When will the league be interested in expanding again?

[Tawnos]

Historically, ~10 years between expansion rounds tends to be the safe bet. It's really hard to imagine that happening as things stand right now, but I suppose that's why they leave big gaps in between rounds.

A lot depends on cities booming and seeing themselves as big-time (think Columbus, Raleigh, Vegas) because that's really where the expansion opportunities are. It's where you get communities eagerly throwing money at arenas to attract a team, treating an expansion team as a big deal rather than just another option in a mature landscape.

I'd keep an eye on the south and west, where the population is growing rapidly. Texas (Houston, Austin, San Antonio) and California (San Diego, Sacramento) have large cities which are under-served with pro sports. Portland is also in that category. Fast-forward those cities by a decade and get lucky with an owner/arena situation, you've got a docket of potential NHL cities in those two states alone.

Houston is a bit of a holy grail (along with another stab at Atlanta? We are talking 10 years from now).

Austin fits the Columbus/Raleigh mold extremely well and their growth is explosive. By 2030, there might be 3 million people there.

Thing about San Antonio and Sacramento is that, while under-served overall, they both have NBA teams in place. Ditto Portland. I wonder how much of a barrier that is.

 

[eddygee]

Agreed, however I have noticed that the league has been going in reverse from their "peak" popularity. Did they expand to fast? The quality of play has gone down even from a MLS perspective.

Not sure we watch the same leagues but that's not a common perception. TFC has gone down in quality but not the league.

 

[eddygee]

It's not about talent or quality of play though. It's about money. And I seem to recall reading somewhere that MLS' finances were being propped up by expansion fees rather than operating income(tickets, TV, etc.) One could argue that that many teams in such a short time is a red flag.

Overall MLS revenue is 1+billion. It'd be a red flag if this was fly by night business people running MLS and not majority certified billionaire NFL owners. The books are a little cooked to look negatively then you have to realize MLS had to spend the last 15 yrs building infrastructure ie. new stadiums, team grounds from scratch which adds to leveraged annual debt that has to be paid off.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Houston Aeros and San Diego Gulls are definitely two NHL teams I'd like too see eventually.

San Diego already has the Gulls at the AHL Level. sask, the Gulls are the Norfolk Admirals pre 2014, once the Ducks jumped aboard the O/O model....

the Aeros aren't happening if that has potential issues with the way it ended with the Wild being the majority owners and how Chuck Watson held those rights through the WHA/IHL/AHL era.

Houston might be an NHL Market, but just like Seattle not going with Metropolitans aka Mets, Aeros AT THIS POINT may have some negative connotation based off the historical nature of the name.

 

[Flukeshot]

I think the focus for some time now will be expansion of the NHL "brand". A potential example being NHL Europe. Not tied to the North American teams directly.
But ultimately it won't be hockey that blazes that trail, the NBA would be the proof of concept required I think.

 

[Cacciaguida]

Aeros AT THIS POINT may have some negative connotation based off the historical nature of the name.

 

[Noldo]

I think the focus for some time now will be expansion of the NHL "brand". A potential example being NHL Europe. Not tied to the North American teams directly.
But ultimately it won't be hockey that blazes that trail, the NBA would be the proof of concept required I think.

In a sense the American sports (American Football and baseball) could have easier time going to Europe as they would not have the traditional structures blocking their way. The obvious issue is naturally that there is less existing support as well.

Considering the backlash and negative publicity the football (soccer) Super League got, I would think that Americans investing in sports may be quite vary about European expansion plans for a little while. After all, Super League was widely seen as project driven by US based owner who don’t understand the culture of the sport. Coming to set up an European rival to existing leagues would most likely not go over well in hockey either.

 

[Noldo]

I think the focus for some time now will be expansion of the NHL "brand". A potential example being NHL Europe. Not tied to the North American teams directly.
But ultimately it won't be hockey that blazes that trail, the NBA would be the proof of concept required I think.

In a sense the American sports (American Football and baseball) could have easier time going to Europe as they would not have the traditional structures blocking their way. The obvious issue is naturally that there is less existing support as well.

