How many teams can the NHL support in total?

[saskriders]

Are there any MLB, NFL, NBA fans that want contraction like there is in NHL fandom? Everyone who wants contraction wants the same teams to go away. If there were 30 teams above the mason Dixon, no one would be complaining. It would be a lot less annoying if they quit hiding behind the quality of play argument and were honest about why they want it.

Simple solution, everyone who advocates for contraction can volunteer their favourite team.

 

[powerstuck]

Go 40 teams and split the league into two tiers. Add Seattle, Houston, Milwaukee, Quebec, Hamilton, Toronto 2, Portland, Kansas City, and Hartford.

None of these cities have any incentive nor interest for NHL.

As a business, if any of these cities was worth spending half a billion on a hockey team, it would have been done ages ago.

 

[superdeluxe]

None of these cities have any incentive nor interest for NHL.

As a business, if any of these cities was worth spending half a billion on a hockey team, it would have been done ages ago.

OVG and Jerry Bruckheimer/David Bonderman beg to differ in Seattle

 

[KevFu]

Are there any MLB, NFL, NBA fans that want contraction like there is in NHL fandom? Everyone who wants contraction wants the same teams to go away. If there were 30 teams above the mason Dixon, no one would be complaining. It would be a lot less annoying if they quit hiding behind the quality of play argument and were honest about why they want it.

I think there ARE fans who think that the leagues would be better if there were fewer teams:

If there were 24 teams in each league, the sport probably WOULD be better, because you'd have the best 600 players in the world in the league, and guys 601-to-750 are in the minors instead of spread out across the league to let six more teams compete.

But I think everyone gets that it's realistic.


My views on contraction is the same as my view on eliminating the DH:
- It's NEVER going to happen, so we might as well solve the issue of
asymmetry by going the other way (even though I'd much rather eliminate than add).

I think a 30-team MLB is stupid, because 15 teams per league and three divisions and two wild cards is dumb. In 1960, MLB had an 8-team AL and an 8-team NL. Add Montreal and Charlotte and you can have FOUR 8-team groups playing like old school baseball. And things would be better. And the rules should be the same, so you add the DH to all of it.



I understand that people think hockey was better with fewer teams, but I also think that the more teams there are, the more interest in the sport that can fill the new need for talented players.

The history of sports is littered with players who appeared to be mediocre or terrible players, and then seized opportunity.

The Islanders made the playoffs a while back with 11 guys on the roster that no other team wanted: For example, Michael Grabner and Matt Moulson were waiver pick-ups after not being able to crack the lineups of FLA and LA.

Or Justin Turner was a terrible utility guy with the Mets, and now is an All-Star in LA because he got a second chance.

 

[Kimota]

They could probably support 50 and more cause the NHL has a welfare system, most teams have bad gates and they don't care cause the system is solid enough and the owners most of them are already rich and it's a toy to them.

But really for a really healthy league with great hockey they should have like 25 teams.

 

[zetajerk]

They could probably support 50 and more cause the NHL has a welfare system, most teams have bad gates and they don't care cause the system is solid enough and the owners most of them are already rich and it's a toy to them.

But really for a really healthy league with great hockey they should have like 25 teams.

You can bet your *** that a team in QC would get some of that welfare too. If there was a welfare system in the 90s, they might not have left. Some of the markets you like get welfare too.

 

[GuelphStormer]

You can bet your *** that a team in QC would get some of that welfare too. If there was a welfare system in the 90s, they might not have left. Some of the markets you like get welfare too.

i dont necessarily disagree, but im curious as to what you are actually basing this on. that total annual revenues in QC would be below the median? how do you figure that?

 

[MNNumbers]

You can bet your *** that a team in QC would get some of that welfare too. If there was a welfare system in the 90s, they might not have left. Some of the markets you like get welfare too.

i dont necessarily disagree, but im curious as to what you are actually basing this on. that total annual revenues in QC would be below the median? how do you figure that?

Under the current CBA, it's the bottom 20 who receive revenue re-distribution.

I don't think there is any argument to be had that QC would be top-10 or top-12.

Vegas seats are apparently selling hot. QC would have much better local media revenue. I think off the start that Vegas might stay close to QC. In a few years, after NFL arrives in Vegas and the shine wears off of the Golden Knights, that might change a little.

I think QC would be in the 15-20 range, which obviously makes it a market that 'should' have a team.

 

[KevFu]

They could probably support 50 and more cause the NHL has a welfare system, most teams have bad gates and they don't care cause the system is solid enough and the owners most of them are already rich and it's a toy to them.

But really for a really healthy league with great hockey they should have like 25 teams.

This is why the current system is jacked up. 50 teams would lower the average revenue, making the money the rich clubs pay in go further to be divided among the other 35 teams below the average and make the entire league "healthier"

That's nuts. Adding 35 poorer teams shouldn't make the league better.
Adding markets that would bring in revenue (Toronto 2, Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, Houston) should be a rising tide for the entire league.

 

[rent free]

That would be awful. Soccer leagues can have that format all they want.

soccer teams travel much much less than nhl teams

 

[rent free]

How is that a valid excuse? That is your direct competitor in terms of viewers/sales/merchandise, and their weakest franchise would be among your top ten. It directly speaks to the fiscal health of the league as a whole.

