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.
I actually agree with you and these points. I lived there for six years, I know what that town is like for a sports franchise.
I only countered KC with Vegas based upon your corporate sponsorship money argument.
I certainly don't believe Las Vegas should, or ever will, be awarded an NHL team. It'd be quite the reach to put legitimate "fans" in the stands.
But as it stands, you're still wrong when it comes to the Casino money supporting Pro Sports Franchises.
Any idea who owns the Sacramento Kings?
The Maloofs. Who own The Palms. Who have have numerous chats with David Stern about an NBA team in Vegas. NBA All-Star weekend? Vegas a couple years back. There was almost a deal on the table for a new arena, and the NBA was very close to favoring a franchise there. And the money wouldn't be in the form of from the Casinos, it'd be via the ownership groups. Obviously no sports franchise is going to have "Caesars Palace" plastered all over the place. But the money is still coming in from the Casino ownership groups. And probably a ton of corporate boxes, as well.
That'd be more like how the whole thing would function. Not as some direct link between the two. The stigma is still too strong.
It's not being naive, it's seeing these things with my very own eyes.
I only countered KC with Vegas based upon your corporate sponsorship money argument.
I had been talking about Houston, not Kansas City. I think Houston would work better than KC based on the corporate presence alone. Plus it's a much larger market in general.
The NBA seemed like the logical vote for who would be first to dip their toes into Vegas (IIRC the Jazz played a few home games there at one point when they were getting a new building in Salt Lake) but the Donaghy saga and the perception of games as fixed would put a stop to it. It's a very high-risk, low-reward proposition. Just not worth it.
Now the WNBA I could see in Vegas. They already have a team playing in a casino, and they wouldn't need as large/expensive an arena.
Vegas will rake in some cash for the league, but that's about the only purpose a franchise there would have. I'd much sooner see teams go to Quebec, Houston, Kansas City. Even elsewhere in the Sun Belt you will have more of an actual fanbase. Houston metro has over five million people. If only 10-15% of Houston is interested in seeing NHL hockey then you've still got a number comparable to Winnipeg's entire population - even the non-hockey fans. Sure, it'll probably never get beyond niche status, but let's face it - the NHL is a niche league, even in most so-called "good hockey markets."
Looking at the attendance figures for the Ducks in Anaheim and especially the Devils and Islanders in the NYC metro, another team in Toronto or in Hamilton (which is close enough) seems like it might not work as well as some think. Might be wrong there, but the NY metro isn't really supporting two teams let alone three, and if NYC can't do it then I don't know about Toronto. Then again, the Leafs sure have been awful the last few years...
Finally, this seems to get repeated as fact in this sort of discussion but I don't really buy the idea that there are too many teams. Teams that could do better being located somewhere else perhaps, but there is enough talent to go around. There were marginal players in the league 30 years ago when the league's talent base didn't extend very far beyond Canada and the northern US. You could've certainly filled those roster spots with more talented European players, but they came around later. You could fill several teams with nothing but Russians, Czechs and Swedes who wouldn't have been here in Gordie Howe's day, and they'd be as good as anyone else in the league. The 1990s expansions only helped showcase more of those guys alongside the North Americans, and the league was better off for it IMO even with some failures in some expansion markets.
My guess is either the Coyotes or Panthers will move to Quebec City. It's much more bilingual since the Nordiques were there and with the way the economy is here in the states, more teams in Canada wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Arguing over which city should or must get a hockey team is pointless. After all it all comes down to an ownership group interested with a decent arena in place. It could be a Sun belt city or Canadian city. I don't think Bettman woke up one day and said to himself, "Hey! Why don't I put a team in Phoenix? I always wanted a team there!" So stop this whole "southern experiment" non-sense already. There was no experiment, there was a bunch of southern cities interested in bringing the NHL to their home towns during the time when hockey was gaining popularity like crazy all over the states.
Allow me to remind you though that all the hockey-intense cities (Minneapolis, Winnipeg, QC) failed their teams in the past by not showing up to the games, which resulted in loss of revenues, followed by relocations. And that didn't happen overnight every one of those teams had ongoing financial troubles for at least 5 years prior to the relocation. My point is that you could never guarantee anything in the NHL more so than in any other league. No team is immune from low attendance and not making profits, except maybe Toronto and Montreal. So new franchise is really a gamble, even for Canadian cities (today especially).
That's why it's pretty sad to see that most people still have that primitive reasoning, if the team fails in the north it's Bettman's fault, but if it fails in the south it's because dumb rednecks don't appreciate hockey. That kind of mentality really prevents them from seeing that Atlanta and Phoenix failed for the same reason Hartford and QC did. And Dallas is currently experiencing identical ownership situation that Buffalo was in 8 years go, and yet when the HSBC arena looked really empty during regular season no one even for a second thought that the team should be relocated or folded.
P.S. How big is the NHL following in Seattle and Portland? I'm curious because while living in that area I haven't met a single person who would have any interest in hockey or any professional sports for that matter.
Any Sunbelt city should be crossed off the list. I believe more and more that any new franchise will be in a place where it snows at least a quarter of the year.
Snow doesn't seem to be helping much Denver, Columbus, and Uniondale. Not enough snow maybe?
My guess is either the Coyotes or Panthers will move to Quebec City. It's much more bilingual since the Nordiques were there and with the way the economy is here in the states, more teams in Canada wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Quebec City today is not significantly "more bilingual" than it was 15 years ago...
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.
