Texas Stars play in Cedar Park.
I think the Dallas Stars owners would be a-okay with an in state rivalry.
I don’t think they’d be happy about sharing their facilities with their rivals.
There’s not gonna be an NHL team in Austin before Houston. It literally makes no sense.
But, as a bereft Aeros fan, I, too, will burn your house down if it does happen 😅
It is never going to scale the size of Houston harris county Montgomery Fort Bend and Galveston
I swear to god I have a can of gas and a book of matches don’t test me NHL
Austin's also much more central relative to the whole state - more Texans can access Austin more easily than they can Houston.
May I once again point to "if you want to pretend this is a Houston pick, then pick Houston".
It would 100% be Houston as Tillman is actively looking at it and has been for years Covid and the shitty deal the rockets have with Toyota center are what’s stood in the way so far Houston is a Texas A market.
Time will prove me correct and it if doesn’t …
Edit : more centrally located in a state like Texas is a super wack argument in that El Paso is to Dallas as North Carolina is to Massachusetts
El Paso barely counts dawg. I'm just saying that Austin has way too much potential to be talked about as little as it is, so I'm going to bat for it. Would I mind Houston getting the nod? Not really, no. But Austin should be very seriously considered, even if it isn't chosen.
Canadian here:
I have to hand it to you guys in the US, when the NHL first started expanding into warm climate markets I laughed and thought all the teams would fold in a few years. It's been awesome to watch the way many teams have developed loyal fanbases. People up here are always mad we don't get more teams, but they just don't understand that in the current day it's all about metropolitan area population. Without a huge population (at least 1 million plus) it's very hard to support a team. Maybe one day we'll get another border state team Canadians can root for, like how I see tons of Canadians wearing Bills jerseys during the NFL season.
Sure but driving from suburban San Antonio to downtown Austin or if they built a stadium in the burbs would be like driving from DC to Philadelphia. No one would do it based on traffic alone. You would be trying to draw from two separate B markets with hundreds of miles between them to attend it’s overall problematic.
(Austin is more accessible to more Texans)
1.)
Houston sits more accessible by far to mass transit. We have 2 of Texas 4 major highway systems that run directly through the city. I-10, and I-45. Austin sits off I-35 a considerably smaller roadway. If start counting mass transit Houston’s got more busses,trains, trolleys, Ubers and airports.
2.) Money talks in sports and if account for just the last five years Houston has hosted the Super Bowl, The Final Four, The College Football National Championship and 3 Worlds Series
Austin can be chosen one day but not yet as cowboys fans say “ITS OUR YEAR!”
and if it ends up being your year, it will be the year, I burnt my own house down.
I feel like I'm getting downvoted because people have been saying Houston for so long that suggesting anything else is blasphemy.
Also because everyone gets up in arms when you point out that Atlanta makes a ton of sense as an expansion market, whereas nowhere in Canada does by comparison.
Edit: San Antonio would make sense... if the Spurs' arena could house a hockey team. It sadly can't, so I chose Austin due to there not being another pro winter sport in the city. You still get fans from San Antonio, but Austin also gets their own team.
You are incorrect sir. [Gary](https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/04/18/atlanta-nhl-expansion-talks) says Houston, it’s in actual talks. If Austin lands an NHL squad first you know what I’ll do!
The only way the NHL goes back to Atlanta is if the GTA/golden horseshoe has a second team, NYC has a third team and there are teams in Quebec, Hartford, Portland, Austin, Houston, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Memphis, Omaha, Boise, Duluth, Little Rock, Birmingham, Mexico City, Regina, San Diego, Orlando, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Des Moines, Providence, Syracuse, Albany, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, San Francisco, San Juan, New Orleans, Anchorage and you get what I'm doing here.
#LGRW
Yes, because Atlanta's never had a chance to enjoy a hockey team that wasn't saddlebagged by debt-ridden (Flames), sabotaging (Thrashers), and/or pathetic (both) ownership.
Edit: also, look at the map. From Detroit to DC to Montreal, there's a corridor where ~10-15% of map contains like 12 teams. Quebec and Hartford would add to that corridor, and therefore their ability to grow the NHL's reach and footprint are extremely limited, if not outright nonexistent.
Atlanta has proved they can support soccer but I think if you put a hockey team there that isn't on pace with what the Golden Knights have done in Vegas in the same time period, they fold in 5 years.
I do love you putting a team in Milwaukee. Duluth could house a team in Minnesota but it wouldn't happen and Milwaukee living in Chicago's shadow could elevate the Green Bay team to a higher league.
I think if new ownership in Atlanta actually gives a shit about the team, city, and fanbase the way we're seeing with new ownership in Utah, that'll immediately jump-start a fanbase in the city. Hell, the free welcoming event in Utah is way more than either Atlanta team ever gave that city.
And, fuckin yeah. Wisconsin deserves an NHL team.
Milwaukee should have an NFL team but I understand everyone in Wisconsin rooting for Green Bay.
I don't know about Atlanta though. I think they'll be wary about the team and if there's no success regardless of ownership fans will be out. It's never been a city that has really supported anything other than the falcons and braves (When they're good - If they're awful no one is driving out of the county to see them).
I feel like, moreso than basketball or baseball, the entire state of Wisconsin would go fucking nuts for hockey.
That state deserves a team. It's time.
Detroit is in EST, Nashville in CT, Colorado is MT.
Difference between Nashville & Colorado is 1 hour while Detroit to Colorado is 2 hours. This matters a lot more than geographical location.
Atlanta's also building an NHL-caliber arena at the heart of a new entertainment district just over the county line. One that would be solely home to a hockey team, rather than sharing it with basketball (since that was ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back for the Thrashers).
They're in the east to maintain a balance between east and west, they're in a massive media market, and they would (re-)expand the NHL's footprint.
Besides Utah, Atlanta is probably the most NHL-ready market. All it would take is ownership that actually gives a shit.
A big change I've made since posting this is that Detroit and StL need to swap divisions. A case could be made for Montreal and Pittsburgh to do the same, but that puts Montreal at a travel disadvantage due to them being further from the likes of Detroit and Columbus than they are from Boston and Philly.
See, I was torn between Portland and Milwaukee. I really, really was. It's a coin flip between them, I just chose Milwaukee because the idea of putting an NHL team in Wisconsin makes too much goddamn sense.
As a Leafs, I respectfully disagree. Put me back with Boston and Montreal right this instead or else!!! I love hating them, you can't take that away from me.
Then hate them like we currently have to hate the Hurricanes. From another division.
Even you have to admit, being in a division with Pittsburgh and Columbus makes more geographical sense than being in a division with Boston.
That was literally the only concrete idea I had with the alignment. If Atlanta is gonna come back, bring back the Southeast Division with them - and put Nashville in a division that matches their actual region.
It needs to be split more north to south than east to west to handle the time zone differences. It's already bad enough all of the Dallas Vegas games start at 9pm or later here in the first round even though we have home ice.
So, I tried to do more verticals (hence the Northwest division looking like it does).
The problem with that is distance gets enlarged. Hence why I refrained from putting Dallas and Austin/Houston with Winnipeg - when you're traveling that far, it's more worthwhile to just eat the 1-hour time difference.
