NHL Growth: Contraction Is Never the Answer

Eventually, the face of the NHL will change drastically.

Let’s start with what we know.

One, there are some teams in the NHL that are in positively abominable situations (Atlanta, Florida, Nashville, and New York Islanders are the most prevalent).

Secondly, sooner rather than later, the league will be doing something about these teams and their perennially low attendance figures.

Third, the most popular option seems to be contraction.

I'm not saying that it’s the best; just the most popular.

Today we’ll look at a typical case of a floundering NHL franchise (in this instance Atlanta), the reasons behind why it’s floundering (thankfully it doesn’t matter which team I choose, they often struggle for the same reasons anyway) and then will look at alternatives to the “C” word.

So to begin: The NHL has a few franchises that just aren’t cutting it, whatever that means. To ask for a raw number and specific teams is a tricky request, since the answer will often depend on who you ask. However, generally speaking there are typically about three to four teams listed with a bit of variance on which teams get mentioned. For example: The Coyotes pop up fairly frequently as a contraction candidate, but certainly won’t do so here.

But why are these teams failing? The NHL is growing rapidly in popularity and they’re mostly in major cities. Surely they should be supported without hitch, correct?

Well, not necessarily. The first problem lies within the NHL itself.

Despite exponential grown following the 2005 lockout, hockey is hindered by two things: It’s terribly seasonal and costly. In most places you can’t get a pick-up hockey game going any time, summer or winter. Plus there’s the equipment, league fees, etc. The long and short is that hockey is both seasonal and expensive, so building a viewership who can watch and play is a little trickier than for most sports.

Second, despite the leaps and bounds made in the growth of the NHL, hockey remains, for the most part, a second-class citizen, particularly in the U.S. (and even more specifically the American South), to football.

Third, the NHL has developed a habit of expanding into cities that just aren’t hockey-ready.

Often, these three factors, combined with any kind of underperformance on the ice, wreak absolute havoc on a hockey franchise.

The place where these have all come together to make for an extra-volatile mix is Atlanta, where the Thrashers do anything but to their opponents and typically draw as well as the local high school’s girls basketball team.

Let’s look at everything that went wrong with Atlanta; however, I’m going to give a brief disclaimer first. I’m not trying to smash Atlanta’s reputation (in fact I’ve gotten reports that it actually has a great night life), but Atlanta is the seminal example of where a pro-sports franchise will struggle.

So, "How ‘bout dem Thrashers?"

The first reason the Thrashers draw so horrendously low is the same reason most teams would draw low: They’re bad; almost on a monumental scale. Show me a losing team (other than the Cubs of MLB fame) that draws fans night in and night out. There’s not a lot to say on this one. Front office blunders traded away all of their impact players from a few years ago when they looked to be competitive and they’re back to being bad.

In fact, that’s the same reason I don’t like to lump Phoenix into the contraction discussion. They actually had great support before their franchise's talent went into the toilet. (There’s a lot to be said about that too, but I’ll wait for a different day.)

Secondly, again, Atlanta is a perfect example of a team being in a city where its sport is second class to football, particularly of the college variety.

This is the same reason Florida always gets talked about being moved or contracted early on (even though their attendance usually bounces back).

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?