Expansion draft?

[Woody19]

Hi,

My first post - after EHM stopped I feared there wouldn't be any good hockey manager anymore, and now its from OOTP, yeah!

Anyway, I would like to know if it will be possible to do an expansion draft, i.e. starting with a new franchise and drafting players according to the expansion rules? I would most definitely love this feature ...

[frisland]

Yeah, i'm hoping for that also. My wish is to be able to start in 1967 and expand and relocate along the way.

[Cline]

An expansion draft would be awesome!

[Austsaint]

I have always loved expansion drafts, I would love to start as the team I support the panthers in their expansion year

[dave1927p]

I'm really hoping for a basic expansion draft option. I'll be adding back the Hamilton Tigers...

[erikthered]

You know what would be cool (and kind of pie-in-the-sky)? If there was a way to have the computer automatically create teams when league revenues get high. Maybe there could be a way for the player to approve or veto the creation of a new team (perhaps some kind of commissioner mode option that would also allow the player to control certain other league aspects during the course of the game; like someone mentioned the possibility of periodic lockouts/strikes or relocations of franchises if a team isn't making much).

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by erikthered

If there was a way to have the computer automatically create teams when league revenues get high.

The realistic way would be to have the league expand recklessly just so it can bank the expansion fees. (That's the way the NHL did it!)

[dave1927p]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The realistic way would be to have the league expand recklessly just so it can bank the expansion fees. (That's the way the NHL did it!)

Haha, you're right about that. Although the expansion from 6 teams to 12 was a great move as all 6 teams were doing financially well.

With 30 teams there's probably 5-7 that are hurting but i think that we can't deny that it grew the game and made the sport a major one. (even though it's rarely a topic in sports illustrated unless they're talking about headshots and violence in hockey)

the expansion fees were certainly the driving force for expansion in the past, owners are greedy.

hopefully in this game when a new expansion team is created they have to pay a determined amount of money for an "Expansion fee" that's divided amongst the other owners and that amount shows up in the respective teams revenues/expenses.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by dave1927p

Haha, you're right about that. Although the expansion from 6 teams to 12 was a great move as all 6 teams were doing financially well.

Actually, it wasn't, at least, not from an attendance point of view. In the first season of twelve clubs the league average per game attendance was 24% below what it had been the season before with only six clubs. And that per game average did not reach the level it had reached before the first expansion until 22 seasons later.

The NHL's current troubles can be traced to its over-expansion in the mid- to late-1990s. If one drops the six clubs added after the 1992-93 season the league's overall finances improve markedly.

[dave1927p]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Actually, it wasn't, at least, not from an attendance point of view. In the first season of twelve clubs the league average per game attendance was 24% below what it had been the season before with only six clubs. And that per game average did not reach the level it had reached before the first expansion until 22 seasons later.
.

No, what i meant was saying was that the orignal 6 teams were doing financially well in their markets so they decided to expand more into the states. Yes, those expansion teams took alot of time to get attendance to match the original six and make money as they were essentially a minor pro team playing in the big leagues. Attendance would be up for when an expansion team (at home) played an original six team. I also meant it was a huge success as it grew the game and made more people interested in owning an NHL team and more (american) kids growing up who wanted to play in the NHL.

Have you read the book the Great Expansion - the Ultimate Risk that Changed the NHL Forever by Alan Bass? It's his first book (you can kinda tell at times) but a great read with lots of facts and storys about the expansion years from 6 to 12 and the struggles. He really did a great job at researching the subject. I highly recommend it to anyone who's interested in this sort of thing, i really enjoyed it. The whole time i was reading it a year ago I was wishing for a game like this to come along for me to watch it unfold on my own (in my fictional universe)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by dave1927p

No, what i meant was saying was that the orignal 6 teams were doing financially well in their markets so they decided to expand more into the states. Yes, those expansion teams took alot of time to get attendance to match the original six and make money as they were essentially a minor pro team playing in the big leagues.

Which goes to show doubling the size of the league in one shot was questionable at best. Why not a more gradual expansion as done in the other sports league?

In any case here's the NHL's per game average attendance. Bars in green indicate seasons when new expansion teams began playing, and the light blue bar show when clubs from the defunt WHA began playing in the NHL. The red line shows the per game attendance the NHL reached in the year prior to its doubling, and just how long it took for the league to get back to that mark and finally surpass it on a sustained basis.