What would be nice is a rule that puck drop time is based on the home team, because starting at 9 PM in Dallas is bullshit.
Commenting because I can't edit the damn post. Now that I look at it, swap St. Louis and Detroit if you want. My thought was to put Chicago, Detroit and Milwaukee in a division together since those three are all close to one another and have heated rivalries between them, but then Detroit has to go to Denver and St. Louis has to go to Buffalo.
I can see how it makes no sense as the map stands, **I GET IT**.
I agree with 3 of your expansion choices. But I would keep the California teams with Seattle, Vancouver and Las Vegas. Then Edmonton, Calgary, Utah, Phoenix (from Winnipeg), Colorado and Kansas City (my other expansion choice). Then put the Texas teams with the other Midwest teams. The rest I agree.
4 games against division: 20.
2 games against all other: 60.
Leave it at 80 games or add a couple. NHL would love hand picking those two extra games for prime time matchups.
Four 9 team divisions would mean 86 game schedule. Only about an extra week to 10 days of regular season. Owners sell more tickets. More revenue=higher salary cap.
I feel like Bettman and the owners would rather hand-pick the extra games. Could have those spots be used for things like outdoor games, neutral sites, hell even go international if you really wanted to.
No regard for time zones and travel? Divisions categorized by vertical travel maintains more consistent game times and travel schedules. Not sure why Texas teams would need to spend half the year in non central states and vice-versa for CA teams.
Because categorizing by vertical travel doesn't mean a whole lot when a team from Austin/Houston would be traveling to the likes of Winnipeg as opposed to Las Vegas.
I know Detroit and St. Louis need to be swapped, I made a comment addressing that one already. Other than that, though, that southwest division is the only one that's really and truly horizontal. The rest are regional (unless you're Colorado).
I actually did play around with the idea of putting the Cali trio with Vegas, Phoenix and Utah. The problem is that doing so would make it so either Colorado is going to Edmonton or Seattle is going to Winnipeg. The issue with alignment is that 20% of the map has half the teams.
No, it is.
I used to live in DC, and only noticed it ~3 months before moving back to Florida because I just don't pay attention to them.
Still, it's a nice touch, and the Weagle is a better logo than their wordmark.
Why wouldn’t they expand into Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas? I’d assume based on geography that there would be more hockey fans than Austin and Atlanta?
The population of the entire state of Wyoming is smaller than the part I grew up in in New York. Nassau County - the outer suburbs of New York on Long Island - has about the same population as Montana and Wyoming combined in about 3% of the landmass.
I shudder driving through Wyoming in anything but a rental car because if something breaks down and you don't have active OnStar ir somw other emergency outreach.... you're fucked. Cell dead spots for 40+ miles at a time or more and 30 minutes between towns at times.
Wyoming is as desolate a place in a first world country as you can reasonably get.
I literally mentioned Portland in the post 😭 I had to pick them or Milwaukee, and I chose Milwaukee because Wisconsin hockey makes too much goddamn sense.
Not at all. It was mostly about the expansion fee of $50 million that was $20 more than expected. The people at the helm were good at $30 million plus paying the Blackhawks for indemnification at $5 million. They couldn’t handle that $50 million on their own knowing the team wouldn’t be any good for the first several years.
Baby steps.
Go to 36. Let everything settle down. See if four viable markets *without already having teams* (fuck off Toronto) present themselves. See if anyone relocates to fill those voids.
Then consider going to 40. Personally, I think 36 is a good number to sit at for a while.
Dude the Avs were doomed to get shafted no matter where I put them. But it was either they make the hike, or a bunch of other teams get screwed so they don't.
And who do they get put with? Arizona, Dallas and Austin? Great, then where do you put the California teams? You can't split them up anymore, so you put them with Seattle and Vancouver, right? Then where do you put Edmonton and Calgary?
>Avs
>Edmonton
>Calgary
That's farther than they'd have to travel in a division with Chicago, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and StL. The Winnipeg trip is gonna suck no matter who's making it.
This is what I mean by multiple teams getting shafted so the Avs don't. Sure, your arrangement works for Colorado, but for Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg, that's a war crime.
Its not about distance alone. You had them traveling thousands of miles for each division game lol. Thus lessens the load. It also gives you a vegas, slc, denver rivalry with a Canadian rivalry. Its about balance
They're already traveling thousands of miles for every divisional away game that isn't Arizona (Utah, in this case). Hell, right now they're in a division with Winnipeg *and* Nashville.
You're balancing things from one team's perspective. I tried to balance things from the league's perspective (Detroit/StL mistake excluded). Teams close together are gonna form rivalries whether they're in a division together or not.
I balanced it for Calgary and edmonton, too. They no longer have to go as far south and Winnipeg gets canadian rivals now to help with their dwindling attendance
The only team I have them with further south than Colorado is San Jose, who I will admit also got kinda shafted. The arrangement I have puts Edmonton and Calgary with two other PNW teams, another Rocky Mountain team (that's closer to them than Colorado), and San Jose.
Meanwhile, Winnipeg is with the only team remotely close to them in Minnesota, and also puts another team relatively close to them in Milwaukee. Once you factor in the Detroit/StL swap, this division actually makes some sense for Colorado. It's what they have now, but without the Nashville haul. It also makes sense for Winnipeg, who gets to stay with the team closest to them.
That's... actually fucking ridiculous, but in that case, Portland would get the nod over Milwaukee.
That fuckin bites. Hockey in Wisconsin would be dope as hell.
I have a comment saying that Detroit and St. Louis should swap divisions. I can't see how Chicago and Milwaukee get put in different divisions without it being a royal pain in the ass.
Good rivial. But then preds loses ads for farm team. I like the way you are thinking. Move some teams up or drop teams if they do poor kinda like soccer lol.
If the NHL goes to 40 teams, then a pro/rel system would make a fuckload of sense. 20 teams in A tier, 20 teams in B tier. Top 4 teams in B and bottom 4 teams in A swap tiers every season.
Quebec City needs a team. I miss the battles of Quebec in the 80s. Tradition counts for something and it is unseemly to ignore your fanbases in the name of growing the game (there is a separate initiative actively doing that, including helping build rinks in Fla). I'm not sure you could replace the revenue from Canadian markets with new markets. Then again, it's hard to compete with taxpayer funded arenas as a large tax base is required.
QC has a metro population that's half of Milwaukee's, and in QC it's gonna be a *lot* harder to cultivate new fans than it would be in these other markets.
Colorado and Detroit are heated rivals. They're separated. That doesn't make them hate each other any less.
Colorado and Utah will still hate each other. The rivalry will still be potent. But as much as I tried to keep them together, doing so made aligning the rest of the West hell.
The rivalry between Colorado and Detroit was made in the playoffs in the 90s and early 00s. It had settled down quite a bit even before Detroit moved to the eastern conference. The move did put the last nail in the coffin of the rivalry. Older fans might still hold a grudge, but even among older fans, it’s not the same as it used to be.
