Bettman finally admits the league will accept expansion applications

[ScottM]

 

The worst kept secret in hockey has finally been acknowledged. Bettman says there's no guarantee, and if expansion does happen, there's no set number of teams that will be added. It does seem certain that should it happen, Las Vegas will get a team. If two teams are added (which seems to be the expectation right now), Seattle and Quebec are thought to be the favorites. My gut says Seattle wins so that the conferences are balanced, thought it could be interesting to see how the Coyotes situation factors into this.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-to-announce-opening-of-expansion-process/

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Well, I already said on other threads I think Vegas is a bad idea.

And from the looks of it, Arizona wasn't so hot an idea either....though I HAVE known some pretty knowledgeable and passionate Yotes fans online (yep, they do exist)....so I would feel bad for them should they lose their team.

 

That said, since you have two big errors already, and Mr. Bettman is insistent on the Vegas thing, why not move the mistake in Arizona over to the mistake that will be Vegas, and see if two wrongs really CAN make a right in this case....rather than add a team in Vegas, keep the Yotes franchise suffering in Arizona, and continue to pile on!

At the very least, you've reduced two booboos down to one.

 

Worse case, Vegas doesn't work either, but at that stage, you can then look at moving the team (again!) to another Western market that will take it (Portland or Kansas City for example).

All this is assuming, of course, Seattle gets an entrant as well along with Vegas at the same time.

 

All this craziness is really dizzying.

Until the NHL settles down, it will always be looked at as a "league building credibility" by most of the sports fans at large as well as other leagues....despite the fact that the NHL, IMO, has a superior sport and product going on than some other leagues.

[blocker]

"Bettman says there's no guarantee, and if expansion does happen, there's no set number of teams that will be added. It does seem certain that should it happen,"

 

Gary Bettman is to the owners as Charlie McCarthy was to Edgar Bergen.  The owners want the money generated by new franchises, and Bettman will make that happen.  That's why he's paid all that money. 

[ScottM]

"Bettman says there's no guarantee, and if expansion does happen, there's no set number of teams that will be added. It does seem certain that should it happen,"

 

Gary Bettman is to the owners as Charlie McCarthy was to Edgar Bergen.  The owners want the money generated by new franchises, and Bettman will make that happen.  That's why he's paid all that money. 

Oh, no doubt about that. I think we've all known for a while that it was going to happen. I only included that as the disclaimer. Lol. I'm still not sure why he and the league think Las Vegas is such a good idea though. I see that losing more money than it brings in. Apparently, Portland, Milwaukee, and Kansas City have expressed interest in the past. There will be a bid for a second Toronto team, and of course, there's always Seattle and Quebec City. I see any of those as at least potentially good markets and Vegas as a loser. Let's hope they value that money enough to get it right in the end.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Not going to happen.

 

Every league wants to expand, but the NHL is the North American league that can least afford to. The talent pool isn't there. The NHL does not have 30 stable franchises as it is. If MLB has 30 teams, there is no way on earth that the NHL should have 30 teams. This is a league that should rightfully have somewhere between 24-26 teams. 30 is already more than the NHL can handle. This is an epic farce, and it's not happening. 

 

Sorry to poo poo things.

[ScottM]

Not going to happen.

 

Every league wants to expand, but the NHL is the North American league that can least afford to. The talent pool isn't there. The NHL does not have 30 stable franchises as it is. If MLB has 30 teams, there is no way on earth that the NHL should have 30 teams. This is a league that should rightfully have somewhere between 24-26 teams. 30 is already more than the NHL can handle. This is an epic farce, and it's not happening. 

 

Sorry to poo poo things.

 

Here's the thing. Regardless of whether or not that's true, it doesn't really matter. Just like @blocker said, it's about money. Bettman and his ilk care about that and that only. If they think it's something that will bring in money, they're going to do it. Bettman has shown in the past that his top concern is not quality hockey, and that's not going to change now. He wants into Las Vegas so badly he can taste it. There's still a chance that he may finally give up on Phoenix and allow a sale of the team that would relocate it, but that still seems unlikely to me unless Glendale can force his hand. I really think expansion is going to happen. For better or for worse, it's probably going to happen, whether it makes sense or not.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Here's the thing. Regardless of whether or not that's true, it doesn't really matter. Just like @blocker said, it's about money. Bettman and his ilk care about that and that only. If they think it's something that will bring in money, they're going to do it. Bettman has shown in the past that his top concern is not quality hockey, and that's not going to change now. He wants into Las Vegas so badly he can taste it. There's still a chance that he may finally give up on Phoenix and allow a sale of the team that would relocate it, but that still seems unlikely to me unless Glendale can force his hand. I really think expansion is going to happen. For better or for worse, it's probably going to happen, whether it makes sense or not.

