"A league like the NHL, which has only 23 teams in 20 US metropolitan areas, should NOT have teams in smaller markets like Columbus, Raleigh, Buffalo, or Nashville, when cities like Seattle, Houston, Atlanta, Baltimore, San Diego, nor should they have teams in the smaller side of dual cities such as St Pete, St. Paul, or San Jose (granted San Jose is pretty big in it's own right). I mean if we are playing the market game."

Really? None of the cities you list have NBA teams. The NHL teams get more community support and probably bigger local contracts because of it. It is easier to sell boxes when you aren't competing against an NBA franchise. In big cities, unless you win (except in Minnesota), your team is an afterthought. Look at Atlanta, which has failed twice with the NHL. Why would anyone put a hockey team in a city like Baltimore instead of St. Paul? Baltimore is small (about 200,000 less than Columbus), in the Caps market area, relatively poor and in general, an armpit. St. Paul is in the Twin Cities metro area which is probably the most diehard hockey area in the country. San Diego? Hockey? San Diego struggles supporting the franchises it already has. The Clippers moved and the Chargers are always the subject of rumors.

While the NHL will never be a major league (sorry hockey fans, it just isn't), it has found a workable business plan. Couple historical teams with teams in hot hockey areas (Canada, the Twin Cities) and large markets bypassed by the NBA. The teams that struggled and/or are struggling are those in large (but not mega) cities with NBA teams. Miami, Phoenix and Atlanta are prime examples. Vegas probably will work. Seattle, if the NBA stays away, will too. If the NBA comes to Seattle, hockey simply won't work unless the team wins early and often. Quebec is a no brainer. Houston? It has failure written all over it. Same goes for San Diego and Atlanta. If you were putting a team in Texas, Austin and El Paso would probably be better considerations. The teams would have limited competition for the professional sports dollar, especially El Paso. Mexico City would be interesting too. Big, big city with no real competition.

(08-28-2014 09:58 AM)MU88 Wrote:  "A league like the NHL, which has only 23 teams in 20 US metropolitan areas, should NOT have teams in smaller markets like Columbus, Raleigh, Buffalo, or Nashville, when cities like Seattle, Houston, Atlanta, Baltimore, San Diego, nor should they have teams in the smaller side of dual cities such as St Pete, St. Paul, or San Jose (granted San Jose is pretty big in it's own right). I mean if we are playing the market game."

Really? None of the cities you list have NBA teams. The NHL teams get more community support and probably bigger local contracts because of it.

The point is your premise is utterly flawed since you said the NHL "does it smart," yet they do exactly the same thing. The same BA cities you mentioned, they don't have NHL teams either. And while they have the perverbial leverage with no team in Seattle to keep cities in line, no major American sports league has more large markets without teams than the NHL. So to say they expanded "smart" is beyond ridiculous. Especially considering the number of teams they relocated, which are struggling, and the notion of expanding less than five seasons after they lost an entire season due to money troubles and union negotiations.

By the way, your examples above, about teams you say are bad for the NHL. I didn't make the case that Baltimore (which is much, much larger than Columbus and it is not close) and San Diego were good hockey cities or that Saint Paul was a bad one. YOU DID. When you tried to make the case that the NBA was dumb because of market size. I mean damn, you listed the tenth most valuable NBA franchise and most successful franchise of the last 20 years, as an example a bad location for an NBA team. I mean do you even pay attention to what you write.

Thank you for killing your own argument. Saved me the trouble.

(08-27-2014 06:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 08:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I fully expect all 4 places to have NHL Hockey within 2 years- be it expansion or franchise relocation. Seattle, Las Vegas, and Quebec make all the sense in the world. Toronto getting a 2nd team as well.

It would make more sense to place one in Hamilton but they don't like how it is too close to Buffalo (as if American fans will root for a Canadian team and vis-a-versa).

There are over 400k people living within a few miles of the border who are closer to Buffalo than to Hamilton, and yearly about 15% of Sabres tickets are held by Canadians (and the Buffalo Bandits pro lax team sees ~40% of its ticket base coming from Canadians). So the league definitely worries about the effect of a Hamilton franchise. When there was talk of the Blackberry CEO buying the Preds and moving them there the league balked. I don't think there's much to it as Buffalo is one of the top NHL markets for ratings. I think the league could have the Sabres, a Hamilton team, and 2 Toronto teams, and all would be well-supported.

