Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NHL To Expand To 32 Teams.............?  
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

Um......well, ok, i get it....but why?

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...onto-candidates-for-expansion.html

I think the NHL has too many teams....but being a hardened PHX Coyotes fan I don't want to see them relocate...so in a sense, I'm for and against expansion- for, because it keeps teams like PHX and Dallas, and against because there's too many teams to begin with.

Thoughts?


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8667 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
but why?

Munny. It's a business, they want to expand it.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

First of all, of course Paul Kelly is going to say that. More teams, more players, more union dues for his former employer to eat up.

Second, he isn't doing this for free, obviously he's going to say whatever he can to get the arena built.

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
Munny. It's a business, they want to expand it.

Except that's not how the NHL works. Many franchises are losing money because of expansion, because Bettman has this manifest destiny mandate to penetrate markets that couldn't care less about hockey.

Phoenix is a perfect example. Their fans are the definition of "fair weather fans". They only fill the arena when they are in the playoffs. Teams like this shouldn't exist.

What needs to happen is what recently happened to Atlanta. The free market economy did its magic and moved a failing Atlanta team to a hockey-hungry Winnipeg market, which has now sold out all games from now until eternity.

To be truly profitable (big revenue doesn't equal big profit), the NHL needs to either contract, or move teams into markets that can support them.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2483 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1546 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
I think the NHL has too many teams..

Definitely! They've had too many teams for a long, long time. I am old enough to remember the days of only six teams.
I think that anything over about 20 dilutes the talent pool too much. The fewer teams you have, the more elite the talent of the players in the league and the better the caliber of play. They aren't going to contract though, even if that would benefit the game IMHO.
If they do expand, I really hope Seattle gets a team - they're trying to land one for the fancy new area Chris Hanson wants to build so it can hold both NBA and NHL games. I grew up in Chicago and used to love going to Blackhawks games so I miss the NHL. Going down the street to see the Thunderbirds doesn't cut it as far a satisfying my need for a hockey fix.


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
the NHL needs to either contract

^^^^^^^^ THIS.

NHL has burned itself down already twice now, had failing franchises in too many non-core markets and don't learn. Bettman will be the man who destroyed pro hockey before this is over.

They ought to contract right now to keep the talent consistent if nothing else.


User currently onlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
but why?

Munny. It's a business, they want to expand it.

Fair point but if you looked at the NHL like an airline who can serve limited cities, cut the ones that bleed money like the OP's team and move them to markets where they will profit. The NHL can expand it's bottom line without adding teams as there are markets like Kansas City, Seattle, Quebec city and another team in Toronto that can make a better go of it.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
I think the NHL has too many teams....but being a hardened PHX Coyotes fan I don't want to see them relocate...so in a sense, I'm for and against expansion- for, because it keeps teams like PHX and Dallas, and against because there's too many teams to begin with.

If Phoenix was owned by an owner that didn't mind being in the red and it was coming out of his pocketbook that is fine, but the fact that they are owned and controlled by the NHL is the biggest issue I have.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineGrahamHill From France, joined Mar 2007, 2800 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1521 times:

The only positive thing I see with an expansion is the possible return of a team in Quebec City. A place that breathes, eats and dreams hockey.

That said, I'm against another expansion. I, too, think there are too many teams in the NHL. If I had to choose, I'd rather have 26-team league with no team in Quebec City than a 32-team league with a team in Quebec City.



"A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one" - Moliere
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1464 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
Except that's not how the NHL works. Many franchises are losing money because of expansion, because Bettman has this manifest destiny mandate to penetrate markets that couldn't care less about hockey.

Recently, I believe in Forbes sometime last year, it was stated that Anaheim, Phoenix, Florida, and Columbus were collectively losing $70M annually. This is estimated to be what Montreal, Toronto, and New York Rangers clear. It is now thought that the seven Canadian teams are subsidising the American-based franchises, due to revenue sharing. What is interesting is that the Jets, playing in the smallest building in the smallest city in the league, according to Forbes, cleared $13M last year, without benefit of HNIC money (same this year I believe). Many of the US-based franchises would give their eye teeth for that.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
Phoenix is a perfect example. Their fans are the definition of "fair weather fans". They only fill the arena when they are in the playoffs. Teams like this shouldn't exist.

What needs to happen is what recently happened to Atlanta. The free market economy did its magic and moved a failing Atlanta team to a hockey-hungry Winnipeg market, which has now sold out all games from now until eternity.

