Another "Southern Belt Is A Failure" Article

[Whiplash27]

All I'm saying is that I don't think either team is nearly as poor off as, say Phoenix. When the Isles are good again and they're selling out their new arena....

You know what I'm getting at here.

Of course, but I think it'd be more viable to have two NY/NJ teams rather than three.

Plus you don't know whether that's true. Only time will tell, however, the Devils are a good example of a local team who couldn't sell out consistently (even during the playoffs) despite being a contender for two decades.

 

[Alex The Loyal]

I don't really think the Sunbelt hockey experiment has failed entirely, but it has failed in some cities. The Panthers, the Coyotes, now the Thrashers (Though that's really just an ownership thing. Maybe the next team they get if they gone will be good?). Hockey works in places where there is no comptition. Look at Nashville. They have the Titans, and College Football. Plenty of room for a Hockey team. Places like Florida is filled with Basketball teams, football (Pro and College) teams, baseball teams.....The sports market in some southern cities is saturated, over flowing, and there is no room for a Hockey Team.

Dallas might be an exception to that though. I dunno.

 

[Whiplash27]

Tampa isn't doing all that bad. The problem in Florida is that they thought that all of these northern transplants or at least their children would have interest in a team down there. Sure some may, however, the majority probably still follow their original teams. They were so caught up in that thinking, that they put two teams down there

Tampa is more viable and at this point much more successful, which is why Miami is the odd man out. Reverse the fortunes of both teams and Tampa would be in the same situation as Miami (and Miami in the same as Tampa). Tampa with the team they have will continue to grow while the Panthers have been a perennial loser since the late 90s.

 

[Fishhead]

I see the writer's point, but it's poor journalism. Quite a few errors in the article. It's hard to take someone serious when he infers a 'weak market' like Green Bay needs TV revenue to prosper in the NFL.

Green Bay is the only professional sports team in America that is owned by it's own community. In essence, they are owned by the Fans. They have sold out every single home football game since 1960. That's 41 years straight. There are over 80,000 people on the waiting list for season tickets. That's more than the stadium holds.

Yea, sounds like a weak market. If you took TV revenue away in the NFL, Green Bay is one of the only teams that would survive easily. The Packers are the Canadiens of the NFL.

 

[Kirikanoir]

Mainly because he leaves out the benefits of sunbelt expansion.

For example, there is the massive growth rates that are seen in Texas (1100%), California (600%), North Carolina (500%) and Florida (300%) since 1990.

And what are those numbers in actual people. If your starting from 0 any growth is going to look massive.

In addition, he ignores the "success stories", such as San Jose, Tampa Bay and Carolina.

San Jose is considered a sunbelt team?

 

[Alex The Loyal]

Well....They're in California

 

[Gnashville]

Trash "reporting" at it's best. Very little truth in this article by someone who's has never been to a game outside of Ottawa. Total BS.
Not so suprised the "WE own the Sport" or "Makeit30" crowd is cheering him for "telling it like it is"

 

[leoleo3535]

I see the writer's point, but it's poor journalism. Quite a few errors in the article. It's hard to take someone serious when he infers a 'weak market' like Green Bay needs TV revenue to prosper in the NFL.Green Bay is the only professional sports team in America that is owned by it's own community. In essence, they are owned by the Fans. They have sold out every single home football game since 1960. That's 41 years straight. There are over 80,000 people on the waiting list for season tickets. That's more than the stadium holds.

Yea, sounds like a weak market. If you took TV revenue away in the NFL, Green Bay is one of the only teams that would survive easily. The Packers are the Canadiens of the NFL.

Last year the Packers had an operating profit of $9.8 million.
They received tv revenues of $95.8 million.

Without the tv revenue they would have lost $86 million.

Numerous pro baseball teams are community owned- including the Famous Toledo Mud Hens. The Reading Royals (ECHL) are in the process of being 50% owned by the community. "North" American teams that are community owned include the Edmonton Eskimos, The Winnipeg Blue Bombers and the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

 

[YogiCanucks]

I don't see what the problem is, it's true. They didn't mention Tampa Bay and Carolina because they're doing okay, why would they mention them in a story about places where hockey isn't that popular?

If that's elitist, so be it.

Maybe if every failing franchise could win a cup.

 

[IceAce]

Of course, but I think it'd be more viable to have two NY/NJ teams rather than three.

