How many teams should the NHL consist of?

[coyoteshockeyfan]

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?

Sorry, I just get a little touchy when people who have no idea what they are talking about mouth off on Southern hockey markets (basing it almost exclusively on their location on a map), especially when they are just as financially successful as some Northern hockey markets. I was not taking a dig at the city of Edmonton, their franchise, or their great fans.

 

[sveiglar]

I'm solidly in the no-contraction camp.... 30 now, with 32 after 6-8 seasons of post-lockout positive growth (Winnipeg and Quebec City back in).

 

[Terrier]

24 is good, I think.

24 is just fine. Anything beyond 26 is nuts. Look where we are now. The NHL was a decent league until it jumped from 26 to 30 teams in the late 90's.

 

[cherry]

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.

Why does Columbus concern you? They have a very good fan base & a very nice new arena. Attendance is not an issue.

 

[me2]

24 is just fine. Anything beyond 26 is nuts. Look where we are now. The NHL was a decent league until it jumped from 26 to 30 teams in the late 90's.

When did the trap start becoming popular, when did the NHL go down the drain when and did the last 4 expansion clubs arrive?

 

[Mess]

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.

While that may all be true and heart warming ... the painful truth is ....

The NHL commissioned former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. to conduct a study of the league's finances. Over the past nine years, he found, the NHL has collectively lost $1.5 billion. In the 2002-2003 season, NHL notched an operating loss of $273 million on about $2 billion in revenues.

When it comes to controlling costs, NHL owners are pathetic. Over the nine-year period, revenues rose 173 percent, but labor costs rose 261 percent. Sure, the NHL doesn't have a salary cap. But neither does Goldman Sachs or the Gap, and they still manage to make money while competing for talent.

As this Forbes articlepoints out, NHL player salaries rose because general managers and owners made economically stupid hiring decisions.

Any class of MBA students could figure out what to do with the NHL post-LBO. First, the new owner—a single, investor-controlled entity rather than 30 bickering tycoons—would likely close 10 teams immediately. According to the Levitt report, six teams lost more than $20 million a year, and 12 lost more than $10 million per year. Shutting some of them down would stop a lot of the bleeding instantly.


You need to often leave your sentimentality at the door when doing business and often make some tough decisions in business ... 1 bad apple spoils the whole bunch and the NHL has a whole bunch of bad apples rotting away the NHL ..

This needs to be addressed and a New CBA alone will not fix that problem .. Even in you lower the prices the Apples will still be rotten .. IMO ..

Perhaps some of these markets are better suited for AHL hockey the NHL, because they just can't compete in an open Market .. If you are a Nashville Preds fan and your team is contracted .. The NHL could still relocted the former AHL team their and you can still watch the Scotty Upshall's, Dan Hamuis, and Jordin Tootoo's play hockey just now you can cheer them on to NHL success in another city ..

 

[codswallop]

While that may all be true and heart warming ... the painful truth is ....

The NHL commissioned former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. to conduct a study of the league's finances. Over the past nine years, he found, the NHL has collectively lost $1.5 billion. In the 2002-2003 season, NHL notched an operating loss of $273 million on about $2 billion in revenues.

When it comes to controlling costs, NHL owners are pathetic. Over the nine-year period, revenues rose 173 percent, but labor costs rose 261 percent. Sure, the NHL doesn't have a salary cap. But neither does Goldman Sachs or the Gap, and they still manage to make money while competing for talent.

As this Forbes articlepoints out, NHL player salaries rose because general managers and owners made economically stupid hiring decisions.

Any class of MBA students could figure out what to do with the NHL post-LBO. First, the new owner—a single, investor-controlled entity rather than 30 bickering tycoons—would likely close 10 teams immediately. According to the Levitt report, six teams lost more than $20 million a year, and 12 lost more than $10 million per year. Shutting some of them down would stop a lot of the bleeding instantly.


You need to often leave your sentimentality at the door when doing business and often make some tough decisions in business ... 1 bad apple spoils the whole bunch and the NHL has a whole bunch of bad apples rotting away the NHL ..

