Thing is, for Hamilton you can claim at least 3 million people within a half hour or that Hamilton is part of the GTHA, which about 6.4 million residents. Negates the population argument. But I see your point although I have heard it is about 50/50 on the block(paging kdb209)
Kansas City still looking for team?
- Thread starter Melrose Munch
- Start date
edog37
Registered User
I'm not saying it can't, but the Blues have a longevity factor in play that a prospective KC franchise can't claim. Minnesota is known as the "State of Hockey", so that is an easy one. Dallas was a pleasant surprise in terms of a growth market. Denver has a solid NCAA Division 1 hockey presence. I'm just not sure that KC would be a viable hockey market since it isn't a very large city, doesn't have a solid grassroots system in place & already failed as an NHL market once. Right now, it is best being utilized as a soft landing place for a franchise with arena issues.
edog37
Registered User
Wisconsin has a pretty good hockey history with the Badgers. However, there are other issues such as arena suitability, ownership, etc.
Ok, that all sounds like quite valid reasoning. So, a reasonably competitive relocated franchise perhaps, but not an expansion franchise. Sounds like the same argument that AdmiralsFan24 presented with respect to Milwaukee.
edog37
Registered User
How so? There's 83 miles between Milwaukee and Chicago. And although someone, can't remember who, was trying to present the idea the other day that the rule relates to an "overlapping" of the two cities potential territorial rights areas, I still don't see any evidence of such an interpretation in the rule (which then would really relate to a 100-mile zone).
Edit: Oh, and either way, to get back to where this particular discussion initiated, it still doesn't apply to Norfolk in relation to Washington.
Last edited:
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
Hard to say what an owner would be looking. I would think all owners would want an existing team even though chances are any team you get is going to suck for at least a couple years.
Although if a potential owner wanted to bring a team to Milwaukee that badly, they wouldn't really care if they got a relocated or expansion team, just like I'm sure a potential owner for a Kansas City franchise wouldn't care either.
And I also agree that Milwaukee couldn't support an NHL team as long as the Bucks are there. I still think Kansas City could. There's no competition in the winter other than the Chiefs who play once a week.
edog37
Registered User
edog37
Registered User
hasn't impacted our ability to support an NHL team....metro area is still 2.35 million
My Mistake, I was thinking of the Kilometers here. I was wrong.
And therefore, also wrong, sorry, with respect to Norfolk/Hampton Roads... I editted my post above.
edog37
Registered User
not really. Phoenix dwarfs both Pittsburgh & KC & is in danger of moving. Same with Atlanta. Population doesn't matter so much if you don't have a fan base. Pittsburgh has a strong fan base, history with the game, solid grassroots, etc. Does KC have these ingredients?
Phoenix also has 4 major league franchises, compared to 3 in Pittsburgh and only 2 in KC.
I think that Pittsburgh is pushing it with 3, though having competitive success in both the NFL and NHL, as well as having the most highly marketed player in Crosby, all really helps. KC being smaller, even if only slightly, and not having those advantages that Pittsburgh has... I again think that 3 major league franchises might be overly pushing it there. I mean, there is a reason why neither the NHL nor the NBA have rushed to try to get a team to utilize that nice new KC arena, and it's probably the same reason for why there also aren't a whole lot of potential owners trying to put a team there... KC just isn't a very secure option, and thus not a hugely attractive one.
It could happen, but first there needs to be an owner that wants to step up, and then a League (the NHL or NBA) that's feeling very secure with its current League situation, or desperate to put a relocated team somewhere.
Last edited:
edog37
Registered User
we really only have 2.25 franchises as the Sucs continue to rip off the taxpayers but I digress...
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
Urban Sprawl
The average city included in America's Top 10 is 340 square miles, more than six times the geographic size of Pittsburgh, at 56 square miles. Those mega-metropolises have spread out and swallowed their suburbs, broadening the city tax base to include as many people as they can. San Diego, the smallest of the 10 cities would swallow almost all of Allegheny County (which, incidentally, ranks at #30 among largest U.S. counties).
What This Means for Pittsburgh
If the Pittsburgh city limits were expanded to cover about the same area as any other Top 10 city, it would expand the city's population from roughly 330,000 to more than 1 million, making Pittsburgh the ninth largest city in the country. That's a pretty big change from #56.
