Houston Rockets owner eyeing NHL franchise?

[Kipper_3434]

Hockey will grow better in these markets if they bring more skill and less dirty stick work into the way the game is played. I honestly think they need to bring in a free shot or something drastic other than call a 2 min penalty. Every single time a player reaches in with their stick near the body or hands, during a scoring chance. Let the game be skill + body checking. A few 18-11 games. Then the fans will come. Stupid dumb refs.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Here is the problem, we heard the exact same thing about Arizona and Carolina. Sure, the NHL wants TV deals in those areas for revenue but how does that help an owner who is bleeding millions every year? The same thing was said about Atlanta the second time around and how did that work out? The reality is a decent portion of the Stars fanbase probably comes from Houston and they have a hard time selling out now. So once the shiny new toy factor is over with a Houston team instead of having one team in Dallas that at best draws mid pack attendance you will have two teams drawing bottom 5 attendance. It won't work.

Revenue sharing - that's how it helps bleeding owners. The NHL wants a lucrative broadcasting deal, and the more huge markets covered by a franchise, the more likely they are to obtain one.

Atlanta went down not really due to economics, but more because of an owner that didn't want them. IIRC, he owned the building, and didn't want them there. That is why the NHL moved quickly to move the team, and Winnipeg was the easiest relocation at the time. Winnipeg got really lucky. The NHL had no interest in moving out of the Atlanta market, but their hands were tied there.

Here is a good representation about what happened with the Thrashers and why they failed, as well as why the NHL themselves were so willing to move the team so quickly.

https://www.topdan.com/sports/why-th...t-atlanta.html

As a fan, I am 100% ok with no more expansion other than just to equalize the number of teams. I just don't think that the NHL and the ownership groups would want to pass up on $500 million dollar injections, as well as the potential to finally obtain a lucrative national broadcasting contract.

The only reason it seems that teams south of the border are struggling is due to how poorly managed they have been. Every team that is thought of as a 'failed' franchise has had some really solid years' worth of attendance, even having numerous years beating out such juggernauts and original six teams like Boston, Chicago and NYR. Look through the attendance records year-to-year, and the only thing that I find that has any correlation is the number of years of pure suckage.

That is why the NHL tried very hard to make the LV franchise successful from the get-go. That is why I think you have to tip your hat off for McPhee here. The other organizations always had pretty decent attendance for the first few years, but the many years of sucking led to a diminishing attendance. McPhee is trying to position his team to take advantage of the first few years of really sucking, but trying to build his team through the draft so that in 3 years or so, they can start turning a corner. Risky, definitely, and not without some mistakes, but I myself am not jumping on McPhee for failing quite yet, nor will I defend/praise him. What he is doing is very risky in allowing his team to suck off the bat (start to the season aside), but I am reserving judgment until about the 3 or 4 year mark.

Look at how well Nashville is suddenly doing in their market. Phoenix was a decent market until they made the gamble to go to Glendale. Ottawa's attendance kind of sucks in relation to other successful teams because their arena is in a sucky location. Location aside, it seems to be nearly perfectly correlated to the relative success of each franchise on the ice. Houston, in retrospect, should do well financially as long as they are managed properly. There is barely a US market that I can see that doesn't drop their attendance dramatically during the years where they don't experience much on-ice success.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Here is the problem, we heard the exact same thing about Arizona and Carolina. Sure, the NHL wants TV deals in those areas for revenue but how does that help an owner who is bleeding millions every year? The same thing was said about Atlanta the second time around and how did that work out? The reality is a decent portion of the Stars fanbase probably comes from Houston and they have a hard time selling out now. So once the shiny new toy factor is over with a Houston team instead of having one team in Dallas that at best draws mid pack attendance you will have two teams drawing bottom 5 attendance. It won't work.

This is so stupid that it boggles the mind.

Carolina has almost 6 million fewer people than Dallas but just lump them in together because they're "southern".

Dallas is the fourth biggest metro in the US but they need people from 3.5 hours away for support?

Houston is the fifth biggest metro in the US. Much bigger than Atlanta but hockey won't work because.... "southern"?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

How would the NHL be able to justify having an expansion fee less than 500$ million now though? I'd think Vegas wouldn't be too happy if another expansion team payed 200 million less than they had too

Expansion fees are based on what the traffic will bear, not what the previous amount of an expansion was worth. I would be shocked to see an expansion fee that high again, simply because the majority of franchises aren't even valued that high. Consider that the Thrashers were sold for $170M and that included a $60M transfer fee. The only reason Vegas paid that kind of coin was to be the first pro-sports franchise in the Vegas market. No one is going to pay $500M for a franchise to be a secondary tenant in their arena. It just isn't happening.

