How many teams should the NHL consist of?

[JKP]

How about this for a crazy idea...

60 teams

10 in Canada
20 in USA
30 in Europe

Two continental conferences.
Limited inter-conference play each year (say three weeks of the season on the other continent)

Could be interesting and would have much greater marketing appeal to global sponsors...

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I really wonder if anybody who suggests the NHL should have fewer than the current 30 teams in it knows what it feels like to lose a big-league franchise. As a fan of the Montreal Expos for over 30 years, I can tell you that it hurts like a Gary Suter cheapshot to the back--or better still, the face.

It doesn't matter how many teams SHOULD the NHL consist of, what matters is the reality of having 30 teams in the league today--with 30 REAL fan bases. NOBODY should have to go through franchise relocation or contraction...it sucks.

I've suggested in the past a return of NHL hockey to places like Winnipeg or Quebec, simply because both of those cities were wronged by various people and deserve another shot at the big leagues. However, it would suck for whatever city relocated to either market to be honest. Again, NOBODY should have to watch their team, the team they grew up loving, donning another uniform with someone else's city name in front of it.

Let's not forget that there are people in Nashville, Atlanta, San Jose, Columbus, et al that are in the process of growing up Preds/Thrashers/Sharks/Jackets fans...and deserve to have just as much joy in their fandom as people here in Montreal over their Canadiens, or in Toronto over their Leafs, or in Detroit over their Wings, etc.

Everybody likes to look at numbers when talking about fans in various cities. But the bottom line is that there ARE quality hockey fans in every NHL market. It's for those fans that the league should be fighting to keep all 30 teams around. It's also for those fans that the PA should actually CARE whether or not they reduce the number of teams in the league--whether they care about their own jobs (or that of their PA brother standing next to them) or not.

Again, I cannot stress enough how much it hurts to lose a team in your own city. That's why I will never defend anyone in Montreal that disses another market in the NHL, because everything they say about it can be turned around in the baseball context. And if said people don't care about the fact that the Expos are gone, well, they were part of the problem to begin with.

Excellent post!!! I'm sure some will say that you can't base decisions upon "sentimentality," but, truth be told, those who favor contraction of successful "expansion" or "non-traditional market" teams while favoring keeping floundering teams because they "used" to be good or those teams' histories, are making their choices on the same level of sentimentality.

Try being a fan of the Lightning -- the Stanley Cup champs, a team that has done everything it's supposed to (although it took a while to get here) -- kept its core, insisted upon fiscal sanity (salaries consistently below league average -- $13M below year before last, I think $10M or so last year), has stable ownership, has a fan base that has increased steadily in spite of all the years we were in the cellar, doesn't clutch & grab or play the trap ("our team doesn't know how to skate backwards"), plays all-out, attacking, fun hockey. Yet we're high on most people's list for contraction because... well, because of geography. It doesn't make sense that it would be good for the NHL to put an end to the franchise that is a prime example of what it's supposedly trying to accomplish...



No contraction for me. Let's keep all 30 teams, get the system fixed so they're all healthy and competitive. What a concept!

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

....

ever notice how the GPG level was the lowest in history...in the 50s...

with 6 teams....

.....

That is because all the players were machines. They could do it all. Goals per game means nothing to the quality of play. I have watched awesome 1-0 games, and have seen some terrible 9-7 games where the play is so horrendous (think 80s Leafs) , that I could probably grab 20 guys from a beer league who could give a better effort.

 

[kdb209]

I don't know where you cam uup with this nonsense but evey metro listing I've seen has Pittsburgh a little over 2 million.

That's what I get for doing a quick google search at 1 in the morning.

The numbers for the US media markets was # of homes, not population.

But it still shows the relative size of the NHL markets and still makes my point - by just about any measure, San Jose is not a small market.

 

[Profet]

How about this for a crazy idea...

60 teams

10 in Canada
20 in USA
30 in Europe

Two continental conferences.
Limited inter-conference play each year (say three weeks of the season on the other continent)

Could be interesting and would have much greater marketing appeal to global sponsors...

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. Many sports have 2 league systems, NFL, MLB, etc.

It would be an interesting twist for teams to have to adjust to the different size rinks when playing in the Stanley Cup finals. It would kinda of be like the DH in baseball.

