NHL Expansion back on agenda?

[Takuto Maruki]

It's also humorous to me you mention the "last two Cups" since Colorado was a team that joined the NHL in the 1990s amid the "Southern expansion" and while not in the Sun Belt, would be one of the southern-most franchises if not for the Sun Belt expansion. Ditto STL and WAS, who won Cups before Tampa won back-to-back. So basically 9 of the last 13 are from "Not North"

It is funny how, for these arguments, Washington especially is considered 'the north' when, by most regards of geographical location and especially culturally, it is much closer to the south then anything else. But hey, they've been in the league for 50+ years and successful for 30 of those years...besides, those same people wouldn't have whined about putting a hockey team in the US capital in 1974, would they?

 

[Tawnos]

I frame it more in terms of like "For each franchise to be average in revenue in each league, what's the cost per fan in the market?" What's the real-world application of that percentage gap you just displayed?

The real world application for $ per person in the market is that you can compare apples to apples across all the markets in the US and see just what to expect for financial health

For example, you sort the list of $ per person among the baseball teams. Well four playoff teams are from the top four markets: SD, NY, LA. How is San Diego paying Tatis, Machado and Bogarts and had Snell and Soto, and Darvish and carrying a payroll that big when they're "small market" ? Well, they only need $78 per person to be league average in revenue. New York teams need $88. Cincinnati, who's kinda sucked forever, needs $263 per person.



The one caveat I'd make to your comment about "a Houston team would have very little penetration" position would be "where's their AHL team?" because that's something that would help.

It would help, but not as much as you think... speaking as someone who lives in a market that once had the AHL affiliate of the NHL team 2.5-3 hours away.

 

[sneakytitz]

That was my point. Viewership increased due to NHL hockey in the state but number of pro caliber players coming out of Georgia is still zero.

Give it time - the junior/amateur leagues run deep here and have grown to be the largest in the country. They're getting even bigger.

Aside from organic growth, you need a generation of existence for a professional team to produce embedded fans. In other words, kids have to grow up rooting for and aspiring to be, or at least trying to be, their idols on local TV. Good examples of this are Gavin Brindley, Ryan Carpenter, Ryan Hartman, and Michael Kesselring. Joe Snively is probably the best example because he grew up rooting for the team that eventually drafted him.

It's worth noting that there are A LOT of players in the FPHL/SPHL/ECHL that are from Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee. Give it 5-10 more years (time) and I bet you start seeing more and more NHL players that are either from the south or grew up in the south. Kids down here don't have the amenities and coaching that they do in Canada but they're making progress, they just need a bit more time to start closing that gap a bit more.

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

Right. The overall point is that no one really CARES about the "cultural relevance" (whatever that means) compared to MONEY. The fact is that the league is generating $200m plus in revenue from places they were getting $0 before.

It's also humorous to me you mention the "last two Cups" since Colorado was a team that joined the NHL in the 1990s amid the "Southern expansion" and while not in the Sun Belt, would be one of the southern-most franchises if not for the Sun Belt expansion. Ditto STL and WAS, who won Cups before Tampa won back-to-back. So basically 9 of the last 13 are from "Not North"

And Toronto is not north if you only count Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg. So "if not for" only counts for so much.

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

It is funny how, for these arguments, Washington especially is considered 'the north' when, by most regards of geographical location and especially culturally, it is much closer to the south then anything else. But hey, they've been in the league for 50+ years and successful for 30 of those years...besides, those same people wouldn't have whined about putting a hockey team in the US capital in 1974, would they?

By geographical location they are well above about half of the US. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.

 

[dj4aces]

Give it time - the junior/amateur leagues run deep here and have grown to be the largest in the country. They're getting even bigger.

Aside from organic growth, you need a generation of existence for a professional team to produce embedded fans. In other words, kids have to grow up rooting for and aspiring to be, or at least trying to be, their idols on local TV. Good examples of this are Gavin Brindley, Ryan Carpenter, Ryan Hartman, and Michael Kesselring. Joe Snively is probably the best example because he grew up rooting for the team that eventually drafted him.

It's worth noting that there are A LOT of players in the FPHL/SPHL/ECHL that are from Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee. Give it 5-10 more years (time) and I bet you start seeing more and more NHL players that are either from the south or grew up in the south. Kids down here don't have the amenities and coaching that they do in Canada but they're making progress, they just need a bit more time to start closing that gap a bit more.

Additionally, there's been a few players that have been drafted by NHL teams in recent years who are alumni of local youth programs. Chase Pearson, drafted in 2015 by the Wings, comes immediately to mind. He didn't pan out with the Wings though, and is currently playing in Europe, but he had a couple sips of coffee at the NHL level.

 

[sneakytitz]

Chase Pearson

Chase is a great example but I omitted him along with others like Brandon Duhaime and Logan Brown. These are guys that grew up in homes with professional players that found themselves in the south by way of the teams they played for.

 

[Max Milk]

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

View attachment 918081

 

[RBH]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1847074606567305658

 

[abj]

I take my words back and I now say that 32 teams goes also ably. Or maximum part 33 teams I am doubtful on Quebec going with the league I am doubtful on Houston also.

Possibly Atlanta regardless of the name they should be called has anyone suggesting Atlanta's other name the previous name was Thrashers.

But Atlanta today?

Possibly San Diego goes but second name what?

 

[dj4aces]

Possibly Atlanta regardless of the name they should be called has anyone suggesting Atlanta's other name the previous name was Thrashers.

The first Atlanta team was the Atlanta Flames. Unfortunately, that name is taken.

 

[StreetHawk]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1847074606567305658

Pretty much on par with what he has said in the past.

