Who thinks there should be more Canadian teams, and less southern US teams in the NHL? And why?

Question

And there should be at least one team in both Alaska and Wisconsin.

i like the spread of teams we have in the NHL, its good for the league i think....i just wanted to hear what other people think....and i know Alaska is out of the question, Wisconsin would work well i think....relocate the preds there, thats the only change i'd make

and i happen to like NASCAR, lazyjbob

Answer 1

The teams must go where there is a market. The southern United States is traditionally not a hockey market. However, USA hockey has done wonders instilling an interest in hockey in the south. Personally I know of a number of big time hockey fans and players from the southern U.S. Cities such as Atlanta, Raleigh, and Tampa are all large enough to support NHL teams and bring in sufficient revenue. Realistically, Anchorage would not be able to support an NHL team with only 250,000 inhabitants, an NAHL team, and a NCAA D1 team. The northern Canadian cities that eventually become large enough to support NHL teams will probably get them but it is not a bad thing that the NHL has expanded and created a market in the southern U.S.

Answer 2

I agree with you 100% that there should be more Canadian teams in the NHL. Sports are a business. If there is no fan base, there is no money! Hockey teams survive lucratively in populated cities. Southern United States cities have a high amount of income due to tourism and retirees. Cities, for the most part, in Canada aren't as populated as others. Green Bay should have an NHL hockey team. Alaska is out of the question because there is no population! How the hell does Canada lose two of its teams? I am still surprised that the Quebec Nordiques and the Winnepeg Jets moved! If you want more teams in Canada, don't let them get away in the first place. Citizens in Canada should have went to the games!!

Answer 3

In order for the league to grow, the NHL needs addition by subtraction. This should be a 24 or 26 team league, talent is so diluted now. I would move Nashville to Winnipeg, and contract Phoenix, Anaheim, Atlanta, and Florida. I know we cant go back to the 21 team league, but going back to 26 would be a good start.

Answer 4

If you want the NHL to be a cult sport in America then what you are propsing is the way to go. It will also mean a lot of loss in league revenue and that means a lot of European players will stay home (Sweden pays high salaries for one) and the sport will stay a Canadian sport.

That is great excpet for one thing... the elite Canadian players will have to battle for big contracts (because Canadian teams won't be able to pay ALL of those top salaries) and will have little loyalty and will embrace a free agency market like the NFL... team rosters will change every year, the Cup winners will be taken apart and re-negotiate contracts elsewhere and that winning team will be the next year's last place team.... oh, and you'll probably have a few Canadian players looking to play for a Fin or a Swedish league (blasphemy... but you watch).

Nah, I like it like it is.

Answer 5

Teams will go where the money is. And putting one in Alaska isn't a good idea... all the games there would be played when all the hockey fans are in bed. Plus, the expense of travelling there is enormous.
Wisconsin probably won't support a pro team because people are watching the college and youth league games.
The cost of player salaries is huge and small-market cities just couldn't afford to support a team. And face it, 99% of canadian markets are small.

Answer 6

NHL is a business so it all depends on where the money is:
1. TV revenue
2. Ticket Sales
3. Local Marketing
4. Merchadise Sales

So if Fairbanks will draw the crowds, TV, etc then the NHL will go there but I don't think the numbers will pan out on that one. The Wisconsin one is skewed by Chicago already having a team so is the market really different.

Answer 7

I agree...there should be fewer teams in the Southern US. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that attendance in places like Anaheim, Phoenix, Miami, and especially Nashville are either poor or inflated, or in some cases, both. Many people in those cities don't know or don't care about hockey. Don't get me wrong...there are some southern cities that do care about hockey such as LA and Dallas; but for the most part, hockey does not work in the south.

As for having a team in Alaska...I'm not sure about that. That would create a huge havoc on travel for that team. As for Wisconsin, I think that's a good idea. The Bradley Center in Milwaukee can hold 15 to 16,000 people. I say Winnipeg should get a team also. But Bettman will be the first to tell you that hockey works in Miami and Nashville and not in Canada.

Answer 8

Preds should go to Winnepeg, Quebec and Peterbourogh should get expansion teams and make the league a 32 team league like every other sport in this country.

Answer 9

I disagree. Teams should be located where they are going to turn an economical profit. Sorry, but Winnipeg lost its team because greener pastures existed in Phoenix. (Bad choice of words for a dessert, but either way its either sandy or snowy)

And it is nice being able to drive and hour and see the Canes over at the RBC, except that I got stuck in major traffic on US 64 after the game Friday night coming back to Greenville.

Answer 10

lazyjbob...you are an idiot.

Most people in the south do not watch Nascar, I for one and along with all my friends hate nascar, just because you live in a southern state doesn't automatically make you some dumb redneck. ATL deserves a team and the Thrashers are kicking major ***, stop being jealous. And if there are no fans of hockey in the south then how come here in ATL we sould out almost every game of 18,000 fans..hmmm no fans right? get your facts straight before you go and start judging stuff you know nothing about. What do you have to say about all the northern teams that are sucking right now? hmm maybe we should take hockey out of the north since a lot of their teams suck...thats what I thought.