NHL Expansion back on agenda?

[StreetHawk]

If it feels like some of the biggest rivalries have lost some of their luster, it’s partially because the players have little familiarity with each other.

It's like that with other sports. Micah Parsons of the Cowboys had Slay of the Eagles on his podcast last week. Both Defensive guys so not like they'd be on the field at the same time. But, it was a talking point. Fanbases and teams can hate each other, but players do not. Not unless it's the person they are matched up against like a WR/CB, RB/LB, OT/DE.

It's how it is nowadays.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

It's like that with other sports. Micah Parsons of the Cowboys had Slay of the Eagles on his podcast last week. Both Defensive guys so not like they'd be on the field at the same time. But, it was a talking point. Fanbases and teams can hate each other, but players do not. Not unless it's the person they are matched up against like a WR/CB, RB/LB, OT/DE.

It's how it is nowadays.

Agreed. Even the greatest rivalry in pro sports, Yankees/Red Sox isn't nearly what it used to be. Seems like the only sport where true rivalries still matter is college football.

 

[aqib]

It’s not like we’re talking about fans going years without seeing every team. You host one division in the other conference each year and travel to the other division. You host the whole of the other conference over the course of 2 years. The NHL used to do this.

As for the repetitiveness, I really don’t think 6 games against each team in the division is too much, especially if you can spread them somewhat evenly. Rivalries almost impossible to create and even harder to maintain when you go 3 months without seeing some opponents, like happens in the schedule now. If it feels like some of the biggest rivalries have lost some of their luster, it’s partially because the players have little familiarity with each other.

Free agency has hurt rivalries. The guy you hate today could be on your team tomorrow. Or he winds up somewhere you don't care about.

 

[Tawnos]

It's like that with other sports. Micah Parsons of the Cowboys had Slay of the Eagles on his podcast last week. Both Defensive guys so not like they'd be on the field at the same time. But, it was a talking point. Fanbases and teams can hate each other, but players do not. Not unless it's the person they are matched up against like a WR/CB, RB/LB, OT/DE.

It's how it is nowadays.

I do think there's some merit to the players not hating each other the way they once did, because of free agents and the general player fraternity that we see now, but there's been plenty of examples of bad blood between Rangers players and their closest rivals over the last few years to make me feel like there's room to improve this.

I have no interest in going back to the days where the teams played each other 14 times a piece. I'm not even talking about the 8 times that the teams played in the shortened season. But 3 or 4 times simply isn't enough.

There's also a game theory reason for this. If you're going to have divisional playoffs (which I think they should keep), then you should be playing your divisional opponents substantially more than non-divisional ones.

 

[dj4aces]

Agreed. Even the greatest rivalry in pro sports, Yankees/Red Sox isn't nearly what it used to be. Seems like the only sport where true rivalries still matter is college football.

Right... buy why is that? In NCAA sports, there's long-established rivalries, and are almost a way of life for a lot of fans. I mean hell, I'm nowhere near as big a fan of Michigan as others in my circle of friends, but do we all hate OSU? You betcha!

Now... if Michigan faced OSU every other year instead, or every three years, all because the NCAA decided teams in every conference should face teams in every other conference more often? The impact of this rivalry will fall by the wayside too. A date fans and players alike circle on their calendars will become just another gameday with no emotional impact and very little meaning elsewise.

That's why NCAA rivalries haven't really lost its luster. As some schools decide to leave one conference for others, perhaps those waters will get muddied a bit as well. But unlike the pro leagues, I think the NCAA recognizes the rivalries and will do their best to maintain them.

 

[Tawnos]

Right... buy why is that? In NCAA sports, there's long-established rivalries, and are almost a way of life for a lot of fans. I mean hell, I'm nowhere near as big a fan of Michigan as others in my circle of friends, but do we all hate OSU? You betcha!

Now... if Michigan faced OSU every other year instead, or every three years, all because the NCAA decided teams in every conference should face teams in every other conference more often? The impact of this rivalry will fall by the wayside too. A date fans and players alike circle on their calendars will become just another gameday with no emotional impact and very little meaning elsewise.

That's why NCAA rivalries haven't really lost its luster. As some schools decide to leave one conference for others, perhaps those waters will get muddied a bit as well. But unlike the pro leagues, I think the NCAA recognizes the rivalries and will do their best to maintain them.

The Rangers have decent rivalries with all of their divisional opponents except for Columbus. This is what their schedule is like against the division this year.

-Flyers: only 3 games, including a 2.5 month gap.
-Capitals: only 3 games, including 2 gaps over 2 months long.
-Islanders: 3 month gap between 1st game and 2nd game.
-Devils: no games for almost the first 3 months of the season (2m23d). Nearly 3 months between 3rd game and 4th game.
-Penguins: 2 month gap between games 2 and 3.
-Hurricanes: 2.5 month gap between games 3 and 4.
-Blue Jackets: Don't play until over 3 months into the season.

It's impossible to build history over the course of a season in that schedule.