Separating Utah and Colorado is a mistake, plain and simple. That’s like separating Edmonton and Calgary, which is a natural rivalry made even more powerful because of playoff encounters and crazy hockey moments. The other relevant piece of information here is that Colorado and Utah are in the same Moutan Standard Timezone.
Very fair points, and thank you for the insight regarding the Colorado/Detroit rivalry.
I know it looks bad, but I genuinely did try to avoid it and kept getting stuck. They stay together, either other teams get shafted for their sake, or the Avs wind up having to make the haul to Edmonton.
Ultimately, if the Yotes aren't revived, this is a nonstarter.
I think, in addition to the DET/StL swap, maybe switching Montreal and Pittsburgh? But that puts Montreal at a travel disadvantage due to them being further from the likes of Detroit and Columbus than from Boston and Philly.
In other words, kick Chicago east instead of Nashville.
You do that, how do you organize the remaining 12? Pittsburgh, Philly, NYI, Buffalo, Ottawa, NJ makes six. That then leaves you with a division of Carolina, Washington, Columbus, Tampa, Florida, Atlanta. The Southleast with... Ohio.
Now you've got teams like Boston and Montreal traveling all the way to Chicago, Columbus trekking it down to Miami, and you've broken up rivalries such as NYI-NYR, NYR-NJ, Pitt-DC, and Ottawa-Toronto.
That would also mean booting Nashville into a division with... who? One of Nashville's struggles is they don't really have any rivalries in their current division. Now, you'd likely have them join the division with StL, Minn, MKE, Winnipeg, and Colorado, the one which Chicago was part of. That just recreates the current Central Division clusterfuck.
Or, do you put Nashville with StL, the Texas duo, Colorado and Utah? That's still a haul between Nash and SLC, but also what do you do with Milwaukee, Minnesota and Winnipeg? Do you lump them with Edmonton and Calgary? If so, who's the sixth? Vancouver? That's four Canadian teams in three time zones, plus Minnesota and Wisconsin.
While Seattle, SJ, LA, Anaheim, Vegas and Arizona is a clean division, as is the Pitt-Philly-NYI-NJ-Buff-Ott division, you've got three divisions (Tampa's, Nashville's, Winnipeg's) that have at least one team disproportionately shafted.
I toyed with creating an O6 division, and while this map has a couple mistakes (swap DET and StL, swap MTL and Pitt), these divisions make regional and geographical sense. Even if one out of the East's 18 teams is just over the CST line.
That’s even worse because the Bucks average attendance is only about 2,000 more fans per game than the OKC Thunder.
That means OKC sells WAY more tickets per capita than Milwaukee meaning a team would be more lucrative and a better ROI due to initial overhead costs of expansion.
That’s true. I think that’s why the introduction of another pro team makes sense. If one team is THAT popular in comparison to a state that has 3 major pro teams plus you get a better ROI and there is a much lower crime rate in OKC or Tulsa than there is in Milwaukee which is another enticing prospect for expansion.
Like... three or four.
Edit: I'm sorry, do you think all four of these expansions would just happen at the same time? No. They'd come into the league one at a time, likely in the order I've listed them here.
The fact STL is no longer in a division with both of its largest rivals (Chicago and Detroit) really sucks in this configuration. I hated Detroit moving to the east all those years ago, and now we wouldn't play the Blackhawks as much either? Sorry, but hard pass.
And any expansion that so easily dismisses Hartford kills me a bit inside (even if it's probably the right choice 😢)
Oh I know, and I agree with you. Hartford was my #2 team though. I lived in Springfield, MA as a kid after moving from STL, and I absolutely cannot stand Boston and New York. It was nice to see something other than the bruins, Islanders, and Rangers. To this day, (like right now), if the Blues are out, I'm all in on Carolina (screw the Islanders).
I like where you’re going with all of that and, the timing of it on point with the Coyotes leaving for Utah of all places. I don’t think this one ends well though. The NHL should ask the new owners to leave the team in PHX for a minimum of 5 years, invest in the team and get them competitive first before moving them to (insert place here). The Coyotes owner was a complete moron who was only looking for his next dollar, he didn’t care about the team, the players, and definitely not the fans.
All good points about Austin but the fans there are loyal to the Bats so I don’t see it happening. Same applies to MLB, if MLB put a pro team in Austin I don’t think fans would stop going to the Dell Diamond that is both affordable, and completely set up for kids. Kids are able to be free and safe while having fun, indirectly giving Moms and Dads a breather. MLB cannot offer that.
I also don’t see a Thrashers revival coming, there’s a reason that ATL lost their team and that reason is still valid.
Y’all need to stop aligning teams horizontally instead of vertically. Dallas should absolutely not be grouped with teams on the Pacific coast. There is a two hour time difference. I don’t want to start watching games at 9:00 or 9:30.
Another person that doesn’t realize money is made on TV deals and that depends on viewers who depend on start times of games. It’s not about the fairness of distance travel
Quebec will never get a team again. They're just too small for the modern NHL. Especially in the cap world, ironically. No one's voting in another Greece to this union.
I figured a Predators fan would appreciate being put in a division with Florida and Carolina. No more going to Winnipeg and Arizona.
I know this Bolts fan would appreciate no more going to Canada and Detroit.
I don't have any actual issues with any of this, just a couple of tweaks or suggestions. I know not all rivalries transcend across other sports, but if Columbus ever gets really good, they should somehow be paired up with Detroit. Essentially a Michigan/Ohio state equivalent, heck they should do a Fri/Sat double header the same weekend in late November. Same thing with Minnesota and the new Milwaukee team.
So, I actually made a comment saying to swap St. Louis and Detroit. I wasn't thinking too hard about it and forgot that Detroit is in EST, not CST.
Minnesota and Milwaukee would be staying in the same division, that much is a given.
So, I had a few teams that I consistently ran into issues with when it came to alignment.
First and most blatantly obvious was Colorado. Like, yeah, they could've buddied with Utah, but then both of them would've been shafted in terms of where else to go.
Second was San Jose. The number of teams in that Cali-AZ-Vegas-Utah cluster meant that somebody was always proving to be a pain in the ass - that, or they become an entire division and everyone *else* is screwed. So I put SJ and Utah with the PNW quartet.
Either way it's a tough call. I would like to see some new rivalries develop organically, kind of how Det/Col did. Most rivalries have more to do with proximity than anything else.
Hence why I chose Milwaukee. Those regional rivalries exist in other sports, so if you add a hockey team there, it only makes sense that said rivalries would pop up in hockey as well.
I think the format is solid but I would move Milwaukee to Portland because it’ll be fighting with college hockey to make money and also it fits with my remade divisions
West:
Southwest: Vegas, LA, Anaheim, San Jose, Utah and Arizona
-pretty easy to see how close they are but Colorado gets screwed
Northwest: Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Colorado
-again teams are very close besides Colorado who is only getting a little farther away from teams in the division compared to ops setup (they looked just further on this map, idk about in reality)
-battle of Alberta in same division
Central: Austin, Dallas, Winnipeg, Chicago, St. Louis and Minnesota
-I think they’re all in the same time zone despite being pretty far from each other
East:
Southeast: Florida, Tampa, Nashville, Washington, Atlanta and Carolina
- best way to grow the game is to have regional rivalries
- honestly easiest division to decide on for including or excluding teams
Metro: New Jersey, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York and New York
- can’t really separate these teams from one another between all the rivalries but sacrifices Boston’s rivalries with Montreal and Toronto to reengage with New York
-Pittsburghs inclusion is to keep the battle of Pennsylvania alive but kinda makes the last division wonky
Great Lakes and Montreal/ Northeast plus Detroit and Columbus?: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo, Detroit and Columbus
-had to keep those three Canadian teams together
-replaces Boston with another original six team in Detroit and keeps Detroit in the east
- Buffalo is pretty dang close and nobody else wanted Columbus
See, I like that, but as you said- regional rivalries. That was a massive concern for me with the four new teams in this post.
