BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Eh, kind of. If NHL is one of the big 4, MLS would make up Big 4.5.
There is still a room for NHL.
Last edited by a moderator:
Will Atlanta Get Another Team?
- Thread starter Hockeyholic
- Start date
- Status
There is still a room for NHL.
GreenHornet
Registered User
BTW, a committed ownership has been a constant theme of this thread (and any thread when it comes to Atlanta possibly getting a third NHL chance). To expand on that theme, my personal thought is that IF Atlanta ever gets another team (in the relatively near future anyway), it wouldn't surprise me if Anson Carter winds up being involved in some way, shape or form. Carter has invested his hockey career earnings wisely and is a founder of a fairly popular hip hop record label based in Atlanta. AND he's lived in Atlanta for more than a decade. In fact, he was heading up a group that wanted to buy the Thrashers/Hawks/(then) Philips Arena package 10 years ago, but there were multiple reports that the A$G Septocluster™ wouldn't give him the time of day.
To be clear, I'm not saying I have any inside info. It's just my hunch, and it makes perfect sense.
To be clear, I'm not saying I have any inside info. It's just my hunch, and it makes perfect sense.
It's not likely that an NHL team in ATL in the future will have a different owner than the Hawks of the NBA. We see it in a few situations, like Dallas, Boston, Philly, but the Hawks are the ones who have the arena management agreement and likely have first dibs on it going forward and would renew before it expires. So, up to the Hawks owner to push to get one.
Those other situations, in Dallas a new arena which was partly funded by taxpayers, so the 2 teams are sharing the revenue streams. Bos/Phi, the NHL team owners built the arena.
All those years that Paul Allen in Portland wasn't interested in an NHL team, thus a team was never going to be there. If that is a similar case in ATL, the same will apply.
I think the NHL would like to go back to ATL for all of the business reasons and market size. But, the final decision is going to be made by 1 party and that's the owner of the Hawks.
Atlanta United has totally filled the void the Thrashers abandoned.
I don't think AUFC-to-Thrashers is an apples to apples comparison. Apples to oranges, yes: there's similarities. But it's not exactly the same.
The natural assumption is always "Boy, a city this big must have tons of hockey fans that are dying to see the NHL in person." Whenever people that live in Atlanta tell me this, I reply "Are you a Braves fan?" If they say "yes," I ask them "if another major city tripled your salary and paid your moving expenses, would you move?" If they say yes to that, I ask them "So you're a Braves fan and naturally must love baseball, so I assume you'd naturally get season tickets to see MLB then, or go to as many games as you already do in person."
Without fail, they always say "no." They always say that maybe they'd go to 1 or 2 games & otherwise only go if/when the Braves came to town. So then I ask them "why do you expect transplant hockey fans in Atlanta to act any differently than you?" From the moment Jack Kent Cooke complained "Now I know why (transplants to L.A.) left Canada: They hate hockey!," there has been a fundamental misunderstanding about how all of this works. And it's usually met with "They should go to the games! Why won't they support the local team?" If your business model is based on "shoulds" and not "woulds," it will fail.
What AUFC did was expose two things about sports marketing--- or more of a 1a and 1b, really:
1a) When asked to choose between showing up for their favourite sport or their favourite team in a sport that ranks lower on their list, most sports fans will almost always choose the latter. There's a great book about the disaster that was XFL 1.0 and the author points out that among the many problems with that disaster of an experiment was that the league was promoted to the detriment of promoting the teams. People get behind teams. So if you're going to identify the likelihood of succeeding in a market, potential love for the sport is only half of the equation, and love for the team is the other half.
1b) An undefined but large percentage of the hockey fans that live in Atlanta already grew up with a favourite team, many times in or near their original hometown. They weren't looking for a new favourite team. But most Atlanta residents that genuinely like living here and have a certain pride in it yet are already heart-and-soul bonded to the favourite teams they grew up watching found their "Atlanta team" in Atlanta United. I have a Philly friend that lived in Atlanta for 8-10 years and he loves his Philly teams. All Flyers, All Phillies, All Sixers, etc. etc. But he's a huge AUFC fan because he didn't grow up with a favourite soccer team and he lived in Atlanta when they started the team. So like a lot of the city, he threw on his United swag and headed to the Benz.
Where there are similarities (AKA things that AUFC did that the Thrashers could have done) is...
--- AUFC's branding is far superior to what the Thrashers' was. Logos and swag people want, banners and displays all over the city. Thrashers? Ugly jerseys, a team name that I don't think a lot of the city wanted. And Blueland? How vague and non-committal is that?