Another question I have is why Salt Lake City isn't considered a good NHL market? Are they concerned about overlap with the Avs?

(08-28-2014 10:08 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  I don't think there's much to it as Buffalo is one of the top NHL markets for ratings. I think the league could have the Sabres, a Hamilton team, and 2 Toronto teams, and all would be well-supported.

I don't know what the TV contracts local for hockey are like, but I think that is where the issues would come from.

Plus it's never wise to mess with harming one of your most valuable franchises. It would seem either option (second team in Toronto or one on Hamilton) would or should be done as a last resort.

I am with you, adcorbett on the Barklay's Center. They had the chance to make that arena a multipurpose facility to begin with but opted to take the cheaper route. Then, a year or two later the Islanders came calling and now they're going to try to retrofit it to make it work. It is going to be 14,500 seats and that is too small for an NHL arena, IMO.

As for your point about putting the arenas in the smaller parts of twin cities, I don't really understand that point at all. What difference does it make what part of the market the arena is located in? It is all going to be recorded as part of the same DMA.

I am not really interested in debating who is expanding smarter between the NBA and the NHL. Truthfully, I think both have made some good choices and both have made a few bad choices as well.

What I do know is that the only NHL team to move in the past decade was Atlanta to Winnipeg. I think everyone agrees that, market size considerations aside, that was a wise choice by the league.

The NHL tried to expand for TV markets when it expanded in the late 90s and early 2000s and it was largely unsuccessful. What the league found was that it was better to be the number one or two team in the smaller market than the number four or five team in a larger market. I think that is why Houston is so low on their list.

Remember, the NHL has a slightly different business model than the other three major sports leagues and is much more dependent on attendance then those leagues. I think being in Columbus, for example, was a very intelligent choice by the NHL. Now, I would have branded them "Ohio" rather than "Columbus" but overall if the Blue Jackets win, they will be fanatically supported. Had they been branded as all of Ohio's team, rather than just as Columbus' team, that would've also brought in the Cincinnati and Cleveland markets. Having lived in Ohio for some time I can tell you that those folks have a tremendous amount of state pride and would have rallied around their state's pro hockey team in the same way Minnesota has a Wild.

(08-28-2014 10:25 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  As for your point about putting the arenas in the smaller parts of twin cities, I don't really understand that point at all. What difference does it make what part of the market the arena is located in? It is all going to be recorded as part of the same DMA.

I wasn't making that point. I was countering the argument made that the NHL was doing things smart compared to the NBA due to the market size of the cities they chose. I was pointing out how ridiculous the statement was, when you look at the NHL as a whole. I don't think it matters if it works (the St. Pete thing is another issue), I was just pointing out how for his statement to be true, would be to ignore all of the smaller markets the NHL has chosen to be in, or that if market size was everything, playing in an arena in St. Paul would be a bad idea.

(08-28-2014 10:25 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The NHL tried to expand for TV markets when it expanded in the late 90s and early 2000s and it was largely unsuccessful. What the league found was that it was better to be the number one or two team in the smaller market than the number four or five team in a larger market. I think that is why Houston is so low on their list..

That was my point. The point I countered was the one made, which was completely against this, which stated the NHL was somehow expanding smart by going to larger markets, which one wasn;t true, two wasn't successful (as you pointed out), and three he pointed to one of the most successful NBA teams in the SA Spurs, which happens to be in a small market, as a failure for the NBA. I wasn't pointing out the Wild, Columbus, Carolina, Nashville, etc as being bad franchises or bad teams. I wasn't referring to the Atlanta experiment, or the need to put teams in Baltimore, San Diego, Houston, etc as a good idea. I was pointing them out as serious holes in his theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

(08-28-2014 10:16 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Another question I have is why Salt Lake City isn't considered a good NHL market? Are they concerned about overlap with the Avs?

Salt Lake City is an iffy candidate for multiple pro franchises because its metro area is smaller. It's about one-third the population of Denver's metro area. (SLC 1.1 million, Denver 3.3 million.)

(08-28-2014 10:25 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  As for your point about putting the arenas in the smaller parts of twin cities, I don't really understand that point at all. What difference does it make what part of the market the arena is located in? It is all going to be recorded as part of the same DMA.

