Radical Idea: So Many Expansion Candidates...New League?

[Ford Prefect]

The NHL is now a $6+ billion a year league... A upstart/startup is not going to be able to compete with that.

...and before anyone inevitably mentions it, dividing the NHL into tiers with promotion and relegation, like we see in Europe, isn't going to work either. It's sort of a fun "what if" to think about, but the NHL (and other NA pro leagues), with the way it evolved and is currently structured and operates, is completely incompatible with the concept.

Over the last few years you would have seen the Blackhawks and Canadiens relegated. Can you imagine? The Leafs in 2016. Kings in 2018-19. Detroit in 2019-20. 5 of the biggest markets in the league.

 

[KevFu]

The argument they make with the ticket packages is the teams will package the game against Edmonton with 3+ games that traditionally will not draw. But, I agree. Yes, you get the one game with McDavid that gets all kinds of hoopla and then 3-4 that may have a little buzz, ala Panthers-Knights this year may have, and then 10 or so duds.

Agreed on tv. in 1985, NYers had 9 chances to see Gretzky on tv which were the 3 games against the Rangers, Isles, Devils. OCCASSIONALLY, Sportschannel or ESPN would show an out of market game, but even into the late 80s, Sportschannel carrying an out of market game in NY was rare. Now, you can see McDavid every night.

The ticket package part is a valid point. I would say that the entire nexus of "the fans want to see everyone at home once" is catering to the season ticket holders; (and the Central Division), but it's terrible for the fans who DON'T have the money to buy season tickets.

I wonder what the numbers are for NHL teams' number of "unique customers." Based on my (mostly out of market) experience, I'd assume there's way more fans of every franchise in all sports than Season Ticket Holders. However the amount of revenue each group is providing their franchise is a lot closer (duh).

But I think that you're making those "non season ticket holders" LESS LIKELY to go to games with the H/A vs everyone schedule. Because they're watching more TV games than people actually at the arena. And you're playing more games at 10 pm ET and 4 pm PT with H/A vs everyone. Which makes people more casual about their fandom.


I'd say you're better off not bundling every season's McDavid visit with 3 other games each season, but just jacking up the price for McDavid's visit in the schedule rotation every 4 years. You're making the people with partials disgruntled by paying more to see McDavid every year; and you're not getting a line around the block for McDavid's visit because "we can try our luck next season."

 

[Yukon Joe]

I wonder what the numbers are for NHL teams' number of "unique customers." Based on my (mostly out of market) experience, I'd assume there's way more fans of every franchise in all sports than Season Ticket Holders. However the amount of revenue each group is providing their franchise is a lot closer (duh).

So I'm a Jets fan living in Edmonton. When I go to a Jets @ Oilers game there's a sizeable number of Jets fans in the building - mostly because both Edmonton and Winnipeg are in Western Canada, there's lots of migration between Alberta and Manitoba.

Similarly if an O6 team shows up in Edmonton you get a lot of fans from those teams, just due to history and fandom being passed down parent to child.

But I'll be honest - if you get a random US team in Edmonton the fans are 100% behind the Oilers.

I remember going to a Sharks @ Oilers game. I did see like a dozen fans all wearing the jersey for some 4th liner for the Sharks. His home town of course was Edmonton and so they must have all been friends and family.

All of that being said - it would be interesting to find out how many unique fans go to see a game in a year. Because even if you're just a fan of the home team a lot of people can only afford to see a game or two, not 41.

 

[KevFu]

So I'm a Jets fan living in Edmonton. When I go to a Jets @ Oilers game there's a sizeable number of Jets fans in the building - mostly because both Edmonton and Winnipeg are in Western Canada, there's lots of migration between Alberta and Manitoba.

Similarly if an O6 team shows up in Edmonton you get a lot of fans from those teams, just due to history and fandom being passed down parent to child.

But I'll be honest - if you get a random US team in Edmonton the fans are 100% behind the Oilers.

That's expected to me. There's not a lot of people who've moved from say, Nashville to Winnipeg. And for those who have, there's time variables on if they'd even be Preds fans and loyal to them despite moving -- which would be a fun logic chart to make.

All of that being said - it would be interesting to find out how many unique fans go to see a game in a year. Because even if you're just a fan of the home team a lot of people can only afford to see a game or two, not 41.

I have no doubt that the Canadian teams who sell out their home games all the time, frequently with the same people in the building most nights... those fans want to see everyone visit once.

The NHL's core logic is "our STH want this," But aren't they going to the games regardless of opponent?

The Home/Away vs everyone logic for me falls apart for all the teams that DON'T sell out every game regardless of opponent. The whole "They need the gate of McDavid visiting" doesn't work, because there's just more non-sexy opponents in the other conference than sexy ones.

And if you're someone going to a couple games a year, then economic factors are probably larger than "who the opponent is." (with the obvious caveat of interest based on star power, but again, that's offset by the teams with no star power).

And if you're not going to games at all, but watch on TV.... then START TIMES are your biggest factor, as you're less likely to watch 10 pm ET or 4 pm PT games because of their inconvenience.


