Top 5 NHL Expansion Cities (hint: #1 is not Seattle)

[valo403]

Originally Posted by lifetimefan

That's like asking, "Do you have any idea how large Canada is?"

Realistically, Texas has 3 urban centers capable of supporting top level pro sports - Houston, Dallas and San Antonio.
Make no mistake, hockey will forever take a back seat to football, baseball and basketball in Texas.

No, it's like asking "Do you have any idea how large Texas is?"

The fact that a state of that size has 7 other professional teams is irrelevant, those teams aren't competing with each other. If you want point to the number of teams in Houston then sure, that's an argument, there's certainly a decent amount of competition in the market. But the presence of the Cowboys means nothing here, and the presence of the Stars is likely a positive factor as it creates a rivalry, and their presence has established a solid grassroots hockey program in Texas. Nobody has even attempted to argue that hockey would leap for any of those sports, so again I have no idea how that is relevant.

[Hack&Lube]

How is it that MLSE has so much control over that area or potential expansions would have to pay them for geographic rights?

If the NY area has 3 teams, that already sets a precedent that at least 2 teams might work in Ontario.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

Austin could support a team. They're the largest city in the USA without a sports team right now. Whether they'd go for hockey is another issue.

Austin would need to build a facility, which seems doubtful if the lone reason to do so is hockey.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

How is it that MLSE has so much control over that area or potential expansions would have to pay them for geographic rights?

If the NY area has 3 teams, that already sets a precedent that at least 2 teams might work in Ontario.

Every team in the NHL has territorial rights (50 miles I believe). The Islanders and I believe the Devils had to pay the Rangers.

[Wolven]

The first thing I got out of that article is that while the West might have an advantage right now in the standings, the West has always been at a disadvantage when it comes to travel time. The realignment kind of balances one advantage against the other (for now).

I like Seattle and Portland for hockey teams. I am not sure how well it would work to put teams in both markets but it would be awesome.

KC would be a good central division addition and help build up that buffer between Detroit and returning to the Western conference.

Quebec City is a tough expansion choice right now just because of how the realignment was done. I really see that happening via relocation of a team such as the panthers more so than expansion.

I love the idea of a second Toronto team, especially a West conference team that increases exposure of the Western teams in Toronto and doesn't so much focus on a Toronto rivalry.

[Massonite]

Has anyone read the end of the aritcle?

With all due respect to Ontario and Quebec, America needs some more hockey.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That is all

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by valo403

Austin would need to build a facility, which seems doubtful if the lone reason to do so is hockey.

UT is going to be replacing the Frank Erwin Center in the next 5 or so years, so there is a new facility being built, however not sure the NHL could make it here (although it isn't that far fetched, but I see Houston as a better option for sure).

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by valo403

No, it's like asking "Do you have any idea how large Texas is?"

The fact that a state of that size has 7 other professional teams is irrelevant, those teams aren't competing with each other. If you want point to the number of teams in Houston then sure, that's an argument, there's certainly a decent amount of competition in the market. But the presence of the Cowboys means nothing here, and the presence of the Stars is likely a positive factor as it creates a rivalry, and their presence has established a solid grassroots hockey program in Texas. Nobody has even attempted to argue that hockey would leap for any of those sports, so again I have no idea how that is relevant.

On top of this Houston already has an AHL team (showing they support hockey), and a massive arena (which the rockets play out of), not to mention it is by far the largest market in north america without a hockey team.

As for competing with other sports, the only other sport it would be directly competing with is Basketball, as they are both played during the same time of the year. Football is 8 home games + playoffs, and Baseball is the complete opposite season.

Not sure how this wouldn't work, seems like the perfect market to me. However it would be by far the least cared about franchise in the city, but this is also the case in Dallas and their franchise is doing alright.

[OzSome]

I agree with this article. Kansas City and Seattle should be #1 and 2. As the article says they need 2 Western Conference team and those two would fit in. Kansas City will create a rivalry with St. Louis Blues and they already have the arena. The fans over there knows hockey so that's a plus.

I also like Seattle or even Portland but Seattle are more fitting. They can go to Pacific Division and I am pretty sure attract some fans on the arena. Close to Vancouver.

As for Toronto 2. Come on not another team from Toronto. Give the other city like Quebec City or even Hamilton a chance if they ever start doing expansions. Also, it's bad enough that we have to listen to Torontonians or Maple Leaf fans how they are going to win the Stanley Cup every year, we don't need to hear them saying it is going to be Maple Leafs vs Toronto 2 on the Stanley Cup Finals.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

On top of this Houston already has an AHL team (showing they support hockey), and a massive arena (which the rockets play out of), not to mention it is by far the largest market in north america without a hockey team.

As for competing with other sports, the only other sport it would be directly competing with is Basketball, as they are both played during the same time of the year. Football is 8 home games + playoffs, and Baseball is the complete opposite season.

Not sure how this wouldn't work, seems like the perfect market to me. However it would be by far the least cared about franchise in the city, but this is also the case in Dallas and their franchise is doing alright.

