1) On the team count thing, I was thinking that too. General mathmatics would predicate that and so truthfully its not a fair argument. 2) I agree that there are viable markets in Canada (though I do snicker a bit at Quebec City, only because of what happened to the Nordiques). I agree 100% that there should not be NHL teams in non-hockey climates. But there are exceptions to that rule. I think Nashville, Dallas and San Jose are good examples of how it can work. The success of those franchises are in larch part due to owners willing to spend and proper management put in place. Teams like Tampa (despite their cup win), Florida, Phoenix are the counter example. As a side note, I think Seattle is a great location for expansion- that is not to diminish your ideas, but to put another team on that corridor would be great. But it would have to be a relocation (ie. Phoenix), not a new team. One of the biggest reasons (which not applicable currently) of the majority teams being in the US is twofold: a) The value of the USD. While the Canadian / USD are currently on par, in the past there has been a significant disparity. b) TV contracts. I love CBC / Rogers, etc., but they do not pay the billions of dollars that Comcast / NBC does. 3) Canada does breathe hockey- no doubt about it. But so do many US regions. Despite the geographical size, Canada consists of 33M+ in population. I could easily argue that proportionately the US supports / breathes hockey equally as much as Canada. 4) Maple Leafs- I was talking a bit out my ass there, but I just think of all the Canadian teams, they are the ones that have the best chance to succeed (currently). The Bernier deal and rise of JVR / Kessel solidifies this in my mind. They are still erratic and sloppy at times, but on any given night, can beat any team in the league. Cheers VF