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.
Because they've annexed huge amounts of land. Don't get me wrong, they did a great job of putting their arena downtown, and it's great that they're building up their downtown... but do you really think they're bigger than Philadelphia? Do you really think LA is bigger than Chicago? Population doesn't tell the whole story. Furthermore, what does that have to do with anything? Hockey has nothing to do with how much population you have when you're comparing markets that are all large enough to support a team on paper.
Hockey is a completely different animal than really any other sport. Non-hockey markets either support the team as well as hockey markets because it's the only game in town (Raleigh, San Jose) or because the team was introduced in the expansion-happy, "new and exciting" 90s-early 2000s (LA, Dallas). It also does well in markets where the only other major professional team is football (Nashville). Do you honestly think Houston can have a yearly attendance level above 80% over a decade or more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG
How would you know? They've supported the Aeros for years.
The NHL is a much, much different level. True NHL markets have supported multiple levels of hockey before (like Philadelphia, for example). By the way, I'm only using Philadelphia because it's the most recent example of a city very solidly supporting both an NHL and AHL franchise.... just so we're clear.
Either way, they should be at the back of the line.
Look, I'm all for a team in Miami, a team in Phoenix, etc... simply because of strategic location and reaching fans who otherwise couldn't watch hockey in person. However, those markets have clearly failed. Furthermore, why should Houston get any consideration when the NHL already has Dallas? Houston might be a larger city but all the NHL really needs is the strategic location of having a team in Texas.
Non-hockey markets either support the team as well as hockey markets because it's the only game in town (Raleigh, San Jose) or because the team was introduced in the expansion-happy, "new and exciting" 90s-early 2000s (LA, Dallas). . . .
Furthermore, why should Houston get any consideration when the NHL already has Dallas? Houston might be a larger city but all the NHL really needs is the strategic location of having a team in Texas.
Los Angeles has been in the league since 1967. The Anaheim Ducks started in the 90's, but what keeps them going now?
There isn't much NHL interest in Raleigh - among the natives. A lot of their support comes from northern transplants, and a lot of their attendance is due to low ticket prices. Raleigh (along with the rest of NC) is more interested in college sports, especially college basketball.
Houston and Dallas are 240 miles apart. We only lived 170 miles from Raleigh and didn't know anyone (other than DH) who cared about the Hurricanes. 170 miles puts it in another world. Houston isn't doing very well supporting its baseball team, though, and my vote goes to Seattle anyway. Personal bias.
....Seattle creates territorial problems with the Cannucks, leaving Portland, Rochester an Albany as the sole definite possibilities. All of these are quite marginal financially too.
That shouldn't even matter either way because Seattle And Vancouver are in different countries, so the territorial rights should not be as strict if the NHL wanted to put a team there.
Los Angeles has been in the league since 1967. The Anaheim Ducks started in the 90's, but what keeps them going now?
There isn't much NHL interest in Raleigh - among the natives. A lot of their support comes from northern transplants, and a lot of their attendance is due to low ticket prices. Raleigh (along with the rest of NC) is more interested in college sports, especially college basketball.
Houston and Dallas are 240 miles apart. We only lived 170 miles from Raleigh and didn't know anyone (other than DH) who cared about the Hurricanes. 170 miles puts it in another world. Houston isn't doing very well supporting its baseball team, though, and my vote goes to Seattle anyway. Personal bias.
My fault. I forget that sometimes due to the fact that LA didn't seem to have a team (or at least didn't know that it had a team) until Wayne Gretzky was traded there. Yup, I said it. As for Anaheim? Nothing keeps them going. Their attendance is an absolute joke. They should be relocated.
But the point is that they make it work. If that ever changes, then Raleigh deserves to lose its team as well.
You're not getting the point. The only reason the NHL is in Dallas is because Dallas is in Texas. It's a strategic location. They don't need Houston. If, after more deserving potential NHL markets get teams (like Quebec City, Hamilton/London, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland, etc), Houston can support a team then fine. As it stands though, they should be at the very back of the line.
