NHL NOLA expansion?

[Tawnos]

I think it actually splits the difference. If they were looking for a carefree quick buck, they'd have a far lower asking price to entice more bidders. The increasingly large bid to entry is their weeding process to not let cruddy parties and disorganized knobs from trying to bid. If anyone drops a billion dollars on the table, barring them being the mad hatter it's a sign that a billion isn't a prohibitive amount to them, which makes them serious from the NHL's perspective.

I honestly think that it would have to be a fundamentally crazy situation for the NHL to turn down any party willing to offer them that much just for an expansion team, and in which case my hunch is that the NHL would try to still work with them albeit maybe steering them to a perceived better city.

After all, the NHL nonchalantly name dropped Omaha as an interested party a few years ago. Go back in time and propose Omaha as an expansion candidate on these boards, and us mods would be busy deleting incredulous flaming replies.

I agree that willingness to pay $1B+ makes someone serious, I just don't think they'll be interested unless that $1B+ is going to a market they want. What you're saying doesn't really split the difference. It's exactly what I was saying at the end of the post you were quoting. Steering them into a better market. Could be expansion. Could be existing, down the road. The point I was making remains the same. The NHL is going to expand where they want to expand. Throwing money at them to put a team in New Orleans isn't going to be successful.

And all of the same things I'm saying applied to Omaha back then. It's pretty much the same exact situation. The NHL confirms the interest for the reasons I laid out, not because they seriously consider Omaha a viable market.

 

[Takuto Maruki]

Hutch lives!

Death. Taxes. Hutch piping up whenever his pet project of Hartford or especially Portland AHL is mentioned.

 

[HisIceness]

Personally I'm still not sold on Salt Lake City being a sure thing long-term but that's the owners problem to figure out. His NBA team right now isn't very good and seeing them on TV recently playing a home game, there were a lot of empty seats.

I don't think small-market NBA towns are good locations for NHL teams. 82 combined home games across the same 6-month span plus playoffs. Markets like Houston, Atlanta, etc can better bear that burden, more population for corporate suite money and more people who don't have the sports dollar tied up in one sport.

New Orleans is fun, but I don't think it's feasible. It isnt big, there is money but its not swimming in cash either. And, its always and forever a Football town. I've been there, the Saints are beloved, LSU football is beloved, there's an appreciation for Tulane. The NBAs Pelicans, I got the feeling residents like them but don't love them, like they're something to cheer for because the Saints/LSU aren't playing.

I do think New Orleans would be a great ECHL town. The old Brass got screwed over by the NBAs Hornets relocating there. It can work, and any road to the NHL for this market IMO, should start with the ECHL.

 

[Rec T]

I saw Cincinnati mentioned a couple of times earlier in the thread. Why NHL level hockey won't work was covered, but a little more depth (I'm local to there). They already have NFL, MLB, MLS, & two relatively good college basketball teams (Univ Cincinnati & Xavier), so a NHL team would be somewhere between 4-6th in getting sponsorship money. The only arena in the area, Riverfront Coliseum/Heritage Bank Center is 50 years old this year and is already too small. The Bengals need a new lease on their stadium & there's big pushback on using public money to improve it, so a new arena (& where will it be located...?) is going to have to come from the owners for the most part. Then there's the NHL franchise fee. I can't see anyone/group of anyones willing to put up close to $2billion for something that at best would be the fourth most popular team in town, playing during the time frame that overlaps all the other teams seasons. There's only so much spectator dollars to be spread around. And with the ECHL Cyclones here for the last couple of decades, people are used to paying those prices for live hockey. They aren't going to want to pay NHL prices for the most part.

Would it be cool to have a team, sure...but I just don't see it being realistic

 

[aqib]

Why not bring back neutral site games? Not just as a way to "test expansion" markets but grow the game that way. There are many markets that may not be able to support a team for 41 games but would sell out 2-3. They would take a random game that isn't necessarily a premium matchup. Like I don't thing Oilers fans would complain if their game against the Ducks got moved to Portland. Would it be a big deal if Nashville-St Louis was played in New Orleans? Now if you're a hockey fan in New Orleans you'd go to that game just to see NHL hockey.

 

[dj4aces]

Why not bring back neutral site games? Not just as a way to "test expansion" markets but grow the game that way. There are many markets that may not be able to support a team for 41 games but would sell out 2-3.

I'm all for that. The only thing I would add is to prohibit out-of-market sales until a week before the game, giving any locals interested a chance to grab tickets. It'd certainly be a way for the league to further capitalize on the success of Four Nations.

 

[Jumptheshark]

So I take it by 2032 we will be at about 40 teams?