This needs to be addressed and a New CBA alone will not fix that problem .. Even in you lower the prices the Apples will still be rotten .. IMO ..

Perhaps some of these markets are better suited for AHL hockey the NHL, because they just can't compete in an open Market .. If you are a Nashville Preds fan and your team is contracted .. The NHL could still relocted the former AHL team their and you can still watch the Scotty Upshall's, Dan Hamuis, and Jordin Tootoo's play hockey just now you can cheer them on to NHL success in another city ..

I'm getting the sense that you don't know much about the multitude of economic systems and their inherent behaviors. And how the many varied (and at times unpredictable) influences shape each marketplace.

I won't even pretend to know something like that, not even close. But over time, I've been able to recognize a sign here or there to lead me in the right direction.

I'm not for one side or the other in this. I honestly don't give a damn if one profits more than the other. All I care about is that the NHL is put upon solid financial ground (and that goes a long way towards helping each developmental league in North America, and possibly in a way towards leagues abroad). Given all the circumstances, I believe that the league is much closer to getting the NHL on the right track than the PA. By a fairly wide amount.

There is greed involved on both sides, and neither one of them is or will ever be 100% correct. If anyone believes one side is, then they are very much wrong (and to be harsh, they are terribly deluded).

It just doesn't work that way. With all the economic factors and behavioral components involved, it's gets very hazy. And no single, simplistic solution will work. If I may be so bold, it's damn near ignorant to think that way.

 

[Mess]

I'm getting the sense that you don't know much about the multitude of economic systems and their inherent behaviors. And how the many varied (and at times unpredictable) influences shape each marketplace.

I won't even pretend to know something like that, not even close. But I can recognize a sign here or there to lead me in the right direction..

Well I can certainly appreciate the wealth of your knowledge in your response, that opinion however was not mine but taken from this article :

http://www.slate.msn.com/id/2114660/#ContinueArticle

The Author sure does understand : Judging by just a small clip from his Resume ..

Daniel Gross is a journalist, editor, and New York Times best-selling author based in New York and Connecticut who specializes in three broad areas: business history, the links between business and politics, and the culture of Wall Street. A graduate of Cornell University, he holds an A.M. in American history from Harvard University, as well as a Law Degree.

He has worked as a reporter at The New Republic and Bloomberg News, and has written articles, book reviews, essays, and commentary for more than 60 publications, including New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, New York, New York Observer, Slate, American Prospect, and Washington Monthly. He currently contributes columns to Slate, Attache, and CEO.

He appears frequently in the media to discuss issues affecting Wall Street and Washington, and in 2000 coined the term “the politics of personal finance.†Gross has appeared on CNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel.

Gross is the author of three books: Forbes Greatest Business Stories of All Time (Wiley, 1996), a New York Times and Business Week best-seller that has been translated into seven languages; Bull Run: Wall Street, the Democrats, and the New Politics of Personal Finance (PublicAffairs, 2000)

etc etc etc ...

So when someone like this speaks on the state of the NHL and solutions to fix it .. I would suggest that people do pay attention ..

He is no poster on a Message board .. and clearly understands the issues and obstacles in front of the NHL ..

If he is suggesting contraction and Bettman is leading the world and the NHL down a different path ..since they are polar opposites only one is likely correct .. Since the NHL is in desperate disarray at the moment .. One would think More of the Same may not be the best END GAME .. IMO .. Unless END of the GAME as we know it is the intended outcome ..

 

[VanIslander]

I think the NHL should consist of about 40 teams, that's right, 40.

20-30 in North America and another 10-20 in Europe.

I actually believe the NHL can do what the NFL couldn't and MLB never will: go overseas.

Helsinki, Prague, Moscow, Stockholm, Berlin and another five at least, from Russia, Germany and other European cities.

The problem is not at all a lack of talent; make the rules more talent-friendly and there'll be plenty of excitement.

This dream was articulated years ago. I wonder if anyone is pondering it these days?

Anyways.... 40 teams.