Talked price that the NHL is asking for a team. Has some concerns about the available sports dollars (both people and corporate).

 

[abj]

The first Atlanta team was the Atlanta Flames. Unfortunately, that name is taken.

Should be Atlanta Thrashers again?

 

[dj4aces]

Should be Atlanta Thrashers again?

By and large, the Thrashers name is the most popular choice. I'd personally prefer something different, but I don't think it matters in the long run. What matters is the league returning to the market.

 

[tucker3434]

I don’t ever take Fertitta’s comments at face value. I think he’s negotiating 100% of the time. If they do get an expansion team, he’ll still be throwing cold water on the idea the day before it’s announced.

 

[KevFu]

Should be Atlanta Thrashers again?

View attachment 919406

They should be the Thrashers again. It's a simple math formula. There's basically 4 or 5 outcomes for a new brand -- from Love it to hate it -- with 2 or 3 levels in between.

When you have an existing brand like the Thrashers, you're doubling the outcomes with a new brand. "Love it" is now divided between "Love it, better than the Thrashers" and "Love it, but not as good as the Thrashers."

For Atlanta to be successful they need to add more fans to the mix than they had before. You don't accomplish that by alienating some of the ones you've already got. Anyone who has an opinion now on "We should do something better than the old Thrashers branding" is someone who's invested enough already to be following rumors and conjecture about possible expansion (aka, they're gonna be fans of whatever team they get).

 

[KevFu]

It would help, but not as much as you think... speaking as someone who lives in a market that once had the AHL affiliate of the NHL team 2.5-3 hours away.

Oh, I know. I'm in Austin now and I can't even remember seeing Texas Stars highlights on local news. I asked my parents because they watch the local news way more than I do, and she said yes, but in a confused way that implied she doesn't know the difference between the AHL Stars and NHL Stars.

And Toronto is not north if you only count Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg. So "if not for" only counts for so much.

Right... but that ignores the numbers and percentile aspect of only a quarter of the league being north of Toronto, while 18 teams are north of the WAS-STL-COL-SJ line.

The line of demarcation was WAS to STL for not just the NHL, but for all pretty much all the leagues until the 1950s, and with the exception of LA, remained the line in the NHL until the 1990s.

The NHL BEFORE "Southern Expansion" or when hockey fans first used the phrase "Sun Belt" had 17 of those teams, plus the Minnesota North Stars.

So 19 teams are definitely above a WAS-STL-COL-SJ line, and 13 teams are on or below it (and the Coyotes were the 14th).

Seven of those 13 (last year 8 of 14) are by everyone's definition "Sun Belt."

 

[StreetHawk]

They should be the Thrashers again. It's a simple math formula. There's basically 4 or 5 outcomes for a new brand -- from Love it to hate it -- with 2 or 3 levels in between.

In terms of cities getting a team back, if they were able to get the name, most have done so, be it the Winnipeg Jets, Ottawa Senators, Charlotte Hornets, Cleveland Browns and such. (Expect NBA Seattle to be the Sonics).

I think only the Houston Texans didn't go back to the name as the Tenn Titans were no longer using it. Seattle opted for Kraken vs the old Metropolitans name. I get that as it would be a repeat of the MLB Mets when most people shorten the name. Teams want something unique now.

 

[sneakytitz]

Should be Atlanta Thrashers again?

Yes, for two reasons:

1) The NHL owns the trademark so a simple transfer is all you need.

2) There is already brand notoriety in Atlanta - our ECHL team had 2 sellouts "bringing back the Thrashers". Anyone in their mid 30s and up (typical STHer) remembers the team and likely was rooting for them when they played if they're from Atlanta.

Selfishly, Thrasher is a badass name, nevermind the bird. To "thrash" means to beat someone violently.

 

[nhlfan79]

Yes, for two reasons:

1) The NHL owns the trademark so a simple transfer is all you need.

2) There is already brand notoriety in Atlanta - our ECHL team had 2 sellouts "bringing back the Thrashers". Anyone in their mid 30s and up (typical STHer) remembers the team and likely was rooting for them when they played if they're from Atlanta.

Selfishly, Thrasher is a badass name, nevermind the bird. To "thrash" means to beat someone violently.

Respectfully agree to disagree. The Thrashers name was silly to begin with (small harmless songbird) and sounds very dated in 2024. The brand was totally ruined by ownership, notwithstanding some nostalgia, and reeks of a '90's focus group attempt to sound hip and cool.

Go with something new, and classic.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I can't speak for locals, but at least from the outside-looking-in, Thrashers doesn't feel like it has the cache of the Jets, Whalers, or Nordiques to me. Obviously, could have my head up my rear and be totally wrong, but a fresh start seems like a more sensible option than reviving the old brand.

But to be clear, there are plenty of "silly" team names in sport. Thrashers is no more weird than any other random bird team that exists in baseball, and we even have a team in the league that likes to big up their own history when they're actually named after a pre-WWI baseball team instead.

 

[sneakytitz]

Respectfully agree to disagree. The Thrashers name was silly to begin with (small harmless songbird) and sounds very dated in 2024. The brand was totally ruined by ownership, notwithstanding some nostalgia, and reeks of a '90's focus group attempt to sound hip and cool.

Go with something new, and classic.

I'll accept Phoenix or Firebird, nothing else.

 

[TheLegend]

I'll accept Phoenix or Firebird, nothing else.

I’m not sure “Phoenix” is an ideal moniker to go with at this point.

 

[sneakytitz]

I’m not sure “Phoenix” is an ideal moniker to go with at this point.

I can name two cities that would live to see the Atlanta Phoenix play a game in Phoenix. LOL.