As we near the beginning of the 2023-24 season, PHR is excited to announce the return of a feature to encourage discourse between reader and writer. On Friday mornings, we’ll post a topic of discussion that we think will draw out varied and interesting perspectives from both our commenters and the other staff writers.
For too long, there have only been a couple of outlets for our readers to interact with the PHR staff. Live chats and mailbags offer a chance at some discussion but also run the risk of being too crowded or even outdated by the time the answer arrives. With PHR Chatter, we’re hoping to get weekly talks going on a topic that normally would have to be brought into the spotlight by a reader before even being discussed.
To kick this series off for the first time in almost a year and a half, let’s focus on one of the most engaging topics we had on the site this week: the possibility of Atlanta as an NHL market for a third time. The pros and cons of such a move could be a post in and of itself, but let’s open up the topic of discussion to adding a 33rd (or even 34th team) in general. Is the talent pool too diluted as it stands? Would a rumored $2B price tag from TSN’s Darren Dreger help kickstart the league into a new era and mean good things for players and teams alike? Would adding further teams necessitate another divisional realignment and potentially reopen the conversation around modifying the playoff format? What markets would you like to see get a team? Feel free to chime in about anything expansion-related in the comment section below and check in regularly, as we aim to keep this a rather open-ended platform.
Personally, I would like to see expansion to one or two more markets. I know a lot’s been made of the potential financial pitfalls of an eighth Canadian team, but the Quebec City market is incredibly deserving. I’m in the camp of believing it’s worth trying to make Atlanta work, but I certainly understand the pushback. I’d like to see Salt Lake, if not Atlanta (although they could still very well end up with a team via relocation in the coming years).
I wouldn’t go much farther past 34 teams, if at all, and not just for worry of further diluting the talent pool. While not in the next decade or anything, I do think the NHL has eyes on potential European expansion in the back of their minds, and that’s something incredibly cool I’d like to see come to fruition eventually, even if it is much further along in the future. Expanding past 34 in North America, in addition to a potential European division, would probably stretch things too thin. I’d lay down a maximum of 36 NA-based teams.
Players escrow goes up again to bail out AZ and the new clubs.
Definitely a fair thing to be worried about if you’re the NHLPA, but I think the league would ask for such an exorbitant expansion fee to avoid that. Vegas and Seattle have also been huge revenue generators out of the gate, too… certainly quite far from bailout territory. I don’t think that would be an issue if they can replicate that formula for NHL33 and/or NHL34.
I can’t be the only one who doesn’t want the league to expand past 32 teams. I have no issue with teams relocating, but to have more than 32 would stretch the talent pool far too thin, and also would be a lot less about increasing the popularity of the sport than being a greedy attempt at more revenue (and on a more subjective note, adding more teams would probably mean messing with the current playoff format, which I absolutely love).
Additionally, I simply don’t believe the hockey market is rich enough for that many other locations-but even if it was, you still run into the same aforementioned problems. Keep it at 32-if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I certainly think talent pool is the biggest worry as you say, yeah.
One point I would raise about the idea of the talent pool thinning, though, is that the successes of the Golden Knights and Kraken in their early years, in my opinion, shows how much hockey talent there is, and how many players are just waiting for the right situation to break out.
In Seattle, we saw Jared McCann become a 40 goal scorer, Daniel Sprong finally break out offensively, and a guy like Eeli Tolvanen finally hit his stride.
In Vegas, William Karlsson became a 40-goal scorer. Chandler Stephenson got a bigger role and flourished. Colin Miller went and scored 41 points. A defender like Nate Schmidt got to come in, play a big role, and earn himself a really nice contract.
So I think there’s obviously some risk of depleting the talent pool, absolutely. Can’t ignore that. But there are also players around the NHL who look at the extra 23 NHL jobs available on any expansion team and know they’d really run with that kind of opportunity, and I don’t think that should be lost in expansion discussions.
You could also argue that diluted product via expansion is why those examples had 40 tucks after having nothing close to it before (or after in Wild Bill’s case)
I would say the main reason for Vegas and Seattle are successful early on is more for the ridiculous advantages expansion teams get with extra draft picks and sucking up 2 players from each team. They both exploited those rules to the utmost and the NHL needs to seriously look at that in the future. It’s pretty ridiculous.
“Is the talent pool too diluted as it stands?” Yep. ‘Nuff said. Fully agree with @Johnny Z and @Lightning Strike on their points, too.
They finally balanced the divisions and conferences out and now they want to expand again? No thanks. Focus on growing the sport internationally and in the non-traditional US markets. Let’s see if a team in the Southern states can survive not only when they’re riding waves of success, but during down times before looking to expand. I’m a Panthers fan, but if the city of Miami can’t support them when they aren’t major contenders then they should be relocated to somewhere that will support the team more thoroughly through thick and thin. And the same can be repeated for a handful of other teams. Vegas has been a good team since entering the league, how will attendance respond when/if they’re not winning?
