Kukla's Korner

Canucks and Beyond

What Makes For a Successful Franchise?

This is a few days old, but I hadn’t taken the time to look at it till today, and it struck me as an interesting index of pro-sports, particularly of the NHL itself.

Bizjournals analyzed the performances of all 122 franchises in the NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League in the 2008 calendar year. The top scores went to those teams that were strongest at the twin missions of professional sports—winning games and making money.

These were the 10 best sports organizations of 2008:Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics

1. Boston Celtics (NBA)
2. New York Giants (NFL)
3. Los Angeles Lakers (NBA)
4. Montreal Canadiens (NHL)
5. Boston Red Sox (MLB)
6. Detroit Pistons (NBA)
7. Detroit Red Wings (NHL)
8. Chicago Cubs (MLB)
9. Philadelphia Phillies (MLB)
10. Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL)


The means of calculating the ranking, as outlined by Bizjournals:

Half of a team’s score was determined by its level of success on the field, court or ice. Bizjournals’ formula considered each franchise’s win-loss record, average margin of victory (or defeat), and playoff results.

The other half was determined by a team’s relative success in business. The formula analyzed average home attendance, the percentage of available seats sold for home games, and the increase (or decline) in a franchise’s value from 2007 to 2008. The latter was based on annual estimates published by Forbes magazine.

Here’s the rest of list.  Or, for our purposes, here’s how the NHL’s teams shook out. 

12. San Jose Sharks (NHL)
18. Philadelphia Flyers (NHL)
24. Chicago Blackhawks (NHL)
27. Calgary Flames (NHL)
31. New York Rangers (NHL)
33. Minnesota Wild (NHL)
41. Washington Capitals (NHL)
47. Anaheim Ducks (NHL)
48. Buffalo Sabres (NHL)
53. Vancouver Canucks (NHL)
55. Dallas Stars (NHL)
60. Boston Bruins (NHL)
61. Edmonton Oilers (NHL)
64. Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL)
68. Ottawa Senators (NHL)
74. Colorado Avalanche (NHL)
79. New Jersey Devils (NHL)
89. Carolina Hurricanes (NHL)
90. Nashville Predators (NHL)
96. Los Angeles Kings (NHL)
97. Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL)
102. Florida Panthers (NHL)
107. Phoenix Coyotes (NHL)
114. Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL)
119. Atlanta Thrashers (NHL)
121. New York Islanders (NHL)

Notable from the list is to see that three NHL teams make the top-10.  But more interesting is how the ranking turns our assessment of “successful” and “unsuccessful” franchises in a different light.  Clearly, the more financially successful franchise doesn’t necessarily mean it produces a better product on the ice. And while this may be an obvious point even without a formal ranking, it’s an oft-overlooked one.

I wonder: are there any business lessons to be had when considering a list like this, or is it just trivia? At the very least, I think it provides an interesting window by which to speculate on the business and management acumen of each team.

Filed in: business of hockey, | Canucks and Beyond | Permalink


Be the first to comment.

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Canucks and Beyond

Alanah McGinley has been blogging hockey since 2003 (with a notable gap in time through 2010, kicking it with new baby Lucy while living knee-deep in chaos while reading "parenting for complete idiots" during every spare minute) sharing opinions, rants and not-so-deep thoughts with anyone who will listen.

In addition to writing Canucks & Beyond and helping manage Kukla's Korner, Alanah was one of the founders and co-hosts of The Crazy Canucks Podcast. She has contributed pieces to FoxSports.com and the New York Times Slapshot blog, as well as other stray destinations in cyberspace.

So that's me. Who the hell are you? smile

Email: am@kuklaskorner.com

Alanah's Twitter: [@alanah1]