Nationality and US popularity

[hockey diva]

It certainly sounds like hatred to me, Killon.

Also you didn't "lose your teams to the South". Of the 3 teams relocated, only one (a US team) went to the "South". The South, as I and many other people view it, consists of those states that were part of the Confederacy in the Civil War. One went to a more traditional market in Denver. One went to Arizona.

I'm not trying to stir things up, just make some observations. And yes, I am a full season plus a half season ticket holder for the Predators. So I do put my money where my mouth is lol.

 

[Faltorvo]

Is it wrong to say that the reason the main stream society in the United States largely ignores hockey because it is seen as "un-american"?

In 1999-2000 12% of the NHL was American. Now a decade later its almost doubled to 22% in 09-10. That is good progress, yet it's still quite small. American stars have emerged, like big buff, pavelski, kane, kesler, brown, dubinsky etc. who hopefully can change the tides.
however, American teams mostly rely on foreign talent to score goals and win games.

I have seen many a broadcast from a US market where they talk incessantly about the "americans" in the particular game. *coughVERSUS* almost mental gymnastics when its obvious that the majority of the players are for instance french canadian, or slavic, or scandinavian. they seem to try to divert the audience attention away from these non-anglo names by "promoting" even obscure american players, like that Chris Clark is from Connecticut, said THREE TIMES in a single game last week on versus.


so for americans: would an increase in both the number of US players and stars in the NHL affect its popularity there?

I can see how more star players from the USA would be a great thing.

IMO i believe it has to do with the fact that , it was not a game that many folks grew up playing. Part of the "fabric " if you will.

I follow many sports and i only follow 1 that i did not grow up playing.

Curling ( Canadian) surprise, lol

I find it's also interesting that the sports i was better at , i follow more.

 

[Killion]

It certainly sounds like hatred to me, Killon.

In some cases I fear you may be right. What to think of people who paint their faces, wear shorts & t-shirts outdoors in -30 degree weather, get nearly blind drunk, then watch grown men beat the Hell out of one another with sticks?.


And ya, South'd be yer Mason-Dixon excluding Florida, know all about it, Id be one of your very own Tennessee Squire's from Moore County, including the hamlet of Lynchburg ;

As for the rest, Southwest distinct from Texas, a seperate country altogether and No Place for Old Men; and California?. Well, California's California. Oh, and stay out of New Mexico. Area 52, 53 & 54.....

 

[hockey diva]

Then what the heck are ya doin' up there?

I know how much the Preds mean to me so I do understand the anger. I think it would be good to have teams back in Winnipeg and QC. But, you'll have to excuse me if I don't want either of them to have my team.

Now back to your regular thread...

 

[Killion]

Then what the heck are ya doin' up there?

Kidnapped by Bluebellies.

 

[Fidel Astro]

I think too that you have consider where that "hate" should be directed. It was the League that opened the door to these "southern cities", and now whether the fanbases are strong or not, they do exist to some extent and you're basically wishing upon them what happened to you. And in the case of Atlanta, that city wasn't the recipient of a re-located team. In fact, Atlanta lost its first team to a Canadian city. I suppose what you can be angered about is that Atlanta got another team, while Winnipeg and Quebec City still haven't. But then, Atlanta got a second chance 19 years after they lost the Flames; it's still only 15-16 years since the Nordiques and Jets left town. So hey, give it 3 or 4 more years and Winnipeg and Quebec City might get teams again.

The main problem is the NHL's double standard. The league is going waaaaay above and beyond to keep a team in a city that has always lost money, has atrocious fan support, and where hockey is not, and never will be, part of the culture.

It's not just that they wrenched the Jets away from their traditional home Winnipeg, but they're adding insult to injury by saying "even though these people down here clearly don't give a **** about your beloved team, we're still going to do everything possible to prevent them from being repatriated."

Are the Phoenix fans responsible for the relocation of the Jets? No, but **** them anyway. Throughout this entire process, they have given absolutely zero indication that they care one iota about their team. The team has a good chance of being saved and attendance drops? Are you serious? What the **** is that about?

It's a slap in the face. Even though their team is in dire straights and needs their support, they still can't be bothered to show up ....and they still might get to keep the team?!? I won't have any sympathy for them if the team moves.

Oooh, some kids down in Phoenix are going to bummed out that the Coyotes are leaving. Who cares? They can go back to watching baseball or whatever culturally-relevant sport they are more into anyway (see that other thread where a lot of Americans are talking about how they're hockey fans, but they're football or baseball fans first).

Maybe this is selfish, but I'm more concerned about Canadian kids who grow up playing hockey. When I was growing up, all I cared about was hockey. I didn't watch football, baseball, basketball or anything else. I couldn't have even told you who won the championships in any other sports. Do you know how many kids there are like that in Canada? In Winnipeg? These are the kids I'm concerned about -- kids who are being deprived of the opportunity to see the sport they worship at the highest level because some greedy **** down in a foreign country has this ******** dream about a "TV deal".

