Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am morally opposed to hockey south of the Mason Dixon line. I would move all the current southern teams to northern/Canadian cities. Last year moving a team from Atlanta to Winnipeg is a good start. Now we just need to get rid of the Florida Panthers, Tampa Bay Lightning, Carolina Hurricanes, Dallas Stars, LA Kings, and the Phoenix Coyotes. They can go to Quebec, Seattle, Milwaukee or some place like that. But I guess the Washington Capitals can stay. Then all we need to do is change the Wild to the North Stars and nudge the Blue Jackets just a little bit to the north to Cleveland and make them the Barons again.
Ah, yes because the Barons were such a great draw before! All of the teams you've mentioned draw more per game than the Barons ever did.
I am morally opposed to hockey south of the Mason Dixon line. I would move all the current southern teams to northern/Canadian cities. Last year moving a team from Atlanta to Winnipeg is a good start. Now we just need to get rid of the Florida Panthers, Tampa Bay Lightning, Carolina Hurricanes, Dallas Stars, LA Kings, and the Phoenix Coyotes. They can go to Quebec, Seattle, Milwaukee or some place like that. But I guess the Washington Capitals can stay. Then all we need to do is change the Wild to the North Stars and nudge the Blue Jackets just a little bit to the north to Cleveland and make them the Barons again.
Right. And let's move all football teams back to east of the Rocky Mountains, put all basketball teams in larger markets (no Utah, Sacramento, New Orleans, Orlando, Memphis, or San Antonio) and all Major League Soccer teams should be moved to Mexico.....
^^^ If you find all that to be stupid, then that's good, because it all belongs in the same category as everything you said about where hockey teams should be.
I am morally opposed to uppity northern hockey fans that think southerners are not allowed to enjoy hockey.
Really is a question of how many southerners enjoy hockey. Do enough southerners enjoy hockey for the highest level of hockey to open a team there? If not than why not just that market for the minor leagues? It will give some other budding entrepreneur a wide open market.
Really is a question of how many southerners enjoy hockey. Do enough southerners enjoy hockey for the highest level of hockey to open a team there? If not than why not just that market for the minor leagues? It will give some other budding entrepreneur a wide open market.
Again: Dallas, Tampa, Raleigh. Hell even Nashville is starting to grow in the sport.
No, the south, Arizona, or Cali wont be big time hockey areas like it is up north and in Canada (especially), but that doesn't mean that there's NO market for it.
Really is a question of how many southerners enjoy hockey. Do enough southerners enjoy hockey for the highest level of hockey to open a team there? If not than why not just that market for the minor leagues? It will give some other budding entrepreneur a wide open market.
There was a time in history that people thought placing NHL franchises in St. Louis and Pittsburgh was a disaster and would not be supportive of hockey.
I think Nashville, Dallas, Tampa, and Raleigh have shown they can support and have an interest in hockey.
Really is a question of how many southerners enjoy hockey. Do enough southerners enjoy hockey for the highest level of hockey to open a team there? If not than why not just that market for the minor leagues? It will give some other budding entrepreneur a wide open market.
Nashville had minor league hockey back in 1962. Several other markets had some similar situation.
It's not like there was a decision to all of a sudden drop an NHL team here in a market where no one knew what hockey was.
And at this point, a lot of the Southern teams have had their franchises for 15-20 years (or more). They have planted their roots. Now you see an increase in the number of youth hockey programs, ice rinks, and even in some cases, NHL prospects are starting to sprout up in these non-traditional areas.
I can see, from a traditional fan's perspective, how Bettman's Southern expansion may have been too much, too quick. Especially at the cost of several already-established traditional locations (Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford...).
And to be honest, it probably was a bit too much to do all at once. But I can see exactly why he and the NHL did what they did.
For the NHL to grow, they need new fans. A lot of the northern areas and old rust belt cities were (or still are) losing population or stagnant on the US side. A lot of hockey fans are among those who are relocating to the south (remember, we're talking 90s here, so in even greater numbers than we see today). Mind you, the Sun Belt region was/is under served by professional sports teams, so there's a huge opportunity to be had. There is also the point of expanding the TV footprint, making it a lot more attractive for advertisers looking to reach a wide audience, not an almost completely regional one.
Mind you, the NHL was and is competing with the NBA for territory, markets, arenas, and of course TV and advertising. Completely ignoring the most populated region in the country would be a big mistake.
