Dr Love
Registered User
I believe that corpses are prohibited in the new collective bargaining agreement (although IB is free to correct me if I am wrong).
I believe you're wrong because Sean Burke played last year.
I believe that corpses are prohibited in the new collective bargaining agreement (although IB is free to correct me if I am wrong).
Yeah, let's whack the teams in the 3rd, 7th, and 8th largest American markets and two of the teams in the largest market (where the Rangers are already selling out), never mind the underlying reasons why attendance sucked in all six of those markets last year. I'm sure that will really help the NHL gain popularity.OK, which six do you propose we cut?
Perhaps the six franchises with the worst attendance this past season?
St. Louis
Chicago
NY Islanders
Washington
New Jersey
Boston
Is there a serious owner looking to bring the team back? I know the local government is keen on it, but I've yet to hear from a serious ownership group that wants to relocate a team to Winnipeg.The MTS Centre is build downtown nowhere near the old arena.You don`t know anything about the MTS Centre,the Winnipeg Jets or the city of Winnipeg so maybe don`t talk about them.
Yeah, let's whack the teams in the 3rd, 7th, and 8th largest American markets and two of the teams in the largest market (where the Rangers are already selling out), never mind the underlying reasons why attendance sucked in all six of those markets last year.
Apparently you know nothing about hockey, pondnorth, since when do you own the city of Winnipeg or know anything about pro hockey or other sports but pure ignorance
Are you the poster creating threads hyping the return of the Jets
I wouldn't be too happy either. I think Houston should get a team before KC. It is 4th most pop in US, has hockey history, a ready arena and a wanting owner. Texas is big enough for 2 NHL teams. In fact it would be smartest thing for NHL to do. But this is the NHL so i should expect a team in Compton, Cali before Houston.
If NHL does expand which i expect they will. (Cash grab and media attention) they should consider one of these expansion plans.
A-Houston, Ontario (This one would be most logical pick since it would be 1 Southern US and 1 Canada team. NHL head office could keep expanding to new market in South and a 7th team in Canada would make up for lose of Jets)
B-Houston, Winnipeg (If Winnipeg built a real stadium it would be possible)
C-Houston, KC ( It would balance out Western Conference allowing Blue Jackets to move. (Detroit cant move it would kill rivalrys with Chi, Stl, Nas and Col the NHL BOG would have to put a foot down on Ilitch and explain the importance of Detroit to Western Conferance. KC has a great arena and built in rivalry with Stl as its good points. But it failed miserably last time. At least Atlanta, Colorado and Minnesota showed good potential before they lost there teams, thus thats why they got 2nd chances)
D-Houston, Oklahoma (This would be least like by fans in Canada and would be ripped apart in media but it does make sense. Houston has Pop, History, Arena and ownership waiting while Oklahoma City has Arena and was nearly successful in mid 90's during expansion bids. They put on a great presentation for board and showed that Hockey could work. It would also be great rivalry wise with Dal, Hou and Nas. It would also balance out Western Conference allowing Columbus to move to East).
E-Las Vegas and KC (Ugh, this is the one i expect the NHL to do)
I would want expansion B but Winnipeg doesn't have an NHL arena. So i hope to see expansion A or Expansion D.
I dont want to see expansion E but it looks more and more likely that will be the leagues choice.
Plus, there is a plan for a new arena to be built that will be announced next month.
Actually, pondnorth is correct: the MTS Centre is located downtown.
As far as serious owners there is the True North group headed up by Mark Chipman(owner of the AHL Manitoba Moose) and the Asper's(David & Leonard).
I still believe that an outside person with deep pockets has to be involved with the local people to make this work.
frankly, I'm sick of seeing pro hockey that's not the NHL BEING DENIGRATED by posters who know nothing about the league said franchise plays in
My point is the Moose did play @ Winnipeg Arena and I don't liked being talked down to like I know nothing.
You're not the only one but I find it funny that almost nobody even mentions quebec city.
They always had better attendance than the average of the nhl even in their bad years. They also had better attendance than the jets. Plus, there is a plan for a new arena to be built that will be announced next month.
Coorporate support would also not be a problem for a quebec city team. Even Marcel Aubut, the owner of the nords, said it was bs to think it would be a problem since the nordiques (or a new team) would be supported by all the province.
Of course, Winnipeg has an advantage at this moment with their new arena. But if you mention Hamilton, you must also mention Quebec city since both don't currently have an arena.
Really?? So, every team has a strong 6 man defensive corpse? Every team has 2-4 guys that can score 30 goals +?
I'd rather the league contract than to expand. saying the league has too much talent per team now is silly.
