Relocation, Expansion, Realignment

[codswallop]

forgot about Nashville and Pittsburgh

anyways, Atlanta had their chance with the Flames...failed then and now

The owner failed in Atlanta, not the team.

I'm not saying the team was setting the league on fire (really bad pun), but they were doing well with the fans and gaining acceptance with the city.

If the real estate market hadn't bottomed out so badly in the late 70s, we'd probably be talking about an expansion team in Calgary (which we can say they would have been at the top of the list if that were the case).

I've held a grudge against Atlanta and it's sports teams since I was forced to move here as a kid (California was so very nice). As an adult, those feelings have been tempered a bit. I've acclimated to the environment. Now, I can see the reasons why the NHL came back here. A very large and growing city that's now 4M+ in population, roughly 40% being northern in origin, more than 2M possible converts to the game, many and large corporate entities within the city, etc.

I'll admit, Atlanta is a fair-weather sports town. But other than some extreme examples, most cities are this way with their sports. That's not too much of a revelation.

 

[kdb209]

Everywhere else in the south can up and vaporize for all I care. Frankly, My NHL does not include the Southeast Division and I dont care who doesnt like it. Hockey needs to return to traditional markets: Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford... shoot, why not Saskatchewan and Milwalkee even. Places where people, yknow, PLAY HOCKEY.

Winnepeg, Quebec, Hartford - traditional markets ???

How old are you, and how long have you been following the NHL?

Those are not real NHL cities. There never would have been teams there if not for the failed WHA experiment and NHL merger. It is unlikely that any of them would ever have gotten an NHL franchaise through expansion.

It's not a coincidence that all of the WHA franchises (except Edmonton) have failed/moved - they never really were NHL quality markets. If not for the Great One, Edmonton too probably would have failed, and the WHA officially relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

[Muleskinner]

Winnepeg, Quebec, Hartford - traditional markets ???

How old are you, and how long have you been following the NHL?

Those are not real NHL cities. There never would have been teams there if not for the failed WHA experiment and NHL merger. It is unlikely that any of them would ever have gotten an NHL franchaise through expansion.

It's not a coincidence that all of the WHA franchises (except Edmonton) have failed/moved - they never really were NHL quality markets. If not for the Great One, Edmonton too probably would have failed, and the WHA officially relegated to the dustbin of history.

Very good post, and a good history leason. Some people up north just despise THEIR GAME being played in what they call non-traditional markets. I am the first to admit that some of the expantion that has gone on in the past 10 years or so has me scratching my head, mostly the first part of it. While I'm with most people and HATE seeing teams relocated, there is useally a reason for it, but often it is simply an owner looking to cash in on an untapped market like the one that moved from Hartford to Carolina. He first wanted to move the Whalers to Columbus but since the city wouldnt build him an arena he looked elsewhere. Big mistake.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Very good post, and a good history leason. Some people up north just despise THEIR GAME being played in what they call non-traditional markets. I am the first to admit that some of the expantion that has gone on in the past 10 years or so has me scratching my head, mostly the first part of it. While I'm with most people and HATE seeing teams relocated, there is useally a reason for it, but often it is simply an owner looking to cash in on an untapped market like the one that moved from Hartford to Carolina. He first wanted to move the Whalers to Columbus but since the city wouldnt build him an arena he looked elsewhere. Big mistake.

how was Winnipeg moving to Phoenix helped that franchise?? what about Hartford to Carolina??

I admit that Quebec moving to Colorado ahs been a success, but any town where they win the Stanley Cup after their 1st year in the league would be a success. I can't wait to see the support when the Avs tank...

anyways, bring back the Jets and those Green Jersey's of Hartford!

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

how was Winnipeg moving to Phoenix helped that franchise??

Better attendance, bigger market, better economy, and new arena ring a bell?

 

[Reilly311]

Better attendance, bigger market, better economy, and new arena ring a bell?

Hey, Winnepeg got a new arena...... :lol

 

[GreenBud]

I haven't read the thread entirely, but I wanted to weigh in. The NHL has become the defensive snorefest because of one thing. Expansion. There is around 200 players that would have been in the AHL, or wherever, 12 or 13 years ago. The league is so watered down and the talent spread so thin and its all because of having too many teams.

