NHL in 2025 (mod: more Canadian teams, fewer US sunbelt teams)

[optimus2861]

There is only one more possible relocation site in Canada right now and that's QC. I don't see any significant population growths in Halifax or anywhere in New Brunswick.

Well, if Halifax lands the big shipbuilding contract you may see a boom of sorts here, but it still wouldn't be enough to get us anywhere close to NHL-sized.

After QC, you have to start doubling up in Toronto & Montreal to add more Canadian NHL clubs, and we all know how likely that is to happen.

 

[Thumper17]

People really need to stop using that particular map as a basis...
Montreal on the the border near New Hampshire...
Pittsburgh where Erie, PA is, on the lake...
Anaheim appears to be a suburb of San Diego...
Calgary closer to the Saskatchewan border than the BC border...
Washington is in Baltimore...

Then you added to that by putting...
Houston almost in San Antonio.
The Seals in the Mohave Desert.
And Portland in the Warm Springs Indian Reservation.


Oh, and I forgot to mention that including Las Vegas automatically opens the door to a lot more options which would be better than there...
Tulsa
Hampton Roads
Austin
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
Birmingham
Atlanta (again)

Make a better map then.

Milwaukee and Cincinatti might work, hadnt thought of them.

And Atlanta wont get another team for a long long time. At least, if the guys running the league stay half-sane and the US economy doesnt get any better. Regardless of ownership, Atlanta still had a far smaller fee for tickets then anywhere outside of the sunbelt.

IMO, if your given parking, food, a program and other goodies for 15 bucks and thats STILL not bringing people in, time to look elsewhere. Sorry.

 

[Killion]

Well I live here. Don't get me wrong. I want a franchise here, I just don't see Bettman and the BOG going for it despite the evidence...

While I agree its somewhat practicable to be a cynic about it, and really about people in general so you'll never wind up being disappointed in anything or anyone when it all goes to Hell in a Handbasket, I dont know that thats terribly healthy Mr. Munch.

The "Scream" after all is just an abstraction; oil on canvas, painted in 1893, possibly by one one of your ancestors Edvard of Norway?. I must say the poor guy in the picture does appear to be standing on the Mary Street Pedestrian Bridge in Hamilton wearing a Tigers jersey & looks about ready to jump. So hopefully the Butterfly Brigade from McMasters very excellent Medical Sciences Psychiatric Department can get a net on him before he pulls a full gainer triple lutz spread over the edge... never say die. What is man if he cant dream?. If that dream is to have an NHL franchise back in the Hammer & its possible, as it most surely is, chase it.

50 miles of the extent of the city limits? That's quite an interesting variable.

Would that refer to any city/municipality whose limits fall within the radius of the aggrieved city, or would it refer to the arena/home venue itself falling within the radius? For example, if it's the latter, could a team possibly fall within the territorial rights radius if they first set up shop in a temporary arena outside of the 50-mile limit, then move to a permanent home within the radius?

It certainly is, and I dont know what the answer is exactly because it appears to be written within the NHL's Constitution as to be "flexible" in terms of interpretation. Fifty miles "as the Crow Flies from the front door of Franchise A's arena?. Fifty miles from the cities center downtown core?. Or is it 50 miles from the cities limits?.

In 1993, the NHL created a By-Law that gives the Commissioner along with the BOG's the right to determine & usurp territorial rights, MLSE vehemently arguing that no, nice try, your little By-Law does not supercede the NHL's Constitution and I for one agree with them. Gary Bettmans comments that its not up to Toronto to accept or reject a 2nd team into their market is pure hubris & bravado on his part. Thats another story, and touches on this whole 50 miles as a Murder of Crows flies... Id love to see the NHL try it on, force, dictate to the Leafs that like it or not, teams landing in Downsview, Mississauga, Markham etc... MLSE would have the league for lunch in a courtroom, though I do believe they would be willing to work with Hamilton given the right owner, circumstances, indemnities etc.

 

[squidz*]

Make a better map then.

Milwaukee and Cincinatti might work, hadnt thought of them.

And Atlanta wont get another team for a long long time. At least, if the guys running the league stay half-sane and the US economy doesnt get any better. Regardless of ownership, Atlanta still had a far smaller fee for tickets then anywhere outside of the sunbelt.

IMO, if your given parking, food, a program and other goodies for 15 bucks and thats STILL not bringing people in, time to look elsewhere. Sorry.

Milwaukee is in Chicago's exclusivity zone. The overlap isn't much, but that still would entitle Chicago to compensation. Remember, the 50 mile radius is a 50 mile radius from each city which cannot overlap. It's also measured from city limits (iirc) not city center. It's probably more likely than a second Chicago team, but it still has major hurdles.