 

What they'd like to do is charge a whopping expansion fee to someone that wants a team, and then fold an existing team rather than relocate a team. (That's a sneaky way that the owners make money.)

 

But here's how this will play out:

 

If the NHL does indeed announce that they will expand by two teams (Seattle and Vegas let's say), the Coyotes and Panthers will go into bankruptcy within a year or two afterwards and will fold, reducing the NHL back down to 30 teams.

 

Also, since a team in Vegas is going to lose boatloads of money, it will be another anchor on the league in terms of revenue sharing. That will drag down the top teams and reduce league profits. Seattle is a wash. It'll never be a big money franchise, but if they're lucky it'll break even. So either way, this will end badly for the NHL and will be another hard lesson learned. 

[ScottM]

What they'd like to do is charge a whopping expansion fee to someone that wants a team, and then fold an existing team rather than relocate a team. (That's a sneaky way that the owners make money.)

 

But here's how this will play out:

 

If the NHL does indeed announce that they will expand by two teams (Seattle and Vegas let's say), the Coyotes and Panthers will go into bankruptcy within a year or two afterwards and will fold, reducing the NHL back down to 30 teams.

 

Also, since a team in Vegas is going to lose boatloads of money, it will be another anchor on the league in terms of revenue sharing. That will drag down the top teams and reduce league profits. Seattle is a wash. It'll never be a big money franchise, but if they're lucky it'll break even. So either way, this will end badly for the NHL and will be another hard lesson learned. 

 

That may not be beyond the realm of possibilities. I do disagree with one thing though. It won't be a lesson learned. Bettman never seems to learn. I can't wait until he retires...

[WingNut722]

I was under the impression that Vegas, has never, and will never get a professional sports team simply for the reason that it's a (sports) gambling city, and having legalized gambling along with a local pro sports team could mean lotsa trouble... 

[radoran]

Not going to happen.

 

Every league wants to expand, but the NHL is the North American league that can least afford to. The talent pool isn't there. The NHL does not have 30 stable franchises as it is. If MLB has 30 teams, there is no way on earth that the NHL should have 30 teams. This is a league that should rightfully have somewhere between 24-26 teams. 30 is already more than the NHL can handle. This is an epic farce, and it's not happening. 

 

Sorry to poo poo things.

 

So, expansion is guaranteed, then?

 

Because this has nothing at all to do with whether the "NHL should have 30 teams." It does. It will. And it will be likely to grow because

 

Gary Bettman is to the owners as Charlie McCarthy was to Edgar Bergen. The owners want the money generated by new franchises, and Bettman will make that happen. That's why he's paid all that money.

 

It won't be a lesson learned. Bettman never seems to learn. I can't wait until he retires...

 

You're acting as if Bettman is some brilliant strategist who is pulling the strings of these hapless owners who have no idea what they are doing.

 

Bettman is the puppet. If you want to see who's pulling the strings, take a look at the $155B corporation who owns one of the franchises and the broadcast network(s) that gave the league the teevee deal.

 

They want ratings, they want more people in more places watching the sport because it gives them more eyeballs to sell to advertisers.

 

The owners want expansion fees and they want more television money.

 

Anyone who thinks this has anything at all to do with "quality of play" or "financial stability of franchises" is fooling themselves. The league has moved franchises around - even putting franchises in places where they previously folded. And the league is indisputably more popular now - and more valuable - than it ever has been.

 

Why would they change course at this point?

[ScottM]

I was under the impression that Vegas, has never, and will never get a professional sports team simply for the reason that it's a (sports) gambling city, and having legalized gambling along with a local pro sports team could mean lotsa trouble... 

 

It's widely thought that that's why the other leagues have stayed away. Bettman however, has no problem associating with the city. The NHL already has the awards ceremony is already there. Bettman has made comments about Las Vegas in the past that suggest interest. All he sees is $$$$$. There's a city with no other major professional sports teams, and that looks like an opening to him and the owners. Like a few of us have already said in this thread, it's all about the money. I still think Las Vegas is a stupid place to put a hockey team, but my gut tells me that they completely miss that in their greed and do it anyway. I just wonder how long it'll take the franchise to start hemorrhaging cash.