 

[codswallop]

Well I can certainly appreciate the wealth of your knowledge in your response that opinion was not mine but taken from this article :

http://www.slate.msn.com/id/2114660/#ContinueArticle

The Author sure does understand : Judging by just a small clip from his Resume ..

Daniel Gross is a journalist, editor, and New York Times best-selling author based in New York and Connecticut who specializes in three broad areas: business history, the links between business and politics, and the culture of Wall Street. A graduate of Cornell University, he holds an A.M. in American history from Harvard University, as well as a Law Degree.

He has worked as a reporter at The New Republic and Bloomberg News, and has written articles, book reviews, essays, and commentary for more than 60 publications, including New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, New York, New York Observer, Slate, American Prospect, and Washington Monthly. He currently contributes columns to Slate, Attache, and CEO.

He appears frequently in the media to discuss issues affecting Wall Street and Washington, and in 2000 coined the term “the politics of personal finance.†Gross has appeared on CNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel.

Gross is the author of three books: Forbes Greatest Business Stories of All Time (Wiley, 1996), a New York Times and Business Week best-seller that has been translated into seven languages; Bull Run: Wall Street, the Democrats, and the New Politics of Personal Finance (PublicAffairs, 2000)

etc etc etc ...

So when someone like this speaks on the state of the NHL and solutions to fix it .. I would suggest that people do pay attention ..

He is no poster on a Message board .. and clearly understands the issues and obstacles in front of the NHL ..

If he is suggesting contraction and Bettman is leading the world and the NHL down a different path ..since they are polar opposites only one is likely correct .. Since the NHL is in desperate disarray at the moment .. One would think More of the Same may not be the best END GAME .. IMO .. Unless END of the GAME as we know it is the intended outcome ..

I have read some of his work. Liked it, good insight from what I remember.

But you must realize that his opinion does not constitute the ultimate truth of the NHL. You could easily find several reputable sources that claim the NHL is wrong, the NHLPA is wrong, both sides are wrong, alternative solutions, etc.

There's a reason why, it's not a easy fix. A leveraged buy-out does seem an easy option. But in the end, it's not realistic (and I have a good feeling the author knows this). If he has a sense of the individuals/corporations involved in NHL ownership, he knows.

Look, I don't claim to be a business guru. I have a BA in economics, an MBA, (one of my papers in grad school was actually published) and several years experience. That's fairly limited to expound on this subject I know, but you have to take it in context. And I believe that's a big part of what's missing. Most don't take the issues in context. Why? Because we don't actually know what those exact issues are.

Assuming them only leads to the pointless threads we have day in and day out.

 

[Mess]

I have read some of his work. Liked it, good insight from what I remember.

But you must realize that his opinion does not constitute the ultimate truth of the NHL. You could easily find several reputable sources that claim the NHL is wrong, the NHLPA is wrong, both sides are wrong, alternative solutions, etc.

There's a reason why, it's not a easy fix. A leveraged buy-out does seem an easy option. But in the end, it's not realistic (and I have a good feeling the author knows this). If he has a sense of the individuals/corporations involved in NHL ownership, he knows.

Look, I don't claim to be a business guru. I have a BA in economics, an MBA, (one of my papers in grad school was actually published) and several years experience. That's fairly limited to expound on this subject I know, but you have to take it in context. And I believe that's a big part of what's missing. Most don't take the issues in context. Why? Because we don't actually know what those exact issues are.

Assuming them only leads to the pointless threads we have day in and day out.

I was not speaking directly of a leveraged buy-out as that concept is neither practical nor realistic as many of these Boys have no intention of parting with their toys ..

However there are plenty on suggestions within the article that I support in my way of thinking that can and should occur during this process for the betterment and the strength going forward ...

The fact that 5 teams contributed to majority of the loss, is an area that needs addressing .. putting a band-aide on these open wounds will not heal the NHL, even if the big market players agree to provide the medication so the wounds can be cleaned and bandaged regularly ... I read recently the putting a Radio Shack in Amish country will not make you a millionaire, but bankrupt very quickly .. and that is the moral of that story for some teams currently in the NHL ..

