There are too many teams in the NHL. They've got a good product, but they overreached putting teams in places like Atlanta, Tampa Bay, and Phoenix. Cut the league down to 16 teams based in the northern US and Canada, concentrate the talent, and build the fan bases back up.

The league should also do everything it can to get violence out of the sport. It's hard for the league to get Americans interested in the sport when most of what the average sports fan sees are highlights of fights, missing teeth, and bloody uniforms. The brutality is getting more attention than the skill, and until that changes hockey will always be a 2nd-tier sport in the US.

I am not a hockey fan, but I always thought that one of Hockey's biggest attractions to its core fans is the fact that players can engage in fights that would cause an NBA or NFL player to be banished to Antarctica.

I agree with your first point. Hockey has no following in many of the cities its played in, on a professional level. As a Minnesotan relocated to Chicago, (a city whose NHL team has until recently suffered for decades under gross mismanagement) the thought of a "north-country-only" league fills me with hope. I want the NHL that my parents experienced in the 60's and 70's.

As for your second point, how do you suppose its possible to remove violence from a violent sport? I think that instigator and other stiffer penalties for fighting have done good for the game. But big hits can make or break a team's chances in a particular game. Even if some noses get broken or teeth knocked out changing that aspect of the game would just alienate traditional hockey fans.

I would love to see Florida, Nashville, Phoenix, Carolina and Atlanta fold, with Hartford and Winnipeg being given their teams back. Quebec could use a sequel to the Nordiques, too. The irony now is that after all those years of players complaining about getting paid in Canadian dollars, the U.S. dollar is now almost equal.

I don't think fighting will go away, but I don't think it should. The drawback to fighting being so normal is that a hockey brawl is par for the course, whereas an NBA fight stays on SportsCenter for weeks. And all publicity is good publicity when it comes to hockey.

How do you expect to build a fan base in a city where there is no hockey team? People don't watch their own teams are going to be drawn to watch another city's team? Not likely.

The North Stars have been very successful in Dallas: Ice rinks have been constructed, youth hockey programs have begun. That's the way you build a fan base: get more kids to play hockey.

Agree that hockey brutality gets more attention than the skill, but that's because it's what Americans want. It's the "watching a race to see a crash" mentality.

Hockey will probably never have the same appeal as football or baseball. It will never generate the same kind of revenue. Like soccer, it will always have a smaller but dedicated following. What's wrong with that?

In the 60's and 70's, the NHL was limited to North American talent. Now that the NHL can draw from the European talent pool, there's more than enough talent to go around.

Maybe 30 is stretching things, but do you want to go back to 6 or 12 teams? How can you build a fan base in a city that has no hockey team?

When reading columns/commentaries about NHL presumed overexpansion, one is essentially arguing that the league's recent low/waning popularity has been due to, in part, the combined failure of the Original Six (or Northern or "traditional") teams coupled to the success of the less-traditional teams (e.g. the last three Cup winners). This begs the question: why should the league contract southern teams despite their relative success?

(Disclaimer: I am a Carolina Hurricanes fan who arrived in NC the same year that the team had, 1997. Further note: in 10 years the 'Canes have been significantly more successful than the Hartford Whalers in their entirety of ~20 years.)

A major problem for the NHL has been it's coverage on major sports media outlets. For example, ESPN had a dedicated nightly show "NHL Tonight" pre-strike, while now the league's coverage has been dwindled to an "NHL Minute" within the Sportcenter broadcast. Additionally, personalities from these outlets have been too lazy as they simply focus on the NHL's low ratings instead of watching the games, following the stories, celebrating the skills/athletes/personalities, and promoting the sport.

There are not enough teams, not too many. I promised my son that we would get some kind of season ticket package when the Penguins arrived in Kansas City. A three drive to KC is barely managable, but Denver,Dallas and St. Louis are too far away. How do you build a fan base by making it harder for fans to see live action, not easier.

Fan base also is hard to grow when you bury the league on the bicycle and bull riding channel deep in the digital tier.

1) There are realistic arguments to ridding the sport of fighting, but in reality hockey is a sport where players can injure and maim opponents by partaking in an unnoticed act or even a legal act. Fighting protects the safety of players protected by unwritten rules in a sport that would otherwise bubble over. The integrity and respect that those players show for one another is one of the most amazing aspects of hockey. Fighting also prevents a player from stooping to the pathetic flailing, exaggerating, and complaining that has riddled NBA basketball and pro soccer.

