Expansion to 36, which city is number 36?

[Yukon Joe]

Relative to the Leafs (or Canadiens)? No. Relative to the rest of the league? Yes.

Like I said, this is just half baked spit balling, but I'm looking at this from the standpoint that Bell and Rogers value increasing content and viewership for their media properties, over who actually gets to own the Leafs. One way to do that would be to have more Canadian teams.

As far who out of Bell and Rogers ends up with the Leafs, and who gets "stuck" with GTA2... Well I'm the "big ideas" guy, not the "hammer out the details" guy.

So the market cap of Rogers Communication is 21 billion dollars. The market cap of BCE is $41 billion. The Leafs are worth (according to Forbes) $2.8 billion. So the Leafs themselves account for roughly 5% of the entire value of Rogers, and 3% of the entire value of BCE. Those are small but not insignificant numbers to either company (actually, that was assuming half ownership of the Leafs, but I forgot about Tannenbaum).

The Raptors are estimated at $4.1 bil

 

[Jets4Life]

So, you have to be sensitive about this topic. I certainly know POC who are avid hockey fans. I also know lots of white people, born and raised in this country, who don't care about hockey.

But I don't think it's at all controversial to say that new immigrants to the US or Canada are almost certainly coming from countries where hockey is not popular, and thus aren't hockey fans.

Now look that can change over time - the longer someone stays in NAm the more they start to become like the rest of the populatin, which includes sports. Second generation immigrants are much more still like the overall population.

How do you explain people immigrating to Canada since the NHL was formed in 1917, from countries that hockey is not popular, becoming hockey fans?

 

[dj4aces]

2. Basketball in particular - how shall I say it, there's a particular affinity for basketball within black culture. You can look at the US National Basketball team also and see almost no white men on it - doesn't mean basketball isn't popular amongst whites.

Basketball is also incredibly affordable. You don't need equipment, and you can throw a rock and hit three basketball courts in a lot of large cities and their suburbs. Soccer, while pitches aren't as common as basketball courts, is similar in the sense that all you really need to do is show up. For both of those, one can argue the only equipment needed is the proper shoe and the uniform. Hockey, on the other hand, is out-of-reach for many families of any ethnicity. Pads, sticks, helmets, skates -- they all add up.

Make hockey more accessible to more kids from all walks of life, and maybe you see more kids of [insert ethnicity here] playing the sport.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Basketball is the sport of the future, like it or not. It’s cheap, doesn’t take up much space, can be played indoors or outdoors, and is incredibly flexible to play with varying numbers of people. Its popularity is growing everywhere regardless of socioeconomic or demographic factors. It’s a testament to the popularity of hockey in Canada that basketball hasn’t completely eclipsed it there.

But if it does happen, hockey will still be huge in Canada amongst the entire population. And more likely, it won’t surpass it regardless, as it’s not like the NBA is ever going to have more than two or three Canadian teams.

 

[Yukon Joe]

How do you explain people immigrating to Canada since the NHL was formed in 1917, from countries that hockey is not popular, becoming hockey fans?

I mean - I thought I did?

Over time immigrants tend to become more like general population. Particularly in subsequent generations. I know lots of Indian (South Asian) or Chinese families who are huge hockey fans.

 

[Jets4Life]

Basketball is the sport of the future, like it or not. It’s cheap, doesn’t take up much space, can be played indoors or outdoors, and is incredibly flexible to play with varying numbers of people. Its popularity is growing everywhere regardless of socioeconomic or demographic factors. It’s a testament to the popularity of hockey in Canada that basketball hasn’t completely eclipsed it there.

But if it does happen, hockey will still be huge in Canada amongst the entire population. And more likely, it won’t surpass it regardless, as it’s not like the NBA is ever going to have more than two or three Canadian teams.

I respectfully disagree. Basketball blew up in the late 80s, and was massively popular with Jordan and the Bulls in the 90s. It won't get much bigger now, as it's been huge for 35+ years in North America. Soccer, OTOH is going to be the sport of the future, and the one with the most potential for growth in North America.

For starters, the MLS is slowly increasing it's ratings, and attracting bigger names from Europe with each passing year. The World Cup is only 2 years away, and it will give the sport a massive boost. Finally soccer is just about the most affordable sport known to man. It can be played anywhere, and all one really needs is a soccer ball, and a open field.

