More for Canada?

Wow. Now this is news.

Sidney Crosby shills for Reebok and he loves the NHL's new uniforms.

But hold it, doesn't Reebok make those uniforms?

Ah, now I get it.

The NHL's annual trade show, which used to be the all-star game, opens this week in Texas, and convincing people that the NHL garb they own is obsolete will be a big part of it.

But isn't it interesting how expansion has suddenly crept into polite NHL conversation of late?

Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe, hopefully, Gary Bettman will publicly renounce the mere thought of adding more teams this week. After all, the league just straightened out its finances and its game coming out of the lockout, and still has any number of franchise problems to work out.

But the suspicion is the league is working on expansion as we speak.

To anyone who loves the game, of course, the immediate response is to throw up at the mere thought of adding more teams to the Original 30.

Certainly, the fact that adding nine teams in nine years coincided with a dreadful period of the sport, including two lockouts, is enough to suggest that the Bettman adminstrations expansion record is checkered at best.

From 21 teams, the league added San Jose, Ottawa, Tampa Bay, Anaheim, Florida, Nashville, Atlanta, Minnesota and Columbus.

Of those franchises, the Sharks and Wild have been very successful, while the Sens and Lightning have survived very difficult financial problems to survive and flourish over time.

But adding teams at a time when the third and fourth lines of teams already look AHL calibre many nights anyway is simply a recipe for further dilution of the product.

But with between $250-300 million at stake for two more franchises - Jim Balsillie was willing to pay $175 million U.S. - and with all that money excluded from the revenues the league's owners have to share with the players, you can bet these "custodians" of the game will push for it anyway.

The union won't make a peep in protest, of course, but it would mean expanding their membership, something that would help Ted Saskin fight off the rebels in his midst.

Now, if the NHL governors are smart - a very big if - there's one easy way available to them to sooth the savage bleatings of hardcore hockey fans if they plan to expand, a way to candy-coat this bitter pill.

Promise one of the new teams will be based in Canada.

All of us who reside in the Great White North would ldearly love to see a seventh NHL team, or even two more to get us back up to the number we used to have before the loss of Quebec City and Winnipeg.

Just look at the widespread enthusiasm that followed Balsillie's failed pursuit of the Penguins just because of the possibility he'd move the team to Kitchener-Waterloo.

Even if it meant expansion, many Canadians would be prepared to look the other way if it meant the NHL was coming back to the country with a new team.

K-W. Winnipeg. Quebec City. A second team in Toronto (the best idea).

That would neutralize many critics, and give the NHL the convenient platform to argue it isn't expanding because of greed, but because of the enormous pent-up demand (in Canada) for their wonderful game.

And wonderful new uniforms.

Adding teams anywhere would be a terrible idea.

But the NHL is always about "the sell."

And that's how they could sell it. Sidney Crosby would probably even help.

Comments

[Rick Grace]

Gee. The NHL expand to Canada? There's a risky idea eh? I mean unlike Nashville or Kansas City or Anaheim, people in Canada actually know what an icing is.

So why would the NHL want to go to a place where the fans love the game, would support the team, and would sellout every game? As opposed to going to a US city, where they'd be behind even a sport like baseball??

And so what it dilutes the talent? At least we'll get a few more teams in CAnada. And with several other US cities on the brink, we may end up with ten or 12 teams in CAnada.
Lets hope.

[Glenn Eschrich]

I'm all for both teams being loacted in Canada. If anything, US franchise's need to come down in number (FLA).

[Paul Spanier]

I think it is time the NHL changed to the USHL.
Most decisions to "better" the game, are simply business tactics that attempt to make more people in the US come to the game.

Like cheerleaders, glowing pucks, nameless referees who became numbered, and are now miked (see NFL ice division), and soon new sweaters, yah new Canadien's or Leaf's sweaters, that would be good, ...that'll get more people to games,.. what?!!!

No effort is made in appreciation of Canadians, we are taken for granted and something needs to be done.
As a Canadian, I see the true motives of the NHL higher-ups (i.e., Betmann [American] et al.) as an affront to hockey.
It's not about hockey, it's about money, which I guess is par for pro sports, but geeeze, if people (see most Americans) are not interested in hockey and never will be because (maybe?) they never played it, and/or they prefer basketball, football, baseball, stock- car racing, bowling, darts, shopping, American Idol, reality shows, etc. etc. over ice-hockey, and if the NHL brain trust is blind to this, then maybe brain transplants are needed.

