What if The NHL Went Back to the Original Six?

With expansion on everyone’s mind, we went in the opposite direction and looked at how the NHL would look if the league contracted.

Welcome to today’s edition of the “Thinking Fan’s Corner,” a place where misjudgment and sloppy one-liners go to take a hike. (At least that’s what I tell my editor.)

A lot of noise has been made by the mainstream, hockey media about an expansion to Seattle. This during the ever eventful inaugural season of the Vegas Golden Knights — a team many thought would fall flat on their faces. Oh boy, were those doubters ever wrong!

Now some fans, mostly from Quebec, would like to see another team come to the French-speaking province. These fans will state that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has an agenda against the province and the country to which it still belongs. That’s not the opinion shared by the entire public, though. Most feel that the Gary Bettman conspiracies are just that — conspiracies.

Why would Gary do that?

On the flip side, other fans would rather see things stay the same. Then there’s that small minority of puckheads that want to see things go back to the “good ol’ days” when Dave Keon was deking out defenders at Maple Leaf Gardens, and Gordie Howe was lighting up the stat line with a goal, an assist and that revered fighting major. Although those folks know these days are just white noise to a trademarked league that only cares about generating revenue and taking advantage of its most loyal fans.

That is until now, because today we are asking an intriguing question: What if the NHL went back to the “Original Six?”

Like really, “what if?”

There is a way that the NHL could make it worth their while. Some of the $2 billion television deal would most likely be lost, but that doesn’t mean that all is for naught. There are ways in which the NHL could make the same amount of money it does now in 2018. Those ways could include 100,000-people, outdoor games, a tournament that could rival the biggest events in sports, games played at neutral sites all over the world, and a dynamic way of catering to die hard hockey fans that have shown in the past they are willing to invest money in a top-tier product.

DISCLAIMER: For those who think this is a joke, you’re in for a doozy.

Now I was talkin’ to the buds at the bar about what the NHL would look like today if the league went back to the concept of the “Original Six.” It’s fair to say things would look a lot different. I came to the conclusion that it would actually be good for the league and its fans. These are my two reasons why:

The league would be more competitive.

Each team could have three superstars, and if you think about it fellas, the head-to-head matchups would be pretty even.

The Leafs would be an even bigger punchline ’cause they wouldn’t be able to muster up a Stanley Cup victory with only five other teams in the league.

Well c’mon boys, that’s just common sense.

…

Let’s just say I didn’t know why the boys were laughing. That is until I went home.

So I’m sitting on the back porch turning on my patio lanterns, and I’m telling the wife about the day’s happenings. She said my points were weaker than my barbecuing skills. At first, I was offended. Thinking twice, I remembered I wasn’t the one overcooking the $20 steaks last Sunday.

Nevertheless, I managed to come up with some better points using The Thinking Fan’s secret weapon — the internet. So I said to myself, “Let’s give ‘er another shot!”

“How does the NHL make money right now?” That is a question that needs to be answered before we get too far into this speculative piece of sports writing.

Now the NHL makes it a bit harder than it should be to find this data. But if you’re not too busy trying to catch fish or making a living, that coveted information can be found. Don’t worry, Mr. Jones. It’s not fake news. Well, maybe to you it might be.

So the NHL makes the core of its money off its television and sponsorship deals. From team-to-team the amount of profit made through these avenues can vary. Teams also make a good chunk of their money via ticket and merchandise sales. Although, it has been demonstrated that certain teams in certain markets — like Carolina, Florida and Arizona — struggle to turn a profit in these avenues, leading to their current financial struggles.

Another revenue stream is the NHL’s outdoor and overseas games. These games help bring in a hefty profit for the teams competing and the league as a whole. How hefty would that profit be? Roughly, by my guesstimate, the profits of five standard NHL games. And you could do more of them thanks to the flexibility of having so few teams in the league. Fans in Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver could still see a full season’s worth of games and watch the entire league play rather than the same team night after night.

Now, with a six-team league could revenues be matched? Maybe not dollar for dollar per se. That said, considering how many teams would be in the league and how people need to be paid out before a team can count their profits, they could make the same amount of money if not more.

This leads me into my first of many points.

