Oso

Possible NHL Expansion: Logo and Name Ideas

Recommended Posts

I was disappointed to find no Saskatchewan/Saskatoon proposals

Who wouldn't like the Saskatchewan Combines or Saskatoon Prairie Dogs

Saskatchewan cannot support an NHL team. No slight to the fans there, but it simply isn't feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was disappointed to find no Saskatchewan/Saskatoon proposals

Who wouldn't like the Saskatchewan Combines or Saskatoon Prairie Dogs

Saskatchewan cannot support an NHL team. No slight to the fans there, but it simply isn't feasible.
That's obvious, but I want to see what people can come up with, because from a Brand standpoint you really couldn't do much with Saskatchewan. No matter what you do it will sound cliché.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very simple.

Coyotes to Quebec.

Tampa to Kansas City. (The only reason why Tampa sells out is because ownership gives away free tickets)

Florida to a Midwest state.

Expansion in Seattle

Expansion in Markham.

I've already highlighted my dream expansion plan for the NHL, but I think it could stand to be in a thread specific to the subject.

You have:

Florida relocating to Quebec

Phoenix relocating to Milwaukee

Expansion in Portland

Expansion in Seattle.

It works out to 16/16 conferences with no trouble, and Portland and Seattle could start a rivalry from scratch instead of one inheriting an NHL roster. Plus, it fills up pretty much every large 'traditional' hockey market you have left.

Then you'd still have money-pit teams like Carolina and Tampa [as you suggested], which could then go to other popular relocation destinations such as Markham/Hamilton or Hartford if needed. I just didn't include them since another team in Toronto has always been met with harsh opposition and no one knows if a team in Connecticut could stake a hold in New England.

I'm on board with a return of the Portland Buckaroos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Tampa even being suggested? They've never had real attendance issues, even when they were atrocious. It's a very rare exception of hockey not working in the sunbelt.

Florida, as much as I hate to say because I fell in love with their identity when they were first conceived, doesn't work. Move to Quebec City.

Same with Phoenix. I'd love to see it succeed, but it's never going to.

I don't think Kansas City works. I can't put my finger on it, I just don't buy it. I think it ends up being another Atlanta. It's been tried and tested, with the NBA as well, and failed once.

I'v also heard Halifax. No way. I'm all for one-pro-team-small-markets, but it's got half the metro population of Winnipeg. Same with Saskatoon & Regina.

Houston, no. Dallas has had it's troubles and it's been one of the best teams of the past 20 years, including a Cup.

Vegas will end up being a monumental disaster.

I firmly believe that both Toronto (Markham) and Montreal (Laval) could support second teams; but I'd rather they didn't.

Part of me has always been curious with Salt Lake City as well. Sort of a mini-Denver. They've supported the Jazz through thick and thin since their move to town.

IMO the only markets solid enough to support a team now- assuming arenas are in place- are Quebec City, Seattle and Portland. Milwaukee maaaybe.

EAST

Atlantic

Montreal

Toronto

Quebec (via Florida)

Ottawa

Boston

Buffalo

Detroit

Tampa Bay

Metropolitan

NY Rangers

NY Islanders

New Jersey

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Washington

Carolina

Columbus

WEST

Central

St. Louis

Nashville

Chicago

Minnesota

Winnipeg

Milwaukee (via expansion)

Dallas

Colorado

Pacific

Los Angeles

Anaheim

San Jose

Vancouver

Calgary

Edmonton

Seattle (via Arizona)

Portland (via expansion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very simple.

.

Tampa to Kansas City. (The only reason why Tampa sells out is because ownership gives away free tickets)

I call BS. Do you have any proof of this? Tampa is a hockey market from youth leagues all the way up the the pros. There's a solid 16 to 20 team high school club league supported by the Bolts and we have a new ice complex being constructed in the north suburbs to alleviate overcrowding at the current rinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very simple.

.

Tampa to Kansas City. (The only reason why Tampa sells out is because ownership gives away free tickets)

I call BS. Do you have any proof of this? Tampa is a hockey market from youth leagues all the way up the the pros. There's a solid 16 to 20 team high school club league supported by the Bolts and we have a new ice complex being constructed in the north suburbs to alleviate overcrowding at the current rinks.

