tbcwpg
Moderator
- Jan 25, 2011
- 16,864
- 20,777
Can’t argue with emotions can just make my a
First I want to point out, there is nothing logical about this, it’s all emotion driven, like people’s reason for wanting Edmonton to lose is because Gretzky and McD played there, so what?
Vancouver and New York at least get it, it doesn’t matter how many days.
Second, yes the number of kids needing to play is completely arbitrary. As is most of the argument.
Toronto, wpg, Edmonton bring up the idea of playing shimmy, that you can find kids just spending days at outdoor rinks. That the majority played. They may have never been good or mounted to much but they played.
Vs the criteria of they just have fans. They have professional leagu
A) I’m surprised Texas has so many rinks.
B) any reason that a person decides to cheer for a place is arbitrary not based on logic. Therefore, my answer is mostly emotional not logical.
A lot of people are cheering against Edmonton, because they got Gretzky and Mcdavid, so what?
A lot of people cheer for the jets because that’s where we are from. We are from Canada so taking the connection we have to the jets one step further we should root from any Canadian team.
All Canadian teams are underdogs. Have a smaller population, are not as rich have a harder time attracting fa then American teams.
Thinking that a team deserves a team because it’s cold and bitter, vs sunny, hot dessert is a silly argument, even though that’s the one I am making.
Growing up, peggers would play hockey whether we had the jets or not, I can’t imagine the same is true for Texans.
So what is your criteria? Any place big enough to have enough fans deserves a team?
My decision to cheer against the Oilers is entirely due to their fans and not the team. They take any chance to shit on Winnipeg they can get.