ARE there too many teams in the league?

[BruinsFan37]

Depends.

From a business standpoint the league could support more teams. No one but the most hardcore fans are going to travel great distance to see an NHL game. NHL in more markets = more tickets sold. It's really that simple. Houston, Atlanta (with good management), Kansas City, Milwaukee, San Diego, Indianapolis and smaller markets like Hartford and Quebec City and the league would expand to 40. Would have to get rid of the home-and-home with every team in the league or divisional play to keep the schedule roughly the same length is is now though.

From a "talent" standpoint the league could probably stand to contract by a few teams (though that will never happen -- the owners (and players) would never allow it). The talent pool is not sufficiently large enough to have every team competitive, and more teams will only spread the talent out thinner. Which might not entirely be a bad thing, since it gives top line talent room to shine versus weak teams/lines.

But to go back to the business standpoint, the casual fan isn't going to notice (or care) if the quality of play diminishes slightly. The causal fan isn't going ot care if there are 32 teams, or 64 teams, they're only going to care about "their" team. They are however going to notice if an NHL team springs up in their hometown if there wasn't one before.

So expansion beyond 32 teams is probably inevitable at some point.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Nah, 32 is a good number, it balances the conferences. There's a lot of talent in the league, nothing wrong with it spread out a little more.

MLB has 30 teams.
NFL has 32 teams.
NHL is going to 32 teams.
NBA has 30 teams (should be 2 more if you put teams back in Seattle and Vancouver like they should).

The league needs to add one more team:View attachment 161973

BRING BACK MY WHALERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or the need to move one with an owner named Eugene, to Hartford.

 

[sunsetsuperhuman]

The league should be contracting not expanding. Too little high end talent spread across so many teams. I don't think there's enough NHL talent to fill the NHL as is.

 

[LeftBackLegend]

I would not go beyond 32, I think we are at the absolute limit with Seattle. The conferences need to be even, and this is where it stops.

 

[easton117]

I think 32 is perfect.

Now had you asked me are there 32 competent gms for those teams I’d have a different answer.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

I seen a poster on HF the other day mentioning not to be surprised if there's another 10+ teams in the next 10+ years.

Mainly, due to the new expansion process and costs of teams. People have A LOT of money. Who doesnt want to own a sports team? Pony up 600 million, and you can have one.

Personally, I'd prefer 30 teams. But now that it's even again with 32 that's great.

There aren’t 10 cities that can support a team though.

There certainly isn’t in the US. Atlanta has already faltered twice. Houston would be the next one. MASSIVE city. Would take a real butchering to not make money down there.

But other than that, I can’t name more than one or two “maybes” for a potential spot for the NHL.

May be some Canadian cities can be added to the league. But there isn’t much there either.

 

[Mr Positive]

The more the merrier I say

 

[Tofveve]

I think more than 40 might be too many. And then it might be 50.

There's some downside to lots of teams, but there will be that socialism structure where poor teams, or bad teams lacking attendance will be bailed out.

There might be 40 teams in 40 large cities in 50 years. Who knows.

 

[Butch 19]

I seen a poster on HF the other day mentioning not to be surprised if there's another 10+ teams in the next 10+ years.

Mainly, due to the new expansion process and costs of teams. People have A LOT of money. Who doesnt want to own a sports team? Pony up 600 million, and you can have one.

Personally, I'd prefer 30 teams. But now that it's even again with 32 that's great.

HF is your source? Srsly? There's your first problem.

The NHL will stop with expansion teams after Seattle. Any "new teams"after that will be existing, relocated teams. Feel free to use me as your new HF source, okay?

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

32 is perfect. 16 teams make the playoffs and 16 do not. 16 teams in each conference and 8 in each division. Any more than 32 is too many.

 

[pown]

Its getting too much. Id like to see more then half the team make the playoffs tho

 

[Hasek]

32 is perfect. 16 teams make the playoffs and 16 do not. 16 teams in each conference and 8 in each division. Any more than 32 is too many.

I wish they would go with the NFL format of 2 conferences, 8 divisions and 4 teams per division. Winners of esch division get the top 4 spots and then the next best 4 to complete the 8 playoff teams in each conference.

 

[ES]

If all teams would have equal chance every year, the timeline where you would be more likely to see your team as a champion would be 22 years.

 

[Oddbob]

Resounding YES! Less teams, means more good to great players on the existing teams. More teams, means the talent has to be spread out, making each team worse in the process. Parity doesn't mean the league is better, it means the talent pool is spread out thinner. For example, you take out 4 teams, and then take those 4 teams really good players, and spread them around the league, the teams getting players get better, which means the hockey should be better.

