They need to retract some teams in terrible situations and/or with poor fanbases/attendance to get it down to 24 or so. Then, of the remaining teams, they need to move the next batch of teams with poor fanbases/attendance back to Canada, so that there are 12 American teams and 12 Canadian teams. Then they can have an American Conference and a Canadian Conference instead of East and West.

How awesome would that be?

Current Canadian = Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto

Remove - Florida, Columbus, Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina? Relocate Anaheim and Tampa Bay to Hartford and Maine.

Add - Quebec, Hamilton and Winnipeg that only gets you to 9 for Canada - Maybe Saskatchewan, that gets you to 10. 2 more? I'm not sure about other Canadian cities, but I'm positive we could find enough locations for 12 teams. They live and breathe hockey.

To cut down on operating expenses you only play in your league 2 games home 2 games away vs each team in your conference and 1 game versus the other league alternating yearly home and away - 76 game schedule. Like the NBA, they play too many games in a season.

But number one on the list has to be to replace Gary Bettman!


P.S. My master plan is a work in progress.

First, Hartford yes, Maine no. There is nothing there. Second the NHL's attendance is better than the NBA's and has been the last two years. Addition by subtraction is the only answer but right now Winnipeg is not ready to support an NHL team because of their stadium, not because of fans. Trust me I go there often and they built a stadium with a minor league team in mind. Quebec is a must but for the rest of there cities attendance will not be an issue for the short term but the rest of the revenue is not there. People forget that Buttman kept hockey in Edmonton by subsidizing the Canadian teams when the beaver nickle hit an all time low(True Story). Subtract ATL, TAMPA, FLA, NASH. Move PHX back to Winnipeg when arena is ready. Quebec can get a new team or if the Colorado franchise continues to have no people show up move them back. Carolina back to Hartford even though when Carolina is winning a lot of people show up, which is something that Colorado cannot say. Sask. has nothing to offer an NHL team if they did they would already have a team. 6 or 7 teams in Canada might be the most that country can support tell they catch up to the U.S. in immigration(lame). Colombus has an awesome arena but why they chose Colombus and not Cleveland or Cincy is puzziling. Maybe they can figure there lease out and keep them.

jbird wrote:


That's some nice input... thanks. And yeah, maybe 12 teams in Canada is too many after all. I think we could find 10 though right?

jbird wrote:


They could move to the Portland/South Portland/Westbrook area of Maine? That could support a team?

Toronto can hold another NHL team. They are hockey capital of the world and would benefit morewith the two team system then New York.

College Wolf wrote:


As with all sports supporting a team comes down to more than attendance. If that wasnt the case we would not have to worry about the Vikes taking off after next year. Just because its cold doesnt mean the NHL will thrive there either ie....Colorado. With the way professional sports market with tv, radio etc.. all the factors have to be their to be able to sustain. That is why markets like Miami, and Tampa still have teams because they get the T.V. deals ans such to fatten the bottom line. I would almost take my chances with an area like Seattle or Portland, Oregon over Maine.

Street_Credit wrote:


The only question with that would be if the fans would want to watch a new team or remain with a team they have been cheering for almost a century. Also why swamp a market down when its working out fine the way it is.

Street_Credit wrote:


For sure. I agree.

jbird wrote:


Good points, a Howl to you.

I think Seattle could be very viable... especially since the Sonics are gone.