Report: NHL Expanding league, Adding 4 Teams by 2017

[The_Admiral]

When he says things like "Sudbury and Sherbrooke could support teams," I feel like Nate Silver doesn't always know as much as he thinks he knows, like, for example, where Sudbury is.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

How come we don't explore Wyoming, and Hawaii as potential expansion markets?

[ninersdd]

Don't forget Silver only gave the Germans a 35% chance of beating Brazil, who were down 2 key players.

[The_Admiral]

I was with you up until Hartford. If anything, that's exactly the type of market the NHL should be looking at... one with no other pro teams. You could argue that most of Connecticut is Rangers or Bruins fans, but it's still a better market for hockey than at least a handful of places that currently have teams.

Also, if there's any brand that could pull away some outer-ring Rangers/Bruins fans, it would be the Hartford Whalers. With the way the Whaler myth has grown in their absence (though the Whaler reality of missing the playoffs a lot has proudly continued down in Raleigh), you've gotta think a lot of Connecticut/Southern New England natives would want to be part of that. It would work, it's the kind of place the NHL should be, but they've gotta build a new arena. The Civic Center was terrible.

I find the proximity to New York and Boston to be more of an asset than a liability. The correct business plan for the NHL was not to create a "national footprint" but to supersaturate the two major population corridors of North America (Northeast, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence) so that hockey is in the DNA of those people and it exists on equal footing with the other sports there, if not elsewhere. If you make hockey fans out of everyone you can in those areas, then it's okay to have teams in Hartford and Long Island and Hamilton and so forth, and the proximity to one another ramps up the passion for it all. The NHL could have been just fine without the stupid New South with the proper approach.

[Cosmic]

But if you set up shop in Markham, you're going after Toronto/Mississauga/York, which could be harder to wrest from the Leafs than the fringier areas out west. Also, as much as I want to look out for the good old Sabres, I have some trouble with the idea of enforcing Buffalo's territorial rights when traversing that territory requires you to own a passport. With border crossings being what they are in a security-theatre world, to what extent can you reasonably expect fans from Burlington or K-W to schlep out for a Sabres game on a winter weeknight? I'll happily give them Niagara and the right to air their games just over the border, but past that, their claim gets pretty dodgy.

EDIT: I realize my case for Hamilton as outlined is actually a case against: even with all those people, there's no there there. It's just a loose constellation of places that are Ontario But Not Toronto, and even Hamilton itself has no real downtown or urban core. Where's the civic focal point that attends so much hockey fandom in other cities? It's the same dilemma the New Jersey Devils have had that has made them throw parades in parking lots. Furthermore, by accounting for Kitchener, St. Catharines, and Guelph, you're stomping all over the OHL, something I'd be loath to do. This Hamilton/Southern Ontario thing is a real highwire act.

It really is a bi-national region... it's not unusual to go from Buffalo to Fort Erie for lunch. I'd say most people have a passport card or enhanced license for getting to Canda. And we have a Friendship Festival... I don't know how much more clear I can make it! I honestly don't know who "deserves" what, but a team in Hamilton would be much more threatening to the Sabres than a Markham one. It's not about the Sabres having designs on Kitchener or Burlington or Hamilton fans; it's all about the Niagara region. The NHL lives and dies on fans being able to get to games after work on a Tuesday night. Niagara is really the only part of Ontario where you can do that kind of commute to Buffalo. I'd still support having a team in Hamilton, but it makes me a little queasy thinking about it. It's not good to potentially have 15% of your season ticketholders bolt.

[The_Admiral]

But that presumes that those 15% are so fickle as to ditch a team 20 miles away for a team 40 miles away just because the border is a pain or tickets are a little cheaper. If the Sabres are their team, then the Sabres are their team. If they've stuck through the Ron Rolston dumpster fire and one of the lowest-scoring teams in league history and whatever added inconveniences or indignities now attend crossing the border, you've gotta think they're in it for the long haul, Hamilton Tigers or no Hamilton Tigers. Sure, you'd inevitably lose some, but you couldn't possibly lose all of Niagara.

Another question worth raising is that if the Sabres value their Niagara contingent so much, then why did it take them so many years to broker a deal with the CRTC to show Sabres games on Niagara cable systems? Shouldn't that have been a priority five years ago? ten years ago? twenty years ago? Other than the Blackhawks before 2007, how many other teams have made such a stink about protecting season ticket holders who can't even watch the games at home? It feels like a kid who's not playing with a toy but says he is so that another kid can't.

[crashcarson15]

Don't forget Silver only gave the Germans a 35% chance of beating Brazil, who were down 2 key players.

This is, like, the worst kind of probability analysis ever.

If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, you can't blast people for thinking it's a 50/50 proposition because it landed on heads once.

[PacificCoastRL]

I would love to see a team in Seattle, the Totems. I think Quebec City should get one - they are the only ones who have a rink in the near future. I think the Toronto area could handle another team. And a team in Milwaukee. Two of the teams expansion, the other two, relocations. Vegas is ridiculous.

[Cosmic]

But that presumes that those 15% are so fickle as to ditch a team 20 miles away for a team 40 miles away just because the border is a pain or tickets are a little cheaper. If the Sabres are their team, then the Sabres are their team. If they've stuck through the Ron Rolston dumpster fire and one of the lowest-scoring teams in league history and whatever added inconveniences or indignities now attend crossing the border, you've gotta think they're in it for the long haul, Hamilton Tigers or no Hamilton Tigers. Sure, you'd inevitably lose some, but you couldn't possibly lose all of Niagara.