--- Um, I dunno, maybe put a competitive team on the field/ice? And let me be clear: I know the counterargument to that is "you can't promise a champion to every city." But I'm not talking "The Thrashers weren't a good team to form a bandwagon around." I mean, they weren't terrible enough to be compelling in a trainwreck way most years nor competitive enough to appear to have a *chance* at winning the Cup. AUFC won the MLS Cup in Year 2 and the Open Cup in Year 3...
--- AUFC also capitalized on international sporting fans that love soccer and know that cheering for United won't conflict with love for their favourite teams back home. I have no idea what the Russian/Swedish/German/etc./etc. population is Atlanta, but those are the transplants you're far more likely to convert to Thrasher/Flame fans than some person who moved there from Chicago, Boston or Toronto. I get the feeling this wasn't exactly the type of marketing the dopes at Atlanta Spirit were attuned to doing.
--- People won't come to see their not-favourite team, but they will come to see an event. When the NHL first moved back to Atlanta, they set expansion attendance records. Thrashers games were events because it was big news that the NHL was back and people felt they had to be there. Once the new car smell wore off, it wasn't an event anymore. When they made the playoffs, their attendance upticked because it was an event: Playoff hockey? This city never experiences that!
If Thrashers' management had focused more on the in-game experience, maybe it could have bolstered attention to the team. AUFC has created an experience that makes every one of their games, no matter how inconsequential, feel like an event. But a regular ol' Atlanta Thrashers game *wasn't* an event. There was no casual sports fan that might give the Thrashers a try that could be persuaded with a "you'll regret it if you don't go because you're missing out on something big time."
And just a piece of advice to our southern fans trying to turn your non-hockey friends into fans. PLEASE STOP saying "You have to see it in person!" I know what you think you're saying. But what your friend is hearing is "this sport is as important as lacrosse" (no offense to my lacrosse fan friends). If you can't convince a sports fan that the sport doesn't play well on TV, the average sports fan concludes "then it must be bush league." I see a lot of that from southern hockey fans I encounter: "We'll get hockey to catch on in <insert non-traditional market> if we can just get people to ONE game....they'll be hooked, I swear!"
TL;DR: Atlanta United had a built-in advantage to win over transplants but they still did a lot of things right than the Thrashers ever did. If the league ever wanted to go back to Atlanta, they shouldn't just focus on the resources of the owner(s) but on their grassroots strategies (if any) to turn NHL games into "can't miss" social events that transcend the result because I'm sorry folks: all the Blackhawks fans in the city ain't converting to the "Atlanta Whatever-They'd-Be-Called-the-Third-Times."
To use the 2010/20s cliche, thank you for attending my TED talk......
I don't think AUFC-to-Thrashers is an apples to apples comparison. Apples to oranges, yes: there's similarities. But it's not exactly the same.
The natural assumption is always "Boy, a city this big must have tons of hockey fans that are dying to see the NHL in person." Whenever people that live in Atlanta tell me this, I reply "Are you a Braves fan?" If they say "yes," I ask them "if another major city tripled your salary and paid your moving expenses, would you move?" If they say yes to that, I ask them "So you're a Braves fan and naturally must love baseball, so I assume you'd naturally get season tickets to see MLB then, or go to as many games as you already do in person."
Without fail, they always say "no." They always say that maybe they'd go to 1 or 2 games & otherwise only go if/when the Braves came to town. So then I ask them "why do you expect transplant hockey fans in Atlanta to act any differently than you?" From the moment Jack Kent Cooke complained "Now I know why (transplants to L.A.) left Canada: They hate hockey!," there has been a fundamental misunderstanding about how all of this works. And it's usually met with "They should go to the games! Why won't they support the local team?" If your business model is based on "shoulds" and not "woulds," it will fail.
What AUFC did was expose two things about sports marketing--- or more of a 1a and 1b, really:
1a) When asked to choose between showing up for their favourite sport or their favourite team in a sport that ranks lower on their list, most sports fans will almost always choose the latter. There's a great book about the disaster that was XFL 1.0 and the author points out that among the many problems with that disaster of an experiment was that the league was promoted to the detriment of promoting the teams. People get behind teams. So if you're going to identify the likelihood of succeeding in a market, potential love for the sport is only half of the equation, and love for the team is the other half.