The best thing that could possibly happen in my wildest dreams is the contraction of six teams. Years ago there were plenty of stars on many teams and now if your team has two or three top tier guys then your team is very good. Think of the Habs in the '70s (as much as I hated them), they were loaded. What about the Islanders? Look at the Canucks. They have two, many three stars, and they're an elite team. There are players that do not even deserve to be in the league, IMO.

I would absolutely love to see some teams go bye-bye. Bye to Florida, Atlanta, Carolina, Anaheim, Nashville, and perhaps Phoenix or Pittsburgh. This league is watered down and that's its biggest problem. Forget changing the rules, hoping that it might work, axe some teams and get it back to the way it was.

The idea of expanding, i'm sorry, but it's absolutely stupid, and changing markets does nothing to help the economic strength of the game, IMO.

* The only rule change I would advocate is the removal of the red line. Immediately.

 

[Reilly311]

I haven't read thread entirely, but I wanted to weigh in. The NHL has become the defensive snorefest because of one thing. Expansion.

Actually, in theory, expansion should make higher scoring.


Look at the league scoring before and after the expansion teams came in. It's pretty much the same.

 

[Ruutu15]

I haven't read the thread entirely,.

i suggest you do so, your beef with the league has been addressed a few times already.

 

[Muleskinner]

how was Winnipeg moving to Phoenix helped that franchise?? what about Hartford to Carolina??

I admit that Quebec moving to Colorado ahs been a success, but any town where they win the Stanley Cup after their 1st year in the league would be a success. I can't wait to see the support when the Avs tank...

anyways, bring back the Jets and those Green Jersey's of Hartford!

Yea, I miss the Jets and those green jerseys of Hartford. I really do. Although they lost their teams they had great fans there and I feel for them. Unfortunatly though its not the fans that have the final say in these matters. If Winnipeg had built that arena they would still be there. Hartford to Carolina was a stupid mistake as I stated earlier. An owner looking to cash in, he rolled the dice and came up snake eyes. Its too bad for the real fans of these citys because they have no power in whether a new building gets built or not.

 

[Oilman72]

Winnepeg, Quebec, Hartford - traditional markets ???

How old are you, and how long have you been following the NHL?

Those are not real NHL cities. There never would have been teams there if not for the failed WHA experiment and NHL merger. It is unlikely that any of them would ever have gotten an NHL franchaise through expansion.

It's not a coincidence that all of the WHA franchises (except Edmonton) have failed/moved - they never really were NHL quality markets. If not for the Great One, Edmonton too probably would have failed, and the WHA officially relegated to the dustbin of history.

That's quite a talent you've got for talking out of your ass.

The only reason those teams left was because of money. Winnipeg and especially Quebec eat, sleep and breath hockey and they didn't deserve to lose their teams. It doesn't matter how they got there teams or whether or not they would have gotten teams through expansion or not. That doesn't change the fact that almost any city in Canada would be a better hockey city than most markets in the States.

When you can't get ratings on tv higher than bowling then it's time to not care about some of those markets in the States. Do we really need three friggin' teams in California?? Atlanta, Carolina and Nashville could disappear and not only wouldn't I care I wonder if the news would even make the front page of their city's sports sections.

I'd be happy to see some useless markets in the US fall and see the NHL tighten up and stay in markets that are good for hockey. Stop trying to compete with the other major sports because in the eyes of most Americans hockey will always come last. It will never, and I repeat never, be more popular or even as popular as Football, Baseball or Basketball. They shouldn't even try.

 

[GreenBud]

Actually, in theory, expansion should make higher scoring.


Look at the league scoring before and after the expansion teams came in. It's pretty much the same.

I don't agree. Teams started playing tight defensive hockey, waiting to pounce on a mistake, because of one thing: Lack of skilled players. The percentage of the skilled guys in the league has gone down. They're spread too thin.

Sure, there may be as much scoring. But we have to look at how those goals are coming about. Pouncing on mistakes! Dumping the puck in and hoping the D-man screws up. Boooooring. Wide-open hockey is gone due to the fact the skilled guys are few and far between. These defensive schemes are designed to control the skilled players and to hide the lack of skills of any lesser players.

