Another "Southern Belt Is A Failure" Article

[Puckschmuck*]

I imagine no one is taking this post serious?

I'll be honest here; most of what he said I disagree with.

I'll be honest in another opinion as well. I have ALMOST no problems with growing the game in the south. As long as it works, great. Welcome aboard. With that said however, if it's going to be at the sacrifice of Canadian teams simply because they want to appeas the Americans, then yes, that is a problem for me.

 

[Duke749]

^^^^ In regards to that last sentance, I can understand that viewpoint. Idealy, the NHL COULD possibly support more teams then the MLB, NFL, or NBA because of the simple fact that they can sustain AT LEAST 6 teams in Canada. Boy wouldn't that be something. 7-8 teams in Canada and 24 or more in the US. Everyone would be happy then.

I'll be honest here; most of what he said I disagree with.

That's because most of what he said is just plain wrong. Anyone with half a brain realizes that Atlanta has been completely screwed by their owners.

 

[Puckschmuck*]

That's because most of what he said is just plain wrong. Anyone with half a brain realizes that Atlanta has been completely screwed by their owners.

Relax buddy. I was agreeing with you. No need to get snotty towards me.

 

[kdb209]

I would argue though that people are more inclined to get into a sport if they can play it in (around) their own backyard. Unfortuneately in Atlanta or Phoenix the only ice they have is what they put in their drinks. A large majority of people in NYC, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Toronto etc etc etc have public outdoor rinks and home made outdoor rinks, free to skate on throughout the whole winter.

I'm not saying people wont like Hockey where it's warm, I'm just saying that if you can strap on some skates, grab a stick and go play with your friends 5 months out of the year, you're more likely to get involved in the sport.

Again - I have made this point before.

Folks in Canada vastly overstate the importance of playing hockey - especially playing hockey outside, on ponds, ow whatever romantic cliche you choose - on whether a person (in the US) becomes a fan of the spectator sport.

The vast, vast majority of US hockey fans have never played ice hockey at all, and most have never played any form of hockey (roller, street, ball, floor, etc) - this is especially true in "non traditional" markets.

I grew up on Long island (before and during the Isles' dynasty years). I knew no kids who played ice hockey, and only a few who played street hockey. I never played ice hockey until college (D-league inter-mural) - but I was a fan long before then.

Of the season ticket holders I know in San Jose - including many transplants from "traditional" markets - very few played any hockey growing up.

Also consider the estimated 20-40% of NHL fans who are women - how many of them played hockey.

I've known many kids who played youth hockey - in New York, Boston, upstate New York, DC, and San Jose. All of them were NHL fans before they started playing - they started playing because they were already hockey fans. This is in sharp contrast to Youth Soccer, which while ubiquitous, most of the kids are not fans of pro soccer.

I think growing up exposed to hockey in the general sports environment - along with other traditional US sports - has a much higher correlation to becoming a fan than ever playing the game.

 

[Duke749]

Relax buddy. I was agreeing with you. No need to get snotty towards me.

Ummm, I wasn't. I apologize if I came across like that. lol

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

You may have just started a new trend with Preds' fans in Nashville. Removable type.

Isn't that what JB was going for? A removable type Nashville franchise?

I think it's in the best interest of Nashville fans to go for the permanent type.

 

[dronald]

Again - I have made this point before.

Folks in Canada vastly overstate the importance of playing hockey - especially playing hockey outside, on ponds, ow whatever romantic cliche you choose - on whether a person (in the US) becomes a fan of the spectator sport.

The vast, vast majority of US hockey fans have never played ice hockey at all, and most have never played any form of hockey (roller, street, ball, floor, etc) - this is especially true in "non traditional" markets.

I grew up on Long island (before and during the Isles' dynasty years). I knew no kids who played ice hockey, and only a few who played street hockey. I never played ice hockey until college (D-league inter-mural) - but I was a fan long before then.

Of the season ticket holders I know in San Jose - including many transplants from "traditional" markets - very few played any hockey growing up.

Also consider the estimated 20-40% of NHL fans who are women - how many of them played hockey.

I've known many kids who played youth hockey - in New York, Boston, upstate New York, DC, and San Jose. All of them were NHL fans before they started playing - they started playing because they were already hockey fans. This is in sharp contrast to Youth Soccer, which while ubiquitous, most of the kids are not fans of pro soccer.

I think growing up exposed to hockey in the general sports environment - along with other traditional US sports - has a much higher correlation to becoming a fan than ever playing the game.