 

[CanadianPensFan1]

No there ARE not too MANY teams right NOW

 

[VikingAv]

Resounding YES! Less teams, means more good to great players on the existing teams. More teams, means the talent has to be spread out, making each team worse in the process. Parity doesn't mean the league is better, it means the talent pool is spread out thinner. For example, you take out 4 teams, and then take those 4 teams really good players, and spread them around the league, the teams getting players get better, which means the hockey should be better.

Remember that the talent can, and absolutely will, be used for defensive purposes. In this scenario you'll have more bottom-sixers/bottom-pair D who can stop the offensive stars and scoring will go way down.

And that's not even touching the subjects of devaluing franchises, decreasing revenue and the NHLPA losing almost 200 NHL contracts.

 

[Oddbob]

Remember that the talent can, and absolutely will, be used for defensive purposes. In this scenario you'll have more bottom-sixers/bottom-pair D who can stop the offensive stars and scoring will go way down.

And that's not even touching the subjects of devaluing franchises, decreasing revenue and the NHLPA losing almost 200 NHL contracts.

Yes, true, but there would also be less AHL scrubs playing, so talent level would still be much better, and the skill level would still be more exciting to watch. Obviously it will never happen with that many teams leaving, as the NHL isn't about having the most entertaining hockey on the planet, it is all about how much money they make.

 

[VikingAv]

Yes, true, but there would also be less AHL scrubs playing, so talent level would still be much better, and the skill level would still be more exciting to watch. Obviously it will never happen with that many teams leaving, as the NHL isn't about having the most entertaining hockey on the planet, it is all about how much money they make.

That's the thing; I don't think the average skill level increasing will lead to it being more exciting to watch, because the skill players will have even less time and opportunity to show that skill when the players defending them will, on average, be better.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

Too many players, drop it to 3 lines

4th liners are just AHL cap filler

It's like paying $200+ to watch your favourite band and every 4th song the crappy opening act comes out for an encore

 

[Gabranth]

I think players like William Karlsson are proof that we could actually use more teams. There are players who aren't as bad as that the minutes they get make them seem like. I mean once he got more minutes in Vegas he suddenly became a 40 goal scorer. :thinking:

 

[KingsFan7824]

No, compared to the other major North American sports nhl has by far the most parity. I don’t get why this arguement gets made so much in hockey.

Probably the Canada/US thing. Other leagues are mostly, if not completely, in just the US. People say there are to many teams in all sports, but why is it so often brought up in hockey? It's Canada's game, but there are now 25 US teams. Canada hates Bettman, Bettman hates Canada, blah, blah, blah. The O6 is also constantly mythologized, even though every team wasn't a stacked all-star team back then.

Resounding YES! Less teams, means more good to great players on the existing teams. More teams, means the talent has to be spread out, making each team worse in the process. Parity doesn't mean the league is better, it means the talent pool is spread out thinner. For example, you take out 4 teams, and then take those 4 teams really good players, and spread them around the league, the teams getting players get better, which means the hockey should be better.

Sake of argument, hypothetically, they take your team out. You still watch, or start following another team, because the overall hockey is better?

 

[JustaFinnishGuy]

I think players like William Karlsson are proof that we could actually use more teams. There are players who aren't as bad as that the minutes they get make them seem like. I mean once he got more minutes in Vegas he suddenly became a 40 goal scorer. :thinking:

That was the luckiest run that anyone has ever gone for
No way can he replicate his shooting % or production ever again

Your point stands though. But it will not probably ever be as glaring as W.Karlsson made it out as.

 

[Jack Be Quick]

Owning a sports team typically isn't a great business decision either, especially not a hockey team that would likely be a lesser-known team for a while. Most people with the kind of money to afford the above... are business people. I'd argue that many of the current owners are in it thanks to their passion for hockey, not for the business potential.

Most owners are in it for the arenas and/or real estate.

If they happen to be passionate about hockey and their clubs, cool.

 

[Oddbob]

Probably the Canada/US thing. Other leagues are mostly, if not completely, in just the US. People say there are to many teams in all sports, but why is it so often brought up in hockey? It's Canada's game, but there are now 25 US teams. Canada hates Bettman, Bettman hates Canada, blah, blah, blah. The O6 is also constantly mythologized, even though every team wasn't a stacked all-star team back then.



Sake of argument, hypothetically, they take your team out. You still watch, or start following another team, because the overall hockey is better?

Of course I would still watch, as I am still a hockey fan, and level of play being either a little better or worse doesn't change that.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Of course I would still watch, as I am still a hockey fan, and level of play being either a little better or worse doesn't change that.

Ok. Usually people are willing to sacrifice someone else's team for the greater good, but not their own.