A 32 team league.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

There are currently a dozen teams - more than a third of the league - that have gone 5 or more seasons without winning a playoff round.

I fail to see how adding even more teams to that bucket is going to make the league better.

I think expansion is pretty pointless unless you can show us a market that could be financially successful and spend to the cap in the long term. The last expansions resulted in the Predators, Thrashers, Blue Jackets and Wild. Three of those teams have been talked about for relocation and the remaining one is a middling franchise of so far little consequence. Not exactly something that points at expansion being desirable in the near future.

It would appear that any need for further market inclusion could be served by relocation rather than expansion.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

You bolded my response to your post. But I'll repeat it for you again:

"it would be very short-sighted to simply put teams in cities that are essentially already hockey markets."

I didn't say that teams shouldn't be put in cities that are essentially already hockey markets, I said that it would be short-sighted only/simply to put teams is those types of markets.

But sometimes, if the already established market is quite small, then there really isn't a whole lot to be gained by putting a team there. Whereas if the non-established market is particularly large then there is possibility of significant growth potential. I would say that that's the logic that the League has employed, that and the idea of simply trying to broaden the geographical range of the NHL. The problem for the most part seems to be that they put some of those new franchises in the hands of people who did a very poor job of managing the growth potential in those cities. And because of that, in some cases we may never know if the growth potential was fully tapped or not.

One point -- Don't you need to take care of all the actual hockey markets first and foremost? So you have a bedrock core of solid teams before you start messing around with untested markets? If that's the case -- and I believe this to be a pretty solid argument as the NHL right now would be a basket case without its core of big-money teams like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, NYR, and Philly -- then you can make a real case that the league needs to be in places like Winnipeg and Quebec City.

Personally, I think all of this "grow the game" stuff is what has gotten the NHL into big trouble. Why should it be the NHL's role to grow the game of hockey in the US? And why should fans in places like Toronto have to subsidize these efforts? Where's the benefit to us, other than unwatchable games featuring the Leafs against Tampa, Florida, Columbus, etc.?

Also, I sure don't see the other major sports doing this sort of outreach. MLB and the NFL will stage games in foreign markets, like the NHL with its Euro season openers. But you don't see either league actually putting teams in new markets. You sure won't see MLB putting a team in Vancouver just to "grow the game" for instance.

 

[jessebelanger]

Personally, I think all of this "grow the game" stuff is what has gotten the NHL into big trouble. Why should it be the NHL's role to grow the game of hockey in the US? And why should fans in places like Toronto have to subsidize these efforts? Where's the benefit to us, other than unwatchable games featuring the Leafs against Tampa, Florida, Columbus, etc.?

A couple of issues here. A) the suggestion that the NHL is in "big trouble" - how are you defining big trouble? Attendance league wide is high, revenue league wide is record high, no franchises have moved or contracted in over a decade. The CBA, though having perhaps a few holes, is probably one of the better ones that the NHL has ever had. Where is the "big trouble" here - ? A couple of franchises are perhaps unstable, but I'm not sure that that is really outside of the norm of professional sport leagues.

B) Suggesting that fans in Toronto are "subsidizing" other teams is a major misnomer here toddgill.

edit: as an aside, why are games against those teams unwatchable? I watched the leafs v. tampa bay game last night and it was very entertaining until about 10 minutes left in the 3rd.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Teams most likely to move
Coyotes
Thrashers
Panthers
Blue Jackets

On the Bubble
Islanders
Predetors

Posible NHL. Cities
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Quebec City
Portland
Kansas City
Seattle
Millwaukee
Houston

In my opinion 4 teams will relocate within the next 10 years along with 2 expansion teams .

I'm not sure why people put the Predators or Blue Jackets on lists of teams likely to move. The Blue Jackets are not going anywhere for a number of reasons. The Predators are a franchise on the rise.

I'd be willing to bet it's much more likely there are NHL teams in Columbus and Nashville than Hamilton, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Seattle, Portland or Quebec City in five years.

I think expansion is pretty pointless unless you can show us a market that could be financially successful and spend to the cap in the long term. The last expansions resulted in the Predators, Thrashers, Blue Jackets and Wild. Three of those teams have been talked about for relocation and the remaining one is a middling franchise of so far little consequence. Not exactly something that points at expansion being desirable in the near future.

