mzon
Registered User
SedinFan said:I chose Carolina because there is NO way that there should be a team in Raleigh, not even Canes fans can support that.
You are right, Canes fans can't support that.
SedinFan said:I chose Carolina because there is NO way that there should be a team in Raleigh, not even Canes fans can support that.
NYIsles1 said:I know fans in other markets and Canada will never accept this or may point to the 80's for the Islanders and 94 for the Rangers. But today the New York City hockey market is one of the worst in the country. During a six month regular season nothing that happens on the ice will change that perception. Hockey here hits the homestretch and the bulk of the media heads to Florida for spring training. The local radio hosts do not take calls about hockey and their hosts cannot even name five players on each team.
Pittsburgh, Florida have more dedicated coverage on hockey than they do in New York City.
In terms of fans, media coverage and standing with the general public casual sports fans would hardly notice if all three teams went out of business tomorrow. Thousands of empty seats in all three local arenas, even with the Rangers having an 80-90 million dollar team that are totally invisible in the Yankees year-round market.
The journalists have no time to cover hockey players when they have the Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Knicks and Nets. Also the game plays to one demographic here, between that and the high prices and boring product all that's left is are the
die-hards who remember the old days.
Rangers on Abc produced ratings equal to Islander owners Charles Wang's Arena Football team in New York...Even as far back as 1999 Rangers-Wings produced
a 0.9 rating and hockey journalists claimed the game was in trouble here back then.
Personally I think the game would be better off in a surburb and not the city market where there is no room in the press to cover it any longer. Why is a sports editor going to send his people to speak with an Islander, Ranger or Devil when there are Yankees and Mets to talk with. All winter long rotissary baseball will dominate the back pages, football and both basketball teams take the rest.
I understand your point but over that seven years baseball grew to 5x what it used to be here and losing is as big a story as winning. The Rangers were nine games over five hundred, in first place in December of 2001. They got the exact same coverage and attention they get now.John Flyers Fan said:I agree to some extent, but IMO the fact the the Rangers have been a complete non-factor for 7 years now, has really exaggerated the situation. Although the Devils play 10 miles from Manhattan, they will never be considered a NY team, and won't get the attention they deserve.
And just as bad they have not played a single playoff series and the rivalry is reduced to the die-hards and a generation of sports fans have stopped noticing.John Flyers Fan said:The Rangers and Isles have won just 5 playoff games over the last 7 years.
This is not Philadelphia, in that market the Flyers can get some attention on a daily basis over baseball even thought nationally I felt a seven game series with the Flyers had no impact on hockey which is another very bad sign for hockey in this country. Philadelphia-Rangers, Colorado-Detroit played in a semi-final and the game got no bump from those playoffs.John Flyers Fan said:If the Rangers had the success of the Devils over the last decade, you would see much more attention paid to the hockey team (still not close to what the Giants, Jets, Yankees or Mets get)
Read my post.PepNCheese said:I don't understand how Carolina has 62 votes, and places like Nashville and Florida only get 8.
I've already explained in other messages in this thread what my reasoning was for including Columbus... It's not a thought I agree with... I think Columbus has become an excellent hockey market... My inclusion of Columbus on the list is due mainly to the fact that they are always brought up as a franchise that should be considered if contraction is an option... I don't think they should... But many (in my opinion, not so bright) people on here tend to bring them up a lot...SedinFan said:Surprised to see Columbus on that list. Probably, next to Minnesota, the best recent expansion city.
LA's a good market too.
I chose Carolina because there is NO way that there should be a team in Raleigh, not even Canes fans can support that.
My mistake... I didn't understand what you meant...kenabnrmal said:Disney definitely has the money, but are looking to sell, and thats not the money I was referring to. I was referring to the money in the market. There is little doubt that Orange County has a great deal of money in it.
I truly think that part of Anaheim's inability to be taken seriously as a legitimate hockey team/market is the stupid name and ugly jersey... It's too gimicky...kenabnrmal said:The Ducks' name and jerseys dug the team so deep a hole with traditionalist hockey fans that its likely never to crawl out, respect-wise. The Ducks will always be mentioned at the top of these lists because a) a non-traditional hockey market, b) warm weather (closely related to A), c) the ridiculous name. As long as these factors exist, regardless of whether a relevant argument against them exists, people will continually try to get them out of the league.
Good to see.tgallant said:I've already explained in other messages in this thread what my reasoning was for including Columbus... It's not a thought I agree with... I think Columbus has become an excellent hockey market... My inclusion of Columbus on the list is due mainly to the fact that they are always brought up as a franchise that should be considered if contraction is an option... I don't think they should... But many (in my opinion, not so bright) people on here tend to bring them up a lot...
And as I said in another message... The proof is in the pudding... so far, only 1 person has voted for them...
Of course nobody can deny that Canadian teams get their share of abuse. You wont believe how many times us Canadians were reminded during the SCF that the Stanley Cup doesn't belong up here. Oh well, atleast we got the World Vase. I wanna smash that thing to the ground.Sotnos said:Yup, based on everything I've read, the "big TV deal" that hasn't materialized was at the center of everything for the past decade and a half, not to mention the expansion fees. Also, if I'm remembering correctly, in Gil Stein's book he goes on at some length about how badly he wanted the Disney name attached to the NHL, as he thought it would raise the profile of the league or something like that. He REALLY wanted Anaheim in the league, more than any of the other teams he brought in.
Thank you, finally someone gets it. I have never understood why what some fool on the beach down here said to some Canadian media outlet during the playoffs gets used to paint us all with the same broad brush.
tgallant said:As soon as I heard that Disney was looking to sell, the first thing that popped into my mind was that I just pray that whoever buys them has the intelligence to go through whatever red tape is necessary to change the name of the team... If I was a Ducks fan, I couldn't get the phrase out of my mouth (that i was a mighty ducks fan) without feeling self conscious... If they want committed fans, they need to name the team in a way that allows the fans to be proud to pronounce their loyalty to their team...
Even dropping the "mighty" would be a step in the right direction. The defunct Long Island Ducks have something of a cult following.jacketracket said:Good to see.
Unfortunately, the occasional blow-hard still pops up to argue that Hamilton (or Pig's Knuckle, Manitoba, for that matter) deserves an NHL team more than Columbus --- even given what the market here has shown, to date.
MR. X said:You are right, Canes fans can't support that.
SedinFan said:Exactly. They don't show up to games, so why have a team. Even after a Cup run, their attendance increased to 15,500 or so. Terrible. Just a horrible market.
triggrman said:Read my post.
Nashville will return to the middle of the pack this next season in attendace. We don't generate a bunch of money but we don't lose a bunch either.
Good to hear.triggrman said:Actually it will be above 13k. If you bought a season ticket for this season you signed a contract saying you would continue to hold you tickets whenever play resumed.
Season ticket sales the first year were just over 13k so if this season has been better than the first it's safe to assume it will be over 13k