And yes, those franchises are worth what they're listed as. The fact that they haven't won anything or been successful, yet carry such a value speaks directly to the fiscal health of the league.

It's not a different argument. The fact of the matter is, if I was evaluating each North American franchise as a financier, several NHL teams would be considered going concerns and sub investment grade based on their figures. I can't say that about any of the other leagues. It's a literal house of cards, bordering on a Ponzi scheme. They cannot sustain their current allotment of franchises let alone expand.

The house almost collapsed in 04 when Pittsburgh, a northern foothold, almost had to move. It took the cancellation of a season and placing the generations best player there to fix the problem.

its a valid excuse because basketball is american so more people in the us will watch basketball over hockey

 

[Gnashville]

They could probably support 50 and more cause the NHL has a welfare system, most teams have bad gates and they don't care cause the system is solid enough and the owners most of them are already rich and it's a toy to them.

But really for a really healthy league with great hockey they should have like 25 teams.

The horrible welfare system that all the team owners agreed to have. Fact every year at least 16 teams pay into the system.
Without the "Welfare" system rich owners would just be lining their pockets.

 

[Gnashville]

i dont necessarily disagree, but im curious as to what you are actually basing this on. that total annual revenues in QC would be below the median? how do you figure that?

I doubt they will make the playoffs as an expansion team and charging enough to crack the top ten in revenue would price them out of the market. Basically the top 10 is the O6 plus Philadelphia, Vancouver, Washington and Pittsburgh.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

This is why the current system is jacked up. 50 teams would lower the average revenue, making the money the rich clubs pay in go further to be divided among the other 35 teams below the average and make the entire league "healthier"

That's nuts. Adding 35 poorer teams shouldn't make the league better.
Adding markets that would bring in revenue (Toronto 2, Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, Houston) should be a rising tide for the entire league.

still no owners in any of those 5 markets, much less leases, Kev

 

[KevFu]

still no owners in any of those 5 markets, much less leases, Kev

Right. This thread is about how many teams the NHL could accept over time if they had a never-ending line of rich dudes waving checkbooks and saying "We want in"

 

[alko]

Right. This thread is about how many teams the NHL could accept over time if they had a never-ending line of rich dudes waving checkbooks and saying "We want in"

The Germans have a nice word: jein. Means both yeas and no.

Also the main idea was, how many teams could NHL have, to be profitable.

 

[normalpsychology]

60. i would remove 3 canadien teams and send them south as well

 

[rent free]

they could probably support quite a bit of small market teams

 

[boredmale]

I think there ARE fans who think that the leagues would be better if there were fewer teams:

If there were 24 teams in each league

My counter argument against contracting is that the fewer teams we have the more boring hockey will get. When the difference between the best player and 18th best is closer chances we will have much better defensive matchups between 2 teams with less mistakes.

More players basically means that chances are you team won't be as highly skilled thus leading to more mistakes

 

[cowboy82nd]

NHL has failed twice in Atlanta. No third time.

Yes, but Atlanta has also given Canada two teams.

 

[Mr Positive]

In principle the only limit is the number of markets, and there are probably around 40 of them. Then again, every time you add a team, the average playoff revenue per team goes down.

 

[Cotton]

60. i would remove 3 canadien teams and send them south as well

There is but one Canadien team that can be moved, it's located in Montreal, but doing so wouldn't be wise.

I think the league should be 20 clubs deep, but it could probably support around 36-38.

 

[patnyrnyg]

This is why the current system is jacked up. 50 teams would lower the average revenue, making the money the rich clubs pay in go further to be divided among the other 35 teams below the average and make the entire league "healthier"

That's nuts. Adding 35 poorer teams shouldn't make the league better.
Adding markets that would bring in revenue (Toronto 2, Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, Houston) should be a rising tide for the entire league.

Adding teams in Toronto, Hamilton, Quebec will hurt teams like Arizona, St Louis and other lower revenue teams. Increases the median for the league, yet there's remains the same and thus further down the tubes.

 

[patnyrnyg]

My counter argument against contracting is that the fewer teams we have the more boring hockey will get. When the difference between the best player and 18th best is closer chances we will have much better defensive matchups between 2 teams with less mistakes.

More players basically means that chances are you team won't be as highly skilled thus leading to more mistakes

The difference between the best and 18th best will be the same regardless of the number of teams. Hockey was much more exciting in the 80s, when there was only 21 teams.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Right. This thread is about how many teams the NHL could accept over time if they had a never-ending line of rich dudes waving checkbooks and saying "We want in"

Really depends on what kind of support and profits everyone is thinking about. If you want it to be like the English Premiere League, where you have 6 or so huge teams and then a bunch of teams with much smaller fan bases, then they could likely have 80+ teams. If you want a league where the team with the smallest fan bases is not THAT MUCH (I know, a vague and relative term) than the largest teams, then probably need to get down to about 20. If you are looking for revenues or profits along the lines of the CHL, again, can like support 100 teams. Want it the way it is now? Again, probably 20. To contract to 20, they would likely start with the overcrowded areas and only have 1 team per market. 2 of the Rangers, Isles, Devils would have to go. Likely the Sabres being so close to Toronto and Pittsburgh, but more so Toronto. Ducks or Kings would have to go, and then pick 6 more.