The only problem with this is that the NHL simply sucks at marketing. Imagine trying to market a Wayne Gretzky to Florida fans while he plays in Copenhagen.

 

[GoM]

That is because all the players were machines. They could do it all. Goals per game means nothing to the quality of play. I have watched awesome 1-0 games, and have seen some terrible 9-7 games where the play is so horrendous (think 80s Leafs) , that I could probably grab 20 guys from a beer league who could give a better effort.

His point was crap, so I refuted it, his saying that GPG was the sole basis of exciting play.

I agree with you though.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Thank you. Why doesn't San Jose get any respect as a city & market.

It is bigger than San Francisco (passed it in the late 80's) and Oakland (by over 2x).

It is the 10th largest city in the United States. It just passed Detroit.

San Jose may be a non-traditional market, but it is not a small market.


Rank City State Population in 2003
1 New York New York 8,085,742
2 Los Angeles California 3,819,951
3 Chicago Illinois 2,869,121
5 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,479,339
6 Phoenix Arizona 1,388,416
9 Dallas Texas 1,208,318 19,738
10 Detroit Michigan 911,402
11 San Jose California 898,349
15 Columbus Ohio 728,432
23 Boston Massachusetts 581,616
25 Washington DC 563,384
26 Denver Colorado 557,478
27 Nashville-Davidson Tennessee 544,765
41 Atlanta Georgia 423,019
46 Miami Florida 376,815
47 Minneapolis Minnesota 373,188
52 Anaheim California 332,361
53 St. Louis Missouri 332,223
54 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 325,337
55 Tampa Florida 317,647
57 Raleigh North Carolina 316,802
60 Buffalo New York 285,018

Yes, on some cities you could argue population of metropolitan areas

Nielsen Media Research Local Universe Estimates* (US)

*Estimates used throughout the 2004-2005 television season which starts on September 20, 2004


RANK Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Homes % of US
(plus canadian metopolitan areas (2001)

1 New York 7,355,710 6.712
2 Los Angeles 5,431,140 4.956
Toronto 4,683,000
Montreal 3,426,000
3 Chicago 3,417,330 3.118
4 Philadelphia 2,919,410 2.664
5 Boston 2,391,840 2.183
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,359,870 2.153
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,292,760 2.092
8 Washington, DC 2,241,610 2.045
9 Atlanta 2,059,450 1.879
Vancouver 1,987,000
10 Detroit 1,943,930 1.774
13 Tampa-St. Pete 1,671,040 1.525
14 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,665,540 1.520
15 Phoenix 1,596,950 1.457
17 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1,496,810 1.366
18 Denver 1,401,760 1.279
21 St. Louis 1,216,700 1.110
22 Pittsburgh 1,186,010 1.082
Ottawa 1,064,000
29 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle) 966,720 0.882
Calgary 951,000
Edmonton 938,000
30 Nashville 916,170 0.836
34 Columbus, OH 867,490 0.792
46 Buffalo 651,970 0.595

I personally love the Sharks, I dunno what it is. (must've been those neat teal jersies back in the day)

But I don't think you can base metro population on a "hockey market"...would you rather have 750,000 hockey mad fans in Winnipeg or 1.5 milllion people in Nashville where maybe a few thousand are die-hards....

 

[se7en*]

Here are the updated Canadian metro population stats. (courtesy Statistics Canada)

Toronto: 5,203,600
Montreal: 3,607,200
Vancouver: 2,160,000
Ottawa: 1,142,700
Calgary: 1,037,100
Edmonton: 1,001,600

just wanted to help out. I'd love to find the ones for the US too, but I can't find any updated to 2004/2005.

 

[Sotnos]

I really wonder if anybody who suggests the NHL should have fewer than the current 30 teams in it knows what it feels like to lose a big-league franchise. As a fan of the Montreal Expos for over 30 years, I can tell you that it hurts like a Gary Suter cheapshot to the back--or better still, the face.

It doesn't matter how many teams SHOULD the NHL consist of, what matters is the reality of having 30 teams in the league today--with 30 REAL fan bases. NOBODY should have to go through franchise relocation or contraction...it sucks.

I've suggested in the past a return of NHL hockey to places like Winnipeg or Quebec, simply because both of those cities were wronged by various people and deserve another shot at the big leagues. However, it would suck for whatever city relocated to either market to be honest. Again, NOBODY should have to watch their team, the team they grew up loving, donning another uniform with someone else's city name in front of it.

