Another expansion/relocation article with a twist

[KevFu]

Look, I don't see the NHL expanding beyond 2 teams anytime within the next couple decades (and would likely take part of a decade just to expand by 2 teams). And if I'm the NHL, I'm going into Seattle/Portland and Southern Ontario (and making them play in the west). I would be doing this for market share in the PNW, and pure money grab in SO (from the team, expansion fee and the Canadian TV deal).

I think adding 2 teams in the pac time zone also adds problems. Think they really want one pac one cen and that opens up Huston which is top 10 already for tv markets. And top 5 for population.
But it's all really speculation on all of are parts, unless someone here is secretly on the BOG. And knows something that none of the rest of us do.

Could Houston be done without Les Alexandar? And didn't he take a bath ($ wise) recently?

As for speculation... of course it is.

Here's my tin-foil hat rationale for expecting the NHL has 36 teams by 2025 or so:

If QC and Markham are going to have venues open by 2016, they're slam dunk markets for the NHL. But they don't open up new territory. No one gets rich but their owners. There were rumors during the lockout of teams #31 and #32, mentioning those two teams.

Then we get Seattle Coyotes talk. Next we hear that the NHL talked to PORTLAND about the Coyotes. If there's no plan for expanding into QC and Markham, why did Seattle and Portland move ahead of them as relocation destinations? (**Geography**)

Next, we hear a rumor that expansion is coming to Seattle and WTF Las Vegas? Why on earth would you take Vegas over Markham or Quebec in a two-team expansion that seemingly closes the door on membership for a long time? (**Geography**)

Now, all of this is easily speculation that doesn't lead anyone to believe the NHL is looking to expand beyond 32 teams, or AT ALL… except that they rammed through realignment with 16 ETZ teams in one conference, and changed to playoff format to something that just seems so ridiculously temporary… right after QC and Markham put shovels in the ground!

If you're just going to go to 32 and close membership, you're not bypassing the best markets for the long-term health of the game, solely because of geography. You get creative with realignment and make as many teams happy as possible.

But all these teams have positives and negatives. And most the negatives are negated if YOU TAKE 'EM ALL.

All those rumors seem designed to spark interest in the NHL in cities so that they: encourage arena construction in Seattle, find a willing owner, and find a sixth market to say "what about us?" and jump in.

If you're going to expand to 36 teams, 4 west and 2 east solves the geography problem. But starting with QC and Markham makes for unbalanced/poor alignment until the other four are ready to go. You line up the other four first, THEN pull the trigger.

And that's why Seattle, Portland and Vegas are in heavy rumors right now. Because once you get them on board, you can turn your sights to Houston.

Alexander is always been a factor, but there's two items at play here:
#1 - He's pushing his chips all in with the Rockets, signing Howard. If the Rockets start raking in money as contenders, maybe he can afford to finally get that NHL team.
#2 - If the Rockets are serious title contenders, maybe Alexander sells the team while they're at an all-time high in value.

(And of course, he can actually do BOTH. Use the Rockets to get the NHL team, sell both teams and the lease and cash out with serious retirement cash).

But Houston -- and Markham -- would probably be teams #35 and #36 in this scenario. With Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas and Quebec being teams #31-#34. You can't take QC until you have the other three western teams lined up, as well, or you'd have people against it for the geography.

And with CBJ, NASH, NYI, PHX signing new leases, and no one really plausible as a relocation candidate for a long time, and TV negotiations around the corner, this is the time for the next big NHL project like this.

 

[Riptide]

Interesting discussion--really like it.

In regards to a western team... how far out of the realm of possibility would a Saskatchewan team be? I seem to recall a group looking into the idea a few years ago but that died down.

It's my belief that like with Winnipeg you'd sell out every night (Saskatoon's Credit Union Center can seat about 100 more seats than the MTS Center) just based on the passion of fans from that area (Riders fans in the CFL are nuts!) but corporate sponsorship and U.S. appeal might be low. That being said Saskatchewan is actually an up and coming oil market--and you're seeing massive industry and population growth in the major city centers. It's probably a lesser option than Seattle but I'd love to hear some of your opinions.