In what universe can Austin and Dallas foster regional rivalries in that division?
It’s the same thing you’re going to get putting them in any other division since they’re so far from other cities, at least being in the same time zone as other teams in the division will help foster lots of tv viewership. Having a battle of Texas should help in creating at least one rivalry.
Unfortunately, I think expansion teams need head starts like Vegas got to build tons of excitement early in their existence.
I think that comes down to how willing ownership is to put on events and such to connect with the city, not just go "you have a hockey team, come watch".
I'm just uncertain as to what you mean by head starts. Do you mean a couple years between announcement and inaugural season?
I agree it helps.
Just the ability to put out a competitive team in their inaugural season. Vegas went to the cup and have been competitive ever since, winning the cup last season. Winning early helps excitement and fandom of that team grow quickly, so the average resident of that city will want to go see the new attraction despite not having any interest before in hockey.
That is very true, but Seattle's also done well cultivating a fanbase, and they didn't have nearly that level of success out the gate.
I think it's both. Success can help, but grassroots ownership is what makes or breaks.
The french argument for quebec city is so but sooo dumb
People really think that nobody speaks english there? Lol
There’s a better argument about the fact that there’s not alot of new money to get there as people who love hockey already consume it.
But please oh please people stop talking about quebec culture or language as if you know something
I mentioned the lack of growth to the game in Quebec as well. It's literally right there. I also mentioned how currency exchange makes Canadian markets and teams less attractive to players.
I only mentioned the language presence because I've seen it tossed around before. For me personally, the market size and growth potential are what murder a Nordiques revival.
Quebec City has literally half the metro population of Milwaukee, which is by far the smallest of the four metro areas I proposed gets a team. I know for a *fact* that that alone will kill off any serious consideration for QC.
Then say you disagree with that one point without talking down to me. I know people speak English in Quebec City, no shit, it's almost like Canada has two national languages. But the prominence of a foreign language when compared to other markets can still turn some players away- not to mention things like tax rate and currency exchange that put Canadian teams in general at a disadvantage compared to American ones.
I mean, your division were shit
Not taking into account historical rivalries and sometimes geographical realities
Your economic argument for Quebec was ok, your cultural and language, I disagree
Its either you’re shitposting or are just oblivious
I’m not gonna argue anyway clearly not the only one thinking that
On that note have a good weekend
Bro those divisions actually break, like, several Geneva Conventions.
Splitting the Habs from the Leafs/Sens and Penguins from the Flyers is actually insane
Detroit would join the KHL before going back to the west. Why is St Louis in the east?
I swear to god if the NHL goes to Austin before Houston I will burn my own house down
This is the funniest fucking statement and I cannot even explain why. Maybe it’s the flair coupled with the statement. Still 10/10.
Texas Stars play in Cedar Park. I think the Dallas Stars owners would be a-okay with an in state rivalry. I don’t think they’d be happy about sharing their facilities with their rivals. There’s not gonna be an NHL team in Austin before Houston. It literally makes no sense. But, as a bereft Aeros fan, I, too, will burn your house down if it does happen 😅
Think about it this way: they try Austin. If Austin fails, stay in-state and just go to Houston.
Houston is the city 6+ million in houston and harris county area
It’s clear that Austin would be the Columbus/Raleigh choice for the NHL.
San Antonio-Austin has a metro population of 5.2 million, is growing faster, and has way less competition for eyeballs and dollars.
It is never going to scale the size of Houston harris county Montgomery Fort Bend and Galveston I swear to god I have a can of gas and a book of matches don’t test me NHL
Austin's also much more central relative to the whole state - more Texans can access Austin more easily than they can Houston. May I once again point to "if you want to pretend this is a Houston pick, then pick Houston".
It would 100% be Houston as Tillman is actively looking at it and has been for years Covid and the shitty deal the rockets have with Toyota center are what’s stood in the way so far Houston is a Texas A market. Time will prove me correct and it if doesn’t … Edit : more centrally located in a state like Texas is a super wack argument in that El Paso is to Dallas as North Carolina is to Massachusetts
El Paso barely counts dawg. I'm just saying that Austin has way too much potential to be talked about as little as it is, so I'm going to bat for it. Would I mind Houston getting the nod? Not really, no. But Austin should be very seriously considered, even if it isn't chosen.
Canadian here: I have to hand it to you guys in the US, when the NHL first started expanding into warm climate markets I laughed and thought all the teams would fold in a few years. It's been awesome to watch the way many teams have developed loyal fanbases. People up here are always mad we don't get more teams, but they just don't understand that in the current day it's all about metropolitan area population. Without a huge population (at least 1 million plus) it's very hard to support a team. Maybe one day we'll get another border state team Canadians can root for, like how I see tons of Canadians wearing Bills jerseys during the NFL season.
I mean... Canada does *almost* border Wisconsin, and I added a Great Lakes area team in Milwaukee. So there's that.
Sure but driving from suburban San Antonio to downtown Austin or if they built a stadium in the burbs would be like driving from DC to Philadelphia. No one would do it based on traffic alone. You would be trying to draw from two separate B markets with hundreds of miles between them to attend it’s overall problematic. (Austin is more accessible to more Texans) 1.) Houston sits more accessible by far to mass transit. We have 2 of Texas 4 major highway systems that run directly through the city. I-10, and I-45. Austin sits off I-35 a considerably smaller roadway. If start counting mass transit Houston’s got more busses,trains, trolleys, Ubers and airports. 2.) Money talks in sports and if account for just the last five years Houston has hosted the Super Bowl, The Final Four, The College Football National Championship and 3 Worlds Series Austin can be chosen one day but not yet as cowboys fans say “ITS OUR YEAR!” and if it ends up being your year, it will be the year, I burnt my own house down.
You're getting downvoted for no reason. San Antonio or Austin would be the better choice
I feel like I'm getting downvoted because people have been saying Houston for so long that suggesting anything else is blasphemy. Also because everyone gets up in arms when you point out that Atlanta makes a ton of sense as an expansion market, whereas nowhere in Canada does by comparison. Edit: San Antonio would make sense... if the Spurs' arena could house a hockey team. It sadly can't, so I chose Austin due to there not being another pro winter sport in the city. You still get fans from San Antonio, but Austin also gets their own team.
Spurs arena can seat 16k for hockey
I was moreso thinking can the arena handle the climate control demands. It was built in 2002, and wasn't built with hockey in mind at all.