Actually, that 40 vs. 20 is probably about the break-even point for dealing with the border crossing. Like I said, I'd support putting a team there... just makes me nervous is all.

[Still MIGHTY]

When he says things like "Sudbury and Sherbrooke could support teams," I feel like Nate Silver doesn't always know as much as he thinks he knows, like, for example, where Sudbury is.

Good thing Nate Silver didn't actually write that article.

[dbadefense1990]

I only value Nate Silver's opinion anymore if it involves some form of burrito-related strife.

I don't value it since those 538 people gave two San Francisco burritos higher seeds before the 1st Los Angeles or San Diego burrito got seeded.

How come we don't explore Wyoming, and Hawaii as potential expansion markets?

Apparently, we already did. According to those Reddit hatred maps, the team will have a deep hatred of the Senators.

[illwauk]

I find the proximity to New York and Boston to be more of an asset than a liability. The correct business plan for the NHL was not to create a "national footprint" but to supersaturate the two major population corridors of North America (Northeast, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence) so that hockey is in the DNA of those people and it exists on equal footing with the other sports there, if not elsewhere. If you make hockey fans out of everyone you can in those areas, then it's okay to have teams in Hartford and Long Island and Hamilton and so forth, and the proximity to one another ramps up the passion for it all. The NHL could have been just fine without the stupid New South with the proper approach.

Never thought that all the way through before, but I agree. I'd dare to say even places like Grand Rapids or Rochester would make better hosts for NHL teams than at least a handful its current cities (assuming they had large enough arenas, of course).

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, but Rochester is one that really would hurt Buffalo a lot. That's been Sabres bedrock forever. It's kind of to Buffalo what Springfield MA was/is/would be to Hartford in terms of being a secondary market and all that.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Rochester NY or Rochester MI?

Rochester NY had its chance at a big-time team with the Rhinos and it blew it. The Amerks are good enough.

Rochester MI is where the Mayo Clinic is, right? Is there anything else to justify putting a team there?

[Tigers6884]

I find the proximity to New York and Boston to be more of an asset than a liability. The correct business plan for the NHL was not to create a "national footprint" but to supersaturate the two major population corridors of North America (Northeast, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence) so that hockey is in the DNA of those people and it exists on equal footing with the other sports there, if not elsewhere. If you make hockey fans out of everyone you can in those areas, then it's okay to have teams in Hartford and Long Island and Hamilton and so forth, and the proximity to one another ramps up the passion for it all. The NHL could have been just fine without the stupid New South with the proper approach.

Never thought that all the way through before, but I agree. I'd dare to say even places like Grand Rapids or Rochester would make better hosts for NHL teams than at least a handful its current cities (assuming they had large enough arenas, of course).

Trust me, Grand Rapids would not work. Maybe if this were the 70s or 80s, when the Red Wings were awful, but not in today's world, with Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg continuing a playoff streak that's been active for over 20 years.

[OnWis97]

Rochester NY or Rochester MI?

Rochester NY had its chance at a big-time team with the Rhinos and it blew it. The Amerks are good enough.

Rochester MI is where the Mayo Clinic is, right? Is there anything else to justify putting a team there?

I assume you mean Rochester, Minnesota (MN)

I also assume Illwauk meant Rochester NY.

Rochester MN is just over 100,000 with not too much around it. That the Mayo Clinic (and few other employers) supply some upper-class residents would not make up for that. The Twin Cities is the only market that could support any big-time sport.

[Soarindude]

Would a hockey team in Seattle make a Supersonics return more or less likely?

[FiddySicks]

Realistically if Vegas gets a team Reno should have one too. It would set them up quite nicely. You can't just plop a team in the middle of the desert and expect it to survive on its own. We've all seen what geographical rivalries can do for teams, and it'd be a great way to get hockey up and running in Nevada.

Ooh boy, no. Absolutely not. Reno isn't nearly big enough yet and the infrastructure is still really weak. Hell, it took them THIRTY YEARS to complete the Washoe Valley bypass from Carson City to Reno. It'd take a century to construct an NHL quality arena. And they have literally nothing to draw from outside of the Reno area in terms if fans. Sacramento isn't gonna cross the Sierras to see a game when they have San Jose basically equidistant and they don't have to cross the same mountains that the Donner Party literally are themselves in. That pretty much leaves their out of town draw with, I dunno, Truckee? South Lake Tahoe?

Not gonna happen.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Would a hockey team in Seattle make a Supersonics return more or less likely?

If somehow a hockey team prompts arena construction, yeah, sure. But the city won't allow the current arena plan to begin unless an NBA team is attached, so I don't think that's likely to happen.

I also think hockey is a nice to have in Seattle and far from anything people are desperate for. The failed Coyotes acquisition was disappointing for a couple of days; the Sonics replacement failures still sting.

[TheOldRoman]

Would a hockey team in Seattle make a Supersonics return more or less likely?

If somehow a hockey team prompts arena construction, yeah, sure. But the city won't allow the current arena plan to begin unless an NBA team is attached, so I don't think that's likely to happen.

I also think hockey is a nice to have in Seattle and far from anything people are desperate for. The failed Coyotes acquisition was disappointing for a couple of days; the Sonics replacement failures still sting.

I thought Chris Hansen was free to build at any point? Either way, he's or the city aren't breaking ground until they get a commitment from the NBA, because any stadium opened today is going to somehow need $100 million in renovations in five years to be up to NBA standards when a team is available.