 

 

You're acting as if Bettman is some brilliant strategist who is pulling the strings of these hapless owners who have no idea what they are doing.

 

I don't think that at all. I think that he and the owners jump at every opportunity that they think might bring them a dime. Many of those haven't worked out so well, as you pointed out. The league is growing, but I think that's in large part just the natural course of things. I think that it would be doing even better without some of the boneheaded things that have been done, but that's a lesson they never seem to learn.

[radoran]

I don't think that at all. I think that he and the owners jump at every opportunity that they think might bring them a dime. Many of those haven't worked out so well, as you pointed out. The league is growing, but I think that's in large part just the natural course of things. I think that it would be doing even better without some of the boneheaded things that have been done, but that's a lesson they never seem to learn.

 

Sure, but the problem is when people look at the same situation, they can see it through different lenses.

 

Fans see a league that has watered down talent across the board.

 

Owners see a league that has gotten more popular due to expansion.

 

Since the owners also concurrently get a huge payout with each expansion, they're more likely to err on the side of "give me the money" than "we need to improve the product."

 

This is a league that has lost a season and a half of play in the past decade and is still more popular than ever.

 

If "the fans" ever pull it together and stop watching the product (primarily live - it is still a big gate-driven sport), then we might see some real change.

 

But there's no indication that that's about to happen. And if they get to the point - like, say, baseball or football - where the television money makes the gate less and less relevant, then it will matter even less.

[ScottM]

Sure, but the problem is when people look at the same situation, they can see it through different lenses.

 

Fans see a league that has watered down talent across the board.

 

Owners see a league that has gotten more popular due to expansion.

 

Since the owners also concurrently get a huge payout with each expansion, they're more likely to err on the side of "give me the money" than "we need to improve the product."

 

This is a league that has lost a season and a half of play in the past decade and is still more popular than ever.

 

If "the fans" ever pull it together and stop watching the product (primarily live - it is still a big gate-driven sport), then we might see some real change.

 

But there's no indication that that's about to happen. And if they get to the point - like, say, baseball or football - where the television money makes the gate less and less relevant, then it will matter even less.

 

I completely agree with that. That said, there are some of the stupid decisions that were completely avoidable even when looking at it like that. Why put a second team in Atlanta when the first attempt failed so miserably? Why the rapid expansion in the Sun Belt, when that was an obvious recipe for disaster? As much as that has failed, even the success they've had is probably more than I would have expected. Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who lives in the south. I'd love to see the sport become more popular down here, but it's not going to happen just like that. And now that we know without a doubt that some of those teams have failed, the league is insistent on keeping them exactly where they are. There are plenty of markets that are more viable and more interested in hockey. Give them a chance. But no. They're too stubborn, even though it would be for their own good.

[B21]

Not going to happen.

 

Every league wants to expand, but the NHL is the North American league that can least afford to. The talent pool isn't there. The NHL does not have 30 stable franchises as it is. If MLB has 30 teams, there is no way on earth that the NHL should have 30 teams. This is a league that should rightfully have somewhere between 24-26 teams. 30 is already more than the NHL can handle. This is an epic farce, and it's not happening. 

 

Sorry to poo poo things.

 

MLB history is full of teams that have struggled, folded, relocated, etc.

 

The Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves say "hi".  As do the Philadelphia/Kansas City/Oakland A's....and the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals.  The Nationals are the league's third attempt to make a franchise work in the nation's capital. Lest we forget the Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins and the Washington Senators/Texas Rangers. 

 

As for stable franchises....hello Miami Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays. The Mets and Dodgers (big market teams) were financial disasters as recently as 5 years ago. MLB had to loan the Mets money...the New York Mets.

 

NFL? They are talking about the possibility if 2-3 teams relocating in the next 1-2 years (Rams, Raiders, Chargers). Jacksonville is a disaster.  That league does OK.  Minnesota was on the verge of moving.

 

NBA? Seattle to OKC.  Charlotte to New Orleans.  New Jersey to Brooklyn (yo). Minnesota. Orlando.

 

Every league has a handful of teams that have to be "propped up" by the others.  Clearly, it's more beneficial to the league as a whole - every league - to have a few struggling franchises in certain cities then it is to have no franchises in those cities.

 

All you are seeing in the NHL (really - have seen in the past 25 years) is the league "moving" to where the population is.  It happened in the NFL and MLB in the 1950's and 1960's.  It

[BluPuk]

Too many teams already, and too little talent, IMHO.