As an original (WHA) Winnipeg Jets season ticket holder (and later shareholder), I bled when the team moved to Phoenix. But the best overall solution to the Phoenix situation, now that 'the sale' seems to be threatened, is to move the team to Quebec City. They can hang out in Le Colisee for 2-3 years until the new building is ready. No precedent there, the Kansas City Scouts have moved twice: they are now the New Jersey Devils, after a brief stop in Colorado (Rockies).

Moving another American-based team to Toronto, assuming the new GTA Centre gets built, also makes sense. Which one it would be, I am not sure. One thing that is certain is that a 2nd Toronto franchise would make a sh*tload of money. BTW, City Council in Markham voted 7-6 early this AM to continue the GTA Centre proposal, doesn't mean it will get built, but it's a step in the process. But I think this means a definitive proposal and financial plan will be brought forward fairly soon.

Shrinking the league, initially to 28 teams, later to 24, would be a good move. Expansion is just not feasible, there is not a sufficient talent pool. Look at Jets 2.0, they have 2 or maybe 3 AHL-calibre defensemen on the roster (Clitsome, Postma, and maybe Hainsey), and an AHLer up front (Wright). Shrinking would help to correct this.

Quoting slider (Reply 4):
NHL has burned itself down already twice now, had failing franchises in too many non-core markets and don't learn. Bettman will be the man who destroyed pro hockey before this is over.

To be fair, Bettman has done a couple of good things, the salary floor and cap being an example. However, his personality rubs almost everyone the wrong way, and his dog in the manger attitude vis-a-vis labour relations has really hurt the league. "Cut my nose off to spite my face" is not good policy. His day is done and he should be fired. Ziegler looks good by comparison.

Quoting GrahamHill (Reply 6):
That said, I'm against another expansion. I, too, think there are too many teams in the NHL. If I had to choose, I'd rather have 26-team league with no team in Quebec City than a 32-team league with a team in Quebec City.

I'd rather have 26 healthy teams with no team in Quebec than a 32 team league with lots of sick franchises. But moving the Yotes to Quebec at least alleviates one issue.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinenorthstardc4m From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
Recently, I believe in Forbes sometime last year, it was stated that Anaheim, Phoenix, Florida, and Columbus were collectively losing $70M annually. This is estimated to be what Montreal, Toronto, and New York Rangers clear. It is now thought that the seven Canadian teams are subsidising the American-based franchises, due to revenue sharing. What is interesting is that the Jets, playing in the smallest building in the smallest city in the league, according to Forbes, cleared $13M last year, without benefit of HNIC money (same this year I believe). Many of the US-based franchises would give their eye teeth for that.

Just to be balanced, some of the US teams clear a good amount (Rangers, Islanders, Blackhawks, Redwigns, Bruins, Devils?) and some do ok (Penguins, Flyers, Sabres?)...
The problem has been for quite some time trying to force hockey as it were. Putting teams where hockey isn't a common sport...
Phoenix, Florida, Southern California, yes they have massive population bases but people there don't play hockey, at least ice hockey, and so these areas will always lag behind. Compound it with the economic situation in cities like St Louis, Columbus, etc... and the revenue stream just isn't rosy.

I agree with a contraction to 28 teams again... 26 I think is a little too far. Move a team to Quebec City (Panthers? or Blue Jackets?), and another to either Hamilton or London ON (Coyotes just to balance the relocations east vs west), Those 2 markets can support teams (regardless of how much bitching the Sabres and Leafs make about it). Then cut 2 teams, Blue Jackets or Panthers and Predators would be my picks... Rearrange the conferences to move one team west to replace the cut team (Jets would be the most obvious option, but not the only).



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1445 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 7):
"Cut my nose off to spite my face" is not good policy. His day is done and he should be fired.

I agree completely on this about Bettman. The problem is that his pugnacious approach was a 'take it or leave it' deal....and that many NHL guys eagerly jumped back over to Europe to play. Whoops, Bettman's bluff was called. And therein added to the stalemate.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1402 times:

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 8):
Just to be balanced, some of the US teams clear a good amount (Rangers, Islanders, Blackhawks, Redwigns, Bruins, Devils?) and some do ok (Penguins, Flyers, Sabres?)...

Never said all the other US-based teams were losing tons, but the "Flab Four" are money pits. Devils I believe are technically if not legally bankrupt (or the holding company is) and this is likely related to the ownership struggle. Islanders have been losing big-time lately, the move to Brooklyn may or may not save them. They have long been thought of as the team to move to Toronto/Markham. Sabres ? Don't know, but the economic situation there is not great.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1393 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 4):
Bettman will be the man who destroyed pro hockey before this is over.

