The NHL should disband, start anew smaller

Ok, most of you will be all like "thats stupid", but lets think about this...

All of us, ALL OF US, have heard from older hockey fans "Man, this game you called 'hockey' is NOTHING like the old time hockey".. and we all rolled our eyes and said sure-sure... well guess what...

THEY WE'RE RIGHT.

Folks, we've been priviledged enough to witness ubelievable hockey the last 2 weeks... I mean, the endless tape-to-tape passing, the speed-speed-speed, the GREAT scoring plays... the hockey as JUST BEEN AMAZING.

And to those who say "I wouldnt watch an 8-1, 7-2 game".. If I had followed that reasoning, I would have missed that JUST AMAZING 4th goal by Team Canada last night... the tick-tack-toe Mario-to-Iggy-to-Sakic goal last night! According to that reasoning, a 5-0 game would suck... funny, it DIDNT SUCK LAST NIGHT.

So, in light of the unbelievable hockey we've seen, its time the NHL just died and restarted as a 8 to 12 team league. Only allow the best of the best of the best to play... like they used to. As one Toronto paper said earlier this week. "Who would want the NHL to restart after this kind of play... they'll be shamed into stopping."

I know its never going to happen (or rather, it COULD happen if there was an extended extended extended lockout, but theres word that there may be a coming settlement), but I used to be all about "growing the sport" and "extending its reach".. PFFFT, not anymore. Keep it small. Keep it good.

I want old time Hockey. 8 to 12 teams at MOST. Bring back the good old days of fast, high-scoring hockey. Thoughts?

Ok, most of you will be all like "thats stupid", but lets think about this...

All of us, ALL OF US, have heard from older hockey fans "Man, this game you called 'hockey' is NOTHING like the old time hockey".. and we all rolled our eyes and said sure-sure... well guess what...

THEY WE'RE RIGHT.

Folks, we've been priviledged enough to witness ubelievable hockey the last 2 weeks... I mean, the endless tape-to-tape passing, the speed-speed-speed, the GREAT scoring plays... the hockey as JUST BEEN AMAZING.

And to those who say "I wouldnt watch an 8-1, 7-2 game".. If I had followed that reasoning, I would have missed that JUST AMAZING 4th goal by Team Canada last night... the tick-tack-toe Mario-to-Iggy-to-Sakic goal last night! According to that reasoning, a 5-0 game would suck... funny, it DIDNT SUCK LAST NIGHT.

So, in light of the unbelievable hockey we've seen, its time the NHL just died and restarted as a 8 to 12 team league. Only allow the best of the best of the best to play... like they used to. As one Toronto paper said earlier this week. "Who would want the NHL to restart after this kind of play... they'll be shamed into stopping."

I know its never going to happen (or rather, it COULD happen if there was an extended extended extended lockout, but theres word that there may be a coming settlement), but I used to be all about "growing the sport" and "extending its reach".. PFFFT, not anymore. Keep it small. Keep it good.

I want old time Hockey. 8 to 12 teams at MOST. Bring back the good old days of fast, high-scoring hockey. Thoughts?

Except that you're overlooking the fact that the talent level\competition has increased proportionately to the amount of teams. The top-end talent of the 60s and even 70s seems terrific when we remember it fondly, but the reality is that even with this so-called "dilution of talent," the superstars of today pretty much blow away anyone playing back then, with a few rare exceptions(bobby orr being the one that springs to mind.) and to the layman hockey fan, those that don't have the attention span to appreciate the nuances of a technical game of hockey...those 9-8 scores might be appealing, but something is lost in the magic of a goal if they're occurring every 5 minutes, in my opinion. Part of the reason that I enjoy hockey so much over a sport like football or basketball...is that there's so much suspense. A goal could come at any time...but not so often that it becomes monotonous. 3-2, to me, is a perfect hockey score...and I wouldn't want to tamper with that. I watched the game last night, and ended up turning it off due to sheer boredom. It was fun to watch for you, as a Canadian, because of the sense of nationalistic pride. The overall quality of the hockey was, to me, kind of disappointing, and the same can really be said of the entire World Cup, with a notable exception being some of the stuff I've seen the Czechs do. Overall, though...I would never want the NHL to be this way.

The overall quality of the hockey was, to me, kind of disappointing, and the same can really be said of the entire World Cup, with a notable exception being some of the stuff I've seen the Czechs do..

Have you been WATCHING the WCoH? The Sweden-Finland 4-4 game.... disappointing? The great action from all the games? Sure, Germany blows, but its germany. All of the play has been top quality.

Disappointing?!?! :lol

Have you been WATCHING the WCoH? The Sweden-Finland 4-4 game.... disappointing? The great action from all the games? Sure, Germany blows, but its germany. All of the play has been top quality.

Disappointing?!?! :lol


there are exceptions :shakehead

silly me to have an opinion, and feel that i've seen a lot better hockey in terms of international competition, and even found some of the earlier rounds of last years' playoffs to be more entertaining.

Ok, most of you will be all like "thats stupid", but lets think about this...

All of us, ALL OF US, have heard from older hockey fans "Man, this game you called 'hockey' is NOTHING like the old time hockey".. and we all rolled our eyes and said sure-sure... well guess what...

THEY WE'RE RIGHT.

Folks, we've been priviledged enough to witness ubelievable hockey the last 2 weeks... I mean, the endless tape-to-tape passing, the speed-speed-speed, the GREAT scoring plays... the hockey as JUST BEEN AMAZING.

And to those who say "I wouldnt watch an 8-1, 7-2 game".. If I had followed that reasoning, I would have missed that JUST AMAZING 4th goal by Team Canada last night... the tick-tack-toe Mario-to-Iggy-to-Sakic goal last night! According to that reasoning, a 5-0 game would suck... funny, it DIDNT SUCK LAST NIGHT.

So, in light of the unbelievable hockey we've seen, its time the NHL just died and restarted as a 8 to 12 team league. Only allow the best of the best of the best to play... like they used to. As one Toronto paper said earlier this week. "Who would want the NHL to restart after this kind of play... they'll be shamed into stopping."

I know its never going to happen (or rather, it COULD happen if there was an extended extended extended lockout, but theres word that there may be a coming settlement), but I used to be all about "growing the sport" and "extending its reach".. PFFFT, not anymore. Keep it small. Keep it good.

