Forty Team NHL Expansion Concept | Charlie ND 

We've got a regular season game scheduled here Minnesota v Chicago coming this fall.

@@blueptconvertible Scum from Chicago and Minnesota infesting my town? I think I'll stay off the streets that night.

Even if the NHL had 40 teams there is still no way Milwaukee would get one.

I would agree with Baltimore for one big reason, I can testify as someone who lives there almost all of Maryland even the parts near dc identify with Baltimore teams like the Os and Ravens. The DC teams are more Virginia's thing. A Baltimore NHL team would definitely have support and automatic rivalries with DC, Pittsburgh, and possibly Philly. Plus Royal Farms arena is a good temporary arena while a permanent NHL spec arena could be built

@@dvferyance Explain Dork.

That may be true, but don't forget that San Diego is also very passionate about their AHL team. I think either city would be a suitable place but I decided to just pick one west coast city.

Portland already has the Moda Center which holds over 19,000 for the NBA Blazers and accommodates 18,000 for hockey. It was built for NHL specifications for any future team. San Diego would have to build a new arena.

@@thesamuraifoodie San Diego already has a hockey arena. The Pechanga Center. I don’t know the minimum capacity that an NHL team has to have, but the Pechanga Arena has around 13,000 which is good enough I think

@@LetsGoPens528 no the arena is too old and small

@@thebiggestmlsfan9019 San Diego has plans to build a state of the art sports arena within the next few years. People love the AHL team here (the Gulls), hockey has been exploding in popularity among the youth here, and there are a lot of Canadian transplants that live in the area. San Diego definitely would get behind an NHL team.

Milwaukee should 100% be next team added

In the 80s, the Petits built the Bradley center for hockey--but the Blackhawks petitioned the league and the franchise fee was raised to an absurd amount and they couldn't pay it. Chicago kinda screwed that one. I hope they get a team in the future.

@@joupacabrayeah and people ask why I hate the Blackhawks so much.

@@jacksonfromwisconsin2005 they could have just had an awesome rivalry like the Bears/Packers.

I'm with this guy

Saskatoon's team would be called the Saskatchewan Whitetails.

Halifax 😂

Houston Aeros 100%

Hartford Whalers

It won't be hartford

Honolulu Rainbow Skaters

They need to put the arena near I-75 and I-285 near Truist Park or in close proximity, or near I-285 at Georgia 400. These are the optimal sites. My choice for location would be to place an arena around the office park area off New Northside Drive, just north of I-285 close to the River and a few miles from Truist Park. There is plenty of land to build an arena there, as well as restaurants or something similar to the Battery. The other choice would be to build just to the north of Truist Park across from the stadium, but they'd have to buy out the owners of the current buildings in that area. If they were able to do that they could also use the Battery for pre and post Game. State Farm Arena is another possibility. This is the former home of the Thrashers, and even though it was reconfigured, it would still work for the NHL, just without adequate seating or site lines near one goal end. It could be a temporary home, if need be, until a new arena was built, or it could be the final home, but I think a new arena on the northwest or north side is optimal. Gas South Arena in Gwinnett, where the Atlanta Gladiators play, could also be a temporary home, but I wouldn't look at anything long term there because it only has around nine thousand seats, and it is so, so, so far for about two-thirds of the metropolitan area population to get to. It explains good attendance on Saturdays and the weekend, but lackluster attendance for 7 pm games on a week night. The traffic makes getting off work at 5, going home, and going through traffic very difficult for anyone other than those who live in the immediate area or Gwinnett, Hall, or Barrow counties.

Quebec City needs a team now

And the Nats owner wants to sell.

Good idea for the arena placement! Maybe somewhere along the Red Line though, near the perimeter. Good access for cars, plus decent access for train-goers from downtown. If a competent ownership group could make that work, they could have regular sell-out crowds.