Let's not forget that there are people in Nashville, Atlanta, San Jose, Columbus, et al that are in the process of growing up Preds/Thrashers/Sharks/Jackets fans...and deserve to have just as much joy in their fandom as people here in Montreal over their Canadiens, or in Toronto over their Leafs, or in Detroit over their Wings, etc.

Everybody likes to look at numbers when talking about fans in various cities. But the bottom line is that there ARE quality hockey fans in every NHL market. It's for those fans that the league should be fighting to keep all 30 teams around. It's also for those fans that the PA should actually CARE whether or not they reduce the number of teams in the league--whether they care about their own jobs (or that of their PA brother standing next to them) or not.

Again, I cannot stress enough how much it hurts to lose a team in your own city. That's why I will never defend anyone in Montreal that disses another market in the NHL, because everything they say about it can be turned around in the baseball context. And if said people don't care about the fact that the Expos are gone, well, they were part of the problem to begin with.

That is a really fantastic post, you summed it up beautifully! I hope everyone here reads it.

You should keep a copy of it to post in next week's contraction thread.

 

[CGG]

32 teams? are you nuts?? how watered down is the league right now?! anyone else notice that goals-per-game has gone down every year since 93'? theres a reason for that...too many teams!!!

24 or 26 is good IMO

Too many teams doesn't decrease the number of goals scored. Taking away 6 teams wouldn't increase scoring, all it would do is take the 12 worst goalies out of the NHL. Can you imagine what the GPG ratio would have been last season if Trevor Kidd didn't get in to 15 games?

 

[Injektilo]

Too many teams doesn't decrease the number of goals scored. Taking away 6 teams wouldn't increase scoring, all it would do is take the 12 worst goalies out of the NHL. Can you imagine what the GPG ratio would have been last season if Trevor Kidd didn't get in to 15 games?

You know, this does work the other way too.... There are plenty of forwards out there whose only skill is the dump and chase, and if they were gone and replaced with someone a little higher up the chain you'd see another 10 more minutes a night of skilled play.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I have a poll:

How many here would vote to contract their own teams?

Come on, step right up, you are doing it for the good of some greedy SOB's in Toronto, Philly, Detroit etc, etc who are perfectly willing to sacrifice your team so that they can add one more player to their team who does not clutch and grab. Do not be a selfish B@st@rd, come on up and vote and help those poor long suffering big market team's fans.

Or perhaps one of you Toronto, Philly, Detroit, etc. market fans would sacrifice your team for the good of the league? It would serve the dual benefit of not only adding to the talent pool of the league, by perhaps a player of any worth every five or six teams, but also get rid of some of the smugness on these boards. Step right up those of you who love the game.

 

[VinnyVinnyVici]

Excellent post!!! I'm sure some will say that you can't base decisions upon "sentimentality," but, truth be told, those who favor contraction of successful "expansion" or "non-traditional market" teams while favoring keeping floundering teams because they "used" to be good or those teams' histories, are making their choices on the same level of sentimentality.

Try being a fan of the Lightning -- the Stanley Cup champs, a team that has done everything it's supposed to (although it took a while to get here) -- kept its core, insisted upon fiscal sanity (salaries consistently below league average -- $13M below year before last, I think $10M or so last year), has stable ownership, has a fan base that has increased steadily in spite of all the years we were in the cellar, doesn't clutch & grab or play the trap ("our team doesn't know how to skate backwards"), plays all-out, attacking, fun hockey. Yet we're high on most people's list for contraction because... well, because of geography. It doesn't make sense that it would be good for the NHL to put an end to the franchise that is a prime example of what it's supposedly trying to accomplish...



No contraction for me. Let's keep all 30 teams, get the system fixed so they're all healthy and competitive. What a concept!

AMEN my Bolts Brutha! Couldn't have said it better myself.

No, on second thought....let me re-emphasize something: the diminishing quality of play in the NHL over the last 10 years has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPANSION. It has everything to do with the utter inability of the referees in this league to enforce the rules on the books. I believe that the late-80's - early-90's quality of play that we all loved would come roaring back as soon as three simple rule changes happened:

1) ELIMINATE THE STUPID INSTIGATOR RULE. Do you really think Moore-Bertuzzi or a multitude of other stick-related infractions over the last 10 years would have happened if the players would have been able to police themselves? You watch just how quickly chippy stickwork and clutching/grabbing disappears when enforcers are actually able to enforce again.