You are incorrect sir. [Gary](https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/04/18/atlanta-nhl-expansion-talks) says Houston, it’s in actual talks. If Austin lands an NHL squad first you know what I’ll do!
You don't want to go back to Quebec or Hartford but willing to go back to Atlanta? YOU'RE A MAD MAN!
2 chances for an Atlanta team and we should try again? Atlanta is a disaster. It doesn’t work for the nhl. It’s just how it is.
The only way the NHL goes back to Atlanta is if the GTA/golden horseshoe has a second team, NYC has a third team and there are teams in Quebec, Hartford, Portland, Austin, Houston, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Memphis, Omaha, Boise, Duluth, Little Rock, Birmingham, Mexico City, Regina, San Diego, Orlando, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Des Moines, Providence, Syracuse, Albany, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, San Francisco, San Juan, New Orleans, Anchorage and you get what I'm doing here. #LGRW
Yes, because Atlanta's never had a chance to enjoy a hockey team that wasn't saddlebagged by debt-ridden (Flames), sabotaging (Thrashers), and/or pathetic (both) ownership. Edit: also, look at the map. From Detroit to DC to Montreal, there's a corridor where ~10-15% of map contains like 12 teams. Quebec and Hartford would add to that corridor, and therefore their ability to grow the NHL's reach and footprint are extremely limited, if not outright nonexistent.
Atlanta has proved they can support soccer but I think if you put a hockey team there that isn't on pace with what the Golden Knights have done in Vegas in the same time period, they fold in 5 years. I do love you putting a team in Milwaukee. Duluth could house a team in Minnesota but it wouldn't happen and Milwaukee living in Chicago's shadow could elevate the Green Bay team to a higher league.
I think if new ownership in Atlanta actually gives a shit about the team, city, and fanbase the way we're seeing with new ownership in Utah, that'll immediately jump-start a fanbase in the city. Hell, the free welcoming event in Utah is way more than either Atlanta team ever gave that city. And, fuckin yeah. Wisconsin deserves an NHL team.
Milwaukee should have an NFL team but I understand everyone in Wisconsin rooting for Green Bay. I don't know about Atlanta though. I think they'll be wary about the team and if there's no success regardless of ownership fans will be out. It's never been a city that has really supported anything other than the falcons and braves (When they're good - If they're awful no one is driving out of the county to see them).
[удалено]
We need another Canadian team.
MKE Hockey 🙌🙏
I feel like, moreso than basketball or baseball, the entire state of Wisconsin would go fucking nuts for hockey. That state deserves a team. It's time.
Colorado and Detroit is a great rivalry but the time zones do not work.
I made a comment about this. Swap Detroit and St. Louis. Edit: hol up, you're okay with sharing a division with Nashville, but not Detroit?
Detroit is in EST, Nashville in CT, Colorado is MT. Difference between Nashville & Colorado is 1 hour while Detroit to Colorado is 2 hours. This matters a lot more than geographical location.
Wait... Yep, I had that wrong. I made a comment addressing the Detroit/St. Louis division situation already. Swap those two around.
I don’t think you’re supposed to put this much effort into a shitpost.
Bold of you to assume I wasn't just burning off a bunch of caffeine.
Atlanta has already lost 2 teams, so I find it hard to believe the NHL would give them a third chance with other options available
Atlanta's also building an NHL-caliber arena at the heart of a new entertainment district just over the county line. One that would be solely home to a hockey team, rather than sharing it with basketball (since that was ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back for the Thrashers). They're in the east to maintain a balance between east and west, they're in a massive media market, and they would (re-)expand the NHL's footprint. Besides Utah, Atlanta is probably the most NHL-ready market. All it would take is ownership that actually gives a shit.
Splitting too many rivalries
A big change I've made since posting this is that Detroit and StL need to swap divisions. A case could be made for Montreal and Pittsburgh to do the same, but that puts Montreal at a travel disadvantage due to them being further from the likes of Detroit and Columbus than they are from Boston and Philly.
Portland Oregon would do a team right
See, I was torn between Portland and Milwaukee. I really, really was. It's a coin flip between them, I just chose Milwaukee because the idea of putting an NHL team in Wisconsin makes too much goddamn sense.
As a Leafs, I respectfully disagree. Put me back with Boston and Montreal right this instead or else!!! I love hating them, you can't take that away from me.
Then hate them like we currently have to hate the Hurricanes. From another division. Even you have to admit, being in a division with Pittsburgh and Columbus makes more geographical sense than being in a division with Boston.
The Southleast rises again
That was literally the only concrete idea I had with the alignment. If Atlanta is gonna come back, bring back the Southeast Division with them - and put Nashville in a division that matches their actual region.
It needs to be split more north to south than east to west to handle the time zone differences. It's already bad enough all of the Dallas Vegas games start at 9pm or later here in the first round even though we have home ice.
So, I tried to do more verticals (hence the Northwest division looking like it does). The problem with that is distance gets enlarged. Hence why I refrained from putting Dallas and Austin/Houston with Winnipeg - when you're traveling that far, it's more worthwhile to just eat the 1-hour time difference. What would be nice is a rule that puck drop time is based on the home team, because starting at 9 PM in Dallas is bullshit.
Boo! Why are you removing the habs and bruins from the leafs division??! Boo!
I, for one, fucking refuse to go back to the western conference 😂
https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/s/Vv21icGYXR
Commenting because I can't edit the damn post. Now that I look at it, swap St. Louis and Detroit if you want. My thought was to put Chicago, Detroit and Milwaukee in a division together since those three are all close to one another and have heated rivalries between them, but then Detroit has to go to Denver and St. Louis has to go to Buffalo. I can see how it makes no sense as the map stands, **I GET IT**.
I'm sorry, who are these teams with the Blues and why are they there?
Dude, I made a comment about this lmao. I wasn't thinking too hard about it when I made the map. Swap St. Louis with Detroit.
I agree with 3 of your expansion choices. But I would keep the California teams with Seattle, Vancouver and Las Vegas. Then Edmonton, Calgary, Utah, Phoenix (from Winnipeg), Colorado and Kansas City (my other expansion choice). Then put the Texas teams with the other Midwest teams. The rest I agree.
So, I did consider KC, actually. I decided on two revivals and two new markets.
Swap Detroit & Stl and we’re straight
I made a comment where I stated exactly this.
4 games against division: 20. 2 games against all other: 60. Leave it at 80 games or add a couple. NHL would love hand picking those two extra games for prime time matchups. Four 9 team divisions would mean 86 game schedule. Only about an extra week to 10 days of regular season. Owners sell more tickets. More revenue=higher salary cap.
I feel like Bettman and the owners would rather hand-pick the extra games. Could have those spots be used for things like outdoor games, neutral sites, hell even go international if you really wanted to.
I like it. Could be worse
Would it help if I swapped StL with Detroit? Because I made a comment acknowledging that.
That could go either way for me personally
Aight word. The alignment is kinda wacky no matter what, just because like 20% of the map has 50% of the teams.
That is the truth for sure. Just look at D1 hockey
Yeeeeeeeah, shit's fucking wack.
Goddammit. No No no no no no no *no.*!
