PromoTheRobot Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 While folks debate the fates of the Coyotes and Thrashers I think there are a couple of US cities that deserve a team as much as Winnipeg and Quebec City. One city no one had considered is Indianapolis. They have a history in the WHA as Wayne Gretzky's first team. They would fill a nice hole in the midwest and provide natural rivals to Columbus, Detroit, St.Louis, and Chicago. Imagine someone like David Letterman leading an ownership group. Another area is the Pacific Northwest, mainly Seattle but possibly Portland too. A huge hole in the NHL map. A history in the WHL plus Seattle was in the NHL once long ago. If they revived the Sens then why not the Totems? Billionaire Paul Allen owns the Seahawks and Trailblazers and tried to buy the Sabres back in the Rigas bankruptcy. Without the Sonics there is no winter sports competition in Seattle Other cities to consider are Houston, Salt Lake, Sacremento, Milwaukee, and to a lesser degree, Las Vegas and Kansas City. Thoughts? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foot In The Crease! Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Intercourse, PA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Another area is the Pacific Northwest, mainly Seattle but possibly Portland too. A huge hole in the NHL map. A history in the WHL plus Seattle was in the NHL once long ago. If they revived the Sens then why not the Totems? The Metropolitans could come in with more Stanley Cups than the Sabres. :death: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Intercourse, PA I don't see the Amish and Mennonite folk around here ponying up for club boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 I don't see the Amish and Mennonite folk around here ponying up for club boxes. Gray hubcaps on the Zamboni.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 While folks debate the fates of the Coyotes and Thrashers I think there are a couple of US cities that deserve a team as much as Winnipeg and Quebec City. One city no one had considered is Indianapolis. They have a history in the WHA as Wayne Gretzky's first team. They would fill a nice hole in the midwest and provide natural rivals to Columbus, Detroit, St.Louis, and Chicago. Imagine someone like David Letterman leading an ownership group. Another area is the Pacific Northwest, mainly Seattle but possibly Portland too. A huge hole in the NHL map. A history in the WHL plus Seattle was in the NHL once long ago. If they revived the Sens then why not the Totems? Billionaire Paul Allen owns the Seahawks and Trailblazers and tried to buy the Sabres back in the Rigas bankruptcy. Without the Sonics there is no winter sports competition in Seattle Other cities to consider are Houston, Salt Lake, Sacremento, Milwaukee, and to a lesser degree, Las Vegas and Kansas City. Thoughts? PTR Regardless of everyones opinions the numbers show that the U.S. southern states for the most part have been a colossal failure for N.H.L. hockey so imo discussing anywhere (stateside) not located in the Northern half of the States is a waste of time. I know,I know some have done well but they are clearly the exception not the norm. The haves are most likely tired of paying for the have nots and propping up deadbeat citys. Why revisit this scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Regardless of everyones opinions the numbers show that the U.S. southern states for the most part have been a colossal failure for N.H.L. hockey so imo discussing anywhere (stateside) not located in the Northern half of the States is a waste of time. I know,I know some have done well but they are clearly the exception not the norm. The haves are most likely tired of paying for the have nots and propping up deadbeat citys. Why revisit this scenario? It really is case by case....Nashville, Tampa, Raleigh, and Dallas probably average more fans than the Devils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Gray hubcaps on the Zamboni.... Hub caps are ostentatious. Although a horse-drawn Zamboni would be pretty slick. Might leave something undesirable for the ice girls to pick up though[0]. [0] Also a constant hazard on those back-road rides thru Lancaster Co, a friend runs an annual "Amish horse-pile swerve ride". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 It really is case by case....Nashville, Tampa, Raleigh, and Dallas probably average more fans than the Devils. ...or the Islanders. You can't use Phoenix and Atlanta (or Florida for that matter) to paint all southern NHL teams. But the two main cities I nominated weren't southern. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullim4 Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Seattle's issue would be the arena. The public refuses to fund another arena/stadium project after getting fleeced by Safeco and Qwest Fields. Key Arena cannot host an NHL team - it was rebuilt in 1994 and the situation was so bad there that the Thunderbirds (WHL team) built a small arena in Kent and moved there. Portland stands a much better chance of getting something as they have a viable NHL facility in the Rose Garden. The nicest hockey facility here is the Comcast Arena in Everett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weehawk Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Please do just a little research before you comment. What numbers are you looking at? In the bottom 7 of attendance in 2011, there is ONE southern team. In fact, there are THREE northern teams in the bottom seven. http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance 24 Devils 25 Avalanche 26 Ducks 27 Thrashers 28 Blue Jackets 29 Coyotes 30 NY Islanders Regardless of everyones opinions the numbers show that the U.S. southern states for the most part have been a colossal failure for N.H.L. hockey so imo discussing anywhere (stateside) not located in the Northern half of the States is a waste of time. I know,I know some have done well but they are clearly the exception not the norm. The haves are most likely tired of paying for the have nots and propping up deadbeat citys. Why revisit this scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Portland stands a much better chance of getting something as they have a viable NHL facility in the Rose Garden. The nicest hockey facility here is the Comcast Arena in Everett. The Rose Garden is great for hockey. The trouble is, Portland isn't. Team sports just aren't in the DNA out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Please do just a little research before you comment. What numbers are you looking at? In the bottom 7 of attendance in 2011, there is ONE southern team. Depends on how you define "southern" teams. I can pick a parallel that 10 of the 11 teams below it fall in the bottom 14 teams for attendance. The last team below that parallel, LA, is 16th lowest. 