How many teams can the NHL support in total?

[AdmiralsFan24]

Well, last season the Admirals had an average attendance of 5408. Houston had 6793 in 12/13 (Milwaukee 5624), 7323 in 11/12 (Milwaukee 6226), and 6326 in 10/11 (Milwaukee 5796).

Milwaukee might be more of a hockey town per se than the much bigger Houston, but with the Brewers and the Bucks in town and the Packers and the Hawks nearby it's a tough market.

Last year the Admirals moved to a building that seats 9,500 after spending nearly 30 years in a nearly 18,000 seat building, so of course attendance fell last year considering they couldn't get those crowds of 11,000-17,000 that they could in the old building 4-6 times a year.

And again, I never denied that Houston didn't have better attendance. I said that the numbers are skewed because for 4 of those 12 years the Admirals were in a trust. There was no marketing, nothing. It was basically, if you don't know the team, you aren't going to hear about them at all. The attendance was a lot closer between the two franchises (and I'm guessing the Admirals would have beaten Houston in attendance in at least two of those years if not three or all four had the team not been in a trust.)

As far as the Brewers, they have completely reasonable ticket prices (even when the team is good) and allow you to bring your own food and drink into the stadium and you can tailgate in the parking lots, so a family of four can easily go to a non-premium game for less than $100 total.

The Bucks are sort of a challenge in that the two teams would play at the same time but even then it's doable. It's actually kind of amazing the Bucks do as well as they do attendance wise when you look at their ticket prices and how ****** the team has been for the last 30 years. The Admirals and Bucks have played alongside each other for decades and attendance has been good for the most part, even with the Admirals getting little media coverage (maybe a little puff piece in the paper or on TV and games broadcast on a station with limited reach) that would change with an NHL team which would allow the fan base to grow.

The Packers? It's 8 games that are sold out for years upon years. There are seats sold on the secondary market for sure but it's so small and the Packers are such a statewide and really regional at minimum team that the effect on other teams in the state is miniscule.

Blackhawks? Same thing. The only way I would go to a Blackhawks game is if the Preds were playing them and even then, I'd probably just go to Nashville and watch them instead with the cheap non-stop flights starting from Milwaukee to Nashville again in November. Obviously there are some fans that would go to Chicago to watch but even that's mostly when you get closer to the Illinois border. I don't think anyone from Oconomowoc or West Bend is going to Chicago anymore than a few times a year for a Blackhawks game and I think even that's being generous.

So if you market the team around the state but even just the Milwaukee area up to Green Bay (AHL team?), out west to Madison and south to Kenosha. That's where most of the people in the state (nearly 4 million) live.

On top of this, there's a strong corporate presence in Milwaukee and the state in general. There are 7 Fortune 500 companies (really 8 but Johnson Controls' headquarters are technically based in Ireland, even though the jobs and spin-off auto parts company remain in Milwaukee and there's still talk of Johnson Controls building a 50+ story building to house employees) and around 15 Fortune 1000 companies in the Milwaukee area along with 22 total in the state including the very familiar American Family Insurance based in Madison that has several athlete spokesmen and prominent sponsorship for several Wisconsin teams.

So is Milwaukee the best market the NHL can locate to right now? Probably not. Is it doable? Yes. Are there factors that should give potential owners and the NHL some pause? Sure. If the franchise is well run and marketed, can it succeed? 100% yes.

 

[Tawnos]

The Packers? It's 8 games that are sold out for years upon years. There are seats sold on the secondary market for sure but it's so small and the Packers are such a statewide and really regional at minimum team that the effect on other teams in the state is miniscule.

Competition for people in the building isn't what makes a football team a challenge for a hockey team in the same (small) market. It's competition for attention, and therefore hype. That attention and hype is what ultimately brings people to the games.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Since long before then. Milwaukee's 1st pro team was the Drueckers, 1922/26 & thereafter the Luicks mid to late 30's on (Semi-Pro)..... Post WW2, several USHL (which was originally pro) & IHL Teams, AHL, tha Admirals, forerunners to todays AHL club going pro in 1973 in the USHL.... And do you know why there called the "Admirals" HUTCH?.... Long, rich & colorful history of hockey in Wisconsin. First recorded game I'm aware of is 1887 but it was being played in the State for years before that date. Country game. Pickup. Shinny. The old clamp on skate's the oldtimers used before boot n' blade skates were manufactured were nicknamed "Cheese Cutters"..... come in real handy.... in Wisconsin.

actually, an 'Admiral', K, is a brand of washing machine, hence why the Milwaukee franchise name is that, FYI

 

[adsfan]

actually, an 'Admiral', K, is a brand of washing machine, hence why the Milwaukee franchise name is that, FYI

I believe that Erwin Merar, who changed the team name, sold Admiral refrigerators. However, Admiral, based in Chicago, made washers, turn tables and TVs.