At any rate, nothing is going to eclipse hockey in Canada. Soccer is already the most participated sport in the country, and hockey is far more popular.

 

[BMN]

Since we are now throwing around half baked scenarios that could lead to a second team in Toronto/the GTA/southern Ontario, I'll offer up mine...

Rogers and Bell go halfsies (or even thirdsies with Amazon or something) on the next NHL deal, but want/need additional content that can both fill out their respective national TV schedules AND draw substantial viewership... The two telcos cut a deal with the league, and each other, and BOOM! Toronto II is born!

I can't remember what thread I pitched the idea, but if I'm making a case for Q.C. or any other centre/east Canadian market, it's this: if the next hockey TV package isn't looking to be as lucrative as the current one (and it almost certainly won't be), add an eighth team so you can try to sell two packages. Either an East (TOR/MTL/OTT/Q.C. or GTA2) and West (EDM/VAN/CGY/WIN) package set or two "2/2s" (divide as you wish).

So much easier to have that even number of teams to divide up.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I can't remember what thread I pitched the idea, but if I'm making a case for Q.C. or any other centre/east Canadian market, it's this: if the next hockey TV package isn't looking to be as lucrative as the current one (and it almost certainly won't be), add an eighth team so you can try to sell two packages. Either an East (TOR/MTL/OTT/Q.C. or GTA2) and West (EDM/VAN/CGY/WIN) package set or two "2/2s" (divide as you wish).

So much easier to have that even number of teams to divide up.

1. You can't really split up east / west because the broadcasters really like having double-headers, which is invariably an east game followed by a west game.

2. Problem is all teams aren't created equally. TML above all else drives ratings, followed by Habs. You're buying the national rights primarily to get those games.

3. Broadcasters pay the big bucks so they can get exclusivity. "Get Sportsnet - the only place to watch the playoffs!".

So - I do get it. That's wat the NFL does: CBS gets AFC Sunday games, Fox gets Sunday NFC, ABC/ESPN gets Monday Nights, NBC getting Sunday Nights, Amazon getting Thursday nights, and NFL Network in there somehow as well. But those AFC/NFC games are kind-of-, sort-of "local" games - which the NHL already shares between Bell and Rogers. The NFL model is more like what's starting to happen - with Amazon getting Monday night national games (although that's a sub-licensing from Rogers).

 

[aqib]

1. You can't really split up east / west because the broadcasters really like having double-headers, which is invariably an east game followed by a west game.

2. Problem is all teams aren't created equally. TML above all else drives ratings, followed by Habs. You're buying the national rights primarily to get those games.

3. Broadcasters pay the big bucks so they can get exclusivity. "Get Sportsnet - the only place to watch the playoffs!".

So - I do get it. That's wat the NFL does: CBS gets AFC Sunday games, Fox gets Sunday NFC, ABC/ESPN gets Monday Nights, NBC getting Sunday Nights, Amazon getting Thursday nights, and NFL Network in there somehow as well. But those AFC/NFC games are kind-of-, sort-of "local" games - which the NHL already shares between Bell and Rogers. The NFL model is more like what's starting to happen - with Amazon getting Monday night national games (although that's a sub-licensing from Rogers).

If the NHL was to go to 36-40 teams at some point would it ne necessary to stick with an East-West alignment or could they do something like the NFL/MLB where both conferences are spread out. So if you had 40 teams. You could have 2 20 team conferences, and each conference have 4 five team divisions?

 

[ponder719]

If the NHL was to go to 36-40 teams at some point would it ne necessary to stick with an East-West alignment or could they do something like the NFL/MLB where both conferences are spread out. So if you had 40 teams. You could have 2 20 team conferences, and each conference have 4 five team divisions?

I wouldn't call it necessary, the question is more whether you could convince the Eastern Time Zone teams to give up their comfortable setup in favor of something with more equitable travel. Presuming you're keeping the most important rivalries together, and the divisions were geographically oriented within a conference, you might be able to pull it off.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

The NHL and NBA seem to be pretty happy with their geographically split conferences. I kind of doubt that they'd be interested in adopting the MLB/NFL format where both leagues/conferences are continent-wide.

