How many more franchises can the talent pool support?

[BKIslandersFan]

haha "my agenda" was simply discussing how many teams the current hockey talent pool could support. You brought up Jordan. As far as "everyone" goes, even one of his teammates said the same thing: https://fadeawayworld.net/dennis-ro...beat-anybody-with-our-eyes-closed-pretty-much

Except back in the 90s, NBA didn't really have talent pipeline from Europe like they do now.

So you are right in that NBA WAS watered down in the 90s, but if they expanded now that really isn't a problem.

 

[coolboarder]

If this was a 21 team league, you would have all talents in all teams into 2nd or 3rd or even 4th line and majority of the defenders would be all talents and goaltending will be as well. That is the reason why many teams lacked defending goaltending and still have superstar on their team. There would be also fewer coaching job opportunities that majority of them are not a NHL caliber coaches. One would have lack some offensive talents but superior defensive team and goaltending in current era. The quality would have gone up for all teams if this was a 21-team league and we would consider this a golden era.

 

[Three On Zero]

36 teams seems to be a good stopping point, more than enough talent now. I wouldn’t jump right to 36 though, wait a couple more years and jump to 34 and then wait a couple more and jump to 36

 

[KevFu]

You know honestly, since Houston's arena is owned by people that seem disinterested in the NHL, Austin might be the value play for the NHL to get a second team into the state. Kinda like how they slid into Columbus since Cincinnati and Cleveland already were sort of saturated with sports. But IMO an Austin franchise means giving up on the idea of a Houston one simply due to proximity.

The more I think about it the more I'd rather have a team in Austin than Houston. If you look at this (admittedly ancient) article you see that the largest markets without major pro sports at the time of its writing were:

1. Ontario California (a big suburb of LA)
2. Vegas (which now has three sports teams)
3. *Austin, TX*
4. Virginia (where the Caps and Wizards are going to relocate to soon)
5-10. Cities too small to justify a team.

Austin is the final frontier as far as new cities that can add their first sports franchise and support it well. The NHL should capitalize and try to make a true hockey hotbed in Texas where hockey is #1 instead of Houston where it would be like, idk, #7? Behind their other three franchises and NCAA for sure.

I do think that Ontario/Riverside/San Bernandino (aka "Inland Empire") is going to come into play in expansion talk in pro leagues soon.

However, that area being listed as a separate market is really how Metro Areas are statistically defined: by where people live and work and their commutes. The sports league have the whole 50 mile radius thing going for territorial rights and Los Angeles to Ontario is 37 miles. LA to Riverside is 55, but ANAHEIM to Riverside is 38. Paying TWO teams territorial rights in NHL or MLB pretty much takes them off the table.

As for Virginia... the Caps/Wizards are "Moving to Virginia" technically, but not really.

They're moving 5.9 miles from the old arena, just across the river. (fun fact: that land actually WAS part of DC from 1790 to 1847! DC gave it back). They're not leaving the market. That's the DC market.

The Virginia market listed as #4 is "Virginia Beach/Norfolk/Newport News/Hampton Roads." Which is 200 miles South of DC, and should start coming up in expansion talk (again).

They actually were on the final list of expansion teams for the 1997-2000 NHL expansion: The Hampton Roads Rhinos

 

[KevFu]

Except back in the 90s, NBA didn't really have talent pipeline from Europe like they do now.

So you are right in that NBA WAS watered down in the 90s, but if they expanded now that really isn't a problem.

NBA expansion most definitely isn't a problem from a talent pool perspective.

The NBA is the second-hardest league in the world for a player to break into. There's 450 guys.

The 500th best player in baseball, hockey, football or soccer safely makes their team's roster. The 500th best basketball player is praying to get a shot.

Less than 5000 people have ever played in the NBA, EVER.

 

[KevFu]

If this was a 21 team league, you would have all talents in all teams into 2nd or 3rd or even 4th line and majority of the defenders would be all talents and goaltending will be as well. That is the reason why many teams lacked defending goaltending and still have superstar on their team. There would be also fewer coaching job opportunities that majority of them are not a NHL caliber coaches. One would have lack some offensive talents but superior defensive team and goaltending in current era. The quality would have gone up for all teams if this was a 21-team league and we would consider this a golden era.

There's no doubt that there'd be more quality up and down the rosters with fewer teams. But the gap from "best to worst" players in the league wouldn't shrink much at all with expansion or contraction.

Let's use EA Sports NHL ratings. The worst guy on an active roster right now in a 32-team league is 76 overall.

There's 841 guys rated 79+ (NHL/AHL only, not counting everywhere in the world). That's one more than the 20 active guys before injuries for 32 teams -- if every player in the league is healthy (and assuming even positional distribution.

The only reason you see guys 76-78 playing is because of injuries.

So if you expand to 36 teams, when everyone's rosterbating in September, virtually no difference on paper between what you see today and what you'd see then... Until guys get hurt.

THEN you're gonna need the 76-78 guys to fill out lineups. But you're gonna be going from a third-line 80 to a third line 79, and an injury replacement 77 instead of a 78. VISUALLY, that's nothing.

 

[edog37]

I've never bought into this "talent pool is too thin" argument.

If you go to watch an AHL game - the talent level there is phenomenal. Yes, they're maybe a hair slower or less skilled than players in the NHL but by a very small degree. If the NHL expands to 40 teams you're not going to be getting players who hardly know how to skate.

Agreed. Talent pool is very deep.

 

[Djp]

We argue about what cities should/could support an NHL team,

Lets set aside how many markets could support a team. When the NBA added 6 teams in 7 years (Charlotte, Miami, Minnesota, Orlando, Toronto, and Vancouver) the league went through a down stretch as quality of play especially once the Big-3 Celtics and Showtime Lakers were dismantled. Eventually the talent pool caught up between the US population increased by 40% and the global growth of the game resulting better international players than before.

The NHL had its dead puck era when the added 5 teams in 3 years from 91-93 but then recovered as the Iron Curtain fell making it easier to get Russian players and more Americans took up the sport.

Since 2000 both the US and Canada have had 20% population increases. So could we go to 36 teams over the next decade and maintain quality of play?

The expansion from 21-30 was a direct result of the Soviet b
oc collapsing snd more younger hockey players wanting to come here.back in thr 80s only a few euros came here. Also at that time there was growth in the American market.

now, you have growth in thr game from thr 1990s expansion..

if thr KHL falls apart therr may be grounds to expand again.

 

[dj4aces]

The minor leagues have some pretty talented players. Draft classes are full of talent that goes undrafted. Junior programs across the world are churning out some amazing talent every year, which you can see playing in the SHL, DEL, Liiga, the KHL and more.

There's more than enough talent to where every league could add a handful of teams and *still* not drain the talent pool.