There is no proof because it's not true. It's (surprisingly) a solid hockey market. Could be just a perfect storm of reasons such as they came along right at the height of Wayne Gretzky in L.A., Lemieux in Pittsburgh and Messier in New York, which meant major NHL TV exposure in the U.S.; they were Tampa's second pro team and the Bucs only played once a week for half the hockey season, almost never conflicting; Tampa doesn't have as many distractions as Miami (Things that would make you not be interested in hockey. I know that sounds stupid, but it's kinda true).

They've also had fairly solid teams with star players for the last decade+, which means that the people who may have lost interest after the first 6-7 years of novelty wore off actually remained fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are actually suggesting that Milwaukee could support an NHL team...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are actually suggesting that Milwaukee could support an NHL team...

I think they'd be a possiblity.......if and only if the Bucks were gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me has always been curious with Salt Lake City as well. Sort of a mini-Denver. They've supported the Jazz through thick and thin since their move to town.

Well, we already have a readily expandable hockey stadium that has been getting regular use since the Olympics. I can also tell you the name that everyone and their mother would want the franchise to carry...

salt_lake_golden_eagles_1991-92_front.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me has always been curious with Salt Lake City as well. Sort of a mini-Denver. They've supported the Jazz through thick and thin since their move to town.

Well, we already have a readily expandable hockey stadium that has been getting regular use since the Olympics. I can also tell you the name that everyone and their mother would want the franchise to carry...

salt_lake_golden_eagles_1991-92_front.jp

'Murica! :flagusa::unclesam:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Tampa even being suggested? They've never had real attendance issues, even when they were atrocious. It's a very rare exception of hockey not working in the sunbelt.

Florida, as much as I hate to say because I fell in love with their identity when they were first conceived, doesn't work. Move to Quebec City.

Same with Phoenix. I'd love to see it succeed, but it's never going to.

I don't think Kansas City works. I can't put my finger on it, I just don't buy it. I think it ends up being another Atlanta. It's been tried and tested, with the NBA as well, and failed once.

I'v also heard Halifax. No way. I'm all for one-pro-team-small-markets, but it's got half the metro population of Winnipeg. Same with Saskatoon & Regina.

Houston, no. Dallas has had it's troubles and it's been one of the best teams of the past 20 years, including a Cup.

Vegas will end up being a monumental disaster.

I firmly believe that both Toronto (Markham) and Montreal (Laval) could support second teams; but I'd rather they didn't.

Part of me has always been curious with Salt Lake City as well. Sort of a mini-Denver. They've supported the Jazz through thick and thin since their move to town.

IMO the only markets solid enough to support a team now- assuming arenas are in place- are Quebec City, Seattle and Portland. Milwaukee maaaybe.

EAST

Atlantic

Montreal

Toronto

Quebec (via Florida)

Ottawa

Boston

Buffalo

Detroit

Tampa Bay

Metropolitan

NY Rangers

NY Islanders

New Jersey

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Washington

Carolina

Columbus

WEST

Central

St. Louis

Nashville

Chicago

Minnesota

Winnipeg

Milwaukee (via expansion)

Dallas

Colorado

Pacific

Los Angeles

Anaheim

San Jose

Vancouver

Calgary

Edmonton

Seattle (via Arizona)

Portland (via expansion)

With you on most of this except for a few points:

1. Houston is quite a bit bigger than Dallas and has a pretty decent hockey history with the Aeros. That's a market that likely could support a team really well, and the city has a completely different demographic makeup than Dallas (who is typically cited as a success in terms of Sun Belt teams but for the few years after Tom Hicks lost his mind and spent all his money in the EPL).

2. Vegas may actually work. Don't draw the correlation that because of their topography they're destined to fail like Phoenix. With decent ownership, and it looks like Foley knows what he's doing thus far, they could be a real success in an untapped market that has a large population and zero pro sports presence. The Thunder from the IHL were very successful there.

3. Milwaukee. No, jut no. No chance with the Bucks there, same probably goes for SLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me has always been curious with Salt Lake City as well. Sort of a mini-Denver. They've supported the Jazz through thick and thin since their move to town.

Well, we already have a readily expandable hockey stadium that has been getting regular use since the Olympics.

I'd LOVE for the NHL to come to Utah, I really would. The one small thing that kind of worries me though is they'd have to compete with the Jazz because of the seasons running at the same time. That said, from what I've been able to observe, the Grizzlies fare okay and have for a long time, so who knows. But my gut says the Jazz would drown them out.