2) GET RID OF THE SECOND REFEREE. The worst mistake that Butt-man has made in his tenure (other than the last CBA negotiations in '94), in my opinion, is this misguided attempt to make officiating on the ice "perfect." All the second ref has done is muddy the waters so that players have absolutely no idea of how a game is going to be called. As a result, offensive players play cautiously; defensemen take liberties; and play grinds to a halt. Another linesman would have been nice, IMHO; another referee, however, has proven to be a disaster.

3) TIGHTLY REGULATE EQUIPMENT ON GOALIES, AND MAKE THEM "FAIR GAME" IF THEY DECIDE TO LEAVE THE CREASE AREA. To say that today's goalies are "Michelin men" is an insult to Michelin men everywhere. Has anyone really looked at Roberto Luongo lately? I think Brad Richards had it right when after a game last year, he said that Luongo had "condominiums strapped to his legs." When a goalie's catching glove looks like it could catch a basketball instead of a hockey puck, it's a little too big. Make the catching gloves a realistic size again, limit the blockers to 10 inches in width, and shrink the overall padding by a third, and scoring would begin to come back (although truly athletic, talented goalies like Miika Kiprusoff and Martin Brodeur would be only nominally affected by this change).

As for the other part of this, it's just a simple response to the evolution of the goaltending position. Goalies like Brodeur have become like third defensemen with their ability to skate and stickhandle behind their own nets; however, they are exempt from contact, which makes them extremely valuable defensive weapons. Make them "fair game," and suddenly they begin to think twice about leaving the crease area to play a puck, leaving more opportunities for onrushing forwards and requiring defensemen to get back into their own zone.

That's it. No costly (and gut-wrenching) contraction, no silly changes like the elimination of the red line or full-time four-on-four hockey or shootouts, no stupid "no, not MY city, YOUR city!" arguments like the ones we're having in this thread. A new CBA means that all 30 franchises can be viable; these changes mean that they all can play exciting hockey...

 

[me2]

You know, this does work the other way too.... There are plenty of forwards out there whose only skill is the dump and chase, and if they were gone and replaced with someone a little higher up the chain you'd see another 10 more minutes a night of skilled play.

And they'd be matched up against better quality checkers and improved defensemen playing a more effective trap. Better offense meets better defense = stalemate.

 

[txpd]

Geez...here we go with the instigator rule again. fine get rid of the instigator rule.
but when a guy starts a fight and the other guy doesn't fight back, it will still be a 5 minute major for the puncher and nothing for the other guy. when one guy clearly starts the fight with high sticking or crosschecking or punching a guy, he will still get the extra 2 minutes.

I am not sure at this point how much that will actually change things. The instigator rule can go, but fighting during stoppage in play or fighting after another fight has started will still carry misconduct penalties. The fact is that the more skating and more speed that you want in the game and the more european players there are in the game, the less fighting there is going to be.

You can eliminate the instigator rule, but you can't bring back the old days when players didnt wear helmets and largely came from a north american hockey background. Visors are here to stay. European hockey and european players are hear to stay. The NHL will never allow the old broadstreet bully days of the 70's to return, because those days are gone.

Getting rid of the instigator rule just won't change much.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

I personally love the Sharks, I dunno what it is. (must've been those neat teal jersies back in the day)

But I don't think you can base metro population on a "hockey market"...would you rather have 750,000 hockey mad fans in Winnipeg or 1.5 milllion people in Nashville where maybe a few thousand are die-hards....

Thats great and all...except for the fact that Nashville has better attendance than Winnipeg. Plus, according to Forbes Magazine, the Preds have better total revenue and a higher franchise value than Edmonton. Is Winnipeg a better NHL market than Edmonton?

 

[codswallop]

I really wonder if anybody who suggests the NHL should have fewer than the current 30 teams in it knows what it feels like to lose a big-league franchise. As a fan of the Montreal Expos for over 30 years, I can tell you that it hurts like a Gary Suter cheapshot to the back--or better still, the face.