[bizaro86]

Nobody from Houston goes to Dallas for a hockey game right now. It's a 3.5 hour drive. If there were a decent number of people that passionate about hockey in a huge rich market, it would already have a team.

It might still work without a built in passionate fan base, and if it does it will help Dallas not hurt them, because they'll get a few extra good crowds from rivalry games.

[DJones]

Houston always seemed like the most obvious place for me after Quebec and Seattle.

Don't see why it wouldn't work.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

This is so stupid that it boggles the mind.

Carolina has almost 6 million fewer people than Dallas but just lump them in together because they're "southern".

Dallas is the fourth biggest metro in the US but they need people from 3.5 hours away for support?

Houston is the fifth biggest metro in the US. Much bigger than Atlanta but hockey won't work because.... "southern"?

I think the Hurricanes are like 10th banana in that market.

(In no particular order)
Panthers
NC State
Scar Gamecocks
Duke
UNC
Bobcats
Wake Forest
NASCAR




Hurricanes.

[Corral]

Ice hockey as a successful business in the southern US is pie in the sky, no matter how you slice it. I suspect these franchises run on the any or all of the following: (1) cheap ticket prices combined with massive promotional give aways; (2) arenas built on the back of taxpayers (hence where Edwards and Co. get their bright ideas); (3) the deep pockets of owners who can afford to lose $$$; (4) 7 strong Canadian franchises for revenue sharing. Its a business model which consistently fails in these markets for one reason or another. There's always someone lining up to lose their money though.

The notion of national broadcasting contract in the US for the NHL is laughable. Aside from the likely fact that the ship has sailed for all professional sports, very few Americans outside of the traditional northern markets is sitting on the couch to watch "the good ole hockey game".

The NHL is a very very distant 4th in the 'big 4' leagues. Indeed it is behind college football and basketball by a landslide.

Yes the whole US expansion over the last 3 decades has not sat well with me. So there you have it.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Corral

Ice hockey as a successful business in the southern US is pie in the sky, no matter how you slice it. I suspect these franchises run on the any or all of the following: (1) cheap ticket prices combined with massive promotional give aways; (2) arenas built on the back of taxpayers (hence where Edwards and Co. get their bright ideas); (3) the deep pockets of owners who can afford to lose $$$; (4) 7 strong Canadian franchises for revenue sharing. Its a business model which consistently fails in these markets for one reason or another. There's always someone lining up to lose their money though.

The notion of national broadcasting contract in the US for the NHL is laughable. Aside from the likely fact that the ship has sailed for all professional sports, very few Americans outside of the traditional northern markets is sitting on the couch to watch "the good ole hockey game".

The NHL is a very very distant 4th in the 'big 4' leagues. Indeed it is behind college football and basketball by a landslide.

Yes the whole US expansion over the last 3 decades has not sat well with me. So there you have it.

Could be worse:

https://deadspin.com/is-mls-a-ponzi-scheme-1797509617

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

This is so stupid that it boggles the mind.

Carolina has almost 6 million fewer people than Dallas but just lump them in together because they're "southern".

Dallas is the fourth biggest metro in the US but they need people from 3.5 hours away for support?

Houston is the fifth biggest metro in the US. Much bigger than Atlanta but hockey won't work because.... "southern"?

*facepalm* So if Dallas, a well established team has a hard time drawing people what makes you think an expansion team in Houston will draw so much better? Metro Atlanta has 6 million people so it is hardly small but lets exaggerate to try and make our point right? In Houston an NHL team would be behind MLB, NBA, NFL, college football, a bunch of soccer teams, motorsports, horse racing, and just about anything else you can think of. The only reason Vegas has a chance to work in the long run is because the majority of tickets will be sold to other businesses who will give them away as promotional items but that arena in another 3-5 years is going to look like Florida and Arizona's as far as actual attendance goes because there is a hundred better things to do in Vegas then go to a NHL game. So how will Houston who will not have the same tourist benefit as Vegas survive once the new shiny toy is not new anymore? Go ahead and give me the same song and dance that was said about the Coyotes.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

How would the NHL be able to justify having an expansion fee less than 500$ million now though? I'd think Vegas wouldn't be too happy if another expansion team payed 200 million less than they had too

The alternative is likely to be no more expansion, ever. If Vegas paid too much for their team, it's nobody's fault but their own.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Nobody from Houston goes to Dallas for a hockey game right now. It's a 3.5 hour drive. If there were a decent number of people that passionate about hockey in a huge rich market, it would already have a team.

The principal reason Houston hasn't had a team yet is that the only suitable arena was controlled by a man who hated the NHL and would not allow hockey to be played in his building.

