Expansion to 36, which city is number 36?

[aqib]

Saskatoon has a metro population of ~350K in a province with a total population of ~1.2M. I just can't see the NHL expanding there.

Only if Canada requires the next 2 million immigrants to live in Saskachewan.

That being said the NHL should bring back neutral site games. There are matchups that are either hard to sell out or hard for season ticket holders to resell. If each team gives up one game you have 32 games to distribute. If you put 4 in Saskatoon those would sell out at a pretty big price.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Only if Canada requires the next 2 million immigrants to live in Saskachewan.

That being said the NHL should bring back neutral site games. There are matchups that are either hard to sell out or hard for season ticket holders to resell. If each team gives up one game you have 32 games to distribute. If you put 4 in Saskatoon those would sell out at a pretty big price.

It would have to be 2 games, like it was when season was 84 games long.
1 road game and 1 home game given up.
Otherwise teams won’t play the same number of home games or away games.

 

[dj4aces]

Repeat after me: "franchise value".

What would Saskatoon theoretically bring to the league? Presumably an owner willing to pay $1.2 billion, thus further establishing the value of an NHL franchise at $1.2 billion. That's the only metric the league is interested in.

In a recent 32 Thoughts, Bill Daly said this:

With the last two expansions in particular, the thought process was a lot different (than 1998-2000). Everybody was just interested in adding clubs, there was an $80-million expansion fee, right? It’s much more business-oriented now in terms of how clubs look at it. They don’t want to add franchises just to add franchises, they want to add franchises that will grow the value of the league. ‘Does this market make sense for the National Hockey League? Does it make my franchise more valuable?’ Understanding that I might get a nice cheque in the short term, but this is a longer-term look at asset-value and whether they are making the league better.”

As for AHL or ECHL - the WHL Saskatoon Blades are well established in that city, and have been for 60 years. I very much doubt there'd be much interest in bringing an AHL or ECHL team into town only for it to risk driving the Blades away.

I can totally appreciate that. I only mentioned minor hockey because, let's face it, a 16k seat building is a little large for a WHL team. Then again, a 20k seat building is a bit large for a QMJHL team.

 

[KevFu]

I don't disagree with any of your assessments, but you forget - ownership trumps all.

SLC was barely on the NHL's radar - then Mike Smith came with an open chequebook and now Utah HC is a thing.

If, I dunno, Tony Khan comes forward and really, really wants an NHL team in Jacksonville then that's where the NHL will go.

I wasn't so much as "forgetting" that, as much as that we don't have an index of "billionaires interested in the NHL" to reference, so I was considering that "obviously, assuming each market has an owner with adequate funding and can get an arena deal done" because no expansion is happening without that.

I tend to think that the places that have the most advantages in the metrics we can pull data for (CSA population, saturation of teams in big four leagues, Fortune 500 companies, and income demographics) are the places most likely to have an owner willing to own a team.

Like, I'm from Rochester, but if I had a trillion dollars and wanted an NHL expansion team, I know Rochester is a terrible choice. I'd probably approach the NHL for Phoenix, San Diego, Quebec or Austin.

A couple of the locations you mentioned as not viable, I agree with, but they would make some level of sense as escape valves if a team situation falls apart (if something unthinkable happens to the Isles or Devils, Hartford could come online, as it then isn't adding another team in that corridor; if something goes radically wrong in Columbus, I think the NHL would try Cincinnati or Cleveland instead of abandoning Ohio.)

Yeah, I wouldn't want to get into "if something happens to (NHL team)" because then we're arguing about their health and not possible other markets. (And unhealthy teams makes leagues less likely to expand: see MLB and Tampa/Oakland).

And honestly "something happens to NBA team" is WAAAAY more significant, because that changes the math a lot more. It's not about the distance, it's about the saturation of the markets.

That's why Cleveland is "too close to Columbus" (145 miles) for an expansion team; but NYC and PHI (95 miles) aren't too close to have 13 Big Four teams combined.

If the Blue Jackets left, Cleveland is still "too small" to support a FOURTH big four teams. But if the Cleveland Cavaliers left... then Cleveland ISN'T too small for a THIRD team, and isn't too close to Columbus to get an NHL team.

Our list would change drastically if Portland, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Memphis or Oklahoma City suddenly lost their NBA teams.

