Expansion to 36, which city is number 36?

[StreetHawk]

2026- QC
2028 - AZ
2030 - ATL
2032 - Houston (thats right about when the Rockets lease expires on their arena)

Have to stagger, though in the past most times expansion teams had a "cousin" that came in with them. But, each city has their own timeline to deal with so more unlikely to see 2 at a one time.

But, of your list, it would create some interesting alignment for a 6x6 unless it's 4 divisions of 9.
Van, Sea, SJ, LA, Ana, LV are PST 6 teams
Edm, Cal, Utah, Col, AZ (daylight savings time) are MST 5 teams.

So, without another team in that range, have to move one of likely Win/Min/STL to go with the MST teams. Dal and Hou likely to remain in the same division.

Or you go 4 divisions of 9, thus it's the 6 PST teams with Edm, Cal, and AZ. Leave Col and Utah to play with the CST teams of STL, Dal, Hou, Min, Win, Chi, Nas.

 

[Power Surge]

You're right about the playoff format, by the way. I anticipate the playoff process changing to more of a prelimianry play-in round, similar to the NBA, perhaps even as soon as the league moves to 34.

I'm open to that. Adding more playoff seeds will add more interest in season which you need imo if you are bringing in more teams.

 

[aqib]

Have to stagger, though in the past most times expansion teams had a "cousin" that came in with them. But, each city has their own timeline to deal with so more unlikely to see 2 at a one time.

But, of your list, it would create some interesting alignment for a 6x6 unless it's 4 divisions of 9.
Van, Sea, SJ, LA, Ana, LV are PST 6 teams
Edm, Cal, Utah, Col, AZ (daylight savings time) are MST 5 teams.

So, without another team in that range, have to move one of likely Win/Min/STL to go with the MST teams. Dal and Hou likely to remain in the same division.

Or you go 4 divisions of 9, thus it's the 6 PST teams with Edm, Cal, and AZ. Leave Col and Utah to play with the CST teams of STL, Dal, Hou, Min, Win, Chi, Nas.

I get the expansion cousin history. Its needed in MLB and strongly preferred in the NFL (odd number of teams has happened but its awkward) but when you have the option of staggering it out it bodes better for the new teams and the league overall.

Now I say all this with the caveat I don't know how many teams the global talent pool can support. I think the NFL can go to 36 teams now. The NBA could easily do 34 now and maybe 36 in a few years.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Not even the more popular sports (that kids play more than hockey)have this many pro teams, Bettman is really out doing himself.

If he goes with a 40 team league they will literally have to pluck from the beer leagues. It's unfortunate and a shame this sport turned into a watered down product because Oprah Bettman decided EVERY ONE SHOULD GET A TEAM.

So the argument here is that no other league has seven teams in Canada. So when viewed that way the NHL only has 25 US-based teams, compared to 32 for the NFL, 29 for the NBA, and 29 for MLB.

So thinking of it that way, going to 36 should be "easy".

 

[KevFu]

I think its hard to argue that adding 5 teams in 3 years from 92-94 resulted in a few years of bad hockey.

Just like adding 6 teams in 7 years in the NBA resulted in some crappy basketball

I blame the trap. Talent was fine. The Iron Curtain fell and the amount of guys added to the league from 1989-1999 from USSR/Czechoslovakia and the number of new NHL roster spots are an exact match (207).

 

[jetsmooseice]

I blame the trap. Talent was fine. The Iron Curtain fell and the amount of guys added to the league from 1989-1999 from USSR/Czechoslovakia and the number of new NHL roster spots are an exact match (207).

That was a nice gift that landed in the NHL's lap. But there will be no such influx of talent now... with 36 teams, they'll basically be elevating players that would have been in bus leagues a couple of generations ago up to the NHL.

 

[dj4aces]

That was a nice gift that landed in the NHL's lap. But there will be no such influx of talent now... with 36 teams, they'll basically be elevating players that would have been in bus leagues a couple of generations ago up to the NHL.