Honestly? I think it's a long shot at best anytime within the next decade or two. Small rink, small population (200k), small metro pop (260k), no other major cities that are close (within 1 hr). Even if it grows to 1m pop in 15 years... I think it would be a matter of too little too late. I also don't think they'll be anywhere near 1m pop in the next 2 decades. But that aside, while it's possible that they snag a team late in 2020, I think the NHL would go elsewhere simply because while it might not be a bad market per say, there's better markets out there.

Kind of like why I wouldn't go into QC at this time over Seattle or Portland.

 

[tsanuri]

There is one thing that almost always seems to get left out of these discussions. Everyone seems to think that all owners want to add a franchise that will be a big bucks team. Where there are some franchises at the top that would like that very much. There are many more in the middle and bottom that might not. It might sound crazy but just think about it. Instant bucks means higher cap and more money to have to spend. vs. A team that would slowly grow and could build its way up to a solid franchise.
Not to mention that adding any of the bigger markets that aren't served by a team in the US should end up adding to the TV contract when it comes up.

 

[gstommylee]

There is one thing that almost always seems to get left out of these discussions. Everyone seems to think that all owners want to add a franchise that will be a big bucks team. Where there are some franchises at the top that would like that very much. There are many more in the middle and bottom that might not. It might sound crazy but just think about it. Instant bucks means higher cap and more money to have to spend. vs. A team that would slowly grow and could build its way up to a solid franchise.
Not to mention that adding any of the bigger markets that aren't served by a team in the US should end up adding to the TV contract when it comes up.

NHL has been wanted Seattle since the 70's during the first attempt to award them a franchise. Unless there happens to be a Canadian city that similar to TOR in the western part of Canada i just don't see Ontario getting another NHL team before Seattle/portland or both.

Instant cash only goes so far. I think with Portland and Seattle NHL can get that 400m they would have with another TOR team through some other means. PNW is just too big to ignore. I can't recall is there any current NHL team that has such a RSN that covers a similar coverage size as what a potential RSN would cover (5 states) for Seattle and portland.

 

[Riptide]

There is one thing that almost always seems to get left out of these discussions. Everyone seems to think that all owners want to add a franchise that will be a big bucks team. Where there are some franchises at the top that would like that very much. There are many more in the middle and bottom that might not. It might sound crazy but just think about it. Instant bucks means higher cap and more money to have to spend. vs. A team that would slowly grow and could build its way up to a solid franchise.

Fair point. But do you think that Seattle/Portland would be instant big money teams? Not likely. I'm guessing they'd need 4-6 years to fully bring their revenue stream online so that it's somewhere near the median revenue. The whole time it's under the median, it's a artificial drag on the cap. As things stand now, I would suspect that the cap will grow by 4 or 5m next season, and unless new teams are introduced (or the US economy melts down), it'll continue growing by 4-5m.

Here's a post of mine from another thread.

I'm pretty sure expansion revenues do not count towards the cap. It's out of scope, and the players receive nothing directly from it. And infact, expansion teams (depending on where they are) initially would likely be a drag on the cap in the sense that their revenue stream will take 4-6 years to come up to par with the rest of the NHLs - assuming those teams are not in Canada. If they are in Canada... I would expect that a QC expansion team (keeping in mind expansion draft, etc) would be equal to Columbus on the low end, and Winnipeg on the upper end (revenue wise). If it's a TO2/SO team... I'd expect it to be near the league average almost immediately, and only going up. In which case, a TO2/SO team would actually increase the rate the cap goes up.

3.3b / 30 teams / 50% = 55m (mid point)
3.5b / 31 teams / 50% = 56.4m
3.7b / 32 teams / 50% = 57.8m

Not to mention that adding any of the bigger markets that aren't served by a team in the US should end up adding to the TV contract when it comes up.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Adding to the TV contract is a very very good thing, as it is distributed among every team. Expanding into the Canadian market (TO2/QC) will increase the next Canadian deal (not the new one for next season, but the one after that). Adding teams into major US markets (Seattle, Portland, Houston, etc) can only be a plus for the NHL when it comes time to re-negotiate their next deal. So while the NHL will never get what the other leagues get... if they can get 300-400m on the US deal when it expires in 8 (?) years, that's amazing, considering where they came from 10 years ago.