Return the Flames back to Atlanta and relocate them from Calgary, Alberta in Canada and return them to Atlanta and then Calgary would apply for a NHL expansion franchise team that would be the former WHA team Calgary Cowboys that should waited until the end of the 1978 - 79 WHA season to join the National Hockey League 43 year ago in 1979 instead of the Flames leaving Atlanta in 1980 they would have celebrated their 50th anniversary in the 2021 - 2022 season as the current Atlanta Flames and they would have celebrated their first Stanley Cup Championship in 1989 hanging up their banner at beginning of the 1989 - 90 season in Atlanta, Georgia.

If the Coyotes can play in a 5000-seat college hockey arena, I don't see what's wrong with 10000 seats in a temporary venue.

That’s exactly what they’re doing actually. The next team is going to play in the suburbs in Alpharetta, GA.

As long as Gary Bettman is in charge, no Canadian city will ever get another NHL team, sadly

It was all on Atlanta Spirit Group, LLC. THEY destroyed the Thrashers.

Most NHL arenas have a capacity at roughly 20k, way less than a football staudium.

And it's worth pointing out that having better ownership than the Thrashers' is an insanely low bar to clear.

@@owenpowell3291 probably yeah. but that's because he's trying to expand southward, among other reasons. this feels like ''bettman hates canadian teams because 1993, stanley cup, blah blah blah.'' even though thats not really the case, the cup thing is again multiple factors coming together. the owners also decide most of the things, Bettman is just the guy who announces it

The rivalries would go up from Buffalo, around Lake Ontario and up the St. Lawrence; Buffalo-Hamilton-Toronto-Ottawa-Quebec-Montreal.