The question of the talent pool is like a math equation that is exclusively made up of variables, with no rules to govern what values gets plugged in where. So, we can all come up with an infinite number of answers for that one equation.

Personally, I think the short-term impact on the talent pool is that yes, it will be impacted. The long-term impact all depends on how those teams operate, how youth programs are implemented or advanced in expansion locations, etc. It's not just an explicitly "more teams mean less talent" argument.

The talent is there, whether you're looking in Edmonton or Las Cruces. Unlocking that talent is another thing altogether, and that's the thing that takes time.

 

[Yukon Joe]

That was a nice gift that landed in the NHL's lap. But there will be no such influx of talent now... with 36 teams, they'll basically be elevating players that would have been in bus leagues a couple of generations ago up to the NHL.

But here's the thing - the "bus leagues" - the AHL, Europe - are full of incredibly talented hockey players. They're just that tiny fraction behind people already in the NHL. It's not like if you go to 36 teams you're suddenly calling up beer leaguers to play.

 

[tucker3434]

That was a nice gift that landed in the NHL's lap. But there will be no such influx of talent now... with 36 teams, they'll basically be elevating players that would have been in bus leagues a couple of generations ago up to the NHL.

A few generations ago, NHLers had second jobs and would smoke cigs at intermission. Drop this era's fringe guys into that era, and they'd crush it.

Adding 92 NHLers over the course of a decade or so, especially after expansion drafts have smoothed things out a bit, will be imperceptible.

 

[jetsmooseice]

But here's the thing - the "bus leagues" - the AHL, Europe - are full of incredibly talented hockey players. They're just that tiny fraction behind people already in the NHL. It's not like if you go to 36 teams you're suddenly calling up beer leaguers to play.

NHL expansion from roughly the merger with the WHA to the arrival of the Ducks/Panthers coincided with the arrival of a plethora of top notch - in some cases superstar - Europeans. In this case you're going to be elevating talented but definitely not superstar guys from the AHL, DEL or what have you to the NHL.

And by bus leagues, I mean the real low level stuff, like the Southern Hockey League of the 1970s. There are just so many more teams now at all pro levels that a guy playing on the 1975 Greensboro Generals might be a fringe NHLer in today's world.

Also I wonder what impact it will have on marketing to have many teams go entire lifetimes without winning a Stanley Cup. We already have some teams that are getting to that point (Buffalo, Vancouver, Toronto but at least in that case they've won in the past). I realize not everyone is "entitled to a medal" but I can't say I'd be thrilled about reaching a point where winning a single cup within my life becomes a highly remote possibility.

 

[ForumNamePending]

I dunno... I don't think it's crazy to think adding 4 teams in short order will have an impact on the talent/skill level of the league. Over the course of a single season that's about ~120 dudes seeing ice time who otherwise wouldn't... That isn't insignificant. The good news for the NHL is generally when things get watered down scoring goes up, and more goals, guys posting gaudy stats, and highlight reel plays of great players making relatively "bad" players look foolish is a pretty good way of selling the league.

As far as the idea that expansion will open up new significant sources of talent goes... meh. In the short, mid, and even long term? Probably not. In the very long term, like a lifetime or two? I would hope so. I mean California is state with a GDP, and until very recently, a population, greater than Canada's, where the Kings (and Seals) first showed up 55+ years ago, and the Sharks and Ducks 30+ years ago, and that has resulted in only about a dozen Californians playing in the league this season (Don't get me wrong, that's great, and certainly better than the likely 0 playing 20-30 years ago, but given the circumstances it isn't exactly a deluge of talent either). Pennsylvania has had two NHL teams since '67, and both have been high profile franchises for much of their existence, but only 5 dudes from the state saw time in the league this year (To be fair, I assume at least some players from NJ are from the Philadelphia 'burbs). The Stars arrived in Dallas 30+ years ago, and for much of that time they have been a good to great team, but only two guys who grew up in Texas played in the league this season.

