It wouldn't be that easy as you would have to convince the WHL to agree on giving up their US territory, regardless of how any potential territory split would happen.
OHL losing Michigan would be the biggest heartburn. Michigan Youth Hockey -> OHL is very well established.
WHL is adding a team next season and quite possibly another in the near future. OHL and QMJHL are also looking to expand. This would be a very stupid thing to do if the availability of talent and calibre of play were about to decline at the existing number of teams. I think that you're underestimating the advantage that CHL now has in junior hockey recruitment.
Well I reckon they'd be expanding regardless. This is basically the "private equity" model of infinite growth requirement that seeps in everywhere these days, "we make $X per Unit, ok let's expand the number of Units and we have growth and we all get rich" and not caring about long-term implications of overall brand/product dilution. WHL had 11 teams in 1979-80, they have 22 teams now. Is that because there are just double the number of players pushing for spots or are there other factors also at play?
Most CHL clubs aren't profitable. There are a handful of teams that make decent money and a few that are clearly in the red. Most are essentially break even operations. I don't believe any the leagues currently have a massive tv deal in place so they aren't making a pile of money from media deals either.
Population increase and more hockey interest in the USA has enabled WHL expansion. OHL hasn't expanded in almost 30 years, however, so why would they suddenly be considering it now if the quality of play was about to crater?
It's also about snagging a lot of Canadian kids with NCAA aspirations that would've previously gone to BCHL/USHL/Junior A.
Yes true but the pathways outside of CHL have also increased considerably in that time, hard to imagine a *need* alone is what drove expansion, as there are likely other factors at play (even if not pure financial, ego-driven, etc.)
Yes they'll get lots of good Americans at 18 and 19 but the best of them like the rest of the top 20 (and 21) year olds that don't go to the NHL will then go to the NCAA at turn 20 as freshmen.
CHL only allows three 20YO's per team so that's not a huge deal. CHL knows that it's going to lose guys to NCAA; it's counting on recruiting a lion's share of the better young talent and being able to hold enough of that talent for enough time to offset the losses of older players. It also will be able to backfill opened roster spots by extracting the better age 18/19/20 players from other junior leagues in each off-season.
I mean the 19/20 year olds aka the 2006s next year like Lindstrom. After next season they'll lose a lot more 2007s than they'll likely lose 2006s this first offseason.
Very few 19 year olds *should* be in the AHL let alone want to be. College experience is likely better for both their development and a more desirable place to be. Of course some will prefer AHL for own personal reasons. CHL spiting its own face to keep its transfer fee to lose 19 year olds to AHL in order to keep players out of NCAA will undoubtedly drive quality of play down even further than just keeping existing transfer agreements in place even if a lot of good CHL players leave for NCAA by 19 (because they don't care about losing CHL Scholarship as NCAA is offering full ride anyways). Once you've driven down your own level to that degree, you run risk that more players will go the route of accelerated schooling to play in NCAA as early as 17 in order to drum up their draft interest if super highly regarded and eager to prove ready for NHL in their D+1. It's probably best if CHL is focused more on being pathway into NCAA (with occasional player able to skip that level similar to how some players can skip AHL) rather than taking preemptive measures to try and spite NCAA.
Why not? The main appeal is that it's cheap entertainment. You can still watch good players, they're just younger. It's like saying CHL business model dies because the players all leave at 20 instead of say 22 or whatever. Even if they leave at 18, it can still be enjoyable experience and you can see many great players "on their journey". Not being at the top of the amateur development pyramid may hurt some people's ego a bit, but that's just something they'll have to get over.
During USHL draft Glen( commish ) was interviewed and said they getting great support from the NHL( $ ? ) andlooking to really upgrade their “ off ice “ component to make sure every team has basically has high end facilities - training . He also said heavy interest with expansion- partnership potential with nhl teams . The worse thing league could do will be too add teams and dilute the talent in which blew up the NAHL completely and made NCDC irrelevant . Haven’t heard anything regarding Youngstown and Muskegon looking to leave - maybe let them leave in a year and add 2 new teams .
Basically, USA Hockey would still want to see the best players play for the USNTDP (which they currently do). This does not seem like a large obstacle. A couple of NE teams would allow more visibility for kids in the region to potentially play higher level hockey before pro or NCAA.
Other than a couple markets in Maine, I can’t see the Q having success in any other markets in New England. NE is a very saturated hockey market. CHL would be 3rd fiddle after the Bruins and the countless amount of D1 teams across the region. Its a main reason the NAHL expansion east ultimately failed
I agree but at the end of the day its a business and I don’t know if its feasible. The NAHL team based in Lewiston averages 1,150 per game, which would be the lowest attendance in the Q by a long shot. The quality of hockey would be stronger but even if attendance doubled they would still be near the bottom of Q attendance
FWIW, Lewiston failed as a QMJHL market because of their owner (who tanked the franchise in an attempt to force a move).
lhjmq-records.qc.ca
