And this is exactly my point.
How come, with northern teams like Chicago and New Jersey, poor attendance is a result of smart fans protesting bad ownership, or bad arenas in poor locations? But when a southern team struggles on the ice and loses attendance, its because the fans aren't there or they don't appreciate hockey enough?
Maybe those are good and legit reasons why Chicago and New Jersey struggle with attendence. But might there also be good reasons why some southern teams also struggle, other than "bad fans"? I just don't understand why the northern teams (esp. Original Six teams like Chicago and Boston) get a pass on poor attendance, get the benefit of the doubt, but the southern teams do not.
It's that double standard where I think people's pre-existing prejudices come out. People aren't interested in comparing apples to apples and being fair. They only want to reinforce their own preconception that hockey doesn't belong in the south. It's a selfish view in my mind. If you love the game of hockey, wouldn't you want it to grow and be available to as many people as possible so they can also enjoy it?
If you read my post you will see that there was no double standard. I did not claim
that southern fans were bad fans. What I said was that in nontraditional markets
poor attendence often goes along with franchises in financial difficulty. I also indicated
that this was true of Edmonton circa 1996. Edmonton is not a southern
franchise by my definition. Chicago and Boston have an advantage in that the
markets generate sufficient revenue, despite poor attendence, that the viability
of the franchise is not in debate, or at least it has not been in any recent times.
NHL games are expensive. If the fan base is ignored, people have a right to
protest by staying away. However, in a new market or in some of the
smaller markets this could be fatal to the franchise and as such people
must face this potential consequences of their decisions.
Very very well said! Unfortunately, it can't be said enough around here, because it still doesn't sink in with some people.
Since Mayday's response was directed at my comments, I will conclude that at least
in part your comments were also directed at me. If I am wrong,
then I apologize. If not, then I will say again that while I understand your frustration,
the elitism that you are experiencing may be directed more recently at southern franchises (or
more generally at US based teams like Pittsburgh) but you are only seeing the flavour of the day.
Even during the Gretzky years there were many people on both sides
of the border that claimed that small markets such as Edmonton did not
deserve a franchise. The term Deadmonton appeared regularly in newspaper
articles questioning the decision to allow a location on the edge of nowhere
to have an NHL team. When Winnipeg and Quebec lost their teams
and when the Oilers were on the edge there were continual comments about
how this was for the good of the game and how for the NHL to be big league
these cities needed to be purged. You are hearing a variant of the same
kind of crap that many of us also found so frustrating.
We had a thread titled "Why are all Canadians celebrating" that almost turned
into a war. The reality is that most Canadians (read 99.9999%) don't care at all,
one way or the other, if hockey stays in Nashville/Pheonix/etc..but
most people in the US don't really care if hockey survives in Edmonton
or returns to Winnipeg. A very small number of people will use these forums
to pull your chain. That's life!!!