Considering the backlash and negative publicity the football (soccer) Super League got, I would think that Americans investing in sports may be quite vary about European expansion plans for a little while. After all, Super League was widely seen as project driven by US based owner who don’t understand the culture of the sport. Coming to set up an European rival to existing

 

[Chet Manley]

There is no limit or maximum amount of teams. The conditions that need to be matched are having 1 or 2 relocation sites in the bag, pre-approved owners club membership, and a big bag of money. Helps if the city is corporate welfare friendly.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I suggest you reread the history of the Iowa Wild.... Cacciaguida...... it's also possible Chuck Watson wasn't involved much once the Wild ownership bought it outright....

 

[BKIslandersFan]

San Diego already has the Gulls at the AHL Level. sask, the Gulls are the Norfolk Admirals pre 2014, once the Ducks jumped aboard the O/O model....

the Aeros aren't happening if that has potential issues with the way it ended with the Wild being the majority owners and how Chuck Watson held those rights through the WHA/IHL/AHL era.

Houston might be an NHL Market, but just like Seattle not going with Metropolitans aka Mets, Aeros AT THIS POINT may have some negative connotation based off the historical nature of the name.

I think he’s saying he wants San Diego Gulls to be “promoted” like how Colorado Eagles moved up to AHL.

but I don’t recall any NHL teams existing in minor league and then moving up.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I think he’s saying he wants San Diego Gulls to be “promoted” like how Colorado Eagles moved up to AHL.

but I don’t recall any NHL teams existing in minor league and then moving up.

Anaheim already owns San Diego.....Colorado wasn't owned by the Avalanche, but lost the ECHL franchise as they tried to claim it was.... hence the brief sidebar over why a 3rd Kelly Cup trophy had to be commissioned because Colorado Eagles are no longer members of the ECHL.....

that's why Norfolk's current franchise is the ECHL Condors, that Edmonton had bought previously before placing the OKC Barons in Bakersfield.... up until 2014, Anaheim nor Arizona had subscribed to the owner/operation model, rather than solely being the affiliate.

 

[Kirk Van Houten]

I know in the US they might hate this, but the NHL could add more teams if they create a second division and add relegation

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I know in the US they might hate this, but the NHL could add more teams if they create a second division and add relegation

In theory yes but it’s never happening. Owners gotta shell out couple hundred million dollars for a team. No way they accept relegation.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I know in the US they might hate this, but the NHL could add more teams if they create a second division and add relegation

ok, and how many leagues, Kirk need to add relegation....

the NCAA , the Canadian Junior leagues, and/or the US Junior Tier leagues will they adapt to that hockey-wise.....

 

[kaiser matias]

I think he’s saying he wants San Diego Gulls to be “promoted” like how Colorado Eagles moved up to AHL.

but I don’t recall any NHL teams existing in minor league and then moving up.

Both the Oakland Seals and Vancouver Canucks previously played in the minor pro WHL, and their ownership groups moved to the NHL. They are arguably different franchises, but did share names/owners/some players.

And going way back, the Pittsburgh Pirates were just the "amateur" Pittsburgh Yellow Jackets becoming openly professional.

 

[KevFu]

I think that actually makes it more likely for the NHL to expand somewhere down the road. There are only 23 American markets with teams, the smallest by far.

With such a global sport, there is a talent base to have enough manpower to fill the rosters of a few more teams.

I think it is cost and available arenas that would be the deterrent more than anything.

You're totally right. Markets that would be too tiny for MLB, NBA, NFL teams can support NHL franchises in Canada because Hockey is Religion to their fan bases.

The NHL has 22 US markets (I think you counted NJ or ANA as a separate one).
The NBA has 27 (2 NY teams, 2 LA teams, Toronto).


There's really no reason the NHL couldn't have 36 teams when everyone else is at 32.

And the NHL is in a position where they know who 3 of those last four teams are:
#34 Quebec
#35 Southern Ontario/GTA2 (Via Bell/Rogers MLSE Divorce)
#36 Houston

And they need to find a Western Conference city to be team #33 (because CanadianCoyote is correct)

So when will the league be interested in expanding again? When there's a serious contender in a Western city to be team #33.


And I think we'll see all that announced before Bettman retires. I think that's his "legacy shopping."

 

[golfortennis]

You're totally right. Markets that would be too tiny for MLB, NBA, NFL teams can support NHL franchises in Canada because Hockey is Religion to their fan bases.