I'm not talking about kids growing up playing the sport, I'm talking about Hockey being a regular activity that one can take part in on any given day in the winter. The fact that anyone can just go play Basketball 12 months a year in some parts of the United States gives everyone a greater opportunity to enjoy a game of Basketball. The fact that myself and my friends (many girls) could go pick up a stick and some skates and play some Hockey down the road at a pond is going to help grow an interest in Hockey.

The problem is one has to be dedicated to the sport in warm areas to get their children into it, which makes it really hard because of the price. I have a nephew who is 6 months old today, but as soon as he can put skates on we're going to be taking him skating outside with us all the time, it will be an activity as common as dribbling a ball in the winter outside in Atlanta. So our boy is natually going to have an interest in Skating and Hockey because it's what surrounds him all the time in the Winter.

I stated previously that I know that Hockey can be popular in warm areas, but it's obviously less likely to be, not only because if you do raise a child and try to put him in Hockey, the chances are none of your friends want to enroll their children into Hockey. Mostly because as stated, it's expensive and it's harder to access.

 

[Hoek]

If ability and popularity of playing the sport as a kid had anything to do with future professional sports attendance, then Major League Soccer would already be the top league in North America.

It's not that simple.

 

[not a trapdoor]

They expanded or moved teams to these new markets, and we're slowly seeing who will last.

This.

Obviously good ownership is important & it's equally obvious the long suffering hockey fans of Atlanta haven't been able to rely on this, but I think that the expansion has overall been met with mixed results. It's not the NHL abandoning Canada (well, some parts of it perhaps) neither is it careful, considered & gradual building of the sport in the southern US.

Careful? Given some of the owners that the BoG has approved in the last 20 years (in "fragile" markets), I think we can say that not everything was done carefully.

Considered? In their rush to get into large markets (for the sake of a TV contract to some extent), were these markets properly considered? As an example, if Atlanta is a fickle sports town which is very much into football, can it sustain a team that's going to take 10 years to really find it's feet? Sure there'll be the die-hards, but will the local media give the new cluib enough attention for it to be self-sustaining financially if it's not a playoff regular? (I'm not talking about every year, but making the playoffs say 3 of 5 years). I don't know the answer to this question, but I'm not sure that it was really asked by the BoG as the league moved into these markets. Some of the more recent expansions/relocations were into markets without a lot of pro sports to complete with (Columbus, San Jose to an extent) but others were into crowded but larger markets where there are more people but also more teams that might already have their attention.

Gradual? In the space of less that 2 decades the NHL moved into Phoenix, Denver, Nashville, Raleigh, Columbus, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Miami, Dallas & San Jose. I'll leave Anaheim out mainly because the NHL already had a presence in that media market. While some of these have been quite successful (San Jose, Raleigh), others haven't been. It's a big task for a league's established teams to be carrying up to 1/3 of the franchises while they find their feet. As we're seeing now, two of the teams in these markets are basically screwed, and the NHL has expended a lot of energy trying to sort out a mess that might have been avoided had the move into these markets been more gradual. Yes we can talk about crappy ownership until the Nords come home, but that doesn't change the fact that newer markets won't sustain a team that's not performing like an established one will (TML & Edmonton to a lesser extent).

Thats why (hold on to your hats) the best hockey nations are generally cold climates. You grow up with the frozen pond, you learn to skate at 2 or 3, and you've got a hockey stick in your hand soon after.

This, also. Climate means hockey is culturally ingrained in certain places, and ignoring that is folly. It's no coincidence that the two countries where Hockey is the dominant sport are both straddling the Arctic circle - in Finland & Canada it's far more likely that a kid will grow up learning to skate on frozen lakes, etc than in (say) Guatemala. So yeah, while the number of hockey players in (say) North Carolina has increased after the Canes moved into town, the % of kids playing will likely never be the same as Manitoba, simply because of the lack of frozen lakes. Hockey no doubt has a place in NC, but kids there just don't have as much access to ice & short of an ice age, that's not changing. Junior numbers aren't everything, but with the numbers of kids that learn to skate young in Canada & Finland, the sport is culturally ingrained in a way it can never be in (say) North Carolina.

 

[Rob]

Again, equating "support for the local NHL franchise" with "interest in hockey" is a fallacy.

The NHL is only ultimately concerned with the former.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

So the NHL plunked franchises into all these non-traditional markets, kept them there for close to two decades, and the "impressive" minor hockey registration numbers we're seeing, for states that have a combined population of nearly 90 million Americans, come out to a grand total of 49,909 that just barely edges out..

Atlantic Canada:
NB 16,586
NS 17,937
PEI 5,848
NL 9,466
Total 49,837 (as of 2008/2009)
Total population about 2.2 million

I'm going to be frank, and ignore the obvious fallacy of comparing places where hockey has been there for a mere several decades versus the place where it was established in the 1880's (maybe earlier?).

