Realistically....How many teams should be in the NHL?
View Single Post
12-29-2012, 02:23 PM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Originally Posted by
I agree about the trap, it's very detrimental to the game. But here's the thing about the talent pool though is that for example less and less kids play hockey in Canada and Canada should be the the NHL's biggest source of talent. And we can't rely on Europe to save us given their small population. The idea that let's go keep having expansions there's always gonna be players to fill these teams' jerseys is science-fiction, especially considering the reality of hockey in 2012: less available talent, bad markets, bad US economy.
: why should Canada be the NHL's biggest source of talent?
: Are further inroads being made into Europe or not?
For the smaller countries, here's how many NHL players they had in their history by 1996, and how many they've had since then:
Austria - 0 in 1996, 6 from 1997-2012
Denmark - 1 by 1996, 6 from 1997-2012
France - 4 by 1996, 3 from 1997-2012
Germany - 9 by 1996, 17 from 1997-2012
Norway - 1 by 1996, 6 from 1997-2012
Switzerland - 2 by 1996, 18 from 1997-2012
Not included are the USSR and former Soviet republics. I can also throw in IIHF rankings over time, which has seen Slovenia go from the bottom to the top division in less than 20 years, that has seen Hungary go from middling to the top division, that has seen Belarus and Latvia surge...
: With natural population growth and shifts, why would there be
available talent even within already-developed countries? We haven't touched on the next wave of Swedish players; 10 years ago, they weren't producing anyone. Slovakia and the Czech Republic both went through an extended lull. And the United States was entirely confined to Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Michigan....now we've seen a resurgence in the European countries, and a huge influx of NHL talent from other American states.
View Public Profile
Mayor Bee's albums
Find More Posts by Mayor Bee