It would appear that any need for further market inclusion could be served by relocation rather than expansion.

Which three of the four you listed do you believe will re-locate? I'm pretty sure Columbus and Minnesota are going to stay where they are today. I believe Nashville is getting in good shape.

 

[nickschultzfan]

Places that should have teams
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Hamilton
Milwaukee/Waukesha (if go to 32 teams)
Seattle/Portland (if go to 32 teams)

Teams that should move
Phoenix
Atlanta
Miami

Cities that should never have a team
Kansas City

Short Distance Move
Islanders to Brooklyn when NJ Nets move downtown Brooklyn.

 

[JMROWE]

See below...



I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Maybe I should underline it, change it to red, and make it some funky font.

OK fine but I would still keep the Predetors on the bubble for because there stablity is still fragel right now but most likely will not move anytime soon .

 

[JMROWE]

Places that should have teams
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Hamilton
Milwaukee/Waukesha (if go to 32 teams)
Seattle/Portland (if go to 32 teams)

Teams that should move
Phoenix
Atlanta
Miami

Cities that should never have a team
Kansas City

Short Distance Move
Islanders to Brooklyn when NJ Nets move downtown Brooklyn.

I agree with you on most of the things on this list but here is my opinion .

Places That Should Have a Team
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Quebec City
Portland
Seattle
*Kansas City can work but it is a risk I give KC. 50\50 shot

Cities that should never get NHL. teams
Houston
Las Vegas
New Orleans
Oaklahoma City

Teams that should move
Coyotes
Thrashers
Panthers
Blue Jackets

The short distance move for the Islanders to Brooklyn is easier said than done they need to get permission from Nets ownership to play there also they would to resolve territory rights with the Rangers I am not say it can't be done but it won't be easy .

 

[kdb209]

The short distance move for the Islanders to Brooklyn is easier said than done they need to get permission from Nets ownership to play there also they would to resolve territory rights with the Rangers I am not say it can't be done but it won't be easy .

And there may need to be architectural changes needed to the Barclays Center (or whatever it is going to be called now) in order to support an NHL team.

But a rights fee to the Rangers is a non issue - as has been discussed here several times, the territorial rights fee they paid in 1972 allows them to move to Brooklyn or Queens with no addition consent or fees.

 

[Killion]

They weren't previously part of the League, but they were to become part of the League, and you can almost be sure that they used that "growth" argument as part of their selling package to get the League to let them join in.

I see. So you think these ownerships groups made PowerPoint Presentations to Clarence Campbell / John Ziegler & the BOG's?. Sort of like the way countries & cities bid for the Olympics to the IOC?. Slide shows, videos, rock music, tasty nibbles & beverages for all, takeaway gift packs of Maple Syrup or Collard Greens n' Frozen Shrimp depending on location?. No my friend. These deals were made on Tequila soaked Party Barges floating around rudderless on the Sea of Cortez, the Mustang Ranch in Nevada, the....... well, you get the picture.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Places that should have teams
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Hamilton
Milwaukee/Waukesha (if go to 32 teams)
Seattle/Portland (if go to 32 teams)

Teams that should move
Phoenix
Atlanta
Miami

Cities that should never have a team
Kansas City

Short Distance Move
Islanders to Brooklyn when NJ Nets move downtown Brooklyn.

Are the bolded your version of cities that don't "deserve" a team?

I agree with you on most of the things on this list but here is my opinion .

Places That Should Have a Team
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Quebec City
Portland
Seattle
*Kansas City can work but it is a risk I give KC. 50\50 shot

Cities that should never get NHL. teams
Houston
Las Vegas
New Orleans
Oaklahoma City

Teams that should move
Coyotes
Thrashers
Panthers
Blue Jackets

The short distance move for the Islanders to Brooklyn is easier said than done they need to get permission from Nets ownership to play there also they would to resolve territory rights with the Rangers I am not say it can't be done but it won't be easy .

Once again, are the bolded your version of places that don't deserve a team?

 

[Seanconn*]

what better way for Austin to stay weird, then to introduce an NHL team as their first major-professional sports team? you know instead of Baseball or football that are a lot more popular in texas.

the arena is a big obstacle, sure. But I still think hockey just seems like a better fit in Austin than Houston. Austin is a famous "college town", and while students tend to be poor.. they also tend to be sports fans. Still, i can't get over how the capital of texas doesn't have an NBA/NHL ready arena.