 

[Captain Mittens*]

The main problem is the NHL's double standard. The league is going waaaaay above and beyond to keep a team in a city that has always lost money, has atrocious fan support, and where hockey is not, and never will be, part of the culture.

It's not just that they wrenched the Jets away from their traditional home Winnipeg, but they're adding insult to injury by saying "even though these people down here clearly don't give a **** about your beloved team, we're still going to do everything possible to prevent them from being repatriated."

Are the Phoenix fans responsible for the relocation of the Jets? No, but **** them anyway. Throughout this entire process, they have given absolutely zero indication that they care one iota about their team. The team has a good chance of being saved and attendance drops? Are you serious? What the **** is that about?

It's a slap in the face. Even though their team is in dire straights and needs their support, they still can't be bothered to show up ....and they still might get to keep the team?!? I won't have any sympathy for them if the team moves.

Oooh, some kids down in Phoenix are going to bummed out that the Coyotes are leaving. Who cares? They can go back to watching baseball or whatever culturally-relevant sport they are more into anyway (see that other thread where a lot of Americans are talking about how they're hockey fans, but they're football or baseball fans first).

Maybe this is selfish, but I'm more concerned about Canadian kids who grow up playing hockey. When I was growing up, all I cared about was hockey. I didn't watch football, baseball, basketball or anything else. I couldn't have even told you who won the championships in any other sports. Do you know how many kids there are like that in Canada? In Winnipeg? These are the kids I'm concerned about -- kids who are being deprived of the opportunity to see the sport they worship at the highest level because some greedy **** down in a foreign country has this ******** dream about a "TV deal".

You don't think fans in Los Angeles feel the same way about the NFL? Neither LA team ever had attendance issues , both teams drew amazingly, but LA lost 2 teams in the same season and I do post on some NFL messageboards and I have yet to see a single LA fan posting about Jacksonville, etc what Canadian fans post about Phoenix and the teams in Florida.

 

[MoreOrr]

The main problem is the NHL's double standard. The league is going waaaaay above and beyond to keep a team in a city that has always lost money, has atrocious fan support, and where hockey is not, and never will be, part of the culture.

And a change in attitude or League policy is not permitted? Hey, I understand exactly what you're saying, but if it was wrong then not to have put more effort into keeping those teams (Jets, Nordiques, Whalers) in their cities then it's a good thing that the League has changed its policy and now tries even harder to not re-locate teams. If you think that it was correct that the Jets, Nordiques, and Whalers were re-located, then I suppose you have reason, in saying that the League shouldn't be trying to protect these teams today, that re-location of teams is not a bad thing.

Personally, I'm in the middle on the issue of re-location. I see it has a perfectly logical option when the financial bleeding can't be stopped or when the city in question no longer has the facilities to properly ice a team within the League's dynamics (and there's no effort being made to change that). Or if after a significant length of time there's no one who is willing and able to take over the ownership of the team in that city.

If after significant effort and time has been spent, one or more of those criteria can't be met, then there's little practical option other than re-location (assuming that that's even an available option). Now, has the League gone above and beyond what would be considered reasonable in Phoenix, some may well say, Yes. If you're one of those, then I suppose you have reason to be unhappy with the League.

But again, if you think that the Jets should never have been re-located in the first place, then you also have to accept that perhaps there's been a change in League policy regarding re-locating teams since that time.

 

[barneyg]

I think too that you have consider where that "hate" should be directed. It was the League that opened the door to these "southern cities", and now whether the fanbases are strong or not, they do exist to some extent and you're basically wishing upon them what happened to you. And in the case of Atlanta, that city wasn't the recipient of a re-located team. In fact, Atlanta lost its first team to a Canadian city. I suppose what you can be angered about is that Atlanta got another team, while Winnipeg and Quebec City still haven't. But then, Atlanta got a second chance 19 years after they lost the Flames; it's still only 15-16 years since the Nordiques and Jets left town. So hey, give it 3 or 4 more years and Winnipeg and Quebec City might get teams again.

I hear you, we just don't want to be stuck with Yannick Tremblay as a #1 d-man

 

[tarheelhockey]

And a change in attitude or League policy is not permitted? Hey, I understand exactly what you're saying, but if it was wrong then not to have put more effort into keeping those teams (Jets, Nordiques, Whalers) in their cities then it's a good thing that the League has changed its policy and now tries even harder to not re-locate teams. If you think that it was correct that the Jets, Nordiques, and Whalers were re-located, then I suppose you have reason, in saying that the League shouldn't be trying to protect these teams today, that re-location of teams is not a bad thing.

I think Atlanta is the best example of this. In 1980 it was league policy to stand by and allow teams to be bought and relocated at will, and at that time the dynamic was to move them northward. The result was the abandonment of the southeastern region during a critical period where you had Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Jagr et all in the league and eventually a crescendo of popularity around '94 or so.