The revenues these six NHL teams would raise wouldn’t be subject to the NHL revenue sharing system, thus leading to fewer financial conflicts and more money to invest in the “fan experience” and each team’s respective on-ice product.

In today’s NHL, the way revenue sharing works is interesting but easy to grasp. According to Charlie Zegers from ThoughtCo.com, this is how the NHL’s version of revenue sharing works:

The top ten money-making teams contribute to this cash pot of revenue shares. The bottom 15 money-making teams are eligible to collect from it.

The amount of money contributed by the top ten teams is set by a formula that includes a percentage of overall league revenues and some playoff revenues. The exact number isn’t worked out until the season is over and all revenues have been counted.

For a bottom-15 team to collect a full revenue sharing cheque, it must reach at least 80 percent capacity in home attendance (last year that meant averaging about 14,000 per game) and show revenue growth that exceeds the league average. Missing either threshold means a cut in the share.

Teams in markets with more than 2.5 million television households cannot qualify for revenue sharing. That could (could is a keyword) mean teams like the New York Rangers, New York Islanders, New Jersey Devils, Philadelphia Flyers, Chicago Blackhawks, Anaheim Ducks, San Jose Sharks, Dallas Stars and Los Angeles Kings are ineligible.

It seems like a timely and, some would say, costly process. If you took any top-10, revenue-generating team and asked them if they liked to support teams in failing hockey markets, the majority of owners would say “no.” In fact, most of those top-10 teams opposed revenue sharing during the 2012-2013 CBA negotiations that caused the league to lockout its players for roughly half a season.

Does it make sense to support non-traditional hockey markets where teams like the Arizona Coyotes or Florida Panthers play in the name of “growing the game?” That’s a question thinking fans must ask themselves.

I bet the late Howard Bollard would be rolling over in his grave at the thought. He would have a heart attack if he looked at the teams’ values below — almost like the last time we let my father-in-law watch “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.”

And if Ballard saw their attendance numbers, you might as well bury him another 12-feet under. According to ESPN’s 2017–18 attendance report, Arizona and Florida were ranked 30th and 28th, respectively, in a 31-team league. Arizona averaged around 13,040 fans per game, and Florida didn’t fare much better, only averaging 13,851 fans per game.

In a contracted world consisting of the “Original Six,” this problem would not exist, giving morale a boost amongst owners league-wide, and making it easier for the fans and media alike to worry more about last night’s line combinations rather than which team will be the next to relocate or what will happen when the CBA expires.

With the NHL shrinking to six teams, the season would be structured differently, and the playoff format would have to be altered, of course.

With the league going from 31 to six teams, it would make all the sense in the world to shorten the season. Believe or not, that’s probably what would happen, especially in this capitalistic society in which we live.

Why, you ask? The simple answer is that it would leave time for the NHL to set up events like the World Cup of Hockey and profit from those as well as the NHL regular season and playoffs. The NHL along with their partners can make a killing off these types of events. Fans have shown that they’re willing to throw money at these round-robin tournaments, especially when you’ve got all the best players in the world competing against each other. Instead of a preseason, the NHL could have this as a tune up for its regular season. Or they could host these events on a biannual basis.

Something interesting to think about: come the Olympics, the “Original Six” would make it easier for the NHL to loan its players to their national teams, therein making more money off these events. The NHL could work out a deal with the IOC that makes both sides rich — something they were not able to do for the 2018 Olympic Winter games because they couldn’t come to a consensus on how to handle such things as who covers the players’ insurance policies and how revenue would have been shared between the two parties. In a different universe where the NHL could afford to stop its season, you ought to think both sides could pucker up to each other the next time around.

In theory, if the NHL wanted to keep their season running roughly eight months, from September to June, each team could have one or two games per week. This would be a great way to create more revenue for the league. If there are fewer games being played and there is a higher demand for hockey in all six markets, each game’s viewership would be almost guaranteed to be a nice, high figure the league could use to leverage and make a maximum profit on TV deals, sponsorships and ad spots during games. This benefits the owners as well as the players. Everybody wins, unlike poker night at “Crabby” Joe’s place, where his six-year-old daughter is the only one who wins.

It should be noted that the shortened season would give hockey players the ability to focus on their mental and physical health, improving their on-ice performances and providing a better product for the fan.

