http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/

Thinking NHL Expansion
http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6289		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  CriminallyVu1gar [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Thinking NHL Expansion
With the prospect of moving to four divisions, I think it would make a lot more sense if they all had even teams. I'd be more prone to contracting two of the poorer markets, but I'm curious as to what people think about expansion, specifically which cities should get new teams.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
quebec and portland, OR. id vote seattle, but they arnt going to build a new arena, and they cant use keyArena. portlands rose garden already has a sheet of ice set up.

quebec is building a new arena to lure a new team in, so there you go. but id rather hamilton get a team.
Author:  Stuuuuuuu [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
The more reasonable question would be which teams should be contracted IMO. When the talent level is so thin in a 30-team NHL that Tim Connolly gets paid $5 million a year, there's already way too many teams. Don't mean to rain on your parade CV, I just feel I constant need to vent about bloated salaries in a bloated league.
Author:  CriminallyVu1gar [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
Image

Minneapolis:
Pros - Minnesota loves hockey. It would make for a crazy rivalry with the Wild. It puts another franchise out west (ish) for geographic purposes.
Cons - Lower down on the population totem pole (48th). With the Wild, and tons of good college teams, can the Twin Cities support another team?
Arena - Target Center, built in 1990, renovated in 2004, seats 17,500 for hockey.

Milwaukee:
Pros - Milwaukee is an okay draw for basketball (82.3%, 21st), and baseball (81%, 9th). It's the 28th largest U.S. city.
Cons - Competition with NCAA football, NFL might sap attendance.
Arena - Bradley Center, built in 1988, seats 17,845 for hockey.

Quebec City:
Pros - It's in Canada. It sold 95% of it's seats from 1990 to 1995 when the Nordiques existed.
Cons - Small Market. Small, old Arena.
Arena - Colisee Pepsi, built in 1949, seats 15,176

Cleveland:
Pros - Draws well for the NBA (97.8%, 12th) and NFL (90.3%, 22nd). The Cavaliers and Browns suck. Could make for a good rivalry with Columbus. Great Arena. Great AHL draw (five figures).
Cons - Pro hockey has not been a success in Ohio. Too close to another NHL team that doesn't draw well. City's economy is not good.
Arena - Quicken Loans Arena, built in 1994, seats 20,056.

Cincinnati:
Pros - Good NFL draw (92.1%, 21st) despite an awful team.
Cons - Small city. History of low attendance with ECHL team. Pro hockey has not been a success in Ohio. Close to another NHL team that doesn't draw well. Inadequate Arena.
Arena - US Bank Arena, built in 1975, seats 14,453

Austin:
Pros - Largest U.S. City (12th) without a pro sports franchise. Within a few hours drive of Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. Good AHL attendance.
Cons - It's in the South, close to another team with okay, but not great attendance. No NHL-worthy Arena.
Arena - Cedar Park Center, built in 2009, seats 6,863.

Anchorage:
Pros - It's in Alaska! No pro sports teams to compete with.
Cons - Smaller city. Would make for nightmarish travel. No NHL-worthy Arena.
Arena - Sullivan Arena, built in 1983, seats 6,599.

Indianapolis:
Pros - Good draw for football (106.3%, 2nd). Good youth hockey programs.
Cons - Midwestern city. Poor draw for basketball (74.5%, 29th). Mediocre hockey interest. No NHL-worthy Arena.
Arena - Pepsi Coliseum, built in 1939, seats 8,200. Potentially the 18,165 (Basketball) seat Conseco Fieldhouse (1999).

I'm 100% locked into Seattle, especially if they get a decent arena. The rivalry with Vancouver would be excellent and it would temper some of the hellacious Western Travel in allowing for another "western" team to shift into the Eastern Conference.

From there, it's a toss-up between Minneapolis, and Milwaukee for me. I took Minneapolis because I want to see the new franchise and the Wild murder each other six times a year, but Milwaukee probably makes more sense overall. The city is larger, there aren't any other pro hockey teams to contend with, and there are fewer professional teams from other sports to contend with. (Bucks and Brewers vs. Vikings, Twins, and Timberwolves).
Author:  CriminallyVu1gar [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
The more reasonable question would be which teams should be contracted IMO. When the talent level is so thin in a 30-team NHL that Tim Connolly gets paid $5 million a year, there's already way too many teams. Don't mean to rain on your parade CV, I just feel I constant need to vent about bloated salaries in a bloated league.


The NHL is probably competing with the NFL for being the least bloated league team-wise in terms of attendance compared to the NBA and MLB.
Author:  Van_Da_Man [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
I think a team in Milwaukee would do very well, although it only pulled 5,796ish people per game (11th highest in AHL) I can say from experience there is rarely a dull moment. From the diehards constantly creating chants to the all around fun atmosphere, if an NHL team ever landed there I think it could be one of the most fun arenas to visit. (Not to mention the possibilities of Minnesota-Chicago rivalries popping up instantaneously.)
Author:  BagBoy [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
The more reasonable question would be which teams should be contracted IMO. When the talent level is so thin in a 30-team NHL that Tim Connolly gets paid $5 million a year, there's already way too many teams. Don't mean to rain on your parade CV, I just feel I constant need to vent about bloated salaries in a bloated league.