17. Sharks 18. Lightning 19. Oilers 20. Hurricanes 21. Predators 22. Panthers 23. Stars 24. Devils 25. Avalanche 26. Ducks 27. Thrasher 28. Blue Jackets 29. Coyotes 30. Islanders So, to recap 10 of 11 from below it vs. 4 of 19 from above it fall in the bottom 14, while all of the top 13 are from above it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Please do just a little research before you comment. What numbers are you looking at? In the bottom 7 of attendance in 2011, there is ONE southern team. In fact, there are THREE northern teams in the bottom seven. http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance 24 Devils 25 Avalanche 26 Ducks 27 Thrashers 28 Blue Jackets 29 Coyotes 30 NY Islanders If you are going to rag on someone for not doing research, show ALL the results of your research ... you conveniently cut off your list so that FOUR southern teams - Carolina, Dallas, Nashville and Florida - were not shown as the NEXT four from the bottom. Putting all of them in the bottom-third of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Depends on how you define "southern" teams. I can pick a parallel that 10 of the 11 teams below it fall in the bottom 14 teams for attendance. The last team below that parallel, LA, is 16th lowest. 17. Sharks 18. Lightning 19. Oilers 20. Hurricanes 21. Predators 22. Panthers 23. Stars 24. Devils 25. Avalanche 26. Ducks 27. Thrasher 28. Blue Jackets 29. Coyotes 30. Islanders So, to recap 10 of 11 from below it vs. 4 of 19 from above it fall in the bottom 14, while all of the top 13 are from above it. Just as a question, are you looking at percentage of capacity or attendance numbers? Because if you look at percentage of capacity 9 of the 11 "southern teams" you guys have listed are in the bottom 50% of attendance. The only two not? LA and San Jose at 11th and 15th respectively. What's interesting is that the top 7 teams are all over 100%. Makes me wonder what the deal is there...can anyone else clarify? LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 The Rose Garden is great for hockey. The trouble is, Portland isn't. Team sports just aren't in the DNA out there. False. Portland (WHL) draws very well for juniors. Hockey in the USA is not too popular, especially junior hockey, yet Portland is one of the better draws in the WHL drawing around 5k per game. The Trail Blazers have some of the best fan support in the entire NBA. The new Major League Soccer team in Portland, which began play this season, sells out on regular basis and is now considered one of the best fan crowds in MLS. (atmosphere wise) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Other cities to consider are Houston, Salt Lake, Sacremento, Milwaukee, and to a lesser degree, Las Vegas and Kansas City. Thoughts? TL;DR: Maybe: Houston, Kansas City Maybe not: Milwaukee, Sacramento, Indianapolis Hell no: Las Vegas, Salt Lake Downtown Milwaukee is VERY close to the 90 mile radius from the United Center. I think it's definitely a market that would embrace a new NHL team, but I question whether the metro Milwaukee area, being only 1.7M people, is a town that has enough high-end luxury advertising and spectating dollars to support all four major sports (Bucks, Brewers, and essentially Packers). They'd probably grab the attention/money of a lot of the state of Wisconsin (some just to spite the Wild and the Blackhawks), but Wisconsin seems to be pretty hockey-happy with college (Badgers), juniors (Gamblers), and the AHL (Admirals). I HATE the idea of Las Vegas, and it's not just a well-founded anti-southern hockey bias. I have a hard time believing that a Las Vegas fan base would be well rooted in the community and that the team would not just be a marketing attraction for tourists. I know people actually live in LV, but most major corporate sponsors, obviously, would be tourism dollars. That, and that town is over-saturated with entertainment attractions to distract sports spectating dollars. No major sports teams have taken root there, despite the existence of population and wealth, and that's likely for a reason. Salt Lake City only has 1.1M in its metropolitan area. Probably a good spot for Western expansion by the AHL, unless SLC is surprisingly NUTS about hockey, like Buffalo-nuts about hockey. Hard to believe. Kansas City has a good chance at a team. The metro area has 2.1M people. The Sprint Center opened in 2007 and isn't in use (but it only seats 17,500 for hockey- marginal). KC already has the Royals and the Chiefs, so whether the town could support another major team might be a little questionable. I'm not sure how popular hockey is in Missouri outside of St Louis. Houston, being the 4th largest city in the US, is an enormous TV market ($$$$, Bettman = 8-D). The Aeros seem to do well and hockey seems to have taken root surprisingly well in Dallas. The city has a lot of large corporate sponsor possibilities (oil money). There might some distraction/money-competition from the three other major sports teams (Royals, Texans, Rockets). The Toyota Center seats 17,800 for hockey and is the home of Rockets and Aeros (probably movable). On paper, like I'm sure Phoenix did, it looks like a solid prospect, but this hockey-in-the-south thing is far from a sure bet. I can see why the availability