How many teams could the NHL theoretically support?

[Siludin]

Limiting our selection to North America, which cities could support NHL teams, and at what number should the league stop expanding? 34? 36? 40?

Could Kansas City, Quebec City, or Austin be options? What about Mexico City?

Click to read more...

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

I think more than 32 becomes too much. Honestly, I think more than 30 is too much. That's just my opinion though. At some point schedules are going to turn into a mess, the games played will either go up or down, and if teams keep being added, then there probably won't be a future of inter conference games in the regular season.

 

[SnizzMitch]

32 should be enough for the next 100 years

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

We can barely support what we’ve got now, but the thing is that there’s more potential in hockey growth than in any other major sport. I think the NHL executives are banking on a breaking point needing to be reached before a true exponential increase in its popularity occurs.

The things that the NHL have going in their favor is a wider range of areas where they can and do routinely draw talent from (you can see how the NBA is trying to do the same thing with the Baltic and Balkan countries) and a wider range of untapped markets to choose from, with some hockey crazy markets like Quebec City still without teams and the fact that Canada being able to support multiple teams being a huge bonus. Their stranglehold over Canada as compared to the other major sports means that they have markets like Milwaukee open.

You see the NFL and MLB scheduling games in Europe because they feel like they’ve run out of places to grow in North America and Europe is the most culturally similar market to try despite it being a logistics nightmare. But because the NHL draws a lot of its talent from Europe, there is inherently already a market and so they don’t feel the need to try stunts like that.

Another important thing to consider is that the success of VGK has proved that the NHL can succeed as a pioneer major franchise in a large untapped market, meaning that cities like Albuquerque could be prime places for the NHL to trigger that exponential growth they’re hoping for. And the relative parity of play in hockey makes It easier for new franchises to succeed faster and for new fan bases to invest.

I’m guessing what the worry is would be the continuous stretch of the talent field between all these teams which lowers the quality of the product, and combined with internal issues like the Ottawa bullshit you’ve got a situation where It will really just come down to guesswork and hoping their bet is correct.

In conclusion, 36 total teams could work, imo

 

[Bear of Bad News]

We can barely support what we’ve got now

And yet, the Vegas Golden Knights took a collection of cast-offs to a truly remarkable season.

 

[Tofveve]

I think they'll stop at 32 for quite awhile.

But I think there is in the ballpark of 36 cities that could support a team.

Just off the top of my head: Houston, Atlanta, Portland, Quebec City . . . Others may be San Diego, Minneapolis, Kansas City, San Antonio

 

[Turin]

32 should be the max, I already thought 30 was more than enough but I suppose there’s more talent around than ever.

 

[Hogan86]

Too many teams as it is. But it's a business and they want more money to make. Ideally 24 teams would be plenty. It would increase the overall talent of the league as well.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

And yet, the Vegas Golden Knights took a collection of cast-offs to a truly remarkable season.

Not being able to support what we got is entirely due to rushed implementation of bad bet franchises (see Phoenix) and arguably the least skilled overall GM corps collectively among the major sports.

When you make good on a bet with a franchise it’s because you implement an expansion draft plan that helps make a team competitive, hire good management and plan out implementation very concisely. Add in no small amount of luck and you’ve got VGK who NEED to be the blueprint for NHL expansion going forward if you want any hope of not creating more Coyotes’

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

Too many teams as it is. But it's a business and they want more money to make. Ideally 24 teams would be plenty. It would increase the overall talent of the league as well.

NHLPA would never agree to that. Especially in this day and age you need a large enough number of franchises where your normal slightly above average college hockey player has a chance of making It as a UFA. Part of growing the sport is getting more kids to play and dream of making It to the show someday.

 

[Price is Wright]

40 with a two tier league.

I believe all North American major leagues will be this eventually.

 

[Martin Skoula]

No idea about the actual financials but another 4 teams would really help make stars stand out again. Too many great 3rd liners and bottom pairings right now.

 

[Hogan86]

NHLPA would never agree to that. Especially in this day and age you need a large enough number of franchises where your normal slightly above average college hockey player has a chance of making It as a UFA. Part of growing the sport is getting more kids to play and dream of making It to the show someday.

At the end of the day it's all about dollars and cents. A shorter season to reduce fatigue and less teams to increase talent would make the NHL a better league. But it's all about the money.

 

[El Travo]

Add any more teams after Seattle and we'll have to go with the promotion/relegation system.

 

[Mr Positive]

I don't think there is a limit as long as the team is popular. There's no way that adding Vegas put some burden on the league. As long as a good number of added teams are a net positive, how could it be bad? Maybe the strength of the NHL is that the starting cash needed is less than those super-popular leagues, and so there are more potential markets to take advantage of. Maybe we could have 40 teams or more.

The only tricky thing is diluting league talent, and having a fewer percentage of teams in the playoffs. With diluted talent, that might actually expand scoring since the great players will have a lower average quality of competition. Even there though, in Vegas there probably are kids starting to get into hockey already, so growing the league will grow the talent pool as well. It just takes time.

