Official NHL website map shows team in Quebec; new divisions

[TheAud]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-cant-canada-win-the-stanley-cup/

 

Start about mid-way down the article.

 

According to this analysis back in 2013, there are almost 10X more avid hockey fans in Toronto than in Buffalo. Heck, it says there are 2x as many as New York City, which has three teams already. 

Even if the conclusions of their analysis are off by a factor of 2 or 3, it still appears a second Toronto team would be highly viable. 

[Hank]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-cant-canada-win-the-stanley-cup/

 

Start about mid-way down the article.

 

According to this analysis back in 2013, there are almost 10X more avid hockey fans in Toronto than in Buffalo. Heck, it says there are 2x as many as New York City, which has three teams already. 

Even if the conclusions of their analysis are off by a factor of 2 or 3, it still appears a second Toronto team would be highly viable. 

Of course a 2nd team could work in Toronto. So what. It doesn't matter. You could add a team in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Hamilton and Saskatoon. All would be successful. It don't matter. The long term goal of the league is to grow the game in America. Like it or not, it's an American league that happens to have Canadian teams, no different than MLB or the NBA. The long term goal is a more lucrative TV deal in America. You don't get that by adding teams in Montreal and Toronto. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Hank

[Brawndo]

Any further expansion in the league will be to Seattle. Florida or Carolina will likely end up in Quebec.

[TheAud]

Of course a 2nd team could work in Toronto. So what. It doesn't matter. You could add a team in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Hamilton and Saskatoon. All would be successful. It don't matter. The long term goal of the league is to grow the game in America. Like it or not, it's an American league that happens to have Canadian teams, no different than MLB or the NBA. The long term goal is a more lucrative TV deal in America. You don't get that by adding teams in Montreal and Toronto. 

I thought the analysis in the article was interesting and relevant to the discussion. 

Even if you're correct about the "long term goal" it doesn't mean a 2nd team in the greater Toronto area won't happen some day. It might anyway, whether through expansion or relocation.  

[Randall Flagg]

I think Oklahoma City should be the next expansion team. 

 

 

:ph34r:

[Hank]

I think Oklahoma City should be the next expansion team. 

 

 

:ph34r:

You may not be old enough to remember but they were a finalist during a previous round of expansion. 

[Randall Flagg]

You may not be old enough to remember but they were a finalist during a previous round of expansion. 

I'm honestly quite surprised to hear that. Sweet. 

 

Make it happen, Bettman! Get Flagg some NHL hockey to watch! 

[I-90 W]

Hawaii is most likely on the radar next, lol.

[PromoTheRobot]

You may not be old enough to remember but they were a finalist during a previous round of expansion.

The old CHL OKC Blazers used to average 10K+ in their heyday. And the old ECHL Las Vegas Wranglers drew very respectable crowds as well.

 

Other serious expansion /relocation markets include Seattle, Houston and Indianapolis.

Edited June 19, 2017 by PromoTheRobot

[Doohicksie]

The problem with OKC is they already have the Thunder.  Much like Buffalo, they may not have enough support for two winter teams.

[Swedesessed]

What the NHL needs to understand is fan do not want geographical division names: The NHL has an imbalance of teams geographically anyway.

 

Make the division names from the old days: Adams, Smythe, etc. Want to add a new one or two? Gretzky, Orr division, something like that.

[Doohicksie]

What the NHL needs to understand is fan do not want geographical division names: The NHL has an imbalance of teams geographically anyway.

 

Make the division names from the old days: Adams, Smythe, etc. Want to add a new one or two? Gretzky, Orr division, something like that.

 

I don't think division names make all that much difference to fans, but to casual observers who may become fans, using historical names in lieu of geographic names can be disorienting.

[I-90 W]

I never liked the idea of historical names for divisions, geographical all the way. Historical names can confuse people and rekks of favortism, whether perceived or true. Something the league already has a problem with.

 

I wouldn't want us to play Boston in the playoffs for the "Orr division". Would sting that much more when perceived calls go Boston's way etc