I just do not understand how anyone in the Pacific, Mountain or Eastern time zones could make more money playing H/A vs everyone than not. Central teams (who are the REAL REASON we're doing this) get to sell more 6 pm games and less 9 pm games to their TV partners. THAT makes money.

 

[Bondurant]

I like the idea conceptually but doubt it would be floating for very long. Broadcasting is a problem. Even the NHL has had a difficult time in the US. Heck, the playoffs are on TNT! All of these games should be over-the-air but the networks aren't interested. Unless there is a large group of deep pockets willing to shell out cash and overspend how would this be anything other than another minor league.

Not gonna, though, I'd be interested if a team came to my market. Especially if there was ties and no shootouts.

 

[SImpelton]

It's been proposed in the past:

World Hockey Association (proposed) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Global Hockey League - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obviously, it's never happened.

The original WHA was able to succeed (for a time) because of a couple of factors. First the NHL was quite small. By 1972 the league was at 14 teams (and then 15, the Islands, specifically to block the WHA from New York). But there were still a lot of major cities without teams.

As well due to the reserve clause the NHL paid its players very little at the time.

So the WHA could succeed by putting teams in major cities and were able to lure out major stars like Bobby Hull by offering more money. But even then, the league only lasted a handful of years.

So it's hard to see what advantage any new league would have over the NHL. I mean maybe is Saudi Arabia came in and spent just unreal gobs of money to lure players they could do something (I'm thinking of LIV golf here), but otherwise you're going to have a bunch of second rate players playing in second rate arenas.

The only point of differentiation you mentioned is doing it the "right way". You mentioned 3 points for a win. Casual fans don't give a crap about that. Beyond that, what is there? What would cause someone to watch the new league over the NHL? I dunno - more fighting (but concussions)?

I'm just not seeing any point of differentiation. There have been NFL competitors in the past - USFL, XFL, and UFL - but at least their point of differentiation has been playing at a different time of year and not direct competition (except briefly with USFL 1.0, which quickly led to their demise).

So maybe you go "well what about just an independent but more affordable league"? Again that's been tried before as well.

International Hockey League (1945–2001) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can see that the IHL was an alternate farm team to the NHL, but in the 90s flirted with the idea of trying to compete directly - it didn't work.

Take a page from the NFL's book. The most successful also-ran leagues have been spring leagues like the AAF and XFL.

Most major cities have year round ice due to existing major, minor and college teams. Not that hard in theory to find venues, and if it offered an opportunity to show off their talent to NHL scouts, the players would also come. An NHL backed summer league for tweeners, scrubs guys hunting that elusive last contract, and developmental projects to play against each other. there'd be some interest, not sure how much.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Take a page from the NFL's book. The most successful also-ran leagues have been spring leagues like the AAF and XFL.

Most major cities have year round ice due to existing major, minor and college teams. Not that hard in theory to find venues, and if it offered an opportunity to show off their talent to NHL scouts, the players would also come. An NHL backed summer league for tweeners, scrubs guys hunting that elusive last contract, and developmental projects to play against each other. there'd be some interest, not sure how much.

The NHL season is just so damn long though.

Stanley Cup will be awarded end of June, but training camps start in September. That gives you two months to play your games.

Now there are such things already. I know in Minnesota they have Da Beauty League, which is where a bunch of NHLers and NCAA players get together for glorified pick-up games. They charge $10 for fans which is donated to charity. I believe some other cities have something similar.

I know there's something similar in Chicago and a couple other cities.

But the idea of forming more formal teams - and even travelling between cities? Not sure how into that players would be.

 

[GindyDraws]

My overall point was that it's an extreme long-shot for anyone to "Do the same thing with far less resources and far less talent" and be successful. When you see something succeeding with a lack of talent/resources, they're doing something radically different. (Like the Moneyball A's).

Worse players, smaller markets, a rival league just replicating what the major league does is not going to be able to get anywhere close to the major league in fan base and revenue. That's what the ECHL is and what any rival attempt would be.

The rival leagues that successfully forced mergers back in the day could do so because the Major Leagues were so small that the untapped markets could rival the major league, as demand exceeded supply (and why expansion of the majors killed those rivals).

There's 160m people living in NHL markets, the next FIFTY FOUR markets without NHL teams add up to 100m people. So that ship has sailed.


What sets the attempts in football apart is that SPRING football is not directly competing with the NFL. They supplement the NFL, generating revenue from demand for football when NFL isn't playing. Hockey doesn't have that opportunity.


That's what turns me to soccer: We didn't have the fan base for soccer to build "a world football league" here in North America 30 years ago, so they made "The USFL of soccer" with MLS.

Forming a "World Football League" in the US/Canada COULD be successful for three reasons:
#1 - Maybe we DO have the fan base now (?)
#2 - The rival league would be selling what Major League Soccer ISN'T: Our own "World Football League." (a drastically different product)
#2 - Soccer fans here have already accepted that our domestic league is BAD compared to other leagues. (worse talent matters a lot less).

Instead of "the ECHL's best player vs Connor McDavid," the Rival League to MLS talent gap is more like "the ECHL's best player vs Hudson Fasching or a 40-year old Joe Pavelski."

