SOMETIMES the inner workings of the NHL thought process, especially in the context of the "old" league, can be hilarious.
For example, last week we broached the topic of attendance numbers early in the post-apocalyptic era, specifically the soft initial sales in non-traditional U.S. markets that are bound to struggle even in this age of economic enlightenment.
After all, improving hockey to a sports fan in Georgia is akin to finding a better way to try selling Big Macs to vegetarians. No sooner had we raised the prospect of southern U.S. teams papering houses than we received this e-mail from Free Press reader Brian Kates, who reported: "I'm in Atlanta on holidays for the week. I went to last night's Atlanta-Montreal game and I can assure you that the attendance was nowhere near the 18,600 listed in today's (Atlanta) paper. The arena was at most three-quarters full. And that was on a 2-for-1 Wednesday!"
Two-for-one Wednesday? Can we get an amen for Half-Price Tuesday? Or how about Five-Dollar Thursday?
Whatever. It's becoming clear that despite insistence from NHL headquarters during the lockout that the new CBA would work for all 30 franchises, it's going to take a miracle or Sidney Crosby for that wishful thinking to come true.
So it figures that other media are beginning to see the underwriting on the wall, too. For example, in Saturday's Toronto Globe and Mail, there was a serious article entitled, "U.S. attendance woes could be blessing for Hamilton, Winnipeg." Essentially, the writer quoted an anonymous banking executive in the U.S. who had brokered several sales involving NHL teams. He ventured that both Canadian cities could be potential markets for franchises that fail in the next couple of seasons.
And this is where it gets funny. In particular, when the banker cites the possible return of the NHL to Winnipeg, "as crazy as it sounds."
Why? "At least everybody there is a hockey fan," the banker reasoned. "Sure, the arena is small (by NHL standards), but if you fill it every night, who cares?"
Now I understand the banker's sentiment, and it's nice to get a shout out to the 'Peg on the topic of the dearly departed National Hockey League. But on the face of it, given the history of the NHL's doomed attempt to broaden its U.S. base over the last tragic decade, the logic only underscores the insanity of the strategy in the first place.
I guess the tall foreheads at NHL headquarters didn't think it sounded crazy when someone blurted, "I know -- we'll put a team in Carolina!"
This is the same curious rationale that had executives with business degrees (that hopefully weren't printed off the Internet) looking investors straight in their beady eyes and telling them, "Sure, NHL hockey is going to be gangbusters in Phoenix." Look, no one's saying here that Winnipeg either deserves or can afford an NHL franchise. Even in the new salary-cap environment, the dollars it takes to operate a competitive club still make this city a long shot at best. That's just the hard reality.
Still, sometimes it is fascinating to step back and bask in the mind-boggling dearth of simple common sense when it comes to how the folks who run and finance the NHL think about expanding and nurturing their product.
After about 10 years and hundreds of millions in lost capital, they just may be getting their heads around what can only be described in their ranks as a revolutionary idea: Selling hockey in cities where there are -- wait for it -- dyed-in-the-woollen-underwear hockey fans.
You know, that just might work.
As crazy as it sounds.