 

[gstommylee]

Fair point. But do you think that Seattle/Portland would be instant big money teams? Not likely. I'm guessing they'd need 4-6 years to fully bring their revenue stream online so that it's somewhere near the median revenue. The whole time it's under the median, it's a artificial drag on the cap. As things stand now, I would suspect that the cap will grow by 4 or 5m next season, and unless new teams are introduced (or the US economy melts down), it'll continue growing by 4-5m.

Here's a post of mine from another thread.





I'm not sure where you're going with this. Adding to the TV contract is a very very good thing, as it is distributed among every team. Expanding into the Canadian market (TO2/QC) will increase the next Canadian deal (not the new one for next season, but the one after that). Adding teams into major US markets (Seattle, Portland, Houston, etc) can only be a plus for the NHL when it comes time to re-negotiate their next deal. So while the NHL will never get what the other leagues get... if they can get 300-400m on the US deal when it expires in 8 (?) years, that's amazing, considering where they came from 10 years ago.

More canada teams can only provide so much when people there are already watching the league.

If Seattle misses out of a NHL franchise then the league would have shot themselves in the foot and never will see the city. There is no guarantees Seattle will get a NBA team no guarantees the arena deal will be extended in 4 years.

NHL has to get a team via expansion while the iron is still hot. This is the closest Seattle has ever been to having a NHL ready arena.

 

[tsanuri]

Fair point. But do you think that Seattle/Portland would be instant big money teams? Not likely. I'm guessing they'd need 4-6 years to fully bring their revenue stream online so that it's somewhere near the median revenue. The whole time it's under the median, it's a artificial drag on the cap. As things stand now, I would suspect that the cap will grow by 4 or 5m next season, and unless new teams are introduced (or the US economy melts down), it'll continue growing by 4-5m.

Here's a post of mine from another thread.





I'm not sure where you're going with this. Adding to the TV contract is a very very good thing, as it is distributed among every team. Expanding into the Canadian market (TO2/QC) will increase the next Canadian deal (not the new one for next season, but the one after that). Adding teams into major US markets (Seattle, Portland, Houston, etc) can only be a plus for the NHL when it comes time to re-negotiate their next deal. So while the NHL will never get what the other leagues get... if they can get 300-400m on the US deal when it expires in 8 (?) years, that's amazing, considering where they came from 10 years ago.

I never said adding to the TV deal wouldn't be good. Adding that part was just showing that even if many or all the cities in the US might not make big money right away or ever it would still end up adding to the league. Just because in the end it should get a bigger contract by having those markets. It really fits into a slow and steady plan that some could have.

 

[Riptide]

More canada teams can only provide so much when people there are already watching the league.

Agree completely with this. So while those people are fans, and will pay to watch the game... odd's are a portion already watch hockey, and already pay for merchandize. Which means even if they (Sask/TO2/QC) dont' get a team, those habits are likely to continue.

Now, one could likely say the same for Seattle (that there's NHL fans there who watch, and spend money). I don't disagree with that. However, the odds of introducing new fans by placing a team in Seattle is a lot higher than if that team was placed in Canada.

My mom couldn't have cared less about hockey... until she moved to Vancouver. Now she's a fan. She goes to a couple games a year, and watches a bunch of games on TV (not all, but likely more in 1 yr than she did in the 10 before moving to Van). I think we'd see a lot of this when going into the PNW, and more so than going into a Canadian city.

 

[KevFu]

Fair point. But do you think that Seattle/Portland would be instant big money teams? Not likely. I'm guessing they'd need 4-6 years to fully bring their revenue stream online so that it's somewhere near the median revenue. The whole time it's under the median, it's a artificial drag on the cap. As things stand now, I would suspect that the cap will grow by 4 or 5m next season, and unless new teams are introduced (or the US economy melts down), it'll continue growing by 4-5m.

True that. I think if you're adding a top market team like Markham, who'd be huge dollars, it's gonna make the average revenue explode.

I think the phased expansion of four quick teams (QUE, PORT, SEA, LV) and then capped at 36 with HOU, MARK would grow the pie for everyone, but temper the disparity between rich and poor. The NHL's "problem" is you have about 4-6 poor teams, 16-18 below average teams, six rich teams, two super filthy rich teams. That's not to suggest you need anchors bringing down the average. You simply need a bigger middle class. I think Seattle, Portland, Houston and Quebec do that, with Vegas offsetting Markham.

