[Rumour] Four New Expansion Team by 2017

[IgiTang]

But it would be more funny if they moved the Panthers to Seattle!

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by troutman

Howard Bloom ‏@SportsBizNews
NHL expansion report set to be published at @sportingnews #NHLExpansion

Heard a clip from Bloom on the radio - he was saying that since owners don't share expansion $ with the players in the new CBA, it is a no-brainer. $50 M for each franchise.

Players get 100 new jobs, and hockey revenues will increase.

CTV clip:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=426122

When asked if he had a reliable source he said "do the economics". Has to be pure conjecture.

No doubt it's pure conjecture, but the league has left itself open to the "when, not if" expansion discussion since realignment. Heck, I bet there were fewer than 50 replies to the realignment thread here before someone floated the idea of expansion to two western cities.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by gilligans_off

I like the idea of growth in the league. More is better.

The more teams, the less chance the Flames have of winning the Cup. The less often you get to see the star players. The less often we see enduring rivalries. The more diluted the talent will be. The more crappy teams we'll see with no superstars. The more teams will be based in markets where few people care about hockey.

If I had my way, the NHL would be a 24 team league (and they would play a 64 game season, but that's another topic).

But hey, expansion would mean more money in the owners' pockets, more members in the players' union, and if it led to a big TV deal, higher salaries for NHL players. What fan can't get on-board with that?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The more teams, the less chance the Flames have of winning the Cup. The less often you get to see the star players. The less often we see enduring rivalries. The more diluted the talent will be. The more crappy teams we'll see with no superstars. The more teams will be based in markets where few people care about hockey.

If I had my way, the NHL would be a 24 team league (and they would play a 64 game season, but that's another topic).

But hey, expansion would mean more money in the owners' pockets, more members in the players' union, and if it led to a big TV deal, higher salaries for NHL players. What fan can't get on-board with that?

Hockey is the best sport in the world and the more fans get to watch and hopefully subsequently play, the better. If I only get to see such and such superstar once/year instead of twice/year then so be it.

[Tyler]

RE: the dilluted talent argument

In 1967 it was basically a bunch of Canadians joining all the new teams and maybe a handful of Europeans

We now have a global game that can draw from countries around the world. The NHL is not all of a sudden going to go back to 9-7 games. Relax.

[Biyaaaah]

On ice product has been steadily improving since the 2004/5 lockout and now the league is set to dilute the product again? The last round of expansion led to 10 years of poor product. Unfortunate that the league is only interested in the $$$ and not the fan experience(not that this is a surprise). There should be a number of teams looking to relocate rather than expanding the league.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by heep223

Hockey is the best sport in the world and the more fans get to watch and hopefully subsequently play, the better. If I only get to see such and such superstar once/year instead of twice/year then so be it.

Those people can watch the NHL on TV. It's not as though there's pent-up demand for live NHL hockey in the markets they're like to expand to. Have you ever looked at the attendance in Carolina or Florida? They literally can't give away enough tickets to fill the stands, even when they throw in free hot dogs. At this point, NHL expansion is a kind of corporate pyramid scheme.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

I would say that the two most likely relocation targets would be Vegas and Quebec because they (will) have arenas. Toronto and Seattle would be more likely for expansion because they don't have arenas so they would need more time to get one.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Those people can watch the NHL on TV. It's not as though there's pent-up demand for live NHL hockey in the markets they're like to expand to. Have you ever looked at the attendance in Carolina or Florida? They literally can't give away enough tickets to fill the stands, even when they throw in free hot dogs. At this point, NHL expansion is a kind of corporate pyramid scheme.

Source?

I am aware of the difficulties experienced in some markets and it sucks. The Southern US experiment may end up failing but I think it's a stretch to use that as an example as to why expansion is bad altogether. I don't think it's as black and white as that.

Also you should probably look up the definition of a pyramid scheme, because your analogy makes absolutely no sense. Unless you can enlighten?

All I know is that I love the sport and the more people that can experience it the better.

[#-3]

If there are new teams to, do we have to contemplate realignment all over again.

With 34 teams I think you end up with a 9 team division in the west.

Van, Sea, Cal, Edm, SJ, Ana, LA, LV, Aza.

If there are only 32 teams Phoenix is probably the one that moves to the Central.