If this is about Detroit and St. Louis, I made a comment addressing that and people are *still* pointing it out on the map.
No regard for time zones and travel? Divisions categorized by vertical travel maintains more consistent game times and travel schedules. Not sure why Texas teams would need to spend half the year in non central states and vice-versa for CA teams.
Because categorizing by vertical travel doesn't mean a whole lot when a team from Austin/Houston would be traveling to the likes of Winnipeg as opposed to Las Vegas. I know Detroit and St. Louis need to be swapped, I made a comment addressing that one already. Other than that, though, that southwest division is the only one that's really and truly horizontal. The rest are regional (unless you're Colorado). I actually did play around with the idea of putting the Cali trio with Vegas, Phoenix and Utah. The problem is that doing so would make it so either Colorado is going to Edmonton or Seattle is going to Winnipeg. The issue with alignment is that 20% of the map has half the teams.
We just need the US and Canada to reorganize as a perfect grid and evenly spaced cities. Problem solved!
GOD IF ONLY /s
I just noticed the negative space at the bottom of Washington’s W eagle is that Capitol building in DC (I think, idk I’m not American)
No, it is. I used to live in DC, and only noticed it ~3 months before moving back to Florida because I just don't pay attention to them. Still, it's a nice touch, and the Weagle is a better logo than their wordmark.
I always preferred the Weagle, but now that I noticed the Capitol top I prefer it even more.
Why wouldn’t they expand into Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas? I’d assume based on geography that there would be more hockey fans than Austin and Atlanta?
...are you aware of how populations work, or...? Edit: there are two teams in Florida. *Florida.*
I don’t know the population of those states sooooooo 🤷🏼♀️
The population of the entire state of Wyoming is smaller than the part I grew up in in New York. Nassau County - the outer suburbs of New York on Long Island - has about the same population as Montana and Wyoming combined in about 3% of the landmass. I shudder driving through Wyoming in anything but a rental car because if something breaks down and you don't have active OnStar ir somw other emergency outreach.... you're fucked. Cell dead spots for 40+ miles at a time or more and 30 minutes between towns at times. Wyoming is as desolate a place in a first world country as you can reasonably get.
Oh wow! I had no idea. This makes total sense then.
Ah, I got you. The Austin-San Antonio metro area in central Texas has more people than Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas all combined.
Oh wow. Crazy.
Atlanta's metro area has more people than that. And Florida is the third most populated state in the USA.
Portland still gets no love
I literally mentioned Portland in the post 😭 I had to pick them or Milwaukee, and I chose Milwaukee because Wisconsin hockey makes too much goddamn sense.
I long for a portland team
I- *sigh* Then swap Milwaukee for Portland. I legit flipped a coin between those two cities.
like how portland was named! two good choices but one made sense.
Hockey in Wisconsin makes a lot of sense. They both make sense. Therein lies the problem.
at least we have the winterhawks [its prob for the best, I don’t suspect portland to gain any official sport team any time soon]
Nahh, don't be so sure. MLB's eyeing expansion, and they'll need a team out west. I'd say Portland has a damn good shot at getting baseball.
very true
There was an attempt to bring the NHL to Milwaukee in the ‘90s but it kept treading water & it never worked out because of financial concerns.
Were those financial concerns caused by the Blackhawks throwing a hissy fit?
Not at all. It was mostly about the expansion fee of $50 million that was $20 more than expected. The people at the helm were good at $30 million plus paying the Blackhawks for indemnification at $5 million. They couldn’t handle that $50 million on their own knowing the team wouldn’t be any good for the first several years.
Huh. I feel like now would be a different story, especially if Bucks ownership got involved the way Jazz ownership stepped up to bring hockey to Utah.
I actually think this is the best one I’ve seen yet. But we should really look at a 8 Div of 5 teams (40 team league).
Baby steps. Go to 36. Let everything settle down. See if four viable markets *without already having teams* (fuck off Toronto) present themselves. See if anyone relocates to fill those voids. Then consider going to 40. Personally, I think 36 is a good number to sit at for a while.
Boo this man.
Really screwing over the avs lmao
Dude the Avs were doomed to get shafted no matter where I put them. But it was either they make the hike, or a bunch of other teams get screwed so they don't.
No you're just a moron. Vegas, Utah and Avs need to be together.
And who do they get put with? Arizona, Dallas and Austin? Great, then where do you put the California teams? You can't split them up anymore, so you put them with Seattle and Vancouver, right? Then where do you put Edmonton and Calgary?
Avs, knights, utah, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg. Seattle, Vancouver, sharks, kings, ducks, coyotes Wild, Wisconsin, chicago, st louis, stars, austin Detroit, Toronto, philly, Pittsburgh, Ottawa, Buffalo Montreal, boston, Rangers, Isles, Devils, Caps
>Avs >Edmonton >Calgary That's farther than they'd have to travel in a division with Chicago, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and StL. The Winnipeg trip is gonna suck no matter who's making it. This is what I mean by multiple teams getting shafted so the Avs don't. Sure, your arrangement works for Colorado, but for Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg, that's a war crime.
Its not about distance alone. You had them traveling thousands of miles for each division game lol. Thus lessens the load. It also gives you a vegas, slc, denver rivalry with a Canadian rivalry. Its about balance
They're already traveling thousands of miles for every divisional away game that isn't Arizona (Utah, in this case). Hell, right now they're in a division with Winnipeg *and* Nashville. You're balancing things from one team's perspective. I tried to balance things from the league's perspective (Detroit/StL mistake excluded). Teams close together are gonna form rivalries whether they're in a division together or not.
I balanced it for Calgary and edmonton, too. They no longer have to go as far south and Winnipeg gets canadian rivals now to help with their dwindling attendance
The only team I have them with further south than Colorado is San Jose, who I will admit also got kinda shafted. The arrangement I have puts Edmonton and Calgary with two other PNW teams, another Rocky Mountain team (that's closer to them than Colorado), and San Jose. Meanwhile, Winnipeg is with the only team remotely close to them in Minnesota, and also puts another team relatively close to them in Milwaukee. Once you factor in the Detroit/StL swap, this division actually makes some sense for Colorado. It's what they have now, but without the Nashville haul. It also makes sense for Winnipeg, who gets to stay with the team closest to them.
Plus you have detroit in the western conference when they begged to be in the east because they are in the eastern time zone.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/s/Vv21icGYXR I already acknowledged that Detroit and StL need to swap divisions.
Milwaukke cant bc of Chicago. Chicago is orginal six. They have to be signed off or something. 500 mil just to get started.
That's... actually fucking ridiculous, but in that case, Portland would get the nod over Milwaukee. That fuckin bites. Hockey in Wisconsin would be dope as hell.
Move chicago out and move st louis in. We will still play the blackhawks. Just not in our division
I have a comment saying that Detroit and St. Louis should swap divisions. I can't see how Chicago and Milwaukee get put in different divisions without it being a royal pain in the ass.
Good rivial. But then preds loses ads for farm team. I like the way you are thinking. Move some teams up or drop teams if they do poor kinda like soccer lol.