I want old time Hockey. 8 to 12 teams at MOST. Bring back the good old days of fast, high-scoring hockey. Thoughts?

The problem with the NHL's level of play has more to do with the coaching than it does the overall talent level. Coaches realized that defense wins games and more importantly it wins championships. If the systems that coaches were implementing right now weren't defensive systems, you'd see less players with little offensive talent in the league and more players that are stuck in the AHL because their size and defensive ability and/or commitment.

Even if it was feasible to go to 10-12 teams, the defensive game would eventually return. At first, it would be very offensive because coaches would love having all the talent. But, eventually they'd realize that the better defense the team plays, the more likely they are to win and slowly more defensively minded players would replace what offensive players are playing on the lower two lines.

I want old time Hockey. 8 to 12 teams at MOST. Bring back the good old days of fast, high-scoring hockey. Thoughts?

If the NHL was to disband and re-start with an 8-12 team league, you will be very dissapointed to know there won't be any teams in Canada.

There are a lot of flaws in your theory. Not the least of which is that it is spawned from the mind of a hockey fan of a team that would be a certain keeper. A Canadian team...Toronto??? Would it be fine with you if the NHL became a Canadian team only league?

You say you loved the 5-0 game last night. You loved the tick tack toe goal that was scored. Would you have been as excited if the 5-0 score had been in the Slovak's favor? Did you enjoy the blow outs of the Germans as much? Its not hard to see that you are little more than a homer.

If there were only 8 teams and Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver were 6 of the teams and you added NY and Detroit as boarder towns, the sport would disappear from the national scene in the United States. As a Canadian, I am pretty sure that you don't give a crap about the American hockey fan.

Your theory that drastically cutting the number of teams and then loading each of the remaining teams with a higher level of talent is going to increase scoring is flawed too. Its like you are forgetting that while each team is loading up on forwards, each team is also loading up on defensemen and goaltenders. That todays #3-4 defenseman is a 5, 6 or 7 in your new league.

I think you are also forgetting that even in this world cup all of the teams are playing the trap. The only team that didnt trap was team USA for the first two games and they nearly got run out of the building trying that. By the way...what was the score of the team Canada vs team USA game??? 2-1, right? is that what you meant by high scoring, old time hockey? Try to remember that the Slovak team
was very much undermanned and totally outclassed by the Canadian team. Do you really think that there will be a 5-4 game in any of the remaining games of the world cup? Broduer, Esche, Kiprisoff and Vokuon. I don't think so.

A SIMPLE alternative would be to APPLY THE RULES!

No hooking, no interference.

Many players will have problem with it. Some will retire, and big and slow players will lost their job to small and speedy skaters.

----------

Part 2: o just wish the NHL goes back to 24 teams.... and according to a journalist in Montreal, it the lockout ist't finnished in september 2005, then 6 teams would not come back.... I just wish it could happened.

A SIMPLE alternative would be to APPLY THE RULES!

No hooking, no interference.

Many players will have problem with it. Some will retire, and big and slow players will lost their job to small and speedy skaters.

----------

Part 2: o just wish the NHL goes back to 24 teams.... and according to a journalist in Montreal, it the lockout ist't finnished in september 2005, then 6 teams would not come back.... I just wish it could happened.

even though two of those teams would probably be calgary and edmonton?

With the exception of a couple of nice scoring plays last nights game was BORING! That passing play could happen on a regular basis in a 30 team league if they just called the rules and got rid of the let them play mentality that is killing hockey. Having said that my ideal NHL would have a 31 million salary cap with no arbitration or guaranteed contracts with a 30 team league composed of 10 Canadian teams making the northern conference in Halifax, Hamilton or London, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vanvouver, a 10 team U.S. division of New York Rangers, Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Minnesota, Columbus, St. Louis and Philadelphia and a 10 team division in Europe sites up for discussion. Each conference would determine their own overall champs and then I would use the Memorial Cup format to determine an overall championship each year. I would shut down the current NHL and NHLPA and start up the WHL - World Hockey League.

There are a lot of flaws in your theory. Not the least of which is that it is spawned from the mind of a hockey fan of a team that would be a certain keeper. A Canadian team...Toronto??? Would it be fine with you if the NHL became a Canadian team only league?

You say you loved the 5-0 game last night. You loved the tick tack toe goal that was scored. Would you have been as excited if the 5-0 score had been in the Slovak's favor? Did you enjoy the blow outs of the Germans as much? Its not hard to see that you are little more than a homer.

If there were only 8 teams and Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver were 6 of the teams and you added NY and Detroit as boarder towns, the sport would disappear from the national scene in the United States. As a Canadian, I am pretty sure that you don't give a crap about the American hockey fan.

Your theory that drastically cutting the number of teams and then loading each of the remaining teams with a higher level of talent is going to increase scoring is flawed too. Its like you are forgetting that while each team is loading up on forwards, each team is also loading up on defensemen and goaltenders. That todays #3-4 defenseman is a 5, 6 or 7 in your new league.

I think you are also forgetting that even in this world cup all of the teams are playing the trap. The only team that didnt trap was team USA for the first two games and they nearly got run out of the building trying that. By the way...what was the score of the team Canada vs team USA game??? 2-1, right? is that what you meant by high scoring, old time hockey? Try to remember that the Slovak team
was very much undermanned and totally outclassed by the Canadian team. Do you really think that there will be a 5-4 game in any of the remaining games of the world cup? Broduer, Esche, Kiprisoff and Vokuon. I don't think so.

While I do care about this sport and its continued growth in the U.S. the facts are the facts. The game has nowhere to go in the States. The point is the teams in Canada may be in trouble financially, but you can't question their love of the game. In the States it is about hot and cold. The Canes are horrible and were horrible even when they were in Hartford, but for one season they put it together and got some luck, and made it to the finals. During that run, hockey actually made it to page 8 in the Carolina sports pages. Fans watched and the rink was full. The next year the team played down to where it should be, and guess what? That's right their fans were more interested in everything else. I don't want to stereotype all Americans with this, because obviously there are loads of passionate fans, but not nearly enough to make a difference. The simple fact is that if Bettman wasn't so infatuated with all that new franchise money which no doubt clouded his judgement, he would have realized then what has become painfully obvious now, that there are too many cities that should never have been given teams. While the owners cry poor, they continue to right off all of those losses against their corporations profits. Why else do you think that given the state of the game, where 2/3 of the league is in the red, would franchises be snapped up in a heartbeat if allowed? I do not want to offend any fans, so I won't state the teams I would get rid of but it would make the game better and the teams stronger. It would also solve much of what the owners and NHLPA are arguing about right now. That's my take on it!