 

[gstommylee]

Agree completely with this. So while those people are fans, and will pay to watch the game... odd's are a portion already watch hockey, and already pay for merchandize. Which means even if they (Sask/TO2/QC) dont' get a team, those habits are likely to continue.

Now, one could likely say the same for Seattle (that there's NHL fans there who watch, and spend money). I don't disagree with that. However, the odds of introducing new fans by placing a team in Seattle is a lot higher than if that team was placed in Canada.

My mom couldn't have cared less about hockey... until she moved to Vancouver. Now she's a fan. She goes to a couple games a year, and watches a bunch of games on TV (not all, but likely more in 1 yr than she did in the 10 before moving to Van). I think we'd see a lot of this when going into the PNW, and more so than going into a Canadian city.

By expanding into the PNW either to seattle or to both Seatle and Portland they also pick up the smaller markets thanks to the RSN and national tv games of those local teams. Fans in those outer cities may want to travel to seattle or portland once and a while and watch them live and buy merchandise

 

[wildthing202]

NHL has been wanted Seattle since the 70's during the first attempt to award them a franchise. Unless there happens to be a Canadian city that similar to TOR in the western part of Canada i just don't see Ontario getting another NHL team before Seattle/portland or both.

Instant cash only goes so far. I think with Portland and Seattle NHL can get that 400m they would have with another TOR team through some other means. PNW is just too big to ignore. I can't recall is there any current NHL team that has such a RSN that covers a similar coverage size as what a potential RSN would cover (5 states) for Seattle and portland.

Wanted Seattle so much they didn't add them the next 18 times they had expansion and 8 times they had relocations....just saying.

 

[Riptide]

Wanted Seattle so much they didn't add them the next 18 times they had expansion and 8 times they had relocations....just saying.

There's a time and a place for everything.

 

[gstommylee]

Wanted Seattle so much they didn't add them the next 18 times they had expansion and 8 times they had relocations....just saying.

Its called running into problems to where it prevented it from happening (rather it be ownership or arena issues) If it wasn't for the late sonics owner that screwed up the 1995 key arena renovations we would have a NHL team by now. It only took 17 years and the loss of the NBA team till someone came to address the arena problem that the 1995 renovations caused with a reasonable and well thought out plan

 

[Grudy0]

Here's my tin-foil hat rationale for expecting the NHL has 36 teams by 2025 or so:

I'm one of the first people that said 36 teams by 2025 in one of the massive realignment threads that have been going on for a few years. I think the rationale will be obvious as I go on...

If you're just going to go to 32 and close membership, you're not bypassing the best markets for the long-term health of the game, solely because of geography. You get creative with realignment and make as many teams happy as possible.

But all these teams have positives and negatives. And most the negatives are negated if YOU TAKE 'EM ALL.

Exactly. If you have members that want to grow the footprint of the league and the revenues that go along with it, then you don't close the door at 32.

Alexander is always been a factor, but there's two items at play here:
#1 - He's pushing his chips all in with the Rockets, signing Howard. If the Rockets start raking in money as contenders, maybe he can afford to finally get that NHL team.
#2 - If the Rockets are serious title contenders, maybe Alexander sells the team while they're at an all-time high in value.

(And of course, he can actually do BOTH. Use the Rockets to get the NHL team, sell both teams and the lease and cash out with serious retirement cash).

And, no offense, he's pushing his age. The Rockets could have a new owner by then meaning that party could be interested in an NHL team.

And with CBJ, NASH, NYI, PHX signing new leases, and no one really plausible as a relocation candidate for a long time, and TV negotiations around the corner, this is the time for the next big NHL project like this.

Let's one up this....

Supposedly there's a compact when a new owner buys a team that they must stay in their current market for seven years (I assume the Coyotes are only five years as that is their lease). This means the earliest these teams can move IRRESPECTIVE of a lease:

2017
Tampa Bay

2018
Arizona (Phoenix) (assuming a five-year non-relo compact)
Buffalo
Dallas
Winnipeg

2019
St. Louis

2020
Florida
New Jersey

There just aren't any portable teams.

NHL has been wanted Seattle since the 70's during the first attempt to award them a franchise. Unless there happens to be a Canadian city that similar to TOR in the western part of Canada i just don't see Ontario getting another NHL team before Seattle/portland or both.

