Is the CHL Screwed?

The Central Hockey League (CHL) forum
User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Is the CHL Screwed?

Post by Sam Hill » Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:13 pm

With Denver and now Arizona "suspending operations" (wink-wink, nudge-nudge), the CHL is down to just seven teams.

I know there's a rumored reorganization of the minors, but does the ECHL just absorb all of these teams (I don't think any of them can afford to be in the AHL) or what?
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

Post by Pounder » Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:46 pm

The CHL was screwed a handful of years ago... of its own doing.

Everything points to the ECHL swooping up the remainder at the end of this coming season... and more rumors point to some of the western teams in the E transforming into AHL cities at that point (or maybe a year or two later). Stay tuned.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:23 pm

Isn't there already a 1-for-1 NHL-to-AHL relationship? Why would you make an ECHL team into an AHL team without an affiliation? (Unless you were going to lose some AHL markets to contraction or reorganization.)
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

robster2001
Site Admin
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:02 pm

Post by robster2001 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:26 pm

[quote=""Sam Hill""]Isn't there already a 1-for-1 NHL-to-AHL relationship? Why would you make an ECHL team into an AHL team without an affiliation? (Unless you were going to lose some AHL markets to contraction or reorganization.)[/quote]

The NHL Pacific Division wants its top affiliates closer to home -- it's expected that the ECHL will pick up several AHL East cities while giving up most (if not all) of its current Western footprint to the AHL.

nksports
Site Admin
Posts: 3669
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Newton, KS (the land of Oz)

Post by nksports » Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:01 pm

[quote=""Pounder""]The CHL was screwed a handful of years ago... of its own doing.
Everything points to the ECHL swooping up the remainder at the end of this coming season... and more rumors point to some of the western teams in the E transforming into AHL cities at that point (or maybe a year or two later). Stay tuned.[/quote]
The main problem of the old CHL ownership (Global) was the owners were in the arena building business and pretty much promised a CHL team with every arena built. Some of those markets didn't work well with the CHL (see Youngstown). At least Dodge City has the sense to resist that (a beautiful barn, but a market of about 25,000 is way too small for pro hockey).

Tulsa and Wichita have common ownership (the Steven family of Wichita). Would the ECHL allow that? Would ECHL want Brampton or would they try to stay off the toes of the OHL (even though that league turned down the Brampton ownership)?

CHL attendance last year:
TOTAL GamesAVERAGE
Missouri 181,493 33 5,499
Wichita 167,951 33 5,089
Tulsa 164,542 33 4,986
Rapid City 148,407 33 4,497
Allen 139,157 33 4,216
Quad City 125,791 33 3,811
x-St. Charles 85,316 33 2,585
s-Arizona 84,833 33 2,570
Brampton 73,697 33 2,233
s-Denver 58,982 33 1,787
TOTALS: 1,230,169 330 3,727
s-suspended operations, x-folded
ECHL
Ontario 293,670 36 8,158
Fort Wayne 259,594 36 7,211
Orlando 228,772 36 6,355
Toledo 216,797 36 6,022
Evansville 193,272 36 5,369
Colorado 190,404 36 5,289
Gwinnett 186,170 36 5,171
Florida 181,627 36 5,045
Utah 180,112 36 5,003
Bakersfield 174,930 36 4,859
Stockton 172,283 36 4,786
Alaska 166,277 36 4,619
Las Vegas 164,899 36 4,581
Cincinnati 152,249 36 4,229
Reading 147,140 36 4,087
Idaho 143,909 36 3,997
South Carolina 137,247 36 3,812
Greenville 123,496 36 3,430
Kalamazoo 112,969 36 3,138
Elmira 94,628 36 2,629
x-San Francisco 41,263 18 2,292
Wheeling 81,071 36 2,252
League 3,642,779 774 4,706
x-folded
And the big one, the AHL:
Hershey 367,238 38 9,664
Grand Rapids 312,355 38 8,220
Lake Erie 309,472 38 8,144
Providence 309,113 38 8,135
Chicago 301,214 38 7,927
San Antonio 266,053 38 7,001
Charlotte 241,685 38 6,360
St. John's 238,906 38 6,287
Toronto 228,490 38 6,013
Iowa 223,559 38 5,883
Milwaukee 222,082 38 5,844
W-B/Scranton 220,556 38 5,804
Manchester 213,104 38 5,608
Syracuse 211,815 38 5,574
Rochester 205,669 38 5,412
Texas 201,174 38 5,294
Norfolk 190,143 38 5,004
Hamilton 187,938 38 4,946
Bridgeport 184,688 38 4,860
Rockford 182,540 38 4,804
m-Adirondack 159,289 38 4,192
Hartford 154,680 38 4,071
Worcester 150,402 38 3,958
Binghamton 149,560 38 3,936
Springfield 143,916 38 3,787
Utica 130,518 38 3,435
Albany 127,673 38 3,360
Oklahoma City 127,228 38 3,348
m-Abbotsford 114,250 38 3,007
Portland 83,040 38 2,185
League 6,158,350 1,140 5,402
m-moving to Allentown and Glenns Falls respectively.

