That's a question the AP's Hal Bock asks in his latest story concerning the financial woes of North America's fourth major spectator sport. One major problem: a spate of expansion activity in the 1990s that was probably premature:
"In retrospect, the league probably expanded too fast with the result that for an industry without a major television contract, it was probably predictable that in the current economic environment some teams would run into problems," said Ed Edwards, chairman of the financial and commercial law department at Western Michigan University.
It isn't as if any rabid fan of the NHL couldn't have told you that the burst of expansion activity that began with the addition of the San Jose Sharks beginning in the 1991-92 season might have been ill considered. Since then, the league has added teams in Miami, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Columbus, Nashville, Anahiem, Ottawa and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
In addition, it relocated almost as many franchises, moving existing teams to Raleigh, Denver, Dallas and Phoenix. That's one-third of the league with little to no history -- the sort of history that generates the fan loyalty that is the bedrock of the NHL season ticket base. Without it, hockey is just a passing fad that wears off quickly a few years after it blows into town. Just ask the folks who are trying to fill empty arenas in Miami, Tampa Bay and Atlanta.
One has to wonder out loud just how much stronger the league would be without teams in Miami, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Nashville, Anahiem and Ottawa. Would a 24-team NHL be any less attractive to advertisers and broadcasters than the 30-team NHL is today? Something tells me no. And now, with two teams in bankruptcy, there are that many fewer cities to which those teams might relocate.
Something tells me that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman is ruing the day he decided to leave his job working for David Stern with the NBA.