1) The rules will never be enforced as written. Scrap the league
2) The game will never be a success in the south despite the best efforts of everyone involved. Scrap the league
3) The talent pool is much too diluted with muckers and plumbers. Scrap the league
4) The ice surface is the same size now with players in excess of 6' 6" as when players rarely topped 6' 2". Owners won't take out seats to expand the ice surface. Scrap the league
5) The economics of ownership overspending and reliance on the vagaries of the exchange rate will lead to the eventual doom of most US and Canadian teams. Scrap the league
6) TV viewership peaked years ago in the States and isn't coming back. Times have changed, TV revenue will continue to plumment with each consecutive broadcast deal in the States. Scrap the league.

I love the NHL and have subscribed to the NHL Center Ice package for three years in a row and watched nearly every game of my team that was broadcast.

Although I would miss it, hockey isn't the center of my particular universe and as such, if tearing down the house to have it rebuilt a little better is the solution, then I say go for it.

If the NHL was to disband and re-start with an 8-12 team league, you will be very dissapointed to know there won't be any teams in Canada.


:shakehead you are so wrong.

The Canes are horrible and were horrible even when they were in Hartford, but for one season they put it together and got some luck, and made it to the finals. During that run, hockey actually made it to page 8 in the Carolina sports pages. Fans watched and the rink was full. The next year the team played down to where it should be, and guess what? That's right their fans were more interested in everything else. I don't want to stereotype all Americans with this, because obviously there are loads of passionate fans, but not nearly enough to make a difference. The simple fact is that if Bettman wasn't so infatuated with all that new franchise money which no doubt clouded his judgement, he would have realized then what has become painfully obvious now, that there are too many cities that should never have been given teams. While the owners cry poor, they continue to right off all of those losses against their corporations profits. Why else do you think that given the state of the game, where 2/3 of the league is in the red, would franchises be snapped up in a heartbeat if allowed? I do not want to offend any fans, so I won't state the teams I would get rid of but it would make the game better and the teams stronger. It would also solve much of what the owners and NHLPA are arguing about right now. That's my take on it!

When the Hurricanes made their playoff run, it was a big deal in Raleigh. Just like everywhere else playoff tickets were hard to get and the arena was packed. The Hurricanes made it a lot further than page 8 of the sports section. People like to see winners. I have been a season ticket holder since the team came to Raleigh. I will be the first to admit I didn’t go to a lot of games last year because the team was brutal to watch. It wasn’t fun. This is the same reason no one went to games in Pittsburgh, Chicago, and other cities with bottom feeder teams. It is the same reason no one goes to Duke football games, not because there isn’t a market for college football in this area, but because they are awful. This notion of a “hockey city” kind of lame. Raleigh is easily large enough to support big league sports and they will support a hockey team as long as they are competitive. They will not however support a losing team with escalating ticket and concession prices. Unfortunately the management of the Hurricanes doesn’t realize this.

While I do care about this sport and its continued growth in the U.S. the facts are the facts. The game has nowhere to go in the States. The point is the teams in Canada may be in trouble financially, but you can't question their love of the game. In the States it is about hot and cold. The Canes are horrible and were horrible even when they were in Hartford, but for one season they put it together and got some luck, and made it to the finals. During that run, hockey actually made it to page 8 in the Carolina sports pages. Fans watched and the rink was full. The next year the team played down to where it should be, and guess what? That's right their fans were more interested in everything else. I don't want to stereotype all Americans with this, because obviously there are loads of passionate fans, but not nearly enough to make a difference. The simple fact is that if Bettman wasn't so infatuated with all that new franchise money which no doubt clouded his judgement, he would have realized then what has become painfully obvious now, that there are too many cities that should never have been given teams. While the owners cry poor, they continue to right off all of those losses against their corporations profits. Why else do you think that given the state of the game, where 2/3 of the league is in the red, would franchises be snapped up in a heartbeat if allowed? I do not want to offend any fans, so I won't state the teams I would get rid of but it would make the game better and the teams stronger. It would also solve much of what the owners and NHLPA are arguing about right now. That's my take on it!

I live in NC not too far from Raleigh. Your treatment of NHL coverage in raleigh is wrong. The Stanley cup period was off the charts. However, lets talk about those unnamed teams that you favor dumping out of the league. I bet they are all out of the playoff teams. If not, then they are teams with overwhelmingly losing histories like Tampa Bay. Are you ready to dump the Boston Bruins out because they won't spend the money to compete and their fans won't buy tickets to the tune of 24th in the league in attendance last year? Are you ready to dump the Chicago Blackhawks because their ownership is just inept? Are you ready to dump the Edmonton Oilers because they just can't keep up financially? no. I am sure you want to dump from the likes of Washington(based on one bad season even), Tampa, Florida, Atlanta and Pheonix because they are in the south. Why not Dallas? the truth is that if any of those 4 teams had years of top playoff play and a stanley cup like Dallas has they would be a very well attended franchise as well.

The problem with your anti southern expansion point of view is that those teams have not had a chance to mature and lets face it, winning matters.

who are the teams you would dump and why?

:shakehead you are so wrong.

yea, you are right. he is wrong. but if you took the top 8 revenue making teams in the NHL only Toronto would make the cut.

I live in NC not too far from Raleigh. Your treatment of NHL coverage in raleigh is wrong. The Stanley cup period was off the charts. However, lets talk about those unnamed teams that you favor dumping out of the league. I bet they are all out of the playoff teams. If not, then they are teams with overwhelmingly losing histories like Tampa Bay. Are you ready to dump the Boston Bruins out because they won't spend the money to compete and their fans won't buy tickets to the tune of 24th in the league in attendance last year? Are you ready to dump the Chicago Blackhawks because their ownership is just inept? Are you ready to dump the Edmonton Oilers because they just can't keep up financially? no. I am sure you want to dump from the likes of Washington(based on one bad season even), Tampa, Florida, Atlanta and Pheonix because they are in the south. Why not Dallas? the truth is that if any of those 4 teams had years of top playoff play and a stanley cup like Dallas has they would be a very well attended franchise as well.