The two Canadian situations that I think we all broadly agree on are Quebec City being one possibility, and GTA2 (be it Hamilton, K-W, Markham, I wouldn't hazard a particular guess here) being the other. I suspect that GTA2, if it happens, comes as a dissolution of the Rogers-Bell partnership, rather than as another force moving in, but either way, it's the most likely stable financial option in Canada, even more so than QC, as long as it can make up for the territorial rights issue.

I don't even view GTA2 and Hamilton as competitors for a team. If the Bell/Rogers divorce happens, it needs NHL approval; so that's when the NHL can expand into Southern Ontario. But GTA2 is always going to win over Hamilton if either is possible at all. So the savvy move is for the NHL to approve the Rogers/Bell divorce, creation of GTA2... with both parties waiving their territorial rights to Hamilton. THEN Hamilton can get a team if they pay Buffalo.

 

[KevFu]

They don’t want to add franchises just to add franchises, they want to add franchises that will grow the value of the league.

The problem I have with this is that the NHL's CBA is designed to NOT have a rising tide lift all boats due to the stupid Robin Hood revenue sharing system.

Adding an uber rich franchise (GTA2 for example) would raise the average of all financial midpoints, but make more teams further below average financially.

We have 13 teams above average revenue, and 19 below average. So adding GTA2 would make everyone $2m poorer.

You need an MLB style revenue sharing system, where everyone pays in and everyone gets an equal share back; so that adding GTA2 means more money for everyone and not just a ton of money for the owners of GTA2.

 

[KevFu]

I'd say the odds of 3 divisions is negligible because that was absolutely the worst era of modern hockey. Especially in the West the divisions were artificial, two had boundaries that spanned 3 time zones. The only good thing was that there was 8 games a year against your division which is real rivalry, NBC got to pump a lot of Chicago-Detroit, but the time travel in intra Conference games was brutal extending 4 time zones in the West multiple times per season. Playoff format was grossly unpredictable, having Detroit travelling to California, vice versa.

The thing is, the OLD OLD four-division format was fine for the Eastern/Central teams because the league was so much smaller...

Detroit played more games in the PTZ/MTZ this past season as members of the EASTERN conference (6 PTZ, 4 MTZ), than they did in 1989 as members of the WESTERN Conference, (aka Campbell then): 4 at EDM/CAL, 3 at LA/VAN. Just because SEA, VGK, SJS, ANA, COL, ARZ didn't exist.

Doing 6x6 with 36 teams is a very bad idea.
A. We just don't have organic groups of 6 like that and you're cramming square pegs into round holes.
B. It's not the most economically stimulating thing for the schedule.

Rivalries tend to be geographic because close by teams just play each other the most, but being close doesn't make you rivals; playing for stakes does. And that was why the Southeast and Pacific Divisions were killing those teams.

Throwing new teams together in a division made for big time financial struggles for non-traditional markets, because their inventory to sell just wasn't as good as what people wanted. We've talked about "road draws" in the argument over Home/Away vs everyone, and the fact is it's far less about star power or even how good the team is, and more about the traditional brands.

It's simply a function of time/fan base size more than anything else. So Tampa and Florida start playing less home games against Carolina, Washington and Atlanta and more home games against Toronto, Boston and Montreal, and ticket sales increase and they become better financially, which makes them better on the ice, too.

There's simply no reason to realign any more than add one team per division, and if necessary, slide one team over.

Ideally, you do Quebec (Atlantic), Atlanta (Metro), Houston (Central) and Phoenix or San Diego (Pacific). Perfect.
But if necessary, you'd slide someone over (like CBJ to the Atlantic to rejoin DET so Atlanta and Nashville can join the Metro).

 

[Bixby Snyder]

Anybody that thinks Saskatoon is a viable NHL market needs to get a grip on reality.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Anybody that thinks Saskatoon is a viable NHL market needs to get a grip on reality.

If you look closely I think you'll find nobody thinks the NHL is moving to Saskatoon any time soon.

The comments have either been:
-Saskatoon could work if it doubles in size; or
-Saskatoon could work if some insane billionaire comes along with a dumptruck full of money

Nobody is suggesting either is going to happen.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

If you look closely I think you'll find nobody thinks the NHL is moving to Saskatoon any time soon.

The comments have either been:
-Saskatoon could work if it doubles in size; or
-Saskatoon could work if some insane billionaire comes along with a dumptruck full of money

Nobody is suggesting either is going to happen.

Still wouldn't be a viable market if your 2 scenarios were true.

 

[voyageur]

The thing is, the OLD OLD four-division format was fine for the Eastern/Central teams because the league was so much smaller...