 

But the siren song of 500 million per team is calling the NHL owners. Maybe they could use the money to prop up Arizona, Florida, and.... nevermind. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

As others have mentioned, yes every league has teams that struggle and relocate. The difference is fan interest. The NFL, NBA, and MLB have far more fans than the NHL does. That's why those leagues can afford to operate 30 franchises. The NHL has not grown to the point where 30 franchises are justified. Instead, five or six of them are continually being propped up by the rest of the league. Expanding without having 30 strong franchises is just suicide.

 

The NHL should be relocating teams.  (And they will be because this expansion isn't going to happen.)

[WordsOfWisdom]

I was under the impression that Vegas, has never, and will never get a professional sports team simply for the reason that it's a (sports) gambling city, and having legalized gambling along with a local pro sports team could mean lotsa trouble... 

 

The main reason Vegas doesn't work is because it's a place to visit, not a place to live. There is no home town fan base in Las Vegas.

 

I think the Coyotes will move to Vegas (because they have nothing to lose by trying it and it's close by), but that will flop sooner rather than later. The Panthers are going to move to Seattle or Quebec City. Whatever team lands in Las Vegas will play there for about six years before ultimately winding up elsewhere (probably in Markham).  

[Scotta99fan]

As others have mentioned, yes every league has teams that struggle and relocate. The difference is fan interest. The NFL, NBA, and MLB have far more fans than the NHL does. That's why those leagues can afford to operate 30 franchises. The NHL has not grown to the point where 30 franchises are justified. Instead, five or six of them are continually being propped up by the rest of the league. Expanding without having 30 strong franchises is just suicide.

 

The NHL should be relocating teams.  (And they will be because this expansion isn't going to happen.)

I hate to disagree, but I believe that the NHL will expand, and it will be sooner rather than later. While I agree that the franchise fees that are being mentioned by the NHL seem awfully steep, that price actually has a good purpose (albeit not by design) it only attracts serious investors. The notion that certain regions cannot support an NHL franchise, I don't believe holds water either, the NHL has a history of teams that struggle in certain cities, just to see them flourish later. The Colorado Rockies couldn't make it in Denver, but the Quebec Nordiques sure did, The Los Angeles Kings managed to survive because they shared a building with a prosperous co-tenant in the Lakers. If an owner doesn't have quality on the ice, it's hard to put butts in the seats.

[WordsOfWisdom]

I hate to disagree, but I believe that the NHL will expand, and it will be sooner rather than later. While I agree that the franchise fees that are being mentioned by the NHL seem awfully steep, that price actually has a good purpose (albeit not by design) it only attracts serious investors. The notion that certain regions cannot support an NHL franchise, I don't believe holds water either, the NHL has a history of teams that struggle in certain cities, just to see them flourish later. The Colorado Rockies couldn't make it in Denver, but the Quebec Nordiques sure did, The Los Angeles Kings managed to survive because they shared a building with a prosperous co-tenant in the Lakers. If an owner doesn't have quality on the ice, it's hard to put butts in the seats.

 

I like to think that there are three different tiers with it comes to the overwhelming majority of fans in a particular market:

 

TIER 1: Diehard fans. These are fans that watch the team whether it wins or loses. It's a cultural thing. The team is firmly entrenched in the market. These are your blue chip fans, and when you get enough of them, you become a TIER 1 blue chip market.

 

TIER 2: Fair-weather fans. This is what most teams have. Fairweather fans support the team when it's winning, but they lose interest when the team goes through a prolonged losing period. Most markets in every major pro sports league are like this.

 

TIER 3: "It's a gimmick" fans. This is where things get problematic. Fans in these markets aren't interested in what you're selling. You have to twist their arm. You need to bribe, beg, and coerce them into going. They need to be entertained constantly or they're gone. These are like 4-year olds. Short attention spans. Need to sold on something else, and then almost tricked into watching a game. ie: Pay only $50 for this brand new Winchester rifle, but you have to sit through an NHL game to claim it.

 

Using the markets you mentioned, Colorado and LA were both tier 3 NHL markets that became tier 2 NHL markets by way of having a sustained level of excellence on the ice. The thing is, you can't expect to have Wayne Gretzky or a slew of Stanley Cups handed to you. It took a perfect storm for those franchises to survive, something that is not repeatable. That's why the Panthers, Coyotes, and Hurricanes are all tier 3 NHL markets. They will never move up the food chain unless all the "stars and planets" fall into perfect alignment, and that's bad news for the NHL. 