Remember, the skilled guys would be in the league no matter what. It's the 4th line guys of today that should not be in the league and they wouldn't be if there wasn't so many teams. It's alot easier to have these guys play tight, defensive hockey then it is to ask them to play a type of hockey that needs any sort of offensive skill. Some of those players handle the puck like they're playing with a concrete stick.

Tight, defensive hockey is booooring to watch. Especially to Americans that don't understand the game like those in the 'hockey playing' States or in Canada. Less teams would be so much better for the league as a whole.

* I would also like the instigator rule to go the way of the red line.

 

[GreenBud]

i suggest you do so, your beef with the league has been addressed a few times already.

Well, i'm adding my two cents then, aren't I?

 

[Muleskinner]

I don't agree. Teams started playing tight defensive hockey, waiting to pounce on a mistake, because of one thing: Lack of skilled players. The percentage of the skilled guys in the league has gone down. They're spread too thin.

Sure, there may be as much scoring. But we have to look at how those goals are coming about. Pouncing on mistakes! Dumping the puck in and hoping the D-man screws up. Boooooring. Wide-open hockey is gone due to the fact the skilled guys are few and far between. These defensive schemes are designed to control the skilled players and to hide the lack of skills of any lesser players.

Remember, the skilled guys would be in the league no matter what. It's the 4th line guys of today that should not be in the league and they wouldn't be if there wasn't so many teams. It's alot easier to have these guys play tight, defensive hockey then it is to ask them to play a type of hockey that needs any sort of offensive skill. Some of those players handle the puck like they're playing with a concrete stick.

Tight, defensive hockey is booooring to watch. Especially to Americans that don't understand the game like those in the 'hockey playing' States or in Canada. Less teams would be so much better for the league as a whole.

* I would also like the instigator rule to go the way of the red line.

Someone else posted an article with Lindy Ruff earlier. You should go back and read it. In case you wont read back, he said that the talk about a watered down game in baseless in his view. He said that he felt the TALENT level is far better than in his playing days and that he was embarrassed to show films of his playing days to the players of today. The reason in his eyes the scoring is down is basicly to the fact there arent many mistakes because of the talent level.

I will not argue with a man that both played the game and now coaches the game.

 

[GreenBud]

Someone else posted an article with Lindy Ruff earlier. You should go back and read it. In case you wont read back, he said that the talk about a watered down game in baseless in his view. He said that he felt the TALENT level is far better than in his playing days and that he was embarrassed to show films of his playing days to the players of today. The reason in his eyes the scoring is down is basicly to the fact there arent many mistakes because of the talent level.

I will not argue with a man that both played the game and now coaches the game.

Thanks. I skimmed and couldn't see it. Is this the thread? Do you know who posted it?

I naturally welcome any opinions or other points of view and do enjoy arguing about it, too.

It's not that I don't read the threads, its just i'm kinda lazy tonight.

 

[Muleskinner]

If you dont find it on this thread, check the thread "who says the NHL is hockey" Its either here or there.

 

[bleedgreen]

Winnepeg, Quebec, Hartford - traditional markets ???

How old are you, and how long have you been following the NHL?

Those are not real NHL cities.

hockey is pretty big in all three cities, imo. they were all capable nhl cities, back when hockey was blue collar everyday people. in todays luxury suite world - maybe not.

 

[Muleskinner]

That's quite a talent you've got for talking out of your ass.

The only reason those teams left was because of money. Winnipeg and especially Quebec eat, sleep and breath hockey and they didn't deserve to lose their teams. It doesn't matter how they got there teams or whether or not they would have gotten teams through expansion or not. That doesn't change the fact that almost any city in Canada would be a better hockey city than most markets in the States.

When you can't get ratings on tv higher than bowling then it's time to not care about some of those markets in the States. Do we really need three friggin' teams in California?? Atlanta, Carolina and Nashville could disappear and not only wouldn't I care I wonder if the news would even make the front page of their city's sports sections.

I'd be happy to see some useless markets in the US fall and see the NHL tighten up and stay in markets that are good for hockey. Stop trying to compete with the other major sports because in the eyes of most Americans hockey will always come last. It will never, and I repeat never, be more popular or even as popular as Football, Baseball or Basketball. They shouldn't even try.

