If the league really wanted to make money they'd find a way to return to QC and go to Hamilton but they obviously prefer southern locations - away from things like ice and winter and hockey fans.
This I don't think I buy. I'll admit to being a bit of a novice, but for all people think that teams that fill the building make the most money for the league, I think that's probably the smallest component of it.
First, we're already hearing from Winnipeg that even though the gate has been reasonable in terms of number of tickets sold to individuals, they're having huge trouble because corporate money dried up. Quebec isn't so much larger than Winnipeg from a corporate standpoint that they won't be at risk of duplicating this situation if the economy gets bad.
Second, what I think the NHL really cares about is growth opportunity, not current value. Sure, you could waltz the Nordiques into Quebec and get lines out the door for years. You better hope that you maintain that level of fervor, though, because you have about 750,000 tickets to sell every year, in a market of 1.1 million people. If the level of interest drops, it gets a lot harder to close that gap. In Houston, you may have a much lower percentage of the population wanting to see Aeros games, but you don't need anywhere near as high a percentage of 7.2M people to fill that 730,000 seats (Toyota Center has a slightly lower capacity for hockey than Centre Vidéotron.) In Houston, you only need 10% and change of the MSA to buy 1 ticket each to fill that arena to capacity every game. In Quebec, you need 68% of the population to do that.
That said, I happen to think the correct mix for the NHL is a bit of both: some growth markets, some traditionalist markets, so that the league continues to be a unique marketing opportunity in the sports landscape. It's just a question of finding ways to include those traditional markets without repeating the severe financial issues that cost us those teams the first time.