Except Atlanta has had 2 failed franchises

@@friedfreds4230 Please take the time to read this. Why would you not have Atlanta in the league? Atlanta has had the highest MLS attendance for six years running, by far. It isn't even close. Atlanta had the fourth highest MLB attendance in 2022. The Falcons are in the top half of NFL attendance. The Hawks are near the middle of the pack in NBA attendance. Thus, where is this irrationality of Atlanta coming from? Atlanta lost its teams having to do with certain circumstances that COULD HAVE HAPPENED ANYWHERE. It is not a reflection of the city. The Flames left because owner Tom Cousins was a real estate developer and during the Jimmy Carter administration, interest rates were increased dramatically. This increase in interest rates about tanked his business. To keep it afloat, he sold off his profitable asset, the Flames, TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, which just so happened to be someone who TOOK THEM TO CALGARY, DESPITE MULTIPLE LOCAL BIDDERS. If he had chosen any other, the Flames would probably still be in Atlanta, and Calgary would have gotten an expansion team later. The Thrashers left do to some unfortunate circumstances. The Thrashers, originally owned by Ted Turner, was acquired by Time Warner in an acquisition of Turner Sports. This included the Atlanta Hawks of the NBA, the rights to Philips Arena, and the NHL's Atlanta Thrashers. Time Warner had the hair brained idea to merge with AOL, having no foresight that dial-up internet wasn't long standing. A few years later, AOL-Time Warner, the company as it was called, started facing financial hardships as the transition away from dial up internet took place. In order to stabilize the company, they sold their sports franchises, the Hawks, and Thrashers, and the rights to Philips Arena AS A PACKAGE DEAL. It is the package deal that was the root of what led to the Thrashers' demise. You see, it allowed a group of investors from various cities who WANTED A BASKETBALL TEAM, named ATLANTA SPIRIT GROUP, LLC, who acquired the Thrashers as a way of also getting the Hawks. Most had no interest in hockey, and most wanted to sell the Thrashers right after acquisition. There was a lone investor who did want the Thrashers, and in order to prevent the sale, he took the other investors to court. They lost a tremendous amount of money in LITIGATION COSTS, while simultaneously used most of their revenue to acquire Hawks players for exorbitant salaries, namely Joe Johnson. This left little for the Thrashers and is responsible for their continued dismal performance on the ice, having only one playoff year in which they were swept. Litigation costs forced the Thrashers to sell off most of their good players, and shortly after, the court ruled that Atlanta Spirit Group, LLC, could sell the Thrashers. Atlanta Spirit Group sabotaged any potential buyers keeping the Thrashers in Atlanta. For one, they would not allow any new owner to receive any revenue from concessions or parking, as since Atlanta Spirit Group would still own Philips Arena (THE RESULT OF THE PACKAGE DEAL), Atlanta Spirit Group would get that revenue, not the new Thrashers owners. Secondly, it has been stated multiple times that Atlanta Spirit Group was looking to get the relocation fee from the NHL. They also apparently did not want to have to compete with the Thrashers for fans, and wanted to have Atlanta all to themselves in winter sports with the Hawks. Atlanta Spirit Group also wanted a fee from any potential buyers to USE THEIR ARENA. The loss of revenue coupled with fees to Atlanta Spirit, as well as Atlanta Spirit not taking considerably any strong contenders for sale to keep the team in Atlanta, resulted in people unwilling to take a risk, since this setup would have bankrupted any city's sports franchise. The league was also not flexible in 2011. They would not allow the Thrashers to play at the Gwinnett Arena, an arena that holds about 9,000 fans. Years later, they went off this and now are allowing the Coyotes to play in an arena of about 4,000-5,000 fans. The recession was in full swing during the Thrashers' departure, so this didn't exactly help things either. All this said, it is easy to see that Atlanta's movements had nothing to do with attendance, and all with ownership. Atlanta never was last in attendance, and outsold the Bruins, Blackhawks, and Penguins some years. Atlanta is also a huge city that makes some of these other cities that people list as possible expansion sites look like little cities. Atlanta has the third largest urbanized, built-up area in the USA, and fourth largest in the world. Kansas City? Really? They have less than one third the population of metropolitan Atlanta, and it will become even less than that as Atlanta has robust growth, while Kansas City is kind of stagnant. Atlanta metro has about 6.2 million, while Kansas City has just over 2 million. Lastly, Atlanta and Kansas City both play in the ECHL, and Atlanta's attendance is FAR LARGER. Atlanta's attendance is about sixty percent greater than Kansas City's in 2023. Plus, Atlanta's arena is situated in the far northeast corner of the metro, not downtown, and is difficult for two thirds of the metro area population to even get there, given the distance and traffic. By contrast, while Kansas City does not play in a downtown arena, the suburb they play in is far closer to downtown and is far more accessible to most of the metropolitan area population.

There is more to rivalry than proximity. Atlanta, San Diego, KC have all had teams, and blew it.

Milwaukee has a metropolitan area of ONLY around 1.6 million people. That is a small large city. Milwaukee should be satisfied with having MLB and NBA, and even having an NFL team in Green Bay, when there are far more populated southern metropolitan areas that have fewer teams. Atlanta and Houston should be the next two expansion sites. Keep Milwaukee AHL, move Kansas City, Cincinnati, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis from the ECHL to the AHL. Demote some of the tiny AHL cities down to ECHL.

They wont. It makes no sense... Dilute the talent too far.

@@pkzammy666 World population keeps growing, and so does the amount of people who play hockey. Ratio would be similar to the same. I think next expansion would be appropriate in 10-15 years.

@@pkzammy666 it just gives more people a chance and we can grow the game look at soccer for example there are hella leagues

34 36 or 38 teams would be the best

Putting teams in these areas can make a huge success for the future

Not krakens; Kraken

No it’s too small

@@thebiggestmlsfan9019 Is it smaller than Winnipeg? Canada is a different market than the US because Canada basically has ONE sport that they love: hockey. They dont care about much else other than hockey. The US has lots of sports of which to draw fan support, so that support can be diluted. Not in Canada!