I think that's a bit of an over-exaggeration. He's not good for fans, but he knows how to make money.

Quoting GrahamHill (Reply 6):
The only positive thing I see with an expansion is the possible return of a team in Quebec City. A place that breathes, eats and dreams hockey.

It would be a shame to see any city get a team before Quebec.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 8):
Just to be balanced, some of the US teams clear a good amount (Rangers, Islanders,

The Islanders are definitely not on that list. They've been hemorrhaging money the past few years.

Quoting slider (Reply 9):
and that many NHL guys eagerly jumped back over to Europe to play.

And were even more eager to come back to the NHL. Only the KHL pays anywhere near the amount the NHL pays.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2741 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1370 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

They need to dump teams rather than expand. Columbus, Carolina, Phoenix, and Florida should be peeing their pants right about now. My roommate lives in North Carolina and we were throwing around the idea of going down there for Spring break and hanging at his house. We figured what the hell, maybe we'll go see a game. Cheap seats were 11 dollars each. We figured man we may as well check out Winnipeg, if we can get a pretty decent deal for cheap seats we are going to head up there for a game. Cost? 149 CAD per ticket, again the cheap seats. I couldn't believe the difference in prices. That was average too. For the Jets vs Penguins game last week (my roommate is a huge Pens fan) the cheapest was 250! I just can't understand how they can allow teams like Phoenix operate when the stands are empty when teams up here in the great white north can pack them in for miles. Add another team in Canada and get rid of the loss makers.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently onlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1332 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 11):
The Islanders are definitely not on that list. They've been hemorrhaging money the past few years.

I have no issue with insisting that a team has to be profitable, they have an owner who is willing to lose money which is fine and just idiotic. I have an issue when a team like Phoenix is run by the league when a guy like Jim Balsille offered to buy it and move it to Hamilton where it would have made money.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11462 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1304 times:

Some people complain about the "long" playoffs but that is the other thing about the NHL I like. I do think four teams should go away and that would be the four least profitiable teams. I have never, to this day, understood why the Whalers went away and why Phoenix got a team. Portland had been trying to get a team for years.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1279 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 12):
We figured man we may as well check out Winnipeg, if we can get a pretty decent deal for cheap seats we are going to head up there for a game. Cost? 149 CAD per ticket, again the cheap seats.

Avg price per seat last year was $85 CAD, 5th highest price in the league. I got comp'd for the season opener, Bank of Montreal luxury suite (very nice !), but paid for New Year's Eve against the Leafs. $270 for 2 corner seats mid-level. There are seats available in the $50 range, but not many. Remember that capacity is 15,004, but about 400 or so seats are reserved for league officials, scouts, and the associated ladies. Season tickets are capped at 13,000. Doesn't leave many for single game sales, and this is done by auction.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 13):
I have an issue when a team like Phoenix is run by the league when a guy like Jim Balsille offered to buy it and move it to Hamilton where it would have made money.[/i]

Phoenix got a team because at the time it seemed to have a strong owner in Steve Ellman, which Jets 1.0 did not have. As it turned out Ellman had a case of the shorts, and so did his successor. Now looks like the "new new guy" will not have his ownership group put together before the lease proposal expires, and the new mayor says it will not be extended. So, either it's Hulsizer's group from Chicago who I believe have not been shy about mentioning Las Vegas, or the team moves to Quebec. Pierre Peladeau wants the franchise and he is a kajillionaire. Rather like the Winnipeg ownership group headed by David Thompson, apparently the 17th or 18th richest person on the planet.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
I have never, to this day, understood why the Whalers went away and why Phoenix got a team.

Per above.

But to repeat myself, expanding to 32 teams would be a big mistake, IMHO.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7497 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1273 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
Um......well, ok, i get it....but why?

Shouldn't they try to get a complete season done five years in a row first?

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter):
I think the NHL has too many teams....

I'm not sure that is the truth, but the NHL does have a problem in that some markets are simply not hockey markets on the level necessary to support a top level team.

What the NHL really has is too many bad team owners.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1254 times:

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 8):
The problem has been for quite some time trying to force hockey as it were. Putting teams where hockey isn't a common sport...
Phoenix, Florida, Southern California, yes they have massive population bases but people there don't play hockey, at least ice hockey, and so these areas will always lag behind.

