Ask A Panelist... 10.7.08
It is that time again on The NHL Arena Program. We are going to take a question from Rick this week, regarding the current ‘move’ by the NHL to get interest in Europe. This week, he asked;
First off, I will not make my decision on whether this activity is bad for the league until I see how my boys in Ottawa fair over the course of the next couple weeks. After last year, Los Angeles and Anaheim both complained about a slump caused by all the travelling. If Ottawa wins their next couple games, I can mark that as a clear scapegoat for their subpar season (and brutal season [LA]) and accept that playing these games do not adversely affect the players.
I personally do not see an issue with expanding the first couple games in Europe, but I do believe that Europe should be sending some of their teams our way as well. While it may only last a couple games per Arena, bringing their teams over for a scrimmage or two would definitely get fans into the seats, and help with the lost revenue from each NHL game played over there. That should be the issue that is front running this question. Does it cost too much to NOT have the teams play at their home arenas? Obviously the outdoor games counteract anything of that nature, considering you can triple income from a single game, but what is the plan of attack for gaining back the lost revenue for these teams? I know that Columbus needs all the revenue they can get. Will that be ignored by the NHL when they select who goes next?
It is a hard decision to take a stance on. I personally enjoyed watching my team play in another continent, and I know what the experience did for my teams Captain, playing in his home arena. That being said, I also know that if Ottawa were to do a home and away with a random team at the US Bank Arena in Cincinnati, I would have front row seats for both games, so once again, we could be looking at whether the revenue lost is worth the ‘fans’ gained.
Pretty soon they are going to have to let the league function for a year or two without making any big changes. Outdoor games are going to lose their hype, and overseas games will definitely be not as effective if 16 teams are heading over each year to start things off.
Thanks for the question Rick. Even while writing this, I found myself arguing the positive AND the negative. What do you all think??
“What are your thoughts of the NHL potentially expanding to 8 teams to start the
season in Europe?”
First off, I will not make my decision on whether this activity is bad for the league until I see how my boys in Ottawa fair over the course of the next couple weeks. After last year, Los Angeles and Anaheim both complained about a slump caused by all the travelling. If Ottawa wins their next couple games, I can mark that as a clear scapegoat for their subpar season (and brutal season [LA]) and accept that playing these games do not adversely affect the players.
I personally do not see an issue with expanding the first couple games in Europe, but I do believe that Europe should be sending some of their teams our way as well. While it may only last a couple games per Arena, bringing their teams over for a scrimmage or two would definitely get fans into the seats, and help with the lost revenue from each NHL game played over there. That should be the issue that is front running this question. Does it cost too much to NOT have the teams play at their home arenas? Obviously the outdoor games counteract anything of that nature, considering you can triple income from a single game, but what is the plan of attack for gaining back the lost revenue for these teams? I know that Columbus needs all the revenue they can get. Will that be ignored by the NHL when they select who goes next?
It is a hard decision to take a stance on. I personally enjoyed watching my team play in another continent, and I know what the experience did for my teams Captain, playing in his home arena. That being said, I also know that if Ottawa were to do a home and away with a random team at the US Bank Arena in Cincinnati, I would have front row seats for both games, so once again, we could be looking at whether the revenue lost is worth the ‘fans’ gained.
Pretty soon they are going to have to let the league function for a year or two without making any big changes. Outdoor games are going to lose their hype, and overseas games will definitely be not as effective if 16 teams are heading over each year to start things off.
Thanks for the question Rick. Even while writing this, I found myself arguing the positive AND the negative. What do you all think??