The reason I brought up those numbers was not to wow anyone, the point was that NHL franchises evidently stimulate growth in the area's where they are placed. And the broader point I was adressing was that is an example of how Southern Expasnion is a good thing.

The article I was responding to, while correct in essentials, not only left out anything that may be taken as a positive statement about Southern Expansion, but left out the success stories of Tampa, San Jose and Carolina. This is the point I was getting at. That it was incredibly bias in its reporting.

I understand that at any time in Canada you are probably 10 minutes (25 rush hour) from a free rink. I understand that Canada's numbers make the U.S's look silly and I assure, my intent was not as such. My argument did not even bring up the numbers in Canada.

 

[Tawnos]

I'm going to be frank, and ignore the obvious fallacy of comparing places where hockey has been there for a mere several decades versus the place where it was established in the 1880's (maybe earlier?).

I can guarantee you this. There are WAAAAY more hockey players in North Carolina right now than there were in New Brunswick in 1895. Just sayin.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I can guarantee you this. There are WAAAAY more hockey players in North Carolina right now than there were in New Brunswick in 1895. Just sayin.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more hockey players currently in North Carolina than people in New Brunswick in 1895.

 

[The CyNick]

I imagine no one is taking this post serious? Quite a lot to type up just to come across as a troll, a Canadian elitist, or just plain oblivious.

I am actually the elite of the elitist. You wouldnt understand being a common person.

 

[Tawnos]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more hockey players currently in North Carolina than people in New Brunswick in 1895.

Yeah, but an arena at that time in what is now Kouchibouguac National Park would still draw enough fans to sustain an NHL team. After all, it is Canada. Level those sand dunes!

 

[PredsV82]

Terrific article! And the absolute unvarnished truth!

oh yeah its all true... except of course the part naming Nashville as a perennial money loser... Preds have basically broken even for the last 3 years since Loserpold sold the team...

 

[The CyNick]

oh yeah its all true... except of course the part naming Nashville as a perennial money loser... Preds have basically broken even for the last 3 years since Loserpold sold the team...

Is there any proof to back that up? Or just an opinion?

 

[Killion]

Your opinion is probably wrong. I don't think the extent to which the NHL is taken seriously hinges upon fielding a team in Atlanta, especially after teams left twice. People at large still think of hockey as a northern sport, and as such give little to no consideration to Atlanta's place or lack thereof in major league hockey.

You apparently have absolutely no concept whatsoever of what constitutes a major top 10 market nor the importance of Atlanta to the fabric of society throughout the South & across the country.

Losing the market to Calgary in 1980 was just a bad joke; losing it twice is beyond embarrassing for the NHL in the world of pro sports. Ripples throughout the entertainment, broadcast, media & corporate sectors and screams "Bush League".

Hockey will romantically always be thought of as a "northern sport", however, the realities of the NHL's business since 1967 has forced expansion. First to fight off anti-trust & competitive leagues; secondarily to follow ever changing demographics' in terms of population flows and domestic migration.

This is a business, not an experiment in social engineering. Forget the leagues BS about "growing the game". If they gave a %#$& about that they'd be building rinks & sponsoring leagues, camps & clinics. Despite their negligence in that regard the sport grows wherever teams land. Look at SoCal; look at Tennessee; look at Georgia, Phoenix etc. Minor hockeys exploding.

Money. Greenbacks. Nothing else matters to the NHL. In order to maximize profits, you simply must have teams in the major markets, and that includes Atlanta and Phoenix.

ASG (and Moyes/Ellman) makes a Wirtz Sr. or a Harold Ballard look like Dream Owners in comparison. At least they pretended to care. These guys couldnt have even been bothered to do that. Lousy ownership is a disease, and the NHL shouldve excised these cancers years ago yet did absolutely nothing. Its shameful.

And yepp, thats just my "wrong opinion" Steve.

 

[Wham City]

If this author's an "Elitist" than I'm Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[Canuckommunist]

Basically, I see it like this.

If it's 1980s and I'm Commissioner of the NHL, I have a choice between two directions for the NHL. On the one hand I can go with southern teams and "newer" markets that are traditionally large American T.V. markets with many northern transplants, big populations (thus big room for growth) but with little-to-no established market specifically for the NHL. Or I can go into Canada or the U.S. where with more established hockey markets where interest in the NHL is either already high or will likely get high faster than a newer counterpart with equal teams, but with lower ceilings for growth, often economic issues and in Canada variable currency valuation issues. If I was Commissioner, I'd take the second approach: simply because I'm a bit more risk-averse, the money is already there and the problems are easier to offset because market interest is probably less elastic.