I also don't think Atlanta was given enough of a chance, but that's neither here nor there.
The only reason the NHL is in Dallas is because Dallas is in Texas. It's a strategic location.
Wrong.
The reason Dallas has an NHL team is because Norm Green, who owned the Minnesota North Stars, relocated them to Dallas citing low attendance and financial trouble in Minneapolis. Roger Staubach convinced Norm that Dallas could be a viable NHL market. It has nothing to do with the NHL strategically placing a team in Texas.
The reason Dallas has an NHL team is because Norm Green, who owned the Minnesota North Stars, relocated them to Dallas citing low attendance and financial trouble in Minneapolis. Roger Staubach convinced Norm that Dallas could be a viable NHL market. It has nothing to do with the NHL strategically placing a team in Texas.
Did I say that "placed" the team there? No. I said the only reason there is a team in Dallas (as in, they let there be one in Dallas) is because Texas is a strategic location. Just like Miami, and Tampa, and LA, and Phoenix, and Anaheim, and San Jose, etc.
The NHL isn't the MLB, the NBA, or the NFL. They have to justify putting a team somewhere over somewhere else.... especially to Canadians. They have to balance keeping the purity of a Canadian sport with the desire to venture into untapped markets and the need to field a profitable, modern league. If Minneapolis or Quebec City or Winnipeg had built a new stadium, the NHL would've never left those cities. There's a reason why they've made a point of going back to those cities.
Houston isn't doing very well supporting its baseball team, though, and my vote goes to Seattle anyway.
That's because they suck.
The years before they tanked and became a last place team every year, the Astros were THE team in Houston (except during the mid 90's), so that's not really a good example.
But yes, Seattle will get an NHL franchise [*cough*Coyotes*cough*] before any other Sunbelt city will.
Two different countries, two and a half hours apart, plus however long a border crossing takes, . . . . Much of the Seattle area population is south of the city itself, so add another hour to the drive. That doesn't really matter, though, because Vancouver is always sold out, so for most people there is no chance of going to a game anyway.
I don't know any Canucks' fans.
Down in Los Angeles/Anaheim, you have the Kings and Ducks very close together (under an hour), in one of those warm, dry places with no hockey culture, and they seem to do pretty well - during basketball season, even!
This is all true. Seattle isn't a Canucks town right now. Everytime I've thought about heading up to Vancouver to catch a game, the high ticket prices for sold out games makes it not really much of an option... A Vancouver team would have most of Washington State and a good chunk of Oregon as a potential market.
You're not getting the point. The only reason the NHL is in Dallas is because Dallas is in Texas. It's a strategic location. They don't need Houston. If, after more deserving potential NHL markets get teams (like Quebec City, Hamilton/London, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland, etc), Houston can support a team then fine. As it stands though, they should be at the very back of the line.
I also don't think Atlanta was given enough of a chance, but that's neither here nor there.
Of the cities you mentioned, Quebec City and Seattle are in a league of their own. These will most likely be the next two destinations for the NHL (rightfully so imo).
Hamilton/London/Kitchener/Markham/Toronto2 will also rake in the cash depending on a new arena and the negotiation (or circumvention) of territorial rights. I'm rooting for Hamilton since that location would have its own dedicated fanbase. Toronto (or Markham) would definitely be a red-headed stepchild to the Leafs, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be wildly successful.
THERE IS NO LINE. Merely potential cities that will or won't be attractive destinations to owners for expansion or relocation. The NHL would let me put a team on the Moon where it would play in front of a collection of my stuffed animals if I had enough money.
If there was a line, the only reason that Houston would be at the end of it is if Les Alexander is unwilling to make a deal. You will see a team in Houston before someone puts a team in Quicken with the Blue Jackets down the road. What would make Houston more redundant than Portland, assuming that Seattle receives a team? The Indianapolis Fieldhouse is a beautiful basketball facility; it is a temporary NHL building at best. Milwaukee would be a great spot... with a new or refurbished arena and without the Bucks. Saskatoon, unlike Halifax, at least has a quasi-NHL sized arena. Both are pipedreams.
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.