Plus you don't know whether that's true. Only time will tell, however, the Devils are a good example of a local team who couldn't sell out consistently (even during the playoffs) despite being a contender for two decades.

We don't? Any time there's been even a sniff of playoffs the Nassau Coliseum has been packed. There's 40 years of data to back that up.

Don't lump us in with the Devils who have never drawn consistently well in their 30 year history.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

All I'm saying is that I don't think either team is nearly as poor off as, say Phoenix. When the Isles are good again and they're selling out their new arena....

You know what I'm getting at here.

Makes sense. I really hope the Islanders' new building will result in strong attendance.

As for the Devils, their weak attendance has always bothered me somewhat, but if they're making money via TV, then they apparently have a supporting fanbase.

As far as the article goes, I find it hard to argue the general points it makes. Heck, if Atlanta moves to Winnipeg, then it just goes to show that hockey market forces can be stronger than the marketing desires and abilities of the NHL. The NHL wants one thing, but not only does it fail, but it results in something that they really don't want, even if some believe it is better for the game.

 

[Adz]

I don't really think the Sunbelt hockey experiment has failed entirely, but it has failed in some cities. The Panthers, the Coyotes, now the Thrashers (Though that's really just an ownership thing. Maybe the next team they get if they gone will be good?). Hockey works in places where there is no comptition. Look at Nashville. They have the Titans, and College Football. Plenty of room for a Hockey team. Places like Florida is filled with Basketball teams, football (Pro and College) teams, baseball teams.....The sports market in some southern cities is saturated, over flowing, and there is no room for a Hockey Team.

Dallas might be an exception to that though. I dunno.

How odd. 4 years ago the talk was that because of the Titans and college football there was no room for hockey in Nashville...but we proved people wrong so now the same factors mean it's EASY for hockey to succeed in Nashville. Hmmm, the Titans and the Vols are still pretty darn popular, and in November both were still looking pretty good. What is different from 4 years ago is ownership.

No competition? Nope, it was damn hard and everyone in Nashville from the die hard fans to the new management to the players to the new radio station to Partner worked their butts off to help it succeed. The hallmark of a "small market" is that there are fewer people overall to draw from, so when 10% of your overall population is off in East Tennessee and another 10% can afford the time and money for 8 football games but not 16 hockey games in the same time period that means you're starting with a 20% deficit that represents a significant portion of your population. And yet our arena managed to be right at 94% full for the regular season while at the same time lowering our comps by a thousand tickets per game. Our marketing guys have dedicated their lives to filling the arena and it shows.

 

[IceAce]

Tampa isn't doing all that bad. The problem in Florida is that they thought that all of these northern transplants or at least their children would have interest in a team down there. Sure some may, however, the majority probably still follow their original teams. They were so caught up in that thinking, that they put two teams down there
.

Sunrise, Florida is almost a 4 hour drive from Tampa, you make it sound as if we're talking about a Ranger/Devil scenario here.

The fact that the Panthers dont draw probably has more to do with the fact that they havent seen the Playoffs since 1999 than anything else. Americans will not support a continuous, mismanaged loser. Especially in a market where there are actually other things to do besides hockey in the winter.

 

[triggrman]

Nashville is not losing money and hasn't since the new ownership group took over.

 

[bladoww]

Sick of articles like these. Not because they focus on various struggles with teams in newer markets but because of the elitist "give us our sport back" attitude that permeates throughout them. I don't have the ability to do this where I sit at the moment, but for every reason to move a team back to Canada I could find reasons to move Canadian teams to the US - give me a computer, Google and a few minutes.

It isn't mentioned in this article, but I'm also tired of hearing climate cited as reason from both Canadian elitists and anti-hockey knuckleheads. I remember seeing video of a protester in Phoenix saying they didn't need a team there saying "It's the desert... hello? We don't exactly have a lot of ice." I hear this **** ad nauseaum. No **** Sherlock, it's hot. Wow. You could fry an egg on the streets of Manhattan in the summer too. Hell, it's hotter here in DC in the summer than when I lived in Tampa. And FWIW grass doesn't exactly grow very well in the desert either without pumping lawn steroids into the ground so you can play baseball and football, but nobody says anything about that.

