x2

It's shameful how the NHL deprives other hockey cities from a team, yet fights so bad for this joke of a city.

All because of tv markets.
- IRON.MAIDEN

Considering how little Bettman did for the Peg and Quebec City, not to mention the Oilers when they were being shopped, it's extremely upsetting to see how much support the Yotes get from the league office.

i love the irony of this coming from the coyotes blogger

the solution to get 30 healthy teams would be moving teams like phoenix to better markets
- sushi

I wrote a piece last week about how you can't even really judge the Phoenix market because they've never had good owners until now. Even in hockey markets teams with bad owners tank. Arizona is just as deserving as a hockey market as Dallas, Florida, California, or anywhere else for that matter. Hockey is not just a game for traditional cities and if it was, the league wouldn't be the billion dollar enterprise it is today, but would be something more along the lines of Major League Soccer or the CFL.

I find it a joke the way certain people (and I'm not saying you, this is just a generalization) romanticize the NHL as some kind of Canadians only, playing in winter cities and acting like the game reached its peak sometime in the 60s - it's as fraudulent and basic as the way people idealize the 1950s as some sort of fantasy to aspire to.

I wrote a piece last week about how you can't even really judge the Phoenix market because they've never had good owners until now. Even in hockey markets teams with bad owners tank. Arizona is just as deserving as a hockey market as Dallas, Florida, California, or anywhere else for that matter. Hockey is not just a game for traditional cities and if it was, the league wouldn't be the billion dollar enterprise it is today, but would be something more along the lines of Major League Soccer or the CFL.

I find it a joke the way certain people (and I'm not saying you, this is just a generalization) romanticize the NHL as some kind of Canadians only, playing in winter cities and acting like the game reached its peak sometime in the 60s - it's as fraudulent and basic as the way people idealize the 1950s as some sort of fantasy to aspire to.
- James_Tanner

Nobody has a problem with the Sunbelt. Canadians have a problem with the support Bettman offers that franchise while leaving The Peg and Quebec and Edmonton high and dry.
Christ....he even demanded that the Peg had to sell 3 years of seasons tickets to earn his faith. What a donk!

x2

It's shameful how the NHL deprives other hockey cities from a team, yet fights so bad for this joke of a city.

All because of tv markets.
- IRON.MAIDEN

It's not a joke of a city, it is in fact a great city, perhaps not a great NHL city (for various reasons) but it is a great city!!!

Exactly what I'd expect to read from a Western Conference fan. Why don't we move some more teams East just to make it s bit easier for your inept owners to sell a few more tickets?

Exactly what I'd expect to read from a Western Conference fan. Why don't we move some more teams East just to make it s bit easier for your inept owners to sell a few more tickets?
- jmatchett383

What the Hell are you talking about?

Regarding the dilution of talent:

In the spring of 1967, there were 6 major league professional ice hockey teams in North America. Playing on one didn't guarantee personal wealth, either. In the fall of 1974, just seven years later, there were 32 such teams -- 18 in the NHL and 14 in the WHA.

Before 1967, if you weren't one of the 150 or so best ice hockey players in North America, you had no realistic hope of earning a real living playing ice hockey, or at least not one that could sustain you beyond your playing days.

Within seven years, there were suddenly 600-700 job openings in major league professional hockey. Just as in any other industry, if you suddenly quintuple the amount of available positions, you're going to end up hiring a lot of seriously underqualified candidates for the first few years until the size and quality of the talent pool catches up. Players that just a few years before would have had no future in ice hockey, or would have had to play for a few years in the minors before cracking a lineup, were starting to get pumped right into starting NHL lineups straight out of juniors. Want to know why NHL offenses were so explosive in the 70s and 80s? Dilution of talent and huge lack of parity are your culprits. Eventually, with lots more available jobs and lots more money to go around (plus opening up the league to more Europeans) the talent pool caught up.

Increasing the size of today's NHL by 4 teams is a 13% increase. That's a pretty far cry from the 100% increase of 1967 to 1968, or the 433% increase in major league teams from 1967 to 1975. It will bring down the average level of talent slightly, but not very much, and only for a couple of years -- general population growth, improvement in sports training, and about $250 million more in available player salaries to compete for will bring in qualified candidates sooner rather than later. The KHL has probably been a bigger drain on the talent pool than this would be, and I really don't hear anyone complaining that the NHL's quality has gone down tremendously now that there are fewer Russians and Czechs than there used to be.

Now, the question of whether or not the NHL's 30 existing markets are healthy enough, let alone whether it can find 4 new ones able to financially support NHL hockey, to justify an expansion remain a valid concern. But I think talent dilution is a pretty weak argument. I think the current talent pool is more than strong enough to sustain a 13% increase in job openings.

