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.
I agree with most of this.
A few of points that I think really need to be hammered home:
1) The most important thing is having a committed ownership group ready to spend on a $2 billion entry fee, a new arena (in many of these locations) and long-term financial commitment. If you don’t have this - nothing else matters. Plain and simple. Like in my city, KC - this just doesn’t exist. It’s easy to play the game that “oh well there are billionaire corporate guys in town, somebody could step up”…but that’s just dreaming. Utah doesn’t have a team because it was the #1 demographic target, it has one because of a billionaire owner willing to do all the stuff it takes to own a team who the other billionaire owners seem to like.
2) Market size is not determined by the population of a “city proper”. I think most of gotten this by now, but it’s worth reiterating.
3) Market saturation by other professional teams is a real thing as well…people only have so much money and time to spend on their sports choices. Yes, in theory, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Cincinnati are big enough to have an NHL team compared to existing markets. But all these markets already have the NFL (ie 5,000 pound gorilla for attention and sports spending) and MLB (and in KC and Cincy, MLS as well). Sacramento only has the NBA (MLB is temporary)…the season schedule overlap with the NHL isn’t ideal but like SLC with a similar CSA population, you could probably make it work.
Like many - I think with the right ownership group - the three shoe-ins are Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix/AZ.
Unlike many, I do think going to 36 is the one chance there is to get another Canadian team. If QC has the right ownership in place and Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix are teams 33, 34 and 35….I think there’s a chance the NHL looks at all that southern expansion and says “a strong Canadian group should be 36 to balance things out”.
I am not “for” expansion but I think it is inevitable and I don’t think it is the doomsday scenario for the product that most here seem to think it is.
