Curious, but it still seems that some of the teams are failing and falling in the markets they are in. When I look around, moving teams seems to be only a short term fix currently as well...example, moving the Penguins to KC might seem like a good idea, but the league has failed there before. We've had bankruptcy protection for a few teams in recent memory as well...
Might we be looking at some contraction in the league?
2007-01-19 05:37:09 · 9 answers · asked by Gwydyon 4 in Sports ➔ Hockey
Completely losing a team from a sport always sucks, but sometimes to make a game (or league) work you need to, look at the WNBA they are losing one of the original 8, maybe the NHL should look into this
2007-01-19 05:46:23 · answer #1 · answered by topdawgco97 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't agree that moving teams is only a short-term fix... you need to look at the reason that the original team in a given market didn't succeed. Colorado seems to have done well, and its their second go-round with the NHL. Same with Minnesota. As for the bankruptcy situations, I don't think it necessarily means that the market isn't good... it could just be bad ownership.
But contraction? I dunno. I'd rather see relocation first. After all, if there are markets that want a team, and can support one, why not give em a chance. Doesn't mean I'd want to see the Penguins in KC, tho... can't imagine them anywhere but Pittsburgh!
2007-01-19 22:41:27 · answer #2 · answered by buz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I certainly hope there will be contraction. The league has to provide finanical support for some of the teams below the Mason Dixon line. Take Nashville as just one example. Apart from that, there are 2 many teams.
2007-01-19 20:08:28 · answer #3 · answered by Just Wind Me Up 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not going to happen. NHL wants more exposure, not less. What market would you like to pull out of? That market instantly goes in the toilet (unless it is in Canada and none of those are closing). And not just for today, for years and decades.
As long as rich folk are willing to bankroll teams, even losing teams, there will not be contraction.
2007-01-19 19:44:42 · answer #4 · answered by slthrelk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the NHL definitely has to consider contraction as an option. Too many teams were added too quickly in the 90's.
2007-01-19 14:09:35 · answer #5 · answered by jlovett72078 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think any of the teams are losing money. The owners cook the books and the players turn a blind eye. It's all a dance to extort public funds.
2007-01-19 14:18:09 · answer #6 · answered by gebobs 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think contraction is not only very likely, but healthy for the league.
2007-01-19 21:56:10 · answer #7 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure it is POSSIABLE. The league actually OWNS the teams. They are FRANCHISES. That means the CORPORATION owns them. The Corporation in this case is the NHL.
2007-01-19 14:44:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think a pregnant woman would be allowed to play.
2007-01-19 15:55:59 · answer #9 · answered by mapleleafskickass 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