Nobody has a problem with the Sunbelt. Canadians have a problem with the support Bettman offers that franchise while leaving The Peg and Quebec and Edmonton high and dry.
Christ....he even demanded that the Peg had to sell 3 years of seasons tickets to earn his faith. What a donk!
- Jeropotato

A lot of Quebec and Winnipeg leaving had to do with the 90s recession and the fact that the Canadian dollar was about 65 cents to the US dollar. Coupled with bad ownership it's a little more complicated than 'the NHL just didn't care'. The NHL cares about making money, bottom line, and without equalizaation payments, better tv deals, salary caps and two lockouts a lot more cities would have lost their teams. They stay in places like FLA, Carolina and PHX when it looks bad because unlike Edmonton, these places have a lot of potential money to be made. Edmonton is a storied franchise and I am glad they saved them, but the NHL has no bias for or against any markets, they just want money.

Regarding the dilution of talent:

In the spring of 1967, there were 6 major league professional ice hockey teams in North America. Playing on one didn't guarantee personal wealth, either. In the fall of 1974, just seven years later, there were 32 such teams -- 18 in the NHL and 14 in the WHA.

Before 1967, if you weren't one of the 150 or so best ice hockey players in North America, you had no realistic hope of earning a real living playing ice hockey, or at least not one that could sustain you beyond your playing days.

Within seven years, there were suddenly 600-700 job openings in major league professional hockey. Just as in any other industry, if you suddenly quintuple the amount of available positions, you're going to end up hiring a lot of seriously underqualified candidates for the first few years until the size and quality of the talent pool catches up. Players that just a few years before would have had no future in ice hockey, or would have had to play for a few years in the minors before cracking a lineup, were starting to get pumped right into starting NHL lineups straight out of juniors. Want to know why NHL offenses were so explosive in the 70s and 80s? Dilution of talent and huge lack of parity are your culprits. Eventually, with lots more available jobs and lots more money to go around (plus opening up the league to more Europeans) the talent pool caught up.

Increasing the size of today's NHL by 4 teams is a 13% increase. That's a pretty far cry from the 100% increase of 1967 to 1968, or the 433% increase in major league teams from 1967 to 1975. It will bring down the average level of talent slightly, but not very much, and only for a couple of years -- general population growth, improvement in sports training, and about $250 million more in available player salaries to compete for will bring in qualified candidates sooner rather than later. The KHL has probably been a bigger drain on the talent pool than this would be, and I really don't hear anyone complaining that the NHL's quality has gone down tremendously now that there are fewer Russians and Czechs than there used to be.

Now, the question of whether or not the NHL's 30 existing markets are healthy enough, let alone whether it can find 4 new ones able to financially support NHL hockey, to justify an expansion remain a valid concern. But I think talent dilution is a pretty weak argument. I think the current talent pool is more than strong enough to sustain a 13% increase in job openings.
- Sven22

A lot of really good points here. I would have to conceed you have convinced me about one portion of the argument.

However, I still wouldn't expand. 30 teams is enough. The obsession with conferences is the only reason it seems logical to make it 16-16.

I say, just play an unbalanced schedule with teams playing teams in close geographical proximity more than others, and to hell with the arbitrary notion of conferences. Rank the teams 1-16 for the playoffs would be so much better anyways. Chicago vs St.Louis in round one just makes a mockery of the regular season.

A lot of really good points here. I would have to conceed you have convinced me about one portion of the argument.

However, I still wouldn't expand. 30 teams is enough. The obsession with conferences is the only reason it seems logical to make it 16-16.

I say, just play an unbalanced schedule with teams playing teams in close geographical proximity more than others, and to hell with the arbitrary notion of conferences. Rank the teams 1-16 for the playoffs would be so much better anyways. Chicago vs St.Louis in round one just makes a mockery of the regular season.
- James_Tanner

For the record, I love 1-16 seeding. Divide into divisions if you have to in order to come up with a workable travel schedule for the regular season, but I'd love it if the playoffs were a single bracket.

Sure, you'd get fewer "rivalry" matchups in the earlier rounds since the odds that you'd butt heads with the same team multiple times in a short span would be pretty low. But the games would be just as competitive and the tournament would be a lot fairer. Right now the Western Conference is at a significant disadvantage because the teams are so much stronger and the travel is so much worse.

A lot of really good points here. I would have to conceed you have convinced me about one portion of the argument.

However, I still wouldn't expand. 30 teams is enough. The obsession with conferences is the only reason it seems logical to make it 16-16.

I say, just play an unbalanced schedule with teams playing teams in close geographical proximity more than others, and to hell with the arbitrary notion of conferences. Rank the teams 1-16 for the playoffs would be so much better anyways. Chicago vs St.Louis in round one just makes a mockery of the regular season.
- James_Tanner

One other point... the GTA actually has a population of better than 6 million. It could easily support 2 teams.

Yeah they might, but I still don't think it's a gonna help Buffalo or Ottawa in any way and could hurt them. Still don't know why they'd even try to piss off the leafs though.
- James_Tanner

It matters where they would put it, as of now it's been rumored to be in northern Toronto burbs, that would have zero effect on Buffalo, that's like a three hour drive.