As a southern hockey fan (or at least, someone who started out as southern), I absolutely hate hearing the argument that because of sunny weather, hockey will not succeed. If the NHL didn't expand to the sunbelt, it would have doomed itself to being a niche sport, one ignoring the demographic trends of the U.S. that saw the population move to the sunbelt for economic reasons. Hockey may be a cult following in the south, but it doesn't change the fact that you still have a devoted fanbase present. Also, the nature of some of the markets are those of fair-weather fandom. In most of these southern markets, you usually have one team that always sells out or will always do well at the gate--in L.A. it's the Lakers, in Dallas, it's the Cowboys--but these markets also have teams from other leagues who struggle at the gate when their teams play poorly, and succeed when the team is winning. I grew up in Dallas, so I'll use this as my example, but back in the 90s both the Rangers and the Mavericks weren't doing so well, and they routinely played to half-empty stadiums. The Stars on the other hand, were the hot ticket in town, routinely selling out Reunion Arena. When the stars started to struggle and the Mavericks and the Rangers started playing better, then the attendance figures reversed.

Bettman's sunbelt strategy shouldn't be deemed to be a short-term failure--you have to look at it 20-30 years down the line, when a generation of kids in those markets not previously exposed to hockey starting playing it--and we are now starting to see the fruits of that strategy paying off as California kids who developed in the local leagues there (Before moving at 15 or 16 for better competition) are now routinely drafted in the first round, and kids from Texas are also being drafted.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 12):
. I couldn't believe the difference in prices

Difference in ticket prices does not mean a team is unprofitable. Arena deals and local tv contracts matter just as much. The Stars, for example, are one of the cheapest tickets in the NHL, but they rank around 10-15 in Forbes ranking of valuable franchises because the Stars and the Mavericks co-own the American Airlines Center, and split revenue of non-hockey/non-basketball activities takign place there.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16):
I'm not sure that is the truth, but the NHL does have a problem in that some markets are simply not hockey markets on the level necessary to support a top level team.

How soon do people forget certain markets that are now seen as successes were once thought to be failures or played ot half-empty arenas? Pittsburgh, pre-Sidney Crosby, the Capitals pre-Ovechkin. Chicago before Old Wirtz died didn't do that well at the arena, etc.

I admit that certain markets haven't worked out as planned--the Coyotes for example, for a variety of reasons, including where they put the new arena.

That said, back to the original question: more expansion is a joke. Talent is already diluted enough. Relocation yes, but not expansion.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6971 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1252 times:

I think they have two problems, too many teams and too long a season, one can see the difficulties the NBA and Baseball have with their long seasons, at least baseball limited the number of teams making the playoffs, the recent expansion is a one game playoff, sudden death like football generates excitement.

Too many teams make the NHL playoff, so any team that has not made the playoff in like 5 seasons really do not deserve to be in the league.

So solution, cut the number of teams, reduce the length of of the season, decrease the number of playoff teams, allow the excitement to re-build the interest in Hockey then look to expand.
I also think this is the way for Baseball and Basketball, everyone in the NBA is just waitring for the playoffs, including the players.


User currently offlinenorthstardc4m From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 37
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1229 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting us330 (Reply 17):
As a southern hockey fan (or at least, someone who started out as southern), I absolutely hate hearing the argument that because of sunny weather, hockey will not succeed. If the NHL didn't expand to the sunbelt, it would have doomed itself to being a niche sport, one ignoring the demographic trends of the U.S. that saw the population move to the sunbelt for economic reasons. Hockey may be a cult following in the south, but it doesn't change the fact that you still have a devoted fanbase present. Also, the nature of some of the markets are those of fair-weather fandom. In most of these southern markets, you usually have one team that always sells out or will always do well at the gate--in L.A. it's the Lakers, in Dallas, it's the Cowboys--but these markets also have teams from other leagues who struggle at the gate when their teams play poorly, and succeed when the team is winning. I grew up in Dallas, so I'll use this as my example, but back in the 90s both the Rangers and the Mavericks weren't doing so well, and they routinely played to half-empty stadiums. The Stars on the other hand, were the hot ticket in town, routinely selling out Reunion Arena. When the stars started to struggle and the Mavericks and the Rangers started playing better, then the attendance figures reversed.