Different eras and all that, but as far as I can tell, the real Houston Aeros – the WHA franchise – drew quite well. They folded only when it became clear that they would not be allowed to join in their league's merger with the NHL. The owner of the Aeros actually tried to buy an NHL franchise and move it to Houston for the 1978–79 season, effectively getting into the merger through the back door. Different sources mention the Colorado Rockies and Cleveland Barons as teams that he tried to acquire. But the league rejected his offer and instead arranged the sale of the Barons' assets to the Minnesota North Stars. —And then, 15 years later, the North Stars moved to Texas anyway.

Originally Posted by dissentowner

*facepalm* So if Dallas, a well established team has a hard time drawing people what makes you think an expansion team in Houston will draw so much better?

What makes you say that Dallas has a hard time drawing people? Forbes has them #9 in the NHL in revenue and operating income, #12 in franchise value. When they ice a decent team, they draw around 95% of capacity. When they suck, the percentage drops. This is the normal cycle of things for American sports franchises generally – not just hockey teams in the Sunbelt.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

*facepalm* So if Dallas, a well established team has a hard time drawing people what makes you think an expansion team in Houston will draw so much better? Metro Atlanta has 6 million people so it is hardly small but lets exaggerate to try and make our point right? In Houston an NHL team would be behind MLB, NBA, NFL, college football, a bunch of soccer teams, motorsports, horse racing, and just about anything else you can think of. The only reason Vegas has a chance to work in the long run is because the majority of tickets will be sold to other businesses who will give them away as promotional items but that arena in another 3-5 years is going to look like Florida and Arizona's as far as actual attendance goes because there is a hundred better things to do in Vegas then go to a NHL game. So how will Houston who will not have the same tourist benefit as Vegas survive once the new shiny toy is not new anymore? Go ahead and give me the same song and dance that was said about the Coyotes.

You don't know Houston quite as well you are professing. facepalm indeed.

[JerryUnderscore]

The "hockey doesn't work in the South" narrative is prevalent, especially among us in Canada but that numbers don't show that to be the case. Here is a list of average attendance of every team from the 2010-11 season through the 2016-17 season:

1. Chicago Blackhawks: 21,595
2. Montreal Canadiens: 21,422
3. Detroit Red Wings: 20,292
4. Philadelphia Flyers: 19,607
5. Toronto Maple Leafs: 19,385
6. Calgary Flames: 19,163
7. Vancouver Canucks: 18,873
8. Pittsburgh Penguins: 18,715
9. Tampa Bay Lightning: 18,630
10. Minnesota Wild: 18,605
11. Buffalo Sabres: 18,570
12. St. Louis Blues: 18,397
13. Ottawa Senators: 18,332
14. Washington Capitals: 18,316
15. Los Angeles Kings: 18,309
16. New York Rangers: 17,934
17. Boston Bruins: 17,565
18. San Jose Sharks: 17,356
19. Edmonton Oilers: 17,053
20. Nashville Predators: 16,770
21. Dallas Stars: 16,407
22. Anaheim Ducks: 15,861
23. Colorado Avalanche: 15,611
24. New Jersey Devils: 15,339
25. Winnipeg Jets: 15,179
26. Florida Panthers: 14,964
27. Columbus Blue Jackets: 14,802
28. Carolina Hurricanes: 14,282
29. New York Islanders: 13,480
30. Arizona Coyotes: 13,168

I've put Canadian teams in red and bolded "southern" teams.

No one is debating that Arizona, Carolina and Florida haven't done well. But to say that "southern teams don't work" discounts Tampa, LA, San Jose, Nashville, Dallas, and Anaheim.

Also, look at those bottom four teams as far as attendance. In the mix with Arizona and Carolina are Columbus and NY Islanders. Shouldn't those be good hockey markets since they're northern? If Dallas is a "bad hockey market" because of low attendance then we need to be willing to say that Colorado, New Jersey and Winnipeg are also bad hockey markets.

The league is clearly going to expand soon. No one believes that the league plans to have 31 teams long term. Houston is far enough from Dallas that they're not going to take fans away but close enough that if a rivalry started I could see fans travelling for games.

Seattle and QC are both good options for either expansion or relocation but I see no reason why Houston shouldn't also be in that conversation. Give Houston an expansion team and relocate Arizona and the Islanders to Seattle and Quebec respectively. It would create a 32 team league without having to move any teams into different divisions.

[GioforPM]

Houston is, IMO, a better hockey market than Dallas. More northern connection (especially to Alberta), more head offices for corporate support, more hockey history (a WHA team and the AHL team did pretty well there until they had a lease issue). And, while they have all the other sports, I'd rather compete with the Texans than with the Cowboys.