As far as names are concerned? Probably a generational thing, but I would take "Utah Grizzlies" over "Salt Lake Golden Eagles" a million times over. Much less of a mouthful and that's the name I associate best with hockey in Utah. Anything else would just seem weird to me. But if they decided to do something entirely different, something like "Salt Lake 47's" (Pioneer/1847 reference) or "Salt Lake Trappers" would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milwaukee is being proposed for a few reasons. The first is that pro hockey has a long history in the area. The second is that it's in a place that, culturally speaking, the NHL just feels like it should be in. The third is that, as a result of the second, there are built in regional rivalries. The Wild, Jets, and Blackhawks would be instant rivals with a team that set up shop in Milwaukee.

As for Houston? The owner of the Rockets (and Toyota Centre) evicted the AHL Aeros, and they had great attendance as far as the AHL goes. The Rockets just don't want hockey in Houston so it's a no-go right from the start.

And Tampa? They have a stable fanbase and a deep pocketed owner who spent his own money to refurbish whatever they're calling their arena now. There's no reason to move the team. There was probably just cause to include them in relocation talk back when they were owned by the penniless idiots behind the Saw films, but not now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 cities

San Francisco Bulls

Las Vegas Aces (sparky)

Seattle Knightswords

San Antonio SilverStampede

Yes, because that worked out so well the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we all agree that Florida, Texas, and Arizona are too warm for hockey and their teams should be moved first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think expansion is a horrid idea and will dilute talent horribly.

With that said, i would prefer to see some teams move, as has been discussed.

I was thinking if the NHL goes to Las Vegas (and I think it would be a huge mistake and fail, but its not my money), I would personally use "Nevada" and not "Las Vegas". But it seems that fan backlash won't permit that (why, I don't know.... Hometown pride, I guess).

How about

Las Vegas Silver Dollars? I can't stand "Aces", "Black Aces", or anything-Aces. But, Nevada is the "Silver State" and obviously, silver dollars were used at one time in the dollar slots (don't know if they are still used anywhere, everything is tokens and plastic cards now). But the name would give a nod to both the state's history and the history of the city.

I am not sure I like the name, but I didn't want to use something already suggested.

As for other potential expansion cities, I think Seattle, Portland, and Quebec City are good possibilities.... And if a team moves there, here are the names I'd suggest:

Quebec Nordiques (yes, it IS the only option)

Seattle Americans (the only other option is Metropolitans, and I could live with it)

Portland Buckaroos (love this name)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we all agree that Florida, Texas, and Arizona are too warm for hockey and their teams should be moved first?

It gets pretty warm in California too, should we move their teams?

I try not to discriminate about where a team plays, but rather about how the team performs monetarily or in terms of the fanbases. I'd be all for expansion into the southern states if they could establish a fanbase, like with Tampa or Nashville. But when you're moving teams to southern markets, at the expense of Canadian or northern US markets, without having a plan to make things work, it tends to drive hockey fans crazy.

Of course, it should be noted that it is no coincidence that the NHL three most troubled franchises (Canes, Panthers, Coyotes) are in southern markets, but that by no means means that all southern fanbases are doomed. In fact, all the other southern markets have attendances over 90% of their capacities. In that same regard, if New Jersey was a southern state, we'd be throwing their name in the relocation talk a lot more than we do now with the 5th worst capacity % in the league. They're attendance % has dropped as low as 75%, and only climbed above 90% once (the cup finals year) in the past 10 years. But undeniably history and location are key factors in keeping it a safe market.

Of course, this isn't a write-up to give support to a potential market in Las Vegas, that's still a massively terrible idea. However just looking at a map to determine which franchises are 'worthy' of relocation isn't a good method. Quite a few southern markets are working well, and some aren't. The situation might have been a lot different if the league had nurtured hockey in the southern markets, instead of just throwing them there and hoping to 'grow the game'. I would still like to see them help grow the game in the south with other methods than just trying to keep the team alive, but the most troubled franchises in the league are probably unsalvageable at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 cities

San Francisco Bulls

Las Vegas Aces (sparky)

Seattle Knightswords

San Antonio SilverStampede

Yes, because that worked out so well the first time.
not funny. Also they would share the same arena with the golden state warriors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The San Francisco Bay Area already has a team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.