The NHL is coming closer to Quebec City

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am basically in favour of anything that would boost the number of top level pro hockey teams in Canada.

Though it was interesting how last season when we had an all-Canadian division playing exclusively due to the pandemic, a lot of people remarked how fun it was.

But now that the NHL is back to normal I don't hear much residual fondnesss for the short-lived all-Canadian division.

I was bored silly with the divisions last year and was glad the season was only 56 games. I'm also not in favour of a league alignment that causes more out of time zone games.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Remember, the N in NHL used to refer to Canada.

Is anyone still alive when the N in NHL used to refer to Canada?

[suburbanite]

Agreed that the novelty of the Canadian division wore off after about 2-3 games with each team. By the end I think most people were eager to go back to a normal alignment. My dream would be every Saturday Hockey Night in Canada is all-Canadian matchups, but I still enjoy watching the team go on California road trips, to MSG, etc.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Is anyone still alive when the N in NHL used to refer to Canada?

Only been 98 years since US expansion lol.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I was bored silly with the divisions last year and was glad the season was only 56 games. I'm also not in favour of a league alignment that causes more out of time zone games.

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Agreed that the novelty of the Canadian division wore off after about 2-3 games with each team. By the end I think most people were eager to go back to a normal alignment. My dream would be every Saturday Hockey Night in Canada is all-Canadian matchups, but I still enjoy watching the team go on California road trips, to MSG, etc.

I'd imagine the limited number of teams plays a big part of that, though. A hypothetical Canadian league/division with say 12 teams would be a lot more variety.

[ScreamingViking]

I'd love to see a Canadian division, but I don't see the lure of that for Bettman. U.S. money related to TV and other deals is #1... a bigger Canadian presence does nothing for that (particularly if there's a risk the Stanley Cup parade doesn't happen on American soil lol). Or maybe the NHL would create it, then sell it.

The best Canadian players would probably still go to the NHL in that case.

The Cup itself has basically been appropriated by the NHL. Hive off a Canadian league, and steal it back.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Only been 98 years since US expansion lol.

so that would mean its already been 90 years since the New York Americans played in the Canadian division because there weren't enough Canadian teams.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

The best Canadian players would probably still go to the NHL in that case.

The Canadian curse, I suppose.

Big fish in a small pond, or small fish in a big pond. Overwhelmingly, the latter is the choice people prefer here.

It would be cool to see something like Australian rules football here, but it just won’t work.

The NHL died as a Canadian thing in 1989 when the league moved its HQ from Montreal to New York. Bettman’s ascendancy in 1993 was the stake through the heart. It does bring to mind the eternal question: is it better to stay true to one’s roots even if that spells ultimate demise, or go bigger and lose its history, but survive?

[MolsonExport]

I am not at all opposed to American teams. I am, however, appalled at how our own game has been appropriated by our American overlords, and how Canadian teams have been marginalized (and almost as bad, their fans completely taken for granted). How does the average Canadian hockey fan benefit from some Carolina Cancer Stick team?

[esquire]

To put it in perspective, it hasn't been all bad news.

Number of Canadian NHL teams

1966: 2
2012: 7

I mean, I guess the growth rate has settled down and while it might get to 8 in the foreseeable future, it probably won't go above that number for quite some time. But adding 5 new teams is at least something.

In some respects, it's odd that it took until 1970 for the NHL to add a third Canadian team. It's hard to believe that Vancouver, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Quebec, Hamilton or Halifax couldn't have supported a team in the 50s.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

To put it in perspective, it hasn't been all bad news.

Number of Canadian NHL teams

1966: 2
2012: 7

I mean, I guess the growth rate has settled down and while it might get to 8 in the foreseeable future, it probably won't go above that number for quite some time. But adding 5 new teams is at least something.

1992: 8
2000: 6

I am admittedly torn.

