Could the Twin Cities support two NHL Teams if... (Minneapolis: houses, high school)

[Ghengis]

If not for the obvious issue with the T-Wolves share of the winter sports dollar, could the Twin Cities support two NHL Teams? For discussion sake, if the T-Wolves slipped away, could this area support a second NHL Team?

When the Wolves were competitive, there were many nights/weekend when you'd have capacity houses at Willliams Areana, Mariucci, XCEL and Target Center so it seems as if there were enough people available to fill these seats. Now that the Wolves are an ignored franchise and no longer a trendy curiosity, I doubt that they will ever become a profitable operation again.

I'd think the very marketable Mpls - St Paul rivalry would keep the momentum and fan involvement well beyond what we saw with the Wolves short run. This would have to translates beyond the guaranteed inter-city match-ups (recreate the Millers - Saints doubleheaders into back-to-back, weekend match-ups) and into twice the number of games marketed.

I'm actually old enough to remember (not all that long ago) what it was like when the St Paul Saints were a viable sports team while competing against the North Stars. Both often playing before sell-out crowds on the same night. In spite of many offers of exhibition match-ups by the Saints, the North Stars wanted no part of them. Probably afraid of Goldy Goldthorpe.

There certainly would be a number of existing franchises (Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville, Maimi to name a few) that have failed the Sun-belt experiment and whose ownership groups would be all to happy to bail.

Pretty tough to get past the consecutive sell-out streak going on on Kellogg Blvd and not wonder if there is enough to sustain a second team. They could put in clear plexi-glass, claim it's an original idea and that would be enough to get the rivalry started!

[Cruz Azul Guy]

It's an intriguing thought but I don't think there's any way this market could support two professional hockey teams, it is far more likely that a place like Chicago or New York could support another team. There are also a few U.S. cities that don't have a team that could probably support one, like Milwaukee and Seattle.

Plus there are alot of places in Canada where they are dying for a team, including Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hamilton and Halifax.

I completely agree about the sunbelt NHL teams, it was a terrible idea. I don't think the NHL will be successful in the future unless these teams move back up north where hockey is relevant.

[Voyageur]

The Twin Cities could support two NHL teams if... the Metro had 15 million people. Otherwise, no.

Even Montreal doesn't have two NHL teams (anymore). And hockey is far and away more popular, more of a religion, more of an obsession, there than it is here.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

If not for the obvious issue with the T-Wolves share of the winter sports dollar, could the Twin Cities support two NHL Teams? For discussion sake, if the T-Wolves slipped away, could this area support a second NHL Team?

When the Wolves were competitive, there were many nights/weekend when you'd have capacity houses at Willliams Areana, Mariucci, XCEL and Target Center so it seems as if there were enough people available to fill these seats. Now that the Wolves are an ignored franchise and no longer a trendy curiosity, I doubt that they will ever become a profitable operation again.

I'd think the very marketable Mpls - St Paul rivalry would keep the momentum and fan involvement well beyond what we saw with the Wolves short run. This would have to translates beyond the guaranteed inter-city match-ups (recreate the Millers - Saints doubleheaders into back-to-back, weekend match-ups) and into twice the number of games marketed.

I'm actually old enough to remember (not all that long ago) what it was like when the St Paul Saints were a viable sports team while competing against the North Stars. Both often playing before sell-out crowds on the same night. In spite of many offers of exhibition match-ups by the Saints, the North Stars wanted no part of them. Probably afraid of Goldy Goldthorpe.

There certainly would be a number of existing franchises (Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville, Maimi to name a few) that have failed the Sun-belt experiment and whose ownership groups would be all to happy to bail.

Pretty tough to get past the consecutive sell-out streak going on on Kellogg Blvd and not wonder if there is enough to sustain a second team. They could put in clear plexi-glass, claim it's an original idea and that would be enough to get the rivalry started!

Very good question, interesting point. The Twin Cities do support 2 hockey teams, just one of them being pro- the other is almost pro-the Gophers. There are nights when Mariucci is packed at the same time the Excel is packed. I know the U is a college and has a built in fan-base, but many people follow the gophers who have ZERO ties to the school.