No one is choosing a bad hockey league over the NHL. But soccer fans here could choose a "bad domestic World Football League" over a "bad domestic summer league" because they crave being part of the world soccer culture more than they crave "watching the superior rosters of MLS."

I dunno... You'd be surprised about the kind of people who get excited about bad hockey. They follow the FPHL.

 

[KevFu]

I dunno... You'd be surprised about the kind of people who get excited about bad hockey. They follow the FPHL.

Well, I'm someone who watches obscure college teams, so I get people being totally niche.

 

[joelef]

Just look at what happened with American open wheel racing after the CART IndyCar split .

 

[Takuto Maruki]

Just look at what happened with American open wheel racing after the CART IndyCar split .

You can blame Tony George trying to go for the throat by using Indy for that. I don't really see that sort of cataclysmic series of events happening in any major league, motorsports is an entirely different playground that follows different wavelengths and rules.

 

[Flukeshot]

Because it's offseason mode (for most of us) and the thread title has radical in it... I'll play along.

I've said it before on a similar idea but I think the next step is for the NHL to expand it's "Branding" presence. (Ex. NHL Europe).

In this case, instead of a pure rival league, or Promotion/Relegation format find the in between. Create the NHL-2nd tier, but incorporate it into both the NHL and AHL. Indeed more like the former IHL.

Add independent NHL-2 franchises to the AHL. They'd play in their own division/s but also fill in their regular season schedule vs the existing AHL teams.

Then as we can expect the NHL will eventually add an in-season tournament like the NBA has, include these NHL-2 teams in it. Now they gain legitimacy.

• Roster/Players:
  • No NHL contracts - no age limits, roster restrictions, min # of youth players. Just the best that each team can afford
  • Likely would pull all Vet players off of AHL teams
  • AHL teams would therefore need to backfill more prospects
  • Expand NHL contract limit from 50 to 60 players - Who doesn't like more prospects!?!
• Teams: 6 to 8 teams
  • NHL-2 Owners get the inside track on future NHL franchise opportunities
• Schedule:
  • Play 75% of their games against other NHL-2 teams
  • 25% against AHL teams - this will help the AHL prospects play against teams of mature players and better prepare them to step up to the NHL
• Playoffs:
  • NHL-2 playoffs isolated event
  • NHL-2 included in NHL Championship Event if it ever happens
  • Likewise develop a NHL-2 + AHL tournament (based on results of their reg season overlapped games)
• Other considerations:
  • Allow NHL-2 to participate in the Entry draft starting round 5
  • NHL-2 players can be "sold" to NHL teams or figure out a logical transfer system

Finally - I'll save you the time.... This will never happen.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Finally - I'll save you the time.... This will never happen.

I'll give you this:

It's a well thought out project. It's not that it couldn't happen.

It just won't happen. Too radical for the NHL.

 

[Tawnos]

MLH (Major League Hockey)
3-on-3
14 player roster, 3 marquee players
$30m salary cap
Every win comes with a $100k bonus split among players and coaches
16 team league

Somehow he only had states and provinces... BC, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New York, California, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, New England (not even a state).

We'll see if it gets off the ground, but if it does, that'd be pretty funny considering a bunch of those teams are probably going into markets we've discussed on here. Saskatoon, Hamilton, QC, Omaha, Kansas City...

Obviously we need more details on funding, etc

 

[Lt Frank Drebin]

I’m a bit skeptical about this league. First off, there’s already a 3 on 3 summer league called 3ice. They’ve been around for several years now. They have a tv deal with CBS and TSN. It’s a fun league and it’s nice to have hockey on tv in the summer, but their marketing is terrible. Unfortunately, most hockey fans don’t even know 3ice exists. This Major League Hockey has a lot of work to do. How are they going to start a league so quickly? They don’t even have a website yet. What players would be willing to leave their current stable situations for an unproven league? Securing 16 arena leases and a tv deal in just a few months won’t be easy.

 

[joelef]

MLH (Major League Hockey)
3-on-3
14 player roster, 3 marquee players
$30m salary cap
Every win comes with a $100k bonus split among players and coaches
16 team league

Somehow he only had states and provinces... BC, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New York, California, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, New England (not even a state).

We'll see if it gets off the ground, but if it does, that'd be pretty funny considering a bunch of those teams are probably going into markets we've discussed on here. Saskatoon, Hamilton, QC, Omaha, Kansas City...

Obviously we need more details on funding, etc

Funny hockey struggles for mainstream rebalance yet they want to start a new league. It’s probably be like the new arena football league.

 

[GKJ]

not gonna happen

 

[varsaku]

I know it will never happen. But always wondered how it would change the NHL if they split into NHL1 and NHL2 with promotion and relegation. With 36 teams and 2 leagues of 18 teams you could have two home and away games against each team for 68 games. Then have a mid season tournament with all teams like the FA Cup before having a playoffs at each level with best teams at the end of the season and a relegation playoffs. That would effectively eliminate tanking since teams would be fighting to stay up or be working towards moving up.