I think that the NHL can support 32 teams. I don't see more than 8 in Canada. I don't think that Mexico is getting a team in my lifetime. I don't think that Milwaukee is getting a NHL team. Old man Wirtz fixed that a long time ago.

 

[Killion]

actually, an 'Admiral', K, is a brand of washing machine, hence why the Milwaukee franchise name is that, FYI

... along with dehumidifiers, air conditioners, refrigerators, radios etc....

I believe that Erwin Merar, who changed the team name, sold Admiral refrigerators. However, Admiral, based in Chicago, made washers, turn tables and TVs.

Yep. Full range of appliances actually. Even supplied the USAF with cameras' for high altitude & extreme condition applications. Corporately, they sponsored a lot of radio & television programs & broadcasts as well. One of several sports teams named after corporations / brand names that actually works well, Milwaukee a Great Lakes City n' all.

 

[YesCubed]

isn't the nhl making money? why would anyone post less than the current amount of teams?

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

Competition for people in the building isn't what makes a football team a challenge for a hockey team in the same (small) market. It's competition for attention, and therefore hype. That attention and hype is what ultimately brings people to the games.

If this had anything other than a tiny effect the Packers would be the only team in the state.

 

[Tawnos]

If this had anything other than a tiny effect the Packers would be the only team in the state.

The Bucks and Brewers have been around for a while. That's not the same conversation as bringing in a new team.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

The Bucks and Brewers have been around for a while. That's not the same conversation as bringing in a new team.

So your contention is that a possible NHL team, which already has a base of 6,000 fans from the minor league team, with promotion across the state instead of very limited coverage to just the Milwaukee area will have trouble gaining traction as a franchise?

That argument doesn't really fly at all.

 

[Tawnos]

So your contention is that a possible NHL team, which already has a base of 6,000 fans from the minor league team, with promotion across the state instead of very limited coverage to just the Milwaukee area will have trouble gaining traction as a franchise?

That argument doesn't really fly at all.

I'm not making an argument, but just disputing your argument that because there are only 8 Packers home games means that the Packers aren't a factor in what traction this hypothetical team could gain. And then again disputing the idea that the situation would have much in common with the situation of teams in other leagues that have existed for over 45 years.

I don't believe Milwaukee would be a bad place to put a team, but I also don't think false equivalencies should be used to argue the point.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

I'm not making an argument, but just disputing your argument that because there are only 8 Packers home games means that the Packers aren't a factor in what traction this hypothetical team could gain. And then again disputing the idea that the situation would have much in common with the situation of teams in other leagues that have existed for over 45 years.

Again, I never disputed that the Packers don't matter. They obviously do, just not as much as you think. The Packers dominate sports talk in the summer, so that's not going to change in the winter when they're actually playing.

What I actually said was, the Admirals can draw between 5,500 and 6,000 a game, the start of a built in fan base while receiving little to no coverage. They get one show a week for an hour or two on their flagship station, an interview with the team president once a week in the morning, maybe a fluff piece in the paper once every month and maybe a puff piece in the news in that same time span. The only games that are on TV are tape delayed and you only get those if you have Spectrum as your cable provider.

So the coverage of the Admirals is basically nothing other than promoting the team via social media and a small radio station where their games are broadcast. If there's an NHL team though? The Packers would of course still dominate sports radio. There would be far more hockey talk than there is now though, the games would be put on a radio station that reaches more viewers. There would actually be games on live TV. Marketing budget would go up and could go around the state whereas the Admirals are basically limited to the metro area to draw from.

The Packers dominate the sports scene, that will never change. It will never be about trying to equal the Packers or even come close because that's never going to happen. That wasn't my point, my point was all of the other areas that would be able to be improved through marketing. Someone from Madison, Oshkosh, Appleton or Janesville isn't going to come to Milwaukee in the middle of January to watch an AHL team. You market an NHL team to fans and they start watching on TV and they like what they see and you start getting them to come to games.

At one point the Bucks and Brewers were the new kids on the block, the Bucks coming on months after the Packers won the first two Super Bowls and they've been around for nearly 50 years as you said. The Brewers came on a couple years later. They've been around since. So why does when you come on matter? It's not like it would be a sport nobody is familiar with and nobody likes.