I can never see Saskatoon (Regina as well) being able to afford an NHL team. First Saskatoon is just 350,000 people and while Regina is 2 hours away it too is very small and even combined add up to just 3/4 of Quebec City. Plus how many fans from Regina will make a 4 hours round trip by car in Canadian winters (maybe 3-5 games a year) but not 41 home games a year. You also need to find a billionaire owner who thinks NHL can be profitable in Saskatoon. Plus Add the $900,000,000 Cdn expansion fee plus the $600,000,000 Cdn cost of building an NHL size arena and 100,000,000 Cdn per year to afford NHL contracts and still stay profitable. Plus NHL would only be getting very few as Saskatchewan is already hockey crazy in already buying more NHL merchandise and NHL TV packages etc. NHL wants to expand the sport further in the USA as the USA has 9 times the population and not nearly as saturated. NHL only has 25 US cities … NBA has 29, MLB has 29 US cities and NFL 32. Only Quebec City and maybe Toronto 2/Hamilton have a chance.

@@thebiggestmlsfan9019 Great Points. I can see failed WHA cities maybe getting NHL teams. I was thinking perhaps Houston, Indianapolis, Birmingham, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and perhaps even Oakland/S.F. again. Maybe even K.C.

You could get a packed arena every night. It’s Saskatoon, there’s not much else to do. Yes those up front cost are steep but there would be butts in seats every night. Atlanta wouldn’t sell out like they do but the TV audience would be lower

Milwaukee was awarded the NHL franchise that eventually became the Ottawa Senators. The group was led by former Blackhawks radio play by play announcer Lloyd Pettit. He and his wife Jane built the Bradley Center specifically for hockey and it was thought they were a lock to get a franchise. When Pettit was awarded the franchise and told that the expansion fee was $50million, despite the owners of the San Jose Sharks getting their team for a mere $35million plus have the roster of the old Northstars prospects/farm teams, Pettit pulled his offer to purchase. The dream of the NHL coming to Milwaukee died at that very moment. The only way Milwaukee gets a team now is if an existing team moves there. That is not likely.

Atlanta has more white people, hockey's primary demographic (don't kid yourself, well over 95 percent of fans are white, even in very diverse metropolitan areas), than any other metropolitan area without an NHL team. Atlanta has about 300,000 more whites than Houston metropolitan area, and around one to two million more whites than any of the rest, including San Diego, Portland, and Kansas City. Atlanta IS the logical first choice, especially considering it's size, it's success with it's other franchises in attendance, and the unfortunate realities of why both the Flames and Thrashers left, having nothing to do with any lack of fan support.

I live in Atlanta and I would not give Atlanta another team. There simply isn't the interest. Oh, all the tickets will sell, just like the Thrashers' tickets sold - to corporations that rarely used them. I saw this again and again with the Thrashers. My firm had season tickets, to entertain clients. Most of the time an email went out at lunchtime of a gameday asking if anyone wanted the tickets. You'd take them and show up to a sold-out area that was never more than half-full. Stop trying to make NHL hockey in Atlanta happen. It's not going to happen. Atlanta has a big population...of people who don't give a shit about hockey. They just don't, and they never will ever. Give a team to Hartford or someone who wants it.

Quit smoking the dope KLo. Atlanta is not worthy of any NHL team.

"Put a good product on the ice and fans will come out in droves" Disproven by the late 90s- Early 2000s Atlanta Braves

