To play the Devil's advocate....
OK, well if there are nine cities in Canada that can support CFL teams, certainly there are at least nine that can support NHL teams, as hockey is considerably more popular in this country than football.
The cost of a CFL team is quite a lot cheaper than that of an NHL team. I see your point though....less fans are needed for more dates.....and in a climate controlled atmosphere.
Current CFL markets are:
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Regina
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Toronto
Montreal
Ottawa will be added once the stadium is built.
So, once Ottawa gets their team back all NHL markets in Canada will also have CFL teams. The exception is Rider Nation in Regina, Saskatchewan....and the NHL's 'carrots on a stick' of Hamilton, Ontario and Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Regina couldn't support an NHL team. So we're down to 2 markets currently in the CFL that MAY be able to support an NHL team. The may is for Winnipeg. Hamilton definitely could just because of geography.
...and now, in the US, there are a number of teams threatened, due in part to "economic circumstances of the time." The difference -- and here comes the NHL's US priority again -- is that even though these teams have failed to attract even minor-league interest in well over a decade and continue to hemmorhage money, the NHL is bending over backwards to save them. We certainly didn't see that happen with Winnipeg or Quebec. That's part of the frustration.
I understand that frustration, but....the issue in Winnipeg & Quebec was getting new 'NHL Calibre' facilities built.....Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Miami, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, etc. don't need new buildings. So it is easier to stick up for them.
The closest similarity you could draw is Pittsburgh. They needed a new barn....desperately. They were initially going down a road that was going to see them not get a dime of city, county or state money....then Balsillie showed up. Then the NHL injected themselves and with the assistance of possible relocation looming....got a new arena built.
"**** you, Winnipeg, we didn't lift a finger to save your team back in the 90s, but these guys over here...we'll actually buy the team to make sure it doesn't get moved. Yes, yes, we're well aware no one really cares about hockey down there, but we're still not giving you your team back. It's American now, just the way we like it."
I totally get this point of view. The issue was the lease. And really...Glendale would have made off better in the long run if they accepted Balsillie's $50M payoff to let the team leave. (At least I think it was $50M....$25M to endorse his bid...and $25M if the team left.) Anyway.....they would have had a huge cash influx. It was all about an arena lease. It had ZERO to do with demand for hockey or how well the business will do there in the future. It had EVERYTHING to do with the arena lease. How the NHL allowed a very new franchise to sign a 30 year arena lease in Arizona is beyond me.
Well, first of all, basketball is lame. Secondly, the inventor of basketball was Canadian, but that certainly doesn't make it a "Canadian sport." There's a big difference between the way basketball developed and the way hockey developed.
Very true. Hockey was born over time really....basketball was more of a "we're inside....what do we do?" Dodgeball could have just as easily taken off more than the NBA.....it is a real shame it didn't.
I don't agree. While there have been more American teams than Canadian teams since...well, forever, the game has never been as aggressively marketed to American fans in non-traditional markets as it is today, and has been over the past couple of decades.
I concur. It isn't necessarily a problem. The problem is that the NHL is annoying their loyal fans in an effort to create new ones in different geographical areas. If we take the NHL's current approach and fast forward 30 years.....assuming good results....Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, etc. NHL fans....that sellout their rink every night now that we are in the year 2041.......will be watching their team open the season in Sydney, Helsinki, Athens, Seoul, Moscow, Beijing, etc.
You may create new fans in all of these markets......but the folks in Miami, Phoenix, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Detroit, Edmonton, etc. might get a little ticked that they are sacrificing home games so that the NHL can play games in these far off places.
They WILL create new fans....but in doing so they WILL destroy existing fans. The NHL doesn't realize yet that they have to balance this. By the time they realize it.....it might be too late.
**** those cities. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but why should I care about some American city that is just starting to generate its own hockey players, when Canadian cities that have churned out Hall of Famers for the past century or so continue to be passed over by the league?
While I agree the post you quoted was ridiculously arrogant...I get it. But, if the NHL were focused on what areas provided the most players in their league.....the US would maybe have a franchise or two.
The hilarious point I see in this is that Americans want to adopt geography as a reason to justify their teams. But when Canadians use geography coupled with popularity to justify potential teams they get shat on.
I get the NHL wants to expand their reach....but they are spread all over the US.....if you move Miami, Phoenix and Atlanta....the NHL is still very spread out through the USA.
Atlanta would be the NHL's version of Los Angeles for the NFL....that would be the biggest/worst/only issue of moving all those teams.