The problem with your anti southern expansion point of view is that those teams have not had a chance to mature and lets face it, winning matters.

who are the teams you would dump and why?


You make some very good points, and it was well thought out, cudos for that. However, you would have to admit that with all of the teams you mentioned, with the exception of Edmonton, that hockey is way down on the popular sports list for fans in those cities. That doesn't mean that those teams should be out of the league, but without a major TV deal, and revenue sharing being unlikely, these teams will have a hard time making it. By the same token spending money doesn't equal a competitive team. Look no further than the Rangers. There are a handful of teams that have unique situations where the fans just keep coming and they have a license to print money. I agree that winning has a lot to do with it, but building a team that is in the upper echelon every year is getting to be harder to do, and that means that those teams whose fans only follow the winners will be hard pressed to compete. Take the Jays in Toronto. They won back to back World Series and then have not made the post season since. They had the record for fan attendance at over 4 million for 4-5 straight years. Once the team lost its winning ways, they lost their fan base aswell. Teams like Minnesota, Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, will be given the benefit of the doubt for now, because they are new franchises. When the fans decide, and they will, that this team has had enough time to build and still have nothing to show for it, the fans will choose to spend their hard earned dollars on something else. You can't possibly disagree with that. The Kings, San Jose, Florida, Tampa, Carolina, all have had time and while steps have been taken to fix shortcomings, they continue by and large to struggle. Do not get me wrong, every team in the league has a group of hard core hockey fans, who will go to the wall for their team. Unfortunately, the owners are not in it for the fans, they are in it for the money, and once they realize it is no longer worth their while they will sell the team or move it somewhere else. I feel for you, in that you are caught up in a situation that is dictated by a combination of the ownership, and the fact that without a major TV deal and an equal playing field, by way of a salary cap or serious revenue sharing the teams hands are tied. I wouldn't want someone telling me my team shouldn't be in the league any more then you do, but I am looking at the numbers and seeing no way out long term. With regards to Chicago, Boston, and the like, I think that they have been around long enough and I believe that they have enough fans who will support them regardless of a losing season. What you will find with some teams, especially the original six, is that if the team doesn't do well, the fans will simply not show up to games. Keep in mind that Boston has made the playoffs for 28 or 30 staight years. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, as it was not intended to offend anyone, but the numbers don't lie, only those who are heads of the players union, and the leaders for the owners do. Get over your grandiose egos and put your fans first for once, and get this deal done. We are after all the ones who make it possible for the owners to give the players too much money! That's our money, and yet we get no say. We have to sit idly by and watch as these morons try to exercise their own agendas. So they can stand next to eachother at the urinals and see who carries the bigger stick. The longer this lockout goes the more the game is irreparably damaged, and as we've just talked about, our game is not in good enough shape going in, to possibly even make it out!

:shakehead you are so wrong.


Care to elaborate? I wish I was. I don't want to see Canada struggling to hold on to the NHL

New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Colorado, Boston, Dallas, Minnesota, St. Louis, Tampa Bay/Miami, Washington, Chicago. Those would be the best bets as to where teams would be in any 'new NHL' because as we know the NHL cares much more about the USA than Canada. They have no problem getting viewers in Canada, but who cares about Canada, because all the NHL cares about is American fans and not pissing off ESPN by wasting their time with putting teams in Canada they actually have to pay attention to.

Care to elaborate? I wish I was. I don't want to see Canada struggling to hold on to the NHL

New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Colorado, Boston, Dallas, Minnesota, St. Louis, Tampa Bay/Miami, Washington, Chicago. Those would be the best bets as to where teams would be in any 'new NHL' because as we know the NHL cares much more about the USA than Canada. They have no problem getting viewers in Canada, but who cares about Canada, because all the NHL cares about is American fans and not pissing off ESPN by wasting their time with putting teams in Canada they actually have to pay attention to.

I don't agree whole heartedly with what you say here, but I can't entirely dismiss it as being wrong either. The NHL does take liberties with Cananda for the sake of making a go of it in the States. I understand part of it, but I most definitely do not agree with it.

Canada vs. Slovakia was very exciting because when the team you are rooting for has arguably 10 of the top 20 players in the world and is dominating a lesser team, you tend to enjoy the game more. A league that has the most of the top talent on 1 team, the way this tournament does, wont last. Did you see any of the games in Prague or Germany? The seats were half filled. Ratings are lower than the Cup because everyone knows who is going to win.

If you want to save the game, just take out the teams in the south: Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida and some other non hockey market teams like Anaheim. The talent level will get a huge boost, there will be less clutching and grabbing as a result, the teams will be more evenly matched, and more people will want to see that!

If you want to save the game, just take out the teams in the south: Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida and some other non hockey market teams like Anaheim. The talent level will get a huge boost, there will be less clutching and grabbing as a result, the teams will be more evenly matched, and more people will want to see that!

How does removing hockey from the South save the game? By completely ignoring a huge potential market, the NHL does themselves no good. Why not include TB in that group? They are from the South too. Oh, it's because they've won a cup. Give teams like Nashville and Atlanta a chance to develop into maturity before calling for their heads. Teams like Nashville, Florida, and Atlanta have very bright futures and could be very successful teams. What better way to a build a fanbase out of nothing than to put a winner in a non-traditional market.

It's win-win situation for both players and owners. The inclusion of a massive market like the South has the ability to bring in big streams of revenue allowing players to be paid more while also allowing for more jobs.

How does removing hockey from the South save the game?
Because it protects the almighty Game from undeserving people like you and me! You see, it doesn't snow in the South. Having snow is a requirement for making "good" hockey fans, or at least that's what you'd believe by reading this board. :)

Why not include TB in that group? They are from the South too. Oh, it's because they've won a cup.
That's the only thing that gets us some slack, and it doesn't get us much. Tampa was ahead of Florida on most people's hitlists before this past season, though I did recently see a suggestion that the whole team should be transplanted to Quebec as opposed to contracted. :shakehead

Anyone who says the talent is "diluted" doesn't grasp the concept that expansion coincided with more players coming to the NHL from Europe, either that or they just want all the talent on their own team. I can't understand why we keep seeing this argument when it's been shown time and time again that it is false.

