Paul
It couldn't be more than 40 years ago when the NHL was probably 95% Canadian. Things have changed my man and I think we will continue to the influence of non-Canadian players growing. Of course, I think it is great for hockey. The quality of play today compared to when I was a kid is like two different worlds. The quality of players has probably improved more than in any other "major" sport. That is nearly all down to the Euros and the North American REACTION to the Euros. Its sort of like Japanese cars - they raised the level of quality across the board.
Ciao
Sean,
I'll bet that it was more than 95% 40 years ago. But 40 years ago there were only 14 teams. Go back 3 more years and that number was only 6. There are more Canadians in the NHL now than 40 years ago.
I agree with you that the quality of play today is miles ahead of what it was then. Look at The Summit Series or the New Year's Eve Montreal v Red Army game and compare it to what we saw over the last two weeks; it isn't close. Although I do think Ken Dryden would have a job in 2010. Not Dave Dryden though I'm glad the quality of play around the world is what it is. Without it the NHL could not have 30 somewhat competitive teams. There is no way it could be done with a 95% Canadian league.
What I forgot to mention that given the focus and resources put into Canadian hockey, it should be our game. Most of the best athletes still have hockey as there focus (although not as much as in the past); the hockey infrastructure in Canada is miles ahead of other nations; and as a nation we care more than most countries...OK all of them. Where else is The World Juniors a sell-out? If Canada wasn't still the top hockey playing nation after all of this, then something would be very wrong.
This is changing, but the nation on the rise is the US. The USHL and the U-18 development program are really starting to create world class players.
Paul
Imagine if we had a 16 team NHL? Jumpin Jats, with the salary cap in place, nobody could predict a Stanley winner - or at least they wouldn't dare bet on their guess.
I recall the days when the NHL had a handful of stars. Now, all teams have a genuine star. Without a star it would be very much more difficult to open up some of these market places. All that said, I would much rather have about a 22 team NHL and try to build properly from there rather than following growth cities. I would ditch
Tampa, Atlanta, Florida, Carolina, Nashville, San Jose, Anaheim, Phoeniz, LA & Dallas. Washington is VERY borderline.
I would look to add
Winnipeg, Milwaukee, Portland, Seattle and Maybe Salt Lake City. I wouldn't even be adverse to a 2nd team in Toronto.
I know it could never ever happen, but I would like to see divisions of pro hockey like English football. A system where teams (its ok to ahve southern teams in this system) go up and down the divisions (not all in North America) and only the top division of say 20 teams competes for Stanley. Additionally, a complete overhaul of the playoffs where maybe 6 teams make the playoffs and the conference winner is given a buy into the semis (2nd round). Lets face it, hockey lasting until June is stupid.
Ciao