The NHL didn't do that. They took the first option. Now that they've done it, they should stick with it. We're seeing in Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, Dallas, San Jose, Tampa Bay, Miami and even Atlanta slow and steady results. Sure there's the backwash in red-ink, but when you take approach 1 you risk big start-up costs. Like in decades. But the long-term result is something very positive for hockey. I'm of the opinion it's better to clean out the high-interest areas first (with strong markets) and expand slowly, but you can't change what they did- and barring an attendance and interest disaster that's hurting the league bad, you gotta stick it out because otherwise it's just a giant waste of everyone's time and money- and it hurts the brand big time in cities whose fans are now abandoned and left embittered by the league.

 

[RandR]

After the Canucks win tonight, it was the lead story on the CBC National News. Just because a Canadian team made the finals. And it wasn't that slow of a news day here.

The fact is that hockey is without question the number 1 sport in Canada, yet in comparison it consistently ranks well down a long list of sports in the United States. I see this all time in newspaper and television coverage when I am in the U.S. Heck, high school basketball often gets more coverage in some cities.

That doesn't mean that NHL franchises can't succeed in the southern U.S. But it does mean that much more has to go right for franchises in that part of the continent to succeed.

Yes, bad and uncommitted ownership certainly seems like the primary cause of the Thrashers failing to succeed in Atlanta. However, it isn't a coincidence that it was the hockey team that was lowest priority for those owners... the market dictated their priorities. In a Canadian city, it would be unthinkable to not give the highest priority to the resident NHL team.

Having said all that, no doubt the popularity of hockey has grown in the southern U.S., and the writer of that article is deluded for thinking 12 Canadian teams can survive in the NHL.

 

[Steve Passless*]

You apparently have absolutely no concept whatsoever of what constitutes a major top 10 market nor the importance of Atlanta to the fabric of society throughout the South & across the country.

Do you have family or business interests in Atlanta? Not even Thrashers fans go into such histrionics over the UNPRECEDENTED INJUSTICE of a sports league not being in a bad sports town, which is what Atlanta is THROUGHOUT THE SOUTH AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY: the place where the Braves don't sell out their playoff games.

 

[worstfaceoffmanever]

Is there any proof to back that up? Or just an opinion?

08-09

Thursday, the NHL commissioner received assurances – privately and publicly – from David Freeman, head of the Nashville Predators’ ownership group, that the local franchise will not lose money this season.

“(Freeman) indicated that the franchise is going to break even this year,” Bettman said. “In this environment, and with all the work they’ve done I think that’s a very telling statistic, in terms of people not having to worry about the franchise.”

07-08 and hinting at 10-11

“We’re going to show positive year-over-year growth in every revenue category. Savvy investors looks for trends. We can now exhibit that.”

Cogen isn’t willing to say the Predators are about to turn their second profit in their 13-year history (they made a modest $145,000 in 2007-08), although any loss will not be as severe as in previous seasons.

Can't find anything on 09-10, but I would suspect that they at least broke even then, considering that attendance was up from 07-08 and they had an extra home playoff game. Either way, the point stands: unless revenue sharing goes bye-bye, Nashville is not likely to be in any serious danger for the foreseeable future.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

All you guys talking about how the NHL needs to stick it out, etc--have you forgotten that the Thrashers are gonzo because nobody wants to own them in Atlanta anymore? All this talk about growing hockey in the southern US is great, but Joe Millionaire isn't going to endure $20 million in annual losses just so Johnny Numnuts and ten of his pals in Dallas decided to play rec hockey because of the Stars.

I don't know why anyone expects the NHL to be the guardians of hockey and to grow the game. I can understand exhibitions in non-traditional locales, and working with rec hockey programs to seed the ground and build hockey markets. That's what you do to pave the way for a possible NHL team in 10 or 20 years. Spending $100 or more million first to try and do this seems ass-backward, at best. It's like building a huge new factory for a product without even doing any market testing to see if anyone wants to buy the damn thing.

The whole southern expansion strategy makes no sense at all from a business standpoint. Atlanta is just the first domino to fall. There will be more.

 

[optimus2861]

My argument did not even bring up the numbers in Canada.

I admit it was something of a pot-shot on my part, but your numbers felt like they were just "dangling" there, with no or minimal context. I can take your exact same numbers and state that, after 20 years and multiple NHL franchises, a population base that is triple Canada's has increased its minor hockey registration numbers at such a glacial pace that they've only reached a little over 2% of Atlantic Canada's on a per-capita basis.

I would certainly never expect them to match ours, but 2% in 20 years? That is a generous definition of "southern expansion success".