My hunch is that they stay split between the east and west until at least 40, at which point they might split into four conferences. If and when another eastern team gets added and they have to really rethink alignment, they'll worry about it when the time comes.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I respectfully disagree. Basketball blew up in the late 80s, and was massively popular with Jordan and the Bulls in the 90s. It won't get much bigger now, as it's been huge for 35+ years in North America. Soccer, OTOH is going to be the sport of the future, and the one with the most potential for growth in North America.

For starters, the MLS is slowly increasing it's ratings, and attracting bigger names from Europe with each passing year. The World Cup is only 2 years away, and it will give the sport a massive boost. Finally soccer is just about the most affordable sport known to man. It can be played anywhere, and all one really needs is a soccer ball, and a open field.

At any rate, nothing is going to eclipse hockey in Canada. Soccer is already the most participated sport in the country, and hockey is far more popular.

The biggest explosion happened in the 90s for sure, but aside from a post-Jordan slump, the NBA in particular and the sport in general has been making big growths both domestically and abroad. With the potential caveat of cricket due to its overwhelming popularity in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh boosting overall numbers drastically, basketball is likely the second most popular sport globally already, and probably has surpassed baseball as the second sport in the US, too. Hard to imagine that being relinguished as societies become more urbanized, making basketball's compact playing space, flexibility in numbers of players, and the inexpensive nature of it all positive indicators for future growth even still.

 

[Reaser]

I can't remember what thread I pitched the idea, but if I'm making a case for Q.C. or any other centre/east Canadian market, it's this: if the next hockey TV package isn't looking to be as lucrative as the current one (and it almost certainly won't be), add an eighth team so you can try to sell two packages. Either an East (TOR/MTL/OTT/Q.C. or GTA2) and West (EDM/VAN/CGY/WIN) package set or two "2/2s" (divide as you wish).

So much easier to have that even number of teams to divide up.

The next broadcast rights deal in Canada will be easy to split into packages -much easier than U.S. where networks schedule NHL national broadcasts around their other properties- because the nights are already and traditionally defined.

Package A: Saturday Night (HNIC) which includes Hockey Day in Canada.

Package B: Wednesday Night Hockey which includes [night 2 but] opening night in Canada.

Package C (streaming): Monday Night Hockey.

Give Package A the Heritage Classic. Give the "B' package the Winter Classic and Stadium Series, Split the playoffs 50/50 between A & B. Rotate All-Star weekend, Draft, and SCF between A & B.

Doesn't have to play out exactly like that but the 'parts' of the package are really straight forward and something easily divvied up.

Extremely unlikely to be one package. You'll get overpay for each package and especially an overpay for any carved out streaming package.

People keep looking at it as one package and that "no one is going to pay that much for it [again.]" Meanwhile, it's really 2-3 packages that will get the rights increase in the aggregate.

I haven't and still don't buy the doomsday predictions made by most on the next deal.

 

[jetsmooseice]

Basketball is the sport of the future, like it or not. It’s cheap, doesn’t take up much space, can be played indoors or outdoors, and is incredibly flexible to play with varying numbers of people. Its popularity is growing everywhere regardless of socioeconomic or demographic factors. It’s a testament to the popularity of hockey in Canada that basketball hasn’t completely eclipsed it there.

But if it does happen, hockey will still be huge in Canada amongst the entire population. And more likely, it won’t surpass it regardless, as it’s not like the NBA is ever going to have more than two or three Canadian teams.

That may be true, realistically Vancouver and Montreal are the only Canadian cities that have a shot at landing a NBA franchise anytime soon. But the CEBL is on an impressive growth trajectory for a six year old league. It's just starting to move from major junior hockey buildings into NHL sized buildings. So between the NBA and the CEBL, basketball could potentially establish a pretty big pro footprint in Canada.

Anyway, I don't think that basketball/soccer's advantages are related directly to cost (although it is a factor) so much as they are to fewer barriers to entry in general. Playing hockey in Canada generally requires your parents to take a series of steps beginning in your preschool years. They have to buy the gear, teach you how to skate, then sign you up for Timbits hockey, then sign you up for minor hockey, and keep doing it every year. By contrast, you get exposed to basketball/soccer at school, in gym class and in the schoolyard. Then if you like it and want to play, you can join a school team. Your parents don't have to do it for you.