I feel the same way, Stu.
Author:  BagBoy [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
Wait...no Hamilton?
--kidding--

Who knows, Seattle might actually be a good place for a team some day. I think Quebec City can overcome their challenges. But Milwaukee will never happen as long as the Hawks are in Chicago.
Author:  Markus [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
Greenland.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
you know.. grand rapids has wanted a team for a while.
Author:  patkane88 [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
Quebec and somewhere in southern ontario/second team in Toronto
Author:  Hammygoodness [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
I can't even conceive of expanding this league. Contraction is what is needed.

Ham
Author:  Squanto [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
The more reasonable question would be which teams should be contracted IMO. When the talent level is so thin in a 30-team NHL that Tim Connolly gets paid $5 million a year, there's already way too many teams. Don't mean to rain on your parade CV, I just feel I constant need to vent about bloated salaries in a bloated league.


The NHL is probably competing with the NFL for being the least bloated league team-wise in terms of attendance compared to the NBA and MLB.


Attendance is not the problem. (In the context of this discussion.)

League wide skill level is.
Author:  CriminallyVu1gar [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
Squanto wrote:
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
The more reasonable question would be which teams should be contracted IMO. When the talent level is so thin in a 30-team NHL that Tim Connolly gets paid $5 million a year, there's already way too many teams. Don't mean to rain on your parade CV, I just feel I constant need to vent about bloated salaries in a bloated league.


The NHL is probably competing with the NFL for being the least bloated league team-wise in terms of attendance compared to the NBA and MLB.


Attendance is not the problem. (In the context of this discussion.)

League wide skill level is.


Yeah, I meant to reply as an addendum to the opening post, not quote.
Author:  patkane88 [ Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
Hammygoodness wrote:
I can't even conceive of expanding this league. Contraction is what is needed.

Ham


I agree 100%
Author:  Displaced Fan [ Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
patkane88 wrote:
Hammygoodness wrote:
I can't even conceive of expanding this league. Contraction is what is needed.

Ham


I agree 100%

yup. The NHL is already trying to squeeze money out of several shitty markets. Why expand into other iffy markets? I say drop the southern teams and call it a day.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
there are shitty markets with teams, yes. but there are also good markets without teams.
Author:  CriminallyVu1gar [ Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
ironyisadeadscene wrote:
there are shitty markets with teams, yes. but there are also good markets without teams.


There's that and the fact that virtually every team drew 80% plus attendance last year and has done so for the last two decades. It depends on what you consider a failure in terms of attendance I guess. Yes those teams are in the bottom of the league, but the NHL was second to only the NFL in overall attendance percentage last year.

Look at the MLB, only 4 teams drew over 90% attendance last year. (Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, and Minnesota). I believe they have 7 (SEVEN!) teams that draw less than 50%.
Author:  Displaced Fan [ Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
ironyisadeadscene wrote:
there are shitty markets with teams, yes. but there are also good markets without teams.


There's that and the fact that virtually every team drew 80% plus attendance last year and has done so for the last two decades. It depends on what you consider a failure in terms of attendance I guess. Yes those teams are in the bottom of the league, but the NHL was second to only the NFL in overall attendance percentage last year.

Look at the MLB, only 4 teams drew over 90% attendance last year. (Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, and Minnesota). I believe they have 7 (SEVEN!) teams that draw less than 50%.


And through popularity they can afford that kind of hit. Baseball is way more popular than hockey and makes a shit tone of money from a laundry list of deals, endorsements, commercials, mechandise etc. Ticket sales are a HUGE part of the NHL. I don't know, i just think we have too many shitty fan bases already.
Author:  CriminallyVu1gar [ Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thinking NHL Expansion
Displaced Fan wrote:
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
ironyisadeadscene wrote:
there are shitty markets with teams, yes. but there are also good markets without teams.


There's that and the fact that virtually every team drew 80% plus attendance last year and has done so for the last two decades. It depends on what you consider a failure in terms of attendance I guess. Yes those teams are in the bottom of the league, but the NHL was second to only the NFL in overall attendance percentage last year.

Look at the MLB, only 4 teams drew over 90% attendance last year. (Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, and Minnesota). I believe they have 7 (SEVEN!) teams that draw less than 50%.


And through popularity they can afford that kind of hit. Baseball is way more popular than hockey and makes a shit tone of money from a laundry list of deals, endorsements, commercials, mechandise etc. Ticket sales are a HUGE part of the NHL. I don't know, i just think we have too many shitty fan bases already.


Some of that is based on crappy TV deals. There are a few teams that don't have every game available for their local fans. That's huge I think. I didn't really become a hockey fan until I had cable at college and was able to watch virtually every game.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/