If on the other hand it were in Hamilton which was the rumor in prior years, it could be more questionable, though I still doubt it would hurt Buffalo too much....the popularity of hockey is even rivaling the NFL now in Buffalo, in my opinion.

What the Hell are you talking about?
- Jeropotato

Reading: get into it.

Nobody has a problem with the Sunbelt. Canadians have a problem with the support Bettman offers that franchise while leaving The Peg and Quebec and Edmonton high and dry.
Christ....he even demanded that the Peg had to sell 3 years of seasons tickets to earn his faith. What a donk!
- Jeropotato

That's was just good business sense on his part....the population of the greater Phoenix area is about 6 times larger than that of Winnipeg, probably has something to do with his keen interest in keeping a team there.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

32 is the correct number. I'd move 2 and add 2 to get there. That yields 4 divisions of 8 teams each, 2 in the West and 2 in the East. Viable cities include (in no particular order): Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, 2nd Toronto and Quebec. Sorry, KC, you had your chance (Scouts) and you don't support the 1st place Royals.

Vegas would be a great place. The NFL doesn't go there because they already have a gambling problem. Hell, if not for gambling, the NFL wouldn't be nearly the size it is. No one is betting on the NHL. The city has lots of tourists with lots of money to spend and looking for something to do in the evening. It would also be a great road trip for fans of teams where it's hard to get a ticket (Boston, Toronto, Chicago, Montreal). I get there 3-4 times a year for business, and I would absolutely go to a game if in town, no matter who was in town. And I'd make the trip to see the Blackhawks.

Also, there are plenty of players available world wide to support 2 new teams. Heck, you could take either Latvia or Switzerland from the Sochi Olympics, plug them into the NHL, and they would probably make the playoffs. Lots of guys are stuck in the AHL with no where to go. And plenty of new players coming along every year from Junior and college.

I'd move Arizona to Seattle (5 year out), and Florida to Quebec. Then I'd add Milwaukee and Portland. Greater Toronto would then be available for a relocation of a failing team (looking at you Islanders).

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

32 is the correct number. I'd move 2 and add 2 to get there. That yields 4 divisions of 8 teams each, 2 in the West and 2 in the East. Viable cities include (in no particular order): Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, 2nd Toronto and Quebec. Sorry, KC, you had your chance (Scouts) and you don't support the 1st place Royals.

Vegas would be a great place. The NFL doesn't go there because they already have a gambling problem. Hell, if not for gambling, the NFL wouldn't be nearly the size it is. No one is betting on the NHL. The city has lots of tourists with lots of money to spend and looking for something to do in the evening. It would also be a great road trip for fans of teams where it's hard to get a ticket (Boston, Toronto, Chicago, Montreal). I get there 3-4 times a year for business, and I would absolutely go to a game if in town, no matter who was in town. And I'd make the trip to see the Blackhawks.

Also, there are plenty of players available world wide to support 2 new teams. Heck, you could take either Latvia or Switzerland from the Sochi Olympics, plug them into the NHL, and they would probably make the playoffs. Lots of guys are stuck in the AHL with no where to go. And plenty of new players coming along every year from Junior and college.

I'd move Arizona to Seattle (5 year out), and Florida to Quebec. Then I'd add Milwaukee and Portland. Greater Toronto would then be available for a relocation of a failing team (looking at you Islanders).
- scottak

THe NHL absolutely needs Toronto to be an expansion franchise. The fees to the NHL would be insane.

Agreed just move Arizona to Quebec.
- AGalchenyuk27

Yep....

Agreed just move Arizona to Quebec.
- AGalchenyuk27

My prediction was wrong. I assumed this would be the first, not fourth comment. haha.
- James_Tanner

Yotes to Seattle and Panthers to Quebec.

Yotes to Seattle and Panthers to Quebec.
- Beaver-Warrior

Yep..

Than expansion to LV and Toronto......

THe NHL absolutely needs Toronto to be an expansion franchise. The fees to the NHL would be insane.
- RogerRoeper

Yeppers! You nailed exactly the reason why Bettman fought tooth and nail to keep Mr. Blackberry from moving a team into the GTA.

I'm surprised as well. You plop a Leaf pic on your blog to gain hits and it takes four comments for someone to state what everyone has been thinking for the last 15 years..

Florida and Arizona are obvious to relocate. The Sens need to slide over to Quebec. So Florida = Seattle and Arizona = Toronto. Then Domi can play in the same city that made his dad famous.

Move Nashville to London for the hell of it. We could support a team better than half of these franchises
- IRON.MAIDEN

Yeppers! You nailed exactly the reason why Bettman fought tooth and nail to keep Mr. Blackberry from moving a team into the GTA.
- Beaver-Warrior

Bettman has a perfect situation in Toronto..2 media giants own the Leafs u can bet both not fond of this setup.....Ones gets to own the Leafs the other gets the new expansion team..Only a matter of time before this happens.....

- jochfr

He meant the team not the city!

He meant the team not the city!
- Nucker101

He meant the team not the city!
- Nucker101

He can have the city... I need my hockey fix down here.