[grindline]

You know, looking at that graph, if I were Gary Bettman I would be pretty pleased. The more recent expansions have very little negative impact on average attendance, certainly compared to the move from 6 to 12 sides. Moreover the tv ratings in places in the South are going to be higher than two decades previously I assume. My other thought was that, in some terms at least, the league could support expansion to 32 teams far better than other earlier expansions, provided that the new franchises were economically viable.

Of course I realise this data is just one metric of the health of the league and I'm most definitely not aBettmam apologist.

[Edster007]

Originally Posted by grindline

You know, looking at that graph, if I were Gary Bettman I would be pretty pleased. The more recent expansions have very little negative impact on average attendance, certainly compared to the move from 6 to 12 sides. Moreover the tv ratings in places in the South are going to be higher than two decades previously I assume. My other thought was that, in some terms at least, the league could support expansion to 32 teams far better than other earlier expansions, provided that the new franchises were economically viable.

Of course I realise this data is just one metric of the health of the league and I'm most definitely not aBettmam apologist.

I think the chart for 1967 would have more significance if it tracked the effect on attendance of the original six. Those teams played each other 14 times a year in '66, 70 game schedule. I dont know how the schedule broke down in 67 other then the fact they moved to 74 games. In 1967 you were introducing professional hockey to many markets in the USA unlike later years when cable TV opened avenues to market the product. It would be reasonable to assume at that stage of devlopment there would be a giant step backwards to move the league forward.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by grindline

My other thought was that, in some terms at least, the league could support expansion to 32 teams far better than other earlier expansions, provided that the new franchises were economically viable.

Not based on the financial health of the league and its clubs (a few teams make a lot of profit while a large number lose money), nor based on the historical ratio of the NHL's size compared to the other three sports leagues. Between the 1991-92 and 2000-01 seasons the NHL added nine new clubs over those ten seasons. That's a crazy rate of expansion, especially when compared to MLB or the NFL, both of which were much more restrained in their expansions.

Originally Posted by Edster007

I think the chart for 1967 would have more significance if it tracked the effect on attendance of the original six. Those teams played each other 14 times a year in '66, 70 game schedule.

There is individual per game averages for teams available but it isn't in a convenient format to analyze.

Originally Posted by Edster007

I dont know how the schedule broke down in 67 other then the fact they moved to 74 games.

It was a 10-4 format (10 games against each of the five other teams in the division and 4 games against the six clubs in the other division).

Originally Posted by Edster007

In 1967 you were introducing professional hockey to many markets in the USA unlike later years when cable TV opened avenues to market the product. It would be reasonable to assume at that stage of devlopment there would be a giant step backwards to move the league forward.[/FONT]

The question isn't expansion, it's the size and rapidity of the expansion. Six new clubs in 1966-67, two more clubs in 1970-71, another two clubs in 1972-73, and then another two clubs in 1974-75. That's twelve new teams added over the course of just eight seasons. MLB and the NFL never expanded at anything like that rate, and consequently neither's per game attendance suffered anything like the sort of decline seen in the NHL.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The question isn't expansion, it's the size and rapidity of the expansion. Six new clubs in 1966-67, two more clubs in 1970-71, another two clubs in 1972-73, and then another two clubs in 1974-75. That's twelve new teams added over the course of just eight seasons. MLB and the NFL never expanded at anything like that rate, and consequently neither's per game attendance suffered anything like the sort of decline seen in the NHL.

Decline or not, the league survived, and despite the grim picture you're trying to paint about expansion, the NHL is a very financially healthy professional league at its current state. Yes, there are troubled franchises, every professional league has that problem, but as a whole the NHL is not failing in any way, shape, or form financially. Edster007 hit the nail on the head. When the NHL expanded during the late 60's and early 70's it was a lot more diffcult to market at that time. Despite those hurdles, they came away from it without failing.

It's easy to make numbers say what you want them to say, it's just a matter of presentation. The NHL didn't suffer in Canada too much when those 6 franchises were added. It meant more hockey and players to watch and grow attached to, and that's always a good thing from a Canadians perspective. And there was certainly plenty of talent to draw from too. The NHL needed to grow, and grow quickly at that time. If they didn't get in on the growing US market they would have suffered for it.

Regressing in order to achieve progress was worth it imo.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

...the NHL is a very financially healthy professional league at its current state.