I gotta think by far the best recent(ish) example of an expansion team being the (likely) catalyst for actually creating a new significant talent pipeline for a league is the Toronto Raptors.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Worth noting that any estimate for a time table is little more than a guess. For all we know they'll add four teams in two years, or add four teams over twenty years, or somewhere in between, or at same point in an even longer timeframe. It's really impossible to judge preemptively the talent drain existing rosters will face, but I don't think any competent organization was gutted by the staggered Vegas/Seattle expansions, after all.

 

[Takuto Maruki]

Also I wonder what impact it will have on marketing to have many teams go entire lifetimes without winning a Stanley Cup. We already have some teams that are getting to that point (Buffalo, Vancouver, Toronto but at least in that case they've won in the past). I realize not everyone is "entitled to a medal" but I can't say I'd be thrilled about reaching a point where winning a single cup within my life becomes a highly remote possibility.

I mean, baseball went through two generations of expansion, and the Cubs especially, but also the Red Sox to a smaller extent, didn't win a pennant until well into the 2010's (and 2000's). That's just how it is - you ultimately have to build your team as best as you can, and have the chips fall where they may.

 

[dj4aces]

And by bus leagues, I mean the real low level stuff, like the Southern Hockey League of the 1970s. There are just so many more teams now at all pro levels that a guy playing on the 1975 Greensboro Generals might be a fringe NHLer in today's world.

Not a chance. If the 1975 Greensboro Generals existed today, those players would all be in adult rec leagues. The landscape has shifted far too much.

There *will* be a short-term effect on talent in the league when we go from 32 to 36. But it won't be close to the point where the kind of players who played in the Eastern Hockey League would be fledgling NHLers. Watch some Champion's League games (Euro hockey), and you'll see a bunch of undrafted players with a ton of talent they could bring to the NHL and it not have a big effect on how the team actually looks.

 

[Tawnos]

The larger the league is, the less it can be watered down by expansion. I’ve made this same point somewhere before. I think concerns about watering things down at this stage are overblown.

The 1967 6-team expansion increased the league roster by 100% at an average of 16.7% per team.

The 1970-74 6-team expansion increased the league roster by 50% at an average of 8.3% per team.

The 1979 4-team WHA merger increased the league roster by 23.5% at an average of 5.8% per team.

The 1991-93 5-team expansion increased the league roster by 23.8% at an average of 4.8% per team.

The 1997-99 4-team expansion increased the league roster by 15.3% at an average of 3.8% per team.

Vegas increased the league roster by 3.3%.

Seattle increase the league roster by 3.2%.

A 4-team expansion to 36 would increase the league roster by 12.5% at an average of 3.1% per team.

If you take something that’s 100% alcohol and make it 87.5%, the burn is still going to be extremely intense.

 

[KevFu]

I think we tend to look at the "Cut Off" line of talent totally incorrectly.

Everyone knows and agrees that the there's gonna be X players in the NHL who wouldn't in the league if the league did not expand... But there isn't a defining line between those in and those out and a gap in talent.

But talent is a pyramid. There's very few 95+ Overall Players. And there's a ton of 70-72 on the everyone's 3rd and 4th lines. And the best players in the AHL are ALSO 70-72 overall.

Which 70-72 players are in the NHL and which are in the AHL or don't get offered a contract in the offseason is based more on circumstance and non-talent decisions.

We've seen countless times how guys get waived or released and then sign on with someone else and they CAN PLAY in the league and be decent. Matt Moulson wasn't good enough to make the Kings, but with the Islanders he was a 30-goal scorer.

It's far more Role, and Fit, and team need for which 70-72 guys are in the NHL and who isn't.

You won't notice the 4th liners being "Worse" than before. It's your 6th and 7th forward and your 4th and 5th D man who are going to be 74s instead of 76s if the league expands.

 

[CTHabsfan]

A few generations ago, NHLers had second jobs and would smoke cigs at intermission. Drop this era's fringe guys into that era, and they'd crush it.

Adding 92 NHLers over the course of a decade or so, especially after expansion drafts have smoothed things out a bit, will be imperceptible.