Wanted Seattle so much they didn't add them the next 18 times they had expansion and 8 times they had relocations....just saying.

I think you may need to amend your statement: The NHL cannot force a franchise owner to move to Seattle, and would only grant a team to Seattle if there was a decent bid. More on that momentarily.

Its called running into problems to where it prevented it from happening (rather it be ownership or arena issues) If it wasn't for the late sonics owner that screwed up the 1995 key arena renovations we would have a NHL team by now. It only took 17 years and the loss of the NBA team till someone came to address the arena problem that the 1995 renovations caused with a reasonable and well thought out plan

You have this backwards, and watch how scary this is:

1967 expansion:
NHL says they won't go into a market that didn't have a team in a pro sport. That automatically disqualifies Seattle and Portland

1970 expansion:
to right the wrongs of the 1967 expansion, the NHL grants teams to Vancouver and Buffalo

1972 expansion:
to stop the WHA from gaining high-density markets in new buildings, the NHL grants teams to Nassau New York (Isles) and Atlanta (Flames)

1974 expansion: (granted 8 June, 1972)
to stop the WHA from gaining more high-density markets in new buildings, the NHL grants teams to Washington and Kansas City

Note: by this time, the 18-team NHL had three teams on the Pacific Coast, Kansas City, and the rest of the teams were on or east of the Mississippi. The WHA was in play, with teams in either small or non-traditional markets. The NHL granted two more franchises in 1974, slated to play in 1976:

Seattle and Denver. With the Kansas City Scouts failing miserably, the Scouts were sold and relocated to Denver, becoming the Colorado Rockies. This revoked the 1976 conditional franchise award for Denver. Because of financial irregularities, prospective NHL Seattle owner Vince Abbey's conditional franchise was rejected. This went through the court system and I believe was resolved in the NHL's favor around 1985.

Seattle's next chance at an NHL franchise was for the 1991-92 expansion season, the one that was ultimately awarded to Ottawa and Tampa Bay. Seattle's bid was headed by none other than NBA Sonics owner Barry Ackerley, with a couple of hockey guys lined up behind him. When it came time to present their case to the NHL, Ackerley asked the others to wait in the room while he presented. As Ackerley's name was first on the proposal, he withdrew the application for an NHL franchise for Seattle. It appears Ackerley's entire premise was to get the reno's for Key Arena started for his basketball team, so that he didn't also have to worry about an NHL team. There were many places the Sonics could play temporarily around Seattle; there wasn't a good temporary place for an NHL team. Once the Key Arena renos were done by 1995, there hasn't been a place an NHL team could play in Seattle. That's why it's important for the NHL to get a franchise granted to Seattle as soon as the SoDo arena can start being built; they'll be locked out if they don't.

There was no "expansion process" for the Ducks and Panthers; BoG acting chairman Bruce McNall and acting commissioner Gil Stein granted the teams not only to get big media owners (Blockbuster and Disney) on board, but also because it lined McNall's pockets (of the $100 million paid in expansion fees, $25 went to McNall).

So to say Seattle has had ample opportunity is somewhat true, but they've had no opportunity since Ackerley torpedoed their expansion bid back in 1991 as the renos to Key Arena have made Seattle have no real place to house an NHL team.

 

[gstommylee]

So to say Seattle has had ample opportunity is somewhat true, but they've had no opportunity since Ackerley torpedoed their expansion bid back in 1991 as the renos to Key Arena have made Seattle have no real place to house an NHL team.

Its ackerley stupidity that cost us both a chance at a NHL team then and ended up causing us to lose the sonics with how Key arena was designed during the renovations. It was not a money making arena. Even stern himself called it the smallest venue.

And it only took like i said 17 years and the team leaving before there was an plan to build a new state of the art arena with a great funding plan that should have happened much sooner.

 

[NHL Hartford]

Alexander is always been a factor, but there's two items at play here:
#1 - He's pushing his chips all in with the Rockets, signing Howard. If the Rockets start raking in money as contenders, maybe he can afford to finally get that NHL team.
#2 - If the Rockets are serious title contenders, maybe Alexander sells the team while they're at an all-time high in value.

(And of course, he can actually do BOTH. Use the Rockets to get the NHL team, sell both teams and the lease and cash out with serious retirement cash).

Or #3 - Rockets become very profitable and there's no need for a risky NHL venture to steal dates away and siphon $ away from NBA. Much like ASG.