[troutman]

Attendance is one measure, but should be weighed with other factors such as, average ticket price, local TV ratings, sponsorships, arena deals, merchandising etc.

Tampa was 9th in attendance in Jerry's list, but 26th in average ticket prices in 2013 at $102 (Forbes). Calgary was $262.

Anaheim's average attendance above was 15,861, but local TV ratings in 2017 were a miniscule 0.21. Buffalo was 6.43. (Sports Business).

[Resolute 14]

Local TV ratings is far less meaningful than local TV revenue.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

The "hockey doesn't work in the South" narrative is prevalent, especially among us in Canada but that numbers don't show that to be the case. Here is a list of average attendance of every team from the 2010-11 season through the 2016-17 season:

1. Chicago Blackhawks: 21,595
2. Montreal Canadiens: 21,422
3. Detroit Red Wings: 20,292
4. Philadelphia Flyers: 19,607
5. Toronto Maple Leafs: 19,385
6. Calgary Flames: 19,163
7. Vancouver Canucks: 18,873
8. Pittsburgh Penguins: 18,715
9. Tampa Bay Lightning: 18,630
10. Minnesota Wild: 18,605
11. Buffalo Sabres: 18,570
12. St. Louis Blues: 18,397
13. Ottawa Senators: 18,332
14. Washington Capitals: 18,316
15. Los Angeles Kings: 18,309
16. New York Rangers: 17,934
17. Boston Bruins: 17,565
18. San Jose Sharks: 17,356
19. Edmonton Oilers: 17,053
20. Nashville Predators: 16,770
21. Dallas Stars: 16,407
22. Anaheim Ducks: 15,861
23. Colorado Avalanche: 15,611
24. New Jersey Devils: 15,339
25. Winnipeg Jets: 15,179
26. Florida Panthers: 14,964
27. Columbus Blue Jackets: 14,802
28. Carolina Hurricanes: 14,282
29. New York Islanders: 13,480
30. Arizona Coyotes: 13,168

I've put Canadian teams in red and bolded "southern" teams.

No one is debating that Arizona, Carolina and Florida haven't done well. But to say that "southern teams don't work" discounts Tampa, LA, San Jose, Nashville, Dallas, and Anaheim.

Also, look at those bottom four teams as far as attendance. In the mix with Arizona and Carolina are Columbus and NY Islanders. Shouldn't those be good hockey markets since they're northern? If Dallas is a "bad hockey market" because of low attendance then we need to be willing to say that Colorado, New Jersey and Winnipeg are also bad hockey markets.

The league is clearly going to expand soon. No one believes that the league plans to have 31 teams long term. Houston is far enough from Dallas that they're not going to take fans away but close enough that if a rivalry started I could see fans travelling for games.

Seattle and QC are both good options for either expansion or relocation but I see no reason why Houston shouldn't also be in that conversation. Give Houston an expansion team and relocate Arizona and the Islanders to Seattle and Quebec respectively. It would create a 32 team league without having to move any teams into different divisions.

I think the statement is that hockey doesn't work as well in the south. I don't think anyone is proposing it can never work.

You've listed 9 southern teams.

8 of the 9 are ranked from 15-30.

I think you've actually proved the point that hockey in the south is a much riskier proposition.

[GioforPM]

A lot of those average attendances at the top are a function of rink size. Perhaps average attendance as a % of capacity is a better measure. And a year's sample probably isn't enough.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think the statement is that hockey doesn't work as well in the south. I don't think anyone is proposing it can never work.

You've listed 9 southern teams.

8 of the 9 are ranked from 15-30.

I think you've actually proved the point that hockey in the south is a much riskier proposition.

Sure, you could argue that the southern markets don't do as well as the largest cities in the north eastern part of the country as well as large Canadian markets.

However, Tampa and Dallas are both doing quite well, at least in terms of attendance. And if we're discussing the merits of hockey in Houston, looking at Dallas is extremely important.

Dissentowner repeatedly claimed Dallas wasn't a great hockey market, especially in terms of attendance. That's patently false. To say Houston shouldn't be considered simply because hockey doesn't do as well in southern markets disregards some of the fact for a simplified narrative.

Another thing to consider with these attendance figures is when each team joined the league. While it's not perfectly linear, it's pretty clear that the older teams have higher attendance than newer teams. That means any expansion team is going to have lower attendance, not just southern markets.

[Strange Brew]

Yes the NHL has a history of franchises failing and any new market will be at risk of failure. The point is that Houston is a good bet given its size, number of corporate heqadquarters and arena/owner situation. It would be a better bet if it was located 1500 miles to the north but is is not.

It is abundantly clear the NHL is interested in a footprint in southern cities.