Well the timing of seasons is only part of competing, you're competing for dollars that people may be spending on Texans tickets or Rangers tickets instead. That said, it's also a huge market so you don't need to a ton of market share to be successful.

At the end of the day teams are going to exist where people want to own them. I haven't heard of any substantial interest from a Houston ownership group, but it wouldn't surprise me if there have been inquiries. Plenty of cash down there, and rich Texans generally aren't opposed to spending.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

On top of this Houston already has an AHL team (showing they support hockey), and a massive arena (which the rockets play out of), not to mention it is by far the largest market in north america without a hockey team.

As for competing with other sports, the only other sport it would be directly competing with is Basketball, as they are both played during the same time of the year. Football is 8 home games + playoffs, and Baseball is the complete opposite season.

Not sure how this wouldn't work, seems like the perfect market to me. However it would be by far the least cared about franchise in the city, but this is also the case in Dallas and their franchise is doing alright.

I believe the Aeros are no more starting next season, but not because of lack of support (couldn't come to an agreement with the Toyota Center on a lease). The Stars while not the most cared about team in Dallas, were absolutely the hottest ticket in town in the late 90s (helped by the Texas Rangers and Cowboys ineptness). These markets are big enough to make it in the crappy years and will absolutely blow up if the team is good.

[gilligans_off]

What no love for Las Vegas?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by gilligans_off

What no love for Las Vegas?

I think the Vegas idea would be a neat gimmick and could develop into a successful team that sells out just because it is in Vegas. However, I do not think it would actually build much of a fanbase.... not unless it somehow got the locals engaged instead of just selling out to tourists and hotels.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by gilligans_off

What no love for Las Vegas?

Considering that the NHL has said on numerous occasions that they have no desire to put a team there...

[4oh3]

Seattle and Kansas City get an expansion and move the panthers to Quebec City

[Coach]

If you're going to have a new Canadian team, I think TO2 has to be a better option than Quebec City. My order for teams would be:

Seattle, GTA, Portland, Houston/KC, Quebec.

I know theyre hockey mad, but there's just so few people compared to the other options and would likely become the least desirable place to play for players (except maybe for French players).

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

How is it that MLSE has so much control over that area or potential expansions would have to pay them for geographic rights?

If the NY area has 3 teams, that already sets a precedent that at least 2 teams might work in Ontario.

In 1972, the Islanders paid the Rangers $5 million (on top of the $6 million expansion fee) for entering their territory. The Devils paid the Rangers, Islanders, and Flyers for encroaching on their territories when they moved from Denver.

When the Ducks joined the League, half of their $50 million expansion fee went directly to the Kings for territorial rights. In fact, some have suggested that the only reason Anaheim ever got a team was because Bruce McNall (chairman of the BoG at the time) pressured Gil Stein to push through the Anaheim and Florida expansions (mere days before Stein was replaced by Bettman) to get his hands on that money.


It's not unrealistic to expect any territorial encroachment fees paid to the Leafs by a new team in the GTA to be at least as much as the expansion fee for a new team, which will likely be in the $150-200 million range (the last round of expansion was 16 years ago, and the fee at the time was $80 million).

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by MattyC

If you're going to have a new Canadian team, I think TO2 has to be a better option than Quebec City. My order for teams would be:

Seattle, GTA, Portland, Houston/KC, Quebec.

I know theyre hockey mad, but there's just so few people compared to the other options and would likely become the least desirable place to play for players (except maybe for French players).

If Quebec was given an expansion team that creates 30+ jobs for NHL players. Sure, they wouldn't likely be able to attract the marquee players of the game but I'm sure lots of players would love to play in the NHL in Quebec than in the AHL for another franchise. Plus Winnipeg has been able to sign a few average NHLers and lock-up a few of their young guys long-term without issue, despite being a "low desirable" place to play. A team back in Quebec would be a massive success.

[_Q_]

I think another team in Toronto would be a massive failure comparable to the Phoenix fiasco. Leafs nation is strongly passionate about their team. There's no way any of them will switch allegiances.

My hope is the league expands to Portland and Seattle then move Florida or Columbus to Quebec.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

If Quebec was given an expansion team that creates 30+ jobs for NHL players. Sure, they wouldn't likely be able to attract the marquee players of the game but I'm sure lots of players would love to play in the NHL in Quebec than in the AHL for another franchise. Plus Winnipeg has been able to sign a few average NHLers and lock-up a few of their young guys long-term without issue, despite being a "low desirable" place to play. A team back in Quebec would be a massive success.

The NHLPA will always push for more jobs and more money. That doesn't mean that they want the expansion to be in Quebec, that just means that unions are always trying to get more jobs and more money.

The question would be whether or not the NHL team would be more successful in Quebec City, where they are a smaller population but "crazy about hockey" versus a location like Houston where the NHL would be a very low priority for sports fans in the area but there would be a massive population to potentially draw upon and a rivalry with Dallas to cultivate.

I know I would rather see the NHL expand north of the boarder but I also know that the NHL brass wants to have a team in every major market in the US.