mucker*
Guest
Disagree.I'd say "pull back from the Koolaid, Lou, it's not doing you any good." You do know that for the first time in 12 years, the Flyers did not make the playoffs. If you compare a fan base from teams (except the Bruins) competing in the playoffs and teams that aren't, you're going to find greater interest on the part of the teams still competing for the cup.
If you go to games in Washington, New York, New Jersey, Tampa Bay, Miami, Pittsburgh, Toronto or Vancouver for that matter, you will find a remarkable out-of-town base of supporters for the Flyers. Deserved or not, the Flyers attracted fans during their Broad St. Bully days that continue to wear the teams colors (or hand them down to their kids). You may note that transplanted Philadelphians contribute to this as well.
The fan base is not as avid or as knowledgable as in Canada for a variety of reasons that stem from the way hockey is looked at in the 2 countries.
But I think that if you did away with the NHL and started over putting franchises in N. America based strictly on the volume of fan interest and support, I think that, among U.S. cities, Philly would earn its franchise right after Detroit (Hockey Town) and New York, along with Denver, Dallas, Minneapolis-St. Paul and perhaps Boston. I would put Philly as a market ahead of Buffalo and way ahead of Pittsburgh.
I think that Philly fans proved themselves this year to skeptics by selling out or coming close in support of the worst Flyer team in the franchise's 40 year history.
The Flyers have loads of fans in Washington, NJ, and Long Island, along with the transplant areas, however they don't have tons in Pittsburgh, they have a good amount hardly dominant at the Rangers and in Boston because those three are real hockey areas.
Pittsburgh is an outstanding hockey town, they are a small market, when the team is bad or had a fire sale not enough bucks to support but when they show they are competitive and won't be selling players, you see it's as big a hockey town as any in the league.