 

[Elephant Igloo]

Milwaukee is a little crowded for its market size and the Packers loom large but I still think the team would do better than the one in Las Vegas. They'd have their games on TV, for one thing.

 

[Tawnos]

Again, I never disputed that the Packers don't matter. They obviously do, just not as much as you think. The Packers dominate sports talk in the summer, so that's not going to change in the winter when they're actually playing.

What I actually said was, the Admirals can draw between 5,500 and 6,000 a game, the start of a built in fan base while receiving little to no coverage. They get one show a week for an hour or two on their flagship station, an interview with the team president once a week in the morning, maybe a fluff piece in the paper once every month and maybe a puff piece in the news in that same time span. The only games that are on TV are tape delayed and you only get those if you have Spectrum as your cable provider.

So the coverage of the Admirals is basically nothing other than promoting the team via social media and a small radio station where their games are broadcast. If there's an NHL team though? The Packers would of course still dominate sports radio. There would be far more hockey talk than there is now though, the games would be put on a radio station that reaches more viewers. There would actually be games on live TV. Marketing budget would go up and could go around the state whereas the Admirals are basically limited to the metro area to draw from.

The Packers dominate the sports scene, that will never change. It will never be about trying to equal the Packers or even come close because that's never going to happen. That wasn't my point, my point was all of the other areas that would be able to be improved through marketing. Someone from Madison, Oshkosh, Appleton or Janesville isn't going to come to Milwaukee in the middle of January to watch an AHL team. You market an NHL team to fans and they start watching on TV and they like what they see and you start getting them to come to games.

At one point the Bucks and Brewers were the new kids on the block, the Bucks coming on months after the Packers won the first two Super Bowls and they've been around for nearly 50 years as you said. The Brewers came on a couple years later. They've been around since. So why does when you come on matter? It's not like it would be a sport nobody is familiar with and nobody likes.

It's a challenging market, that's for sure.

Also, sports economics is completely different today than it was in the 70s. You can't reach the bulk of your audience simply through local papers hiring a beat writer and having articles about them every day.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Last year the Admirals moved to a building that seats 9,500 after spending nearly 30 years in a nearly 18,000 seat building, so of course attendance fell last year considering they couldn't get those crowds of 11,000-17,000 that they could in the old building 4-6 times a year.

And again, I never denied that Houston didn't have better attendance. I said that the numbers are skewed because for 4 of those 12 years the Admirals were in a trust. There was no marketing, nothing. It was basically, if you don't know the team, you aren't going to hear about them at all. The attendance was a lot closer between the two franchises (and I'm guessing the Admirals would have beaten Houston in attendance in at least two of those years if not three or all four had the team not been in a trust.)

As far as the Brewers, they have completely reasonable ticket prices (even when the team is good) and allow you to bring your own food and drink into the stadium and you can tailgate in the parking lots, so a family of four can easily go to a non-premium game for less than $100 total.

The Bucks are sort of a challenge in that the two teams would play at the same time but even then it's doable. It's actually kind of amazing the Bucks do as well as they do attendance wise when you look at their ticket prices and how ****** the team has been for the last 30 years. The Admirals and Bucks have played alongside each other for decades and attendance has been good for the most part, even with the Admirals getting little media coverage (maybe a little puff piece in the paper or on TV and games broadcast on a station with limited reach) that would change with an NHL team which would allow the fan base to grow.

The Packers? It's 8 games that are sold out for years upon years. There are seats sold on the secondary market for sure but it's so small and the Packers are such a statewide and really regional at minimum team that the effect on other teams in the state is miniscule.

Blackhawks? Same thing. The only way I would go to a Blackhawks game is if the Preds were playing them and even then, I'd probably just go to Nashville and watch them instead with the cheap non-stop flights starting from Milwaukee to Nashville again in November. Obviously there are some fans that would go to Chicago to watch but even that's mostly when you get closer to the Illinois border. I don't think anyone from Oconomowoc or West Bend is going to Chicago anymore than a few times a year for a Blackhawks game and I think even that's being generous.

So if you market the team around the state but even just the Milwaukee area up to Green Bay (AHL team?), out west to Madison and south to Kenosha. That's where most of the people in the state (nearly 4 million) live.

