I feel like people on all sides of the argument really missed the point
@Fatass was making several points ago when he made the soccer/hockey comparison (which I extended to a hockey/gridiron football comparison)...
How many people are
PLAYING the sport is an overrated metric when discussing the business proposition of franchise location. Now, don't get it twisted. When I say "overrated," I certainly don't mean "irrelevant." But it's a flawed premise to argue "when we have as many youth rinks as <insert name of "traditional" market>, then more people in <insert name of non-traditional city> will be playing hockey and
THEN you'll see! Our franchises will be worth ten bazillion dollars!" But by the same token, it's equally absurd to argue "more people play the sport in Sidney Crosby's hometown than in Houston, so let's put a NHL team in Cole Harbour!"
Sticking with Nova Scotia for another analogy: Go to the
Football Nova Scotia Associations page and note 1-- how few teams there are, 2--- how geographically concentrated they are for the most part, 3--- how "professional" this page looks and consider that 4--- these kids are playing
Canadian gridiron football.
Does this mean that if the NFL held an exhibition game between the Chiefs and the 49ers in downtown Halifax that there wouldn't be lines and lines of cars around the block? Of course not. Does this mean that the NFL in Halifax is a workable business proposition? Also of course not. But my point being: the fan interest in the NFL, the most famous sports league in North America, only holds its partial value in how many people are actually playing in any given city or town. Based on the "no fair, we don't have a lot of rinks yet!" argument, a Chiefs-49ers game in Halifax, NS would only get 3K people and we'd chalk to up to "well, we don't have a lot of football fields up here...."
Now, the NHL has worked real hard to spread its geographic imprint across the *entire* continental United States. Where the *REAL* interesting debate to me is this: ostensibly, adding teams in non-traditional markets is supposed to increase the media value of the league writ large and thus all of its franchises.......which begs the question of if the NHL has done an adequate job in the last quarter-century of promoting those newer franchises on the level of the Original Six (seemingly the permanent "keepers" of Wednesdays on NBC Sports back in the day....).
Because if the idea is "we need the NHL in Phoenix because that city is growing and ESPN wants those viewers!," the question then becomes "Is it really all that necessary to have a NHL team there right now to get the number of viewers we've been getting?" And if the answer to *that* question is "no," then is it because that is just the ceiling for TV viewers there or is there something else that needs to be done to enhance the value that the Phoenixs, the Nashvilles, the Carolinas, etc. bring the overall media proposition?
With regards to Canada, you're mostly right but not completely. People have talked about GTA 2 given the population size. Yes it would cannibalize a small percentage of the TML base but not entirely and certainly not the corporate elements.
Yes, they will be making more in all of those cities in 10 years compared to a lot of cities like St. Louis, Carolina, Tampa, Florida, Nashville, LA, Anaheim, San Jose, Columbus, and a few others.
With regards to Quebec, it 100% would tap in to an underserviced market as people are far underestimating the reach the Habs have in that city and around the region. What a Quebec City team offers is one that is going to be middle of the pack revenue wise and have some good years and some average years.
This sort of encapsulates why arguments for GTA2 or Quebec City tend to be protectionist in nature (and I don't just mean culturally although that is often true) in the sense of "a lot of people in these areas watch hockey but they're not gonna keep doing so if we don't have these teams." Whereas a Houston, etc. is more of a "there are people here that *AREN'T* watching hockey that we figure will given a team and enough time."
Re: GTA2, the argument has often been "instantly a team in that area would be worth more than at least 75% of the league, even accounting for currency exchange." Hell, in the late 2000s, the *
NHL itself* made that argument in court. But in 2024, I think the argument might be: "It used to be 'guaranteed top six,' but now it's probably 'guaranteed top twelve' and if we let it go at this rate, we're surrendering a strong portion of our #1 market to other sports interests." Because remember: MLSE likes the idea that the runoff audience for the Leafs/Marlies doesn't run to another hockey team but to their *OTHER* sporting interests (Raptors, FC, etc.). But that doesn't do anything for the NHL.
Quebec City is a much tougher argument. And as I've already stated in this thread & others, I think the talking points for Q.C. as a market really don't register with businesspeople, for better or worse. The best argument I can make is that for future Canadian media contracts (even saying "TV contracts" sounds like outmoded speak) maybe it's good to have four Centre/Eastern Canadian teams and four Centre/Western teams for two separate lucrative contracts?
We are veering way off topic here, but I'd bet you any amount of money in the world that the average American spends far less time thinking about Canada than the average Canadian spends thinking about the United States.
You could replace "Canada" with just about any country in the world and this sentence is still true. We just happen to be next door and majority anglophone, which is something none of the other countries can say, which amplifies the 'why this is a contrast but it
is a contrast' of it all.
There might be a built-in tendency for Americans to crack jokes about Canada if and when topical, but beyond that outside of hockey and occasionally when the Raptors or Jays are good, the average American spends maybe seconds a year thinking about Canada. There certainly isn't a built-in animosity outside of fandom annoyances.
This is something several Americans on this board often don't understand. There is a base level condescension when many (not all, but
MANY) Americans talk about Canada. It's completely unintended and honestly usually really benign. But nevertheless it comes across and taken over a long period of time can
REALLY grate. So if you encounter a defensive Canadian on HFBoards, they're probably carrying years and years of annoyance at that.
It really is hard to "get it" unless you're Canadian (and especially a Canadian that has lived half of his life in the States like some of us have). So much so that I have friends that will often just say something like "Canada, eh?" as if..........that's the joke, or something. And I'm like: "What's the joke? That we're a nation that exists?" That's something I've honest-to-goodness seen friends of mine do multiple times and I just stand there and shake my head...
Which, to bring it back around to this thread, is what makes "Canadian traditionalist vs. non-traditionalist" arguments surrounding hockey so fascinating. Whatever the things both sides disagree on, there's a general consensus that it's the Canadian traditionalists that are acting like "gatekeepers" (it's just an argument over whether the gatekeeping is justified or not). You really don't see that dynamic very often re: Canada-the U.S.
It reminds me of watching the USA play in the World Cup in a bar with a very non-jingoistic agnostic-to-nation-pride American friend of mine (
this game, if memory serves). It was fascinating to watch him suddenly become VERY jingoistic and chant "U-S-A!" at the top of his lungs when they scored a big goal. I pointed out the contradiction from his normal personality and told him that it must just be the fervor of the bar, etc. He agreed that played a part but added (paraphrasing a bit here) "yeah but I also just think it's
adorable where we're the underdog of anything!" (soccer writ large moreso than that specific game). That's kind of how non-traditionalists see themselves in the hockey world: As the 'underdogs' not so much in terms of on-the-ice but off-the-ice success. And it's rare for Americans to take that pose, and I imagine probably a little refreshing.
Add the inherent jingoistic tensions between predominately-francophone-Quebec-City and the rest of Canada and the north-south of the United States and there are extra layers of irony there, but this post is a million words long already!
www.nhl.com