As for the playoff percentage, even there that could actually be better to make the playoffs more exclusive, but maybe we could expand the number of playoff teams.

 

[SunDevilHockeyFan]

At the end of the day it's all about dollars and cents. A shorter season to reduce fatigue and less teams to increase talent would make the NHL a better league. But it's all about the money.

Well of course It is. You won’t really see any of the players complaining about that, either. I guarantee if you offer the average player a pay cut equivalent to playing 20 less games the answer will almost always be “hell no!”.

Sometimes It might make things less than ideal for the players, sure. But when It comes down to it there’s very very few professions that have the during and after career benefits and opportunities that a career in professional sports has. And obviously there are shit owners who will railroad his players to stuff his own pocket but most of the time it’s a balancing act for them between keeping their business profitable and in a position to keep building while keeping everyone happy.

 

[Headshot77]

Once Seattle is awarded a franchise and gets in at number 32, the league will remain at that number for a long time. But theoretically, there are many areas with enough population that could accept a team if they had a team and a decent owner.

Let's say the league is healthy in 2035 and announces a four-team expansion to Houston, Quebec City, A Second Toronto/Hamilton franchise, and Portland. You'd have 36 teams, divided into six divisions of six.

MTL, OTT, QUE, BOS, TOR, TOR 2
BUF, NYI, NYR, NJ, WSH, PHI
DET, PIT, CBJ, CAR, FLA, TB

CGY, EDM, VAN, WPG, SEA, POR
NSH, CHI, STL, MIN, DAL, HOU
LV, ARI, SJ, LA, ANA, COL

2050 rolls around and Kansas City, San Francisco, Atlanta 3.0, and Austin would make for a 40 team league. You could have an NFL-like alignment of four-team divisions.

TOR, TOR 2, DET, BUF
MTL, OTT, QUE, BOS
NYI, NYR, NJ, WSH
PHI, PIT, CBJ, CAR
NSH, ATL, FLA, TB

CHI, STL, KC, MIN
DAL, HOU, AUS, COL
CGY, EDM, WPG, VAN
SEA, POR, LV, ARI
SJ, SF, LA, ANA

So, 32 is were we are likely going to stay for a while, 36 would be fine, and 40 would be the absolute most.

 

[brock0791]

I'm surprised with how much expansion the league has seen that we're still only seeing a handful of draft year players sticking with the NHL club. Especially with the younger and faster trend you'd think we'd be pushing 20-30 18 year old rookies by now.

 

[dukeofjive]

Has long as the teams that bankroll the league keep on making money the nhl will be fine adding a few more teams, 2 to 4 over the next 20 years.

For talent wise theres already too many ahlers in the league as it is, adding more teams will just dilute the talent even more.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bruce Granville]

41 is the limit, because you should have home and away games against every team and stay at 82 games.

 

[CanadianPensFan1]

It's tough to say.

There is an argument that there isn't enough talent to support the teams we have now. Almost every team in the league has guys who are just awful on the 4th line.

Then scheduling becomes an issue.

And you know that the more teams they are, the more teams will make the playoffs (too many make it now imo). Could you imagine the playoffs with 24 teams? Ease. The season would never f***ing end.

In short, for me personally, 32 is more than enough

 

[nyrage]

Having lived in Houston for 20 years now, I just can't see this city supporting a hockey team as much as I would love to see it. Aside from some transplanted northerners like me, hockey might as well be a sport played on Mars to these people.

OP mentioned Austin. No way, that would be worse. Too small of a city. I'm actually somewhat shocked that hockey has thrived in Dallas. Every time I go to a Rangers game, it feels like 50% NY transplants from all over Texas.

Dallas fans seem to be truly into it though. Maybe it just takes time and/or success. When I first went to Nashville years ago, their fans seemed like goofballs and many just wanted to see fights. No offense. Now they seem to be one of the best fanbases.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

I draw the line for a single league firmly at 32, regardless of player pool, for a professional league (save me the NCAA Tourney noise, it's a different animal entirely). Anything past that and you'd need promotion/relegation for there to frankly be enough to root for. Too many teams means too many have-nots, which means you're going to stretch vulnerable markets even thinner, next thing you know the Cup is just handed back-and-forth between 3 or 4 teams a decade.

Erm.

I still maintain anything more than 32 would be overkill, and even then 32 is the top end just because of how easily divisible it is.

 

[Pookie]

at what number should the league stop expanding?

6.

 

[DowntownBooster]

The number of teams should be capped at 32 once Seattle joins. At that point half the teams will miss the playoffs each year. For many of the teams in the league, the only opportunity to turn a profit is by making the playoffs. Additional expansion money will only get you so far. If you continually decrease the chances of making the playoffs by adding new teams, it could impact your fan base by missing the playoffs in successive years. When that happens, the revenue received from expansion will be required to cover the losses sustained from missing the playoffs and losing paying customers. Sometimes less (teams) is more and more (expansion money) is less.