 

[ScottM]

I hate to disagree, but I believe that the NHL will expand, and it will be sooner rather than later. While I agree that the franchise fees that are being mentioned by the NHL seem awfully steep, that price actually has a good purpose (albeit not by design) it only attracts serious investors. The notion that certain regions cannot support an NHL franchise, I don't believe holds water either, the NHL has a history of teams that struggle in certain cities, just to see them flourish later. The Colorado Rockies couldn't make it in Denver, but the Quebec Nordiques sure did, The Los Angeles Kings managed to survive because they shared a building with a prosperous co-tenant in the Lakers. If an owner doesn't have quality on the ice, it's hard to put butts in the seats.

 

I agree with the part about expansion, but I do think that certain markets simply won't support an NHL franchise. In Denver's case, there was a 25% increase in population between 1980 and 1996, which is roughly the gap between the Rockies and the Avalanche. By 2000, the increase was up to 50%, and from 1980 to today, the population has nearly doubled. That no doubt plays a major role in the difference.

 

But, then again, look at Atlanta. There was population growth between the time of the Flames and the Thrashers, and yet the result was the same. But Denver has an advantage over Atlanta in weather. Weather is certainly not a definite make or break for a team, but I do believe colder weather does help since it makes the sport more "relateable." Living in a relatively ice free area as I do, I can say that the weather does have that effect on people. Since there's almost no natural ice, people around here typically don't relate to winter sports. There are markets that are exceptions, but I think it plays a role.

 

I do think you're right that there can be other factors that play into things. The example of the Lakers is a good one, and then the Kings had a boost in popularity after Gretzky came along too. But what if an "unnatural" market doesn't have a built in advantage like that? In that case, you have Phoenix. Phoenix has even failed despite 400,000 snowbirds that flock to the state each winter and despite massive population growth. I think Phoenix is another example of a market that simply won't cut it in the NHL.

 

I've been on record on here on multiple occasions saying that I think Las Vegas will fail. I still believe that. That said, there is one point that I don't remember seeing anyone make mention of before as a potentially significant factor: Las Vegas has no major professional sports teams. I don't know how long that will help, but I'll admit that it may be a boost, at least for a little while. The NHL would literally be the only game in town, and that could certainly help sell tickets.

[Scotta99fan]

I like to think that there are three different tiers with it comes to the overwhelming majority of fans in a particular market:

 

TIER 1: Diehard fans. These are fans that watch the team whether it wins or loses. It's a cultural thing. The team is firmly entrenched in the market. These are your blue chip fans, and when you get enough of them, you become a TIER 1 blue chip market.

 

TIER 2: Fair-weather fans. This is what most teams have. Fairweather fans support the team when it's winning, but they lose interest when the team goes through a prolonged losing period. Most markets in every major pro sports league are like this.

 

TIER 3: "It's a gimmick" fans. This is where things get problematic. Fans in these markets aren't interested in what you're selling. You have to twist their arm. You need to bribe, beg, and coerce them into going. They need to be entertained constantly or they're gone. These are like 4-year olds. Short attention spans. Need to sold on something else, and then almost tricked into watching a game. ie: Pay only $50 for this brand new Winchester rifle, but you have to sit through an NHL game to claim it.

 

Using the markets you mentioned, Colorado and LA were both tier 3 NHL markets that became tier 2 NHL markets by way of having a sustained level of excellence on the ice. The thing is, you can't expect to have Wayne Gretzky or a slew of Stanley Cups handed to you. It took a perfect storm for those franchises to survive, something that is not repeatable. That's why the Panthers, Coyotes, and Hurricanes are all tier 3 NHL markets. They will never move up the food chain unless all the "stars and planets" fall into perfect alignment, and that's bad news for the NHL. 

 

You hit the nail on the head with your point about tier 3 teams. I'm from Michigan originally and when I moved out to Los Angeles I found none of my new friends followed hockey and I would buy the tickets, I often bought the beer, and explained the rules, just to get people to go. As a result, nearly all of my friends became serious hockey fans. Although it wasn't until Gretzky arrived, that the Forum began to fill up. But even then, it was filling up withy fans that had money and viewed the Kings as a novelty, but it did get the ball rolling. The latest generation of Kings fans are the real deal in my opinion.

