The Expansion Debate

[StevenintheATL]

Makes little sense to expand to a Portland/ Houston, etc. if Florida, Atlanta, etc. are only drawing 11 or 12K to a game. Make sure your markets are all healthy first.

Not sure about Florida, but the Thrashers tend to draw better for Friday and Saturday night games than for games on other nights (unless it's an Original Six team). There have been nights where both the Thrashers and the Gladiators have had home games on a Friday night and both have nearly capacity crowds. So we're talking around 29,000 combined attendance.

 

[Hasbro]

I know the Saints are in New Orleans, I was only speculating. Last season the Saints owner was talking about selling/moving the team to a new stadium and he mentioned S.A. and Albequerque. This season the NFL has finally struck a deal with L.A. to renovate the Colesium or build a new stadium for an NFL team and hopes to be there by 2009 or 2010, but said they have no expansion plans. I simply am putting 1 and 1 together.

Hijack: No way the Saints move to Albacrazy. It has alot of the problems he wants to leave in New Orleans: low overall income, high crome, smallish population. Practicaly impervious to hurricanes though.

 

[fourzip]

Expansion

The game is watered down enough through expansion otherwise we wouldn't have needed all thse rule changes. Instead the league would be better off using those cities for relocation purposes,

 

[David Puddy]

The game is watered down enough through expansion otherwise we wouldn't have needed all thse rule changes. Instead the league would be better off using those cities for relocation purposes,

That's not true. The league is not watered down. The Eastern European players didn't start coming to the NHL until the 1989-90 sesaon.

A large amount of skilled, well trained hockey players cause a reduction in scoring.

During the "Original Six" era, the NHL was almost entirely stocked with Canadians. It was still mostly Canadians entering the 1970's. By the end of that decade, more U.S. and Western European players were playing in the NHL.

By the 2002-03 season, Canada was only producing about 53% of the players in the NHL. This wasn't because the Great White North lost its love of the game, or because the players were not as good as they once were. This change came about because of an increse skilled players from Europe and the United States.

 

[BMOK33]

Which cities will be the next expansion cities in the NHL? I honestly believe that the NHL will expand again. In fact, I did a little research on population and demographics, as well as potential for growth and rivalry potential. I ended up with a list of ten cities that would make good expansion candidates.

Winnipeg
Quebec City
Houston
Portland
Kansas City
Hartford
Salt Lake City
Oklahoma City
Seattle
Halifax

Most of these cities won't get franchises anytime soon, but here's the debate: which two cities will get the first expansion franchises? Please make a description about why the two cities will be good places to expand into. For all you Winnipeg fans (and other "robbed" fans that may apply), please explain why your city would be better expansion candidates than the other cities. If you have any other cities you think would make good expansion candidates, tell me (make sure they're reasonable)

Enjoy! Let's start the debate.

Portland, Seattle, and Salt Lake are places that should have gotten teams and not Atlanta, Nashville and so on but the league has this delusion that everyone in the Pacific Northwest is already a Sharks or Canucks fan. And Salt Lake's population is too low from what I hear. Oklahoma City nearly got the Blue Jackets 6 years ago and are making a strong case for a professional sports team now with their very good attendance for Hornets games and their CHL hockey team draws extremely well but Dallas is nearby, they also have a 20,000 seat arena already. Houston forget it, you might as well put a team in Mexico City.

 

[jacketracket*]

Oklahoma City nearly got the Blue Jackets 6 years ago and are making a strong case for a professional sports team now with their very good attendance for Hornets games and their CHL hockey team draws extremely well but Dallas is nearby, they also have a 20,000 seat arena already. Houston forget it, you might as well put a team in Mexico City.

Probably should be pointed out, for accuracy's sake, that OK City was one of 4 finalists for the 2 expansion franchises that became the Wild and the CBJ. Houston was the other, as I recall.

Your post reads as if the CBJ nearly moved to OK City.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

As an FYI since people here are favoring locations where hockey won't have as much competition in the local market, the Florida Marlins baseball executives have been visiting potential new homes in both San Antonio and Portland in recent weeks. They'd like to stay in Miami but without a new retractable roof stadium, it won't happen. The Marlins also previously looked at Vegas when they were being discussed as a potential team for contraction (the year before they won the World Series).

I'm of the belief that Oklahoma City and Kansas City would be at the top of the list for expansion along with Houston. That said, I wouldn't rule out Vegas altogether as a potential expansion target. The surrounding areas are growing significantly from what I hear and wouldn't be geographically far from several current teams (LA, Anaheim, Phoenix, SJ, etc).

 

[Little Wing]

i think it will be really hard for the state of Nevada to land a proffesional sports franchise. Mainly due the fact that gambling is rampant in that state, current franchise owners in each respective sport would raise many objections.

Salt Lake City is a smaller market, supporting the Jazz is alot for them alone, can't see them landing an NHL or MLB franchise. Same goes for Oklahoma City.
As far as Houston and Portland go, those two markets are ripe for any expansion. Houston just needs the NHL to secure all 4 major sporting venues, Portland probably has a shot at MLB club if they can come up with the funding for a new park.