Why not bring back neutral site games? Not just as a way to "test expansion" markets but grow the game that way. There are many markets that may not be able to support a team for 41 games but would sell out 2-3. They would take a random game that isn't necessarily a premium matchup. Like I don't thing Oilers fans would complain if their game against the Ducks got moved to Portland. Would it be a big deal if Nashville-St Louis was played in New Orleans? Now if you're a hockey fan in New Orleans you'd go to that game just to see NHL hockey.

But make them count instead of using X games.

 

[barkovcanfinnish]

I’m a little surprised Louisiana doesn’t at least have an ECHL team.

 

[dj4aces]

So I take it by 2032 we will be at about 40 teams?

Adding eight teams, assuming they start this summer, in seven years is some 1990s level expansion stuff right there. My guess is, best case scenario, 34 by 2032.

 

[QuizGuy66]

So help me if New Orleans pops up out of the woodwork and steals Boise's spot in the NHL!

 

[JMCx4]

... Owner of the Monroe Mocassins I think. I think it was at the introduction of the new team and he stated his desire to see the NHL in New Orleans.

Yup

 

[takimaki]

Why not bring back neutral site games? Not just as a way to "test expansion" markets but grow the game that way. There are many markets that may not be able to support a team for 41 games but would sell out 2-3. They would take a random game that isn't necessarily a premium matchup. Like I don't thing Oilers fans would complain if their game against the Ducks got moved to Portland. Would it be a big deal if Nashville-St Louis was played in New Orleans? Now if you're a hockey fan in New Orleans you'd go to that game just to see NHL hockey.

You're right, this is a proactive way to grow the game. The NHL has struggled more than any other top tier pro sports league to have broad appeal on the national level.

Dropping in neutral site games in potential expansion markets like Portland, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, others that simply suit neutral games like NOLA, QC, KC, and even playing one-off games in smaller AHL-sized markets is a great way to reward existing fans and expand fan bases.

Is the league just too conservative or timid to think of this?

 

[aqib]

So I take it by 2032 we will be at about 40 teams?




But make them count instead of using X games.

If we got to 42 teams you could have a home and home against every team. No need for conferences. You could have the top 16 teams seeded 1-16.

As far as the neutral site games go my idea was each team give up one home game so that would free up 32 games to sprinkle every where. So places like New Orleans, Saskatoon, QC, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Omaha, Portland, etc would get a couple of games.

 

[JMCx4]

... Dropping in neutral site games in potential expansion markets like Portland, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, others that simply suit neutral games like NOLA, QC, KC, and even playing one-off games in smaller AHL-sized markets is a great way to reward existing fans and expand fan bases.

Is the league just too conservative or timid to think of this?

I know it's become a trite position shared by many hockey fans, but I can't shake the opinion that the League's owners & League office executive leadership will NEVER reward existing fans for loyalty nor will they EVER value new fanbases beyond the balances in their bank accounts.

 

[dj4aces]

I know it's become a trite position shared by many hockey fans, but I can't shake the opinion that the League's owners & League office executive leadership will NEVER reward existing fans for loyalty nor will they EVER value new fanbases beyond the balances in their bank accounts.

Out of curiosity, I wonder... what do you have in mind to "reward existing fans"? Completely serious question, although this might not be the right thread for it.

 

[JMCx4]

Out of curiosity, I wonder... what do you have in mind to "reward existing fans"? Completely serious question, although this might not be the right thread for it.

I was simply responding to @takimaki's suggestion re. "playing one-off games in smaller AHL-sized markets is a great way to reward existing fans." IMO, it would be out of character and run counter to the League's business model for the NHL to schedule such one-offs with a primary goal of fan reward, especially at an affiliate market level.

 

[adsfan]

Isn’t the metro population of New Orleans quite small? Surely it would be the smallest US market and it barely has any pre-existing hockey culture.

I suspect we’ll see a few more other interested cities mentioned here and there if the NHL feels like any of their preferred expansion cities (Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix) are dragging their feet.

KC, Milwaukee, Hartford, and Quebec are all surely do a cursory report of interest in the next year or two, I bet.

Their is no one to own the team in Milwaukee. The Bucks owners don't want a hockey team in "their" arena, even though they put up only $150 million of the $504 million that it cost to build it and they don't own it.

Currently, the Chicago BlackHawks play one exhibition game against the Wild in the preseason.
The Wisconsin Badgers host a two day, four team tourney during the week between Christmas and New Years Day. Those three days are the only ones for hockey in the Fiserv Forum. They rent Zambonis to put those on.
There won't be a Milwaukee NHL team in my lifetime, and I plan on living another 25 years.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

So maybe Albuquerque does have a shot after all.

