The Frugal Gourmet said:
Not important, though. Hockey is the world's greatest and most exciting sport and people will become interested... especially if the team wins. Houston is a lousy sports town in general, but investors are still most interested potential. In a market that massive, even a cult following would generate mad revenues. Actually in a city like that, the transplants from the North could keep hockey afloat by themselves.
Honestly, I can't think of many more towns in North America that would make decent markets... Houston may be the best of them.
I guess that's what gary bettman thought..........
try telling this to people in Raleigh, and millions of others that couldn't care one bit about hockey.
Fact is in this new NHL system what matters more is if the market is RIGHT - not if the market is LARGE. The NFL can survive in Green bay but it couldn't survive in LA. The NHL will be similar.
Places like Quebec City and Winipeg may be smaller but they would get behind the team 100% unlike a place like Houston or Raleigh or even Anaheim or Nashville or Florida.
Hamilton may be close to Toronto but the golden horshoe is the largest urban area in Canada. Many people live too far away from Toronto but close enough to Hamilton. A lot of people from the area would get behind the Hamilton team because it's closer geographically, and because they have no default loyalty to the Leafs.
Seattle IS close to Vancouver but that doesn't really matter. There are no real Canuck fans in Seattle. Also from what I hear the thunderbirds aren't doing TOO great. Certainly a lot worse than the winterhawks and the local portland college hockey team.
Oakland is too close to San Jose, it's true. The area may be able to support two NBA teams but two hockey teams? Fuggetaboutit.
San Diego is promising but I'd put it way down the list with Houston - they're just large-populated areas that have given NO evidence whatsoever that they could support a hockey team.
Hartford fans were very loyal and people like hockey in the area. If they get a team again tehy won't give up on it again. It was also, during that time, the only "local" team for ESPN. A team in Hartford alone would automatically DOUBLE the coverage hockey gets on the world's largest sports network.
Alaska is just a plain ridiculous idea. Have you people looked at a map? There is NOTHING in northern BC - and it's a HUGE area. Alaska is FAAAAAAAAAAR away and too sparsely populated. People only go there on cruises, and that's only cuz it's cheaper to go there than to warmer climates.
All this leads me to conclude:
Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hartford, Hamilton, Portland = good.
the rest of the ideas = bad.
Which teams would I move? The ones with no history and poor attendanc:
Carolina, Phoenix - right near the top of the list. No support, no attendance, no roots. OUT.
Florida - two teams in that state? Can't move Tampa, so. OUT.
Chicago - horrible attendance, but the HISTORY! STAYS.
Pittsburgh - would've been right at the very top of my list to move, but Crosby has saved the franchise. STAYS.
Nashville - I would've also moved it but from what I hear people in Nashville are actually genuinly getting behind this team and getting excited. What'dyaknow. STAYS.
New Jersey - bad attendance but can't argue with teh dynasty. STAYS.
Honestly the rest of the teams I wouldn't move. They're fine where they are. The islanders are gonna get a bichin new arena. Atlanta has a great bright future. Anaheim is struggling - especially if the team sucks - but they're in the LA metro area and there's enough people to make it survive. So let them.
So that means I found 3 teams to move and 5 targets. Move 3 and expand the league by 2? I think so.
16 in each conference split up into 3 divisions