1b) An undefined but large percentage of the hockey fans that live in Atlanta already grew up with a favourite team, many times in or near their original hometown. They weren't looking for a new favourite team. But most Atlanta residents that genuinely like living here and have a certain pride in it yet are already heart-and-soul bonded to the favourite teams they grew up watching found their "Atlanta team" in Atlanta United. I have a Philly friend that lived in Atlanta for 8-10 years and he loves his Philly teams. All Flyers, All Phillies, All Sixers, etc. etc. But he's a huge AUFC fan because he didn't grow up with a favourite soccer team and he lived in Atlanta when they started the team. So like a lot of the city, he threw on his United swag and headed to the Benz.
Where there are similarities (AKA things that AUFC did that the Thrashers could have done) is...
--- AUFC's branding is far superior to what the Thrashers' was. Logos and swag people want, banners and displays all over the city. Thrashers? Ugly jerseys, a team name that I don't think a lot of the city wanted. And Blueland? How vague and non-committal is that?
--- Um, I dunno, maybe put a competitive team on the field/ice? And let me be clear: I know the counterargument to that is "you can't promise a champion to every city." But I'm not talking "The Thrashers weren't a good team to form a bandwagon around." I mean, they weren't terrible enough to be compelling in a trainwreck way most years nor competitive enough to appear to have a *chance* at winning the Cup. AUFC won the MLS Cup in Year 2 and the Open Cup in Year 3...
--- AUFC also capitalized on international sporting fans that love soccer and know that cheering for United won't conflict with love for their favourite teams back home. I have no idea what the Russian/Swedish/German/etc./etc. population is Atlanta, but those are the transplants you're far more likely to convert to Thrasher/Flame fans than some person who moved there from Chicago, Boston or Toronto. I get the feeling this wasn't exactly the type of marketing the dopes at Atlanta Spirit were attuned to doing.
--- People won't come to see their not-favourite team, but they will come to see an event. When the NHL first moved back to Atlanta, they set expansion attendance records. Thrashers games were events because it was big news that the NHL was back and people felt they had to be there. Once the new car smell wore off, it wasn't an event anymore. When they made the playoffs, their attendance upticked because it was an event: Playoff hockey? This city never experiences that!
If Thrashers' management had focused more on the in-game experience, maybe it could have bolstered attention to the team. AUFC has created an experience that makes every one of their games, no matter how inconsequential, feel like an event. But a regular ol' Atlanta Thrashers game *wasn't* an event. There was no casual sports fan that might give the Thrashers a try that could be persuaded with a "you'll regret it if you don't go because you're missing out on something big time."
And just a piece of advice to our southern fans trying to turn your non-hockey friends into fans. PLEASE STOP saying "You have to see it in person!" I know what you think you're saying. But what your friend is hearing is "this sport is as important as lacrosse" (no offense to my lacrosse fan friends). If you can't convince a sports fan that the sport doesn't play well on TV, the average sports fan concludes "then it must be bush league." I see a lot of that from southern hockey fans I encounter: "We'll get hockey to catch on in <insert non-traditional market> if we can just get people to ONE game....they'll be hooked, I swear!"
TL;DR: Atlanta United had a built-in advantage to win over transplants but they still did a lot of things right than the Thrashers ever did. If the league ever wanted to go back to Atlanta, they shouldn't just focus on the resources of the owner(s) but on their grassroots strategies (if any) to turn NHL games into "can't miss" social events that transcend the result because I'm sorry folks: all the Blackhawks fans in the city ain't converting to the "Atlanta Whatever-They'd-Be-Called-the-Third-Times."
To use the 2010/20s cliche, thank you for attending my TED talk......
GreenHornet
Registered User
Ressler definitely holds all the cards in State Farm Arena, and I have no doubt that if an NHL team is ever to play there in the foreseeable future, he will be very much involved in the decision and probably would own at least a piece of the team.
All I'm saying is that it wouldn't surprise me if Carter would also be involved should that ever happen, possibly by joining Ressler's group as a partner in some capacity. Or, if the the arena in Gwinnett (I think it's going to be called Gas South Arena now) ever expands (doubtful in the near future) or another venue can be secured like Mercedes-Benz Stadium (highly doubtful, though logistically possible, I think) he could spearhead a group. He's shown interest before.
KevFu
Registered User
Will Atlanta get another NHL team? Absolutely.
In the NEXT FEW YEARS? No chance.
Keep in mind, we've been talking about "Quebec AND.... well we need three Western Conference teams to add Quebec; Houston? Portland!? Vegas? Seattle! Definitely! No, It's Vegas! And now it's Seattle!" for like NINE YEARS now.