I'm not saying that in some cases they aren't viable, I'm saying they overexposed the league in places where hockey isn't ever going to be a major sport. Dallas and LA are big enough to hold teams just by sheer numbers. Phoenix never was going to. Las Vegas might, but it won't be locals filling the seats. Tampa Bay does best when they are playing Toronto, Buffalo, Montreal or Ottawa, and the local fans are outnumbers 3 or 4 to 1. Last game i saw in Tampa the arena was maybe 20% filled, and tickets were dirt cheap (hotel concierge got us seats on the lower level 3rd row behind penalty box for $25 each)... they were playing Philly.

Florida should have 1 team, and it should be Tampa, the Panthers are even worse attendance wise... probably the low numbers of Canadian tourists in Miami vs Tampa/Orlando.

Atlanta should in my mind of been able to hold a team by population, but now it's failed to TWICE...

Now you want to go crazy... here's what I'd do to hold 30 team size:


Predators to Quebec City - Nordiques
Panthers to Hamilton/London/Kitcherner/etc - Tigers
Hurricanes to Markham/Oshawa/etc - ?... Wanderers maybe
Coyotes to Salt Lake City - still Coyotes
Blue Jackets to Saskatoon or Halifax - ?



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently onlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7497 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1229 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 17):
How soon do people forget certain markets that are now seen as successes were once thought to be failures or played ot half-empty arenas?

I was working at the Dallas Morning News, in the Sports Department, on the night the announcement was made the North Stars were moving to Dallas. We had a lot of 'fun' remaking the front page and sports front page quickly that night.

(The joke in the newsroom that night is that Dallas would finally have three professional teams - the Mavricks being considered among the worst in the NBA at the time.)

I don't count Dallas as a 'non-hockey' market. There was already a solid core of displaced Yankees in Dallas to give the sport of hockey a fan base. There was already at least one youth hockey league and a couple young adult leagues.

Even I have learned to appreciate hockey. It did help tremendously that the team did well and built their heroes like Eddie the Eagle and Modano.

(I've seen years when the Cowboys did not sell out the stadium, but not as often as the other three teams.)

However there are other cities when the NHL has tried to go, and hockey teams have tried to add minor league teams - which simply don't have that displaced Yankee fan base.

Atlanta appears to be such a city, and possibly Charlotte.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7114 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1203 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16):
Shouldn't they try to get a complete season done five years in a row first?

   True.


Well to defend PHX ... they did have a divisional championship last year.....



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineBTVB6Flyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1197 times:

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 19):
I'm not saying that in some cases they aren't viable, I'm saying they overexposed the league in places where hockey isn't ever going to be a major sport. Dallas and LA are big enough to hold teams just by sheer numbers. Phoenix never was going to. Las Vegas might, but it won't be locals filling the seats. Tampa Bay does best when they are playing Toronto, Buffalo, Montreal or Ottawa, and the local fans are outnumbers 3 or 4 to 1. Last game i saw in Tampa the arena was maybe 20% filled, and tickets were dirt cheap (hotel concierge got us seats on the lower level 3rd row behind penalty box for $25 each)... they were playing Philly.

I'm not sure when the last time you went to a game in Tampa, but this year we have sold out every single home game and we have been above 96% capacity fro the past couple of years. Here in Tampa the Bolts are the most supported franchise even above MLB and NFL.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1178 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 17):
If the NHL didn't expand to the sunbelt, it would have doomed itself to being a niche sport, one ignoring the demographic trends of the U.S. that saw the population move to the sunbelt for economic reasons.

Sorry, but the sporting world doesn't revolve around the US. The NHL could operate in Canada alone and still be wildly profitable. It's the attitude that hockey is niche which is exactly why people consider hockey in the south to be just a hobby.

The only reason teams exist down south is because Bettman predicted huge untapped potential, and he fell short. Whether southern hockey fans like it or not, that stats don't lie. Interest in hockey down there is extremely volatile and only dependent on wins. Until southern teams start packing arenas when they're losing, people will maintain the view that they should be packing up and moving north.

Quoting us330 (Reply 17):
back in the 90s both the Rangers and the Mavericks weren't doing so well, and they routinely played to half-empty stadiums. The Stars on the other hand, were the hot ticket in town, routinely selling out Reunion Arena. When the stars started to struggle and the Mavericks and the Rangers started playing better, then the attendance figures reversed.

That's sort of what some people are arguing. In strong hockey markets such as Canada, and a select number of teams in the northern states, such trends don't occur. They can be faltering while other sports teams are succeeding, yet they will still command 90+% attendance. It just goes to show that southern fans just want to see a team win, they don't want to just see hockey. That's not true fandom in my opinion.