People need to stop with the "Let's send current-day man back in time to play in the past" suggestions. A few generations ago, NHLers had second jobs because they weren't making at least $750,000/season and would smoke cigs at intermission because it was very typically for people to smoke. You can't send someone back who benefits from modern training, modern nutrition, modern healthcare/medicine and modern equipment to compete against players from the past. Greats from the past would have been even better had they access to all the benefits of 2024 living.

Adding more players to the NHL dilutes the product. Players who would have been in the AHL become NHL players, players who would have been in the ECHL are now in the AHL, and so on.

 

[tucker3434]

People need to stop with the "Let's send current-day man back in time to play in the past" suggestions. A few generations ago, NHLers had second jobs because they weren't making at least $750,000/season and would smoke cigs at intermission because it was very typically for people to smoke. You can't send someone back who benefits from modern training, modern nutrition, modern healthcare/medicine and modern equipment to compete against players from the past. Greats from the past would have been even better had they access to all the benefits of 2024 living.

Adding more players to the NHL dilutes the product. Players who would have been in the AHL become NHL players, players who would have been in the ECHL are now in the AHL, and so on.

The point is that the product we get to watch today is better than it was in 1967 when there were 6 teams because of the massive improvements in training and understanding the human body. I don't see any reason it won't continue to improve.

Yes, it technically will be diluted, but maybe that's not a bad thing. I don't think anybody wants a 6 team league today.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Lethbridge, Alberta.

 

[Djp]

So with the league technically at 33 franchises, and owners liking big expansion fee dollars, it is pretty likely we see expansion at some point in the next few years.

On top of that the three biggest metro areas in Canada and the US that don't have an active team are Atlanta, Houston, and Phoenix.

Phoenix obviously still has their inactive franchise, Atlanta has an interested ownership group with a potentially new building, and while there hasn't been as much smoke around Houston they do have an arena and potential owner.

Those three cities fit nicely into 3 of the 4 divisions the NHL has. But that leaves the question, who becomes the 9th team in the Atlantic? There aren't a whole lot of candidates, and they each have some question marks around them.

Quebec is the obvious answer for many. But who owns the team? Is the NHL still hesitant to go back? There isn't much potential for growth in the market either.

Hamilton/Toronto 2 is another option, but do Toronto and/or Buffalo need a dump truck of money to give up territory rights?

Hartford would be cool. But where do they play? Who owns the team? Is the city big enough and does it have the corporate dollars to support the team?

If GTA 2 doesn't work, what about Montreal 2? They had 2 teams once before, and the metro population is more than twice the size of many other NHL markets.

Maybe Atlanta joins the Florida teams in the Atlantic, but then where does team 36 pop up in the Metro?

Baltimore seems like it is Caps territory.

Is Cleaveland or Cincinnati an option?

Louisville isn't huge, but wouldn't be the smallest metro area. Maybe the NHL would like being the first Big 4 league in the market like they were with Vegas.

Baltimore doesnt have an arena for hockey

US Citues that can support a team other than Phoenix

KC -' have an Arena
Portland
Austin
Houston
Atlanta
Milwaukee/Chicago 2
Cleveland
Cincinati
Charlotte

Other cities
Louisville
Richmond/Virginia Beach
Omaha
Madison
Hartford

Canada is

hamilton/Toronto 2
Quebec City


If they go to 36 teams.


4 9 team divisions
2 against against all other teams
An addition games against division teams
78 games

They could add 4 more div games for 82 or they do a 3x3 in season team tourney like nba

6 team pool play over 2 parts
16 teams advance to 4 team group in one part
Then final 4 over the all star game weekend.

Play in round of plays with 20-24 teams in playoffs.
Bottom teams play best of 3 or 5

Div winners get a bye and get an additional H game in best if 7 so its 2-2-3 format or 3-2-2 format. Same with other bye teams for that round of 16.

 

[dj4aces]

People need to stop with the "Let's send current-day man back in time to play in the past" suggestions. A few generations ago, NHLers had second jobs because they weren't making at least $750,000/season and would smoke cigs at intermission because it was very typically for people to smoke. You can't send someone back who benefits from modern training, modern nutrition, modern healthcare/medicine and modern equipment to compete against players from the past. Greats from the past would have been even better had they access to all the benefits of 2024 living.