Will they try something crazier like a South Division
Dal, Col, StL, Nas, Was, Car, TB, FLD

What would that mean for the Central & NE?
NE: Win, Min, Chi, Det, Tor2, Otw, Buf, CBJ
Central Phi, NJ, NY, Brk, Bos, Pit, Mtl, TML, Que

I like this the best, but I don't think they would be brave enough to try it.
Here's my suggestion Every team plays 1 home and 1 away outside of their Division, adding up to 50 or 52 game. Then they play 3 - 5 games against division opponents depending on how it works out.

There is a CFL style crossover, where the last playoff spot in each conference is a wildcard, but it is still part of that divisions playoff bracket.

Have the two 8 team Divisions switch conferences each year, which would only mater for the crossover and round 3 of the playoffs, unless a team was 5th in their division and luck enough to get into the playoffs.

Year 1;
Conference A: West & South, if the 5th place West team beats the 4th place South team they enter the playoffs at the bottom of the Souths bracket.
Conference B: North & Central

Year 2;
Conference A: West & North
Conference B: Central & South.

I suggest the switching format to dilute the east/west complaints of eastern time zone teams who have been stuck in the western conference. Realistically the conference travel would only effect team who make it to the third round of the playoffs,



I think it is more realistic that they just try to work with the division the just created;

Does Toronto #2 just get added to the current central, putting 1 team in each conference for that city.

The Atlantic takes Que, and the Metro stays as is.

[saskflames69]

Why not move the Coyotes to Las Vegas?

[Finger Cookin]

Lebrun on SC commented on the expansion discussion thusly:

- Hurdles in Seattle need to be overcome before the NHL would expand there
- He puts the second GTA team as the longest shot of the four rumored markets
- He believes the NHL would "like to" expand to two new Western markets
- He estimates the timeline for expansion as 5 years

[Finger Cookin]

I'm personally leery on relocating teams, just because I think it weakens other teams. Tampa Bay is made more precarious if Florida moves. Dallas and Colorado are weakened if Arizona moves, whereas Las Vegas and Arizona benefit if both have NHL teams.

It's tricky trying to balance this off if 4 teams expand, and it's not desirable for the health of other existing teams if you expand by three and relocate one. If you only expand to Seattle in the West, I don't like the realignment having a EC team get punted back to the WC.

Lots of considerations out there.

[Antithesis]

Don't the Panthers have some sort of sweetheart lease that more or less makes it impossible for them to lose money? They seem to be particularly loathed by many here, but I don't see them moving.

[Aeneas]

I am all for expansion. Expand until I can play in the NHL. That may require there to be 2-3 teams just in my neighbourhood, but so be it.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Don't the Panthers have some sort of sweetheart lease that more or less makes it impossible for them to lose money? They seem to be particularly loathed by many here, but I don't see them moving.

From what I understand even with a sweetheart deal they are still losing money and recently went to council for more money but were turned down. I think they are looking for on ice improvement this year to attract more fans. If it doesn't work out, they may be looking to move.

[dammage79]

I like Seattle, Quebec City, Portland or even Houston as new hockey Markets, Hell, even Kansas City with their state of the art facility. But Vegas? VEGAS? What makes the NHL think they can sustain a viable hockey market there when no other professional sports league has or possibly ever will? The Snowbirds who go there every winter? Are there that many hockey fans who would be willing to pony up what will logically be high ticket prices to attend an NHL game while they're on their Vegas trip? Doesn't that hurt the Hookers and Pen & Teller?

Vegas is a terrible idea.

Sorry, it's a personal view. I just don't think it's a smart idea to enter in Vegas without some sort of proven success of a sporting franchise outside of Boxing and MMA.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

What's this going to do to our rebuild .. Finally have a prospect base and it will be gutted. #### sakes

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Hugh Jahrmes

What's this going to do to our rebuild .. Finally have a prospect base and it will be gutted. #### sakes

Think ELC players are untouchable, same with any players without an NHL contract. Even if the draft is 4 years from now we'll have enough players we can protect outside of that to prevent anyone worth a damn from being plucked

Unless I'm wrong in that assumption, in which case /torchsandpitchforks

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Why not just two new expansion teams and move two of the other failing ones? How can the NHL have more teams than the MLB, NFL and NBA? At what point is it too many? When we get to 40? 50?