No, it isn't, or else it wouldn't be demanding another round of large wage concessions from its players.

The twelve money-making clubs had an aggregate profit of $252.6 million. One club—Toronto—accounted for almost one-third of that total (32.4% to be exact). Montreal and the Rangers accounted for 18.9% and 16.4%, respectively. That means just three clubs accounted for over two-thirds (67.7%) of the total profit made by clubs which posted a profit. Four clubs accounted for over three-quarters (77.0%). Six clubs accounted for 90% of the total.

Neither the NFL nor MLB has anything even remotely close to that level of concentration of profit.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Yes, there are troubled franchises, every professional league has that problem...

According to the most recent Forbes annual club valuations for each league, the NFL had just two money-losing clubs (combined loss: $10.6 million); MLB, only three (combined loss: $53.6 million). In comparison the NBA had fifteen money-losing clubs (combined loss: $175.5 million); the NHL, eighteen (combined loss: $126.1 million).

The six NHL expansion clubs added after the 1992-93 season account for over half of that aggregate $126.1 million loss (52.5% to be precise). Of the three teams added in or prior to the 1992-93 season, only Ottawa made a profit; the other two had a combined $16.2 million loss. So, of the nine most recently added expansion teams, just one posted a profit, the other eight had a combined loss of $82.5 million according to the most recent Forbes analysis. To put it another way, those eight money-losing expansion franchises accounted for close to two-thirds of the NHL's aggregate loss posted by unprofitable clubs (65.4% to be exact).

Those figures would seem to me to be a rather damning indictment of the NHL's expansion process in the 1990s.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

When the NHL expanded during the late 60's and early 70's it was a lot more diffcult to market at that time.

One is left to explain why the NHL's expansion resulted in a long-term decline in per game attendance whereas the expansions in MLB and NFL did not. The answer would seem to be the NHL over-expanded. (Does 12 new teams over just 8 seasons sound at all like a sensible plan? Does 9 new teams over 10 seasons sound like a good idea?)

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Despite those hurdles, they came away from it without failing.

The Seals moved to Cleveland, then two seasons later disappeared altogether by merging with Minnesota. The Scouts departed Kansas City for Denver, only to leave there for New Jersey a few years later. The Flames left Atlanta for Calgary. That's hardly a picture of league stability.

Clubs shifting cities not long after being created and a sharp decline in league attendance is evidence suggesting the expansion process was far from optimal.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

The NHL didn't suffer in Canada too much when those 6 franchises were added.

Especially since the NHL had no revenue sharing. It meant profitable clubs didn't have to worry about supporting their less successful brethren. The home team kept 100% of the local revenues.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

The NHL needed to grow, and grow quickly at that time.

Why? What is the evidence for that?

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

If they didn't get in on the growing US market they would have suffered for it.

Again, why?

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Why? What is the evidence for that?

If they hadn't expanded, they'd have lost those markets to other leagues. The Western league had moved down to the big Californian cities in the early 60's, was making noises about stepping up to major-league status, and was developing a relationship with the AHL, who had teams in viable major league cities like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Cleveland. And the WHA appeared not too long after the NHL started expanding. If they'd sat around and stayed with 6-8 teams into the 70's, they'd have turned into a regional league in the northeast while another league or leagues established strangleholds everywhere else in North America.

You asked earlier why there wasn't a more gradual expansion: because Clarence Campbell and the handful of owners sat on their little monopoly on top-level hockey for as long as they could. By the time the NHL expanded, Major League Baseball was at 20 teams, the NBA and ABA had a combined 23 teams, and the NFL and AFL has a combined 25. Hell, even the CFL had 50% more teams than the NHL. The NHL was ridiculously small in 1967, a quarter the size of the other big leagues, and they needed that rapid expansion to get to a viable size before someone else took all the market share that was up for grabs. (The post-80's expansions are another animal altogether, that's just sheer greed and misplaced ambition.)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by JeffR

I... If they'd sat around and stayed with 6-8 teams into the 70's, they'd have turned into a regional league in the northeast while another league or leagues established strangleholds everywhere else in North America.

That's far from a certainty. The NHL was the top professional hockey league. Rival leagues have to fight to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by JeffR

You asked earlier why there wasn't a more gradual expansion: because Clarence Campbell and the handful of owners sat on their little monopoly on top-level hockey for as long as they could.