Adding more players to the NHL dilutes the product. Players who would have been in the AHL become NHL players, players who would have been in the ECHL are now in the AHL, and so on.

Well...

Adjusted for inflation, a salary of $750k today would be akin to a salary of $79.2k in 1967 (for example). I'm no expert, but I sincerely doubt many players made that much money in the 60s. Change the year, check the conversion, and it all ends up the same way: Players had second jobs because they weren't getting paid nearly enough money for what they did.

People are also acting like the NHL would somehow have the same skill level as a 70s era minor league team if we expanded today, which is also incorrect. Some NHLers from the 70s and 80s would barely hold down ECHL jobs today, no matter how fondly we look back on some of those players.

In 50 years, when this league has expanded to however many more teams are to come, people will look back to the 36 team era and say the same thing. And they'd be right.

 

[CTHabsfan]

Well...

Adjusted for inflation, a salary of $750k today would be akin to a salary of $79.2k in 1967 (for example). I'm no expert, but I sincerely doubt many players made that much money in the 60s. Change the year, check the conversion, and it all ends up the same way: Players had second jobs because they weren't getting paid nearly enough money for what they did.

People are also acting like the NHL would somehow have the same skill level as a 70s era minor league team if we expanded today, which is also incorrect. Some NHLers from the 70s and 80s would barely hold down ECHL jobs today, no matter how fondly we look back on some of those players.

In 50 years, when this league has expanded to however many more teams are to come, people will look back to the 36 team era and say the same thing. And they'd be right.

Yes, players in the past had second jobs because they didn't make enough money playing hockey. If these players from the 1970s and 1980s were around today they'd be making more money, not taking second jobs, and using training camp as a means to improve their game rather than using it to get back into shape (in addition to having all the other benefits for current players). These guys would still have spots in the NHL had they been born later. The league has been able to expand thanks to an increased talent pool (Americans and Europeans). I don't see how we'll have another large increase of available talent, unless we start getting players from Asia, Africa, and South America.

Will a league with 36+ teams even be of any interest for fans? Imagine being a fan of the team winning tonight's game seven knowing the law of averages means your next championship likely will be 2060 (or later if more than 36 teams)?

 

[cheswick]

Montreal 2 makes more sense than Toronto 2 imo. GTA has the raptors and Blue Jays in addition to the Leafs. Bring back the Montreal Maroons I say.

 

[dj4aces]

Will a league with 36+ teams even be of any interest for fans? Imagine being a fan of the team winning tonight's game seven knowing the law of averages means your next championship likely will be 2060 (or later if more than 36 teams)?

Those folks who base their fandom on the law of averages will never be happy. As fans, we want our team to always be competing for the Cup, but there's also a myriad of factors that go into that, such as injuries, whether Team A runs into a hot goalie/player(s), etc. For example, one could argue that's what happened when the Blues won the Cup. They got hot at the right time, climbed the standings, and eventually won the Cup.

In the past 32 seasons, including tonight's eventual winner, 17 different teams will have won a Cup (as of this writing, EDM hasn't won since 1990 and FLA has never won). That would mean no one would have any compelling reason whatsoever to be fans of the Leafs, Sabres, or Flyers, for example. Sure, some folks might feel a bit disenchanted with their team, wondering when they're gonna get a turn, but there's more than enough fans out there who are happy just having a team to cheer for.

The number of teams in the league growing to 36, 40, 48, or whatever it ends up eventually being in 50 years? It's meaningless. It all boils down to how much an owner wants to spend on their product, and whether the GM gets the assets that's needed to get to that next level.

 

[CTHabsfan]

The number of teams in the league growing to 36, 40, 48, or whatever it ends up eventually being in 50 years? It's meaningless. It all boils down to how much an owner wants to spend on their product, and whether the GM gets the assets that's needed to get to that next level.

It's going to be pretty difficult for a GM to build up a losing team when someone drafted 96th overall is a 2nd-round pick.