Could the Twin Cities support two NHL Teams if... (Bemidji: college, deal)

[srsmn]

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!

I don't know that I would count the Timberwolves out of being a viable franchise ever again. Minneapolis-- between the Lakers and the Gophers-- has a long, storied basketball history. For that matter, Hopkins, Henry and probably Cretin-Durham are all known to produce top basketball prospects at the high-school level.

The Timberwolves success was more a matter of the team being good than having an NBA franchise was a novelty. That just plays into the general fair-weather fannishness of Minnesotans, which probably derives from our legendary stingyness: if the team isn't good, why pay money to see it? The same rule has applied at various times to our Baseball, Football, and Hockey teams, too. And while there's some debate about whether we're good Baseball or Football fans, nobody will ever deny that we love our hockey....

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by srsmn

I don't know that I would count the Timberwolves out of being a viable franchise ever again. Minneapolis-- between the Lakers and the Gophers-- has a long, storied basketball history. For that matter, Hopkins, Henry and probably Cretin-Durham are all known to produce top basketball prospects at the high-school level.

The Timberwolves success was more a matter of the team being good than having an NBA franchise was a novelty. That just plays into the general fair-weather fannishness of Minnesotans, which probably derives from our legendary stingyness: if the team isn't good, why pay money to see it? The same rule has applied at various times to our Baseball, Football, and Hockey teams, too. And while there's some debate about whether we're good Baseball or Football fans, nobody will ever deny that we love our hockey....

Stingyness? The Met Center was packed for North Star Games and they were garbage usually. The Dome always pulled in decent numbers when the Twins were embarassing. Ever seen Marlins play at home? Yuck, and that's for a team that won 2 championships in less than 7 years.

Wild have sold out every game ever. Last time I checked, the Wild haven't been anything to brag about... 2 or 3 'good' seasons since 2000.

I don't think it's a matter of fair weathered-ness, we just haven't seen a championship in so long, it's just pathetic.

Almost 20 years without a championship for the 15th largest market in the USA that has 4 pro teams, WNBA team, and a Big Ten School.

Can anyone name a metro with a longer draught?

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by srsmn

New York already has two NHL teams....do you mean to suggest they could support a third?

If you include the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area I guess you could argue there are 3 teams (Devils, Islanders, Rangers). I would say yes, it is more likely that area could support a 4th team than the Twin Cities could support a 2nd team.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Slig

If you include the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area I guess you could argue there are 3 teams (Devils, Islanders, Rangers). I would say yes, it is more likely that area could support a 4th team than the Twin Cities could support a 2nd team.

Actually if you count the entire MetroPlex you're looking at.....

Bruins
Flyers
Capitals
Devlis
Rangers
Islanders

[Cruz Azul Guy]

The New York metropolitan area is the largest in the country with more than 19 million people, Twin Cities is the 15th largest at about 3.2 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tistical_Areas

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by srsmn

Are you saying that the Mets came into Baseball when the NL and the AL were still really autonomous leagues?

Because I'm sorry, but that's not even close to true. The Mets came in in 1969. The NL and the AL had been playing the All-Star game for over forty years by then; they had been playing the WS for the title of 'champion of baseball' for almost seventy.

Trust me, it was just 'MLB' by the time the Mets came into play; the AL and NL were not competing economically anymore...

Mets came into the league in 1962, those Amazin' Mets won the world series in 1969.

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by knke0204

Stingyness? The Met Center was packed for North Star Games and they were garbage usually. The Dome always pulled in decent numbers when the Twins were embarassing. Ever seen Marlins play at home? Yuck, and that's for a team that won 2 championships in less than 7 years.

Wild have sold out every game ever. Last time I checked, the Wild haven't been anything to brag about... 2 or 3 'good' seasons since 2000.

I don't think it's a matter of fair weathered-ness, we just haven't seen a championship in so long, it's just pathetic.

Almost 20 years without a championship for the 15th largest market in the USA that has 4 pro teams, WNBA team, and a Big Ten School.

Can anyone name a metro with a longer draught?

The dome did not pull in decent numbers when the Twins were embarassing; Twins attendance numbers were near the bottom of the barrell when they were truly bad.

And the North Stars did not do well attendance wise, either. It's why they moved:

North Stars Are Skating on Thin Ice in Minnesota - Los Angeles Times

They were below league average from 1989 until they left in '93; managing only about 7,000 fans a game in a 15,000 seat arena in '90-'91, I think....

Their attendance numbers immediately jumped after the move to Dallas.

As for the Wild, they have-- from my recollection-- at least been competitive for the better part of the season most years. Much more than we could say for the Stars.

Metros with longer draughts? Do they have to have all big 4 sports? Cincinnati, Cleveland, Seattle all come to mind immediately. There's probably more, though....

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

Mets came into the league in 1962, those Amazin' Mets won the world series in 1969.

Sorry, you're right. But the point still stands...

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by srsmn

Sorry, you're right. But the point still stands...

One could argue that they really didn't exist until '69, given that they were last every year until '68 when they finished second-to-last. As memory serves me. Remember reading a book "The Year The Mets Lost Last Place" that chronicled their '69 season pretty well. I'm certain it was Jerry Koosman that should get all of the credit.

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

One could argue that they really didn't exist until '69, given that they were last every year until '68 when they finished second-to-last. As memory serves me. Remember reading a book "The Year The Mets Lost Last Place" that chronicled their '69 season pretty well. I'm certain it was Jerry Koosman that should get all of the credit.

Koosman should be in the Hall, if you want my opinion. After all, they were smart enough to put Jim Bunning there. Blech...