@@cisium1184 You don't know what you're talking about. Attendance had nothing to do with it. I don't know what games you attended, but I attended quite a number of Thrashers games, and the only one that had not very many fans was two months before the team left the city when it was speculated already that they were going to try to get rid of the team. Most of the games I attended were well over 80 percent capacity, some sellouts, and one I could only get a "standing" ticket. The Flames also had mid range attendance. 1972-1973: (16 teams) 11th in attendance ahead of NY Islanders, Pittsburgh Penguins, Los Angeles Kings, Chicago Blackhawks, and California Golden Seals 1973-1974: (16 teams) 10th in attendance ahead of Chicago Blackhawks, Pittsburgh Penguins, Los Angeles Kings, New York Islanders, Detroit Red Wings, and California Golden Seals 1974-1975: (18 teams) 11th in attendance ahead of Chicago Blackhawks, Washington Capitals, Pittsburgh Penguins, California Golden Seals, Kansas City Scouts, Los Angeles Kings, and Detroit Red Wings 1975-1976: (18 teams) 11th in attendance ahead of Chicago Blackhawks, Detroit Red Wings, California Seals, Kansas City Scouts, Minnesota North Stars, Washington Capitals, and Pittsburgh Penguins 1976-1977: (18 teams) 10th in attendance ahead of Chicago Blackhawks, Pittsburgh Penguins, Washington Capitals, Boston Bruins, Cleveland Barons, Colorado Rockies, Minnesota North Stars, and Detroit Red Wings 1977-1978: (18 teams) 15th in attendance ahead of Cleveland Barons, Minnesota North Stars, and Colorado Rockies, as well as within a few hundred of Pittsburgh Penguins, St. Louis Blues, Chicago Blackhawks, and Washington Capitals 1978-1979: (17 teams) 10th in attendance ahead of St. Louis Blues, Pittsburgh Penguins, Minnesota North Stars, Chicago Blackhawks, Colorado Rockies, Los Angeles Kings, and Washington Capitals 1979-1980: (21 teams) 19th in attendance ahead of Colorado Rockies and Hartford Whalers. The last year was really their only subpar year, and that was likely because there was news of the team leaving the city as a result of other buyers from elsewhere looking to buy the team due to Tom Cousin's financial hardships brought on by interest rates and the recession. This was excellent considering the size of the Atlanta area in the 70s. In 1970, two years before Atlanta entered the league, the metropolitan area population was only 1.7 million people or so. In 1980 when they left, the area only had around 2.2 million people. This is FOUR MILLION LESS than it currently has. The Thrashers outsold the the Chicago Blackhawks, Pittsburgh Penguins, Boston Bruins, New York Islanders, New Jersey Devils, St. Louis Blues, Nashville Predators, Carolina Hurricanes, Tampa Bay Lightning, Florida Panthers, Washington Capitals, etc. at various seasons, and regularly outsold the New York Islanders and Arizona Coyotes. The Thrashers were NEVER LAST in attendance And regarding what I have posted, it cannot be refuted. These are the facts. I have shown attendance figures for MLS, MLB, and the NHL when Atlanta was in the league. I have posted demographic data that supports Atlanta being the largest area with the most white people, the NHL's key demographic, without an NHL team. I have posted data on the size of the metro Atlanta area compared to other cities, and it isn't close. I have given the reason for BOTH the Flames and Thrashers departures and have been objective about what happened. Atlanta IS the logical choice to re-enter the league first, and putting these small cities ahead of Atlanta is just ridiculous. You ought to know that.

Good point. I'd totally be on board with a Salt Lake City team; the Jazz certainly have quite a strong following (I've even met Jazz fans in Toronto) and I definitely think hockey would be a great addition to the city. If the NHL were to relocate a current team I think Salt Lake City would be a great destination.

@@CharlieND Yeah, I think the cities you mentioned all make sense. Just wanted to put a plug in for SLC as well!

@@slamdunk406 no not Saskatoon Hartford is better and Cleveland is a good option

@@thebiggestmlsfan9019 Hartford and Cleveland would make sense as well. Good suggestions!

@@slamdunk406 Yeah also cleveland has the rocket mortgage fieldhouse which holds up to 18,000 fans

I agree

I would definitely not be opposed to Orlando. I feel like hockey is really starting to take off in Florida and Orlando would be a great city for a team.

