As hockey mad as Detroit is, couldnit support two NHL teams? The Palace of Auburn Hills would even be available.

No way...the only places that can support two teams are Toronto, New York (three in that case), LA/OC and Chicago. If you want to include Hamilton as part of Toronto, then three for them. Maybe Montreal if the Habs weren't as dominant (historically) and as popular as they are.

I'll also say Boston if you want to say Providence is part of Greater Boston.

(02-05-2018 11:21 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  No way...the only places that can support two teams are Toronto, New York (three in that case), LA/OC and Chicago. If you want to include Hamilton as part of Toronto, then three for them. Maybe Montreal if the Habs weren't as dominant (historically) and as popular as they are.

Toronto could easily support two teams. New York and Los Angeles and both do (Anaheim is close enough.) New York essentially has 3 with New Jersey. San Francisco probably could. Chicago might. Detroit might. Montreal probably could. That'd be it.

Montreal...no, only because of how popular the Habs are. If they had a team as historically good/bad as the New York Rangers, then maybe.

San Francisco is interesting...normally I'd say no but the team in the area plays all the way in the South Bay. An NHL team at the new arena would likely be a hit.

I just don't see it with Detroit unless the team played on the Canadian/Windsor side. And even that would stretch things

San Diego, Austin and Norfolk/Tidewater are the locations not mentioned that could easily support an NHL team.Those cities need more pro teams.

Chicago could theoretically support a second team but at this point people are too tied to the Blackhawks to make it possible now. The Wirtz ownership helped them underachieve for so long that people underestimated them as a market, which the past decade or so has proven to be pretty large now that they've had a good team. Had the Rosemont Horizon (Allstate Arena) been completed in time for the WHA you might've seen a team thrive there and be merged into the NHL, playing a similar role as the Islanders to the Rangers.

Milwaukee also comes to mind as a market who's time has passed. Maybe if the Bucks moved they'd be ripe for a team, but not with two other sports teams (plus the Packers as their de facto NFL franchise) there for a pretty small metro area compared to other cities.

Looking up population stats, I didn't know that Calgary has 1.3 million people and is the 4th largest metro in Canada. Only Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are larger.

I'm not sure I'd be quick to leave that sort of market, but if I did then it should be one that's significantly larger because virtually every American city is not going to be as hockey crazy as any single Canadian town is.

Given the disparity for American taste in hockey, I think I would only take my chances on a market that's at least twice as large. That kind of trims the list down for me.

Below is a list of every metro area larger than Calgary that doesn't already have a team.

Houston - 6.7M
Atlanta - 5.7M
San Francisco - 4.6M
Inland Empire - 4.5M
*Seattle - 3.7M (likely getting expansion bid)
San Diego - 3.3M
Baltimore - 2.7M
Charlotte - 2.4M
Orlando - 2.4M
San Antonio - 2.4M
Portland - 2.4M
Sacramento - 2.2M
Cincinnati - 2.1M
Kansas City - 2.1M
Austin - 2.0M
Cleveland - 2.0M
Indianapolis - 2.0M
Norfolk - 1.7M
Providence - 1.6M
Milwaukee - 1.5M
Jacksonville - 1.4M

Houston or Quebec would get the next relocation but I’d be surprised if the flames moved. I could see Carolina to Houston happen

(02-06-2018 09:37 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Looking up population stats, I didn't know that Calgary has 1.3 million people and is the 4th largest metro in Canada. Only Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are larger.

I'm not sure I'd be quick to leave that sort of market, but if I did then it should be one that's significantly larger because virtually every American city is not going to be as hockey crazy as any single Canadian town is.

Given the disparity for American taste in hockey, I think I would only take my chances on a market that's at least twice as large. That kind of trims the list down for me.

Below is a list of every metro area larger than Calgary that doesn't already have a team.

Houston - 6.7M
Atlanta - 5.7M
San Francisco - 4.6M
Inland Empire - 4.5M
*Seattle - 3.7M (likely getting expansion bid)
San Diego - 3.3M
Baltimore - 2.7M
Charlotte - 2.4M
Orlando - 2.4M
San Antonio - 2.4M
Portland - 2.4M
Sacramento - 2.2M
Cincinnati - 2.1M
Kansas City - 2.1M
Austin - 2.0M
Cleveland - 2.0M
Indianapolis - 2.0M
Norfolk - 1.7M
Providence - 1.6M
Milwaukee - 1.5M
Jacksonville - 1.4M

You can eliminate any place that is less than 100 miles from an existing team. The NHL isn't like Subway sandwich shops -- they're not going to screw their existing owners by allowing someone else to put another team across the street, so to speak.

Most of the Inland Empire isn't even a distinct metro anyways. The Census Bureau has to do better.

(02-05-2018 07:22 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  As hockey mad as Detroit is, couldnit support two NHL teams? The Palace of Auburn Hills would even be available.

Peter Karmanos tried to relocate the Hartford Whalers to Auburn Hills. Ilitch blocked it. Karmanos took the Whalers to Carolina. Hartford has spawned a lot of coaches (Quenneville, Tippett, etc.)

