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.