The NHL has 22 US markets (I think you counted NJ or ANA as a separate one).
The NBA has 27 (2 NY teams, 2 LA teams, Toronto).


There's really no reason the NHL couldn't have 36 teams when everyone else is at 32.

And the NHL is in a position where they know who 3 of those last four teams are:
#34 Quebec
#35 Southern Ontario/GTA2 (Via Bell/Rogers MLSE Divorce)
#36 Houston

And they need to find a Western Conference city to be team #33 (because CanadianCoyote is correct)

So when will the league be interested in expanding again? When there's a serious contender in a Western city to be team #33.


And I think we'll see all that announced before Bettman retires. I think that's his "legacy shopping."

I don't think that Canadian expansion is worth it though. Could an owner individually be more successful owning a Quebec team as opposed to Arizona, or whatnot? Sure. But there really isn't going to be a huge amount of growth overall from a Canadian perspective. Any new franchise is simply going to siphon off from the existing teams, IMHO. There really aren't very many people here that aren't already hockey fans.

From a growth perspective, US cities will always bring more to the overall pie.

 

[Cacciaguida]

I think he’s saying he wants San Diego Gulls to be “promoted” like how Colorado Eagles moved up to AHL.

but I don’t recall any NHL teams existing in minor league and then moving up.

Winnipeg? Starts with an AHL club Manitoba buys the Thrashers and moves up.

 

[Cacciaguida]

I don't think that Canadian expansion is worth it though. Could an owner individually be more successful owning a Quebec team as opposed to Arizona, or whatnot? Sure. But there really isn't going to be a huge amount of growth overall from a Canadian perspective. Any new franchise is simply going to siphon off from the existing teams, IMHO. There really aren't very many people here that aren't already hockey fans.

From a growth perspective, US cities will always bring more to the overall pie.

They maybe fans but the NHL is losing potential revenue from these people investing in another club. Quebec City and Hamilton could make more money with a club than without one. There are always new fans with new teams.

 

[KevFu]

I don't think that Canadian expansion is worth it though. Could an owner individually be more successful owning a Quebec team as opposed to Arizona, or whatnot? Sure. But there really isn't going to be a huge amount of growth overall from a Canadian perspective. Any new franchise is simply going to siphon off from the existing teams, IMHO. There really aren't very many people here that aren't already hockey fans.

From a growth perspective, US cities will always bring more to the overall pie.

The current economic model of the NHL has one massive flaw in it which makes what you said mostly true: Because there's a laughably small amount of revenue being shared, and in a stupid Robin Hood way instead of "Every puts in 33% percent to the Central Revenue fund, which combined with national TV, merchandise, league-wide sponsorship deals, etc gets divided evenly among the members."

The result is that the only way an expansion team is really bringing in money to the rest of the league is by increasing the value of a TV contracts (BTW, not really a coincidence that Seattle is arriving in Year One of a new TV deal); and of course, the expansion fee itself.

There's really only one market left that would be a significant acquisition for TV, and that's Houston.


But I think the legacy shopping aspect of it for Bettman is a huge part of what I expect to happen. Getting Quebec back into the league (like Winnipeg and Minnesota) addresses his biggest personal failure as commish.

He was charged with leading the expansion into the South and West of the United States, and his biggest failure was the 90s relocations.

So if the sets the table for 36 teams... Carolina instead of Hartford, other 23 markets the same. Plus

Columbus
Raleigh
Denver
Phoenix
Las Vegas
Seattle
Anaheim
Dallas
Houston
Nashville
A Second Toronto Team
Portland/San Diego/Austin/Salt Late

That's mission accomplished.

If he orchestrates a Bell/Rogers divorce that creates the second Toronto team, and restores Quebec while adding Houston? They could have that 33rd team be in Albuquerque or Mexico City and it's job well done. Next guy can deal with that team.


If I were him, not only would I want to go out like that, but I'd also include in the Bell/Rogers divorce that both the Leafs and second Toronto team agree to modify their territorial rights so that Hamilton is excluded from that. Paving the way for them to finally get a team at some point in the future.

 

[KevFu]

I think he’s saying he wants San Diego Gulls to be “promoted” like how Colorado Eagles moved up to AHL.

but I don’t recall any NHL teams existing in minor league and then moving up.