[Scotta99fan]

I agree with the part about expansion, but I do think that certain markets simply won't support an NHL franchise. In Denver's case, there was a 25% increase in population between 1980 and 1996, which is roughly the gap between the Rockies and the Avalanche. By 2000, the increase was up to 50%, and from 1980 to today, the population has nearly doubled. That no doubt plays a major role in the difference.

 

But, then again, look at Atlanta. There was population growth between the time of the Flames and the Thrashers, and yet the result was the same. But Denver has an advantage over Atlanta in weather. Weather is certainly not a definite make or break for a team, but I do believe colder weather does help since it makes the sport more "relateable." Living in a relatively ice free area as I do, I can say that the weather does have that effect on people. Since there's almost no natural ice, people around here typically don't relate to winter sports. There are markets that are exceptions, but I think it plays a role.

 

I do think you're right that there can be other factors that play into things. The example of the Lakers is a good one, and then the Kings had a boost in popularity after Gretzky came along too. But what if an "unnatural" market doesn't have a built in advantage like that? In that case, you have Phoenix. Phoenix has even failed despite 400,000 snowbirds that flock to the state each winter and despite massive population growth. I think Phoenix is another example of a market that simply won't cut it in the NHL.

 

I've been on record on here on multiple occasions saying that I think Las Vegas will fail. I still believe that. That said, there is one point that I don't remember seeing anyone make mention of before as a potentially significant factor: Las Vegas has no major professional sports teams. I don't know how long that will help, but I'll admit that it may be a boost, at least for a little while. The NHL would literally be the only game in town, and that could certainly help sell tickets.

I agree with your point regarding Las Vegas, I think that it would fail too. I don't know that there is much interest in seeing hockey in Vegas, if the Las Vegas Thunder was any indication, an NHL team wouldn't survive.

[B21]

As others have mentioned, yes every league has teams that struggle and relocate. The difference is fan interest. The NFL, NBA, and MLB have far more fans than the NHL does. That's why those leagues can afford to operate 30 franchises. The NHL has not grown to the point where 30 franchises are justified. Instead, five or six of them are continually being propped up by the rest of the league. Expanding without having 30 strong franchises is just suicide.

 

The NHL should be relocating teams.  (And they will be because this expansion isn't going to happen.)

 

The best way to get "more" fans is to have "more" teams in "bigger" cities.  You don't attract more fans to the NHL by taking a team from Phoenix (metro area population of 4.5 million - 12th in the U.S.) and moving them to Quebec (metro population 750,000 - 7th in Canada). 

 

I don't think expansion is a bad idea provided they go to the right cities - Seattle and Kansas City make the most sense to me for a number of reasons.  I'll concede 100% that Las Vegas is a horrible idea.

 

As for fan interest - yes, as a whole the NFL, MLB and NBA have more fans. Many reasons for that.  But those struggling franchises I mentioned - any idea why they are struggling?

 

The NHL is certainly capable of propping up a few franchises.  They have been doing it for years. Many times, those franchises get back on their feet (Pittsburgh, Buffalo).

[ScottM]

The best way to get "more" fans is to have "more" teams in "bigger" cities.  You don't attract more fans to the NHL by taking a team from Phoenix (metro area population of 4.5 million - 12th in the U.S.) and moving them to Quebec (metro population 750,000 - 7th in Canada). 

But that does work when it's the right city. That's pretty much what happened when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg. The Atlanta metro area is bigger than the Phoenix metro area, and Winnipeg is slightly smaller than Quebec, yet, it's pretty clear that move worked. The key is that Winnipeg and Quebec live and breathe the sport, whereas Atlanta and Phoenix barely even recognize it.

[radoran]

I'll concede 100% that Las Vegas is a horrible idea.

 

Vegas is a terrible idea, but the concept that there aren't any people that live there is laughable.

 

There are 1.9M people in the Las Vegas metro. It has been one of the fastest growing residential areas in the country for the past decade. It is more than twice the the size of Quebec City.

 

I, personally, can't stand the place for more than an overnight.

 

The NHL is certainly capable of propping up a few franchises. They have been doing it for years. Many times, those franchises get back on their feet (Pittsburgh, Buffalo).

 

Every league "props up" franchises. The Kansas City Royals were a moribund franchise without even a shred for hope for decades. They won the Series in 1985 and then missed the playoffs for 28 years before getting back to the Series again.

 

The Bills went to four Super Bowls in a row from 90-93 but haven't made the playoffs since 1999. They haven't won a playoff game since 1995.