The NHL could find ways to book outdoor games at places like the Rogers Centre in Toronto or “The Big House” in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Let’s remember how successful the NHL’s last venture was to “The Big House” in 2013… It was 100,000-people-showed-up, purdy good! Floyd heads, can you hear the registers ringing and the coins clinging?

Six teams means there’s a lot of talent to go around.

Let’s take a look at how each team could look with all the league’s pre-draft talent being equally distributed.

As you can see, there’s a lot of talent on each team in this supposed league. You could make an argument that any one of these teams could compete for a Stanley Cup in year one.

With so much talent to go around, fans would never have to worry about their favourite team rebuilding. If the roster didn’t work one year, just phone another general manager and see if you can make a “hockey trade.” If not, there’s a whole whack of players that would love a chance to prove their worth if your team’s GM gave them a chance to play.

If there‘s to be a draft, it would merely be to improve farm clubs and have new, young talent for the future. That said, I think the NHL could go back to its old ways of a team holding the rights to a player born in their “territories” and having a European import draft of some sort. Let’s remember that the only reason “the draft” was created was to help expansion teams put players on the ice and divide up the talent fairly. That’s why Montreal had so many French-Canadians on their team while the Leafs had so many players from the Greater Toronto Area.

No matter which way the league could theoretically go, each team would have a lot of local players. That would surely change the dynamic of the NHL from what we know today.

Let’s not forget how marketable this would be. What fan wouldn’t want to see their favourite players bring back the Cup to their hometown team? A team these players grew up admiring and dreaming of donning that sweater whilst hoisting Lord Stanley’s Cup with buds they’ve played with since Peewees. Look no further than the reaction John Tavares got when he signed with his hometown Maple Leafs as a free agent in July.

You could argue that storyline could easily grow old, but it seems like these storylines never do. LeBron in Cleveland is a great example.

Finally, the games would be truly incredible to watch.

Think about it, each and every game, the best of the best players would be competing against each other. It wouldn’t be a one-time thing either. It would be every game. You know how your grandparents say, “The hockey was way better back in my day” whenever they watch a hockey game? That was because the top one percent of the one percent were playing each other every single gosh darn night! Yes, fighting played a huge role, but the skill displayed in those games is what got people coming back for more.

Let’s be real, in today’s 31-team NHL, there’s a lot of skill to go around, but you don’t see teams with almost an entire roster of first-team All-Stars. In this league you would. Every game would be “must see.”

And the playoffs, those games would be a dream come to life for any hockey fan. If you like the Stanley Cup Playoffs now, imagine Toronto versus Montreal in the Stanley Cup Finals. That would mean Auston Matthews versus Sidney Crosby, and Steven Stamkos versus Ryan Getzlaf. Can you even fathom how insane that would be? The dream, head-to-head matchups are endless. This would be like eating a 20-ounce steak for dinner with lobster, crab and shrimp on the side, and an ice cream cake with whipping cream and a cherry on top for desert.

STEVE DANGLE WOULD BE GOING FLIPPING CRAZY FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS, which would be a subtle change for once.

The next day I tell the boys how this league would look and these reasons why it would be good for hockey. It’s fair to say they weren’t laughing today. Actually my buddy, “Tall Can” McCoy, said it was one of the smartest things I had ever said. Then I reminded him I once said he probably shouldn’t eat sushi from the gas station. “Tall Can” quickly corrected himself and said it was the second smartest thing I have said.

All in all, these ideas kept the guys talking all night. That is until Hummer remembered it was his wedding anniversary, and that quickly took the spotlight. With everything being said, I’m sure going forward this will be my small gift to mankind. I’m sorry, I meant to say “peoplekind,” Justin Trudeau. That comes along with my one-of-a-kind carbon footprint, but hey, who doesn’t want one of those?

Like I always say, “If the women don’t find you sexy, they should at least find you smart!”

We’re all in it together. Until next time…

Christian Holmes is a writer and “hype master” for Grandstand Central, as well as an editor for Last Word On Hockey. He regularly spits fire in his own column, Holmesy’s Fightin’ Words. Not to mention, his Twitter is “lit” as the kids say. You can follow him here.