It doesn't matter how many teams SHOULD the NHL consist of, what matters is the reality of having 30 teams in the league today--with 30 REAL fan bases. NOBODY should have to go through franchise relocation or contraction...it sucks.

I've suggested in the past a return of NHL hockey to places like Winnipeg or Quebec, simply because both of those cities were wronged by various people and deserve another shot at the big leagues. However, it would suck for whatever city relocated to either market to be honest. Again, NOBODY should have to watch their team, the team they grew up loving, donning another uniform with someone else's city name in front of it.

Let's not forget that there are people in Nashville, Atlanta, San Jose, Columbus, et al that are in the process of growing up Preds/Thrashers/Sharks/Jackets fans...and deserve to have just as much joy in their fandom as people here in Montreal over their Canadiens, or in Toronto over their Leafs, or in Detroit over their Wings, etc.

Everybody likes to look at numbers when talking about fans in various cities. But the bottom line is that there ARE quality hockey fans in every NHL market. It's for those fans that the league should be fighting to keep all 30 teams around. It's also for those fans that the PA should actually CARE whether or not they reduce the number of teams in the league--whether they care about their own jobs (or that of their PA brother standing next to them) or not.

Again, I cannot stress enough how much it hurts to lose a team in your own city. That's why I will never defend anyone in Montreal that disses another market in the NHL, because everything they say about it can be turned around in the baseball context. And if said people don't care about the fact that the Expos are gone, well, they were part of the problem to begin with.

I remember the Atlanta Flames moving to Calgary about a year after I came to Georgia. First time near an NHL team (or any hockey team for that matter), and then I have to wait another 20 years before the next one comes. A few years of minor league hockey could only help so much.

So, yeah, I know what that pains feels like as well. And I too have said it before, I don't wish that on any hockey fan. That is something that many people simply cannot fathom, growing up around the sport they love and always having it there (usually in many different forms). Some of us haven't but still love the game as much as anyone, maybe more appreciative in some cases as we know what it's like to be without it.

Part of the reason why I don't pay too much attention to the weekly or bi-weekly contraction threads. The more ridiculous and completely unattainable notions of mass contractions also play a big role. Like others have already said, kudos for your post. Right on the mark.

Just as an aside for the population debate, always best to look for metro area populations. Didn't really have the patience to track down a reliable one for 2004, for the few that might have them. The ones below are a year and a half old, but should work well enough (just punch up the numbers a tad and you'll get an accurate overview).

http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-CombMetro.html#Stadt_gross
http://www.citypopulation.de/Canada.html#Stadt_agglo

 

[se7en*]

Thats great and all...except for the fact that Nashville has better attendance than Winnipeg. Plus, according to Forbes Magazine, the Preds have better total revenue and a higher franchise value than Edmonton. Is Winnipeg a better NHL market than Edmonton?

Does Gaylord have obstructed seats like Winnipeg Arena did? As a Coyotes fan I think you know what a serious problem obstrcuted seats are. Does GEC have two thousand obstrcuted seats in a 15,000 seat arena? And - no offense to Preds fans - saying Nashville is a better hockey city than Edmonton is hopelessly dense. Their value might be higher - not significantly higher mind you - but thats evidence that Nashville is a better hockeytown than Edmonton right?

 

[Redline]

I'd like to see a 24 team league.The talent pool just doesnt appear able to support 30 teams.Perhaps with more participation worldwide there will one day be sufficient talent to keep the Low's,Belaks,Cairn's etc. in the minors where they belong and replace them with skilled players that are enjoyable to watch.The current subpar overall skill level amongst other issues is hurting the league.The NHL expanded to quickly and while the goal of greater exposure has been achieved,its come at the expense of the quality of the game that is attempting to be sold.

 

[preddevil]

Does Gaylord have obstructed seats like Winnipeg Arena did? As a Coyotes fan I think you know what a serious problem obstrcuted seats are. Does GEC have two thousand obstrcuted seats in a 15,000 seat arena? And - no offense to Preds fans - saying Nashville is a better hockey city than Edmonton is hopelessly dense. Their value might be higher - not significantly higher mind you - but thats evidence that Nashville is a better hockeytown than Edmonton right?