Big markets that have the population to support a team but that are mismanaged resulting in significant losses, should not be able to hold the Fans, Players and Owners and the NHL hostage as an excuse to support their lack of business understanding and mistakes via excessive overspending of their budgets.

The players are highly paid and are contributing to this financial mess, not directly by their own doing, however they are pricing themselves out of the market .. The focus should be lowering their Salaries and the benefits of that action directly and proportionately affecting the fans at the gates that come to watch them and support them .. As an Economics major there is no need for me to explain the benefits of growing the game and stabilizing the losses by providing the financial relief to the fans... allowing whole families to take in games live and more frequently.

Taking the money from Millionaires and giving it to Billionaires that belonged and was obtained from the average middle class person through their blood, sweat and tears is not right .. The article correctly identifies the issue here in that some of these businesses are not designed to make money on a day to day bases but Owners Equity increasing as franchises double and triple in value .. A concept not unfamiliar to people that deal in Real Estate .. Owning a property costs you money in property taxes, fire Insurance and maintenance to maintain, however the yearly losses are insignificant to the bigger picture as market prices rises far faster then interest rates by the bank. Making smart Financial people decisions, resulting in investing rather than depositing of their funds in the bank to earn nominal interest.

The hard cap system requested by the NHL is clouded in the false premises that it is about parity on the ice .. .The NHL is following the NFL model that saw Franchise values double and triple once their Salary Cap was imposed by the courts ... Does anyone for one minute believe that the Billionaire owners care if they can use as tax write-offs the losses of the day to day operations of their teams, in hopes that their $ 100 mil Franchises will soon be worth $ 200 or $ 300 mil in resale value or as capital and collateral to invest in other Money making adventures ..

So the article has many thoughts and concepts and suggestions that could be used to make the NHL better going forward and the answer lies somewhere in the middle for compromise to allow both sides the freedom to exists in harmony and the Fans being the big winners in the long run by both the product on the ice and the cost at the gates ..

 

[John Flyers Fan]

28

 

[jacketracket*]

4 --- Detroit and Chicago should never have been given teams.

 

[txpd]

The fact that 5 teams contributed to majority of the loss, is an area that needs addressing .. putting a band-aide on these open wounds will not heal the NHL, even if the big market players agree to provide the medication so the wounds can be cleaned and bandaged regularly ... I read recently the putting a Radio Shack in Amish country will not make you a millionaire, but bankrupt very quickly .. and that is the moral of that story for some teams currently in the NHL ..

Big markets that have the population to support a team but that are mismanaged resulting in significant losses, should not be able to hold the Fans, Players and Owners and the NHL hostage as an excuse to support their lack of business understanding and mistakes via excessive overspending of their budgets.

The players are highly paid and are contributing to this financial mess, not directly by their own doing, however they are pricing themselves out of the market .. The focus should be lowering their Salaries and the benefits of that action directly and proportionately affecting the fans at the gates that come to watch them and support them .. As an Economics major there is no need for me to explain the benefits of growing the game and stabilizing the losses by providing the financial relief to the fans... allowing whole families to take in games live and more frequently.

Taking the money from Millionaires and giving it to Billionaires that belonged and was obtained from the average middle class person through their blood, sweat and tears is not right .. The article correctly identifies the issue here in that some of these businesses are not designed to make money on a day to day bases but Owners Equity increasing as franchises double and triple in value .. A concept not unfamiliar to people that deal in Real Estate .. Owning a property costs you money in property taxes, fire Insurance and maintenance to maintain, however the yearly losses are insignificant to the bigger picture as market prices rises far faster then interest rates by the bank. Making smart Financial people decisions, resulting in investing rather than depositing of their funds in the bank to earn nominal interest.