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:06 pm

[quote=""robster2001""]The NHL Pacific Division wants its top affiliates closer to home -- it's expected that the ECHL will pick up several AHL East cities while giving up most (if not all) of its current Western footprint to the AHL.[/quote]

That makes sense. I mean, it kind of hurts some AHL East cities to drop down, but there are probably some for whom it makes sense.
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

Post by Pounder » Fri Aug 22, 2014 12:01 am

While I could say that the NHL-AHL 1-for-1 rule is a rule, it's not a law...

...but there's enough poor performers that some teams will get bought out and moved. For instance, San Jose owns the Worcester Sharks, they might pull them straightaway.

I do NOT think the ECHL will enter ALL the abandoned AHL markets straightaway. Doing that causes discontent... without the step of starving them of hockey for a handful of years. This is about the needs of NHL teams more than the needs of the AHL.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

Post by Pounder » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:22 pm

Tweets are surfacing that the proposed ECHL-CHL merger may happen... ahead of time.

Today?

https://twitter.com/darrylwolski/status ... 2474914817

https://twitter.com/shawngreenPHM/statu ... 3133355008

Skeptical, but I had a gut feeling the CHL just would find a way to not start the season. At least this might be the preferable way to do that.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

nksports
Site Admin
Posts: 3669
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Newton, KS (the land of Oz)

Post by nksports » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:13 pm

Off the top of my head (a scary place to be some days)
Pros to merger:
A stable league for CHL teams
Players in both leagues have the same union
More teams to play means less fan boredom (you're not playing the same team 12 times a season)
Cons to merger: (cons at least for this season)
CHL teams go to camp later
CHL teams have smaller budgets
While both leagues claim to be AA level, ECHL would be closer to AA Advanced. CHL teams have fewer affiliations (and some affiliate with ECHL teams). CHL teams would be lucky to win 10 games this season other than games against each other.
Questions remain in my mind about Wichita-Tulsa common ownership (would ECHL make Steven family sell one of the teams)
CHL teams play fewer games
CHL teams (with the exception of Brampton and Quad Cities) are away from mainline of ECHL
ECHL would force CHL teams to raise ticket prices to stay competitive
Would require a new schedule just weeks before start of season and not all teams are not the main schedule priority in their buildings (example: U of Tulsa has priority in same building Tulsa plays in), making for a scheduling nightmare.
General observations:
CHL cut out most of the deadwood the past couple of seasons, so what's left (other than Brampton) seems stable. Would not be surprised if Oklahoma City tried to jump back in at some point (would definitely help Tulsa).
Fort Worth Brahmas are officially still alive and looking for someone to build a building for them in the area that seats more than 2,500 (don't know if all of this helps them or is neutral, but they are in CHL's natural footprint). City of Fort Worth buildings threw out most of their pro sports tenants for rather strange reasons (such as mega churches wanting to rent them).
Still can't figure Brampton out. They fit no one's footprint. They are among the bottom of minor league hockey in attendance. (Yes it was old CHL management that brought them in, but I don't see what they do for the league other than blow up travel budgets).
While Denver and Arizona are both "on hiatus," I don't see them coming back. Merger would probably kill Denver as NHL would veto their return to the Denver city limits (maybe try Broomfield again?)
The team the ECHL would make the most sense for is Quad Cities, bringing them closer to old rivals like Fort Wayne and Evansville.
Ideal locations for CHL would be Springfield, Mo., and Joplin, Mo., but neither has a suitable facility. Towns around with suitable facilities (Dodge City, Enid, Grand Island, Kearney) are way too small for pro hockey.

dmbishop
Site Admin
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:51 am
Contact:

Post by dmbishop » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:56 pm

One thing that they could do (for this year) is keep the CHL teams in their own division and have them playing games against each other, then maybe the 6 additional games against ECHL teams (to bring them up to the ECHL's 72). That would mitigate the scheduling issues as the original CHL schedule would remain in place and if a CHL team has venue issues with the extra games, they could be played at the ECHL team.

Dave

Post Reply

Return to “CHL”