Pretty much how it is now the NHL will continue to hope that Columbus Blue Jackets will take Cleveland's attention (and to an extent Cincinnati) considering how Cleveland is the stepping grounds to Columbus being their affiliate. I wouldn't be shocked if one day they rename the Blue Jackets to the Ohio Blue Jackets though to bring in all the Cs of Ohio.

Halifax could be a good spot for a team, but the only reason I didn't mention it is because there are way too many teams in the eastern part of the continent already.

No one cares about local sports teams in SD. Better off forming a professional surfing team

@@gx6299 you do NOT know what you are talking about

@@gmellos Bro the capacity of pechanga arena is only 10,00 so san diego is a no

@@thebiggestmlsfan9019 actually it is 13000 for hockey but SD is in the process of trying to redevelop the arena site with a new arena

@@gmellos Yeah but the pechanga center is not nhl ready

As a Wisconsinite I can tell you that hockey is very popular in Wisconsin. A lot of people here grew up playing hockey on local frozen lakes and ponds. The University of Wisconsin (okay, Madison is 80 miles away from Milwaukee) has always had a strong hockey program for both men and women. Local native Mark Johnson from the Miracle on Ice 1980 Olympic champions team still coaches the women's hockey team, which has won six NCAA championships since they first started in 1999, and Wisconsin is the only school to have had both their men's and women's hockey teams win the Frozen Four in the same year. The Wisconsin Men's Hockey team has also won six NCAA championships. Frankly, it's criminal that Wisconsin hasn't had an NHL team yet, given the devotion of its fans.

Cincinnati wouldnt get one as columbus is already the team in ohio

Ok, I got the Pacific one wrong. I was thinking about San Diego, but decided not to since I think they would wanna put more in the Pacific Northwest and there’s not too much competition in other or sports. That’s my main reasoning for Victoria and Portland, also both have a history with pro hockey. Plus also Utah is kinda an untapped market. First I wanna say I meant Saskatoon, which I thought because of the failed Blues relocation. Houston was a pretty obvious one tbh. Kansas City got me because of their previous franchise, the Scouts. Milwaukee/Green Bay was just because I thought Wisconsin needed a team, and AHL helps with that. Atlanta was kinda obvious. Even though there have been two failed teams, people still love the Thrashers and especially those jerseys. They would fly off the shelves and would also help with another southern team in the Metro joining the Hurricanes and the moved Predators. Hamilton was dark horse. Multiple attempts at getting a new team. Also, formerly had the Hamilton Tigers early on in the NHL. Quebec City was an obvious choice. Was really surprised he went with Hamilton over Hartford and San Diego over somewhere like Portland and Victoria.

I would also like to state that if the 8 teams introduced 4 have had an NHL team before, 2 currently have AHL teams, 1 had a WHA and then AHL team, and the other was close to getting an NHL team.

There would probably be something like playing one game against teams in one division from the other conference each season (10 games), 3 games each against teams in the other division in your conference (30 games), then 4 games against your division mates (36 games). The NHL would likely want an extra round to the playoffs with something like the NBA's play-in tournament to get the playoff field down to 8 teams in each conference (or even 4 teams in each division). Or perhaps even something like 6 teams in each division playing a triple round-robin, with the team having the best record after 15 games advancing to the conference finals. You only make the playoffs at most one game longer for a team that goes all the way (29 games maximum vs. 28 games now), and 60% of the league would get five guaranteed postseason home dates. The top 2 teams in each division would have 9 or 10 home games, compare to a maximum of 8 home games they would have now during the first two rounds of the playoffs.

I didn't include Salt Lake City because since the NHL and NBA seasons overlap, a hypothetical Salt Lake City NHL team would have to compete with the Jazz for fans. Although I think SLC could be a good hockey town.