Winnipeg and Quebec may eat and sleep hockey but look no further than your own statment to explain there demise. MONEY. As bad as it sucks money is what major sports leagues are about these days bud. Untill Canada swears alligence to the stars and stripes the money stays down here. (just kidding)

I wish Canada could have kept all their teams and so do most fans in the states but how are they "good markets" if they have old buildings and bad attendance numbers? Its not our fault your own owners came here to make money. Maybe Canada fans need to take a hard look at this more than railing the fact that they are loosing teams down here.

 

[PredsFan77*]

That's quite a talent you've got for talking out of your ass.

The only reason those teams left was because of money. Winnipeg and especially Quebec eat, sleep and breath hockey and they didn't deserve to lose their teams. It doesn't matter how they got there teams or whether or not they would have gotten teams through expansion or not. That doesn't change the fact that almost any city in Canada would be a better hockey city than most markets in the States.

When you can't get ratings on tv higher than bowling then it's time to not care about some of those markets in the States. Do we really need three friggin' teams in California?? Atlanta, Carolina and Nashville could disappear and not only wouldn't I care I wonder if the news would even make the front page of their city's sports sections.

I'd be happy to see some useless markets in the US fall and see the NHL tighten up and stay in markets that are good for hockey. Stop trying to compete with the other major sports because in the eyes of most Americans hockey will always come last. It will never, and I repeat never, be more popular or even as popular as Football, Baseball or Basketball. They shouldn't even try.

ohh god bless those poor Canadian cities and their poor fans...and those southern US cities can piss off and rot away in hell!

 

[katodelder]

Hopefully the league will never contract and only continue to expand slowly over time to match the global talent base. It’s evolution, baby.

Hopefully the NHL will be more responsive to change (even if it means just tweaking gameplay rules and formats) in order to help showcase the one important trait that it can market to set its brand apart from other stick-and-ball team sports: displays of deft skill and rugged toughness at incredible, continuous speeds.

Hopefully all the franchises can stay where they are and be given a chance to grow in a fair economic system, gradually cultivate their own intensely loyal (even if small) fan bases, and thus help spread the game's presence and influence over time.

Hopefully relocation will continue to be only a last resort for teams that can't coax their current cities into building new arenas. By now, I think almost every team has a relatively new building with luxury boxes and are tied into long term leases.

I believe the oldest rinks are in Pittsburgh, East Rutherford NJ, Long Island, Detroit, and Manhattan's MSG.

It seems Mario Lemieux has made it painfully clear that if the Penguins' last-ditch attempts to gain slot-machine revenue to help finance a new arena fall through, then he'll have virtually no choice but to sell the team and regretfully watch it relocate. I believe their lease with 'the Igloo' ends in 2007.

It was recently confirmed that the Devils will be skating in a new home in downtown Newark, NJ by 2007-08.

I'm not sure when the Islanders' lease with aging Nassau Coliseum expires, but I think it's soon. I've heard loose, speculative talk of a potential move across town to Brooklyn somewhere down the road, but who knows?

Hockeytown will get its new crib eventually, and MSG, which has been refurbished several times, seems good enough for the Rangers for now.

Have I missed any other franchises with long-in-the-tooth buildings and/or soon-to-expire-lease-agreements?

But if and when the need does arise, it's good to know that even with 30 North American markets already filled, there are still places for the NHL to potentially relocate and expand to.

Winnipeg has a new 15,000-seat arena with luxury boxes and a fan base that is extremely vocal about their desire to welcome back the NHL with open arms. Further support by government and especially the city's corporate sector would make it very attractive.

Hamilton has Copps Coliseum which could be renovated or used as a temporary home while a new building is built. I've read numerous articles that argue the Greater-Toronto-Area could definitely support another team. If I'm not mistaken, Canada’s Steeltown has already lost out past expansion bids to Ottawa and Columbus. Obviously the Leafs pose a territorial stumbling-block.

Portland, Oregon has long been considered an attractive U.S. market whose wealthy Tech Industry tycoons have expressed a desire to land the city a second pro-sports franchise. There is hockey history dating back to the Rosebuds of the early 1900s through today's WHL Winterhawks. However the building that houses the NBA Trailblazers isn't considered ideal for hockey and a new arena will be needed in addition to sustained public support.

Houston, I believe, is currently the most populated North American city without an NHL team. Gordie Howe once played for the WHA Aeroes. A team with the same moniker captured the 2003 AHL Calder Cup.