Every time I see game highlights from Atlanta or some other "hot-bed" of hockey in the US, there is no one in the seats and probably more Canadians watching on satellite than Americans. It just happened the other night when the Thrashers (what a name) were playing the Habs. Any other city in CN would have been at capacity, scalpers in TO would get top dollar. What a joke it is to continually try and make the NHL stick in all parts of the US. Even if you gave tickets away in the Atlantas of the NHL, they still would not sell out. The passion of hockey is incomparable between CN and the US, we have it and they don't, except for a few cities (i.e., Detroit), otherwise it's roller-derby on ice with real fighting where you must take your gloves off (better than mixed martial arts?!?). Maybe if they added fireworks, racing dogs and a bigger puck you could carry/throw with your hands, more people would go to the games?

What can be done?... More Canadians need to be in charge of the NHL, ergo bye bye Gary.
More Canadian teams need to exist, like we had before. Please, please, no KC Scouts.
Get rid of or move many US teams to Canadian cities.
This ideal of a pro hockey league that will somehow mirror the prototypical US pro-sports establishment (see NFL) is for dreamers,... follow the logic- football is American, hockey is Canadian, let's keep it that way. Until people in Florida have backyard ice rinks, hockey will remain a Canadian game

[Billie Bob]

If the NHL expands I will swear off watching another game for the rest of my life. I don't care if they say the new team or teams will be located in Canada. Now, if they move a team that currently exists to a Canadian city now that's a different story.

There are more people going to watch the Ottawa 67's than there are to at least 6 NHL locations. Last weeks game against Florida, the Leafs should have drawn a huge crowd. But they say it was around 8,000, it was closer to 5,000. A buddy of mine got back from a Panthers game a month or so ago and the only reason he went was because the tickets were free. He could anywhere he wanted. He esitmated somewhere around 4500 people. St. Louis, same thing but worse, Chicago, Boston, the list goes on.

Move one of these teams to any Canadian locaiton would make more sense.

The NHL is a joke at this point, and the future looks bleak.

[Robert Roach]

Why put another team in Canada.It makes no sense.When the dollar falls ( which it will )The team (along with The westwern teams and Ottawa) will be screaming for more tax breaks.They get enough already.
Especially that guy who lives in a tax haven in the Carribean.

[norm depalma]

There is an obvious solution to NHL problems--which has been proposed many times before:
Contract everything!
-contract teams by 6 to 24
-contract games by 12 to 70
-contract ignorant, david stern wanna be, american commissioners by 1
all this contracting will lead to superb new product and new, valuable contracts with american broadcast networks

the only new team should be in vegas

[redplague]

The Bettman "surge" strategy. Perfect! The paralells between Bush Jr. and Bettman might be insulting to the young men and women whose lives are in danger overseas so i'll try not to push the comparison too far. Suffice to say that is impossible not to notice the parallels related to incompetent leaders that have been unchallenged by the media that are tasked with covering them. Ron McLean should be excluded here--interestingly, his outstanding and tough interviews of Betteman which combine an obvious passion and belief in the NHL with solid journalistic instincts are mocked incessantly by sportswriters for reasons that can only be embarassment at their neglect. When Betteman gives away CBC's rights let's not feign surprise. The leaders at the NHL office are constantly and PUBLICALLY wringing their hands over what is "wrong" with the game (surely they do this in the NBA offices all the time...but if any lieutenant of Stern ever publically claimed the NBA was anything short of the best game on earth they would be done). Bettman's clear disdain of what he thinks is a second rate game taps into the insecure colonized mindset of Canadains and, ironically, saves him. This strategy has allowed Bettman to be completely incompetent while blaming the game itself for his failures (Mark Cuban, of all people, voiced one obviously correct strategy to promote the League's greatness in Toronto last week--pointing out a Sat. night game draws in more N.Americans to their TV set than an NBA broadcast. A random, unimportant example save for my assurance that this kind of positive spin will be completely ignored by the league office and certainly by those that cover the game.
Hire someone who believes the NHL is the best professional league in North America and is determined to keep improving it.
Don't let this man "surge."

[Jim Smith]

Now, why did Canada lose 2 teams? And why is there talk of more Canadian teams leaving Canada? And why during the Great Expansion was there only 1 Canadian team added? Things to ponder... I say move some of the existing teams around a little (1 or 2) instead of adding.