Are you sure it wasn't the other way around? The league stayed with its six cities because those were the ones where top-level professional hockey had the best chance of financially prospering?

Originally Posted by JeffR

By the time the NHL expanded, Major League Baseball was at 20 teams, the NBA and ABA had a combined 23 teams, and the NFL and AFL has a combined 25.

Let's look at the 20th century history of leagues challenging the established top-flight league. In baseball, the Federal League lasted two seasons; the Continental League never even played a single game. In football, the three prior AFL incarnations all failed to make an impact; the AAFC survived only four seasons; the WFL barely lasted two seasons; the USFL played a spring/summer schedule to avoid direct competition with the NFL. In hockey, the WHA managed to last seven seasons but ended in disarray. In basketball, the ABA lasted nine seasons but in the end it went extinct too.

The only leagues which successfully survived challenging the established leagues are the American League, the fourth American Football League, and the Basketball Association of America (which merged with the National Basketball League to form the NBA).

Hardly an inspiring record. The odds are stacked heavily against rival leagues. The best they can usually hope for is to get a few of their teams into the established league before expiring.

Given this, I'm not sure counting the clubs of the rival leagues which ultimately went defunct is necessarily fair. (Only four of final nine ABA teams were taken into the NBA, the rest passed out of existence; four of the final seven WHA teams got into the NHL, the others went extinct.)

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

No, it isn't, or else it wouldn't be demanding another round of large wage concessions from its players.

Really? Why is that revenues have increased at a rate of almost 7% over tha last 7 years. The fact there's another round of wage talks going on is because they can't agree on how the big pile of moola should be split, not because the league is suffering financially.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The twelve money-making clubs had an aggregate profit of $252.6 million. One club—Toronto—accounted for almost one-third of that total (32.4% to be exact). Montreal and the Rangers accounted for 18.9% and 16.4%, respectively. That means just three clubs accounted for over two-thirds (67.7%) of the total profit made by clubs which posted a profit. Four clubs accounted for over three-quarters (77.0%). Six clubs accounted for 90% of the total.

See above - league revenues are climbing and continue to do so. This is NOT a league that's hurting financially.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

One is left to explain why the NHL's expansion resulted in a long-term decline in per game attendance whereas the expansions in MLB and NFL did not. The answer would seem to be the NHL over-expanded. (Does 12 new teams over just 8 seasons sound at all like a sensible plan? Does 9 new teams over 10 seasons sound like a good idea?)

The Seals moved to Cleveland, then two seasons later disappeared altogether by merging with Minnesota. The Scouts departed Kansas City for Denver, only to leave there for New Jersey a few years later. The Flames left Atlanta for Calgary. That's hardly a picture of league stability.

Clubs shifting cities not long after being created and a sharp decline in league attendance is evidence suggesting the expansion process was far from optimal.

Stability? Optimal? I said the league was very healthy financially. Period.

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That's far from a certainty. The NHL was the top professional hockey league. Rival leagues have to fight to be taken seriously.

No, they just have to pose a legitimate threat to be taken seriously. Bill Jennings of the Rangers started encouraging the NHL to expand in the mid-60's because he was concerned losing the Los Angeles and San Francisco markets would keep the league from getting a network TV deal in the U.S. The WHL's toehold in those cities was enough to worry him. And that kicked off the process that led to the 1967 expansion (and the 1970 one, too, since Buffalo and Vancouver were rejected '67 applicants.)

Are you sure it wasn't the other way around? The league stayed with its six cities because those were the ones where top-level professional hockey had the best chance of financially prospering?

Yes, I'm sure. Stafford Smythe of the Leafs went to Vancouver in 1964 with the promise of an expansion team if the city would give him land for an arena. So the market was just fine if he stood to get a second NHL team in the deal. But he got turned down, and suddenly Vancouver wasn't a viable NHL city anymore. One of the Canadiens' owners wanted a team in Philadelphia in the late 40's, and the league was happy to go along with that - even letting him buy the dormant Maroons franchise - but he couldn't get an arena built, either. But if somebody wasn't part of the NHL inner circle, they weren't getting a chance - the AHL Cleveland Barons were very successful financially and outdrew a couple of NHL teams for most of the 50's, but their owners got rejected - repeatedly - when they applied to join the league.