How so? Wouldn't an overabundance of talent force player costs downward?
I would love to see a Quebec/Houston expansion. Only reason i didn't mention the city was a result of my lack of knowledge on new arena. Would it be NHL Caliber arena? Whats the economy like in QC right now?
ESSENTIALLY NIL
IF the Nordiques couldn't last in Quebec, what makes Quebec support anything other than their junior league Remparts, even the development franchise (the current Calder Cup Champion Bulldogs started their existence there) was forced to relocate.
AHL attendence is an imperfect measure of gauging potential NHL support. Why is this? Many people don't care that much about minor league sports. It may be good hockey but it lacks glamour of not being the best.
Minnesota did not support the Moose to the same extent they support the Wild for example.
Hey, I wasn't really being serious. I was only trying to use some facts to point out the hypocrisy of most HFBoards posters.
The moment a southern franchise struggles a little bit at the gate, HFBoards starts chomping at the bit to take away that franchise. "Move 'em to Winnipeg!" "Move 'em to Hamilton!" "Contract 'em!" "Those rednecks don't appreciate the game and don't deserve a team!"
However, when we look at the facts, we see that the teams that consistently get the worst attendance are northern teams. Teams like Chicago, Boston, Devils, and Islanders. Is this ever chalked up to poor hockey markets or bad fans? Oh, no. God forbid. No, there are a million "underlying reasons" to explain away the poor attendance. Bad ownership. Bad management. Bad arena in a poor location. Savvy, discriminating fans that won't shell out for an inferior on-ice product, and want to hold the team accountable.
There's a huge, gaping double-standard on HFBoards when it comes to attitudes towards northern and southern teams regarding attendance issues, and I'm surprised more people don't see it.
(And for the record, I'm a fan of a northern team. I just don't like the hypocrisy.)
Winnipeg would be choice number one, as they have what every new market craves to build up - a fanbase. They do have an arena that is a little small, but perfect for the size of the city and, as Mark Chipman states, could be run profitably. It should be noted that Bettman has stated there is no minimum seating requirement for an NHL arena. So long as revenue can be generated, you don't need a 20,000 seat arena.
As for the other team, Milwaukee would be a good fit. Seems like a good market that might thrive. If they were bound and determined to put it in the south, Houston might be a wise choice. History of pro hockey in the WHL, and a natural rivalry with Dallas work in their favor.
Quote for Truth. Amen, brother!
The hypocrisy is so thick around here. All you hear about are the "pathetic-ness" of Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, Carolina (and, amazingly, even Tampa and Columbus, who sell very well).
Yet, when you look at the actual attendance figures, none of those teams are even in the bottom 5.
Sure, several of those teams have their share of problems (Nashville with little corporate support; Phoenix with a pitiful on-ice product, etc) ---- but it's a ridiculous bias in my opinion.
Also, interestingly, it has been just 11 years ago (1996) that Edmonton had 6200 season tickets and attendance was 7000 or 8000 per night for some games (ref: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/SPORTS02/707150399/0/SPORTS01)
I'm sick and tired of the Sun Belt hatred. Are we not allowed to love the great sport of hockey, too?
By the way, New Jersey is one place that I cannot explain. The Devils have been a success story on the ice for many years but it does not seem to translate directly into people in the seats the same way it does in other cities.
In places like Chicago, it seems that there is little incentive for the ownership
to address the obvious on ice problems. As such the fans feel they are being
completely taken advantage of and they do the only thing they can do
to protest and that is to stay away.
hockeydude5000 said:I'm not defending the bad attendance in any way, but a lot of it has to do w/ the bad access to the arena (traffic jams surround the Meadowlands)
I would love for you to show me the period in history where every team had a strong 6 man corpse (sic).
Goal scoring is a poor indicator of overall talent. Put an average player up against an inferior defense, and he will score goals.
I never said the league has "too much talent per team now". I said the talent pool is not diluted. Specifically, it is not diluted relative to the 1970s and 80s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How so? Wouldn't an overabundance of talent force player costs downward?
This argument presupposes that players costs are as high as they could possibly go. If the talent pool was as diluted now as it was in the late 70s/early 80s, one could argue, cap notwithstanding, that the few truely talented players would have gained a much larger share of the revenue pie relative to their peers.
Moreover, given that teams will always fight each other for the best free agents, they will spend to their limits regardless. The number of dollars spent would not change, simply the division of the pie.
However, some believe that NHL level of play breeds more NHL-capable talent, eventually allowing enough NHL-level talent to be available that we can no longer consider things diluted. What period of time is required to accomplish this, especially if you are the expansion team and basically starting with players left unprotected and whatever else you can find.