Generally, you want to place sports teams where either the largest amount of fans can reach them or where the fans with the most purchasing power are. Also, there's a matter of civic pride when you deal with metro areas that have multiple major cities. San Jose is not San Francisco (or Oakland for that matter) and they are all distinctly different cities, thus someone on the San Francisco side of the bay is less likely to support something on the other sides. And ask Angel fans in Orange County how much they like being called "Los Angeles." Even Fort Worth residents, which along with middle city Arlington shares all of it's sports with Dallas, take offense to being lumped in with Dallas or outsiders referring to them as Dallas or "the Dallas area."

(08-28-2014 10:33 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 10:16 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Another question I have is why Salt Lake City isn't considered a good NHL market? Are they concerned about overlap with the Avs?

Salt Lake City is an iffy candidate for multiple pro franchises because its metro area is smaller. It's about one-third the population of Denver's metro area. (SLC 1.1 million, Denver 3.3 million.)

But the relocated the Thrashers to Edmonton which has an even smaller metro population than SLC.

(08-28-2014 11:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 10:33 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 10:16 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Another question I have is why Salt Lake City isn't considered a good NHL market? Are they concerned about overlap with the Avs?

Salt Lake City is an iffy candidate for multiple pro franchises because its metro area is smaller. It's about one-third the population of Denver's metro area. (SLC 1.1 million, Denver 3.3 million.)

But the relocated the Thrashers to Edmonton which has an even smaller metro population than SLC.

But Edmonton does not have another (major league). He was pointing out the issue with SLC having two pro teams.

Now that said, I found in the past that once the appetite is there, many of the corporations and fans that support one team, will support a second. However NBA and NHL are the two that can go together, as they share a season. I am thinking more how smaller NBA/NHL cities such as Nashville, New Orleans, Indy, Buffalo, and Charlotte also can support NFL teams.

34 seems like too many teams. I'd go with seattle and Quebec City and stop at 32. As for the smaller market teams, the NHL puts them in spots without NBA teams so its not a bad game plan. If the bucks leave town, could see them move to New Jersey if they don't get a new arena, that would be a perfect spot for an NHL team.

I don't think the Knicks or Nets would willingly allow a third team in the NY area. You might be able to get a third team signed off on in Anaheim or slightly east , as there is legitimately a second large metro area just east of there that is a 4.5 million person CSA in it's own right. But I don't think they will put a third one in Jersey, even though an arena is already there.

Somebody mentioned Milwaukee earlier and I could not agree more that Milwaukee is made to be an NHL market. I have long seen Milwaukee is an ideal expansion market natural rival for Chicago and Minnesota...but only if the Bucks leave town. That city is not large enough to support two major winter sports teams. That is also Portland's primary problem.

Now, if the Bucks do you leave for Las Vegas or somewhere else, then I would be all in on the Milwaukee/NHL express. However, I do not see it happening. Also, the NHL team would have the same problem as the Bucks - a lack of a first class facility full of modern amenities including luxury boxes.

I truly believe that Milwaukee would be best served by having NHL team rather than an NBA team. I also think that would improve Marquette's men's basketball attendance. However, I do not believe the NHL is in the cards for Milwaukee.

(08-28-2014 11:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 10:33 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 10:16 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Another question I have is why Salt Lake City isn't considered a good NHL market? Are they concerned about overlap with the Avs?

Salt Lake City is an iffy candidate for multiple pro franchises because its metro area is smaller. It's about one-third the population of Denver's metro area. (SLC 1.1 million, Denver 3.3 million.)

But the relocated the Thrashers to Edmonton which has an even smaller metro population than SLC.

Just as a point of clarification, the Thrashers were relocated to Winnipeg, not Edmonton. Atlanta's original NHL franchise, the Flames, were relocated to the province of Alberta, in Calgary.

I also agree with people who say that having three teams in metropolitan New York City has always been a very bad idea.

As large as that area is, and it is humongous, having three teams drawing from it is just one too many. The Rangers are the bedrock team in that region and are going nowhere. However, either the Devils or the Islanders should have relocated.

As for Hartford, I loved the Hartford Whalers when I was a kid but they too were a bad idea because they were overwhelmed by the New York and Boston media markets. I could have lived with it if the Islanders or the Devils were moved into that market (my choice would have been NYI) but I would not wish to see yet another team placed there now.

(08-28-2014 11:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 10:33 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 10:16 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Another question I have is why Salt Lake City isn't considered a good NHL market? Are they concerned about overlap with the Avs?