Kansas City is getting a new, privately-funded, state-of-the-art Entertainment Complex built by 2007/2008 (courtesy of IMG Entertainment) in the hopes of luring a struggling NBA or NHL franchise (nice timing). The NHL Scouts made a brief appearance in this market in the mid-70's before bolting for Colorado to become the Rockies.

Milwaukee, representing all of Wisconsin, could support an NHL franchise for many of the same reasons that Columbus can. Their AHL Admirals took home the 2004 Calder Cup. A new building and corporate support would be needed, and of course Bill Wirtz's Blackhawks pose a territorial stumbling-block.

Quebec City hasn't shown the same kind of desire for the NHL's return that Winnipeg has. It would need the snowballing effects of a groundswell of public support, corporate and political involvement, and of course the resolve to build a brand new arena. Even the post-Nordique IHL/AHL Citadelles couldn't make it work in a city that now focuses on the QMJHL Remparts, partly owned by Patrick Roy.

Hartford faces the same steep hurdles as Quebec City, but in their heyday the Whalers once housed Gordie Howe and should always be considered.

Las Vegas is intriguing, if only because it remains the continent's biggest purely untapped market. The obvious gambling-related uneasiness aside, the NHL would show a lot of cohones by considering setting up shop where the NFL, NBA, and MBL haven’t yet had the guts to.

Salt Lake City, Utah is a not-often-talked-about market that I've been curious about since it hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics, for no other reasons than it is a north-western mountain-town that currently ices the AHL Grizzlies. However it is pro-basketball country and would have to start from scratch (needing sudden and unlikely support, ownership, and a building).

But ultimately (and I'm talking a long way off here) the NHL could one-up the NFL, NBA, and MLB by becoming the first truly international North American-based league by eventually opening up franchises in Europe.

The economic prospects across the Atlantic are promising and the logistical concerns (namely travel, scheduling, rink surface area, gameplay rules, playoff format, etc.) could be overcome with a bit of creativity. The NHL could take real economic advantage of the ethnic diversity of its players and translate it into the increased revenue of not only whole new cities or regions, but enitire nations. European teams could ice homegrown talent supported by rabid fans who would respect and honour the Stanley Cup just as much as North Americans.

Imagine potential NHL teams in Sweden (Stockholm), Finland (Helsinki), Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg), the Czech Republic (Prague), and Germany (Berlin, Cologne). Perhaps even in Switzerland (Bern), Slovakia (Bratislava), Latvia (Riga), Belarus (Minsk), the Ukraine (Kyiv), Austria (Vienna), Hungary (Budapest), Norway (Oslo), the Netherlands (Amsterdam), Great Britain (London), Italy (Milan), France (Paris), Denmark (Copenhagen), and Poland (Warsaw). Imagine hockey gaining ‘soccer-like’ international appeal and even exploding in Asia; the marquee event of all Winter Olympics and the organization of a true World Cup tournament.

Imagine the first European team to win the Stanley Cup, potentially on European ice.

It's evolution, baby.

 

[PredsFan77*]

Hopefully the league will never contract and only continue to expand slowly over time to match the global talent base. It’s evolution, baby.

Hopefully the NHL will be more responsive to change (even if it means just tweaking gameplay rules and formats) in order to help showcase the one important trait that it can market to set its brand apart from other stick-and-ball team sports: displays of deft skill and rugged toughness at incredible, continuous speeds.

Hopefully all the franchises can stay where they are and be given a chance to grow in a fair economic system, gradually cultivate their own intensely loyal (even if small) fan bases, and thus help spread the game's presence and influence over time.

Hopefully relocation will continue to be only a last resort for teams that can't coax their current cities into building new arenas. By now, I think almost every team has a relatively new building with luxury boxes and are tied into long term leases.

I believe the oldest rinks are in Pittsburgh, East Rutherford NJ, Long Island, Detroit, and Manhattan's MSG.

It seems Mario Lemieux has made it painfully clear that if the Penguins' last-ditch attempts to gain slot-machine revenue to help finance a new arena fall through, then he'll have virtually no choice but to sell the team and regretfully watch it relocate. I believe their lease with 'the Igloo' ends in 2007.