The last thing on a lot of immigrant parents' minds is signing kids up for skating lessons at 3 and then hockey at 4 or 5. And once the kid develops an interest in hockey naturally at 8 or 9, it's pretty tough to get into the game. Not impossible, but you are starting pretty far behind at that point. This is not an issue with basketball or soccer, it's far easier to jump in at those ages.

I don't doubt that hockey will remain big, but it will go from being the main attraction to another item on Canada's sports buffet alongside basketball, soccer, football, baseball, lacrosse, etc.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Anyway, I don't think that basketball/soccer's advantages are related directly to cost (although it is a factor) so much as they are to fewer barriers to entry in general. Playing hockey in Canada generally requires your parents to take a series of steps beginning in your preschool years. They have to buy the gear, teach you how to skate, then sign you up for Timbits hockey, then sign you up for minor hockey, and keep doing it every year. By contrast, you get exposed to basketball/soccer at school, in gym class and in the schoolyard. Then if you like it and want to play, you can join a school team. Your parents don't have to do it for you.

he last thing on a lot of immigrant parents' minds is signing kids up for skating lessons at 3 and then hockey at 4 or 5. And once the kid develops an interest in hockey naturally at 8 or 9, it's pretty tough to get into the game. Not impossible, but you are starting pretty far behind at that point. This is not an issue with basketball or soccer, it's far easier to jump in at those ages.

So my kid is a hockey player. He's an athlete, so in pretty good shape. For awhile he was really into basketball, was always throwing hoops out in the front yard. He was really excited when he tried out and made his junior high school basketball team.

Except you know what? He didn't get much playing time. It was the kids who'd been playing for years, doing basketball camps and the like, who were markedly better. Kind of like how hockey is.

Soccer is just as bad, if not worse. My kid was also really into soccer at one point (age 8). He'd been playing since age 4. He tried out and made a really competitive team, and was doing reasonably well. The coach sat down with us and wanted to know if he was going to play indoor soccer that winter. When we said no, he's playing hockey we were told he'll be left behind if he doesn't commit to year-round soccer. At age 8. And they have all the same kind of camps and training academies.

So now, unfortunately, if he had to commit to a sport he chose hockey. The last couple years he's really branched out - and plays some ball hockey on the side.

 

[jetsmooseice]

So my kid is a hockey player. He's an athlete, so in pretty good shape. For awhile he was really into basketball, was always throwing hoops out in the front yard. He was really excited when he tried out and made his junior high school basketball team.

Except you know what? He didn't get much playing time. It was the kids who'd been playing for years, doing basketball camps and the like, who were markedly better. Kind of like how hockey is.

Soccer is just as bad, if not worse. My kid was also really into soccer at one point (age 8). He'd been playing since age 4. He tried out and made a really competitive team, and was doing reasonably well. The coach sat down with us and wanted to know if he was going to play indoor soccer that winter. When we said no, he's playing hockey we were told he'll be left behind if he doesn't commit to year-round soccer. At age 8. And they have all the same kind of camps and training academies.

So now, unfortunately, if he had to commit to a sport he chose hockey. The last couple years he's really branched out - and plays some ball hockey on the side.

That's fair. I wasn't thinking of elite streams so much as I was just general participation, which is probably the vast majority of players. Even here in Winnipeg, which isn't exactly a soccer hotbed, soccer has become very competitive with kids committing to clubs at a young age. But the point is that it is far more likely that an athletic 12 or 13 year old with no serious experience in the sport is going to catch on with a soccer or basketball team than with a hockey team. In my experience there are very few who start hockey past the age of about 8 or 9. Then you have sports like football where the typical starting age is even later.

I guess these days, there probably aren't any sports or similar pursuits that aren't dominated by early starters. For instance, my kid likes All Elite Wrestling on TSN and I watch it with him sometimes... it is amazing to me how many wrestlers these days began training as 13 year olds, as compared to when I was a kid when the typical wrestling career began when they graduated from college football and failed to land in the NFL.