I think Quebec and a non-Houston Western Conference team are next. Whether that be San Diego, Portland, San Antonio or Austin. And a Texas team is the smart play, because that might make Houston say "Wait, WHAT? THEY have a team and WE don't?" and put some pressure on the Rockets.
And a Houston-Toronto mega announcement would be amazing for the NHL, but that takes a Rogers/Bell divorce.
And then AFTER that, you need another Western market that probably isn't in Texas if you added Austin OR San Antonio, and Houston; to come with Atlanta. And probably two others because 38 would be weird.
And by now, you're all saying "FORTY? Really?" and that's why I said "next few years? No chance." I think it EVENTUALLY happens, but we're talking 2040 at earliest.
Last edited:
nhlfan79
Registered User
You can create a new Western Conference team by realignment a whole lot easier than by limiting expansion plans to only western cities. Cough, Detroit, cough.
Detroit isn't going West.....
how would Toronto feel moving to the Pacific Division, and we'll move Seattle to the Northeast Division/Eastern Conference as their replacement after spending decades in the Western Conference Central Division
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Detroit fought for 20 years to get back in the East, they arent going West again.
And really, no. Atlanta does not deserve another crack at an NHL team. Atlanta is and has been a bad pro sports town. Even in the golden era of the Braves they struggled to sell out playoff games.
Last edited:
GreenHornet
Registered User
Sadly I agree despite the optimistic scenarios I put forth in some of my other posts. Something REALLY strange would have to happen on the relocation front for it to happen anytime soon. And even then, EVERYTHING would have to fall into place just right. I just don't see that happening anytime in the foreseeable future.
To put it another way, I turn 54 years old in September. While I'm hopeful Atlanta will get another crack at the NHL at some point, I'm not optimistic I'll live to see it (or at least that I won't be too old to enjoy it).
nhlfan79
Registered User
Oh, for goodness sake. That was nearly 30 years ago. When does the statute of limitations finally run on that? Not to mention it was a 4:00 pm midweek first-round playoff game in one of the largest stadiums in MLB (50,000+). The NLCS and World Series were always sold out.
The Braves are always in the top third of MLB attendance every year. (Currently, they're #2). The Falcons have been sold out since Arthur Blank took over. Atlanta United holds ALL TEN of MLS's top ten attendances. UGA football is an instant sellout whenever they play. The SEC Championship, same. Atlanta-based alumni filling nearly a dozen SEC stadiums every fall Saturday? Yep.
You may have a point with the Hawks. And indoor lacrosse. And ECHL hockey.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Even today they struggle in all sports, even with good teams. I wish they could figure it out, I do. I grew up watching and loving the 90s Braves because they were always on TBS. I do have a soft spot for Atlanta sports. I do also feel like Atlanta would be such a great spot for a southern hockey team. It's kinda the de facto capital of the southeast and would make all the sense in the world if they could figure out the magic formula to make it work.
Last 5 years, Atlanta teams attendance ranking (based on % attendance to account for stadium sizes):
NFL: 19th, 19th, 16th, 25th, 13th
MLB: 10th, 10th, 28th, 28th, 23rd
NBA: 28th, 30th, 24th, 23rd, 20th
UGA football is an instant sellout whenever they play. The SEC Championship, same. Atlanta-based alumni filling nearly a dozen SEC stadiums every fall Saturday?
To be fair to BigBadBruins7708, he said Atlanta was a bad pro sports town. I don't think anyone disputes it as a mecca for college football fandom (there's a reason they moved the College Football Hall of Fame there). That's the canard about sports fandom in the United States in general (sometimes accurate, sometimes not): the further south you go, the more the college fandom increases and the pro sports fandom diminishes.
Historically, if you want to be honest about it, the non-NHL pro sports that's struggled the most business-wise relative to what you'd expect a city of Atlanta's profile to deliver is the NBA. But even there, local ratings are trending up in the past few years, counter to the trend for most local NBA TV ratings.
To be fair to BigBadBruins7708, he said Atlanta was a bad pro sports town. I don't think anyone disputes it as a mecca for college football fandom (there's a reason they moved the College Football Hall of Fame there). That's the canard about sports fandom in the United States in general (sometimes accurate, sometimes not): the further south you go, the more the college fandom increases and the pro sports fandom diminishes.
