oh absolutely. but it's also valid to suggest that it's not good to market a halfass version of your product. clean up the aisles before inviting in new customers. relocate struggling franchises and raise the overall bar.
Look, I totally get the angst over the lack of teams in Canadian markets where demand is enormous. But the "halfass version of [the] product" that matters is what's going on down on the playing surface, not what's happening in the stands -
especially if you're talking about a televised event.
Yes, it's embarrassing as hell for, say, a Toronto Maple Leafs fan who would mortgage his child to afford an upper-level ticket to see a game in person to see empty seats in Florida, Carolina, Dallas, Nashville, Columbus, etc., because that fan is on the wrong side of the supply-demand equation. But that frame of mind is completely separate from the ostensible audience who the NHL is trying to woo - because in-person attendance figures are minutiae that don't translate to a television audience.
The critical sales point for any professional sport in this day and age is whether the action can translate well onto TV. If you've ever been to an NFL game in person, you know how exasperatingly dull it is to watch because modern pro football is built to be a televised sport, not an in-person sport. But the NFL is North America's most popular sport by a frigging
landslide because what makes the sport crushingly boring in person is what makes the TV broadcasts so perfect - play, break in the action for replays and analysis, play, break for replays, time out, commercials (perfectly spaced for pee breaks), etc. and so forth.
So if the main point of contention about NHL hockey in non-traditional markets is that the empty seats look sad on TV, then you're focused on the wrong thing. They could play the games in completely empty arenas and have piped-in crowd noise and the effect would be exactly the same, because it's what happens on that big slab of ice that is what makes or breaks the audience's expectations.
Now, when you're talking about in-person attendance, that's a separate issue. But teams that have marketable stars and on-ice success do not have to struggle to draw fans. The Chicago Blackhawks are the poster child for this. Prior to drafting Kane and Toews and going on their run of Cups, they drew fewer fans than Arizona did. By the extant definition of "struggling" used around here, that would mean that the Hawks - an Original Six team - should have been moved to a Canadian market. Suggest that now, and you get infuriated Chicagoans who will tell you that Hawks fans are the greatest in sports (and yet they can't explain where they were a few years ago when it mattered).
The NHL has its own priorities that it follows to grow its business and product. That's the reality. It won't make hockey fans who don't have NHL franchises happy. It certainly won't make me happy if it happens that in a couple of years I end up without a local team to cheer for. But it
does mean that Las Vegas is going to be given a shot to succeed, and it's clear that for the NHL it's a much bigger imperative than putting a team in Hamilton, Markham, or Quebec City.
