New Hockey League Idea?

[wheateater]

Let's use San Jose Sharks (as much as I'd love to have a team close to me)

Isn't LA-LA Land close enough to San Diego?

[Cashcleaner]

Silly me! Forgot about Phillie!

Flyers and Sharks I could see, but not so much Seattle. It's too close to Vancouver, and to be honest, it's just no longer the hockey town it used to be (when compared to other eligible cities, of course).

As for Washington, I don't think there are many in the city that give a flying fluff about the Caps. Go look at the Washington Post and you'll see no mention of the lock out anywhere near the front pages. Detroit, Boston, and Chicago are different and have infinitely more coverage because they are very serious hockey towns. If a new, leaner, and fitter league is forced to make some hard decisions, it will be the teams like Washington/Carolina/Atlanta where the axe falls first.

Painful? Yes.

Necessary? Very much so.

Nothing against the Caps as a team, but if there isn't enough people caring about hockey in the city, I don't think the league could afford to keep the team there.

[ColeJ]

Obviously LA, Dallas, Phoenix, Nashville, Tampa Bay, and San Jose are not those cities.

nah, not even worth addressing this ignorance

Wait so you really think a majority of kids in San Jose grow up playing hockey? Just curious as to how my comment was ignorant. I know that kids in the North and New England grow up playing ice hockey but I didn't know ice hockey was big with High Schools in California, Texas, Florida, etc.

This isn't just about kids, but it's primarily about fan interest. Dallas and San Jose have solid fan bases. Yes, there are kids in those markets playing hockey and let it be known that a junior team from the area (Texas Tornadoes) are really good. They have beaten similar competition from Ontario. Hockey is much more popular in Texas then you think.

Perhaps there aren't as many kids playing hockey there as Canada or the border states, but it doesn't mean that quality and interest isn't there.

thank you very much

texas doesn't have a pressence as an NHL-player production line yet, because the NHL has only been here for 12 years... however, if you look around junior leagues, and american colleges, you'll see quite a few texans.

and yeah, the texas tornado are damn good... al montoya played there before he went to umich.

also, i read about a team from dallas beating a team from ottawa in a midget-hockey tournament up in canada a few months back... despite the crowd booing and arena playing beverly hillbillies music during the pregame skate..... for little kids? that's classless...

but yeah, texas is good with hockey. think of how many movies have been made about how texas obsesses over it's sports... high school football, baseball, anything. texans just love sports in general.... there's nothing better to do.

[JamesCraven]

I think America helped kill the NHL.

No, sir. The greed of all of those involved killed it.

[Mings]

I think America helped kill the NHL.

No, sir. The greed of all of those involved killed it.

and not doing it right after the first strike. if there was a salary cap then, this strike wouldnt have happened

[-kj]

This plan, besides leaving out the successful teams already mentioned, leaves out teams such as St. Louis and Los Angeles, "expansion six" teams from 1967 who have long histories and are not currently struggling franchises. Just because a team is not located in the north doesn't mean it's not a good place for a franchise. L.A.'s not a hockey town, per se, but its large population goes a long way to help. St. Louis has become more and more a hockey town--their attendance percentage has been high through the 90s and into this decade. (Edit: Oops, looks like L.A. did get mentioned.)

[Cashcleaner]

This plan, besides leaving out the successful teams already mentioned, leaves out teams such as St. Louis and Los Angeles, "expansion six" teams from 1967 who have long histories and are not currently struggling franchises. Just because a team is not located in the north doesn't mean it's not a good place for a franchise. L.A.'s not a hockey town, per se, but its large population goes a long way to help. St. Louis has become more and more a hockey town--their attendance percentage has been high through the 90s and into this decade. (Edit: Oops, looks like L.A. did get mentioned.)

Yeah, I got LA in there, St. Louis never occurred to me though, but yeah, it has a fairly active fan base so I say it can stay. The argument isn't about North vs. South, though. It's about which teams are sustainable and which teams are not. Dallas is a fine example of a southern US team which has the benefit is having a rather healthy local interest in the team and the game in general. The fact is a bit surprising for some, but the Texans like their hockey!

My bad for not including the Blues, though. Though that does reinforce the argument for a smaller league in general. I don't think I can name all the teams in one go.

Revised NHL Organization

Eastern Conference

Montreal Canadians

Detriot Red Wings

New York Rangers

New York Islanders

Boston Bruins

Toronto Maple Leafs

Ottawa Senators

New Jersey Devils

Buffalo Sabres

Florida Panthers

St. Louis Blues

Quebec/Hamilton/any other suitable city.

Western Conference

Chicago Blackhawks

LA Kings

Winnipeg Jets (or whatever new name they decide)

Edmonton Oilers

Calgary Flames

Vancouver Canucks

Dallas Stars

Pittsburgh Penguins

Colorado Avalanche

San Jose Sharks (kinda touch and go at times though. Any idea on popularity in Southern Cal?)

One more plausible western team to fill the gap

[-kj]

I'd argue that Minnesota is currently sustainable; they're a shrewd organization in a hockey-mad place.

[Cashcleaner]

Maybe have them fill the Western gap, perhaps? Minnesota is hockey-mad, but would they welcome a team coming back after this labour fiasco?

Winnipeg would in a heartbeat. Would Minnesota be as eager? That would certainly even things out.