NHL Expansion back on agenda?

[sneakytitz]

They do when they're playing northern teams or, much more rarely, when they're playing another championship caliber southern team.

And there you have it, folks, they went from not being nationally televised to being nationally televised (with alleged conditions). I have the break down of games and I could prove you wrong but you'd just keep moving those goal posts, so why bother?

Either way, you're wrong!

 

[Takuto Maruki]

I do find it really funny that an Ottawa fan, who until Andlauer bought the team, was widely regarded as the Canadian team on the thinnest ice in terms of overall health, chiding Southern hockey, especially when the Lightning are massive in Tampa, arguably the second most popular team in the city, Nashville being a destination in the same way Vegas is for away fans, and Carolina having wide support within the state.

I know drive-by's are the name of the game with certain topics here on the business board, but it takes someone truly special to spend a few days actively arguing for his points that he and everyone knows is false and patently untrue, but still does it out of poster's honor. Magical.

 

[Max Milk]

I'm not chiding southern hockey at all, what I'm saying is that the sport isn't culturally relevant down there and that these expansion prospects are disappointing, yet not surprising. I'm not advocating for the complete destruction of southern teams as so many of the dumber Canadian hockey fans constantly do. Hell a lot of you probably have to deal with that type of crap constantly on this website so I understand your defensiveness on this one.

 

[Max Milk]

the Lightning are massive in Tampa, arguably the second most popular team in the city,

They're tied with the Rays. A team that has been rumoured to be on the move for 15 years. I don't want to disparage the Lightning because they do relatively well, but this isn't some big accomplishment.

Nashville being a destination in the same way Vegas is for away fans

Ok, that says what about the popularity of hockey amongst southerners exactly?

and Carolina having wide support within the state.

Lol you sure about that? Seems to me like they have a healthy niche audience in Raleigh which is fine, btw. But it's not wide support within the state, not by a longshot.

 

[Max Milk]

And there you have it, folks, they went from not being nationally televised to being nationally televised (with alleged conditions). I have the break down of games and I could prove you wrong but you'd just keep moving those goal posts, so why bother?

Either way, you're wrong!

This is a conversation about Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston & San Diego. Do you think they'd get a lot of nationally televised games?

(to be fair Houston might get a few, but those other 3 not so much)

 

[sneakytitz]

This is a conversation about Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston & San Diego. Do you think they'd get a lot of nationally televised games?

(to be fair Houston might get a few, but those other 3 not so much)

Yep. Atlanta and Houston are top 10 media markets in the US. 7 and 6, respectively.

 

[dj4aces]

Cool, so when does this southern expansion churn out anything more meaningful than just enough season ticket holders to keep the team in town? Hockey is still, after 30 years of this, enjoying zero cultural relevance in the southern states.

Define "cultural relevance". Were you expecting folks here to suddenly start carrying sticks and skates to the not-frozen-over community pools for a game? Maybe lace up their skates, drop the puck and... watch it sink to the bottom of the pool? I'm really not sure what you were expecting here.

When you introduce a sport to an area, it takes a lot of time for that sport to catch on. It takes owners who are dedicated to making it work and who *must* build an environment to nurture the sport in that area from the ground up, owners who need to build up youth programs around the market, and they'll have to spend a fortune on marketing the team.

Expanding to "non-traditional markets" takes time and requires a lot of money and patience.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Friendly reminder, loads of talking heads and folks online were predicting an utter failure for a team in Las Vegas, maybe only bailed out by being a safe road draw.

In reality, they were damn good, well-run, found success, and absolutely became a cultural phenomenon (even if they're the heel and not the face outside their fanbase). Go back in time a decade and tell people that, and you'd have been locked in a looney bin or accused of carrying Bettman's water.

Preemptively assuming disaster for larger markets seems foolhardy. Sure, an Atlanta3.0 could fail, but if smartly run and merely competent I fail to see a reason why they wouldn't be at least somewhat successful.

 

[nhlfan79]

Preemptively assuming disaster for larger markets seems foolhardy. Sure, an Atlanta3.0 could fail, but if smartly run and merely competent I fail to see a reason why they wouldn't be at least somewhat successful.

Atlanta is no different than any other major American city. There's nothing inherent about hockey not being able to succeed here.

It's so tiring to keep having to point this out over and over, but the Thrashers only "failed" here because seven specific individual people affirmatively wanted the hockey team to fail in order to eliminate entertainment competition in the market for their preferred basketball team. Full stop.

 

[Tawnos]

Atlanta is no different than any other major American city. There's nothing inherent about hockey not being able to succeed here.

It's so tiring to keep having to point this out over and over, but the Thrashers only "failed" here because seven specific individual people affirmatively wanted the hockey team to fail in order to eliminate entertainment competition in the market for their preferred basketball team. Full stop.

Everyone wants to think their city is unique and therefore every other city is unique. In many aspects, it’s true, but the quality of a market for sports, including hockey, isn’t one of those aspects.

 

[ForumNamePending]

I dunno... I guess it all depends on your expectations and how you define success. Under the right circumstances/conditions the NHL should be able to do fine in Atlanta (or Houston, or Phoenix). When talking about markets with that kind of population and GDP an NHL team should be able to carve out a large enough niche to comfortably sustain itself, and if a franchise can do that, IMHO it qualifies as a success.

When talking about expansion to these large markets I know some folks like to talk about what kind of impact it will have on things like TV viewership/rights fees (big $!?) talent pool (prolific new pipelines!?), and just a general increase in relevance of the league/sport (ESPN will talk/yell more about hockey!?), and the answer to that I think, even in the long term, is very little... And that's fine? For the most part I think people expecting or demanding those things are either enthusiastic supporters high on their own hopium, or critics in search of a metric that can used at some point in future to deem the market/team a failure.

 

[dj4aces]

I dunno... I guess it all depends on your expectations and how you define success. Under the right circumstances/conditions the NHL should be able to do fine in Atlanta (or Houston, or Phoenix). When talking about markets with that kind of population and GDP an NHL team should be able to carve out a large enough niche to comfortably sustain itself, and if a franchise can do that, IMHO it qualifies as a success.

When talking about expansion to these large markets I know some folks like to talk about what kind of impact it will have on things like TV viewership/rights fees (big $!?) talent pool (prolific new pipelines!?), and just a general increase in relevance of the league/sport (ESPN will talk/yell more about hockey!?), and the answer to that I think, even in the long term, is very little... And that's fine? For the most part I think people expecting or demanding those things are either enthusiastic supporters high on their own hopium, or critics in search of a metric that can used at some point in future to deem the market/team a failure.

On the first part? Absolutely. Success, and what it means, is all in the eye of the beholder. On a personal note, I have a dream of being able to get off of disability and go back to work, and if I'm able to do that, I consider that a roaring success, at least in the short term. For others, the bar is much higher. For others still, the fact I'm not in some sort of homeless shelter because disability barely gives anyone enough to live off of is a success in and of itself. So it stands to reason that different folks will also have a different view on what makes a franchise successful, or a failure for that matter. However, I do agree with your view of what qualifies as a success story in sports franchise terms.

On the second part? Arbitrary values attributed to things like TV deals, talent development, and relevancy are largely meaningless in the bigger picture. But short term and small picture? Fans are happy hearing a local kid get drafted by their local NHL team, and feel good hearing their town and team talked up by on-air personalities and podcasts, or reading about it on blogs or in other print media. Folks like to feel good about where they live and the team(s) they love. But don't let anyone fool anyone else: Things like TV rights deals are strictly league business. Unless the fans are business-oriented and take an interest in such things, the only thing most fans really care about is their ability to access as many games on TV or streaming platforms as they can.