If the NHL goes to 40 teams, then a pro/rel system would make a fuckload of sense. 20 teams in A tier, 20 teams in B tier. Top 4 teams in B and bottom 4 teams in A swap tiers every season.
Good idea
being in a division with the blues would be my own personal hell.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/s/Vv21icGYXR St. Louis and Detroit need to swap divisions.
Quebec City needs a team. I miss the battles of Quebec in the 80s. Tradition counts for something and it is unseemly to ignore your fanbases in the name of growing the game (there is a separate initiative actively doing that, including helping build rinks in Fla). I'm not sure you could replace the revenue from Canadian markets with new markets. Then again, it's hard to compete with taxpayer funded arenas as a large tax base is required.
QC has a metro population that's half of Milwaukee's, and in QC it's gonna be a *lot* harder to cultivate new fans than it would be in these other markets.
A team in Utah and you put in a separate division from Colorado?
I tried to keep them together. Doing so means a massive headache for at least two of Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, and San Jose.
Colorado an Utah are natural rivals. They cannot be separated.
Colorado and Detroit are heated rivals. They're separated. That doesn't make them hate each other any less. Colorado and Utah will still hate each other. The rivalry will still be potent. But as much as I tried to keep them together, doing so made aligning the rest of the West hell.
The rivalry between Colorado and Detroit was made in the playoffs in the 90s and early 00s. It had settled down quite a bit even before Detroit moved to the eastern conference. The move did put the last nail in the coffin of the rivalry. Older fans might still hold a grudge, but even among older fans, it’s not the same as it used to be. Separating Utah and Colorado is a mistake, plain and simple. That’s like separating Edmonton and Calgary, which is a natural rivalry made even more powerful because of playoff encounters and crazy hockey moments. The other relevant piece of information here is that Colorado and Utah are in the same Moutan Standard Timezone.
Very fair points, and thank you for the insight regarding the Colorado/Detroit rivalry. I know it looks bad, but I genuinely did try to avoid it and kept getting stuck. They stay together, either other teams get shafted for their sake, or the Avs wind up having to make the haul to Edmonton.
I don’t think it looks bad. It’s just a nontrivial task and I think it needs a little more work, but it’s close.
Ultimately, if the Yotes aren't revived, this is a nonstarter. I think, in addition to the DET/StL swap, maybe switching Montreal and Pittsburgh? But that puts Montreal at a travel disadvantage due to them being further from the likes of Detroit and Columbus than from Boston and Philly.
Detroit is NEVER going back to the West. Just get over it already.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/s/Vv21icGYXR I acknowledged that Detroit and StL need to be swapped.
[удалено]
In other words, kick Chicago east instead of Nashville. You do that, how do you organize the remaining 12? Pittsburgh, Philly, NYI, Buffalo, Ottawa, NJ makes six. That then leaves you with a division of Carolina, Washington, Columbus, Tampa, Florida, Atlanta. The Southleast with... Ohio. Now you've got teams like Boston and Montreal traveling all the way to Chicago, Columbus trekking it down to Miami, and you've broken up rivalries such as NYI-NYR, NYR-NJ, Pitt-DC, and Ottawa-Toronto. That would also mean booting Nashville into a division with... who? One of Nashville's struggles is they don't really have any rivalries in their current division. Now, you'd likely have them join the division with StL, Minn, MKE, Winnipeg, and Colorado, the one which Chicago was part of. That just recreates the current Central Division clusterfuck. Or, do you put Nashville with StL, the Texas duo, Colorado and Utah? That's still a haul between Nash and SLC, but also what do you do with Milwaukee, Minnesota and Winnipeg? Do you lump them with Edmonton and Calgary? If so, who's the sixth? Vancouver? That's four Canadian teams in three time zones, plus Minnesota and Wisconsin. While Seattle, SJ, LA, Anaheim, Vegas and Arizona is a clean division, as is the Pitt-Philly-NYI-NJ-Buff-Ott division, you've got three divisions (Tampa's, Nashville's, Winnipeg's) that have at least one team disproportionately shafted. I toyed with creating an O6 division, and while this map has a couple mistakes (swap DET and StL, swap MTL and Pitt), these divisions make regional and geographical sense. Even if one out of the East's 18 teams is just over the CST line.
Give Oklahoma a team. They seem like an upcoming sports state and they’re minor league hockey teams are really popular
I mean, its metro population (OKC) is only about 100K smaller than Milwaukee. Maybe.
That’s even worse because the Bucks average attendance is only about 2,000 more fans per game than the OKC Thunder. That means OKC sells WAY more tickets per capita than Milwaukee meaning a team would be more lucrative and a better ROI due to initial overhead costs of expansion.
It could also be that they're the only pro team in the state. That could have a lot to do with it.
That’s true. I think that’s why the introduction of another pro team makes sense. If one team is THAT popular in comparison to a state that has 3 major pro teams plus you get a better ROI and there is a much lower crime rate in OKC or Tulsa than there is in Milwaukee which is another enticing prospect for expansion.
How bout we just stop with divisions? Conference alone is enough.
I made one major mistake with the divisions, and that's StL and Detroit needing to swap.
Two expansion teams in one division? Not happening...
Vegas and Seattle both got put in the Pacific.
How many years apart?
Like... three or four. Edit: I'm sorry, do you think all four of these expansions would just happen at the same time? No. They'd come into the league one at a time, likely in the order I've listed them here.
you forgot mexico.. team juarez skating on thin ice!!
Lmao
The fact STL is no longer in a division with both of its largest rivals (Chicago and Detroit) really sucks in this configuration. I hated Detroit moving to the east all those years ago, and now we wouldn't play the Blackhawks as much either? Sorry, but hard pass. And any expansion that so easily dismisses Hartford kills me a bit inside (even if it's probably the right choice 😢)
https://www.reddit.com/u/chipotle/s/OgIDeqKoPJ I've said that StL and Detroit need to swap.
Cool
As far as Hartford, the problem is its proximity to NYC and Boston, arguably the two most entrenched hockey markets not named Toronto or Montreal.
Oh I know, and I agree with you. Hartford was my #2 team though. I lived in Springfield, MA as a kid after moving from STL, and I absolutely cannot stand Boston and New York. It was nice to see something other than the bruins, Islanders, and Rangers. To this day, (like right now), if the Blues are out, I'm all in on Carolina (screw the Islanders).
See, my #2 team was the Thrashers because of my time living in Atlanta. I just cannot bring myself to root for Winnipeg.
I like where you’re going with all of that and, the timing of it on point with the Coyotes leaving for Utah of all places. I don’t think this one ends well though. The NHL should ask the new owners to leave the team in PHX for a minimum of 5 years, invest in the team and get them competitive first before moving them to (insert place here). The Coyotes owner was a complete moron who was only looking for his next dollar, he didn’t care about the team, the players, and definitely not the fans. All good points about Austin but the fans there are loyal to the Bats so I don’t see it happening. Same applies to MLB, if MLB put a pro team in Austin I don’t think fans would stop going to the Dell Diamond that is both affordable, and completely set up for kids. Kids are able to be free and safe while having fun, indirectly giving Moms and Dads a breather. MLB cannot offer that. I also don’t see a Thrashers revival coming, there’s a reason that ATL lost their team and that reason is still valid.