 

[NHL Hartford]

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourn...revPageID=&cpipage=4&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

That's a staggering amount of $ the NHL is leaving on the table in regards to Hartford/Connecticut.

 

[gstommylee]

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourn...revPageID=&cpipage=4&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

That's a staggering amount of $ the NHL is leaving on the table in regards to Hartford/Connecticut.

NHL has more to gain by placing a team in Seattle and Portland than they would in any other US city that currently does not have a team.

If NHL ever wants a team in seattle they have to grant us a team as soon as the arena is shovel arena for NHL sorry but Hartford can wait. NHL can not wait or less they will miss the opportunity.

Question have you been to the pacific northwest? Seattle and Portland are essentially the only major pro cities in the entire region + alaska and montana

hartford has the same disvantage as any other eastern time zone city. Detroit and Columbus do not want to move back to the western conference. 15/17 does not make sense 14/18 does not make sense.

Sure Hartford may have more available income then a lot of cities that doesn't mean it makes viable sense to the NHL unless you are talking relocation of a current eastern conference team.

 

[gstommylee]

top city list for expansion and relocation based on my opinion and keeping the league balanced of equal western teams and eastern teams based on location

Expansion:
Seattle
Portland
Quebec city (if columbus or detroit is okay with moving back to western conference and if NHL is going to 36 teams)
Vegas
Houston
Milwaukee (if they can get the arena figured out)
TOR2 (If NHL is planning on expanding to 36 teams)
Hartford (IF NHL is planning on expanding to 36 teams)

Relocation:
Portland
Quebec city
Houston
Vegas
Milwaukee (if they can get the arena figured out)
TOR2 (relocation of eastern conference team only)
Hartford (relocation of eastern conference team only)

 

[KevFu]

Good stuff, Grudy.

Or #3 - Rockets become very profitable and there's no need for a risky NHL venture to steal dates away and siphon $ away from NBA. Much like ASG.

I wouldn't see it as such. The idea that the NHL steals dates away from the NBA (and vice versa) simply isn't true because of the nature of each league's schedule.

You play half your games on the road, and it's basically a 3-4 game home stand, a 3-4 game road trip, repeat. This is why it works out just fine in Boston (Bruins/Celtics), New York (Rangers/Knicks), Chicago (Hawks/Bulls), Los Angeles (Kings/Lakers AND Clippers), Toronto (Leafs/Raptors), Dallas (Stars/Mavs), Philly (Flyers/76ers), Denver (Avs/Nuggets), Washington (Caps/Bullets. You heard me, I said Bullets), and soon to be Brooklyn (Islanders/Nets; basically replacing Devils/Nets before the Rock opened).

There's going to be more cities sharing venues (10), than NBA/NHL cities with dual venues (4 - Miami, Minnesota, Detroit, Phoenix).

top city list for expansion and relocation based on my opinion and keeping the league balanced of equal western teams and eastern teams based on location

I don't view it as a pecking order, though. Because there are multiple goals of expansion; and if you were to pick the top priority (more money for the current owners), then your "top picks" would be far different than if you emphasized any of the other goals.

Markham would be the most profitable, but that revenue makes everyone else poorer due to the "average" language in the CBA.
Houston would bring in the biggest untapped TV market, but while there's significant upside (Winning team like Dallas when they were #8 in revenue), it also has significant downside (Team not built properly, like the Thrashers debacle).
Las Vegas would bring the league the most publicity.
Seattle and Portland would bring in an untapped region with TV sets and more likely to be stable/consistent, whereas Houston is going to have more peaks and valleys.
Quebec doesn't bring the league a ton more revenue, but they'd be a successful franchise in an underserved market.
Hartford is very much like Quebec, only with territorial concerns, and more emphasis on the "small market" issue than Quebec.
Milwaukee has the same issues as Hartford, and a bigger question mark about the sustainability, since QC & Hartford had teams before and Milwaukee didn't.

To me, the most important issue is BALANCE. The 90s expansion/relocation (which basically was a "success" with a bumpy road to get there) was one big massive experiment.

11 markets with giant question marks. Seven "can hockey work there?" experiments. Four in markets where teams had vacated previously. ANA wasn't an experiment since LA had a team for decades. And OTT and MIN were the ONLY franchises awarded in the 90s that we KNEW would be successful.