Because it protects the almighty Game from undeserving people like you and me! You see, it doesn't snow in the South. Having snow is a requirement for making "good" hockey fans, or at least that's what you'd believe by reading this board. :)


That's the only thing that gets us some slack, and it doesn't get us much. Tampa was ahead of Florida on most people's hitlists before this past season, though I did recently see a suggestion that the whole team should be transplanted to Quebec as opposed to contracted. :shakehead

Anyone who says the talent is "diluted" doesn't grasp the concept that expansion coincided with more players coming to the NHL from Europe, either that or they just want all the talent on their own team. I can't understand why we keep seeing this argument when it's been shown time and time again that it is false.

Lack of patience. Teams placed in the south don't become established overnight. Hell, the don't even become established over a decade. It takes closer to a generation before that happens. But those farther north who aren't in close proximity to a team want one badly, which is understandable. They choose to overlook the fact that this will take time and, if allowed, will work. Any perceived weakness of a team is a small (albeit false) opening for them to say "We'll it's not gonna work in the south, they don't have the support/tradition to sustain it."

It's a tiresome and self-serving argument, one that grates on me as well. I can understand some of their feelings but that still doesn't excuse trying to re-hash the same false assumptions over and over again. Whatcha gonna do but keep on keepin' on?

How does removing hockey from the South save the game? By completely ignoring a huge potential market, the NHL does themselves no good. Why not include TB in that group? They are from the South too. Oh, it's because they've won a cup. Give teams like Nashville and Atlanta a chance to develop into maturity before calling for their heads. Teams like Nashville, Florida, and Atlanta have very bright futures and could be very successful teams. What better way to a build a fanbase out of nothing than to put a winner in a non-traditional market.

It's win-win situation for both players and owners. The inclusion of a massive market like the South has the ability to bring in big streams of revenue allowing players to be paid more while also allowing for more jobs.

Excellent post and I completely agree :handclap: :handclap:

Canada vs. Slovakia was very exciting because when the team you are rooting for has arguably 10 of the top 20 players in the world and is dominating a lesser team, you tend to enjoy the game more. A league that has the most of the top talent on 1 team, the way this tournament does, wont last. Did you see any of the games in Prague or Germany? The seats were half filled. Ratings are lower than the Cup because everyone knows who is going to win.

If you want to save the game, just take out the teams in the south: Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, Florida and some other non hockey market teams like Anaheim. The talent level will get a huge boost, there will be less clutching and grabbing as a result, the teams will be more evenly matched, and more people will want to see that!


Hm, I notice you finger Anaheim to be removed, but not LA. One team recently made it to the finals, the other can't even get into the playoffs. Interesting.

I'm seeing a pretty common mistake being made over and over in this thread: people equating attendance with financial stability. Just because a team has a loyal fanbase doesn't mean a damned thing, and if the current state of the NHL isn't fixed...sure, teams like Carolina and Florida will feel the pain..but you know who will feel it even worse? Edmonton. Calgary. Ottawa. Don't assume for one second that a lockout will cure the nasty expansion virus while allowing some sort of NHL-Darwinism to set in, making all the tried-and-trues happy. That's a nice dream, but a dream just the same. As a Nashville fan, I'm praying there's no lockout(for a variety of reasons,) but as small-market Canadian fans...I hope you're praying just as hard.

Didn't the Sens actually give their players IOU's one week during the season? Didn't they have to "Save the Sens" in Ottawa? The owner was begging people to go to games.


Anyway, if the NHL were to disband and owners wanted to start a new league, there wouldn't be any canadian teams in it cause well, the the money is worthless.


Even if canada started it own league and it only had Canadian teams in the league, it coudln't compete financially with the American teams and all the good players would play in the states cause of the money.

The NHL could take drastic measures if the lockoout is not resolved by next summer. Shutting down the league, and opening say...the NHA (National Hockey Association) is looking like a much better idea as time passes. This has happened before.

In my city, one of the leading trucking companies had their workers go on strike. For days, workers picketed. Then one fateful day when the workers showed up to picket, the place was closed down. the next day, the trucks were repainted to read the new name of the company. The company had ceased operations for a day, then reopened as a entirely new company.

The employees lost their jobs for good, since the company they worked for no longer existed. If a business is losing tons of money, and the workers are not willing to agree to paycuts, or layoffs, why not take drastic measures? it may be the only way pro hockey will resume!

Didn't the Sens actually give their players IOU's one week during the season? Didn't they have to "Save the Sens" in Ottawa? The owner was begging people to go to games.


Anyway, if the NHL were to disband and owners wanted to start a new league, there wouldn't be any canadian teams in it cause well, the the money is worthless.


Even if canada started it own league and it only had Canadian teams in the league, it coudln't compete financially with the American teams and all the good players would play in the states cause of the money.

I hate to admit it, but you are probably right! Realistically many top Europeans would have left the NHL years ago to play back in their homeland, but the money just doesn't cut it there. The saddest part of what you said is that all the good players would go to the States where yes there is more money, but the game by and large is lost on the American people.

Most of the essential facts are no longer in dispute. The most important of these is that rapid expansion into soft hockey markets in the US did not pay off in national (US) television exposure and money. There was the optimistic bump from ABC/ESPN, and now reality has reared its ugly head. There are two main sources of income that teams have to depend on: gate receipts and regional cable revenues. Teams without both of these generating significant amounts of money will always be on the verge of insolvency. Accordingly, if the goal is to have a league where every franchise is a healthy one, the NHL should contract to approximately 20 teams. If the lockout is a lengthy one, no less than two and perhaps as many as four to fold without the league "doing" anything. In the four year period thereafter, another four to six teams will drop off. There's no deal that both the owners and the NHLPA will agree to that will prevent this from happening.

The likely victims? Between four and six of the following: Pittsburgh, Anaheim, Tampa or Florida, NY isles, Atlanta, Nashville, Calgary, perhaps Ottawa, Washington and Buffalo.

The NHL could take drastic measures if the lockoout is not resolved by next summer. Shutting down the league, and opening say...the NHA (National Hockey Association) is looking like a much better idea as time passes. This has happened before.

In my city, one of the leading trucking companies had their workers go on strike. For days, workers picketed. Then one fateful day when the workers showed up to picket, the place was closed down. the next day, the trucks were repainted to read the new name of the company. The company had ceased operations for a day, then reopened as a entirely new company.