On top of this, there's a strong corporate presence in Milwaukee and the state in general. There are 7 Fortune 500 companies (really 8 but Johnson Controls' headquarters are technically based in Ireland, even though the jobs and spin-off auto parts company remain in Milwaukee and there's still talk of Johnson Controls building a 50+ story building to house employees) and around 15 Fortune 1000 companies in the Milwaukee area along with 22 total in the state including the very familiar American Family Insurance based in Madison that has several athlete spokesmen and prominent sponsorship for several Wisconsin teams.

So is Milwaukee the best market the NHL can locate to right now? Probably not. Is it doable? Yes. Are there factors that should give potential owners and the NHL some pause? Sure. If the franchise is well run and marketed, can it succeed? 100% yes.

Again, I never disputed that the Packers don't matter. They obviously do, just not as much as you think. The Packers dominate sports talk in the summer, so that's not going to change in the winter when they're actually playing.

What I actually said was, the Admirals can draw between 5,500 and 6,000 a game, the start of a built in fan base while receiving little to no coverage. They get one show a week for an hour or two on their flagship station, an interview with the team president once a week in the morning, maybe a fluff piece in the paper once every month and maybe a puff piece in the news in that same time span. The only games that are on TV are tape delayed and you only get those if you have Spectrum as your cable provider.

So the coverage of the Admirals is basically nothing other than promoting the team via social media and a small radio station where their games are broadcast. If there's an NHL team though? The Packers would of course still dominate sports radio. There would be far more hockey talk than there is now though, the games would be put on a radio station that reaches more viewers. There would actually be games on live TV. Marketing budget would go up and could go around the state whereas the Admirals are basically limited to the metro area to draw from.

The Packers dominate the sports scene, that will never change. It will never be about trying to equal the Packers or even come close because that's never going to happen. That wasn't my point, my point was all of the other areas that would be able to be improved through marketing. Someone from Madison, Oshkosh, Appleton or Janesville isn't going to come to Milwaukee in the middle of January to watch an AHL team. You market an NHL team to fans and they start watching on TV and they like what they see and you start getting them to come to games.

At one point the Bucks and Brewers were the new kids on the block, the Bucks coming on months after the Packers won the first two Super Bowls and they've been around for nearly 50 years as you said. The Brewers came on a couple years later. They've been around since. So why does when you come on matter? It's not like it would be a sport nobody is familiar with and nobody likes.

I don't understand why you would claim Houston is better then Quebec and then pitch Milwaukee. Quebec would not create as much new fans but people play hockey already in Wisconsin. Quebec also would be the only team in it's area. Milwaukee won't have that, nor is it 6.5 million people like Houston to offset that. That said I would welcome any new market, just think Milwaukee is a tight fit. I wish Lasry was more interested frankly.

 

[BattleBorn]

I don't understand why you would claim Houston is better then Quebec and then pitch Milwaukee. Quebec would not create as much new fans but people play hockey already in Wisconsin. Quebec also would be the only team in it's area. Milwaukee won't have that, nor is it 6.5 million people like Houston to offset that. That said I would welcome any new market, just think Milwaukee is a tight fit. I wish Lasry was more interested frankly.

Houston is better than Quebec City, I don't think there's any data to refute that. Excitement and dedication can only take you so far in the face of a massive group of people. I'm guessing Houston could surpass QC in hockey enthusiasts within a few years if not right off the hop, there's just so many people there.

Milwaukee, not so much, IMO.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

I don't understand why you would claim Houston is better then Quebec and then pitch Milwaukee. Quebec would not create as much new fans but people play hockey already in Wisconsin. Quebec also would be the only team in it's area. Milwaukee won't have that, nor is it 6.5 million people like Houston to offset that. That said I would welcome any new market, just think Milwaukee is a tight fit. I wish Lasry was more interested frankly.

I never claimed Houston was better than Milwaukee and was just saying how an NHL team in Milwaukee could potentially work. I certainly don't expect it and certainly don't think Milwaukee would be at the top of the list unless they were the only city applying.

I think Houston and Seattle are the two best markets for the NHL right now.

 

[Killion]

I never claimed Houston was better than Milwaukee and was just saying how an NHL team in Milwaukee could potentially work. I certainly don't expect it and certainly don't think Milwaukee would be at the top of the list unless they were the only city applying.

I think Houston and Seattle are the two best markets for the NHL right now.

Well, I guess Milwaukee's best bet was back in 1990 with Lloyd Petit leading a group, brand new facility in the Bradley, very successful IHL team, great support. Petit however was no fool and he balked at the $50M Expansion Fee combined with the Expansion Draft process/rules, insuring mediocrity & withdrew his bid. I remember at the time, shocking to many as Milwaukee was a front runner, shoe-in, actually ahead of Houston, Seattle & Hamilton who were also vying for an Expansion Franchise.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Houston is better than Quebec City, I don't think there's any data to refute that. Excitement and dedication can only take you so far in the face of a massive group of people. I'm guessing Houston could surpass QC in hockey enthusiasts within a few years if not right off the hop, there's just so many people there.