2) As for contraction. I would like to see a division placed in Europe where half the players come from to begin with (be it relocated or new teams). Why allow the NBA or NFL to be first into Europe where such a small percentage of their players call home (I presume there are fans where there is talent)?

I do have one subject that really bothers me. Hockey doesn’t get a lot of coverage. So be it as long as the sport survives. But I am sick of ESPN shows like PTI only covering hockey when something dirty happens, then having the audacity to mention how bad it is that hockey is only covered by the press in such circumstances. You are the press PTI! You choose what gets covered. I don’t think it is a far stretch to believe that ESPN, since dropping hockey, is internally pressuring the decline of the NHL while hyping NASCAR and soccer, which it now carries.

It always amazes me that the first people to complain about the NHL's place in the sports world are the first to propose contraction.

Let's assume the league contracts and moves most teams to the Northeast and Canada. What do you think ESPN (or Versus, for that matter) is going to offer for the TV rights for a "regional" sport? You could also kiss the handful of games on NBC goodbye too.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if the owners of hockey teams make money or not. I just want competitive teams. I seem to remember a strike that was supposed to bring parity to the team salaries. That lasted about a year.

To me, the NHL's biggest mistake is the failure of the salary cap. It is hard to build a following when a team is a perennial bottom dweller (see Phoenix). Conversely, it's hard to spend money on making a team better when you don't have much of a following (and it is all about money - All conference final teams this year have a salary of at least $45 mil). If each team was capped at 35 or 40 million, nearly every team could spend enough to compete with the big boys and keep their franchise players.

See how Philly (big market team) poached former Predators and Sabers (previously successful small market teams) and almost overnight went from the cellar to the conference finals. It's laughable to think of Edmonton, who couldn't hold on to Ryan Smyth, Florida who couldn't hold onto Roberto Luongo, or Washington, who had to have a firesale a few years back, doing that.

The unpredictability of hockey teams is one of the reasons I love the sport. The most entertaining playoff runs I've seen in the past few years have involved teams from Buffalo, Minnesota, and Edmonton, not Detroit, New York, or Ottawa.

Anyway, the author makes some good points about the futility of selling a specific player. However, I'd like to see what he thinks about selling player rivalries (ie. the Crosby/Ovechkin commercial from a couple years ago with Crosby doing his best Seinfeld impression). I've got to think some ad agency can come up with an entertaining way to spin the Brodeur/Avery "controversy".

The non-real hockey fans are those who whine about fighting.
I'm a former player and life long fan.
I can't tell you how many many games I've watched where there was no fighting.
A little pushing & shoving is NOT a fight, even though the ignorant label it as such.

Whenever I see someone whine about the "fighting in hockey", I am reminded about the anti-gun people and that, those who are against guns are those who know nothing about them.

I think selling rivalries is fine, but it doesn't solve the problem I mentioned in the article. The way new fans are taught to watch the game on TV is what needs to be different.

The NHL should contract down to 24 teams. They could keep a couple of Southern teams, but most of them should go.

Teams that should be contracted

Nashville

Phoenix

Carolina

Anahiem

Other potentail teams that should go

Florida

Atlanta

Tampa Bay

People keep asking on this board how the NHL is going to build a fan base in the south without teams there. The answer is: it never will. So it should give up trying. Having teams in North Carolina and Tampa win titles just hurts the NHL as a whole. It does little to build up fan interest in those cities, and depresses fan interest in cities like Chicago and Boston. Which could have good hockey support, but have to suffer with lousy teams.

Tampa Bay and Anaheim have won a cup in recent years.

Contract the Rangers and Canadiens and Islanders and Blackhawks!

Fighting is a problem. All the respondents who don't think so are already fans, and it's clear that they're aren't enough of them.

Watch European hockey to see how much better the game can be.

Or go to an evening Ranger game at the Garden and ask yourself what woman would want her child to attend that nightmare?

Also no one has mentioned the obvious problem that the season is too darn long. Hockey in June? Even in MN the outdoor rinks are gone. They have to compete with pro baseball and basketball, and the kids are all outside playing baseball, spring soccer, lacrosse, and just plain playing. Finish in April.