Quoting us330 (Reply 17):
and kids from Texas are also being drafted.

But where are they being drafted out of? It sure isn't Texas. All the best southern players leave their states to play in the CHL or NCAA Div I teams in New England or the 3M's

Quoting par13del (Reply 18):
Too many teams make the NHL playoff, so any team that has not made the playoff in like 5 seasons really do not deserve to be in the league.

So the Toronto Maple Leafs, one of the most legendary teams on the planet, who is one of the most valuable sports franchises in North America, who continues to sell out every single game...shouldn't even be in the league?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16):
Shouldn't they try to get a complete season done five years in a row first?

They have. Last lockout was in 2005. That's 7 years if I do my math correctly...



Flying refined.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1176 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 21):
Well to defend PHX ... they did have a divisional championship last year.....

Considering all the issues the players and coaches had to mentally juggle, an amazing achievement. But the fact remains that Phoenix, for the NHL, is a moneypit. Time to pack up and move north. Phoenix would be better served with either an AHL or ECHL team.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 20):
I don't count Dallas as a 'non-hockey' market. There was already a solid core of displaced Yankees in Dallas to give the sport of hockey a fan base. There was already at least one youth hockey league and a couple young adult leagues.

Dallas has had pro hockey in one form or another for a long time. Out in Manitoba I played intermediate hockey. One of my teammates played three seasons for the Dallas Black Hawks of the old Central League. This would have around 1970-72 or so.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 Post contains images StarAC17 : If it were up to me I would choose 16-20 teams in North America and about the same in Europe and start a Transatlantic league. You would travel acros
26 connies4ever : This idea has been kicked around for quite a while now. Going back to WHA days initially they stated a 6-team European division would occur (of cours
27 garnetpalmetto : Man, I'd love to know where your friend found these $11.00 tickets. I must be buying from the wrong team or something. As a 10-game season ticket hol
28 Post contains images par13del : I can understand why the Panthers are not in the playoff on a regular basis, bad team, poor attendance hence little money to get good players, with a
29 Post contains images WestJet747 : The NHL has a salary cap, so unlike the MLB, you can't just buy a good team. It takes a really good GM to attract quality players and to put a team t
30 Post contains images GrahamHill : They don't have any problem, it's in their genes to be bad!
31 StarAC17 : Terrible Management from the players perspective and they can't spend like the Yankees in baseball, also Brian Burke (who just got fired) wouldn't si
32 us330 : To further their development, once they hit 14/15 they play where there's better junior age competition. But they wouldn't be leaving the sunbelt if
33 deltairlines : Keep in mind the push for 32 (or what really should be the contract to 28, but Bettman won't do that, nor will the NHLPA agree since it means less NHL
34 garnetpalmetto : Sold out crowd tonight in Raleigh to see the Canes beat the Sens.
35 3DoorsDown : I would love to see Seattle get a team, but does anyone think it would last? I know you would have a close rivalry with Vancouver but I seriously doub
36 us330 : That could also be a function of the population only willing to pay a certain amount for a certain level/quality of play. Plenty of minor league spor
37 ER757 : There are quite a lot of us "transplants" living in the Seattle area, much to the dismay of many Washington natives who have watched the population e
38 apodino : Quebec City has to be the next city, period. I do think it would be much better to get a team to relocate, than expansion. Phoenix is an obvious targe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NHL Lockout Update PT 2: Talks To Resume Monday posted Sun Nov 18 2012 00:12:13 by PHX787
NHL: NY Islanders Moving To Brooklyn posted Wed Oct 24 2012 13:27:19 by jfk69
Requirement To Play In The UK National Teams? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 13:52:13 by Sabena332
Upgrading From Vista 32-bit To 64-bit, Yay Or Nay? posted Thu Jun 11 2009 17:32:05 by FLY2HMO
Countdown To The NHL Season posted Wed Aug 23 2006 15:51:56 by FlyKev
MLB Teams To Watch This Year posted Fri Mar 4 2005 03:17:02 by Pilottj
2 Firms Offer $3.5B To Buy The NHL! posted Thu Mar 3 2005 20:33:17 by DeltaFFinDFW
News Report: NHL To Cancel Season Tomorrow posted Mon Feb 14 2005 19:31:57 by PROSA
The Media: Todays Weapon // NHL To Blame posted Fri Mar 12 2004 03:13:31 by CanadaEH
Self-gloss-I Am Transferring To Sophia Univ Japan! posted Tue Jan 29 2013 18:11:07 by PHX787