The hard cap system requested by the NHL is clouded in the false premises that it is about parity on the ice .. .The NHL is following the NFL model that saw Franchise values double and triple once their Salary Cap was imposed by the courts ... Does anyone for one minute believe that the Billionaire owners care if they can use as tax write-offs the losses of the day to day operations of their teams, in hopes that their $ 100 mil Franchises will soon be worth $ 200 or $ 300 mil in resale value or as capital and collateral to invest in other Money making adventures ..

So the article has many thoughts and concepts and suggestions that could be used to make the NHL better going forward and the answer lies somewhere in the middle for compromise to allow both sides the freedom to exists in harmony and the Fans being the big winners in the long run by both the product on the ice and the cost at the gates ..

The hard cap is in part about parity. Parity is certainly part of the NFL model. Its also about growing a solid foundation of teams in the league where all teams are able to compete to build league wide interest. You don't hear a complaint in the NFL if the super bowl is Tampa Bay and Oakland or Buffalo and Washington. In the NHL most NHL viewers wouldnt pay money to see TB vs SJ or Buffalo vs Washington because the those teams are invisable in such a top heavy league.

With a division heavy schedule you have piles of games between Atlanta and Carolina and Pheonix and San Jose. There was a time when Washington vs Pittsburgh was actually a game of some national interest, but the last cba has killed off those two teams.

 

[dolfanar]

Personally I agree with those who say that expansion happened on too massive a level in too short a span. Too much too soon. OTOH, I disagree with the idea of stepping back now. The league *was8 a mess for a few years after expansion with weak expansion teams whose only means of being competitive was to have 15-16 clutch and grab artists in their lineup. That has been lessened somewhat due to a few years worth of payer movement. Look at most teams and you see a similar makeup of a few scorers, afew decent checkers, and a bunch of journeymen.

Look at an 80's lineup... and you;d see pretty much the same thing. Offense and talent level are really not that well tied in. As mentioned earlier in the thread, look at the 50's and you'll see 6 teams, dozen's of hall of famer's and *very* little offense.

30 teams is fine for right now, with the right cba in place. I'd like to see a more innovative divisional setup (my personal choice being 5 divisions of 6 teams, no conferances, with the top 16 teams making the playoffs (and the 5 divisional leaders receiving top 5 seeds)) I'd also like to see some of the more subtle changes to improve offense and reduce ties: Calling obstruction, Regulating Goalie equipment, tag up off side, no touch icing, 10 minutes of OT (regular 5 on 5), 3 points for an regulation win, 2 for an ot win, 1 for a tie or OT loss, 0 for a regulation loss.

And I still believe it makes no sense to have 2 teams in Florida and 3 in California.

But as for less teams, that ship has sailed, imo. Best to work with what you have right now.

 

[ScottyBowman]

I think the NHL should consist of about 40 teams, that's right, 40.

20-30 in North America and another 10-20 in Europe.

I actually believe the NHL can do what the NFL couldn't and MLB never will: go overseas.

Helsinki, Prague, Moscow, Stockholm, Berlin and another five at least, from Russia, Germany and other European cities.

The problem is not at all a lack of talent; make the rules more talent-friendly and there'll be plenty of excitement.

This dream was articulated years ago. I wonder if anyone is pondering it these days?

Anyways.... 40 teams.

I just can't see it as a hotspot for north american players. No offense to the people living in those cities, but I don't think too many Canadians would want to play in Prague. I also don't think Prague or some other cities above can maintain an NHL payroll.

 

[X0ssbar]

I am solidly in the 30 team camp - no more no less.

I am also NOT in favor of contraction. If a market isn't working for the NHL, then move it and try again.

 

[Mighty Duck]

If in fact there was contraction, the teams who should be given the boot are; Colorado, Toronto, Philly, NYR, Dallas and Washington, as these are the teams who signed contracts which have cause this big problem in the 1st place. If these owners even had any sense of responsibility to the rest of the NHL, they would have kept a check on their payroll. The 2 worst examples are NYR & Washington, as they put out big contracts, and their teams still failed to make the play-offs. You eliminate these teams, or replace the owners with responsible people, end of problem.

 

[nyrmessier011]

I am solidly in the 30 team camp - no more no less.