The Pittsburgh Urbanized Area (UA), an area defined by the U.S. census as a city and its suburbs, is ranked #22 in the U.S. in population and #24 in the U.S. in terms of land area or sprawl (181.7 square miles). Then there is the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area (an area defined by the Census Bureau as covering the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland). Using that demographic, Pittsburgh ranks #21 in terms of population amoung U.S. cities.
It's a Matter of Perspective
Basically, they're all just numbers. In terms of population living in the greater Pittsburgh area, the city probably ranks somewhere in the top 20. It's not New York City, and it's not Podunk, Michigan. Pittsburgh is a large American city, with a downtown that is small enough to easily walk from one end to the other. It has all of the arts, culture and amenities that you would expect from a big city, with the heart, charm and feel of a much smaller one. Fred Rogers once called Pittsburgh one of America's "biggest small towns." Welcome to the neighborhood.
http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/facts/f/how_big.htm
The Pittsburgh area also has a strong decades long history of being one of the strongest hockey markets in the country as far as who actually watches games in the market (they have been top three for literally two decades now):
for the fourth consecutive season, the Pittsburgh Penguins ranked 1st in the NHL’s local TV ratings, according to the Pittsburgh Business Times. the Penguins averaged an 8.68 rating on FSN Pittsburgh up until April 1st, when FSN Pittsburgh changed its name to ROOT Sports, due to the network being bought out by DirecTV.
http://citynewspost.com/pittsburgh-penguins-king-of-nhl-tv-ratings/857136/
As for KC, a lot would be going on faith and projections. One other issue I see in coming years with KC is that the longer that there is no NHL/NBA team, the less bright and spanking new the arena will be. It is almost 4 years old now, and what is cutting edge becomes less and less so as time goes on. The selling point will diminish as four years becomes six becomes a decade. KC really needs to strike sooner rather than later IMO.
The NHL BOG (They're the organ grinder; Betmann is merely their monkey) does not want to add Canadian franchises. This is especially true for existing Canadian franchises, because they carve up regional pay-TV rights for Canada amongst themselves (I'm not talking about the CBC OTA broadcasts). A Winnipeg team means that Calgary and Edmonton and Toronto lose regional pay-TV rights in Eastern Saskatchewan, all of Manitoba, and probably northwestern Ontario. A Quebec City team means that Montreal loses pay-TV rights in parts of Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
While the NHL might not WANT Winnipeg and Quebec, they want contraction even less. If there aren't enough American owners+arenas to move failing teams to, the NHL will, as a last resort, move teams to WInnipeg and QC. I still believe that they would sooner contract than put a team in Hamilton. Here is my list of NHL preferences (IMHO), from most to least desirable...
- Keep American franchises in America, and add even more
- Move failing US franchises to other US cities
- Move a couple of failing US franchises to Winnipeg and Quebec
- Contract failing franchises
- Put a franchise in Hamilton
bosshogg18
Registered User
I am from the States and I prefer when Canadian teams are on TV here. I also love watching Hockey Night in Canada when I get the chance (get CBC in the Seattle market).
Do people in the States really want to watch Phoenix, Carolina, or Florida more than Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal? Sorry my Oilers are down and the Senators are down as well, so I can see them as not drawing well in the States.
I wouldn't bet on that. The Bills won't move to Toronto full time until there's a new stadium (and one is about a decade away)... there's plenty of time for a big investor to step up and commit to the split games deal.
Shawa666
Registered User
The NHL BOG (They're the organ grinder; Betmann is merely their monkey) does not want to add Canadian franchises. This is especially true for existing Canadian franchises, because they carve up regional pay-TV rights for Canada amongst themselves (I'm not talking about the CBC OTA broadcasts). A Winnipeg team means that Calgary and Edmonton and Toronto lose regional pay-TV rights in Eastern Saskatchewan, all of Manitoba, and probably northwestern Ontario. A Quebec City team means that Montreal loses pay-TV rights in parts of Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
While the NHL might not WANT Winnipeg and Quebec, they want contraction even less. If there aren't enough American owners+arenas to move failing teams to, the NHL will, as a last resort, move teams to WInnipeg and QC. I still believe that they would sooner contract than put a team in Hamilton. Here is my list of NHL preferences (IMHO), from most to least desirable...
- Keep American franchises in America, and add even more
- Move failing US franchises to other US cities
- Move a couple of failing US franchises to Winnipeg and Quebec
- Contract failing franchises
- Put a franchise in Hamilton
Montreal is not a problem, if we learn that they oppose a team in Québec or the Peg, We can always boycott Molson again.