Detroit played more games in the PTZ/MTZ this past season as members of the EASTERN conference (6 PTZ, 4 MTZ), than they did in 1989 as members of the WESTERN Conference, (aka Campbell then): 4 at EDM/CAL, 3 at LA/VAN. Just because SEA, VGK, SJS, ANA, COL, ARZ didn't exist.

Doing 6x6 with 36 teams is a very bad idea.
A. We just don't have organic groups of 6 like that and you're cramming square pegs into round holes.
B. It's not the most economically stimulating thing for the schedule.

Rivalries tend to be geographic because close by teams just play each other the most, but being close doesn't make you rivals; playing for stakes does. And that was why the Southeast and Pacific Divisions were killing those teams.

Throwing new teams together in a division made for big time financial struggles for non-traditional markets, because their inventory to sell just wasn't as good as what people wanted. We've talked about "road draws" in the argument over Home/Away vs everyone, and the fact is it's far less about star power or even how good the team is, and more about the traditional brands.

It's simply a function of time/fan base size more than anything else. So Tampa and Florida start playing less home games against Carolina, Washington and Atlanta and more home games against Toronto, Boston and Montreal, and ticket sales increase and they become better financially, which makes them better on the ice, too.

There's simply no reason to realign any more than add one team per division, and if necessary, slide one team over.

Ideally, you do Quebec (Atlantic), Atlanta (Metro), Houston (Central) and Phoenix or San Diego (Pacific). Perfect.
But if necessary, you'd slide someone over (like CBJ to the Atlantic to rejoin DET so Atlanta and Nashville can join the Metro).

But there is a need for the NHL to produce rivalries. I think there is really no rivalries left because the addition of teams has made it so that you basically play the same number of games vs your conference opponent as your divisional one. Which is one more game than played against the other conference. Add four more teams and try to make that format work into a scheduling matrix. At the very minimum you play 36 games out of conference, and maybe it gets changed to 18 within. But you still play your rivals no more than 4 times, sometimes 3.

With a 4 team division in 34 team league, you could play 6 games against your divisional oppent (18), 2 games out of conference (34), which leaves 30 games vs. the remaining 13 teams intraconference.

For the 5 team divisions, make it 5 games interdivision (20) + the 34 out of conference, and then 28 vs. the remaining 12 teams intraconference.

You make those kind of changes, and you give the networks more Toronto/Montreal or Detroit,
More Boston/New York, More Philly/Pitt/Washington, More Battle of Alberta, Van/Sea, More Chicago/St. Louis/Minnesota...That's a way to make rivalries real again, and make the networks money on their investment. It's sorely missing, and the season is more of a grind than ever. Four or five teams battling for a guaranteed playoff spot, well that's bad blood, like in the NFL. I think there has been a big push to have the big franchises prop up the smaller ones, but if the South is really grown into hockey markets, as many say, they don't need the big ticket teams to keep afloat. If anything is evident it's that winning no matter where you are, helps brings fans to the arena. I think a better wild card format, with the idea of scrapping the divisional format where 2-3 can be a scheduled matchup from January to April, if teams separate like they did in the Atlantic for multiple years is a necessity. You still keep representation from every region in North America in the playoffs, by making smaller divisions, and I think that's a potentially good thing.

 

[Tawnos]

In a recent 32 Thoughts, Bill Daly said this:





I can totally appreciate that. I only mentioned minor hockey because, let's face it, a 16k seat building is a little large for a WHL team. Then again, a 20k seat building is a bit large for a QMJHL team.

That Bill Daly comment is the exact argument against people who say "the NHL will go anywhere that someone is willing to pay the fee." At this stage of the NHL's life, that is totally, complete and utter nonsense. If there's an owner that's interested in a team and the league really wants them, but they don't have a market the NHL likes, they'll try to get them into a market they do like or they'll try to get them into a team when one comes up for sale in an existing market (this is partially what happened with Fenway Sports Group and the Penguins). If the potential owner doesn't want that, the league will say "oh well."

Market is king here, not owner. Not anymore. Ryan Smith is a guy the league really wanted in and had a market the league really likes. If Ryan Smith were the same person trying to put a team in Birmingham, he wouldn't have been able to get the Coyotes.

I’d almost go as far as to predict that the league isn’t going to expand into any more markets of less than 2 million people, except for maybe Quebec City. Adding more small markets does nothing for franchise values at this point.

