Funny thing is that this is exactly what happened. Tampa Bay set up shop in 1992, and their IHL affiliate was the Atlanta Knights. The Knights were enormously popular and had a huge following, then went away to clear the way for the Thrashers.
In fact, let's see here...
Houston had the Aeros, who were hugely popular. Houston nearly got the Oilers. Columbus had the Chill (ECHL), who were affiliated with Chicago (NHL) and Indianapolis (IHL). The Chill only had about 200 sellouts in eight seasons, including 91 straight. Nashville had the ECHL Knights, who were popular. And so on.
This may be a shock, but not everyone in an NHL market that's added a team in the last 20 years is a complete rube that doesn't know what they're watching. The sport isn't the problem and the market isn't the problem.
Oh, I'm totally aware of the roots of minor league hockey in markets which moved up to NHL hockey. That wasn't my point though. The point was that you needed to have Tampa be successful, then add Miami. When Miami's successful, you add Charlotte. When Charlotte's successful, you add Atlanta. (the order doesn't matter, what matters is you only have ONE GROWING MARKET IN EACH CONFERENCE AT A TIME).
As I've said dozens of times over the last two years: "When you add one or two members to your club of about 21, you grow the club; When you add 10 people to your club, you CHANGE the club." That's what the NHL did. They didn't GROW, they CHANGED.
The other main reason to bring new markets in SLOWLY is because if you wait until the last newbie has success, the next new guy HAS A BLUEPRINT to follow.
There are two variables that are overlooked far too often.
1) Options. Given the choice between watching a successful team or an unsuccessful one, people prefer the successful one. If someone is a fan of football and hockey and they can watch a successful football team or a feeble hockey team, what's that going to do to attendance?
2) Mediocrity. Plenty of people will see a good team or an average team, but no one will spend huge amounts of money to watch a team that they know is not only rebuilding or on the way down, but has no hope for a few years. Toronto is the exception that proves the rule on that; frankly, the idea that "Toronto does it, so the fact that (American city) doesn't is proof that it's not a hockey market" is a little bit like saying "I don't care that this player had 700 goals and 1500 points in his career; he didn't hit 895 and 2858, so he's not a Hall of Famer!"
The proof is in the pudding. The Minnesota North Stars had a year averaging less than 8,000 attendance; Chicago post-lockout had games of around 8,000; Pittsburgh in 2003-04 had a year of less than 12,000; and so on. That in is no way a reflection of whether or not that market can support hockey or an NHL team.
Maybe people would stop lumping Columbus in with Atlanta and Phoenix if the hockey team in Columbus wasn't about to become an economic disaster on par with the ones in Atlanta and Phoenix. I don't think map skills come into the equation anywhere.
I'll address these two things together, because they ARE linked. Unsuccessful, struggling teams happen EVERYWHERE. It isn't geographic. There only difference is a "Southern" team that's struggling is called a failure; a Northern team that's struggling has fans that will "Come back" when they start winning.
And yes, this isn't a market issue. The idea that a market the size of those with major pro sports teams can "fail" is absurd to me; Hockey can't fail. It's awesome. If large groups of people don't embrace hockey, it's because they haven't been properly introduced. That's not the failure of hockey, or the market. It's the failure of the people in charge of the introduction.
The only "market failed" case I could accept would be a market that simply doesn't have the cash to financially support a team.
Like (A) an NHL team in Caspar, Wyoming. That would be a failure. Because you expected a city of 75,000 with a per capita income under $20,000 to support a major pro sports team. That would be a "failure" because it was straight up a stupid decision.
Or (B) an actual city is too small to support it's NUMBER of major pro sports teams. Cleveland, for example, probably doesn't have the disposable entertainment dollars to support the Browns, Indians, Cavs... AND an NHL team.
There's a REASON the NHL is in Columbus and not Cincy (MLB, NFL) or Cleveland (NFL, MLB, NBA).
Nashville has NHL/NFL; Memphis has NBA
Tampa has MLB, NFL and NHL; Orlando has NBA
And a half-dozen other examples.
You get the idea.
Just playing devil's advocate - could it be possible that the ownership groups were the only options available to the BoG at the time of these franchises' inception? Was there a lineup of buyers to place teams in the failing markets? I would point at the debacle in Phoenix to show that there is not a large base of potential owners who are willing to dump money into the NHL in these markets.
Just a thought. Look forward to being refuted if the facts prove my opinion wrong.
Going back to the whole "Sudden expansion" was more of a failure than "Southern expansion" thing... When you are adding nine teams in 10 years, you're willing to give teams to ownership groups that aren't very strong because you're hell bent on expanding.
The potential ownership groups emerging NOW look a lot stronger than in the 90s when the NHL had all these teams to add and were looking for owners.
An existing team is going to cost you $160m to $250m. That's basically twice as expensive as an expansion team ($80m for ATL, CBJ, MIN, NASH). That weeds out owners who wouldn't strong owners.
Methods aside, there's also Balsillie who was willing to pay what? $242m + plus millions to the COG for a team in Hamilton?
A perfect example of two, deep pocketed, owners who no doubt are "hockey people" and would be great franchise owners.
No such prospective owners for the non-traditional markets.
Well, as I said before, JB was willing to pay a discount rate for a team in Hamilton, but has never attempted to buy a Hamilton franchise at it's full value.
His offer was $213 million for a team in Hamilton; when a team in Hamilton is valued anywhere between $275m and $315m, not including territorial rights to Buffalo/Toronto. He was trying to land a Hamilton team for 40 cents to the dollar of what it would realistically cost to get a team in Hamilton. I will dispute any claim that JB is an owner like George Stienbrenner or Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan until JB pulls out the checkbook and says "Tell me what it costs, and I'll write the check."