 

[WaW]

Oversaturating an already too-big league with more southern markets that will have zero national appeal and a small local fanbase is not fun. New Orleans is a horrible expansion idea for a number of reasons already mentioned throughout this thread.

The Stanley cup means less when it's a random crapshoot and winning it becomes more and more of a lottery. The idea that it means more just because there are more teams is unbearably naive.

I honestly can't believe there are people here who want to go higher than 32.

 

[Tawnos]

Oversaturating an already too-big league with more southern markets that will have zero national appeal and a small local fanbase is not fun. New Orleans is a horrible expansion idea for a number of reasons already mentioned throughout this thread.

The Stanley cup means less when it's a random crapshoot and winning it becomes more and more of a lottery. The idea that it means more just because there are more teams is unbearably naive.

I honestly can't believe there are people here who want to go higher than 32.

As someone interested in the business side of the sport, wanting the league to be as successful as possible financially, I’m for the NHL being in every viable market it can be in. I understand that the competitive aspect is something different and maybe takes a hit from it. But honestly, the league crossed that line more than 20 years ago when they went to 30. There’s no tangible difference in what you’re pointing out between 30 or 32 teams and 36.

New Orleans is not one of those viable markets. I do think there are 4 more out there and I don’t believe there are 8.

 

[takimaki]

I know it's become a trite position shared by many hockey fans, but I can't shake the opinion that the League's owners & League office executive leadership will NEVER reward existing fans for loyalty nor will they EVER value new fanbases beyond the balances in their bank accounts.

You’re right, the current crop of league leadership is short sighted and they lack vision beyond short term gains in their bank accounts. They’re the biggest reason why the NHL won’t seriously rival the NBA - that would simply take too much effort.

 

[adsfan]

I don't think NOLA would work as an NHL market for a variety of reasons, but it's definitely interesting and a good sign for the league that there is interest in a franchise, no matter how serious. The size and corporate base are bigger issues than some of the other interested American cities but the arena situation (while not great) is probably the best out of any besides Houston.

I would say that the two who can get their arena built/pony up the $1.5B first out of Atlanta, Houston, and Phoenix are locks. The other of those will be in the next wave with the best of KC/Cincinnati/NOLA/Omaha or another American market that hasn't had confirmed interest yet. As long as franchise valuations keep going up, expansion will keep happening until at least 36 teams, probably 40.

They will not be going back to Quebec City or anywhere else in Canada though unless there are some pretty big macroeconomic changes.

Cincinnati hockey history is dismal.

Mohawks 1949-52 AHL and 1952-58 IHL as an affiliate of Montreal, who won 5 SCs in a row in the 1950s.

Swords 1971-74 AHL affiliate of the Sabres.

Stingers 1973-79 in the WHA. They had a bunch of great players like Messier and the league folded.

Stingers 1979-80 One season in the Central Hockey League.

Tigers 1980-81 One season in the CHL.

Cyclones 1990-92 in the ECHL

Cyclones 1992-2001 in the IHL.

Mighty Ducks 1997-2005 with IHL and AHL seasons. Affiliate of Anaheim.

Cincinnati Cyclones 2001-03 in the ECHL.

Cincinnati Cyclones 2006-25 in the ECHL. Several affiliates including the Milwaukee Admirals.


In contrast, I give you the Milwaukee Admirals, with 3 owners in 52 years.

Admirals 1973-1977 USHL

Admirals 1977-2001 IHL

Admirals 2001-2025 AHL

 

[qc14]

Cincinnati hockey history is dismal.

Mohawks 1949-52 AHL and 1952-58 IHL as an affiliate of Montreal, who won 5 SCs in a row in the 1950s.

Swords 1971-74 AHL affiliate of the Sabres.

Stingers 1973-79 in the WHA. They had a bunch of great players like Messier and the league folded.

Stingers 1979-80 One season in the Central Hockey League.

Tigers 1980-81 One season in the CHL.

Cyclones 1990-92 in the ECHL

Cyclones 1992-2001 in the IHL.

Mighty Ducks 1997-2005 with IHL and AHL seasons. Affiliate of Anaheim.

Cincinnati Cyclones 2001-03 in the ECHL.

Cincinnati Cyclones 2006-25 in the ECHL. Several affiliates including the Milwaukee Admirals.


In contrast, I give you the Milwaukee Admirals, with 3 owners in 52 years.

Admirals 1973-1977 USHL

Admirals 1977-2001 IHL

Admirals 2001-2025 AHL

I'm sorry but the success of minor league teams, especially before like 2015, has absolutely no bearing on whether a market would be a success in the NHL. Just take a look at the large swath of failures in Vegas before the Golden Knights showed up Las Vegas Hockey Timeline - SinBin.vegas.