I am also NOT in favor of contraction. If a market isn't working for the NHL, then move it and try again.

That sounds nice, but it's not as simple as that. I think that many will agree with me when I say that hockey doesen't belong in sunrise, nashville, phoenix or carolina. If you were to move those teams, it would have to be out of a related area in terms of maybe weather and groups of people. Basically we can say that teams have to move north. But for other teams and for the NHL as a whole, it's not practical to move a team within a couple hundred miles of another franchise. There's a lack of places to move teams to. Quebec and Hartford sound nice to me and I would like to see another go with them, but I'm not sure who would take those chances after they failed in the early 90's. Other than that I can't really think of places for another NHL team to go. I heard something about Seattle, but it's so close to Vancouver. I heard something abouyt Vegas, but I think that's just crazy (not to mention it's in Nevada)

It just doesn't seem like there are enough places to move a team to that will work out.

 

[Joe d]

30

 

[Jag68Sid87]

I think that many will agree with me when I say that hockey doesen't belong in sunrise, nashville, phoenix or carolina.

I disagree. A GOOD hockey product can be sold just about anywhere. Those markets were failing in the "old" NHL, with so many flaws in it, from the on-ice product to the lack of entertainment value for your dollar, to the lack of marketing and promotion, to the lack of fair and equitable competition and parity throughout the league.

Improve the league, get the finances in order, start selling the product in a better way and pump up the entertainment level and I say the Panthers, Predators, Coyotes and Hurricanes will be just fine. If they are not, THEN proceed onto plan B (relocation).

 

[Injektilo]

I disagree. A GOOD hockey product can be sold just about anywhere. Those markets were failing in the "old" NHL, with so many flaws in it, from the on-ice product to the lack of entertainment value for your dollar, to the lack of marketing and promotion, to the lack of fair and equitable competition and parity throughout the league.

Improve the league, get the finances in order, start selling the product in a better way and pump up the entertainment level and I say the Panthers, Predators, Coyotes and Hurricanes will be just fine. If they are not, THEN proceed onto plan B (relocation).

Now, I'm not saying it hockey doesn't belong in certain places, but I am less than optimistic that it can be sold anywhere with the right amount of advertising dollars.

I'm all for giving markets a chance, but at what point do you need to give up and admit it's just not going to work? How many dollars in advertising do you need to throw at certain areas before it becomes apparent that it's not working? Sports are very heavily engrained into cultures, hockey in Canada, Baseball/NFL in America, soccer in Brazil and England (and pretty much the rest of the world), cricket in India and Pakistan.... I think that counts for a lot, and I don't think you can just expect advertisments and fancy TV angles to sell a sport. Chances are it'll become popular for a bit, but once that wears off, if it has no cultural roots, it's not gonna stick. The NHL was quite popular in the early 90's, and now we're constantly reminded that the westminster dog show gets better ratings in the US.

Does hockey have the ability to become ingrained in a culture that's not familiar with it? Does any sport? I don't care how exciting rugby or cricket are, i doubt i'll ever care about it, it's just not something i'm familiar with. I might grow to follow football a little more closely, but that's not saying much considering how closely I follow it now. There's no way I'll ever remotely "care" about it.

The sports market is pretty crowded already, some would say over saturated, and I'm not sure I can see hockey making inroads in some areas at the expense of baseball, football, basketball, and NASCAR.

 

[Sotnos]

Does hockey have the ability to become ingrained in a culture that's not familiar with it?

Look at NASCAR. You think that stuff was all over TV (and everything else at this point) 20+ years ago? Some people don't seem to realize this, but it was largely a regional interest until recently.

Again, some of you people act like hockey is this foreign concept in the U.S. and we're never exposed to it, and if we were we'd have NO CLUE what in hell it is, and it would take some major cultural shift to appreciate it. It's been on TV for years now, and as those of us who've gotten friends into the sport know, all it takes is a few viewings for a person to get hooked. How could we possibly not be at least "familiar" with it. Give it a rest, please.