 

[TheLegend]

Market is king here, not owner. Not anymore. Ryan Smith is a guy the league really wanted in and had a market the league really likes. If Ryan Smith were the same person trying to put a team in Birmingham, he wouldn't have been able to get the Coyotes.

Um.... not always.

Smith was going to get an expansion on his own anyway. But SLC is the 29th largest media market in the US and there are several others above that without NHL franchises. Some might surprise you.

BTW..... Birmingham is 45th....... and Las Vegas is 40th. But they're an oddball.

 

[Tawnos]

Um.... not always.

Smith was going to get an expansion on his own anyway. But SLC is the 29th largest media market in the US and there are several others above that without NHL franchises. Some might surprise you.

BTW..... Birmingham is 45th....... and Las Vegas is 40th. But they're an oddball.

I was not saying that market size alone is king, but the entirety of the market including factors like media, projected growth, demographics, corporate presence, and all the other things we discuss around here. Plus, Birmingham was just a random example of a small market that sometimes comes up in these conversations.

If we're looking at media market size, the ones above SLC without an NHL team are Indianapolis, Portland, Charlotte, Sacramento, Cleveland, Orlando, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Houston. Leaving aside those last 3 which are each large enough to be a 4-team market, the other 6 of those cities shares something in common: an NBA team. SLC is going to be an interesting experiment with having both sports. Prior to Utah HC, the smallest market with both was Denver.

But this goes back to the point I was making. The NHL is only going to be interested in markets if the market itself makes sense for them. Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix are the three markets at the top of the list, no doubt about it. Many of the other 6 don't have NHL suitable arenas at the moment (SLC was in this boat too, but the NHL wasn't likely to go there for expansion without an arena plan... and the situation with the Coyotes was a rescue operation).

These other markets meet the medium-sized market threshold I defined in my last post at 2 million people, with the media market ranking in parenthesis:

Kansas City (34)
Cincinnati (37)
Austin (35)
San Antonio (31)
Baltimore (29 - you'd mentioned SLC at 29, but it's 27)
San Diego (30)
Inland Empire (the Palm Springs DMA at #143 is small and only covers a tiny geographical portion of the region. The rest is part of the Los Angeles DMA)

 

[GoBoltz56]

What happened with the whole Atlanta comeback thing?

 

[Yukon Joe]

That Bill Daly comment is the exact argument against people who say "the NHL will go anywhere that someone is willing to pay the fee." At this stage of the NHL's life, that is totally, complete and utter nonsense. If there's an owner that's interested in a team and the league really wants them, but they don't have a market the NHL likes, they'll try to get them into a market they do like or they'll try to get them into a team when one comes up for sale in an existing market (this is partially what happened with Fenway Sports Group and the Penguins). If the potential owner doesn't want that, the league will say "oh well."

Market is king here, not owner. Not anymore. Ryan Smith is a guy the league really wanted in and had a market the league really likes. If Ryan Smith were the same person trying to put a team in Birmingham, he wouldn't have been able to get the Coyotes.

I’d almost go as far as to predict that the league isn’t going to expand into any more markets of less than 2 million people, except for maybe Quebec City. Adding more small markets does nothing for franchise values at this point.

So since I am the "NHL will go anywhere if an owner is willing to pay" guy...

So on the one hand, sure - if you go to an extreme it doesn't matter how much an owner is willing to pay if the market is absurd. $5 billion to put a team in Billings, Montana? Not going to happen.

But look again at what Daly said. Do you know what "increases the value of the league"? Owners willing to pay ever-increasing amounts for a team. Franchise values are almost entirely determined by what other teams have sold for recently. Seattle bought an expansion team for $650 million in 2018, and started playing in 2021. But in 2024 the Arizona Coyotes were sold for $1.2 billion. That means Seattle is now worth at least $1.2 billion, and ownership has almost doubled their money in 6 years.

I'm a veteran of the HF BOH board. I don't want to say SLC was never brought up, but it was never seen as a prime relocation target. Too small, already had an NBA team. What changed was Ryan Smith came along and was willing to pay what the NHL was asking for.

 

[dj4aces]

What happened with the whole Atlanta comeback thing?

The two main groups, one led by Vernon Krause and the other led by Anson Carter, appear to be waiting for the league before things start happening. Both groups still have their arena plans, but neither group wants to start construction without the league approving a franchise. Let's face it, if you're building a ~18k seat building, you want an anchor tenant for it, otherwise it becomes another T-Mobile Center.