of huge, rich cities like Houston make it hard for Bettman to do the right thing and put hockey back in Winnipeg or QC. Sacramento, for the same reasons as the more populous San Diego, seems like AHL expansion territory. There's a lot of people and money, but hockey in California is a surely-but-slowly growing endeavor. Sacramento is also almost exactly 90 miles from San Jose. The upside is that with the Sacramento Kings departing for Orange County, Sacramento has an open arena, no other major sports teams, and likely a large number people hungry for pro sports, albeit not necessarily hockey-crazy. Indianapolis is also another decent candidate. It's a large TV market (2M people + rest of Indiana) and a midwestern hockey climate. But the HUGE detractor is that there's no arena suitable for an NHL team. The Conseco Field House could be used temporarily (it seats 14,400 for hockey) while a new arena is being built. There would be competition with the Pacers, Colts, and motor sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 TL;DR: Maybe: Houston, Kansas City Maybe not: Milwaukee, Sacramento, Indianapolis Hell no: Las Vegas, Salt Lake Downtown Milwaukee is VERY close to the 90 mile radius from the United Center. I think it's definitely a market that would embrace a new NHL team, but I question whether the metro Milwaukee area, being only 1.7M people, is a town that has enough high-end luxury advertising and spectating dollars to support all four major sports (Bucks, Brewers, and essentially Packers). They'd probably grab the attention/money of a lot of the state of Wisconsin (some just to spite the Wild and the Blackhawks), but Wisconsin seems to be pretty hockey-happy with college (Badgers), juniors (Gamblers), and the AHL (Admirals). I'd imagine that you're far more familiar with this, but I know that Milwaukee has previously fallen into the market space that was protected by Bill Wirtz. I don't know if junior is half as picky about this, but I can't imagine him being too crazy about a team moving in there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 False. Portland (WHL) draws very well for juniors. Hockey in the USA is not too popular, especially junior hockey, yet Portland is one of the better draws in the WHL drawing around 5k per game. The Trail Blazers have some of the best fan support in the entire NBA. The new Major League Soccer team in Portland, which began play this season, sells out on regular basis and is now considered one of the best fan crowds in MLS. (atmosphere wise) I'll stand by what I said. Trailblazer games are weird. People go to the games, it is still a relatively cheap night out...but I never had the sense that they follow the games or team closely, watch on tv, or spend much time talking about the team. Winterhawks have a great, little and closely knit fanbase. They will probably be drawing the same 30 years from now. Baseball was pretty much sold down the river... Don't know what's up with the soccer. But I would say that sports in Portland get a minor league type of attention. Not that that's a bad thing, it's just a different kind of town. A team might get a decent boxoffice in Portland, but they are never going to get ratings. (Just my opinion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calti Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 While folks debate the fates of the Coyotes and Thrashers I think there are a couple of US cities that deserve a team as much as Winnipeg and Quebec City. One city no one had considered is Indianapolis. They have a history in the WHA as Wayne Gretzky's first team. They would fill a nice hole in the midwest and provide natural rivals to Columbus, Detroit, St.Louis, and Chicago. Imagine someone like David Letterman leading an ownership group. Another area is the Pacific Northwest, mainly Seattle but possibly Portland too. A huge hole in the NHL map. A history in the WHL plus Seattle was in the NHL once long ago. If they revived the Sens then why not the Totems? Billionaire Paul Allen owns the Seahawks and Trailblazers and tried to buy the Sabres back in the Rigas bankruptcy. Without the Sonics there is no winter sports competition in Seattle Other cities to consider are Houston, Salt Lake, Sacremento, Milwaukee, and to a lesser degree, Las Vegas and Kansas City. Thoughts? PTR there is just something wrong about 'warm weather and hockey' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 I'll stand by what I said. Trailblazer games are weird. People go to the games, it is still a relatively cheap night out...but I never had the sense that they follow the games or team closely, watch on tv, or spend much time talking about the team. I can't find the link now but some web site did a study on most active internet fans, and Portland won, with the Bulls in second place... this study was about most active forums and blogs. I belong to realgm.com, one of the most popular NBA web sites, and Portland fans out number any team there, so maybe the study was right? Also, i believe this means they have the 4th best TV ratings in the NBA.... http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Portland-Trail-Blazers_324837.html although i am not too sure what it stands for. And i just looked at season ticket pricing, i don't think their tickets are that cheap. If compared to rest of the NBA, i think they'd be in the upper half. Their cheap seats, are VERY cheap though. But besides a few hundred of those, it's pretty pricy. And those are season ticket holder prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Seattle. Makes Vancouver have a immediate rival and would make travel for those team on the west coast easier if you put in another west coast team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 there is just something wrong about 'warm weather and hockey' Again, most of the cities I listed are not "warm weather." PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverPowerYou Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Anchorage Alaska anyone? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.