Do I want the NHL to be successful and profitable (the Bettman way) at the cost of being marginalized in terms of relative control, or do I want a more regional league that we have a stronger say in, but is much more wobbly financially?

Not an easy trade.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by thewave46

1992: 8
2000: 6

I am admittedly torn.

Do I want the NHL to be successful and profitable (the Bettman way) at the cost of being marginalized in terms of relative control, or do I want a more regional league that we have a stronger say in, but is much more wobbly financially?

Not an easy trade.

I don't think it's difficult at all. I personally do not care about hockey's worldwide popularity and profitability and I can't relate to those who do. Unless your paycheque is coming from the NHL, who cares? It doesn't matter to me if people Alabama or Britain ever watch a NHL game in their lives. I put no pressure on anyone to #pleaselikemysport. What matters to me is that I like it and I want it to be accessible to me. And it is - in my city there is a plethora of hockey options.

I mean, I guess I can't complain. With 2 pro teams and a pile of elite amateur teams at the junior and university levels, Winnipeg has already been well served when it comes to hockey. But I don't think it's unreasonable for people in other places like Quebec to request similar treatment. The NHL doesn't have to accede to their request of course, but there is nothing wrong with asking.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't think it's difficult at all. I personally do not care about hockey's worldwide popularity and profitability and I can't relate to those who do. Unless your paycheque is coming from the NHL, who cares? It doesn't matter to me if people Alabama or Britain ever watch a NHL game in their lives. I put no pressure on anyone to #pleaselikemysport. What matters to me is that I like it and I want it to be accessible to me. And it is - in my city there is a plethora of hockey options.

I mean, I guess I can't complain. With 2 pro teams and a pile of elite amateur teams at the junior and university levels, Winnipeg has already been well served when it comes to hockey. But I don't think it's unreasonable for people in other places like Quebec to request similar treatment. The NHL doesn't have to accede to their request of course, but there is nothing wrong with asking.

Sure.

I’d like every car company to cater to my desires expressly, but I acknowledge that in order for these companies to exist that them being financially successful is probably the best avenue to me getting what I want.

That same tension exists here.

[savevp]

The theoretical dichotomy between success v Canadian representation relies on the assumption that proliferating large American markets inherently brings greater profitability than smaller Canadian ones. We've seen that this is not actually a given. On the whole, I'm not sure more value has been created by the Southern expansion versus a hypothetical expansion to 2-3 more Canadian markets. Nor should it be assumed Houston (or Vegas/Seattle when the buzz wears off) is a more valuable than Quebec would be.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by savevp

The theoretical dichotomy between success v Canadian representation relies on the assumption that proliferating large American markets inherently brings greater profitability than smaller Canadian ones. We've seen that this is not actually a given. On the whole, I'm not sure more value has been created by the Southern expansion versus a hypothetical expansion to 2-3 more Canadian markets. Nor should it be assumed Houston (or Vegas/Seattle when the buzz wears off) is a more valuable than Quebec would be.

I agree. But Bettman and cronies are stubbornly attached to their American dream.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

1992: 8
2000: 6

I am admittedly torn.

Do I want the NHL to be successful and profitable (the Bettman way) at the cost of being marginalized in terms of relative control, or do I want a more regional league that we have a stronger say in, but is much more wobbly financially?

Not an easy trade.

Ottawa, Hamilton and Quebec City did have teams in the early days of the NHL.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Sure.

I’d like every car company to cater to my desires expressly, but I acknowledge that in order for these companies to exist that them being financially successful is probably the best avenue to me getting what I want.

That same tension exists here.

I don't see the analogy at all. Car manufacturing is a huge overhead business with massive barriers to entry. If the car companies aren't profitable and go under, then yes, we have a serious problem.

Hockey is not like that. If the NHL as we knew it ceased to exist today, then tomorrow someone would be starting up a league to replace it using the many buildings and venues that exist across North America, including many brand new ones built in the last 5 years.