Ironically, the Ilitch-Karmanos rivalry got heated even in youth hockey. Many NHL players played for Little Caesers (Ilitch) and Compuware (Karmanos) as kids in Detroit.

(02-05-2018 11:21 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  No way...the only places that can support two teams are Toronto, New York (three in that case), LA/OC and Chicago. If you want to include Hamilton as part of Toronto, then three for them. Maybe Montreal if the Habs weren't as dominant (historically) and as popular as they are.

Montreal could’ve worked long term with the Francophone Habs and Anglophone Maroons, but a great depression did the Maroons in. I think there was a rink burning down story somewhere in there too.

(02-06-2018 08:00 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Chicago could theoretically support a second team but at this point people are too tied to the Blackhawks to make it possible now. The Wirtz ownership helped them underachieve for so long that people underestimated them as a market, which the past decade or so has proven to be pretty large now that they've had a good team. Had the Rosemont Horizon (Allstate Arena) been completed in time for the WHA you might've seen a team thrive there and be merged into the NHL, playing a similar role as the Islanders to the Rangers.

Milwaukee also comes to mind as a market who's time has passed. Maybe if the Bucks moved they'd be ripe for a team, but not with two other sports teams (plus the Packers as their de facto NFL franchise) there for a pretty small metro area compared to other cities.

Bradley Center was orignally built for an NHL team to be owned by a Black Hawks announcer (Pettitt) but Dollar Bill nixed it. Wisconsin should’ve been an NHL state.

If San Diego built a new arena they could work to snag the coyotes.

As with most realignment/expansion in professional leagues, a big concern should be thinning out of talent. If the NHL go too big too quickly, there wouldn't be as much "top talent" spread throughout the league. This means either reducing teams or relocation. Expansion to 32 is evitable as 31 is ridiculous number, but it should stay there until all 32 are in the best markets possible to maintain a solid foundation moving forward. The Carolina Hurricanes, Arizona Coyotes, and Florida Panthers seem unstable. The Winnipeg Jets haven't been around too long to know. I'm honestly surprised the Columbus Blue Jackets have stayed as long as they have - I didn't see that coming.

(02-07-2018 11:40 AM)bluesox Wrote:  If San Diego built a new arena they could work to snag the coyotes.

I think that'd be one too many teams in an area of the country not big on hockey. No area of San Diego or thereabouts is far from Anaheim or at the very least, anyone that wants to be a season ticket holder of the Mighty Ducks bad enough can be. That's right, I said the Mighty Ducks, not the Ducks. That's what I grew up on.

(02-07-2018 02:40 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  As with most realignment/expansion in professional leagues, a big concern should be thinning out of talent. If the NHL go too big too quickly, there wouldn't be as much "top talent" spread throughout the league. This means either reducing teams or relocation. Expansion to 32 is evitable as 31 is ridiculous number, but it should stay there until all 32 are in the best markets possible to maintain a solid foundation moving forward. The Carolina Hurricanes, Arizona Coyotes, and Florida Panthers seem unstable. The Winnipeg Jets haven't been around too long to know. I'm honestly surprised the Columbus Blue Jackets have stayed as long as they have - I didn't see that coming.

When the WHA coexisted with the NHL, there was a far smaller players pool. It was almost entirely Canadian. Now there is almost as many American and Euro's as there are Canadian, so the pool has vastly expanded.

(02-07-2018 04:32 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-07-2018 11:40 AM)bluesox Wrote:  If San Diego built a new arena they could work to snag the coyotes.

I think that'd be one too many teams in an area of the country not big on hockey. No area of San Diego or thereabouts is far from Anaheim or at the very least, anyone that wants to be a season ticket holder of the Mighty Ducks bad enough can be. That's right, I said the Mighty Ducks, not the Ducks. That's what I grew up on.

I think it's a general rule that beaches and hockey don't really mix.

LA works because the market is massive. I guess Tampa is fine, but there are tons of snowbirds in Florida.

If I was an owner, I wouldn't risk it.

(02-07-2018 09:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-07-2018 04:32 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-07-2018 11:40 AM)bluesox Wrote:  If San Diego built a new arena they could work to snag the coyotes.

I think that'd be one too many teams in an area of the country not big on hockey. No area of San Diego or thereabouts is far from Anaheim or at the very least, anyone that wants to be a season ticket holder of the Mighty Ducks bad enough can be. That's right, I said the Mighty Ducks, not the Ducks. That's what I grew up on.

I think it's a general rule that beaches and hockey don't really mix.

LA works because the market is massive. I guess Tampa is fine, but there are tons of snowbirds in Florida.

If I was an owner, I wouldn't risk it.

Not gonna say you can't have legit fan bases in non-traditional areas but I would argue that as far as hockey goes its hard to build that ground up infrastructure for fans of the sport when you don't have the outdoor weather and the facilities (read ice rink) to build that grass roots fan base for the sport. That said, with some sun belt teams, winning has helped propel the pro teams to keep up a good stable of fan support.