Atlanta, unfortunately, won't get another chance for a very long time. They've lost their franchise to Canada twice. Even if the second time was due to horrible mismanagement, they're going to be a last resort. If Nashville and Carolina can establish a fan base there, like they've been attempting, then maybe a brave new owner could convince the league they could stand another chance. I just don't see it happening in the next couple decades.

 

[Killion]

Atlanta, unfortunately, won't get another chance for a very long time. They've lost their franchise to Canada twice.

Epic failures by the owners & the NHL in both cases, circa 1980 & 2011. Somehow someway Atlantas' gotta find a way back in.

 

[MoreOrr]

Make a better map then.

Sorry, it doesn't have the team logos if you're into a map needing that, and it does have 4 non-NHL team cities named (you can remove them if you wish), but all the unnamed dots represent possible (remotely in some cases) NHL sites.

 

[Thumper17]

Sorry, it doesn't have the team logos if you're into a map needing that, and it does have 4 non-NHL team cities named (you can remove them if you wish), but all the unnamed dots represent possible (remotely in some cases) NHL sites.

I'm not a geography major so I wasnt sure what a few of those cities were, but that looks good travel wise for the west, and thats what I want to see happen in the next set of expansions and relocations. (After Quebec/Hamilton gets a team)

We need more teams out west to even out travel.

Epic failures by the owners & the NHL in both cases, circa 1980 & 2011. Somehow someway Atlantas' gotta find a way back in.

Why? Why exactly does Atlanta need a team? They've tried twice, and mismanagement or not, you could still buy tickets and watch the games. No one watches hockey in Atlanta, it's too much of a football city. I'm surprised they even managed to get one team there. I dont know how they got a second one.

 

[MoreOrr]

I'm not a geography major so I wasnt sure what a few of those cities were, but that looks good travel wise for the west, and thats what I want to see happen in the next set of expansions and relocations. (After Quebec/Hamilton gets a team)

We need more teams out west to even out travel.

Definitely! If the League plans to keep up the masquerade of the NHL being an East and a West League.

Why? Why exactly does Atlanta need a team? They've tried twice, and mismanagement or not, you could still buy tickets and watch the games. No one watches hockey in Atlanta, it's too much of a football city. I'm surprised they even managed to get one team there. I dont know how they got a second one.

There doesn't "need" to be a team in Atlanta, but as some posters are trying to point out, Atlanta hasn't lost two teams primarily because there isn't an interest in hockey there, it's lost two teams because of poor ownership/management or disinterested owners.

I think there was a thread once before, but someone really should bring people up-to-date on the actual reasons why relocated teams over the years were relocated. Everyone always just assumes it was because of poor fan interest, but that's rarely been the case. Of course, Canadians only point to that explanation when it comes to a US city, clearly never if it's a Canadian city that lost its team.

 

[DetRedWings109*]

Well, if Halifax lands the big shipbuilding contract you may see a boom of sorts here, but it still wouldn't be enough to get us anywhere close to NHL-sized.

After QC, you have to start doubling up in Toronto & Montreal to add more Canadian NHL clubs, and we all know how likely that is to happen.

Yup, after QC there is no room in Canada.

 

[Killion]

Why? Why exactly does Atlanta need a team? They've tried twice, and mismanagement or not, you could still buy tickets and watch the games. No one watches hockey in Atlanta, it's too much of a football city. I'm surprised they even managed to get one team there. I dont know how they got a second one.

Because of its size, its importance on the corporate & broadcast radar screens; its importance in being the lynchpin to the south. It was indeed an afterthought when first awarded a franchise along with the Islanders, both teams established for less than stellar reasons. The Isles to block the WHA's designs on the NY market, the team a money loser virtually every single year since including their SC winning Dynasty's. The Flames a throw-in due to a new arena and to balance the conferences & schedule.

The original Flames, against all odds & many a naysayer surprising everyone and doing fairly well, capturing the imagination of the sports fans in Atlanta. It was only due to the then owners financial meltdown of his real estate holdings & the need for quick cash that he turned down a local offer led by Hollywood acting legend Glenn Ford of $12-15M for the franchise & instead accepted Rounder Nelson Skalbanias' offer of $25M for a relo to Calgary. Momentum was lost, a lot of people devastated. When they re-entered under Turners group, everything was looking great until they too off-loaded the team with the Atlanta Spirit Group eventually owning the Thrashers & NBA franchise & held the arena mgmnt contract, and who then deliberately ran the franchise into the ditch over 10yrs under the utter & completely incompetent guidance of Don Waddell.

