A 32 team league.

danishh

Registered User
Dec 9, 2006
33,018
53
YOW
Okay, i'll stick to the merits of 32 teams

- expansion money!
- more tv markets
- bigger US footprint
- growth of hockey
- additional rivalries (seattle = vancouver, houston = dallas, kansas = st. louis, and so on)
- detroit can move to the east (happy illitch = good)
- many, many more realignment possibilities than a 30-team league. Potential to alleviate the concerns of markets like vancouver, dallas, columbus, minny, washington, etc depending on how its done.
- more jobs (NHLPA happy)



moreorr said:
which...one?
 

bacon25

Unenthusiastic User
Nov 29, 2010
3,867
333
Group Study Room F
If you're implying this is a position I put forth, you may wish to review the context of the exchange. Even in stereotyping, it would be hard to find that dislike between Americans and Canadians as a general rule actually exists. That would rule out "stereotyping".

If I was implying that you put forth this position I would have quoted you. I was merely making a statment that I have tried to install in many people throughout my life. I have lived in both the US and Canada and have noticed the constant argument that American/Canadians don't like each other. It comes up a lot during these hockey debates where Canadians feel jilted for not having more teams and Americans feel like they deserve more teams due to their population and wealth.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,871
Sin City
The fact that we're stuck with a crappy national anthem?

It's been acknowledged as one of the "hardest" (musically) national anthems to sing.


WRT maps of division alignment above... I cannot see Toronto being pulled out from division with Ottawa and Montreal.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
In 1967 Canadian teams made up just 16% of the league, so it would seem we've been improving for over 40 years. And in case you didn't know - the reason Vancouver didn't make that first round of expansion was because the two existing CANADIAN teams kept them out - they didn't want to share TV revenue.

Not to mention the fact that Punch Imlach owned part of the WHL Canucks & had been stacking players in Vancouver, Tulsa & elsewhere who were bona-fide NHL players on the Leafs dime; when Ballard discovered what old Punch was up to, he not only squelched Vancouvers application & got Montreal to agree, he fired Imlach & chased his butt clear down Church Street in an alcohol fueled rage. True story. :laugh:
 

leoleo3535

Registered User
Feb 25, 2010
2,135
2
hockey rinks
Okay, i'll stick to the merits of 32 teams

- expansion money! does not benefit the game only wealthy owners
- more tv markets those tv markets already exist
- bigger US footprint a good thing in a hockey market....a non issue in non markets
- growth of hockey
- additional rivalries (seattle = vancouver, houston = dallas, kansas = st. louis, and so on) history builds rivalries more than close mileage
- detroit can move to the east (happy illitch = good)
- many, many more realignment possibilities than a 30-team league. Potential to alleviate the concerns of markets like vancouver, dallas, columbus, minny, washington, etc depending on how its done. realignment? so on one hand you are pushing rivalries and now you want to lessen ones that already exist
- more jobs (NHLPA happy)yes most would be




which...one?

The game is already watered down.....talent wise.
The number of teams does not promote rivalries.
Bettman can rattle off tons of dribble re attendance, tv numbers etc.......but numerous teams are for sale, as we know 1 team cannot even be given away, tickets are almost free in many markets, numerous venues have thousands of empty seats.
To add teams for the sake of adding teams is a non starter.......how many more struggling franchises do you want to see?
 

Seanconn*

Guest
Oh boy.....This thread's going to be interesting.....

Care to explain exactly HOW Austin, San Antonio, Sacramento, Portland and Seattle are all better hockey markets than Atlanta.....

Can you ALSO explain why teams need to be moved, but the league is also healthy enough for expansion into two new non-Canadian cities?


okay maybe I went a bit far saying they were ALL better.


Austin first off does not have ONE single major league sports team... but is the capital of Texas, and with a meto population of 2 million. How a NHL team wouldn't succeed there is completely beyond me. Texas is one of the fastest growing states is it not?

plus Austin is centrally located, (being the capital) and would draw in people from all over Texas, at least in theory.

San Antonio... has an AHL already, and only has an NBA team... could probably support a hockey team too. obviously only works if it's the only other texas team. and it is also at least somwhat centrally located. Houston would probably make more sense than San Antonio though.

Sacramento... probably the weakest of the cities I listed, but it supports an NBA team, and Hockey seems to be more popular in California than most other states not in the northern US.

Portland and Seattle just seem like a perfect fit for the NHL, the two biggest cities in the American Pacific Northwest. where there are no teams at all, closest options are San Jose and Vancouver, both pretty far away, except Seattle and Vancouver... but crossing borders is a hassle. therefore I'd probably go with Portland, let a lone the fact they have an NBA already, and therefore, have a arena that is basically move in ready.