I'm Canadian and I'm not even arguing for expansion in Canada all that much. Sure i'd love to see the Coyotes move up here, but I'm starting to realize that Atlanta probably does deserve it's team (and has an absolutely stunning arena), and could get more and more popular over the years.


Still, there are untapped markets in the US that should get teams. Maybe it would have to go to a 34-36 team league before Quebec and Southern Ontario get their teams too... but in the short term, I think expansion to 32 is completely viable, and will actually help the league more than it might hurt it.

 

[MoreOrr]

I see. So you think these ownerships groups made PowerPoint Presentations to Clarence Campbell / John Ziegler & the BOG's?. Sort of like the way countries & cities bid for the Olympics to the IOC?. Slide shows, videos, rock music, tasty nibbles & beverages for all, takeaway gift packs of Maple Syrup or Collard Greens n' Frozen Shrimp depending on location?. No my friend. These deals were made on Tequila soaked Party Barges floating around rudderless on the Sea of Cortez, the Mustang Ranch in Nevada, the....... well, you get the picture.

You like those Mexican jokes, don't you. Yes well, I guess that's just as likely.

 

[codswallop]

I think it's best to wait a bit. Stabalize the ownership situation of the teams having some trouble right now.

We've seen how rock-solid hockey markets can be hurt by unstable/bad ownership. Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh: they weren't drawing nearly what they are today when they each had ownership issues.

I'm not going into the problems of Phoenix and the Isles.
Firstly: I'm not a local and/or don't follow them closely enough to know the deeper reasons behind their troubles. Articles, blogs, message boards are good for basic info; but that is usually slanted and doesn't always get to the heart of the story.
Secondly; the troubles of these two have been beaten to death around here.

I lived in Nashville when they were having their issues, so I heard a lot more at the time. And now that they seem more stable, I don't doubt they will continue to grow in that city. Really don't like the Preds, but there are a ton of fans there for a mid-sized city.

For Atlanta, I've lived it for the life of the franchise. Hard to grow at all when ownership doesn't give a damn about the team, and does little or nothing to market them. They have no footprint in the city, no identity in the local sports culture. It's hard enough to compete for entertainment dollars of three other major sports franchises (as well as the king here; college football), but it's impossible when the owners do nothing to even try to attract fans.

Many say this is a failed experiment. I'll say the experiment hasn't started; that's how epically bad the owners have failed in the last 12 years.
--Make the fans feel like they are wanted/welcome, more will come. It's too entertaining of a live sport, and seemingly half the city comes from somewhere up north.
--Ice a good team every now and then, more will come. Every city has it's bandwagon fans, but Atlanta always seems to have a few more. Harsh, but true. Won't hurt me (or the team) if those people start showing up.

32 teams are doable, just not right now. Give it five years or so. Let these situations stabalize. The talent pool should have increased (not that it's diluted now, but I know that some are stuck on that opinion).

 

[JuniorNelson]

Seattle doesn't have a rink. Thier building cannot accomodate hockey.

Portland has two, but the population is harshly preoccupied with football. It's a maybe at best.

 

[Killion]

You like those Mexican jokes, don't you. Yes well, I guess that's just as likely.

Yepp. Happenstance created the NHL..... and as you know, I only jest because I love the place.

 

[Killion]

Seattle doesn't have a rink. Their building cannot accomodate hockey.

Indeed. And unfortunately the Sonics' made sure it couldnt in demanding & receiving major alterations that pretty much killed it as ever being multi-purpose.

 

[nickschultzfan]

Are the bolded your version of cities that don't "deserve" a team?



Once again, are the bolded your version of places that don't deserve a team?

I make zero judgment as to whether a city "deserves" a team. That would be entirely subjective.

Rather, teams in Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, and hypothetical teams in Kansas City, Vegas, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, will lose money.

And teams should not be placed in area where they lose money.

Edit - I am sure people at a science facility in the Antarctica would love an NHL team for their leisure time, but everybody can agree it would be dumb to place a team down there.