 

[Nich]

Winnipeg
Quebec City

 

[AdmiralPred]

Hijack: No way the Saints move to Albacrazy. It has alot of the problems he wants to leave in New Orleans: low overall income, high crome, smallish population. Practicaly impervious to hurricanes though.

That was the word on the street, I couldn't even come up with that myself. I think that big brother NFL would have a say in putting the ki-bosh on that idea anyway, regardless of what an owner would want to do. The NFL > all.

Done with the NFL & New Orleans talk. And now back to your regularly scheduled expansion/relocation debate.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Winnipeg
Quebec City

Besides that fact that Winnipeg makes no sense (and Quebec only slightly) economically (small market, no suitable arena, no corporate market, etc.), as long as Bettman is around it is not going to happen. His goal is the US. The Canadian market does nothing for his vision of the NHL.

Here is what Bettman had to say on 22 September 2004 on the CBC Insider with Peter Mansbridge:

Jeff Eyamie: Well, no, I don't buy it. They've created a bubbled economy that has burst and now they're going back to the players with empty pockets. My follow-up question is why would you go to Houston or Kansas City rather than Winnipeg?

Gary Bettman: We're not planning on going to Houston or Kansas City. In fact, we're not planning on going anywhere. What we are planning on doing is ensuring that we don't have any more situations like we had in Winnipeg where a franchise finds itself in a situation where it has to move. We are committed to having our franchises healthy and competitive where they're currently located. I am very unhappy that the Jets left Winnipeg, believe me, because I know hockey matters there. And maybe sometime in the future, when all of this is behind us and it's years ahead, there will be an opportunity to go back there. But, believe me, the bubble hasn't burst. Our revenues have tripled in the last decade from about 700 million to 2.1 billion. The problem we're having is that 75 percent of our revenues go to pay the players, and no business, not just ours, can't afford that. Now, it's not about fault. It's just the reality, and we need to fix the reality.

Allow me to translate the Bettmanese (a dialect of lawyer-speak).

When Bettman says... I am very unhappy that the Jets left Winnipeg, believe me, because I know hockey matters there. And maybe sometime in the future, when all of this is behind us and it's years ahead, there will be an opportunity to go back there.

What he reallymeans is:
It was relief to pull that team out of Winnipeg because it did nothing for MY vision of the NHL (the US market must be grown - Canada is saturated) and there is a snowball's chance in hell that we will ever go back there but I will mollify you so you think there could be a chance.

 

[kdb209]

That was the word on the street, I couldn't even come up with that myself. I think that big brother NFL would have a say in putting the ki-bosh on that idea anyway, regardless of what an owner would want to do. The NFL > all.

Done with the NFL & New Orleans talk. And now back to your regularly scheduled expansion/relocation debate.

"The NFL > all" - nope, just ask Al Davis. The league has already lost one anti-trust suit (and paid tens of millions in legal fees) when it tried to block an owner from moving. Anti trust suits (or just the threat of them) has led to a flurry of NFL reloactions since '82 (Al Davis & the Raiders to LA) - many (most) of them opposed by the league.

So, despite the platitudes from Paul Tagliabue, NO Saints fans have good reason to be nervous.

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

How about the NHL never think of expansion and think about contraction thats a much better topic to talk about if they ever expand again i dont think i could watch the NHL its watered down now how would it look like with more teams??? If they do expand and water the league down even more we can compare it to budweiser

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

How about the NHL never think of expansion and think about contraction thats a much better topic to talk about if they ever expand again i dont think i could watch the NHL its watered down now how would it look like with more teams??? If they do expand and water the league down even more we can compare it to budweiser

Instead of contracting teams, why don't we start contracting posters like MR BLUEandWHITE

 

[AdmiralPred]

That was the word on the street, I couldn't even come up with that myself. I think that big brother NFL would have a say in putting the ki-bosh on that idea anyway, regardless of what an owner would want to do. The NFL > all.

"The NFL > all" - nope, just ask Al Davis. The league has already lost one anti-trust suit (and paid tens of millions in legal fees) when it tried to block an owner from moving. Anti trust suits (or just the threat of them) has led to a flurry of NFL reloactions since '82 (Al Davis & the Raiders to LA) - many (most) of them opposed by the league.

So, despite the platitudes from Paul Tagliabue, NO Saints fans have good reason to be nervous.

O.K., I was a bit over-zealous in my generalization, you go tme there. But, can you dance like this?

 

[HansH]

Expansion cities? None. Won't happen.

Relocation cities?

1 - Kansas City
2 - Houston

DISTANT chances:

3 - Portland
4 - OKC
5 - Winnipeg

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

Instead of contracting teams, why don't we start contracting posters like MR BLUEandWHITE

I think we have had this discussing before.....are you blind or something why have these rule changes come to fruition? because of over-expansion when there was 26 teams i never heard one time that there were going to be drastic rule changes like these we had this season. better hockey with less players in the league and dumb rule changes would not happen. why are you so against contraction??? also tell me im wrong on the contraction issue would hockey not be better???



Contraction is the way to go.