Milwaukee, not so much, IMO.

We'll we see. Right now Quebec is begging and we're waiting for the ownership situation to play out. Plus the owners in Houston would have to be the same, NHL team needs all the revenues it can get.

I never claimed Houston was better than Milwaukee and was just saying how an NHL team in Milwaukee could potentially work. I certainly don't expect it and certainly don't think Milwaukee would be at the top of the list unless they were the only city applying.

I think Houston and Seattle are the two best markets for the NHL right now.

But you do probably think Milwaukee is a better option then Quebec, I would disagree with that as of now. I think the NHL will need to crack Houston, Seattle, Portland and one of KC or Atlanta at some point.

 

[lomiller1]

It’s not a question of how many it can support it’s a question of how many make sense and what markets the NHL wants/needs to be in. Regardless of which markets it chooses teams are going to struggle without a salary cap and revenue sharing formula. With a cap and revenue sharing most markets are going to be viable as long as they have the right arena, location and ownership. IMO 36 is the absolute upper limit that you want, 32 may be a very good place to stop. The only reason to go above 32 is that you have a lot of teams in Canadian markets which takes away from the coverage of markets in the US.


Pre cap you had about 1/3 of the league that would do ok financially regardless of success on the ice. 1/3 that would be ok as long as they were winning, but struggle financially if they were loosing and 1/3 that needed to win to have any hope of breaking even.

Contrary to what some people seem to think this has little to do with the number of teams. It’s a function of:
- Being a gate driven league with different size markets allowing large differences in payroll
- Ability to skew winning and loosing with payroll size
- Winning and loosing being a zero sum game every time someone wins someone else has to lose
Under pre-cap conditions it really didn’t matter how many teams there were 1/3 to 1/2 of them would always be struggling and in danger of shutting down. The teams in above average markets (by $ value) were safe, the ones in below average markets were in trouble and the rest depended on winning when not everyone can win. Fewer teams increases the average market size and puts previously "safe" teams below the line.

It’s better now but teams with bad arena locations or prolonged periods of loosing can still run into trouble. More importantly most owners still make little or no money off hockey operations, so long term there is little reason for them to focus on hockey as a business, instead they do TV sports networks, real-estate, arena business, or are simply philanthropists trying to do something nice for their city. To really grow interest in their markets however, you really need owners to view hockey as their business.


In terms of how many teams, 32 is a nice symmetrical number. Maybe you could go to 36 but even at 32 teams the average time between periods where each team is a contender is starting to get pretty long. The NFL has show that 32 teams can work as long as teams have an equal chance to succeed with the right management and coaching decisions. You don’t need equal success, but success/failure needs to be a function of merit not market. Every fan needs to feel that if their team makes the right moves it will be given an equal chance to win/

With a really large league or one skewed to certain markets you get to the point where people don’t have an opportunity to see their team be really good while they are still relatively young it will be hard to attract new fans in many markets. Look at MLB as the example of that. They don’t have a really high number of teams, but because they skew winning towards large markets, in most places the time span between really good teams is very long in most places. This makes it hard for them to attract anything but bandwagon fans so their fan base just keeps getting older and the average age is now approaching 60.

 

[MNNumbers]

ItÂ’s not a question of how many it can support itÂ’s a question of how many make sense and what markets the NHL wants/needs to be in. Regardless of which markets it chooses teams are going to struggle without a salary cap and revenue sharing formula. With a cap and revenue sharing most markets are going to be viable as long as they have the right arena, location and ownership. IMO 36 is the absolute upper limit that you want, 32 may be a very good place to stop. The only reason to go above 32 is that you have a lot of teams in Canadian markets which takes away from the coverage of markets in the US.


Pre cap you had about 1/3 of the league that would do ok financially regardless of success on the ice. 1/3 that would be ok as long as they were winning, but struggle financially if they were loosing and 1/3 that needed to win to have any hope of breaking even.