 

[kdb209]

what better way for Austin to stay weird, then to introduce an NHL team as their first major-professional sports team? you know instead of Baseball or football that are a lot more popular in texas.

the arena is a big obstacle, sure. But I still think hockey just seems like a better fit in Austin than Houston. Austin is a famous "college town", and while students tend to be poor.. they also tend to be sports fans. Still, i can't get over how the capital of texas doesn't have an NBA/NHL ready arena.

I agree that Austin is one of the most intriguing of the non-traditional markets - it's demographics as a high tech and college town are similar to Carolina and (to a lesser/smaller extent) San Jose.

The only realistic way I can see it happening though, would be if an owner were to partner with UT on a replacement for the Erwin Center.

That said, I think Houston is a still more likely expansion/relocation market.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I agree that Austin is one of the most intriguing of the non-traditional markets - it's demographics as a high tech and college town are similar to Carolina and (to a lesser/smaller extent) San Jose.

The only realistic way I can see it happening though, would be if an owner were to partner with UT on a replacement for the Erwin Center.

That said, I think Houston is a still more likely expansion/relocation market.

Austin is fine.......

Why did Dallas waste all of its financial resources on bringing their affiliate and an arena to Cedar Park, then, ironically the franchise they left became theirs after a conditional franchise was awarded last season...

 

[bacon25]

This is just an idea I shared on another thread but if the NHL did expand, (or they could even do it with teams that are currently in the NHL), the NHL needs to create a probationary period, say 10 years, for a team to have stable ownership, fans, building etc. If the team is not able to achieve the level of stability that the NHL requires by that time than the team will be moved to another city.

 

[Mike in MN]

I think expansion is pretty pointless unless you can show us a market that could be financially successful and spend to the cap in the long term. The last expansions resulted in the Predators, Thrashers, Blue Jackets and Wild. Three of those teams have been talked about for relocation and the remaining one is a middling franchise of so far little consequence. Not exactly something that points at expansion being desirable in the near future.

It would appear that any need for further market inclusion could be served by relocation rather than expansion.

Considering I've never heard of any relocation rumors involving the Wild...

While the Wild haven't really done anything yet post-season wise (well, except 2003...), I don't think nine years of sell-outs and top-five US market revenues (for the 15th largest US metro) really fits the description of "a middling franchise of little consequence"

As for the other three:
Columbus has never had any real relocation talk, other than people chatting online
Nashville is stable and growing. If it wasn't for Balsillie's little stunt, they'd be just like Columbus
Atlanta is having issues, but new "real" ownership that actually does crazy thing like "market the team" and "give a ****" should turn things around

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

A couple of issues here. A) the suggestion that the NHL is in "big trouble" - how are you defining big trouble? Attendance league wide is high, revenue league wide is record high, no franchises have moved or contracted in over a decade. The CBA, though having perhaps a few holes, is probably one of the better ones that the NHL has ever had. Where is the "big trouble" here - ? A couple of franchises are perhaps unstable, but I'm not sure that that is really outside of the norm of professional sport leagues.

A couple? Come on. The NHL has nearly a dozen clubs that are in really rough shape. Florida, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, and NYI are pretty much on life support. Tampa and Nashville are far from secure. Then you've got NJ, Colorado, Dallas, and Anaheim averaging under 15,000 a game. You've got owners in some of those cities buying tickets themselves to get to a level where the NHL dishes out subsidization payments that come from the league's elite, like Toronto.

B) Suggesting that fans in Toronto are "subsidizing" other teams is a major misnomer here toddgill.

Again, that's what is happening here. Teams at the top like the Leafs and Habs are keeping the teams at the bottom alive through direct transfers of cash via the league's revenue sharing plan. Old story linked below, but the numbers are likely very, very similar today:

http://crashingthegoalie.com/2008/10/14/money-going-south-of-border/

As for the "unwatchable" comment, I personally have zero interest in watching games featuring NHL scrubs like Florida, Atlanta, Columbus, etc. Just seems minor league to me. I don't consider any of these franchises legit NHL clubs. Judging by the attendance, people in their respective cities don't find them credible, either.

 

[Mike in MN]

Winnipeg and Quebec City should be 1 and 2 in line for the next available team, be it expansion or relocation. But in this economy and the player pool available to them, I wouldn't go past that.