Salt Lake City is an iffy candidate for multiple pro franchises because its metro area is smaller. It's about one-third the population of Denver's metro area. (SLC 1.1 million, Denver 3.3 million.)

But the relocated the Thrashers to Edmonton which has an even smaller metro population than SLC.

The fan interest in hockey in Canada is far higher than in the U.S., so comparing U.S. markets to Canadian markets is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Maybe Columbus, which has about 1.9 million, would be the closest NHL market comparison, though Columbus doesn't have an NBA franchise also competing for local dollars, and an SLC team would have to directly compete with the Jazz on those fronts -- each has 40-plus arena home games in the same part of the year. Denver might be the smallest market that has both NBA and NHL franchises.

Seattle (metro population 3.5 million) would be well ahead of Salt Lake City as a desirable NHL market, even if Seattle also got an NBA franchise.

(08-28-2014 10:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 10:25 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  As for your point about putting the arenas in the smaller parts of twin cities, I don't really understand that point at all. What difference does it make what part of the market the arena is located in? It is all going to be recorded as part of the same DMA.

Generally, you want to place sports teams where either the largest amount of fans can reach them or where the fans with the most purchasing power are. Also, there's a matter of civic pride when you deal with metro areas that have multiple major cities. San Jose is not San Francisco (or Oakland for that matter) and they are all distinctly different cities, thus someone on the San Francisco side of the bay is less likely to support something on the other sides. And ask Angel fans in Orange County how much they like being called "Los Angeles." Even Fort Worth residents, which along with middle city Arlington shares all of it's sports with Dallas, take offense to being lumped in with Dallas or outsiders referring to them as Dallas or "the Dallas area."

I hear you, C2, but I think San Jose is a really bad example. Even without support from fans in SF and OAK, there is no wealthier place in this country right now than Silicon Valley. San Jose, which has an extremely loyal following both among its fans and it's corporate partners, is perfectly situated to take full advantage of that wealth. Nobody will ever be able to convince me that the NHL placing a team in San Jose was a bad idea because it very clearly was an excellent idea.

Also, I'm not sure I would agree with you that there is no cross pollination between the areas. I think that is true between Oakland and San Francisco but I do not believe it is as true between San Francisco and Silicon Valley. I say that because San Jose is hosting an outdoor game this coming winter and the game will be played at AT&T Park in downtown San Francisco. Also the 49ers' new stadium is located in Santa Clara – a stone's throw from the Sharks' HP Pavilion. In other words, I believe there is more cross pollination than you are acknowledging or are aware of.

(08-28-2014 11:59 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Nobody will ever be able to convince me that the NHL placing a team in San Jose was a bad idea because it very clearly was an excellent idea.

The Sharks are very well supported, and until this year they were the only major pro sports team in SV. The profitability of the team is even higher when you consider the arena was built with tax dollars and not the team's dollars. A great deal for any team owner that can get it.

(08-28-2014 11:59 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I say that because San Jose is hosting an outdoor game this coming winter and the game will be played at AT&T Park in downtown San Francisco. Also the 49ers' new stadium is located in Santa Clara – a stone's throw from the Sharks' HP Pavilion.

The Sharks' outdoor game this season vs. the LA Kings will be played at the 49ers' new stadium in Santa Clara, not in SF. http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=727960

(08-28-2014 09:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 11:23 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Houston's problem is the Rockets have a clause in their lease that they have the rights to a hockey team in the Toyota Center. So unless the Rockets owners bring NHL to Houston, you probably won't see hockey in Houston.

Kansas City's problem is they don't have an ownership group. I would look to Texas personally and see if any of the ones who bid on the Stars would be interested in Kansas City.

Toronto's problem is the Maple Leafs. Hamilton's problem is Buffalo Sabres/Maple Leafs.

Essentially you are looking at Seattle, Las Vegas and Quebec. The team that I'm surprised didn't get moved was the Islanders. Barclays move was nice, but that facility doesn't scream hockey to me.

Kansas City was used by the Pens and Islanders as arena bait. As for ownership, there has been some speculation (whether wild or not I don't know) that the group that owns Sporting KC has contemplated adding one or two rich friends who regret saying no to being part of the MLS ownership group and would consider pursuing an NHL or NBA team.

The Cerner boys are looking at making a play for the Royals. That is what has been floating around Kansas City. Them going for a NHL or NBA team would make sense, they could combine sponsorships with Sporting and have a year round marketing plan.