It's all a technicality or semantics. But clubs don't get promoted. It's just the branding stays with the city/owner while the license to operate gets sold to another city.

Like if San Diego got an NHL team, the Gulls' AHL license would be sold to someone else outside of San Diego and the new NHL team would be an NHL expansion team, drafting all new players. They might be the Gulls, if the NHL San Diego owner was the old AHL San Diego Gulls owner and retained the names and trademarks when he sold the AHL license.

That's what San Diego baseball did. The San Diego Padres played in the Pacific Coast League from 1936-1968. The owner of the team applied for an MLB expansion team, won the bid, and sold his PCL franchise license to a group from Eugene, Oregon.

But he retained ownership of the Padres name and trademarks, and brands and applied those brands to his new MLB team.

The Eagles did the same thing. It's the same with MLS... the Sounders did the same thing. There's really no difference to the local fans, since the same people work at the same stadium running the "Same team" but the league considers the franchise a brand new one, and the lower league considers that old franchise defunct.

 

[golfortennis]

The current economic model of the NHL has one massive flaw in it which makes what you said mostly true: Because there's a laughably small amount of revenue being shared, and in a stupid Robin Hood way instead of "Every puts in 33% percent to the Central Revenue fund, which combined with national TV, merchandise, league-wide sponsorship deals, etc gets divided evenly among the members."

The result is that the only way an expansion team is really bringing in money to the rest of the league is by increasing the value of a TV contracts (BTW, not really a coincidence that Seattle is arriving in Year One of a new TV deal); and of course, the expansion fee itself.

There's really only one market left that would be a significant acquisition for TV, and that's Houston.


But I think the legacy shopping aspect of it for Bettman is a huge part of what I expect to happen. Getting Quebec back into the league (like Winnipeg and Minnesota) addresses his biggest personal failure as commish.

He was charged with leading the expansion into the South and West of the United States, and his biggest failure was the 90s relocations.

So if the sets the table for 36 teams... Carolina instead of Hartford, other 23 markets the same. Plus

Columbus
Raleigh
Denver
Phoenix
Las Vegas
Seattle
Anaheim
Dallas
Houston
Nashville
A Second Toronto Team
Portland/San Diego/Austin/Salt Late

That's mission accomplished.

If he orchestrates a Bell/Rogers divorce that creates the second Toronto team, and restores Quebec while adding Houston? They could have that 33rd team be in Albuquerque or Mexico City and it's job well done. Next guy can deal with that team.


If I were him, not only would I want to go out like that, but I'd also include in the Bell/Rogers divorce that both the Leafs and second Toronto team agree to modify their territorial rights so that Hamilton is excluded from that. Paving the way for them to finally get a team at some point in the future.

Oh, from a Bettman's ego perspective, yeah, I agree. If he could get Bell/Rogers to split I would be impressed. I cannot imagine any way he gets them to loosen the Hamilton thing, though. I think someone takes a haircut from a second Toronto team. Having another option would drop the TV fees more than half IMHO. I can't imagine they would also agree to let a third team into their region. It should happen for financial reasons(spread the money around), but I can't see them going for it.

 

[hockeyguy0022]

I could see Ottawa getting a new owner, or moving to QC...
Arizona is always a mess, maybe Houston (or even Saskatoon if you're throwing Salt Lake City in the convo here...)
Florida/Carolina??? QC if no one is already there.

You could put 2 more teams in southern Ontario. One in markham/north GTA, and one in Hamilton. IMO no problem. Buffalo and Toronto, obviously don't like this, but you could easily.

So you have too much movement on the east coast, then you basically have only Houston in the central, unless you start to include Salt Lake City, Saskatoon, Austin Texas.. etc..

 

[hockeyguy0022]

I could see Ottawa getting a new owner, or moving to QC...
Arizona is always a mess, maybe Houston (or even Saskatoon if you're throwing Salt Lake City in the convo here...)
Florida/Carolina??? QC if no one is already there.

You could put 2 more teams in southern Ontario. One in markham/north GTA, and one in Hamilton. IMO no problem. Buffalo and Toronto, obviously don't like this, but you could easily. Very much a New York Rangers/Devils/Islanders type of setup.

So you have too much movement on the east coast, then you basically have only Houston in the central, unless you start to include Salt Lake City, Saskatoon, Austin Texas.. etc..