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.
Ok, that says what about the popularity of hockey amongst southerners exactly?
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.
This is a conversation about Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston & San Diego. Do you think they'd get a lot of nationally televised games?
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.
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. 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.I dunno... I guess it all depends on your expectations and how you define 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?
Just because you've visited those cities and you oddly end your opinion with "full stop" doesn't make it true. I presented facts. All those southern markets were top-10 in attendance. I would add Nashville (located just a 4-hour drive from Atlanta) as they were 100% sold out. They just have a smaller arena.
Most teams go through attendance problems for stretches. Even your precious northern teams. Currently, Winnipeg and Buffalo are struggling at the gate. Less than 2 years ago, your Senators had troubles selling out during a stretch of playoffs. These teams will recover...it happens.
Putting these teams in new markets grows the NHL not the sport. It does bring in a lot more revenue by adding these large markets. However, there is very limited grass roots growth. Most southern markets have only a hand full of local NHL players to show despite being around for years now.
It's called road hockey and, in spite of what you may have been told, we Canucks play it all summer long
That was my point. Viewership increased due to NHL hockey in the state but number of pro caliber players coming out of Georgia is still zero.
Not sure how the number of players out of any given state translates to popularity and success of any team. No idea how many players come from sunbelt teams or Vegas, but they're crushing attendance figures and have won the last two cups.
Um.... don't think so....
www.nhl.com
I'm well aware of that, but thought I'd go for maximum amusement. Sorry it was lost on you.
Seattle doesn't make sense for 2005. Shultz was in the midst of trying to get a new arena even though Key had just been renovated 10 years earlier. Also, I'm not sure how the lease would have worked in that case. I'm surprised Ballsille wasn't in the mix since it was just a year before he made his Penguins bid.