Contrary to what some people seem to think this has little to do with the number of teams. ItÂ’s a function of:
- Being a gate driven league with different size markets allowing large differences in payroll
- Ability to skew winning and loosing with payroll size
- Winning and loosing being a zero sum game every time someone wins someone else has to lose
Under pre-cap conditions it really didnÂ’t matter how many teams there were 1/3 to 1/2 of them would always be struggling and in danger of shutting down. The teams in above average markets (by $ value) were safe, the ones in below average markets were in trouble and the rest depended on winning when not everyone can win. Fewer teams increases the average market size and puts previously "safe" teams below the line.

ItÂ’s better now but teams with bad arena locations or prolonged periods of loosing can still run into trouble. More importantly most owners still make little or no money off hockey operations, so long term there is little reason for them to focus on hockey as a business, instead they do TV sports networks, real-estate, arena business, or are simply philanthropists trying to do something nice for their city. To really grow interest in their markets however, you really need owners to view hockey as their business.


In terms of how many teams, 32 is a nice symmetrical number. Maybe you could go to 36 but even at 32 teams the average time between periods where each team is a contender is starting to get pretty long. The NFL has show that 32 teams can work as long as teams have an equal chance to succeed with the right management and coaching decisions. You donÂ’t need equal success, but success/failure needs to be a function of merit not market. Every fan needs to feel that if their team makes the right moves it will be given an equal chance to win/

With a really large league or one skewed to certain markets you get to the point where people donÂ’t have an opportunity to see their team be really good while they are still relatively young it will be hard to attract new fans in many markets. Look at MLB as the example of that. They donÂ’t have a really high number of teams, but because they skew winning towards large markets, in most places the time span between really good teams is very long in most places. This makes it hard for them to attract anything but bandwagon fans so their fan base just keeps getting older and the average age is now approaching 60.

Good points lomiller, but I disagree on a couple of fine points.

Concerning baseball, the national and local broadcast fees are increasing for the most part, in spite of what you read of baseball being and "old fans' sport." The problem with baseball is the pace of the game more than the number of teams. And, among the teams, it is not always the uber-rich who win. Recently we have seen both Cleveland and KC in the World Series, and neither of those would be 'rich' markets. This year, Houston is very good, and Houston has not been traditionally a rich market.

That being said, the question for NHL really is not, "How many markets can the league support?", it's "How much sharing of locally generated revenues do the big boys allow?"

Considering that, league wide, 50% of HRR goes to owners, and that player costs have not been estimated, as far as I can see, to be less than 50%, that means there is enough HRR left, if spread evenly, for the entire league to make money.

The problem is that the money comes mostly from about 1/3 of the markets. There is no untapped market (save Hamilton, and the owners have no time for that suggestion) which will bring in more than it gives out, at least initially (Seattle and Houston MIGHT in time).

So, there will be need to be more revenue re-distribution in order for the league to expand very much.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Houston is better than Quebec City, I don't think there's any data to refute that. Excitement and dedication can only take you so far in the face of a massive group of people. I'm guessing Houston could surpass QC in hockey enthusiasts within a few years if not right off the hop, there's just so many people there.

Milwaukee, not so much, IMO.

question is, in light of recent disaster in Houston, is Houston willing to add another franchise or two?

 

[Dirty Old Man]

question is, in light of recent disaster in Houston, is Houston willing to add another franchise or two?

Well, the Pelicans (Hornets) did return after Katrina, and the Flames' building survived a catastrophic flood (apparently the Rockets old building got flooded, although I've heard nothing about the new one), plus I don't think Houston would be ready until all this would have settled down anyway. May be too early to tell, but if HOU doesn't get in, it won't be because of Harvey.

 

[lomiller1]

Concerning baseball, the national and local broadcast fees are increasing for the most part

MLB “national†broadcasts are increasingly just games of regional interest broadcast nationally (much like NHL broadcasts) It’s games don’t attract the true national interest the way NFL games do.

And, among the teams, it is not always the uber-rich who win. Recently we have seen both Cleveland and KC in the World Series, and neither of those would be 'rich' markets. This year, Houston is very good, and Houston has not been traditionally a rich market.

It’s not that the rich teams ALWAYS win. The fact that they win much more often then everyone else is enough. If a small market wins every 5 years, which is generous, many markets may not see such a win in their lifetime so investing emotionally in the team makes no sense. Without this emotional investment all you get are fans that jump on and off the bandwagon, not real fans. At least no new ones.

This year, Houston is very good

Houston is the 4th largest city in the US.

 

[meenamjah]

42 teams would make an excellent symmetrical schedule. Play every team home and away.

realistically, which cities then?

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

But you do probably think Milwaukee is a better option then Quebec, I would disagree with that as of now.

Probably not and even if I did, why would it matter?