[Jasonian]

On a list of NHL priorities for the future, I think I would put expansion near the bottom of the list. But if the Board of Governors can't help themselves and really need the fees, it would behoove them to either limit the expansion to Canada or only consider American cities that are a) "traditional" hockey markets and b) the only pro sports team in town. I've lived in several NHL markets in both countries and hockey is all but invisible in most US markets. Even in the cities that are considered NHL success stories in the US like Dallas and San Jose, interest is fairly tepid and confined to a small, core group. I would be a lot more enthusiastic about Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hamilton, Hartford, Cleveland, and Milwaukee than I would Kansas City, Houston, Oklahoma City, San Diego, etc.

[mark]

You know, I love it when hockey experts tell us how 'watered down' the product has become because of expansion. This is such nonsense. All you have to do is watch one game on the 'Classics' channell and you will know what I am talking about. Games from the 70's and 80's do not come close to the speed and skill of today's game. Also, comparing the 4th line of an NHL team to AHL calibre is logical and by design, not a sign of league talent level weakness. There's this little thing called 'contracts' to consider. Guys on the bubble are routinely shipped back and forth from AHL affiliates. AHL teams are an extension of their NHL owned team. It's called 'depth'. Does that mean the product is diluted. Hardly. And let's not forget about the huge growth in talent in Europe. Who would have guessed 15 years ago players from Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Switzerland, Germany, Slovakia, Ceck Republic...even Japan.. would help fill NHL rosters?
Lastly, what is this nonsense about another team in Toronto. Speaking on behalf of the rest of Ontario, spare us. We all hate having to endure travelling through your congested roadways only to pay through the nose for parking, etc. Put a team in K-W and watch it thrive (and win a cup long before the Leafs win another).

[Kyle]

I'm all for making sure at least one team comes to Canada if there's expansion, and there's any easy solution to the talent dilution issue too. At the same time as the league expands, go to 4 on 4 hockey full time. You'll lose a few roster spots on each team, but having two new teams will nearly make up for it. The game will be far more exciting, and while a radical change, I'd much rather see that than bigger nets or some of the other ideas being tossed around.

[Russ Dillard]

I think that the NHL's mistake in marketing in the USA is the approach itself. They are trying to rock-n-roll it - even "gangsta" it up like the NFL and NBA have done. But fans already have all of THAT. What is needed is an old-school angle that focuses on the DIFFERENCE between hockey and it's weak sister sports. Lose the metal band guitar riffs and three-a-second cuts to some guy getting boarded. Focus on the skills and the flow of the game. You know, I was always impressed by the players - how the young men of hockey would interview in jackets and ties, looking and sounding very polite and respectful even though they had just left the ice. Marketing of The Game needs this same - and on todays' TV, unique - approach. Do it, and the power and wonder of this sport will do the rest. And, at some point, realize that just not everyone is going to be a fan. And that's their big loss.

[Lorne Blouin]

Get your heads out of the clouds, hockey fans! While Gary Bettman's in charge, there won't be any new teams in Canada. First, adding a hockey team in Canada doesn't help attract new US hockey fans. Secondly, the NHL wants to attract more TV viewers. Most Canadians already watch hockey on tv. I'm sure folks in Quebec City have been converted to Habs fans, while Winnipeg fans have undoubtedly picked a new club to cheer to fill the void of their beloved Jets. Bettman needs more US fans so he can get more lucrative tv contracts on better US networks. Third, it doesn't matter how many fans will buy tickets, NHL owners want lucrative luxury box revenues and corporate sponsors. While fortune 500 companies are scattered throughout the US landscape, how much corporate sponsorship can you get from Winnipeg or Quebec City?
Finally, US teams have a better shot of holding US governments hostage to pay for new arenas than their Canadian counterparts. As soon as governemt handouts are mentioned north of the 49th parallel, voter and media outcry for wasting money on billionaire owners instead of real issues becomes deafening.
While I would love to see more Canadian franchises, lets be honest. It won't happen as long as Bettman is in charge.

[jjlax15]

I agree with most of what has been said. I think for expansion some teams should move north not be created. The dilution of talent cant continue or i will go to AHL games and save money. I am A season ticket holder to the bruins an original six city and blue collar town. The biggest thing I hear at games is that officiating is inconsistant and the lack of physical play, yes and that includes some fights. In boston the new NHL is not going over well with hard core hockey fans. The New England region is a hockey hot bed just like CA and Minnesota and michigan, when bruins fans rather go watch BC vs BU (NCAA) hockey because it will be physical and passionate thats the NHL's problem. Super new uniforms who cares..I dont, but the bruins will be if this trend continues and i trade in my season tickets for college hockey