 

[BMN]

That being said the NHL should bring back neutral site games. There are matchups that are either hard to sell out or hard for season ticket holders to resell. If each team gives up one game you have 32 games to distribute. If you put 4 in Saskatoon those would sell out at a pretty big price.

I'm all about this; however it would need to be done (going up to 84 games, etc.).

 

[aqib]

I'm all about this; however it would need to be done (going up to 84 games, etc.).

I don't think going up to 84 games is needed. You can stick to 82 and just have each team play 40 at home 40 on the road and 2 neutral site.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I'm all about this; however it would need to be done (going up to 84 games, etc.).

There's a reason though why the league cancelled the neutral-site games pretty quickly after only 2 years.

People tend to be excited to see their team, which is usually their home team. If you bring two random teams to town it's actually kind of hard to sell tickets. Saskatoon was mentioned. I mean yes, if you bring in a Winnipeg vs Edmonton game that'd sell out no problem - but it would do the same in either Winnipeg or Edmonton. If you suddenly bring in Utah vs San Jose - it's going to be really hard to sell tickets.

There aren't necessarily that many arenas suitable to NHL games out there. Do you think you could find 32 venues? If so that means each venue gets two games per year.

A one-off event will almost always do well. People like novelty. I'm sure the NFL game in Brazil today will do incredibly well. NHL "global series" games do well as one-offs.

But if you go to it too often, it loses the novelty, but it's still not "your" team coming. It's the "Bills to Toronto" all over again - once they were scheduling 2-4 games per year they had trouble selling tickets.

 

[dj4aces]

People tend to be excited to see their team, which is usually their home team. If you bring two random teams to town it's actually kind of hard to sell tickets. Saskatoon was mentioned. I mean yes, if you bring in a Winnipeg vs Edmonton game that'd sell out no problem - but it would do the same in either Winnipeg or Edmonton. If you suddenly bring in Utah vs San Jose - it's going to be really hard to sell tickets.

That was kinda my thought. I mean, I love the idea of neutral site games, but I think some of that would have to be more regional (like EDM vs WPG in Saskatoon) for it to have an impact, where at least one of the teams participating is based nearby.

So a hypothetical ATL vs NYR in Birmingham would sell out, because Atlanta is only a couple hours away from Birmingham. But ANA vs NYR? Maybe it'd sell out the first year, because it's something at least, but distant teams playing there probably loses its luster in the years that follow.

 

[KevFu]

But there is a need for the NHL to produce rivalries. I think there is really no rivalries left because the addition of teams has made it so that you basically play the same number of games vs your conference opponent as your divisional one.

You're not wrong; but there's three overlapping issues going on.

#1 - The league is too damned big to play everyone twice. That right there is why rivals don't play enough. Playing 2 vs everyone is 62 games right now, with only 20 games left on the schedule before you face a division team a 3rd time. That's insane.

#2 - The Central problem. Teams in the Central are in the Eastern half of the continent and don't want to be tied to the west, which are 2 time zones away. For TV times and travel and money, being tied to the Eastern time zone is far better; and THAT'S why we have H/A vs everyone, because the Central gets an extra "round" vs the East instead of the West.

We've been calling the Central teams "Western" for so long, but it isn't remotely true.

St. Louis is within 1000 miles of only SIX conference teams (WIN, MIN, CHI, NSH, DAL, COL), but 14 Eastern Conference teams. And the OTHER TWO eastern teams -- Boston and Florida -- are still closer than Salt Lake or Phoenix, whom they've share/shared a division with.

#3 - the length of the season used to be determined by taking the preferred number of matchups vs each classification and adding it up. Now it's set and we're dividing up our 82 games.


I argued that going to 32 teams should have been time for a "Zipper" format, kind of like MLB has. You make two conferences, each with W-C-E-E divisions of four. So you split CAL/EDM and NYR/NYI like Mets/Yankees and Dodgers/Angels and Cubs/White Sox.

But then you have the only non-conference games be "rival divisions." You're a 32-team league but everyone's schedule only has 19 opponents on it. Now you build conference rivalries in the playoffs races and playoffs; and your non-conference games include your most intense rivalries where it doesn't matter if you're 4-78, you want those four wins to be against THEM.

 

[GreenHornet]

The two main groups, one led by Vernon Krause and the other led by Anson Carter, appear to be waiting for the league before things start happening. Both groups still have their arena plans, but neither group wants to start construction without the league approving a franchise. Let's face it, if you're building a ~18k seat building, you want an anchor tenant for it, otherwise it becomes another T-Mobile Center.