I'm not an american, but I think it's probably fair to say there are more people who are hockey fans/ actually play hockey in the Pacific Northwest, then there are in the Dixie states.



Maybe Atlanta can survive, but I really think the Western US is lacking in teams, and the East has enough... considering how many teams that are in the Western conference, that would be classified as EAST in terms of geography. Personally I think it's incredibly stupid that Detroit, Columbus, and Nashville are all in the Western Conference. If Bettman had focussed on expanding to the pacific northwest, and another team in Texas, the geography of the Conferences would make tons more sense right now.


maybe 34 or 36 teams would work better like other members posted before, but I think expansion to 32 is very doable in the next 5 years. The Coyotes have to be moved... there's no real good argument why they should stay... Arizona is in dire economic times right now, and it just makes no sense to keep that team in an utterly stagnant market (no offence to Arizonan's what so ever... you guy's don't control the banks)

Atlanta just doesn't seem to care very much about having an NHL... so if you sent them to a city like Quebec, Portland, Austin, or Houston, it would probably be better than the situation in Atlanta.

Austin makes the most sense to me... they are ripe for a major league sports team, and an NHL team is the cheapest option... and it keeps a team in the southern USA.

Still, I think Portland, Seattle, Houston, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Southern Ontario, Hartford, and Milwaukee all make great markets for the NHL, and should be considered for future expansion.


finally, does expansion not lower the costs for all other teams a bit? since the talent would have to be spread around a bit, in theory should the salary cap not go down a little bit every time you add a team? and it's not as if we'd be adding 2 next season... it would be 1... then another 1 the next, or next next season.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

leoleo3535

Registered User
Feb 25, 2010
2,135
2
hockey rinks
Re Austin and its 2 million population...... the population that matters is the size of its hockey fan base not its citizens....look at PHX and ATL for examples of this

Re Sacramento....there is a need / market for 2 teams within 90 miles in northern Cal ?

Mark Cuban has an opinion on expansion in pro sports -
"I would always vote against expansion because expansion's the worst economic move a league can make."
"Expansion is nothing more than a loan because whatever (a new owner would) give you (in expansion fees), you pay them back in equity ownership of the league and share of the TV money. So it's like saying, 'Hey, buy my house for $300 million and I'll pay you back $26 million a year out of the TV money for buying my house."
 

Major4Boarding

Unfamiliar Moderator
Jan 30, 2009
5,360
2,276
South of Heaven
The thought of a 32 team League crosses my mind quite often. However, one minute I can see it happening and prospering, the next... not so much because of the situations like we have in Glendale, Sunrise, and Atlanta. Why Tampa Bay is still being brought up astounds me, but anyway. With all these circimstances of late, the one thing Bettman better have learned from all this is... he needs to be better tuned in on what is happening underneath the roof of the franchises.

One would think that via expansion that the windfalls from expansion fees would be a propostion the League would not, or could not, ignore. Yet, is there a primary reason why it hasn't happened? Is it because the "expansion" markets marked on the map with an "X" on both sides of the border aren't ready? Arena? Market interest? I will say this. When I do have my "32 Team League" hat on, I think the next 2 teams should land in Canada. Also, I think if there's 2 teams that need to be uprooted they too should be relocated to Canada if keeping the number at 30.

Also, I'm not buying into the thoughts shared by some here that the talent is already "watered down" or "diluted". Frankly, some thoughts I've read here from certain posters I had to do a head shake after reading, given their profession(s).

I'm not sure if this had come to mind in pondering why there's less talent to pull from, but would the lack of transfer agreements in a majority of the countries where talent can be scouted/pulled from outside north America put a slight damper on things? Is there not enough organized Leagues now in North America and abroad to develop top grade talent? Just not understanding the reason or immediate cut-off that there's not enough talent.
 

leoleo3535

Registered User
Feb 25, 2010
2,135
2
hockey rinks
The thought of a 32 team League crosses my mind quite often. However, one minute I can see it happening and prospering, the next... not so much because of the situations like we have in Glendale, Sunrise, and Atlanta. Why Tampa Bay is still being brought up astounds me, but anyway. With all these circimstances of late, the one thing Bettman better have learned from all this is... he needs to be better tuned in on what is happening underneath the roof of the franchises.

One would think that via expansion that the windfalls from expansion fees would be a propostion the League would not, or could not, ignore. Yet, is there a primary reason why it hasn't happened? Is it because the "expansion" markets marked on the map with an "X" on both sides of the border aren't ready? Arena? Market interest? I will say this. When I do have my "32 Team League" hat on, I think the next 2 teams should land in Canada. Also, I think if there's 2 teams that need to be uprooted they too should be relocated to Canada if keeping the number at 30.

