What's the take on the two Florida based teams; has having the two helped both in any way to survive? No one ever talks of much of a rivalry between them, but then I suppose with rarely having both teams being competitive at the same time it really hasn't helped build a rivalry between them, even those they're in the same Division.
I've often heard talk that a team in Houston would be an immediate rival for the Stars, that it would be good for both teams (the Stars and the Houston team). Is there logic behind such thinking?
Sure, unless we're talking an extremely large metropolis, like the New York City area or the Los Angeles area, then too close a proximity can I'm sure be detrimental. Though in the case of the NYC area teams and the LA area teams, it seems clear that the existance of the two or three teams together has enhanced fan interest by the rivalries that 'immediately' exist.
Certainly also one could say that Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, for which Florida and Tampa were almost Expansion carbon-copies, having come into the League at the same time were then set to become natural rivals. I wonder if even having the two Alberta teams has served to be beneficial to both.
I don't know, I suppose depending on where you stand on this subject of "State, Provincial, or close proximity" teams being beneficial or not as rivals to each other, then what would be you're opinion regarding these questions:
1. Would an Expansion team in a Houston truly be beneficial to both the Houston team itself and also to Dallas?
2. Could the same be said for an Expansion team in Kansas City, with respect to a rivalry with St. Louis?
3. Would an alignment that put Atlanta and Nashville in the same Division be beneficial to both those teams?
4. Would having Columbus in a Division with both Detroit and Pittsburgh be beneficial to the Blue Jackets? (Certainly at this very moment the Blue Jackets would be struggling on ice in comparison.)
Part of the idea for this thread came from the other thread asking about scheduling to favor weaker markets; the final impetus came from a discusion on the Main Board about possible small market locations in the US.
I've often heard talk that a team in Houston would be an immediate rival for the Stars, that it would be good for both teams (the Stars and the Houston team). Is there logic behind such thinking?
Sure, unless we're talking an extremely large metropolis, like the New York City area or the Los Angeles area, then too close a proximity can I'm sure be detrimental. Though in the case of the NYC area teams and the LA area teams, it seems clear that the existance of the two or three teams together has enhanced fan interest by the rivalries that 'immediately' exist.
Certainly also one could say that Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, for which Florida and Tampa were almost Expansion carbon-copies, having come into the League at the same time were then set to become natural rivals. I wonder if even having the two Alberta teams has served to be beneficial to both.
I don't know, I suppose depending on where you stand on this subject of "State, Provincial, or close proximity" teams being beneficial or not as rivals to each other, then what would be you're opinion regarding these questions:
1. Would an Expansion team in a Houston truly be beneficial to both the Houston team itself and also to Dallas?
2. Could the same be said for an Expansion team in Kansas City, with respect to a rivalry with St. Louis?
3. Would an alignment that put Atlanta and Nashville in the same Division be beneficial to both those teams?
4. Would having Columbus in a Division with both Detroit and Pittsburgh be beneficial to the Blue Jackets? (Certainly at this very moment the Blue Jackets would be struggling on ice in comparison.)
Part of the idea for this thread came from the other thread asking about scheduling to favor weaker markets; the final impetus came from a discusion on the Main Board about possible small market locations in the US.