NHL wants to expand to 36 teams

As a a resident and fan of the second to last expansion city/team, i think it's time to chill. 34 is already pushing it with the dilution of the talent pool. 36 seems crazy. There's no guarantee that four more teams, likely all in the US, will drive enough interest in youth hockey so as to balance out the talent imbalance in 8-18 years. Especially not with an unstable economy and declining interest in Canada.
 
It’s quite simple, the NHL wants to be in the biggest markets. If the NHL had their choice three of the next four expansion teams would be Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix.

But that still requires viable ownership groups with arena plans in those cities.
No, it's quite simple: the greedy NHL owners want expansion money. You think the other team owners care at an existential level if some other random city has a sports franchise?
 
Adding 4 more teams to the NHL seems like pure fantasy to me.

At this time, Houston is the only viable market with a guy interested in writing the check. Toronto could support another team but that is unlikely to happen.

Some of these other suggested locations... New Orleans... that's got to be a joke right? Back to Phoenix? Maybe in 20 years.

San Diego... couldn't be bothered to keep the Chargers and you think they will support a NHL team.

Portland.... they could be called the Portland Anarchist.
 
Based on the OP graphic:

Atlanta - It’s one of the top markets on the continent and can easily support a team. They shouldn’t be judged on what happened with an all-time horrible ownership group.

Cincinnati - Too small to have 3 major league teams. The team might survive but it would be a weak entry.

Houston - Absolute no-brainer, should have been done 50 years ago.

Kansas City - Similar to Cincy. A team could be viable there but it doesn’t feel like a 3-team market.

New Orleans - This would be a disaster.

Omaha - Just a bit too small. Omaha is a smaller market than Dayton or Rochester, which are obviously too small.

Phoenix - See Atlanta. Do it right this time.

Milwaukee - My only hesitation is saturation with the Bucks and Brewers. But I could see this turning up aces.

Sacramento - This is another sneaky smart one. There’s no reason Salt Lake can work and Sacramento can’t.

Markham
Hamilton
Kitchener
- Combining these are they’re basically the same idea. I don’t think splitting the Toronto market is smart at all. Creating a White Sox or Clippers situation does nothing positive.

Quebec City - It just isn’t a major league city, and wishing really hard for it to be one won’t make it so. It’s a good emergency option if a team needs to play somewhere temporarily in a pinch.
 
As a a resident and fan of the second to last expansion city/team, i think it's time to chill. 34 is already pushing it with the dilution of the talent pool. 36 seems crazy. There's no guarantee that four more teams, likely all in the US, will drive enough interest in youth hockey so as to balance out the talent imbalance in 8-18 years. Especially not with an unstable economy and declining interest in Canada.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
I mean am I wrong?

I wasn't trying to talk smack. I find this genuinely concerning.
omg i totally mis-read that. i thought for whatever reason you meant America's declining interest in Canada LOL i was going to say that's my favorite way I've seen the recent antagonism put. Like if america is rejecting all things canadian, hockey is going to suffer by association :)
 
I would support it if they instituted a 2 tier system, like European football. 18 teams is where many of those leagues stand. Top three from league two promoted, bottom three from league one demoted.

But all that is predicated upon the regular season having meaning. 1st overall is the champion. 2 games home and home vs. each opponent, 68 game season

You could have a side-cup system as well, or a brief playoff for promotion/demotion.

That would make sense than a 36 team league which is absurd.
 
omg i totally mis-read that. i thought for whatever reason you meant America's declining interest in Canada LOL i was going to say that's my favorite way I've seen the recent antagonism put. Like if america is rejecting all things canadian, hockey is going to suffer by association :)
Well that's a whole other can of depressing worms.
 
Unless some mega-billionaire wants to buy a team for his hometown (see Utah)

The priority cities are Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix (which would all still need a mega-billionaire to cut the check). Those three with a backer would be a pretty quick acceptance.

The "4th team" on the other hand is a bit of a enigma. Outside of Atlanta there aren't a ton of options that make sense for an Eastern Conference team. A second Toronto team would need approval from the Leafs (not likely to happen). Quebec City might be the preferred option, but it's such small city, I just don't know.
 
Unless some mega-billionaire wants to buy a team for his hometown (see Utah)

The priority cities are Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix (which would all still need a mega-billionaire to cut the check). Those three with a backer would be a pretty quick acceptance.

The "4th team" on the other hand is a bit of a enigma. Outside of Atlanta there aren't a ton of options that make sense for an Eastern Conference team. A second Toronto team would need approval from the Leafs (not likely to happen). Quebec City might be the preferred option, but it's such small city, I just don't know.

The question is whether they’re willing to commit to the basketball arenas in these cities or whether they’re learning from the “Atlanta” Braves who essentially relocated out of Atlanta to a more affluent Atlanta suburb.
 
Always found it strange that Wisconsin has an AHL team but not an NHL team.
No potential owner and no arena to play in at the moment. The Bucks owners don't want a hockey team in Fiserv Forum! That is why the Admirals play 2 blocks to the south.
 

Ad

Ad