 

[StreetHawk]

With more and more teams it’s not likely to have a rivalry with all of them. OSU and Michigan don’t have the same feelings vs PSU, Wisconsin, etc. as they do for each other.
Same for rangers. Plus, a rivalry will lose lustre if one of the teams is bad while the other is good for an extended period of time. Cowboys right now would view Eagles as main rival since Giants/Commanders have been down that past few seasons.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Hamilton Ontario deserves an NHL team.

 

[OG6ix]

Hamilton Ontario deserves an NHL team.

No it doesn't lol. Why do they "deserve it?"

Because it's a Canadian city?

I'm Canadian and I think the media here is a bunch of ham and eggers that think sports is still in the 1980s.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Why do they "deserve it?"

we have alot of fans.
The NHL would do well here.

2 teams for all of Ontario isn't enough. (IMO).

 

[Frenchy]

Hamilton Ontario deserves an NHL team.

we have alot of fans.
The NHL would do well here.

2 teams for all of Ontario isn't enough. (IMO).

Hamilton i'm not sure , but there was talk in the past about Toronto 2.
Not saying it will happend , but i heard crazier ideas.

 

[OG6ix]

we have alot of fans.
The NHL would do well here.

2 teams for all of Ontario isn't enough. (IMO).

I live in Oakville. No chance in hell am I putting a NHL team in the 2020s in Hamilton. Ottawa and Winnipeg have had their struggles and they are bigger markets. It adds no value to the league. It's a wrap on hockey teams in Canada unless someone relocates in the future. Even then I can see the NHL owning the team and waiting it out for a buyer rather than putting another in Canada.

Just take the GO train and watch the leafs.

 

[dj4aces]

we have alot of fans.
The NHL would do well here.

2 teams for all of Ontario isn't enough. (IMO).

I think you're missing the point.

Franchises aren't awarded to cities, especially not with anyone capable of owning said franchise, based on merit. It's a business transaction, straight up, and it's one that's based on a lot more than having "a lot of fans".

Then there's the elephant in the room: Even if there is someone willing to drop $1bn+ on a franchise, they also gotta pay indemnification to both the Leafs and the Sabres.

None of this is to say that I, having never been there, believe Hamilton would be a bad market. That's not for me to say. But you can bet the Board of Governors would be making that decision.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Ottawa had trouble Population 1.4 million

GTA: 6 million.

I know there will never be another team between Toronto and Buffalo.

 

[OG6ix]

GTA: 6 million.

I know there will never be another team between Toronto and Buffalo.

GTA isn't hockey centric like it used to be bud where it's going to make the NHL oodles of money. Can a team survive? Probably not consider the leafs would be so much bigger and there are still sabres fan (not many at the moment but they will come back when they get good). TV market doesnt do a thing for Canadian TV deal. It's already the #1 sports in Canada.

 

[ponder719]

In hindsight, the time to attempt to establish Toronto 2 was the late 70s/early 80s. My personal target would be the Scouts/Rockies, if either of those relocations had put a team in Toronto, the league would have had a Toronto franchise in each conference, and would have kept the NYC market to two teams. Granted, they'd have to come up with compensation to the Leafs, which would likely have been punitive, but what would seem punitive then would seem paltry in hindsight, once they'd had a few decades to develop a fanbase.

 

[tucker3434]

I think Hamilton will make sense down the road. Expansion fee plus indemnification in Hamilton could be a better investment than expansion fee only for KC. But I think the NHL wants a team in every city with an NBA team first.

 

[OG6ix]

I think Hamilton will make sense down the road. Expansion fee plus indemnification in Hamilton could be a better investment than expansion fee only for KC. But I think the NHL wants a team in every city with an NBA team first.

You're being nice. That city is won't grow enough population/demographic/business wise in the next 20 years that would make it worthwhile for the NHL to expand their. Their best bet was when the league was smaller and didn't have the revenue they take in nowadays. So like maybe the 80s with a brand new copps colliseum and we all know how that went.

 

[BB79]

Getting a better variety of games?

Variety? I'd rather entertainment.

This works both ways. Sweet! I get to see a Jackets-Islanders game for the 7th time this season?! ...said no one ever.

You cherry picked the Blue Jackets and ignored the fact that every division has stiff teams but also ignore more games vs the Rangers, Devils, Hurricanes, Pens and Flyers. So instead of playing the CBJ 7 times we also get to see the Sharks and Ducks, bottom standing rebuilding teams from the west. I'd rather play CBJ 7 times to be frank. Playing the same team 7 times usually leads to more bad blood building up. Very few exceptions to this i.e. Bruins-Canucks could still get chippy years after 2011. Probably less so today because most of the 2011 players are retired or gone.

You did totally ignore where I said that I doubt they reduce the division rivalry games that much, as well.

You should be glad I did, because what you stated was false-

I'd think we'd still see the division rivals a million times a year anyway.

We see our division rivals 3-4 times a season now. Half of what it used to be (6-8). At 50% reduced, we're already beyond the point of adding more teams not making much difference.

