Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed
No, I understood your point. Your point is nothing like what we're saying though. People said the Suns wouldn't work because of Phoenix being a small market. People in Canada say the Coyotes won't work because *no one in Arizona plays or even cares about hockey*. Entirely different reasons. I'm sure plenty of kids played basketball in Phoenix before the Suns came there. Tell me honestly, how many of your friends ever even SAW a hockey game, professional or a bunch of 6 year olds, before 1996.
The Coyotes had 6 winning seasons in a row when they first moved to Phoenix. And several more since then when they've been close to .500. Phoenix defenders make it seem like the team has been SOOO bad that they're only had 50 points a season for the past 10, so no wonder no one wants to go. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only thing that could save this team, based on 14 years of actual statistics, is making the playoffs each and every year for the next 10, and a cup or two in there as well. If 6 years of winning records wasn't enough to grow a fan base, how many will be?
You may not realize this, but every single person in Canada understands this. We've had it rammed down our throats every year since 1995 when the first Canadian team was allowed to leave with nary a whisper from Mr. Bettman. We're now 15 years into this experiment and the NHL has many, many teams in non-traditional markets. Nashville. Carolina. Florida. Tampa. Phoenix. Anaheim. San Jose. Dallas. How many more do you need, to make the game popular? And how many more years do you want?
What the NHL (and possibly yourself, although I'm not sure) fails to realize is this: you cannot artificially grow a sport like this. There has to be some level of grass-roots interest. There was zero interest in hockey in the sunbelt before 1990. There is slightly more than zero now, to the tune of about 40,000 people (TV and arena attendance combined) per city. That will never, ever be enough to make these teams sustainable.
No business in the world would continue to dump money on a failing idea for 15 years with no indication of any possible return, ever. This isn't a business thing at all, it's purely driven by ego (and the fact that many pro sports teams are vanity projects and/or tax write-offs for their owners).
As some more info, we've watched this happen many times already. Canada tried expanding the CFL into the US. It was an unmitigated disaster. Americans simply do not care for "our" football game. The NBA has tried to expand into Canada. The only place they've succeeded is Toronto, and that's just due to sheer population (plus a demographic receptive to basketball). Even baseball has pretty much failed in Canada, because it's just not something we care that much about.
Actually, that last one isn't true. I'm positive Canadians watch more baseball per capita than Americans do hockey.
The NHL already tried this "non-traditional market" crap in the 1970s. And the WHA did a bunch too. None of it lasted. People have to WANT a sports team first. Or at least have a passing interest in it.
Pro soccer will take off in the US long before hockey does, and I think we all know how well that's going.
|
I agree with most of what you've said.
Now, I'd like to point out that hockey in Dallas, San Jose, and Anaheim are more successful than the other markets mentioned. This may be because they have been able to draw top tier talent and have been able to field successful teams. Dallas and Anaheim have put together consistent legitimate Stanley Cup contenders on a yearly basis.
Anaheim is actually in the Los Angeles market where the Kings have been since 1967, so they do have to split the market with the Kings, the Lakers, and the Clippers. That said, they have been successful in doing so.
Also, the NHL and WHA did try the "non-traditional market" thing. The WHA more so than the NHL.
The Oakland/California Seals were a disaster from the start based on location. They couldn't put together a success on the ice, and they couldn't secure an arena deal (the consistent name changes didn't help the team either). They then hastily moved to Cleveland (being in the Mid West, I would consider it a more traditional market), and renamed the Barons. Hockey would eventually return to the region (San Jose), dismal at first, but currently successful.
The Barons had an unfortunate lease agreement in an arena outside of Cleveland, and couldn't put fans asses in seats. After two dismal seasons in Cleveland, the team merged together with the Minnesota North Stars.
The Kansas City Scouts were a disaster because they failed to have a winning season (which lead to low attendance) before moving to Denver after two seasons. The NHL has not returned to Kansas City (much to Gary Bettman's chagrin). In fact no major league indoor winter sports team has played in Kansas City since the Kansas City Kings of the NBA moved to Sacramento, California in 1985. 25 years is a long time with nothing to do in the winter.
Being a winter state, the attendance situation improved in Denver (as the Colorado Rockies), however they failed to put together a successful product on the ice and they were badly mismanaged. After 6 seasons in Denver, the team moved to New Jersey and renamed the Devils. Hockey would eventually and successfully return to Denver as the Colorado Avalanche.
The Atlanta Flames were a success until their final seasons both on and off the ice. In 8 seasons in Atlanta, the team only missed the playoffs twice, and only had a losing record twice. The lacked a major TV deal, and the WHA took off shortly after Atlanta was awarded a franchise. This contributed to the owners selling to Nelson Skalbania and moving to Calgary and renaming the Flames. Hockey would eventually return to Atlanta, thus far with 2 winning seasons (one playoff year), some star talent, but have not been successful filling the seats and have a terrible arena lease agreement. It would be wise to say the return of hockey to Atlanta is not successful in the least bit.
Things were different in the 1970's though. Expansion was a new concept to the NHL. Perhaps it was because the rules were different. Owners of teams were allowed to fold, sell, or even relocate teams at will if they were performing dismally in the standings or at the box office. From an investment standpoint, I can understand why this was allowed as well as why the rules are changed to prevent this now. I mean everyone wants to gain some return on investment, but if your investment hinges on other peoples investments staying put and not starting anew every two or 3 years, you'd want them to stay put. However, after a certain period of time if your investment starts losing money because another persons investment is hemorrhaging money based upon its location, you want that investor to be able to start anew somewhere better so that you can make money again.
Realistically speaking, given the current situation and profit sharing in the NHL, its only a matter of time before Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec, Milwaukee, and Salt Lake City all have NHL teams knocking on their door.
Prev
Linear Mode