--sorry for the rambling post, but I feel that sometimes our cold weather friends forget that there are a lot of hockey fans down here, and that a mass relocation would be a mistake on quite a few levels.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,387,163 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24
I am morally opposed to hockey south of the Mason Dixon line. I would move all the current southern teams to northern/Canadian cities. Last year moving a team from Atlanta to Winnipeg is a good start. Now we just need to get rid of the Florida Panthers, Tampa Bay Lightning, Carolina Hurricanes, Dallas Stars, LA Kings, and the Phoenix Coyotes. They can go to Quebec, Seattle, Milwaukee or some place like that. But I guess the Washington Capitals can stay. Then all we need to do is change the Wild to the North Stars and nudge the Blue Jackets just a little bit to the north to Cleveland and make them the Barons again.
I generally shared your views as a Minnesotan but...
The Kings? Really? If L.A. can't support a franchise there isn't a town east or north of Cali that can support one. San Jose seems to do fine; the Ducks seem to do fine.
And as far as I know the 'Ning Dynasty has a pretty supportive franchise, although I question having two NHL franchises in Florida.
And as far as I know the 'Ning Dynasty has a pretty supportive franchise, although I question having two NHL franchises in Florida.
I think it is as much of an ownership issue as a location/market issue. In order for hockey to succeed in Southern markets (no matter where the team is located), there must be dedicated ownership involved.
I think the Lightning will be fine.
Miami, on the other hand, I don't know. Miami isn't generally considered to be a hot sports market. They have all 4 major sports, but have been spotty in their support -- VERY fairweather.
What hurt the Panthers for so long is that the owner didn't seem to care. New owner, new attitude. Making the playoffs for the first time in ages probably helps.
But that franchise is going nowhere quick. They have a very, very long term lease IIRC.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,387,163 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by nashvols
I think it is as much of an ownership issue as a location/market issue. In order for hockey to succeed in Southern markets (no matter where the team is located), there must be dedicated ownership involved.
I think the Lightning will be fine.
Miami, on the other hand, I don't know. Miami isn't generally considered to be a hot sports market. They have all 4 major sports, but have been spotty in their support -- VERY fairweather.
What hurt the Panthers for so long is that the owner didn't seem to care. New owner, new attitude. Making the playoffs for the first time in ages probably helps.
But that franchise is going nowhere quick. They have a very, very long term lease IIRC.
You're probably right about Miami in general being a fairweather sports town. I remember the Marlins could hardly fill the bottom section despite having a monster payroll.
As far as the 'Ning Dynasty, I was told on my hockey forum I post on that there's a sizable French Canadian population there giving them a lot of support. Not sure how accurate that is though.
(btw, it should be Seattle and Quebec City, to answer the title)
I'm not saying Dallas was a bad choice for relocated team or even having a team in Tampa or having any teams in the South was a poor choice. It just seems though like Gary Bettman had his eyes on this huge expansion in the Sun Belt to compete with the NBA and in the end it just seems like it was a bit too much. Especially since now the NHL has now gone back to really promoting the original or older American franchises--which is why the Winter Classics just about exclusively focus on the teams from the Northeast and the Midwest.
In general the NHL sort of expanded too quickly in the 90s in some ways. They moved franchises from Canada back when the Canadian economy and dollar were weaker and now that Canada's booming in some ways that market to the north doesn't look as bad. In general teams outside the old school franchises or Canada are going to be warm-weather crowds in a lot of ways(though that's true for a lot of sports and teams)--so as long as you have teams that can remain competitive and still draw crowds it's not a bad thing to have teams in more markets. The problem is when you have constantly poor performing teams in markets that are very warm-weather to the team--like Atlanta or Miami. It's not like Edmonton, that while it's a smaller market with often weak teams, you can still get sell-outs(and national TV broadcasts in Canada that get a good audience). But hockey can be successful outside the old northern cities(the Sharks have done pretty well) it just takes some time to build a fanbase and a level of success to keep people interested.
I think the point I was making was a little misstated in my last sentence though, as I don't feel that all teams in the South were a bad idea--I just feel that a new or relocated franchise in Seattle might have been a better idea than Miami or Atlanta or Nashville or Phoenix during that period of expansion. The Northwest has a pretty good history of hockey in the region, the WHL franchises in Seattle and Portland have good crowds and frequent sell-outs and while not as many kids play hockey as over the border in BC, there's still a healthy level of support for the game.
So yeah, I'd like to see a team in Seattle and a team back in Quebec City.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