Admittedly, Edmonton is clearly a better hockey city based on hockey fans per capita. The economic reality is that Nashville is potentially more profitable. Leopold (the owner) has a sweetheart deal where he gets naming rights and other nonhockey revenue streams, just for owning a team. Not to mention the fact that the city paid a big chunk (20 or 25%) of the expansion fee. Leopold can lose money on the Predators and still show an overall profit. That and the fact that escaping from Alcatraz is easier than dealing with the escape clauses for the lease means that the Predators are in Nashville for the foreseeable future. Bottom line: Nashville isn't going away anytime soon. Deal with it.

 

[Snoopy]

24-26 teams

I'd say get rid of Nashville, Florida, Anaheim, Carolina, Atlanta and Phoenix. Also, teams like Tampa, Columbus, New Jersey, Pittsburgh and Washington concern me.

However, under the right circumstances I would eventually add Winnipeg and Quebec City.

 

[se7en*]

Bottom line: Nashville isn't going away anytime soon. Deal with it.

Wait a sec, when did I say I wanted Nashville gone? Sensitive much? Any Nashville fan who knows me knows I want them to stay. Whats more impressive? Sweet naming rights, or every home game sold out, over 15,000 STHs, a plethora of junior hockey and a city that produces more NHL players per capita than anywhere else. Its based on a heck of alot more criteria than hockey fans per capita. 'Admittedly' my ass. Deal with it.

 

[me2]

I'd like to see a 24 team league.The talent pool just doesnt appear able to support 30 teams.Perhaps with more participation worldwide there will one day be sufficient talent to keep the Low's,Belaks,Cairn's etc. in the minors where they belong and replace them with skilled players that are enjoyable to watch.The current subpar overall skill level amongst other issues is hurting the league.The NHL expanded to quickly and while the goal of greater exposure has been achieved,its come at the expense of the quality of the game that is attempting to be sold.

21 teams in the early 80s and the game was fine. So has Canada been forced to supply more and more scrubs to fill 9 extra teams or has the RoW stepped up?

21 teams and things were OK. Add changes since then

3 more teams worth of Canadians from population growth (15%)
+
6-8 more teams worth of Europeans (52 to 297 players)
+
3-4 more teams worth of US players (65 to 160 players)


Despite there being 43% more NHL teams and a 15% increase in Canadian population, the number of Canadian hockey players has fallen from 560 in 1982/3 to 555 in 2003/4. 560 Canadian players in 82/3 is the equivalent of 644 players today.

So either the overall talent pool has increased enough the dump the weakest 15%(#556-#640) that might have made 1982 hockey teams
OR
Canada has done a terrible job producing hockey players over the last 30 years.

I like to think the RoW has improved rather than Canada getting worse. There should be enough talent for 32+ teams at no drop off relative to 1982. Its probably down a bit as the NHL attracted more of the top end Euro talent back then rather than a cross section of the Euro talent today. But still 30 teams should be as at least as good as then.

Anyway, great work by pnep compiling country of origin stats.

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=132970&page=2&highlight=pnep

 

[preddevil]

Wait a sec, when did I say I wanted Nashville gone? Sensitive much? Any Nashville fan who knows me knows I want them to stay. Whats more impressive? Sweet naming rights, or every home game sold out, over 15,000 STHs, a plethora of junior hockey and a city that produces more NHL players per capita than anywhere else. Its based on a heck of alot more criteria than hockey fans per capita. 'Admittedly' my ass. Deal with it.

Hey Hootchie Chootchie. No offense intended. Edmonton is one of my favorite teams. You just happened to have the most recent response in the latest "contract the southern teams thread" (yeah, I know that wasn't the official title of the thread). In response to your question : YES I AM SENSITIVE!!!! It gets old reading a new "Let's contract all the teams south of Detroit thread", every week. These are threads usually started by people from big market or Canadian teams who are ignorant of the southern markets and are offended that there can be NHL teams where there is no natural ice in December. My apologies that you got caught in the cross fire HC.

 

[se7en*]

No prob, I know how you feel - except some people want my team gone because we're a small-market rather than location. I do get offended when people try to assert that places like Phoenix, Nashville, etc, are better hockeytowns than here. Maybe in corporate revenues but thats it. Thats the limit of my Canadian 'elitist' attitude and I don't want any teams gone. I think Nashville has great potential, SoCal's teams hate each other, Tampa/Florida has the ingredients for a legendary rivalry, Atlanta is an up-and-comer, you get the idea.