BigE said:
We could start by eliminating six of the weakest teams, sure, but if you plan on throwing darts at the map, just like Gary did in picking expansion sites you might disappoint yourself. Taking attendance figures from one year is about as strong a support as using tunnel-vision population patterns in selecting hockey markets.
Btw, why not respond to our own line of conversation instead of someone elses...
So, name the six places that Washington, Chicago, Long Island, St. Louis, Nashville, and New Jersey should move to, in order to reward deserving hockey cities.
And, I'm sorry, are you now restricting people to reply only to very limited aspects of your posts, or are we free to respond freely without asking for your permission first? Perhaps you should be having your conversation with Sotnos by PM if you are concerned about other posters joining in.
Anyways,
Oh where to start....
Improve the level of competition. Are you really willing to debate what the difference in calibre of play would be if you eliminated 6 teams from the NHL, compared to if you did not? I'll give you a pass on a misread and move onto the next point.
It has been debated that an increased talent level can actually make games more defensive and less "thrilling" because of a far stronger defensive core on each team.
Getting the game into markets where it's going to thrive. Certainly this isn't easy but as I pointed out above, why place it in an area where there isn't even any grass-roots form of the game.
Oh, I don't know.
To expand the fanbase, maybe? Winnipeg had grass-roots, but it still couldn't hold onto a team. Who, besides you, is to say that Dallas was "less deserving?" This is a business, and owners and prospective owners do their research and try to make the right decision. You obviously think that the owners were wrong in their choice of markets. I do not.
The people in Florida were not begging for two NHL teams - 3/4 of them hadn't even heard of hockey ("you mean field, right?").
Apparently, neither are the good folks of New York City.
There are 280-some million people in the United States, and most of the ones in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, pick a confederate state not named Texas, don't give a flying **** about hockey as a whole.
A lot of Canadians don't give a flying **** about hockey, either. A lot of Canadians hate all sports in general.
See, I can make broad generalizations too!
But wait, tailgating self-proclaimed "rednecks" disprove that theory...sure.
I don't understand this, but of course, as you've mentioned to Sotnos, your arguments are way over our heads anyways.
Everybody loves a winner - lets see them show up for a mediocre team or a lousy team (oh, woops...that's right they were that bad not too long ago and the public's response to hockey was.... ).
I don't understand. Are you blaming people from staying away from crappy teams? Are the teams crappy because they're in non-traditional cities? I don't get this comment (not suprising, given my mediocre grasp on any issue that involves thinking). Why aren't you attacking Chicago fans for not showing up when the Hawks are crappy? Or are you saying that people should, like sheep, sell out every game for a pro sports team no matter how bad they are?
The part about deleting the id was an EXTREMELY sarcastic shot. Never was I serious, nor would I ever suggest that people refrain from stating opinions on this forum. Really.
Sorry.
Why are people upset with hockey in non-traditional markets? Because its success rate wouldn't pass any sort of business plan model in any other company, in any other industry.
And yet, they're all doing better than Chicago, an original six, Washington with Ovechkin, etc etc etc.
For crying out loud you might just have better luck throwing a ****ing dart at the map on the wall...hey, but I digress
Yeah, as long as you aim high, right?
Finally, something we can agree on.
).