 

[Grudy0]

These points, in no particular order, are to address some of the issues discussed without quoting specific posters:

The problem with this report is that it assumes Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver could handle a second team within its home territory. I realize how exciting this could be for the general hockey fan, especially to those in Toronto that would like the Maple Leaf exclusivity to end. However, I just don't know how willing the Leafs would end that exclusivity for another team just down the road. I mean, the Rangers have went down that road twice and they still sellout every game (although I hear sellouts are because Dolan purchases all remaining tickets). And I'm fairly certain that a Montreal2 or Vancouver2 is darn near impossible.

I still have my belief in the "I-70 line". If you have an NHL team within 50 miles of I-70, you must do more in order to compete for the sporting dollar. From east to west:

Washington:
After years of bad seasons to start their franchise, the Capitals were almost sold to Ottawa in the early 1980's. Once they became good, the rest of the 1980's and most of the 1990's made them a storied franchise. However, the 2000's brought years of bad attendance, until the past two and a half seasons sold out because of the competitive promise of Ovechkin, Semin, Green and company.

Pittsburgh:
Bankruptcy almost in 1975, when the team could have been moved to Seattle
Bankruptcy almost in 1984, before winning the Mario Lemieux sweepstakes
Bankruptcy in 1999, as the Lemieux, the largest unsecured creditor took over the team
Financial edge of bankruptcy from 2005 to 2007 until they received a new arena

Columbus:
Losing tens of millions of dollars yearly, mainly due to the fact that they've yet to have a real playoff run since their founding

St. Louis:
Near bankruptcy in 1977, team bought by Rolston-Purina
Near bankruptcy in 1982 and operated on a shoe-string budget until Harry Ornest sold team.
Lost tens of millions per year in the early 2000's; a pared payroll caused attendance to suffer.

Kansas City:
Scouts were only around for two years. Purchased and moved to Denver as Denver's expansion team in 1976.

Denver:
Colorado Rockies come from Kansas City. Lasted six years and two more owners before moving to New Jersey. Currently the Colorado Avalanche are playing to about 80 percent of capacity.

If you take I-70 to the Pacific:
San Francisco:
The Seals. And the San Jose Sharks, as their replacement, has worked fairly well.

And the more south your franchise is from I-70, the challenges become much harder. Two franchises moved from Atlanta. You have to be good, or you lose attendance (see Tampa Bay before Vinik/Yzerman and the Dallas Stars and Anaheim Ducks).

And most importantly, you will never catch the revenue streams of the more northern teams.

So right now the model appears to be the need for the NHL team to run (or share with the NBA) the arena from which they play.

 

[MoreOrr]

I still have my belief in the "I-70 line". If you have an NHL team within 50 miles of I-70, you must do more in order to compete for the sporting dollar. From east to west:

Washington:
After years of bad seasons to start their franchise, the Capitals were almost sold to Ottawa in the early 1980's. Once they became good, the rest of the 1980's and most of the 1990's made them a storied franchise. However, the 2000's brought years of bad attendance, until the past two and a half seasons sold out because of the competitive promise of Ovechkin, Semin, Green and company.

Pittsburgh:
Bankruptcy almost in 1975, when the team could have been moved to Seattle
Bankruptcy almost in 1984, before winning the Mario Lemieux sweepstakes
Bankruptcy in 1999, as the Lemieux, the largest unsecured creditor took over the team
Financial edge of bankruptcy from 2005 to 2007 until they received a new arena

Columbus:
Losing tens of millions of dollars yearly, mainly due to the fact that they've yet to have a real playoff run since their founding

St. Louis:
Near bankruptcy in 1977, team bought by Rolston-Purina
Near bankruptcy in 1982 and operated on a shoe-string budget until Harry Ornest sold team.
Lost tens of millions per year in the early 2000's; a pared payroll caused attendance to suffer.

Kansas City:
Scouts were only around for two years. Purchased and moved to Denver as Denver's expansion team in 1976.

Denver:
Colorado Rockies come from Kansas City. Lasted six years and two more owners before moving to New Jersey. Currently the Colorado Avalanche are playing to about 80 percent of capacity.

If you take I-70 to the Pacific:
San Francisco:
The Seals. And the San Jose Sharks, as their replacement, has worked fairly well.

Interesting theory, but it seems to run slightly contrary to climate geography, as the further west you go, the further south the line goes. Climate geography would present that line in reverse, the further east you go, the further south the line should be. The center and northeast/east central get colder and are more hockey conducive than the northwest.

