I am not saying I agree with your recommendations but for arguments sake, which four teams would be eliminated?
To me, it should be based on ability to generate revenue. My four:
1> Hamilton
2> North Bay
3> Mississauga
4> Erie
Hamilton has a great owner. They just can’t find a suitable building. If they could work out a way to shift the Sarnia or Flint ownership to Andlauer, that might be a solid move.
North Bay is a waste of time. Population of 50k and not a heck of a lot around it. It’s not a strategic location either. They Reno’d the rink but it is still a very basic rink that pretty much only generates revenue from ticket sales
Erie is the same as North Bay with a lot of the same challenges. I like the Otters though and wouldn’t want to see them go. The one potential saving grace is they are in Pennsylvania and it may attract a few extra players to the league.
Mississauga has been a failure as a location since day one. Nice rink with the ability to generate revenue but I doubt they would be able to make a go of it with any significant consequence.
Again, I am not arguing for contraction but if they did, that would be my suggestion.
It has to be a combination of generating revenue/attendance, proven ability to develop talent and organizational stability.
Obviously the first two lead to organizational stability.
The first part of contraction, eliminate the four most inept ownership groups. A location will never succeed if ownership is not willing to invest.
Next look at the fan support of all locations and look to move to other locations be it a current one with a poor ownership group or a completely new location.
Mississauga has been a complete failure for the league as a location. Regardless of ownership there is very little fan support.
North Bay I think is going to continue to struggle. Limited population base, a location that needed guarantees to get the team to relocate, what happens when those guarantees expire?
Erie has been on the right track much of the last decade so not sure about them, ownership or location. They have their slow start in attendance to start the most seasons then they pick up. Ownership has shown a willingness to invest in the team so I don't think they would be an issue.
Hamilton I agree with solid ownership and poor support from local government. Fan support itself seems to be there for the most part so the potential threat could get them the local government support they need. There are far worse ownership groups that could be replaced elsewhere with a much more competent one.
In the end obviously we as fans would have no say if contraction ever did happen, no I do not expect it to happen since very few owners would want to foot the bill and if it did happen it would be teams going under on their own. There's some current owners who won't invest in their own teams let alone ways to improve the league if it requires them reaching into their own pockets. Branch was like Bettman, chased revenue for owners that was based on an immediate return, expansion without a plan to sustain that revenue or concern about what the results would be on the product down the road.
As more and more of the top kids pursue other opportunities over the OHL/CHL it's hard to maintain the mantra of being the best development league around when the best kids won't report to some teams or any teams in certain circumstances. To be the best you need to have the best players around.