Historically, if you want to be honest about it, the non-NHL pro sports that's struggled the most business-wise relative to what you'd expect a city of Atlanta's profile to deliver is the NBA. But even there, local ratings are trending up in the past few years, counter to the trend for most local NBA TV ratings.
nhlfan79
Registered User
Why would you adjust for attendance percentage of total capacity? That punishes Atlanta because Turner Field was the 4th largest stadium in the majors (49,586), behind only Dodgers Stadium, Yankee Stadium, and Coors Field. Conveniently, your five-year window also coincided with a total team tear-down and rebuild.
Don't forget, Turner Field was not originally built as a baseball stadium. It was converted from 1996 Olympic Stadium.
Don't forget, Turner Field was not originally built as a baseball stadium. It was converted from 1996 Olympic Stadium.
Last edited:
KevFu
Registered User
Well, this is probably changing the subject a little bit, but there's really no reason to have East/West conferences because it's just dumb to force a group of teams that make their money of TV revenue (aka local start times in prime time) into a schedule which treats them like they are 750+ miles west of where they actually are.
KevFu
Registered User
Arguing "bad sports town" for someone is really pointless in my opinion. No one is going to change their mind and everyone is just going to cherry pick whatever stats they like to argue something that can't objectively stated for obvious reasons.
But while we are on the subject of Atlanta fans, and Georgia Bulldogs fans.... I have no idea why the Thrashers did not choose a color scheme of UGA Red and Georgia Tech Gold with Black, and a Navy third jersey. I think I uploaded a photoshop once. It looked sweet.
But while we are on the subject of Atlanta fans, and Georgia Bulldogs fans.... I have no idea why the Thrashers did not choose a color scheme of UGA Red and Georgia Tech Gold with Black, and a Navy third jersey. I think I uploaded a photoshop once. It looked sweet.
Malaka
you know, **** it, let’s just not think so much
Would like to see Atlanta get a team. Hartford too. And Quebec. And Salt Lake City. And Portland.
Honestly, so much talent is coming into the league through standardization of training, I think to keep things level we need more aggressive expansion.
Honestly, so much talent is coming into the league through standardization of training, I think to keep things level we need more aggressive expansion.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Because stadiums dont have the same # of seats, and plenty of markets could sell more tickets than their current stadiums (Boston, LA, NY, Green Bay, etc)
It also coincided with back to back division titles and a 97 win team.
Its not like the attendance story is better going on total attendance for The Braves:
10th in %, 12th in total
10th in %, 12th in total
28th in %, 13th in total
28th in %, 22nd in total
23rd in %, 24th in total
Look, it's not a good PROFESSIONAL sports town. It just isnt.
TheLegend
"Just say it 3 times..."
^^^^^^^^
People can do all the mathematical gymnastics they wish but in PROFESSIONAL sports it isn't just about the butts in seats. It's about revenue.
Forbes' most recent valuations show the Atlanta Braves were ranked 7th in MLB revenue.... and 11th overall in franchise value.
The Falcons are ranked in the upper half of the NFL in both categories.
Only the Hawks sit in the bottom third of these categories with the NBA and that's really not surprising given they haven't had a watchable team since the Dominique Wilkins era.
People can do all the mathematical gymnastics they wish but in PROFESSIONAL sports it isn't just about the butts in seats. It's about revenue.
Forbes' most recent valuations show the Atlanta Braves were ranked 7th in MLB revenue.... and 11th overall in franchise value.
The Falcons are ranked in the upper half of the NFL in both categories.
Only the Hawks sit in the bottom third of these categories with the NBA and that's really not surprising given they haven't had a watchable team since the Dominique Wilkins era.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
I disagree. It would only be 2 or 3 years until another western team came.
I'm assuming the next expansion would be Quebec + Atlanta.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
KevFu
Registered User
I mean, sure, but that really isn't good or smart for anyone.
The main reason Atlanta remains an attractive possibility is TV MARKET SIZE.
And this would be attempt three at putting down roots in Atlanta. If the NHL does it, it has to work.
And putting the team in the Western Conference is a detriment on the TV side of things. If you want people in Atlanta to watch NHL hockey on TV, road Western Conference games isn't a good way to do it. And neither is "you finally made the playoffs, you open against a Pacific Division Team at 10 pm"
I view it going one of two ways:
1. If the NHL is committed to East/West conferences, they're not going to pursue an unbalanced league that forces an ETZ team into the Western Conference.
2. If the NHL is looking to expand to grab fees and get TV markets and care more about which city they go to than how many teams they have, then they should blow up the concept of West/East Conferences
- Status