To those saying the talent pool is too thin – it will sort itself out. Teams won’t be able to have 3 superstars at 10% of the cap each. Those stars will get 14% of the cap on another team
Also see how many solid players are stuck in the AHL or playing overseas.
Quebec + Houston would be my choices. The Stars are a solid franchise, and Texas has a massive population. Sure football will always be #1, but people in Texas LOVE their indoor events (heat<cold) where you can buy junk food (skinny<food)
With 32 NHL teams, there are already too many teams as it is and the league should actually contract vs. expand. There is not enough NHL caliber talent to field 32 teams as it is, so where are the players going to come from if more teams are added? Definitely do not agree on expansion of any nature for the NHL!
I don’t really see a lot of good players who don’t have NHL jobs that would necessitate a need for more teams. Plus the whole Russian situation makes it dicey at best. The obvious place to look would be there for more players but it’s a tad dicey right now. The Czechs, Serbs and other European countries are growing but I’m not sure there’s enough there to stock 2 more competitive teams. I think things are fine as is, And maybe revisit it a couple years down the road if things don’t explode internationally. I say stay the course.
I dunno, we see a lot of guys hit 30 or 31 years old and are suddenly not offered anything in the NHL beyond a PTO or a job in some European league. I think there are enough decent journeymen that would produce adequate numbers for a modest paycheck in an expanded league.
At some point the NHL will absolutely expand, just a question of when & where. Heck, we saw NINE new teams from ’91 to 2000, so it’s gonna happen someday.
I disagree. I see a lot of such players out there. problem is most of them are stuck in the KHL.
To many teams now!!!! Relocation and realignment.
Josh – here’s another long time Hawks fan who agrees with some of the other comments that the talent pool is too diluted as it stands. And having said that, I have never seen a story indicating Bettman is worried about product quality.
They can’t talk expansion until they solve the Arizona situation. If AZ can’t be fixed that can be the “Expansion” team. SLC or Austin seem to be growth cities that would welcome a team.
Arizona should relocate to Houston.
Before the wave of 90’s expansion, each team had players in their lineups who couldn’t sniff AHL jobs today.
The talent pool is just fine.
Whether expansion makes sense beyond a cash grab is a different issue…
Gary will expand anywhere in U.S.A willing to pay a billion .Come on down Boise Idaho ,Lincoln Nebraska , Fargo North Dakota etc. In Canada don;t apply unless you are willing to spend at least 2 billion.
Well … look. Likely not too many people on the board was attending NHL games in the Original Six era, when guys who’d be future league All-Stars and Hall of Famers were second-liners on AHL/WHL teams. (I was just a kid myself, and got to Bruins games because my businessman grandfather had had season tickets since the 1920s.) If hockey could survive expanding the number of top-flight North American teams *sixfold*, it could survive adding two more. It’s not that the difference in play is ALL that noticeable between the NHL and the AHL; mostly in speed, positioning, the number of one-touch passes, that sort of thing. And I agree that Houston and Quebec would make great big league towns.
But c’mon: it’s not as if there are markets truly crying out for hockey — Houston and Quebec both have fallen through at the AHL level, more than once. Nor is it that there’s a vast pool of untapped talent. Any push towards further expansion is just wh0ring after money, full stop.
Get the SV% under .800 and in 10 years easily expand to 48 teams and a big TV contract.
There should not be any expansion. Revenues are not great anyway and media rights fees will continue to drop. Better to focus on propping up failing teams and moving Arizona
I think there’s more pressing needs the NHL needs to concern itself with before expansion…i.e. Ending the Coyotes experiment. Move them now…maybe to a former NHL market. That way you’ll find out if the reasons for the original move were true. Kansas City, Quebec City, Hartford, Atlanta in that order of preference. Then get Ottawa’s rink situation taken care of. If you’re talking new markets, Houston, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City. Before any of that takes place the NHL HAS to figure out a good partner for a decent TV contract. This searching for games between multiple networks is ridiculous, especially during the playoffs. If you have to sacrifice money for more and regular exposure, so be it.
The NHL won’t get a decent TV contract until their product improves.
The product is mediocre quality overall because there are long stretches in most games when nothing much happens. In comparison, although basketball action is generally even more boring, the scoring more than makes up for it. Football’s scoring is only slightly higher than in hockey but the action is way more exciting. The best sport to watch is the Aussie Rules. There’s plenty of scoring and in many games there’s not a dull moment.
While improving the quality of the action is difficult, increasing scoring is not. You can pretty much set a target (I’d suggest starting from 15 goals per game) and change the rules to achieve it. The easiest would be increasing the size of the nets. Playing 3-on-3 is another way but that’s more difficult because of the NHLPA.
Ultimately, if a sport doesn’t have a decent TV contract, it means that it’s managed poorly. If the value of the contract is going down over time, it means that the sport is managed abysmally.
Just like the Columbus Blue Jackets.