NHL Post-Atlanta Thrashers: Scrap the Existing Long-Term Strategy

Way back in February of 2009, I wrote an article speculating about the five choices the NHL had to develop the league for the long-term. In light of the shift of Atlanta to Winnipeg, it is good to review the choices and speculate if the franchise shift heralds a new direction for the NHL.

The five choices were:

1.  Keep plugging in the same direction

2.  Contraction of all bad franchises

3.  Relocation of franchises to other American markets

4.  Shift the focus to Canada and become a Canadian-oriented league

5.  Shift all the money losing American franchises to Europe

Two of the options may be quickly disposed of.

Though Bettman has indicated that the NHL wants more European development, it is still years (decades?) away from trying to establish a European division.

Right now, the NHL will probably settle for more exhibition and early regular season games in Europe, with more ways to sell goods with NHL logos on them. Contact with Europe is increasing, but very slowly.

The shift of Atlanta to Winnipeg, the most horrible choice of all destinations, shows one thing:  Contraction is the most abhorrent option the NHL will ever make—the ultimate humiliation—something to be done as a very, very last resort.

The NHL chose Winnipeg because it was a ready destination, and no one else wanted to buy and operate the Thrashers in Atlanta. The NHL had a gun to its head; it was Winnipeg, or fold the team.

That leaves three options left.

As I mentioned in the previous article, the ideal for Bettman and the NHL would be to keep moving in the same direction, which is to place teams in unfamiliar hockey markets in the United States to make hockey an American national sport, and win a lucrative American television contract. 

Does the shift to Winnipeg indicate a change in policy?

Based on two developments, it is perhaps safe to speculate "yes."

First, there is more flexibility now. The NHL recently signed its new American television contract with NBC/Versus, which will run for some years.

If a franchise shift to Canada was necessary, it is better to do it early in the new contract and see what develops later, instead of doing it near the end of an American television deal, when a new contract would have to be negotiated, and a shift of an American franchise to Canada would have made a bad impression on American television bosses.

The other is an appreciation of one ugly fact: Hockey is still not an American "national sport."

Though hockey has grown in the United States, even reaching popularity in some of the "unfamiliar" markets, it is still a second class sport there.

Two things illustrate this. While the new television contract is more lucrative, it is far from the money the NBA, MLB and the NFL are able to command.

But more humiliating is the fact is that very few American investors want to operate an NHL team, at least in markets not familiar with hockey.

If the tried and untrue policy of continuing along the path the NHL has been following since Bettman took office had proved lucrative, Winnipeg would have been told to take a hike, despite first class investors Dave Thomson and Mark Chipman.

The NHL would have been moving into markets like Houston, Las Vegas, San Diego, San Antonio, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City and possibly San Francisco/Oakland.

Kansas City blew it, despite building an 18,500-seat arena, filling less than 50 percent of seats for an Islanders exhibition game.

So no one wants to take a chance any more. No one wanted to keep the Thrashers in Atlanta, and the NHL still can't find an owner to run a team in Phoenix.

That leaves the NHL with two options left.

The most preferred option is to relocate or expand to the American cities with "natural hockey roots," which the NHL has so pointedly ignored in the past.

This group includes Seattle, Portland, Milwaukee and a return to Hartford. Spokane would be a good choice, if it was big enough. Providence and Rochester are dark horses.

Given the low risk involved, and the sometimes conservative nature of owning and operating a sports franchise, the surprise is why the NHL didn't get established in these cities from the start and spread south slowly.

It has been reported that a Seattle group has been talking with NHL about getting a team.  Bettman has already met with Hartford's mayor about bringing back the Whalers within five years.

Given the fact that few American investors want to invest in risky markets, expect a shift in NHL policy to this direction.

The last option is to become a Canada-oriented league.

The main reason to do this is the current high value of the Canadian dollar, and the NHL receives a disproportionately high return from its Canadian franchises.

But it won't happen. Canada can't drum up the dollars that the United States can, and most of its markets the NHL can expand or relocate to are small.

Of the Canadian cities without NHL teams, the NHL can choose from Saskatoon, London, Kitchener, Hamilton, Oshawa and Quebec CIty.

The only city to put a successful wager on is Quebec City because of its previous association with the NHL, its great rivalry with Montreal and because it is willing to build a proper NHL arena to ensure long term success.

But the biggest deterrent to Canadian expansion are Canadians themselves. 

Existing Canadian franchise owners don't want to share Canadian television revenue, nor do they want more Canadian teams in their market territory.

Besides the cities named above, the NHL could also put second teams in Toronto and Montreal.

But a cornerstone policy of the NHL, since the first expansion of 1967, is to preserve a monopoly for Canadian franchise owners.

The Montreal Canadians don't want the Montreal Maroons to return.

The Toronto Maple Leafs don't want to deal with any combination of the Toronto Toros, Hamilton, Oshawa, London and Kitchener.

Saskatoon falls within the new Winnipeg team's marketing territory.

Quebec CIty is the only Canadian city that the NHL Canadian monopolists will allow to join them.

To sum it all up, don't look for any more southern American teams to join the NHL in the near future.

But Quebec, Hartford, Milwaukee, Seattle and Portland might become future homes of new hockey franchises.