After watching the State Hockey Tournament, I could see the love of hockey that this state has. The tournament is hands-down the best in the USA.

This is also the same metro area that let a hockey team leave for Texas and then sit without a pro team for nearly 10 years...

I'd gladly give up the Wolves for a new hockey team. I think the 'sub belt' experiment is STOOPID. Hockey in Phoenix? Florida? Nashville? Atlanta? Even Columbus???! Come on, bring hockey to where hockey is respected on a personal level like Milwaukee, Halifax, Hamilton, etc.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by knke0204

I'd gladly give up the Wolves for a new hockey team. I think the 'sub belt' experiment is STOOPID. Hockey in Phoenix? Florida? Nashville? Atlanta? Even Columbus???! Come on, bring hockey to where hockey is respected on a personal level like Milwaukee, Halifax, Hamilton, etc.

I've always found it curious that Wisconsin doesn't have an NHL team. I can see why a market like Atlanta (which has had two NHL franchises) can be seen as more lucrative than Milwaukee, because it is so much larger (3x). But as you say, Columbus? And Nashville?! It's actually smaller than Milwaukee!

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

I've always found it curious that Wisconsin doesn't have an NHL team. I can see why a market like Atlanta (which has had two NHL franchises) can be seen as more lucrative than Milwaukee, because it is so much larger (3x). But as you say, Columbus? And Nashville?! It's actually smaller than Milwaukee!

ha, I know, I always ask the question "How in the world did MN not have professional hockey for over 7 years?!?"... just to get the answer "Idk, but how in the world has Wisconsin NEVER had a hockey team?"

Wisconsin does have more D1 college basketball teams, maybe that's why.

Surely the MKE-CHICAGO metro could support ANOTHER team (Blackhawks)

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by knke0204

ha, I know, I always ask the question "How in the world did MN not have professional hockey for over 7 years?!?"... just to get the answer "Idk, but how in the world has Wisconsin NEVER had a hockey team?"

I will say this - when I lived in Superior, I could see the drop off in high school hockey talent at the border. At that time, Superior High School played in the Lake Superior Conference - with 9 teams from NE Minnesota (Duluth East, Cloquet, Two Harbors, etc.) and Superior. Superior would play a schedule mostly against its conference rivals from northern Minnesota, a lot of tough teams, while compiling somewhere around a .500 record. But against a lot of good teams.

Then when the Wisconsin postseason came around, Superior would win their section and proceed to the state tournament, making quick work of teams from places like Eau Claire and Milwaukee because a .500 team against Minnesota competition was good enough to take down the best the rest of the state of Wisconsin had to offer.

So Wisconsin is not Minnesota when it comes to hockey. By the same token, though, Tennessee is no Wisconsin!

The NHL needs to contract and/or shift teams north (as you and Slig have noted). It's better off occupying its little niche, not trying to compete with the Big Three leagues.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by knke0204

ha, I know, I always ask the question "How in the world did MN not have professional hockey for over 7 years?!?"... just to get the answer "Idk, but how in the world has Wisconsin NEVER had a hockey team?"

Wisconsin does have more D1 college basketball teams, maybe that's why.

Surely the MKE-CHICAGO metro could support ANOTHER team (Blackhawks)

Milwaukee does have a pro hockey team: the Admirals. They're American Hockey League.

A while back I posted an article about cities and their capacity for major league pro sports teams. Both Minneapolis and Milwaukee were seen as "overextended." That is, there was some concern that each city has one too many major league teams that the city may not be able to support. (Obviously the Admirals don't technically count against that number, but economically the probably do.)

[rcsteiner]

I'm not in the Twin Cities anymore, but I don't even actively support the Wild anymore (and haven't attended an NHL game in years) because I still remember how Norm Green and the NHL ****ed the state of Minnesota over with regard to the North Stars.

I won't give another dime to the NHL.

[rsdplaya]

No chance...there's just not enough people...and the area isn't big enough to have any kind of separation.