What Expansion Needs To Succeed

As the NHL continues to recover years after their most recent self inflicted wound and ratings continue to climb, the league seems intent on complicating things through the ever present expansion discussions. Places like Las Vegas, Seattle, Quebec City and even Toronto for a second team are talked about as if expansion coming is as sure as the sun rising in the East. And to be sure not all teams are turning profits or filling seats (I’m talking to you, Florida Panthers, among others) so there are opportunities to relocate some of the less profitable franchises for new starts, potentially in new markets. New arenas will certainly be built on the backs of taxpayers and the league and their political partners in these new locations will tell anyone that will listen why this location will be different than Kansas City, Hartford, or Atlanta.

More from Puck Prose

It’s not that I’m against expansion or relocation. But I am concerned that the league and Commissioner Gary Bettman have not learned lessons from past efforts. South Florida, Texas and Arizona have been attendance challenged since inception and the thought of a franchise moving to Las Vegas, with so much demand for your entertainment dollar, just seems destined to fizzle out quickly. So if the league is going to go down this road again I think it’s important that they learn from past mistakes. And the mistakes are a combination of strategic initiatives and marketing shortcomings.

Some of my most vivid and formative memories as a young fan involved my hometown Sabres against rivals such as the Flyers, Bruins and, my personal favorite to this day, the Maple Leafs. Games were contentious and often times were highlighted by fights. Rob Ray and Tie Domi memories will be gifts I hope to give to my children as to why I love this game. But the NHL has made a conscious effort in recent years to eliminate fighting from the game, in particular the staged fights immediately after face-offs. I don’t mind the reduction in staged fights, but I have always been a supporter of a player sticking up for a teammate after a questionable play or defending a run goaltender. And you just don’t see it now with a greater focus on concussions and stiffer off ice discipline.

However an unintended consequence of eliminating fighting has been a reduction in rivalries. Most of what we are shown on national telecasts are regional rivalries: Flyers/Penguins, perhaps Boston/Montreal, or some combination of Rangers/Devils/Islanders. I remember rivalries like Detroit and Colorado where if the two teams played any closer together we may have seen a second civil war. There were bonafide stars like Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman, and Patrick Roy. There were big hits, some dirty, and there were frequent high stakes games in both the regular season and the playoffs. And when teams like this got together the energy would carry over, many times in the form of the designated tough guys squaring off to establish dominance.

There are not enough quality rivalries in the league now to keep from overexposing the same teams and players over and over again on national broadcasts. Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, and Lundqvist will still be the biggest national draws. But how do you drive the game locally so that people will want to come to games in the current struggling markets or those seemingly destined to replace them? And is it even possible for the league to create a rivalry other than two teams organically hating each other? I don’t know the answer to those questions, but I feel very comfortable saying that the constant shifting of divisions and playoff format do nothing but hurt the building of rivalries and confuse fans. I think before the league considers even relocation of existing franchises, let alone adding a pair of new ones, they need to understand the fans in these markets and what will drive their consuming of the product. And the product will be better consumed when you have greater rivalries that fans can get behind.

Home/Boston Bruins