Also, I'm not buying into the thoughts shared by some here that the talent is already "watered down" or "diluted". Frankly, some thoughts I've read here from certain posters I had to do a head shake after reading, given their profession(s).

I'm not sure if this had come to mind in pondering why there's less talent to pull from, but would the lack of transfer agreements in a majority of the countries where talent can be scouted/pulled from outside north America put a slight damper on things? Is there not enough organized Leagues now in North America and abroad to develop top grade talent? Just not understanding the reason or immediate cut-off that there's not enough talent.

I am on the players side vs the owners but having said this:
- There are already alot of players in the league that should be in the AHL....the only reason they are in the big show is that there are too many teams
- Adding teams....2 / 4 whatever will likely result in bringing up 50-100 players that should be in the minors............and a trickel down effect as 50 to 100 guys that shouldn't be in the A will fill in there

Great for the players......not so great for fans of hockey.
 

Duke749

Savannah Ghost Pirates
Apr 6, 2010
47,782
22,672
Canton, Georgia
I am on the players side vs the owners but having said this:
- There are already alot of players in the league that should be in the AHL....the only reason they are in the big show is that there are too many teams
- Adding teams....2 / 4 whatever will likely result in bringing up 50-100 players that should be in the minors............and a trickel down effect as 50 to 100 guys that shouldn't be in the A will fill in there

Great for the players......not so great for fans of hockey.

Ever heard of injuries???
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Just not understanding the reason or immediate cut-off that there's not enough talent.

True, however, the talent at the GM levels' fairly weak, the same old same olds being constantly recycled. The Coaching ranks still suffer from it, though it does seem to be opening up a bit. Another problem is the Transfer Agreements; all of which need to be re-worked, The CBA needs a substantive tweaking; do you keep Revenue Sharing or just go to a Relegation System?. Amalgamate & absorb the AHL & ECHL under one umbrella with the NHL?. If you truly wanted a "Premier" North American Division, heres what I think you'd wind up with;

LA
San Jose'
Portland
Vancouver
Toronto
Montreal
Boston
Philly
NYR
Detroit
Chicago
Atlanta

and out of that lot, teams like LA, Atlanta, Vancouver, San Jose', Detroit, Boston & Portland (depending on who owns it) could well find themselves shuffling back & forth from year to year from Division 1 to 2, replaced by Columbus, Phoenix or whomever else is making gains in the market & on the ice. A total disaster just waiting to happen should an LA or Atlanta find themselves saddled with incompetent management, but hey, thems the breaks.

Just sayin. Have at er' Boys & Girls... :naughty:
 

Fugu

Guest
If I was implying that you put forth this position I would have quoted you.

Well, once I get to know you I can figure out that you're not one of the passive aggressive types. ;)


I was merely making a statment that I have tried to install in many people throughout my life. I have lived in both the US and Canada and have noticed the constant argument that American/Canadians don't like each other. It comes up a lot during these hockey debates where Canadians feel jilted for not having more teams and Americans feel like they deserve more teams due to their population and wealth.

I have not had a similar experience. I have never encountered US-Canada friction outside these boards.
 

Caithness

Registered User
Mar 8, 2011
4
0
Portland would make a great NHL city. They only have one other major league franchise and could very easily support another.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
I think the NHL needs to add 2 teams on the West Coast. One in Portland, one in Seattle.

Seattle and Portland, Oregon have been ad inifniteum discussed numerous times HERE----neither has a suitable arena nor economic support to build said arena.... it's one of the reasons why Sacramento is having issues w/ ARCO/PBP BEING OUTDATED....

It's what cost Seattle its pro basketball franchise now in OKC....

as for Austin, etc.... how do you propose franchises not own or operate their affiliates such as Texas is to Dallas, Milwaukee to Nashville.....

Houston is majority owned is it not by Minnesota.........

Winnipeg has the Moose now but what happens if TNSE bites but doesn't acquire a franchise in which it will likely cost them their current franchise.....

Quebec: see Sacramento, Portland, Seattle, no arena, and even if an arena is built, is there enough of a fanbase that can support two franchises in the same city when the affiliate isn't Montreal but the fanbase supports a junior franchise as Quebec does w/ its Remparts and as Atlantic Canada has shown since the mid 90s beginning w/ Halifax.... same goes for Hartford, despite Baldwin's gimmickry w/ the Rangers AHL rebranding, you likely would've seen a Seattle (and did) scenario there although it took a year to build RBC

Southern Ontario hits both MLSE, Ottawa and Buffalo depending on how you slice that.

