Las Vegas would be a gamble for NHL expansion. Seattle? Less so

Two questions come to mind today. The first is about NHL expansion; the second is about language. Let’s address the latter first, and talk about expansion in a moment.

The language question is this: how “done” is an apparently “done deal”? That’s the term Tony Gallagher at the Vancouver Province used to describe a move by the National Hockey League to bring a team to … Las Vegas. Gallagher wrote:

Sources close to the situation have indicated Las Vegas is a done deal, the only thing to be determined being which owner will be entitled to claim he brought the first major league sports franchise to Sin City.

He then went on to speculate that Seattle is back in the mix too, and suggested that given the state of the Florida Panthers (“bleeding money”) perhaps some fair city – Kansas City? Quebec City? – could receive an existing squad.

He’s not the only one. Howard Bloom at Sports Business News also said the NHL is due for expansion soon. On Tuesday night, Bloom tweeted there will be four new teams by 2017 – in Vegas, Seattle and Quebec City and a second one in Toronto (which I can only assume means the Greater Toronto Area or, more specifically, Markham.) According to Bloom, the league would earn $1.4bn in expansion fees in the process; he later suggested to one user that the NHL’s 100th anniversary, in 2017, plays into the expansion decision-making.

For the record, the NHL has been quick to deny the reports. Deputy commissioner Bill Daly told TVA Sports on Wednesday morning expansion was “not in our plans” and that there is “nothing new to report on expansion”. But there is no denying the league is listening to bids – commissioner Gary Bettman said so himself, in March, when he told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune the league had been hearing from “multiple groups” in all the cities mentioned in the news in the last 24 hours. Surely if you were listening in March you’re likely still listening in August, no matter what you say.

But the question remains: do the words “done deal” mean the same thing to Bettman as they do to everyone else?

As Greg Wyshynski at Puck Daddy points out, “MGM Grand and AEG aren’t building a $375m arena to house a Carrot Top repertoire”, and the NHL does still have to contend with the uneven team distribution between its two conferences (16 in the East, 14 in the West). And it’s not like the NHL doesn’t already have some relationship with Vegas – the city has played host to the league’s awards ceremony since 2009. So it’s entirely possible, indeed plausible, that Las Vegas is a serious contender for a professional hockey team, whether anyone thinks it should be or not.

And, probably, that’s really what this will come down to: the question of expansion.

Should the NHL get bigger? And, more specifically (for now), should that growth occur in the Nevada desert? The decision, should it happen, will force more questions about not only whether the league needs to be bigger – would more teams dilute the talent pool even further, resulting in an inferior product overall? – but also whether further expansion into the southern US is the way to do it.

There are two schools of thought on expansion, and it’s not just yes and no. For some, expansion into the US (even the south) means the sport itself will grow. That growth, which has occurred in spots, may mean hockey will no longer simply be a sport played by a bunch of Canadians, but millions of Americans too. The long-term idea would, theoretically, be that interest and involvement at a young age translates into interest and involvement later on, and continued for long enough, with a local team to support, that will mean the NHL may eventually gain a real cultural foothold in the US. That, in turn, would translate into longevity for the league.

But on a purely financial level, expansion is risky. Phoenix, Tampa Bay and Florida are all teams that spring immediately to mind when considering the risk. As does the fact that Canadian and northern US teams still carry much (most) of the load when it comes to revenues. There’s plenty to suggest that the way forward is not down but up, and that instead of Las Vegas or Kansas City, the NHL will only be successful in the long-term if it lands back in Quebec City or in Seattle. Or, somehow, near Toronto again.

For now, we can probably assume that the Las Vegas team is on its way – at some point. The signs are all there, even if “done deal” doesn’t quite mean what we think it does. All we can hope for is that if it does happen, the franchise is more successful than the Las Vegas Posse, that unsuccessful squad dropped in the desert the last time someone tried to import a Canadian sport to the city.

So until the moment Bettman stands on a casino floor – presumably – to tell us all he’s hit a jackpot, we’ll just have to enjoy the speculation. I say we start with what the team could be called. I vote for the Las Vegas Roughriders.