TheAud Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Yeah, why? They have about 1/9 of the population of the US and roughly the same ratio of GDP. Adding more teams to Canada means US teams propping up more small market teams. However "Small market" isn't based on population alone. Buffalo is a very small market city compared with Phoenix, Tampa, Charlotte, etc but is effectively a large market team when it comes to hockey. Canadian cities the same size or even smaller than Buffalo might be large market, or at least mid-market, cities in terms of hockey given the fanaticism of the population regarding hockey. I think the fundamental question is whether hockey is better served expanding in places where it is revered or at least strongly followed as a dominant regional sport, or whether it should continue to expand to large markets where it can hope for a small but potentially proftiable niche position among football, basketball, baseball or whatever. The Atlanta/Calgary and Winnipeg/Phoenix-Atlanta/Winnipeg chain of franchise moves would seem to be case studies for the former, but who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Dance Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 However "Small market" isn't based on population alone. Buffalo is a very small market city compared with Phoenix, Tampa, Charlotte, etc but is effectively a large market team when it comes to hockey. Canadian cities the same size or even smaller than Buffalo might be large market, or at least mid-market, cities in terms of hockey given the fanaticism of the population regarding hockey. I think the fundamental question is whether hockey is better served expanding in places where it is revered or at least strongly followed as a dominant regional sport, or whether it should continue to expand to large markets where it can hope for a small but potentially proftiable niche position among football, basketball, baseball or whatever. The Atlanta/Calgary and Winnipeg/Phoenix-Atlanta/Winnipeg chain of franchise moves would seem to be case studies for the former, but who knows. I agree - just because a city has a huge population does not mean that hockey will thrive, or even survive, there. Let's hope the NHL has learned from (both of) the Atlanta debacles and makes sure it expands to a place that will actually appreciate and support a team. (Not to mention that it looks really awful on TV to see an 18,000+ seat arena 3/4 empty, even when the home team is playing well enough to get into the playoffs). Frankly, I don't think there is any need to expand - there are several NHL teams that should be moved from their current cities (Panthers, cough, cough, Hurricanes, hack...) to places that would definitely be more involved in those teams. Quebec leaps to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 However "Small market" isn't based on population alone. Buffalo is a very small market city compared with Phoenix, Tampa, Charlotte, etc but is effectively a large market team when it comes to hockey. Canadian cities the same size or even smaller than Buffalo might be large market, or at least mid-market, cities in terms of hockey given the fanaticism of the population regarding hockey. I think the fundamental question is whether hockey is better served expanding in places where it is revered or at least strongly followed as a dominant regional sport, or whether it should continue to expand to large markets where it can hope for a small but potentially proftiable niche position among football, basketball, baseball or whatever. The Atlanta/Calgary and Winnipeg/Phoenix-Atlanta/Winnipeg chain of franchise moves would seem to be case studies for the former, but who knows. First part: Right on. Second part: I think hockey is best served by not expanding at all. Too much talent dilution as it is. Maybe the league can move some teams around or something instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 Why? Yeah, why? They have about 1/9 of the population of the US and roughly the same ratio of GDP. Adding more teams to Canada means US teams propping up more small market teams. I believe Canadian cities would more routinely support a team, regardless of city size. I think hockey is beyond saturated in the US. The only city I would guess, and it is just a guess, is Cleveland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted September 3, 2014 Report Share Posted September 3, 2014 I believe Canadian cities would more routinely support a team, regardless of city size. I think hockey is beyond saturated in the US. The only city I would guess, and it is just a guess, is Cleveland. I think you're generally correct, but the big problem is corporate money for boxes and whatnot. There just aren't as many big companies in Canada that are going to buy-in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted September 3, 2014 Report Share Posted September 3, 2014 Buffalo ... is effectively a large market team when it comes to hockey. Ummmm no. Not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 5, 2014 Report Share Posted September 5, 2014 I don't understand this "Canada is owed an expansion team" garbage. Take the emotion out of it, the right move is to try to expand their footprint inside the states. Someone please explain this to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Predictions that the expansion fee for a new Toronto Team could be as high as 1.2 Billion. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=461248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 I don't understand this "Canada is owed an expansion team" garbage. Take the emotion out of it, the right move is to try to expand their footprint inside the states. Someone please explain this to me. I'm inclined to agree with you because let's be honest, there isn't really anything IN Canada. It's mostly open space and most of the big cities that could support a team are covered with the exception of Quebec City and maybe Halifax. However, the difference between Canada and the US is that we're still growing the sport here. Putting teams in Halifax, Quebec City, and another in Toronto are safe moves because hockey is already culturally embedded. We might have bigger options here population-wise, but the risk is much greater. On risk factor alone Canada deserves another team or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabills Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) I'm inclined to agree with you because let's be honest, there isn't really anything IN Canada. It's mostly open space and most of the big cities that could support a team are covered with the exception of Quebec City and maybe Halifax. However, the difference between Canada and the US is that we're still growing the sport here. Putting teams in Halifax, Quebec City, and another in Toronto are safe moves because hockey is already culturally embedded. We might have bigger options here population-wise, but the risk is much greater. On risk factor alone Canada deserves another team or two. Plus more teams in Canada means its that much easier for the remaining US teams to win the cup. [THE JOKE HERE IS THAT CANADIAN TEAMS NEVER WIN.] Edited September 8, 2014 by sabills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Plus more teams in Canada means its that much easier for the remaining US teams to win the cup. [THE JOKE HERE IS THAT CANADIAN TEAMS NEVER WIN.] See, expansion is good for the Sabres! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frissonic Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Also, I've written lengthy posts before about expansion in the US (thread didn't consider Canada) here and here. [/background][/font][/color] Since that ######'s three years old already, maybe it's time for an update. Using "metro Salt Lake" as a simple population base isn't making a fair comparison. Is that to say that no one from Lockport would drive to the FNC for a game? What about Canandaigua? no one from there ever takes in a tilt? It's the same with Salt Lake and the surrounding area. It's not just about the downtown area, or even just a single county. it's about the region. Within a 30-45 minute drive from down town Salt Lake, the popluation count is well over 2 million. As someone who's lived here and watched the Jazz absorb a rabid fan base for a stupid sport like basketball, I can guarantee that hockey would blow the lid off the ESA or Maverik center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Using "metro Salt Lake" as a simple population base isn't making a fair comparison. Is that to say that no one from Lockport would drive to the FNC for a game? What about Canandaigua? no one from there ever takes in a tilt? It's the same with Salt Lake and the surrounding area. It's not just about the downtown area, or even just a single county. it's about the region. Within a 30-45 minute drive from down town Salt Lake, the popluation count is well over 2 million. As someone who's lived here and watched the Jazz absorb a rabid fan base for a stupid sport like basketball, I can guarantee that hockey would blow the lid off the ESA or Maverik center. Wiki lists the Metro area at 1.1 million. If you take the entire area it's 2.3M (including Provo and Orem), which I guess it nothing to scoff at. That being said, Seattle metro area is 3.5M people (which includes Tacoma, which is as far from Seattle as Provo is to SLC). So the question is, why would SLC get a team before Seattle? I'll admit I don't know much about SLC. Are there any big businesses in the area that might reap some sponsorship dollars? I know Novell is based in Provo (and it seems like there's another high-tech company out there too). Edited September 8, 2014 by MattPie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 no sporting $ competition after january for Seattle. SLC team would be competing with the Jazz all year long. Something to consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frissonic Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 Wiki lists the Metro area at 1.1 million. If you take the entire area it's 2.3M (including Provo and Orem), which I guess it nothing to scoff at. That being said, Seattle metro area is 3.5M people (which includes Tacoma, which is as far from Seattle as Provo is to SLC). So the question is, why would SLC get a team before Seattle? I'll admit I don't know much about SLC. Are there any big businesses in the area that might reap some sponsorship dollars? I know Novell is based in Provo (and it seems like there's another high-tech company out there too). The biggest out here is IHC (Intermountain Health Care), which basically runs all up and down the Wasatch front. They could be a huge contributor (especially if the pee-wee leagues take off ... they'd make money hand over fist. :) ). There's Franklin Covey, ICON Health and Fitness, Kennecott (copper mining company), Sinclair Oil, RC Willey ... there are a bunch of big-name companies that could sponsor a franchise here. I get that Seattle would make a great rival for the 'nucks. Sure. But I don't see the Jazz and an NHL franchise competing for dollars. It's just like everywhere else out here: either you hate or love hockey, and you hate or love basketball, and the two tend to be pretty mutually exclusive. I wouldn't pay for nosebleed seats to a jazz game, but i'd pay good money to seat my family near center ice around the 3rd or 4th row behind the team benches. And I know a bunch of people out here who would buy season tickets, myself included. I dunno ... I just wish SLC would get some love. No NFL team, no MLB team ... just some crappy basketball team. Yah, we have RSL, which is great, but it's not hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted September 8, 2014 Report Share Posted September 8, 2014 http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/new-toronto-nhl-team-facing--1-2-billion-expansion-fee-144127449.html 2nd Toronto franchise expansion fee? $1.2B!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I'm inclined to agree with you because let's be honest, there isn't really anything IN Canada. It's mostly open space and most of the big cities that could support a team are covered with the exception of Quebec City and maybe Halifax. However, the difference between Canada and the US is that we're still growing the sport here. Putting teams in Halifax, Quebec City, and another in Toronto are safe moves because hockey is already culturally embedded. We might have bigger options here population-wise, but the risk is much greater. On risk factor alone Canada deserves another team or two. I'm sure you could put a 2nd team in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, teams in QC, Halifax, Saskatchewan and Hamilton and those teams would be greatly supported and sell out every night. It's not about that. It's about expanding the footprint in the US in an effort to land a decent TV deal. Adding Canadian teams don't do that. I think Seattle/Portland/KC would embrace a Hockey team. I wouldn't mind seeing expansion into Houston/San Antonio, SLC or Milwaukee. Wouldn't mind seeing Hartford again either. Expansion into non-traditional hockey markets is important for the long term success of the league. It may not always work (Atlanta/Phoenix/Florida), but it IS working. Hockey is thriving in Nashville. It seems to be doing quite well in Raleigh too, and Anaheim, and San Jose is a great hockey city. Like I said before, take the emotion out of it. The NHL doesn't owe canada ######. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I'm sure you could put a 2nd team in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, teams in QC, Halifax, Saskatchewan and Hamilton and those teams would be greatly supported and sell out every night. It's not about that. It's about expanding the footprint in the US in an effort to land a decent TV deal. Adding Canadian teams don't do that. I think Seattle/Portland/KC would embrace a Hockey team. I wouldn't mind seeing expansion into Houston/San Antonio, SLC or Milwaukee. Wouldn't mind seeing Hartford again either. Expansion into non-traditional hockey markets is important for the long term success of the league. It may not always work (Atlanta/Phoenix/Florida), but it IS working. Hockey is thriving in Nashville. It seems to be doing quite well in Raleigh too, and Anaheim, and San Jose is a great hockey city. Like I said before, take the emotion out of it. The NHL doesn't owe canada ######. sooooooo you are in favor of bettman and the bettman plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I have no idea what the Bergman plan is, care to elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 The bettman plan. expand to non traditional US markets (even at the expense of canadian markets). Focus on markets in the south of the US where the populations probaly have never seen ice let alone watched a sport played on ice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 The bettman plan. expand to non traditional US markets (even at the expense of canadian markets). Focus on markets in the south of the US where the populations probaly have never seen ice let alone watched a sport played on ice That's similar to what I said in my previous post so yes, I am in favor of the Bettman plan. You have a better idea to grow the game in the states, expand the NHL footprint, and increase revenue through a more lucrative TV deal? If so, I'd love to read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BagBoy Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 I'm sure you could put a 2nd team in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, teams in QC, Halifax, Saskatchewan and Hamilton and those teams would be greatly supported and sell out every night. It's not about that. It's about expanding the footprint in the US in an effort to land a decent TV deal. Adding Canadian teams don't do that. I think Seattle/Portland/KC would embrace a Hockey team. I wouldn't mind seeing expansion into Houston/San Antonio, SLC or Milwaukee. Wouldn't mind seeing Hartford again either. Expansion into non-traditional hockey markets is important for the long term success of the league. It may not always work (Atlanta/Phoenix/Florida), but it IS working. Hockey is thriving in Nashville. It seems to be doing quite well in Raleigh too, and Anaheim, and San Jose is a great hockey city. Like I said before, take the emotion out of it. The NHL doesn't owe canada ######. Okay, I get your main point that the NHL is more likely to land a lucrative TV contract with a few more American teams, all things being equal. I agree that any potential newbie NHL fans in the US won’t give a rat’s as-s about teams from cities in Canada that they’ve never heard of. Now let’s get a few other things straight. There’s no way Halifax or Saskatchewan could support an NHL team There’s no way Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver gets a 2nd team in the next 20 years (or ever) Seattle - maybe one day gets a team - but Portland/KC/Houston/San Antonio/SLC/Milwaukee/Hartford is just plain silly If anything, the NHL has too many teams, as opposed to not enough. Potential new US markets are not going to be impressed by a league that is even more watered down than today’s NHL How about YOU take the emotion out of it? With no Canada, there is no NHL. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 That's similar to what I said in my previous post so yes, I am in favor of the Bettman plan. You have a better idea to grow the game in the states, expand the NHL footprint, and increase revenue through a more lucrative TV deal? If so, I'd love to read it. How is that good for hockey, or more importantly, me? ###### money. I couldn't care less how much more lucrative a deal the NHL could get by going into questionable Southern markets. A claim that might not even prove to be true. There has been hockey a lot longer than there has been this much money in it. All I know is that the product isn't as good now as it has been in the past and I already have been priced out of going to games regularly, an I have a good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 How is that good for hockey, or more importantly, me? ###### money. I couldn't care less how much more lucrative a deal the NHL could get by going into questionable Southern markets. A claim that might not even prove to be true. There has been hockey a lot longer than there has been this much money in it. All I know is that the product isn't as good now as it has been in the past and I already have been priced out of going to games regularly, an I have a good job. At the same time, how does a team struggling in a market like Florida hurt you? Short of living in or near that market yourself, I don't think it changes much for you. But as to how a more lucrative TV deal could be important to you, a better TV deal means more exposure and more games on TV. That can't be a bad thing for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted September 9, 2014 Report Share Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) At the same time, how does a team struggling in a market like Florida hurt you? Short of living in or near that market yourself, I don't think it changes much for you. But as to how a more lucrative TV deal could be important to you, a better TV deal means more exposure and more games on TV. That can't be a bad thing for you. I can watch any game I want to now. Watching a game played in Winnipeg is way better that watching a game played in Florida or Phoenix. The crowds are better (and by better I mean they are there) and really into it. I was actually talking more about expansion. I would rather see a team in a Canadian city that would fill the seats with avid(rabid) fans than see one in a corporate rich U.S city that would have more luxury boxes than seats with people in them. I care more about the sport and game experience (live and on TV) than I care about how much the NHL is making. Edited September 9, 2014 by SwampD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.