TOO MUCH VOLATITY has cost us, leagues, and even in some cases, teams, either running into trouble that the leagues have to step in to keep them afloat or as Fresno & Augusta showed a few years ago, were gone mid-season putting doubt into the credibility of the ECHL
 

Buck Aki Berg

Done with this place
Sep 17, 2008
17,325
8
Ottawa, ON
Sure. Heres your choice Mr. Ballard; Ron Joyce & Hamilton who refuses to cough up $50M and wants to lowball us at $30M or Captain Canada Phil Esposito, his friends & yours, the Japanese Yakuza at full pop in Tampa?. Additionally, if we let those WHA Sonfsof... in QC & Wpg burnout, you'll get a bigger slice of those government funds from the CBC. Is that what yer thinkin Haymaker?.... I could go up & down the list if you'd like, but I really have no wish to dignify such idiocy with replys....

You're making up full conversations between people you've never been within twelve feet of, but it's my post that's idiocy? Come on.

It doesn't matter what the options were - there could have been only one expansion bid from Ralph Wiggum offering three crayons for a NHL franchise in Springfield. The owners could have voted no. Tampa didn't get a team because it was the least of the evils, they got one because they submitted a cogent bid that fulfilled the criteria.

Also, bear in mind that Ottawa balked at the expansion fee, but was awarded a team as well. Maybe the BOG thought they meant Ottawa, Kansas.

I'm also curious to know how the other Canadian teams let Winnipeg and Quebec City "burn out" (it's well-known the Montreal voted against relocation to Denver). What were they supposed to do, go splitsies on a new arena?
 
Nov 13, 2006
11,520
1,400
Ohio
Seattle and Vancouver 120 miles or a 2 1/2 hour drive (not including border line ups) apart. Montreal and Ottawa are closer and don't have a international border between them (unless you're a sovereigntist :sarcasm: )


Remember, it's 100 miles City limit to City limit as the crow flies. I believe they are too close together.

As far as Ottawa goes, isn't the international border just outside of town in Gatineau?
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Well, once I get to know you I can figure out that you're not one of the passive aggressive types.

Here we go with that old saw; those annoying passive-aggressive Canadians eh?. :madfire:.

Portland would make a great NHL city. They only have one other major league franchise and could very easily support another.

Yes, it certainly would. One of the highest per capita household income averages in the States, plenty of hockey history & support for the WinterHawks, minor pro teams going back decades. A natural bridge between San Jose' & Vancouver. If only...... :)
 

Major4Boarding

Unfamiliar Moderator
Jan 30, 2009
5,360
2,276
South of Heaven
True, however, the talent at the GM levels' fairly weak, the same old same olds being constantly recycled. The Coaching ranks still suffer from it, though it does seem to be opening up a bit.

Yep. Failed to add that layer of detail. Thanks for the assist.

Or, wait... because you're Canadian and I'm an American residing in Florida, aren't we supposed to disagree and be at war or something? ;)
 
Nov 13, 2006
11,520
1,400
Ohio
Actually some of us don't subscribe to that view. Initially there is a diluting effect. The story goes that NHL level openings breed NHL-level talent.

I'm not convinced because the last expansion did drive teams to forage for talent in "new" areas--- Europe and the NCAA. North America is completely scouted and scoured. It's rare that hidden gems can be found in Russia or other countries today, unlike the 90's, imo. When you factor in that countries like the Czech Republic and Russia are providing a fraction of the talent we saw in the 90's.... the question needs to be asked. Where will all the extra talent come from for even more teams?




Yes, it is. :)

There has to be dilution. If there was only one team, it would be the All Star team wouldn't it?

I'm comfortable with marginal dilution because I'm after entertainment not purity. Purity would be a league of 6-10 teams.
 

Seanconn*

Guest
Austin is right in the heart of texas though, if Bettman wants to grow game so much, it might really change the perception of hockey, especially if they are called the texas bandits or something a lot better :D

Seattle and Portland just seem like no brainers though.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
You're making up full conversations between people you've never been within twelve feet of, but it's my post that's idiocy? Come on.Tampa didn't get a team because it was the least of the evils, they got one because they submitted a cogent bid that fulfilled the criteria.

Of course I made up the conversation, to make a point that you obviously got, and how would you know who I may or may not have come within twelve feet of?. Tampa got its franchise ONLY because Phil Esposito didnt quibble over the 50Mil, and why would he have?, it wasnt his dough. Thats Phil all over. Always someone elses turn to pick up the tab. :naughty:

Or, wait... because you're Canadian and I'm an American residing in Florida, aren't we supposed to disagree and be at war or something? ;)

Well, if your in Florida, then Im quite certainj you've learned how to deal with us annoyingly passive-aggressive Canadians by now. Its quite likely every second neighbour youve got down there is from Trenton, Red Deer, Carelton Place, Timmins, Barrie...... Taking forever to make their minds up in the bread section of the local Safeway, whether to pay by cash or debit, the usual. :laugh:
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->