The employees lost their jobs for good, since the company they worked for no longer existed. If a business is losing tons of money, and the workers are not willing to agree to paycuts, or layoffs, why not take drastic measures? it may be the only way pro hockey will resume!


The main problem with this idea is that the NHL is not a trucking company. It is a professional sports league and thus they have to operate like one. Doing something like that would kill any credibility that the league has left and would spell the end of any major sponsorship deals or even a potential deal with a major TV network. I know it seems cut and dry, but they have to work out this mess in the boardrooms. The owners are the ones who are taking all the risks, and yet the players are the game itself. A league simply cannot exist without both these two on the same side.

You don't have to look back that far, to see that the players were getting screwed with their contracts even up to the mid 80's. Now it has completely reversed itself. Early 80's a top goalie could expect $150,000 - $200,000 a year. Now they can expect $6-$9 million per year. Don't bother with the " yeah but it was all relative the cost of living in those days " post, because it simply is not true. Today the greedy owners are Dr. Fankenstein and the players are the monster he created. Any way you choose to look at it the monster is out of control and even the Dr. can't stop it. Now they are headed in opposite directions from one another and yet they say that the game cannot afford a work stoppage and that concessions have to be made for the good of the game. That is true, as long as neither side has to make those concessions. It's unfortunate that the game we all love, is ruled by lawyers and businessmen who see only the bottom line, but not where that money comes from...Us the FANS!

Hm, I notice you finger Anaheim to be removed, but not LA. One team recently made it to the finals, the other can't even get into the playoffs. Interesting.

I'm seeing a pretty common mistake being made over and over in this thread: people equating attendance with financial stability. Just because a team has a loyal fanbase doesn't mean a damned thing, and if the current state of the NHL isn't fixed...sure, teams like Carolina and Florida will feel the pain..but you know who will feel it even worse? Edmonton. Calgary. Ottawa. Don't assume for one second that a lockout will cure the nasty expansion virus while allowing some sort of NHL-Darwinism to set in, making all the tried-and-trues happy. That's a nice dream, but a dream just the same. As a Nashville fan, I'm praying there's no lockout(for a variety of reasons,) but as small-market Canadian fans...I hope you're praying just as hard.

You just don't get it, do you? "The Canadian teams will be supported during a lockout."

I have no idea what that means, but that is what you see on this board constantly. Apparently fans in "hockey markets" will still go to the arenas and spend money even though there is just an empty sheet of ice.

Most of the essential facts are no longer in dispute. The most important of these is that rapid expansion into soft hockey markets in the US did not pay off in national (US) television exposure and money. There was the optimistic bump from ABC/ESPN, and now reality has reared its ugly head. There are two main sources of income that teams have to depend on: gate receipts and regional cable revenues. Teams without both of these generating significant amounts of money will always be on the verge of insolvency. Accordingly, if the goal is to have a league where every franchise is a healthy one, the NHL should contract to approximately 20 teams. If the lockout is a lengthy one, no less than two and perhaps as many as four to fold without the league "doing" anything. In the four year period thereafter, another four to six teams will drop off. There's no deal that both the owners and the NHLPA will agree to that will prevent this from happening.

The likely victims? Between four and six of the following: Pittsburgh, Anaheim, Tampa or Florida, NY isles, Atlanta, Nashville, Calgary, perhaps Ottawa, Washington and Buffalo.

JV you are so right! I posted something similar yesterday on this thread. I was suggesting that certain changes are inevitable. There is a not a lack of talent in the league, but there is far to much non talent, which hurts the stars and ultimately the game. Those teams that are in non hockey markets have proven that they can make a run at the cup, and in Tampa's case they won the whole thing. The problem is that over time these markets cannot hold on. They do not have the local cable deals, they are not drawing enough fans, because in most of those markets, hockey is not even the fouth major sport, therefor they are not getting the gate receipts they need to keep the teams afloat.

Baseball has rebounded incredibly well since their labour dispute, that lost the season and the World Series. They went through some lean years, lost a lot of fans, and in doing so they realized that something had to change. Now you see that the last few teams that have opened new ball parks are making them smaller, making it more quaint, instead of those large cavernous buildings which are half empty most of the time. Smaller ball parks means more home runs, which equates directly to more fan interest and thus more gate receipts. I don't mean to go off on a baseball tangent here, but the reality is the same for all sports. Give the fans what they want and they will show up. Today sports teams mean big business, but in a lot of ways some real bonehead ideas, like how expanding into markets that are oblivious to hockey backfired, and set the league back 10 years. For the game to thrive there must be healthy franchises. Things need to change now.

The players are offering a luxury tax, well woop dee doo da! The teams that spend over a certain amount will be taxed, with the money going to the lesser lights as a form of revenue sharing to help keep them alive. Did you get that last part? ALIVE! Because there are 8-10 teams that are on life support and for the good of the rest of the league, someone has got to pull the plug! Those 10 teams constitute 1/3 of the NHL, so rather than make the teams viable, this luxury tax will just keep the teams afloat, and obviously the NHLPA will be happy because no jobs will be lost. If you cut out those teams, that means 30 players lose their jobs x 10 and those are numbers the PA cannot swallow. On the flip side, those are numbers the would make this a much better league and would make the most sense.

The NHL could take drastic measures if the lockoout is not resolved by next summer. Shutting down the league, and opening say...the NHA (National Hockey Association) is looking like a much better idea as time passes. This has happened before.

In my city, one of the leading trucking companies had their workers go on strike. For days, workers picketed. Then one fateful day when the workers showed up to picket, the place was closed down. the next day, the trucks were repainted to read the new name of the company. The company had ceased operations for a day, then reopened as a entirely new company.

The employees lost their jobs for good, since the company they worked for no longer existed. If a business is losing tons of money, and the workers are not willing to agree to paycuts, or layoffs, why not take drastic measures? it may be the only way pro hockey will resume!

Because there isn't a huge supply of equivalent hockey players like there are truckers. For the customers of that new trucking company there would be little difference in the product.

If the NHL were to do that, there would be a massive difference in the quality of the product. They'd be selling a Kia quality product at a Rolls Royce price.