At the end of the day I'm more upset with the league to allow expansion like this to occur without giving the team(s) a fair shake. Some would argue 20 years IS a "fair shake". Well, when you combine fans that aren't accustomed to hockey, communities that don't grow at a grassroots level, have iced mostly losing teams, and several non-committal owners you get teams that struggle. It's not rocket surgery.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

Nashville is not losing money and hasn't since the new ownership group took over.

Smart fans! That's one potentially exciting team. Hope they continue to improve, and hope that fans stick with them!

I still think ownership has a ways to go in terms of sustaining success both off and on the ice.

 

[Confucius]

Isn't this the same guy saying Canada should have 12 NHL franchises?

Should I really care what he has to say? He's preaching to the choir anyway.

Maybe 12 is too many, but I'd bet none of the 12 would be in the bottom 3 moneymakers of today's league

 

[Adz]

Smart fans! That's one potentially exciting team. Hope they continue to improve, and hope that fans stick with them!

I still think ownership has a ways to go in terms of sustaining success both off and on the ice.

I should hope so. Stagnation is boring.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

To be honest, both the Devils and the Isles have strong fanbases willing to pay. The Rangers fanbase is just that much bigger and that much more willing to pay.

(raises hand) Willing to pay for "another" fanbase here.

 

[Tawnos]

"...essentially force the six Canadian NHL teams, plus the small number of successful American NHL teams..."

This kind of language is why this article is so bad. For one thing, there are more American teams that make money than Canadian teams and it's not only because there are more teams in the US. It's been less than a decade since a Canadian team filed for bankruptcy. This is conveniently forgotten in these types of articles. The franchises in "non-trad" markets face more challenges, yes. But good ownership and on-ice success (BOTH) can overcome those challenges, as has been proven.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

And what are those numbers in actual people. If your starting from 0 any growth is going to look massive.

North Carolina: 1990-929
2010-5,598
Growth- 500%

California: 1990-4483
2010-20404
Growth-322%
Florida- 1990-1200
2010-10856
Growth-800%
Georgia- 1990-314
2010-2142
Growth-478%
Texas- 1990-868
2010-10909
Growth- 1100%

Those are some pretty impressive numbers, especially for Florida, Texas and North Carolina.

San Jose is considered a sunbelt team?

What constitutes a sun belt team?

To me, a sunbelt team is a team that was added in a wave of expansion or relocation during the 1990's to places where hockey was not a traditional sport, specifically (but not limited to) the American South and Southwest.

 

[Chet Manley]

Maybe if every failing franchise could win a cup.

That would take most teams at least 40 years

As to the article. If the league wants to have 30 teams, the only answer I see is increased revenue sharing to allow teams to wait out the bad times. At some point these struggling teams are going to build a winner or grow some roots or have their local economy boom. In 10-15 years, we could be writing about how the southern States are propping up small market Canadian teams with their weak dollar and struggling economy.

The players already did their part by taking a hard cap, they shouldn't have to fix the disparity between the haves and have-nots. The teams at top would hate it, but they should be heavily contributing to the stability and growth of the league.

Unfortunately, revenue sharing can`t help in places were the owners don`t want hockey in their arena anymore.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

And what are those numbers in actual people. If your starting from 0 any growth is going to look massive.



San Jose is considered a sunbelt team?

I would say yes. It's on the border basically.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Well, there is a Columbus Georgia; And a Columbus South Carolina too I believe. Probably quite a few out there. I can see how they would get confused.

This guy wouldn't dis Columbus Georgia. Their team, the Rangers is one of the scariest teams you'll ever see.

 

[Roadrage]

North Carolina: 1990-929
2010-5,598
Growth- 500%

California: 1990-4483
2010-20404
Growth-322%
Florida- 1990-1200
2010-10856
Growth-800%
Georgia- 1990-314
2010-2142
Growth-478%
Texas- 1990-868
2010-10909
Growth- 1100%

Those are some pretty impressive numbers, especially for Florida, Texas and North Carolina.

I wouldn't say they are that impressive. Florida has 2 NHL franchises almost 2 decades old now (Panthers started in 1993 and TB started in 1992 with 1 cup win). Texas has the Stars which also started play in 93 with 1 cup win and 1 finals loss. Canes started playing in 97 and have won a cup.

Percentage wise it would be quite impressive if it didn't take 20 years to do it. If those numbers were say growth since 2005 (5 years) then yeah. Raw numbers don't look very flattering.