 

[jamiebez]

Contraction is the way to go.

I think there's at least a chance of expanding by another 2 teams in the next 10 years, where there is 0 zero chance of a franchise contracting, probably ever. There are too many markets that want teams for this to ever be a viable option, besides the inevitable problems with the owner(s) being contracted and the union.

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

I have solved the problem then Fu** the markets that want teams they aint getting them and contract 4 teams before any of that happens the players should get rid of the union...i hate unions i will never work for one again

 

[StevenintheATL]

i think it will be really hard for the state of Nevada to land a proffesional sports franchise. Mainly due the fact that gambling is rampant in that state, current franchise owners in each respective sport would raise many objections.

I think the NBA will be the league to test the waters in Las Vegas. Putting the 2007 NBA All-Star Game in Vegas is probably the prelude to a team ending up there. Which team it will be is fodder for the Other Sports Forum.

The big four leagues are waiting for one of them to jump in before they decide to do so. I'd say that within 10 years, Las Vegas will have an NBA and probably an MLB team. I doubt the NHL would ever put a team in Las Vegas. The NBA would probably do very well in Las Vegas.

"The NFL > all" - nope, just ask Al Davis. The league has already lost one anti-trust suit (and paid tens of millions in legal fees) when it tried to block an owner from moving. Anti trust suits (or just the threat of them) has led to a flurry of NFL reloactions since '82 (Al Davis & the Raiders to LA) - many (most) of them opposed by the league.

So, despite the platitudes from Paul Tagliabue, NO Saints fans have good reason to be nervous.

You can't forget about the one the USFL won (Al Davis testified on behalf of the USFL). Was awarded the whopping sum of $3.

 

[Gnashville]

When Bettman says... I am very unhappy that the Jets left Winnipeg, believe me, because I know hockey matters there. And maybe sometime in the future, when all of this is behind us and it's years ahead, there will be an opportunity to go back there.

What he reallymeans is:
It was relief to pull that team out of Winnipeg because it did nothing for MY vision of the NHL (the US market must be grown - Canada is saturated) and there is a snowball's chance in hell that we will ever go back there but I will mollify you so you think there could be a chance.

So you can read minds. Jets left Winnipeg because they had no choice. City refused to build an arena. Had one of the lowest payrolls, selling out almost every night, and still losing millions. Blame Winnipeg not Bettman.

 

[kdb209]

So you can read minds. Jets left Winnipeg because they had no choice. City refused to build an arena. Had one of the lowest payrolls, selling out almost every night, and still losing millions. Blame Winnipeg not Bettman.

Selling out almost every night - nope.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_pho_attendance.html

Winnipeg Jets 1979-80 40 527,722 13,193
Winnipeg Jets 1980-81 40 523,975 13,099
Winnipeg Jets 1981-82 40 528,634 13,216
Winnipeg Jets 1982-83 40 511,644 12,791
Winnipeg Jets 1983-84 40 482,167 12,054
Winnipeg Jets 1984-85 40 510,633 12,766
Winnipeg Jets 1985-86 40 547,778 13,694
Winnipeg Jets 1986-87 40 543,703 13,593
Winnipeg Jets 1987-88 40 507,066 12,677
Winnipeg Jets 1988-89 40 512,635 12,816
Winnipeg Jets 1989-90 40 524,016 13,100
Winnipeg Jets 1990-91 40 517,246 12,931
Winnipeg Jets 1991-92 40 519,625 12,991
Winnipeg Jets 1992-93 41 555,809 13,556
Winnipeg Jets 1993-94 41 545,198 13,298
Winnipeg Jets 1994-95 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Winnipeg Jets 1995-96 DATA NOT AVAILABLE

But I do agree - Blame Winnipeg (and the $CDN), but not Bettman.

 

[LadyJet26]

So you can read minds. Jets left Winnipeg because they had no choice. City refused to build an arena. Had one of the lowest payrolls, selling out almost every night, and still losing millions. Blame Winnipeg not Bettman.

Wrong, blame the owner at the time. The citizens of Winnipeg raised almost 50 million dollars to keep the team, owner still moved them.

 

[Wetcoaster]

So you can read minds. Jets left Winnipeg because they had no choice. City refused to build an arena. Had one of the lowest payrolls, selling out almost every night, and still losing millions. Blame Winnipeg not Bettman.

I do not need to read minds. I speak lawyerese fluently.

 

[hockydude5000]

People who believe in contraction can post another thread somewhere else. I made this forum to talk about expansion possibilies. Remember, there was a time when the major leagues threatened to contract the league, it never worked, and in fact, they are expanding again. Good example: the NFL. Before Houston's NFL franchise moved to Tennessee, the NFL threatened contraction of the league back to thirty teams. Guess what happened? Even though Houston's team moved, they got another franchise by, you guessed it, expansion.
Just shows ya, contraction is bad for the league, and in the NHL, would actually reduce future talent pool. See, I believe that one of the reasons why the NHL expanded to different markets was because in the future, more young talent would come from markets like Tampa or Dallas, and new NHL teams would exponentially grow the hockey fan base, and in the future, create new talent from these markets.