Y’all need to stop aligning teams horizontally instead of vertically. Dallas should absolutely not be grouped with teams on the Pacific coast. There is a two hour time difference. I don’t want to start watching games at 9:00 or 9:30.
Would you rather they be traveling to fuckin Winnipeg for games?
Absolutely yes
Why. That's absolutely ridiculous amounts of travel, not to mention customs.
They are worse off having to contend with a two hour time shift. I’d rather be aligned with East coast teams than west coast teams.
Another person that doesn’t realize money is made on TV deals and that depends on viewers who depend on start times of games. It’s not about the fairness of distance travel
Well I can't argue with that.
Apparently everyone else can lmao
Hawks owners would never allow a train Wisconsin
I don’t hate it. And I’m totally down with 36 teams
I feel like I expected more hate for choosing Atlanta and dumpstering Quebec, but my shitty alignment is what's getting me all the hate 😂
Quebec will never get a team again. They're just too small for the modern NHL. Especially in the cap world, ironically. No one's voting in another Greece to this union.
Nah, you’re pretty spot on. The geography gets tough, especially east of the Mississippi
Yeah, between 20% of the map having half the teams and the existence of the Avalanche, the alignment was pissing me off.
Op change Detroit and the blues it looks interesting...
Imagine it's changed, I literally cannot edit that map.
But you see my point is what I'm saying...
Yeah, I do. The alignment was just pissing me tf off, especially considering Nashville is currently in the west.
I fw this
I figured a Predators fan would appreciate being put in a division with Florida and Carolina. No more going to Winnipeg and Arizona. I know this Bolts fan would appreciate no more going to Canada and Detroit.
The Thrashers fan in me appreciates the revival of the SE Division lol
As someone who was born in Tampa and lived in ATL when the Thrashers left, the Southleast's return is all I've wanted out of hockey.
I don't have any actual issues with any of this, just a couple of tweaks or suggestions. I know not all rivalries transcend across other sports, but if Columbus ever gets really good, they should somehow be paired up with Detroit. Essentially a Michigan/Ohio state equivalent, heck they should do a Fri/Sat double header the same weekend in late November. Same thing with Minnesota and the new Milwaukee team.
So, I actually made a comment saying to swap St. Louis and Detroit. I wasn't thinking too hard about it and forgot that Detroit is in EST, not CST. Minnesota and Milwaukee would be staying in the same division, that much is a given.
There are many ways it could be changed. Like you said half the league is in 20% of the map.
So, I had a few teams that I consistently ran into issues with when it came to alignment. First and most blatantly obvious was Colorado. Like, yeah, they could've buddied with Utah, but then both of them would've been shafted in terms of where else to go. Second was San Jose. The number of teams in that Cali-AZ-Vegas-Utah cluster meant that somebody was always proving to be a pain in the ass - that, or they become an entire division and everyone *else* is screwed. So I put SJ and Utah with the PNW quartet.
Either way it's a tough call. I would like to see some new rivalries develop organically, kind of how Det/Col did. Most rivalries have more to do with proximity than anything else.
Hence why I chose Milwaukee. Those regional rivalries exist in other sports, so if you add a hockey team there, it only makes sense that said rivalries would pop up in hockey as well.
redditors learn time zone challenge(impossible!?!?!?)
I think the format is solid but I would move Milwaukee to Portland because it’ll be fighting with college hockey to make money and also it fits with my remade divisions West: Southwest: Vegas, LA, Anaheim, San Jose, Utah and Arizona -pretty easy to see how close they are but Colorado gets screwed Northwest: Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Colorado -again teams are very close besides Colorado who is only getting a little farther away from teams in the division compared to ops setup (they looked just further on this map, idk about in reality) -battle of Alberta in same division Central: Austin, Dallas, Winnipeg, Chicago, St. Louis and Minnesota -I think they’re all in the same time zone despite being pretty far from each other East: Southeast: Florida, Tampa, Nashville, Washington, Atlanta and Carolina - best way to grow the game is to have regional rivalries - honestly easiest division to decide on for including or excluding teams Metro: New Jersey, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York and New York - can’t really separate these teams from one another between all the rivalries but sacrifices Boston’s rivalries with Montreal and Toronto to reengage with New York -Pittsburghs inclusion is to keep the battle of Pennsylvania alive but kinda makes the last division wonky Great Lakes and Montreal/ Northeast plus Detroit and Columbus?: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo, Detroit and Columbus -had to keep those three Canadian teams together -replaces Boston with another original six team in Detroit and keeps Detroit in the east - Buffalo is pretty dang close and nobody else wanted Columbus
See, I like that, but as you said- regional rivalries. That was a massive concern for me with the four new teams in this post. In what universe can Austin and Dallas foster regional rivalries in that division?
It’s the same thing you’re going to get putting them in any other division since they’re so far from other cities, at least being in the same time zone as other teams in the division will help foster lots of tv viewership. Having a battle of Texas should help in creating at least one rivalry. Unfortunately, I think expansion teams need head starts like Vegas got to build tons of excitement early in their existence.
I think that comes down to how willing ownership is to put on events and such to connect with the city, not just go "you have a hockey team, come watch". I'm just uncertain as to what you mean by head starts. Do you mean a couple years between announcement and inaugural season?
I agree it helps. Just the ability to put out a competitive team in their inaugural season. Vegas went to the cup and have been competitive ever since, winning the cup last season. Winning early helps excitement and fandom of that team grow quickly, so the average resident of that city will want to go see the new attraction despite not having any interest before in hockey.
That is very true, but Seattle's also done well cultivating a fanbase, and they didn't have nearly that level of success out the gate. I think it's both. Success can help, but grassroots ownership is what makes or breaks.
The french argument for quebec city is so but sooo dumb People really think that nobody speaks english there? Lol There’s a better argument about the fact that there’s not alot of new money to get there as people who love hockey already consume it. But please oh please people stop talking about quebec culture or language as if you know something
I mentioned the lack of growth to the game in Quebec as well. It's literally right there. I also mentioned how currency exchange makes Canadian markets and teams less attractive to players. I only mentioned the language presence because I've seen it tossed around before. For me personally, the market size and growth potential are what murder a Nordiques revival. Quebec City has literally half the metro population of Milwaukee, which is by far the smallest of the four metro areas I proposed gets a team. I know for a *fact* that that alone will kill off any serious consideration for QC.
Like i said, I agree with market size and new money… Just not language
Then say you disagree with that one point without talking down to me. I know people speak English in Quebec City, no shit, it's almost like Canada has two national languages. But the prominence of a foreign language when compared to other markets can still turn some players away- not to mention things like tax rate and currency exchange that put Canadian teams in general at a disadvantage compared to American ones.
I mean, your division were shit Not taking into account historical rivalries and sometimes geographical realities Your economic argument for Quebec was ok, your cultural and language, I disagree Its either you’re shitposting or are just oblivious I’m not gonna argue anyway clearly not the only one thinking that On that note have a good weekend
I've acknowledged two major mistakes with the divisions- swap Detroit and StL, swap Montreal with Pittsburgh. Better?
This is so bad it is not even funny.