This complaint, while valid, is not the result of expansion. Team owners, who are members of the Board of Governors, made the choice to see every team in every building at least once per season. That's it.

I realize that, which is why I'm saying it will water down the schedule more. Since the BoG insists on at least 2 meetings between all teams per season, 1 road 1 home, adding more teams will reduce the amout of times division rivals will face each other even further. Unless they change their mind and decide to drop that, which they 100% should. Perhaps we go back to an 84 game schedule. Don't like that idea but it could work

 

[dj4aces]

I realize that, which is why I'm saying it will water down the schedule more. Since the BoG insists on at least 2 meetings between all teams per season, 1 road 1 home, adding more teams will reduce the amout of times division rivals will face each other even further. Unless they change their mind and decide to drop that, which they 100% should. Perhaps we go back to an 84 game schedule. Don't like that idea but it could work

I think they almost certainly have to change something. Extending the schedule to 84 games won't cut it.

Of course, this assumes the league comes to the conclusion that rivalries are actually important. Just because some of us feel a certain way doesn't mean they will.

 

[Tawnos]

I think Hamilton will make sense down the road. Expansion fee plus indemnification in Hamilton could be a better investment than expansion fee only for KC. But I think the NHL wants a team in every city with an NBA team first.

The NHL definitely does not want to see a team in every city with an NBA team. They want large markets with NBA teams, because they're large markets. For the most part, they're going to continue avoiding medium markets with NBA teams in them. Extremely unlikely we'll ever see NHL teams in Sacramento, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Cleveland, New Orleans, Memphis, Charlotte, or Orlando. Doubtful Milwaukee would ever happen either. Portland is the only NBA city in that range I could see having an NHL team.

By the way, vice versa is also true. It's highly unlikely we'll ever see NBA teams in St Louis, Nashville, Buffalo, Columbus, Tampa, or Raleigh... plus the 4 smaller Canadian markets. Seattle, Vegas, and Vancouver are the three most likely NHL cities without an NBA team that will get one (and Vancouver is pretty doubtful). But if the NBA were, for whatever reason, not in Atlanta, Houston, and Phoenix? Those would be at the top of their list too.

 

[tucker3434]

You're being nice. That city is won't grow enough population/demographic/business wise in the next 20 years that would make it worthwhile for the NHL to expand their. Their best bet was when the league was smaller and didn't have the revenue they take in nowadays. So like maybe the 80s with a brand new copps colliseum and we all know how that went.

With prices continuing to rise and top tier markets continuing to dwindle, there's got to be a tipping point where GTA2 makes sense.

The NHL definitely does not want to see a team in every city with an NBA team. They want large markets with NBA teams, because they're large markets. For the most part, they're going to continue avoiding medium markets with NBA teams in them. Extremely unlikely we'll ever see NHL teams in Sacramento, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Cleveland, New Orleans, Memphis, Charlotte, or Orlando. Doubtful Milwaukee would ever happen either. Portland is the only NBA city in that range I could see having an NHL team.

By the way, vice versa is also true. It's highly unlikely we'll ever see NBA teams in St Louis, Nashville, Buffalo, Columbus, Tampa, or Raleigh... plus the 4 smaller Canadian markets. Seattle, Vegas, and Vancouver are the three most likely NHL cities without an NBA team that will get one (and Vancouver is pretty doubtful). But if the NBA were, for whatever reason, not in Atlanta, Houston, and Phoenix? Those would be at the top of their list too.

Yeah, I misspoke on that. What I really meant was the NHL will want to be anywhere that already has the other big 3 sports leagues, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix.

 

[OG6ix]

With prices continuing to rise and top tier markets continuing to dwindle, there's got to be a tipping point where GTA2 makes sense.



Yeah, I misspoke on that. What I really meant was the NHL will want to be anywhere that already has the other big 3 sports leagues, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix.

GTA 2 is a funny concept in 2024. It's all the same tropes I see from like the 90s and the hockey guys don't want to admit how popular Basketball has become or how many more youth leagues soccer has cannabalized from hockey over time.

The sport has declined in importance due to the factors above (baseball is still kinda neutral from a fan perspective). Canada and the GTA is quite different.

 

[Tawnos]

Yeah, I misspoke on that. What I really meant was the NHL will want to be anywhere that already has the other big 3 sports leagues, Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix.

It's still a weird way of framing it. The presence of the other leagues really plays no role in the NHL wanting to be there. Think of it from the other direction. Did the NFL want to be in LA because MLB, NHL, and NBA were already there? No. They wanted to be in LA because of the size of the market.

 

[tucker3434]

It's still a weird way of framing it. The presence of the other leagues really plays no role in the NHL wanting to be there. Think of it from the other direction. Did the NFL want to be in LA because MLB, NHL, and NBA were already there? No. They wanted to be in LA because of the size of the market.

I think you could talk that one in circles. No, the NHL won't go to a market just because the other big 3 are there, but If the NBA, NFL, and MLB are all already there, it's a pretty good indicator that it's a good market. The biggest names in expansion right now are Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix. What do they have in common?