What's ridiculous about it?
Clearly there's a problem with many of the southern teams, and based on the incredible response to Winnipeg's season ticket drive, it seems pretty obvious that bringing teams back to traditional markets is not only a near-guarantee that a team will be successful, but a massive PR bonus for the league as well, especially here in Canada.
Clearly there is a problem with many of the southern teams:
- Carolina, which has an owner of 17 years, who remains committed to the team. Loves the team, doesn't care about year-to-year profit/loss as the team is just one aspect of his portfolio, they won a cup, average about 16,000 fans since the lockout.
- Nashville, with their steady revenue growth since the lockout despite ownership and lease issues still being sorted out, attendance rock steady at the 15,000 mark; one of the few new teams to be developing traditions with the Standing O and the Cellblock; playoff berths in six of seven years and now coming off their first playoff win. Went to dynamic pricing in the playoffs and increased ticket revenue 30% and could go to that for next season for all games to further increase revenue.
- Dallas, aka the poster boys of a "southern success story." Forbes shows the team in the black for the last 10 years, ranked #10 in franchise value. Claims that the team "lost money" somehow coincided with Tom Hicks assuming $500 million in debt buying Liverpool. The team wasn't bankrupt, Hicks was. Just like the Rangers, who were bankrupt in July and in the World Series in October, there's zero worries for a team with more revenue last year than Minnesota or Pittsburgh.
- Tampa Bay. New ownership, Yzerman in charge, averaged 17,700 over the last nine seasons, including 20,600 the first year after the lockout.
- LA and Anaheim, two teams in Los Angeles with revenues over $85 million. Not much reason to worry there.
Florida and Phoenix are our two struggling southern markets now; and the Islanders continue to be our struggling northern market.
Granted, no one seems to notice or care when the same indicators we use to say "southern failure!" happen to northern teams. Like the Bruins averaging under 15,000 fans in 2007; or the fact that the Blues have had a negative operating income in the last 10 seasons, haven't won a playoff series in eight, and somehow their franchise is valued at $14 million less than it was in 1998.
Of any current NHL team, Houston's market potential most closely resembles Dallas; who's top 10 in revenue and value.
We might not have the cities with mega-populations like they do down south, but we have waaaay more hockey fans per capita, and it's not a bad thing for the NHL to throw a bone to its strongest and most passionate fanbase every once in a while. It has definitely done more than enough for the southern fans, who haven't really responded well.
I don't disagree with any of that.
(Well, okay, I disagree with the "haven't really responded well." If there was any truth to the whole "warm-weather cities just don't get hockey" argument, then getting 15,000 in LA, ANA, SJ, DAL, TB, FLA, ATL, CAR, DAL is pretty freaking incredible. So, I consider it neither "not responding well" or "incredible." It's about what you'd expect. After decades of being relatively exclusive to the north, the NHL basically established the fact that hockey is universally popular).
Despite the fact that I'm always on here "defending" southern markets, I'm actually a traditionalist, and would love to see the return of the Jets moniker, and the Nordiques and Whalers franchises; and I am twice as likely to tune in to my team playing the teams other than FLA, PHX, ATL, CAR and NASH.
And yes, you're 100% correct: We need a team in Quebec before we put a team in Houston.
But I also think that Houston could be key to getting a team in Quebec. Florida is locked in to their lease, and we know the NHL isn't going to want to have a "southern exodus" if the Coyotes move.
Therefore, I think we'd be just fine going to 32 teams with Quebec, Houston and Seattle getting teams and PHX relocating.
THAT is how they should have expanded in the first place: "one large southern market with intense sports passion we think will work and help us grow the game, along with one under-served northern market we know is a slam dunk to be successful." The problem wasn't growing the game. The numbers show the game has grown in terms of participation in the south, the US TV contract, etc, etc. The problem to me has always been the southern expansion.
And by the way, the examination of the Blues financials according to Forbes, would indicate to me that an NHL team in Kansas City should NEVER HAPPEN.
because maybe i'm looking silly for taking you seriously.