Actually, I think NHL would work much better in Salt Lake City area than Portland, Kansas City, Cleveland, or many of the other cities mentioned, other than Atlanta, Houston, and a few others. You have to look at the combined conglomeration of Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Provo. That area has about 2.5 million people, and over 80 percent of it is white. They only have NBA and MLS as well. I think it'd work, to be honest.

Portland doesn't have enough people who want to spend their money on tickets and merchandise. They'd rather spend it on craft beer, weed, penis shaped donuts and left-wing political causes.

@@janellek21 you couldn’t be more wrong. Their whl team and the blazers and the Timbers all do well. But for the sake of your “politics” pop off I guess. Ignorance doesn’t make you right.

Portland is not a good choice. That is one underwhelming metro area. It just looks small, because it is small. You already have MLS and NBA, which I think is fair considering that the population of the region is only around 2.4 million.

Yeah I'm aware. Still hopeful Hamilton can get a team.

I would swap Buffalo and Boston

@@RandomRU-vidchannel6388 You forgot Cincinatti

@@thebiggestmlsfan9019 spell: Cincinnati. Saw the misspell twice already, so know it wasn't a missed spellcheck

I think New Jersey should move, as should Florida, as should Anaheim. NJ should move to Hartford. Panthers should move to Quebec Anaheim should move to San Diego. Atlanta and Houston should get expansion teams, or I'd be okay with one of the other teams moving. I honestly think the Coyotes, even though they've been a flop, could work with the right arena in the right area of their metropolitan area. I wouldn't move them. Florida Panthers, however, are in an area with only about 1.4 million white people, many of them senior citizen retirees who have no concern for hockey. The rest of the population is Hispanic or other nonwhite groups, and we know very few of those will ever go to a hockey game. Stability in this region, demographically, is just not the right fit. To be honest, the Panthers would do better in Orlando, or southwest Florida (Fort Myers/Estero/Cape Coral/Naples/Sarasota) in my opinion, than in south Florida. That said, you could move the Panthers to Atlanta, I'd be okay with that.

I played JRs in Lafayette, and while they have hardcore, dedicated fans, I do not think it would be big enough to sustain long term success for the NHL. It worked for the Ice Gators for a while but even then still ended up failing. Not a terrible thought though

I played JRs in Lafayette, and while they have hardcore, dedicated fans, I do not think it would be big enough to sustain long term success for the NHL. It worked for the Ice Gators for a while but even then still ended up failing. Not a terrible thought though

Jacksonville has a metro of 1.6 million people. Atlanta has 6.2 million. In no way, shape, or form will they get a team before Atlanta. They also don't have the heavy corporate presence that Atlanta has with Coca-Cola, UPS, Delta Airlines, Georgia Pacific, The Home Depot, Southern Company, Turner Media, etc.

Minnesota should keep the logo tho, they have the best one in the league

@@jdkasper7861 I agree.

@Ryan Yeager I don't like it. The Seals are originally in the San Fran Bay area. Anything "Seals" will always be the "California Seals."

@Ryan Yeager LOL.

Milwaukee Ospreys? Where the fuck did you pull that name from? They'll never get an NHL team, but if they did, keeping the Admirals name would fit well with the fringe hockey fans in Milwaukee. They would just need to come up with better uniforms than they have currently.

Nope. Atlanta and Houston.

No way Columbus is moving

Halifax explorers

That's true. But if the team is any good I'm sure many people will come around.

As someone from Saskatchewan who’s been cheering for the Penguins my entire life (I’m 23, grew up in the Sid era), I would immediately support them, and continue to cheer for the Pens. Not gonna lie though, as someone who considers myself a diehard pens fan. The moment Sid retired I’d highly become more of a Saskatchewan fan.

Very good suggestions. I like how you moved Florida and Tampa Bay into the metro. I also think Salt Lake City would be a great place for a team, it's a toss-up between them and Saskatoon for me.

I like it.

You know I already like it ;)

@@thewhale9527 I really would like to see the Whalers in the NHL again!

@@CharlieND Tampa should go in the central