cw7 said:
Growth isn't always a good thing, that's true. But in this case it is. Just because you don't believe hockey won't fly in the States doesn't mean too much to some of us.
I did not say this. I said I'm from Missouri. I did not object to the location of the latest exapnsion franchises. I think hockey probably can sell anywhere. But - and it is a very big but - I'm not in favour of doing anything to the game to make it more attractive to US TV or to the fans in Nashville or Atlanta.
This started because Downfrom NJ tried to make this case:
"Who can you blame for hockey's bad TV contract? I blame the Rangers. Well, not just the Rangers, but our big market teams in general. The NHL cannot afford to have LA, Chicago, and New York out of the playoffs year after year. The New York Media is the greatest equalizer in sports reporting. If you want to create a superstar in the NHL today, he's going to have to come out of New York."
This is absolutely true. It is probably part of the agenda being advanced by the NHL owners. They want a great Ranger team. They want the Hawks to be good. They don't want to have to build a great team in Los Angeles from the ground up. They want an NFL-NBA type system at least in part because they can't sell Tampa-Calgary or Nashville-Ottawa is a Stanley Cup Final.
To that, I say too bad. The NHL should not implement a shootout because it is good for TV. They should not eliminate fighting because they think it would make the game more salable in the United States. I have no problems if the NHL wants to place teams in Florida or Atlanta or Nashville. I do have problems if after they do that we have a bunch of whining about how the game is structured and how it has to change to keep the Nashvilles and Atlantas competitive. There may or may not be good reasons to make any or all of those changes, but growing the game in the United States is not good enough. Not by a mile.
Growth may not always be beneficial to the game, at times it can be a hinderance. But in the long run, it has shown time and again that growth is a positive.
How? It has shown time and again that growth is not good. For hockey fans it has meant higher prices, more lousy teams and a smaller chance to win. It has been great for the players - more jobs at higher rates of pay - and it has been great for the owners - more than half a billion in expansion fees - but there has not been one single benefit for the fan. None.
It takes time for a new sport to establish itself, to become a part of the sporting culture of that city. That takes about a generation, maybe a tad less depending on where. So in another 10 or 15 years, you will start to see players coming from such places as Atlanta and Nashville.
I doubt we will see players coming from Atlanta or Nashville, but I don't think that matters any way. I agree with this point. This means that 10 or 15 years from now hockey may actually sell as a TV sport in the United States. That's fine, although even then ratings will depend on which cities win.
If it happens it happens. If it doesn't, I don't care. It is not our problem. If the game grows in the US, it grows, and fans everywhere will pay more because you always have to pay more for popular sports than not so popular ones.
But don't try to tell me we should do something because if it is not done, "the game can't grow." If Nashville can't generate the revenue Detroit can generate, too bad for Nashville. Unless they cap Detroit's payroll, the game can't grow. Unless we eliminate Bertuzzi incidents, the game can't grow. Unless fans think the team can win, the game can't grow. Unless we get a good team in New York, the game can't grow.
To all of those arguments, I say "Good! It is better for the fan if the game does not grow!"
Tom