Those teams that are in non hockey markets have proven that they can make a run at the cup, and in Tampa's run the won the whole thing. The problem is that over time these markets cannot hold on. They do not have the local cable deals, they are not drawing enough fans, because in most of those markets, hockey is not even the fouth major sport, therefor they are not getting the gate receipts they need to keep the teams afloat.
How can you judge a market's long term viability when a team has only been there a dozen or so years? You need to read cw7's post above about patience. Everyone wants to use the "oh, it's a failure" excuse for southern teams when most haven't had a chance yet to succeed. Here's a good article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/darren_eliot/02/02/nhl.south/) about the possible impact of a lockout on newer teams. It's from February, but still makes some good points:

For these teams to take hold, they need time to develop traditions, which in sports is associated with competing and ultimately winning.

That's why you can't measure the impact and viability of such an aggressive expansion program in a mere six-to-12-year time span. It is all still too new. The Lightning experience in Tampa has proven that organizations have to be given time to mature -- which includes enduring lean years competitively and management missteps.

Fans of older teams need to remember, the owners of those teams were quick enough to grab the expansion fees which helped cover their own expenses. I don't think any of them said no to their share of $50 mil for each new team, it's up to ALL of them to make things viable now.

And what team doesn't have a local cable deal?

How can you judge a market's long term viability when a team has only been there a dozen or so years? You need to read cw7's post above about patience. Everyone wants to use the "oh, it's a failure" excuse for southern teams when most haven't had a chance yet to succeed. Here's a good article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/darren_eliot/02/02/nhl.south/) about the possible impact of a lockout on newer teams. It's from February, but still makes some good points:



Fans of older teams need to remember, the owners of those teams were quick enough to grab the expansion fees which helped cover their own expenses. I don't think any of them said no to their share of $50 mil for each new team, it's up to ALL of them to make things viable now.

And what team doesn't have a local cable deal?


How much time is enough in your estimation? Are we supposed to sit here as hockey fans and hope and pray that the fans in these cities just wake up to Hockey one morning? Frankly, I am not interested in making everybody happy, all I want is a healthy league, and a good product to watch. The people in charge have bastardized much of what hockey was, just to try a get people in the States to take notice of the sport. Again, I do not want to stereotype, but by and large the American fan knows nothing about Hockey and rather than learn about the sport, they want to change it into something else.

"I can't follow the puck" - Oh you mean that black thing on the white ice.

"I know, lets make cool laser beams follow the puck around, that would be cool" - This is not a video game, this is part of the fabric of our country.

I do not mean to sound condescending, that is not my intention, but I can't tell you how frustrating it is to hear things like this. Furthermore we have make exceptions for them because without the States the game would be lost. That is a painful reality that regardless of what may be said to the contrary, it cannot be denied. I understand things have to change with time, but the people in charge...NO! not the board of governors or Gary Bettman, or Bob Goodenow, I mean ESPN, want to change the game into a novelty item, so that they can attract a few fans. They take for granted that the sport is heaped in traditon and that maybe we don't want these changes, which may not even work by the way. They use hockey as if it were a practice sport, to test their theories on how to attract fans or widen their viewership. I liken it to the plot from Eddie Murphy's "Trading places" where two all powerful brothers make a bet for $1 to test a theory, with no regard for the disaster it may cause to those involved. Jim Kelly, a prominent hockey writer from Buffalo has always maintained that "the game is wasted south of the border", because not enough people care. He is American, he is not commenting against the people of the United States, but rather is just stating the facts. If that can be said about some so called hockey markets, what does it say about the non-hockey markets? I would love nothing more than for this great game to flourish all across North America, but not at the price of losing what they game was built on.

"I can't follow the puck" - Oh you mean that black thing on the white ice.


Real hockey fans can follow the puck on the radio.

I think worrying about the southern markets is shortsighted. The billionaires who invested a hundred million dollars for a team in those markets think they can reproduce Colorados success if they develop a winner. Me too. I dont think fans of southern teams should be at all worried about attendance while they are developing. Even here in Ottawa, Hockey Country, we had the same problems. I think you can overcome them just as we did if you are patient and do it right. Pay no heed to those calling for contraction. Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Columbus, Minnesota are great markets on the right path.

I think instead the NHL should fold and then restart as a 45+ team league. Have a European conference or something. Put a salary cap at $15 million so every team can afford it.

I want the NHL in more markets, not less.

Real hockey fans can follow the puck on the radio.

I think worrying about the southern markets is shortsighted. The billionaires who invested a hundred million dollars for a team in those markets think they can reproduce Colorados success if they develop a winner. Me too. I dont think fans of southern teams should be at all worried about attendance while they are developing. Even here in Ottawa, Hockey Country, we had the same problems. I think you can overcome them just as we did if you are patient and do it right. Pay no heed to those calling for contraction. Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Columbus, Minnesota are great markets on the right path.

I think not worrying about the southern markets, is short sighted. Gary Bettman says lets not worry about how we got to this point ( the labour problems ), lets just concentrate on fixing the game now. Well Gary, if a little more thought was given before handing out a franchise to every city with beach front property, yeah we wouldn't have to worry about how we got here, because we may have averted the current problems. The real problem with the States in general, and more specifically the southern states, is that the NHL has not given those fans the chance to grasp the sport. It trickles down from the teams themselves. Rather than teach the game to these new fans, they just give them enough to like their team. Being a fan means more than watching your team, it means learning the game, knowing the players, and being aware of other teams aroung the league. The Broadcasters are lacking, as are the colour man, the beat writers, many of these people don't know enough about the sport to be in a position to comment. The American people are not stupid, nor is the sport of Hockey to complex. You need to teach the game and get them to buy into the NHL, before they truly buy into the Blue Jackets, or the Thrashers.

I think not worrying about the southern markets, is short sighted. Gary Bettman says lets not worry about how we got to this point ( the labour problems ), lets just concentrate on fixing the game now. Well Gary, if a little more thought was given before handing out a franchise to every city with beach front property, yeah we wouldn't have to worry about how we got here, because we may have averted the current problems. The real problem with the States in general, and more specifically the southern states, is that the NHL has not given those fans the chance to grasp the sport. It trickles down from the teams themselves. Rather than teach the game to these new fans, they just give them enough to like their team. Being a fan means more than watching your team, it means learning the game, knowing the players, and being aware of other teams aroung the league. The Broadcasters are lacking, as are the colour man, the beat writers, many of these people don't know enough about the sport to be in a position to comment. The American people are not stupid, nor is the sport of Hockey to complex. You need to teach the game and get them to buy into the NHL, before they truly buy into the Blue Jackets, or the Thrashers.