When I look at the current candidates, only ONE is anywhere CLOSE to the experiment of the 90s (Las Vegas). QUE, MARK, SEA, PORT and HOU we have a barometer for.

Each of them brings something to the table. And taking all six checks every single expansion wishlist item off a league-wide list.


That's not to say I'm a huge advocate for expanding to 36. I'm actually reverse engineering rumors like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory. Because I don't understand why Seattle, Portland and Vegas would be talked about as expansion candidates when Quebec and Markham are building arenas… UNLESS they were looking at another big expansion project.

And the NHL36 Project has FAR FAR FAR better odds of success than the 90s expansion to 30 had.

 

[gstommylee]

That's not to say I'm a huge advocate for expanding to 36. I'm actually reverse engineering rumors like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory. Because I don't understand why Seattle, Portland and Vegas would be talked about as expansion candidates when Quebec and Markham are building arenas… UNLESS they were looking at another big expansion project.

Seattle is the only city i think that is a must get in immediately (soon as arena is shovel ready for hockey) or lose that opportunity for a very long time if not ever. There isn't a plan c in regards hockey but praying that NBA grants seattle a franchise while Plan A was coyotes B was expansion. If plan C doesn't happen then well like i said no seattle NHL for the near future if not ever.

 

[coolboarder]

I personally think that NHL could expand 5 more teams from the way I look at the potential franchise with the latest rumors but I don't see the league expanding more than 5 teams and that would get us to 35 teams in the league. However, from the rumor I hear, such as Vegas, might not work well. There are 5 cities I could see this working well. Quebec City, Seattle are two cities that I expect to come to the league to make it to 32 teams in a few years, leaving out Portland, Hartford, and Kansas City. These three teams I could foresee this happening after Quebec and Seattle coming in the league.

If the league decides to go with 35 teams, we could go with 7 divisions of 5 teams each. Schedule matrix: Divisional opponents: 6 games and two games against the rest for 84 games total. Top 2 in each division makes the playoffs, 14 divisional playoff teams. 4 Wildcard teams. Total playoffs teams: 18

Top two division teams square off in the best of 7 with the winner coming out to the quarterfinals.

Wildcard teams will play the robin round style tournament with top two teams advancing to the quarterfinals. This type of first round tournament is brutal because the traveling is a factor compared to the best of 7 Divisional series.

The wildcard playoff should start right on the same day the Divisional is playing on their third game of the series.

I have the divisions setup ready but it is not appropriate for this thread.

 

[gstommylee]

I personally think that NHL could expand 5 more teams from the way I look at the potential franchise with the latest rumors but I don't see the league expanding more than 5 teams and that would get us to 35 teams in the league. However, from the rumor I hear, such as Vegas, might not work well. There are 5 cities I could see this working well. Quebec City, Seattle are two cities that I expect to come to the league to make it to 32 teams in a few years, leaving out Portland, Hartford, and Kansas City. These three teams I could foresee this happening after Quebec and Seattle coming in the league.

If the league decides to go with 35 teams, we could go with 7 divisions of 5 teams each. Schedule matrix: Divisional opponents: 6 games and two games against the rest for 84 games total. Top 2 in each division makes the playoffs, 14 divisional playoff teams. 4 Wildcard teams. Total playoffs teams: 18

Top two division teams square off in the best of 7 with the winner coming out to the quarterfinals.

Wildcard teams will play the robin round style tournament with top two teams advancing to the quarterfinals. This type of first round tournament is brutal because the traveling is a factor compared to the best of 7 Divisional series.

The wildcard playoff should start right on the same day the Divisional is playing on their third game of the series.

I have the divisions setup ready but it is not appropriate for this thread.

Uneven teams is not going to happen.

 

[LeafShark]

Uneven teams is not going to happen.

The league was at 21 teams for quite some time. Not saying it's optimal, but it can happen.

 

[gstommylee]

The league was at 21 teams for quite some time. Not saying it's optimal, but it can happen.

21 teams is one thing 35 is another and uneven division doesn't make sense. Either the league remains at 32 or they go to 36 teams with 4 divisions 9 teams each.

Plus there would be alignment issues trying to fairly align the team with out causing problems never mind a scheduling nightmare