Completely Agree

I just can't see the league being able to handle 36 teams. One, you have very few leverage when you have only a handful of cities afterwards that you can use when you need something from the region. Two, I think the league can handle adding 40-46 more players with two teams but not almost 150 players. It's not out of the realm of possibility over the course of 50 years but within the next 10 to 20, no way. Three, the biggest issue that will plague a large expansion going forward is the willingness for public support to fund arenas necessary to have a pro sports team. Canada has a well-established disinterest in funding arenas with taxpayer money. In America, that is becoming more and more similar due to the recession. Until that attitude changes and America re-emerges economically into some growth, adding teams past a couple teams is not a smart idea.

I understand that there's not nearly enough talent to go past 32 teams now, and that the current economy also works against it. My point was that, in TWELVE years, there might be enough talent for an additional 2 teams (total of 340) and twenty plus years out we could make the jump.

Even I don't think 36 teams is realistic at the present time. I'm not insane

 

[jessebelanger]

A couple? Come on. The NHL has nearly a dozen clubs that are in really rough shape. Florida, Phoenix, Columbus, Atlanta, and NYI are pretty much on life support. Tampa and Nashville are far from secure. Then you've got NJ, Colorado, Dallas, and Anaheim averaging under 15,000 a game. You've got owners in some of those cities buying tickets themselves to get to a level where the NHL dishes out subsidization payments that come from the league's elite, like Toronto.

Tampa and Nashville are far from secure? What is your definition of secure? How are these teams not secure? You're just throwing out general words and then listing franchises. A silly and pointless exercise. This paragraph means nothing and holds no weight. One franchise is in danger of being relocated - and the NHL has gone to the end of the world and been successful so far in preventing that relocation - including purchasing that franchise and supporting it for over a year. The mere fact that the NHL is in a position to do that suggests that the league as a whole is in good health.

Again, that's what is happening here. Teams at the top like the Leafs and Habs are keeping the teams at the bottom alive through direct transfers of cash via the league's revenue sharing plan. Old story linked below, but the numbers are likely very, very similar today:

Yes, the owners, as agreed upon by the owners, are supporting each other. The fans are not subsidizing the other markets. There is a fundamental difference there.

As for the "unwatchable" comment, I personally have zero interest in watching games featuring NHL scrubs like Florida, Atlanta, Columbus, etc. Just seems minor league to me. I don't consider any of these franchises legit NHL clubs. Judging by the attendance, people in their respective cities don't find them credible, either.

Right. Who has any interest in St. Louis, Stamkos, Nash, Kane, Weiss, Booth, Little, Enstrom, Bogosian, Umberger, mason..etc...

To be honest, TGF, this post gives me the impression that you just don't like hockey. Which is OK - there are other forms of entertainment out there. But I hope you realize that your dislike of hockey is very likely significantly distorting your view of what's happening in the NHL...

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Considering I've never heard of any relocation rumors involving the Wild...

While the Wild haven't really done anything yet post-season wise (well, except 2003...), I don't think nine years of sell-outs and top-five US market revenues (for the 15th largest US metro) really fits the description of "a middling franchise of little consequence"

As for the other three:
Columbus has never had any real relocation talk, other than people chatting online
Nashville is stable and growing. If it wasn't for Balsillie's little stunt, they'd be just like Columbus
Atlanta is having issues, but new "real" ownership that actually does crazy thing like "market the team" and "give a ****" should turn things around

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...ackets_study.ART_ART_11-05-09_A1_B1FJ0I3.html - "Saving the Jackets
Unless relief can be provided from a problematic lease and other financial burdens, Columbus eventually could lose its NHL team, consultant's report says"

Nashville's Balsillie "stunt" didn't happen out of nowhere, IIRC paid attendance and corporate support were issues

Atlanta speaks for itself.

With Minny, it's a great hockey market but I keep reading that people prefer to go to college or H.S. games and the Vikings and Twins are more popular than the Wild. Given the Wild's lack of success or really a distinctive identity I'd say the market has shown its value but the franchise is at best mediocre. I think if MN had gotten a relocated team with a decent core instead of having to start afresh it could be a really successful franchise by now.

Which goes to my point, I think relocation beats expansion, it gives new markets better chances and doesn't dilute the player or staff talent pool.