else? Or the NFL? Curling is the only other sport that comes close to being national, besides the NHL, CFL and perhaps CHL.

I never said the CFL isn't national, I said football isn't national. As in its presences is primarily a western Canadian thing.

Which is news to no one.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

Jeremy Jacobs is the NHL's version of Mitch McConnell in that he has an undue amount of influence over the NHL Board of Governors and its mandate.
Word is old Mitch,,,uh I mean Jeremy absolutely despises the idea of a franchise relocation to a Canadian city like Quebec City.

When negotiations for the original Jets relocation to the Target Centre in Minneapolis fell through, the new owners had to scramble to reach an agreement with Phoenix Sun's owner Jerry Colangelo to move the team to the America West Arena. This was an ill-conceived rush job - moving an NHL team to an improperly vetted market with next-to-zero hockey history. To make matters worse the team moved into a basketball-centric arena with limited revenue streams.

Think of the NHL relocation to Phoenix as the equivalent of the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

It has nothing to do with what the NHL wants.

It's about how many franchises can they be holding up when shit in the near future hits the fan.

The danger is of having multiple phoenix's in the near future, as "some" owners/teams have financial difficulties etc.

QC is simply one desperate option of many, that may need to be exercised.


They pissed away the league on a speculative bubble and they now have multiple fires to put out.