It was recently confirmed that the Devils will be skating in a new home in downtown Newark, NJ by 2007-08.

I'm not sure when the Islanders' lease with aging Nassau Coliseum expires, but I think it's soon. I've heard loose, speculative talk of a potential move across town to Brooklyn somewhere down the road, but who knows?

Hockeytown will get its new crib eventually, and MSG, which has been refurbished several times, seems good enough for the Rangers for now.

Have I missed any other franchises with long-in-the-tooth buildings and/or soon-to-expire-lease-agreements?

But if and when the need does arise, it's good to know that even with 30 North American markets already filled, there are still places for the NHL to potentially relocate and expand to.

Winnipeg has a new 15,000-seat arena with luxury boxes and a fan base that is extremely vocal about their desire to welcome back the NHL with open arms. Further support by government and especially the city's corporate sector would make it very attractive.

Hamilton has Copps Coliseum which could be renovated or used as a temporary home while a new building is built. I've read numerous articles that argue the Greater-Toronto-Area could definitely support another team. If I'm not mistaken, Canada’s Steeltown has already lost out past expansion bids to Ottawa and Columbus. Obviously the Leafs pose a territorial stumbling-block.

Portland, Oregon has long been considered an attractive U.S. market whose wealthy Tech Industry tycoons have expressed a desire to land the city a second pro-sports franchise. There is hockey history dating back to the Rosebuds of the early 1900s through today's WHL Winterhawks. However the building that houses the NBA Trailblazers isn't considered ideal for hockey and a new arena will be needed in addition to sustained public support.

Houston, I believe, is currently the most populated North American city without an NHL team. Gordie Howe once played for the WHA Aeroes. A team with the same moniker captured the 2003 AHL Calder Cup.

Kansas City is getting a new, privately-funded, state-of-the-art Entertainment Complex built by 2007/2008 (courtesy of IMG Entertainment) in the hopes of luring a struggling NBA or NHL franchise (nice timing). The NHL Scouts made a brief appearance in this market in the mid-70's before bolting for Colorado to become the Rockies.

Milwaukee, representing all of Wisconsin, could support an NHL franchise for many of the same reasons that Columbus can. Their AHL Admirals took home the 2004 Calder Cup. A new building and corporate support would be needed, and of course Bill Wirtz's Blackhawks pose a territorial stumbling-block.

Quebec City hasn't shown the same kind of desire for the NHL's return that Winnipeg has. It would need the snowballing effects of a groundswell of public support, corporate and political involvement, and of course the resolve to build a brand new arena. Even the post-Nordique IHL/AHL Citadelles couldn't make it work in a city that now focuses on the QMJHL Remparts, partly owned by Patrick Roy.

Hartford faces the same steep hurdles as Quebec City, but in their heyday the Whalers once housed Gordie Howe and should always be considered.

Las Vegas is intriguing, if only because it remains the continent's biggest purely untapped market. The obvious gambling-related uneasiness aside, the NHL would show a lot of cohones by considering setting up shop where the NFL, NBA, and MBL haven’t yet had the guts to.

Salt Lake City, Utah is a not-often-talked-about market that I've been curious about since it hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics, for no other reasons than it is a north-western mountain-town that currently ices the AHL Grizzlies. However it is pro-basketball country and would have to start from scratch (needing sudden and unlikely support, ownership, and a building).

But ultimately (and I'm talking a long way off here) the NHL could one-up the NFL, NBA, and MLB by becoming the first truly international North American-based league by eventually opening up franchises in Europe.

The economic prospects across the Atlantic are promising and the logistical concerns (namely travel, scheduling, rink surface area, gameplay rules, playoff format, etc.) could be overcome with a bit of creativity. The NHL could take real economic advantage of the ethnic diversity of its players and translate it into the increased revenue of not only whole new cities or regions, but enitire nations. European teams could ice homegrown talent supported by rabid fans who would respect and honour the Stanley Cup just as much as North Americans.

Imagine potential NHL teams in Sweden (Stockholm), Finland (Helsinki), Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg), the Czech Republic (Prague), and Germany (Berlin, Cologne). Perhaps even in Switzerland (Bern), Slovakia (Bratislava), Latvia (Riga), Belarus (Minsk), the Ukraine (Kyiv), Austria (Vienna), Hungary (Budapest), Norway (Oslo), the Netherlands (Amsterdam), Great Britain (London), Italy (Milan), France (Paris), Denmark (Copenhagen), and Poland (Warsaw). Imagine hockey gaining ‘soccer-like’ international appeal and even exploding in Asia; the marquee event of all Winter Olympics and the organization of a true World Cup tournament.