To put it another way, imagine a universe where the CFL is super successful to the point where the prime seats are occupied by a star-studded list of business luminaries and celebrities. It's so big and so successful that even American cities are clamoring for franchises. In this world, season tickets cost $5,000 a pop, on top of a $25,000 non-transferable PSL. Sure the CFL and various team owners would be way better off in this scenario, but would I as a football fan in Winnipeg be any better off given that I'd be effectively priced out of the stadium, and my team would be existentially threatened by wealthy Americans who want to buy it and move it to, say, Los Angeles?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't see the analogy at all. Car manufacturing is a huge overhead business with massive barriers to entry. If the car companies aren't profitable and go under, then yes, we have a serious problem.

Hockey is not like that. If the NHL as we knew it ceased to exist today, then tomorrow someone would be starting up a league to replace it using the many buildings and venues that exist across North America, including many brand new ones built in the last 5 years.

To put it another way, imagine a universe where the CFL is super successful to the point where the prime seats are occupied by a star-studded list of business luminaries and celebrities. It's so big and so successful that even American cities are clamoring for franchises. In this world, season tickets cost $5,000 a pop, on top of a $25,000 non-transferable PSL. Sure the CFL and various team owners would be way better off in this scenario, but would I as a football fan in Winnipeg be any better off given that I'd be effectively priced out of the stadium, and my team would be existentially threatened by wealthy Americans who want to buy it and move it to, say, Los Angeles?

The "business" argument also fails to take into account the cultural implications of certain sports.

But if we're talking about cars, let's say the US big three stopped selling muscle cars in Michigan (birthplace of the US auto industry) and only shipped them to dealers in California and Florida, because these are bigger, sexier, richer markets.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't see the analogy at all. Car manufacturing is a huge overhead business with massive barriers to entry. If the car companies aren't profitable and go under, then yes, we have a serious problem.

Hockey is not like that. If the NHL as we knew it ceased to exist today, then tomorrow someone would be starting up a league to replace it using the many buildings and venues that exist across North America, including many brand new ones built in the last 5 years.

To put it another way, imagine a universe where the CFL is super successful to the point where the prime seats are occupied by a star-studded list of business luminaries and celebrities. It's so big and so successful that even American cities are clamoring for franchises. In this world, season tickets cost $5,000 a pop, on top of a $25,000 non-transferable PSL. Sure the CFL and various team owners would be way better off in this scenario, but would I as a football fan in Winnipeg be any better off given that I'd be effectively priced out of the stadium, and my team would be existentially threatened by wealthy Americans who want to buy it and move it to, say, Los Angeles?

Conversely, a league that is hanging on the brink isn’t going to provide either, at least not for long.

My opinion is that in the late 1990s the NHL was too far in the pro-America direction while Canadian teams were moving or wobbling badly. With the return of the Jets in 2011, it did at least symbolically hint at a return to the Canadian base.

I’d like to see a return to Quebec City, but I get why the NHL won’t play the ace up its sleeve until it absolutely needs to.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

More teams in Canada to cheer for, have as rivals, and appear in the playoffs would probably help arrest the decline at least a bit.

Remains to be seen, I guess. 60+ CHL teams in Canada haven't slowed the trend, and those are far more accessible locally.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

MLB has the American League and the National League.

I wonder if there is any possibility in the future that the NHL could have a Canadian League and an American League?

A Canadian league would put teams at an even larger disadvantage than they are today, if only because they'd have to soak up smaller markets to make up the difference. Perennial differences in exchange, taxes, weather, and media focus make playing in the US far more tenable than in Canada.

If we all remember why Canadian teams had to relocate in the 90s (small markets, small arenas, unable to keep up with rising salaries and exchange rate) then it's obvious why this idea wouldn't fly, or at least not work out in the way Canadians imagine it would into the future.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Remember, the N in NHL used to refer to Canada.

That damn southern expansion in the 1920s!!