This is particularly true considering that the two proposed arena sites are only separated by a mere six miles.

 

[Tawnos]

So since I am the "NHL will go anywhere if an owner is willing to pay" guy...

So on the one hand, sure - if you go to an extreme it doesn't matter how much an owner is willing to pay if the market is absurd. $5 billion to put a team in Billings, Montana? Not going to happen.

But look again at what Daly said. Do you know what "increases the value of the league"? Owners willing to pay ever-increasing amounts for a team. Franchise values are almost entirely determined by what other teams have sold for recently. Seattle bought an expansion team for $650 million in 2018, and started playing in 2021. But in 2024 the Arizona Coyotes were sold for $1.2 billion. That means Seattle is now worth at least $1.2 billion, and ownership has almost doubled their money in 6 years.

I'm a veteran of the HF BOH board. I don't want to say SLC was never brought up, but it was never seen as a prime relocation target. Too small, already had an NBA team. What changed was Ryan Smith came along and was willing to pay what the NHL was asking for.

This logic is a bit circular. Owners are only willing to pay ever-increasing amounts for a team if the value of said teams are also increasing. And then new owners are willing to pay more too. It doesn't happen "just because" though. You need revenue growth, and revenue growth league-wide is harder to achieve when you're expanding into small markets. You also need prestige growth, and honestly that's not happening if you put a team just anywhere. Keep in mind, we're talking about this particular stage in the NHL's life, not the 90s. The 90s were about expanding the geographical footprint of the league in the US and there was a need to do so in almost every part of the country. The NHL doesn't have any more geographical niches they need to fill.

My opinion is that you're almost there on what happened with Ryan Smith. His willingness to pay is a huge factor and shouldn't be overlooked at all, but just as much of the story there is that he sold the league on SLC's love for winter sports negating the limiting presence of the NBA team. I'm sure he did that with data and not just enthusiasm and salesmanship, but getting the league on board with the market was a crucial part of the story. Without it, there is no Utah HC. And even still, without a mid-sized city population, I don't think there's a chance it happens. There's not another winter sports city without an NHL team that even has a population over 1 million. SLC was often dismissed because people were misinformed about the size of the city and because of the NBA team, like you said, and I was one of those who dismissed it because of the latter. I'm still skeptical about that part of it too.

Point is, the BoG has to see the market as both being viable and having the potential to increase their franchise values and in some cases, like SLC, they're going to need to be sold on it. The money by itself isn't going to be enough.

 

[Yukon Joe]

This logic is a bit circular. Owners are only willing to pay ever-increasing amounts for a team if the value of said teams are also increasing. And then new owners are willing to pay more too. It doesn't happen "just because" though. You need revenue growth, and revenue growth league-wide is harder to achieve when you're expanding into small markets. You also need prestige growth, and honestly that's not happening if you put a team just anywhere. Keep in mind, we're talking about this particular stage in the NHL's life, not the 90s. The 90s were about expanding the geographical footprint of the league in the US and there was a need to do so in almost every part of the country. The NHL doesn't have any more geographical niches they need to fill.

Vegas Golden Knights were given an expansion franchise in 2016. The cost was $500 million, and league revenues were $4.1 billion.

In 2024 Arizona moved to Utah. The cost to Ryan Smith was $1.2 billion, and league revenues were $6.43 billion.

So - franchise cost increased 140%, whereas league revenues increased 63%.

I think this phenomenon is going on in all sports - franchise values are increasing at a much faster rate than the underlying economics of the sport. So this is where I just disagree with you. The league could barely care less whether they think they'll earn an extra $50 million in overall revenue by having a team in Atlanta over Houston, or whatever. If the NHL was so concerned about league-wide revenue they never would have allowed the Coyotes to play in Mullett arena.

There biggest concern is franchise value, which is 100% correlated with what people are willing to pay for a franchise.

 

[mouser]

Interesting. As I said I grew up in Saskatoon, remember the short-lived enthusiasm we had for the Blues coming to town, would look fondly on a NHL franchise moving there, as unlikely as I think that would be.

But really - is there an ownership group that could drop $1.2 billion (USD) on a franchise? There are lots of "potential owners" that would love a team at a below-market rate, but the NHL seems to have absolutely no interest in anything that would harm franchise values.

Random trivia: My great grandfather was one of the founding fathers of Saskatoon.