Imagine the first European team to win the Stanley Cup, potentially on European ice.

It's evolution, baby.

great post...your last idea would be a logistics nightmare, but would be very interesting to have it occur.

 

[djhn579]

Thanks. I skimmed and couldn't see it. Is this the thread? Do you know who posted it?

I naturally welcome any opinions or other points of view and do enjoy arguing about it, too.

It's not that I don't read the threads, its just i'm kinda lazy tonight.

I posted the article, post 12 of this thread...

But here it is again...

In 1992-93, when there were only 24 teams, the average NHL game had 7.25 goals.

"You always hear, "The talent is watered down,' " said Ruff, the NHL's longest-tenured coach. "I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I can't stand to put in a videotape from my playing days. It's embarrassing.

"The game is so much faster now. The players are stronger and better. That's what's clogging the game up. The tools are better, too. The sticks, the skates, the training - everything is so much better. It has caused a bottleneck because there are a lot of darn good skaters."

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050201/1014027.asp

 

[RaoulDuke]

The NHL has become the defensive snorefest because of one thing. Expansion.

Ken Dryden wrote in "The Game" that expansion was the reason for the lack of defence in the 1970s. Teams like his Canadiens, sound from top to bottom, would waltz into California and dismantle the Seals 10-2. Even when teams of equal measure would play each other, combined scores always reached double digits because after the first few defencemen, most teams may as well have thrown pylons on the ice to compete.

I'm with Ruff. The league has become more defensive for reasons other than expansion.
1) Players are bigger.
2) Players are more talented and take better care of themselves. Can you imagine smokers playing in todays NHL? It was not an uncommon occurrence as late as the 1980s. Give me a 2004 4th-line "mucker" over half the players on many teams 20-25 years ago.
3) Goaltenders are exponentially better. This might be the most important factor. The butterfly style and subsequent training has changed that position for good. Forget the equipment - put Luongo in '70s era pads and send him back there, he wins the Vezina yearly.
4) The continuous cycle of offence/defence. If you look at the NHL historically, one thing you'll notice is that from the 1950s on there have been cycles of defensive and offensive hockey. Since Lemaire guided the Devils to the Cup by employing the dreaded trap in 1995, teams have jumped all over themselves to emulate it. I'm of the opinion that as teams such as Tampa start winning with talented offence, others will follow and the system will naturally sort itself out.

 

[arnie]

That's quite a talent you've got for talking out of your ass.

The only reason those teams left was because of money. Winnipeg and especially Quebec eat, sleep and breath hockey and they didn't deserve to lose their teams. It doesn't matter how they got there teams or whether or not they would have gotten teams through expansion or not. That doesn't change the fact that almost any city in Canada would be a better hockey city than most markets in the States.

When you can't get ratings on tv higher than bowling then it's time to not care about some of those markets in the States. Do we really need three friggin' teams in California?? Atlanta, Carolina and Nashville could disappear and not only wouldn't I care I wonder if the news would even make the front page of their city's sports sections.

I'd be happy to see some useless markets in the US fall and see the NHL tighten up and stay in markets that are good for hockey. Stop trying to compete with the other major sports because in the eyes of most Americans hockey will always come last. It will never, and I repeat never, be more popular or even as popular as Football, Baseball or Basketball. They shouldn't even try.

If Winnipeg is such a hockey town, how come the Jets had among the lowest attendence figures in the NHL? All this rewriting of history to cover Winnipeg's failure is pathetic. They lost their team because attendence was low, there was little corporate sponsorship and it's just generally a poor, farming town.

The US is 10 times larger than Canada. If hockey were only a thirs as popular in the US as in Canada, it would be a bigger game here. In fact, the US now has more kids playing hockey than does Canada. The worming is turning. Get used to it.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

The biggest reason that Winnipeg lost their team was because they were playing out of a rink built in the 1940s. (or 1950s?)

Also, their population base was too small, you need around 1 million as a base market for an NHL team.