I-40 works for me.

 

[Grudy0]

To me, it is less about climate geography and more about buying patterns.

After all, there are some issues with the I-70 line:

New Jersey and the Islanders don't sellout on a regular basis. The western Canadian teams were in some financial constraints during the mid-1990's, and even Ottawa went bankrupt. Even one of the holy grails, the Chicago Blackhawks, went through a massive attendance problem while the franchise was run into the ground.

I'm just simply pointing out that the franchises along the I-70 corridor won't make the money that the Rangers, Red Wings, Flyers, Leafs nor Canadiens make.

 

[Ryan34222]

Hi Dronald,

I apologize. It is just...

My wife is from Hamilton. Her family is from Hamilton. I LOVE the city! I just don't see it supporting an NHL team. I just don't see the city supporting ANYTHING...

Why is it that we have not seen the Grey Cup in over a decade? Why was our attendance at the Brier so bad it scared Curling out of southern Ontario? Did you hear how many people went to the LFL game at Copps?

For what it is worth, I HOPE I am wrong. I hope we get one and support it - along with the Ticats.

far to negative.. Hamilton and area would be fine for support.. as for CFL.. TV ratings show that the fans are their,they`re just not going to the 80 year old stadium.. besides 23-24000 per game is pretty good considering everything going against the Cats..location, stadium, location, being irrelevant for that last couple decades, location.. lol

lol at LFL.. no city draws well..

 

[Jeffrey93]

weird....

very biased from a elitist point of view.....

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/48064--the-nhl-in-2025

Why does any article suggesting the NHL go where the demand is have to be considered 'elitist'?

 

[Killion]

lol at LFL.. no city draws well..

Just to be crystal clear here, the op did use the Lingerie Football League's attendance issues as an example of why he thinks Hamiltons' not a decent sports town. Do I have that right?.

 

[Jeffrey93]

That are not Ontario. Ottawa is worse than LA, Toronto we all know the story, Hamilton is poor. Even Montreal was not that good a CFL city either.

But the point is dronald and other should give a good reason why Toronto and Buffalo should make way for Hamilton.

Hamilton is in the same per capita income range as Toronto is. Shocking, I know. The entire region is rather wealthy....not poor.

 

[Ryan34222]

Just to be crystal clear here, the op did use the Lingerie Football League's attendance issues as an example of why he thinks Hamiltons' not a decent sports town. Do I have that right?.

i believe he did.. im not going to totally disagree with him. this city could use a gentle kick in pants at times..

 

[Ryan34222]

Hamilton is in the same per capita income range as Toronto is. Shocking, I know. .

i'll admit i'm a little surprised

 

[Melrose Munch]

far to negative.. Hamilton and area would be fine for support.. as for CFL.. TV ratings show that the fans are their,they`re just not going to the 80 year old stadium.. besides 23-24000 per game is pretty good considering everything going against the Cats..location, stadium, location, being irrelevant for that last couple decades, location.. lol

lol at LFL.. no city draws well..

Why do CFL fans always say that. All the teams will tell you its not the same when you stay home and watch. The Last TiCats Argos game probably pulled in over 800k but less then half of sky dome was full. You know why TFC and Raptors ratings are low? because everyone is at the game. Empty games look bad no matter the TV ratings.

The CFL should consider blackouts again.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Hamilton is in the same per capita income range as Toronto is. Shocking, I know. The entire region is rather wealthy....not poor.

Cool. Nice to know.

 

[Ryan34222]

Why do CFL fans always say that. All the teams will tell you its not the same when you stay home and watch. The Last TiCats Argos game probably pulled in over 800k but less then half of sky dome was full. You know why TFC and Raptors ratings are low? because everyone is at the game. Empty games look bad no matter the TV ratings.

The CFL should consider blackouts again.

or it might just be no one but those few like basketball and soccer lol

 

[Jeffrey93]

Why do CFL fans always say that. All the teams will tell you its not the same when you stay home and watch. The Last TiCats Argos game probably pulled in over 800k but less then half of sky dome was full. You know why TFC and Raptors ratings are low? because everyone is at the game. Empty games look bad no matter the TV ratings.

The CFL should consider blackouts again.

I argued that empty arenas/stadiums look bad on TV for many months....the sunbelt supporters said that was insane logic.

Raptors ratings are low because 16,500 people are at the game?? Does 16,000 viewers even show up in TV ratings?

 

[headsigh]

No one watches hockey in Atlanta, it's too much of a football city.

what have i been watching for the last 10+ years? football on ice?

 

[dronald]

what have i been watching for the last 10+ years? football on ice?