I think you're asserting things without really knowing the background, though. A lot of the markets that people are quick to write off...have only had hockey for a shade over five years! Having spent a large chunk of my life in Nashville, and coming up through the Nashville hockey program...I can honestly say that since the Predators came to town, hockey is up BIG TIME in the youth. When I started playing in Nashville at the age of nine(after having played for 3 years in my previous home in upstate New York,) the youth hockey program existed only due to the affluence of the sport and the fact that the Saturn plant had transplanted a great many midwesterners to the area. By the time I was playing high school hockey(the Predators came to town my junior year), it had grown..but not substantially. However..in the six years since...I'd say the youth hockey(both ice and in-line) has more than quadrupled. The younger kids had a team to follow and players to emulate. For a while, you couldn't go in a sporting good store without seeing toddler-sized Ronning and Walker jersies..and even now, there's a popular season ticket holder who is no more than six..and wears a Sully(from monsters inc) costume to every game with his Sullivan jersey over it. That's the key. Expecting a bunch of never-been-exposed to hockeys to convert overnight is unrealistic. However..reaching the youth..getting them to love\understand\play hockey is not only realistic but it's the current situation. And what happens then? Their parents get into watching them play..and end up taking them to more hockey games. And from there? Their friends and THEIR parents get into it, as well. At the rate that kids are starting to play hockey in the Nashville area at all ages...some patience is due to Nashville..because if the current labor situation straightens itself out...in another 5-6 years..you could see hockey as second only to football in Nashville. And while I speak of Nashville, since it's what I know..I'm sure the situation is similar in other "non-traditional" markets. People are quick to write these markets off...but there was a time when cities like Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary and even Detroit that attendance was pretty dismal, as well. The on-ice product is improving..fans are being won...and in time, the results will be obvious.

I can grant you that the newer franchises do atleast deserve a chance, but the L.A Kings, Anaheim, Sharks, Panthers, etc...Have had their chance. Tampa, yes they won the Cup, and that is no small feat, and look poised to be a threat again, but for the betterment of the league, how can so many teams be just holding on? Is it worth it for the rest of the teams to have to agree to a revenue sharing option that will only keep these teams afloat? and not make them stable. The league needs to take steps, however harsh they may be if it helps the sport.

I can grant you that the newer franchises do atleast deserve a chance, but the L.A Kings, Anaheim, Sharks, Panthers, etc...Have had their chance. Tampa, yes they won the Cup, and that is no small feat, and look poised to be a threat again, but for the betterment of the league, how can so many teams be just holding on? Is it worth it for the rest of the teams to have to agree to a revenue sharing option that will only keep these teams afloat? and not make them stable. The league needs to take steps, however harsh they may be if it helps the sport.


but that's the point i keep making...you're under the illusion that it's JUST the southern\western teams that need revenue sharing. The Canadian teams that aren't called the Maple Leafs need it JUST as bad, if not more.

but that's the point i keep making...you're under the illusion that it's JUST the southern\western teams that need revenue sharing. The Canadian teams that aren't called the Maple Leafs need it JUST as bad, if not more.

I understand that, and I agree with you. However, what the Canadian teams have that those aforementioned teams don't is a following, and an understanding of the game. Do you honestly believe that people in these American cities will actually be bothered by a work stoppage. They have so many other sports teams to watch, whereas in Canada, hockey is #1 regardless of what else is going on in that city.

I can grant you that the newer franchises do atleast deserve a chance, but the L.A Kings, Anaheim, Sharks, Panthers, etc...Have had their chance. Tampa, yes they won the Cup, and that is no small feat, and look poised to be a threat again, but for the betterment of the league, how can so many teams be just holding on? Is it worth it for the rest of the teams to have to agree to a revenue sharing option that will only keep these teams afloat? and not make them stable. The league needs to take steps, however harsh they may be if it helps the sport.

Closing teams achieves two things

1. puts players out of work.

2. With more stars and good players to go around, and teams only having the same budgets, each teams players are going to have to share their pie with other talent players. This forces player salaries down.

Contraction: lower salaries and jobs out of work.
Cap/luxury tax: lower salaries and no job losses.

Which looks more logical for the NHLPA? Contraction is double lose-lose scenario for the NLPHA/players. And they know it. Its no coincidence that salary escalation and expansion happened at the same times.

Real hockey fans can follow the puck on the radio.

I think worrying about the southern markets is shortsighted. The billionaires who invested a hundred million dollars for a team in those markets think they can reproduce Colorados success if they develop a winner. Me too. I dont think fans of southern teams should be at all worried about attendance while they are developing. Even here in Ottawa, Hockey Country, we had the same problems. I think you can overcome them just as we did if you are patient and do it right. Pay no heed to those calling for contraction. Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Columbus, Minnesota are great markets on the right path.
Well said, and thank you.

I love the assumption flying around in this thread that one must be born in Canada to understand hockey. Don't mean to be condescending, eh? Sure.

Jim Kelly, a prominent hockey writer from Buffalo has always maintained that "the game is wasted south of the border", because not enough people care. He is American, he is not commenting against the people of the United States, but rather is just stating the facts.

Not to be overly critical but his name is Jim Kelley, not to be confused with the former Buffalo Bills Quarterback named Jim Kelly. Just a small point that may have confused some people.

Not to be overly critical but his name is Jim Kelley, not to be confused with the former Buffalo Bills Quarterback named Jim Kelly. Just a small point that may have confused some people.


I was just wondering if he did a "Point\Counterpoint" with Scott "Norwide" Norwood :joker:

The owners cannot not just shut down the league and start a new one because to do that they have to file for bankruptcy and all records then become public and they must convince a judge and that would be next to imposible to do. Also if th bankruptcy was not chapter 7 then law suits would tie the owners up for years and they stll lose because all assets they have will be taken and sld tosatisfy tecreditors and others . So stop dreaming and go to spectors.net click on soapbox to have your eyes opened to what the real problem is .

That website does not exist !!! :mad:

Why is it that teams like Nashville is a bad market but Chicago, Boston, New York Islanders and New Jersey are good markets?