If the league had simply said "no" to relocating the Flames, we would not be talking about the Thrashers' issues today. There would be no Atlanta Spirit, to say nothing of the nonsense with Kovalchuk. Expanding to the southeast would not have been a big deal because there would already be a footprint to expand upon -- teams in Florida and Nashville and Carolina would have an established rival nearby from Day One. The league would be a different, and likely healthier, place to do business.

That's the butterfly effect of relocation. Today it might seem obvious that Phoenix or Florida or Atlanta should be moved, but 30 years down the road we might look at Phoenix with 8 million snowbirds and think, "Jeez, if only we had left a team there instead of letting them get that KHL team"

 

[MoreOrr]

I think Atlanta is the best example of this. In 1980 it was league policy to stand by and allow teams to be bought and relocated at will, and at that time the dynamic was to move them northward. The result was the abandonment of the southeastern region during a critical period where you had Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Jagr et all in the league and eventually a crescendo of popularity around '94 or so.

I don't think you can call the re-location of one team "northward" a "dynamic" that was taking place at that time. But yes, certainly back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s it seemed as if re-location was fair game, done with little hesitation.

Just a casual glance at the re-location history in the modern era, and I'd say that the Colorado Rockies were likely the worst case. There were a couple of re-locations that took place just after 1 or 2 Seasons, and in that short time span there really hasn't been much invested or established. But in the Rockies case they had 6 Seasons, long enough to have developed something of a base, but truly not long enough to really discover, if with team success, a strong fanbase could ultimately be established. The next worst case re-location scenario I would say might in fact be the Flames from Atlanta. They had 8 Seasons, which is getting close to what I imagine would be enough time to evaluate if the franchise can ultimately be a success, but in today's NHL re-location climate, still falling short of what could've been permitted.

But still, there's another aspect that probably should be considered here. Back in those days, did the League have the financial capability it has today to keep financially problematic franchises around for long? Perhaps that's also part of the dynamic today, that the League can actually afford to give these struggling franchises more time to resolve their issues.

 

[Fidel Astro]

You don't think fans in Los Angeles feel the same way about the NFL? Neither LA team ever had attendance issues , both teams drew amazingly, but LA lost 2 teams in the same season and I do post on some NFL messageboards and I have yet to see a single LA fan posting about Jacksonville, etc what Canadian fans post about Phoenix and the teams in Florida.

I have no frame of reference for the LA/NFL situation because I don't care about football. I'm sure if teams had been taken from LA and moved to Canada, there would probably be a bigger uproar than there was about wherever they got moved to.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think you can call the re-location of one team "northward" a "dynamic" that was taking place at that time.

California -> Cleveland
Cleveland -> Minnesota (merger)
Atlanta -> Calgary
Colorado -> New Jersey

That period could be characterized as a "retraction" back to the north and east after the first expansion period. We are arguably in a similar era right now.

The next worst case re-location scenario I would say might in fact be the Flames from Atlanta. They had 8 Seasons, which is getting close to what I imagine would be enough time to evaluate if the franchise can ultimately be a success, but in today's NHL re-location climate, still falling short of what could've been permitted.

The thing about Atlanta is they were doing just fine in terms of fan support. Front-office issues doomed the franchise, but it wasn't because of empty arenas. That to me is the real tragedy -- by all indications it was another Los Angeles in the making, but was cut off at the roots.

But still, there's another aspect that probably should be considered here. Back in those days, did the League have the financial capability it has today to keep financially problematic franchises around for long? Perhaps that's also part of the dynamic today, that the League can actually afford to give these struggling franchises more time to resolve their issues.

I think that's one of the major shifts that occurred in the 1990s -- the NHL went "big business" to a degree it never had before, and gained enough capital to be more deliberate about its locations. It's hard to say whether the relocations of the mid-90s could have been avoided with intervention, but certainly by the late 90s the league had both the financial wherewithal and the willingness to step in when necessary. It'll be interesting to see what lessons they take out of Phoenix, whether that policy will be reinforced or eroded by their experience with the Coyotes. A lot is riding on the next couple of seasons down there.

 

[Fidel Astro]

And a change in attitude or League policy is not permitted? Hey, I understand exactly what you're saying, but if it was wrong then not to have put more effort into keeping those teams (Jets, Nordiques, Whalers) in their cities then it's a good thing that the League has changed its policy and now tries even harder to not re-locate teams. If you think that it was correct that the Jets, Nordiques, and Whalers were re-located, then I suppose you have reason, in saying that the League shouldn't be trying to protect these teams today, that re-location of teams is not a bad thing.

The changes in the league's policy happened very 'conveniently' after the Jets and Nordiques were already gone. Of course the league is permitted to change its rules whenever it feels like it, but it certainly seems suspicious that the struggling teams receiving an excess of support from the league are those created as part of the sunbelt expansion, which has been the pet project of the current NHL leadership since day one.

As for whether teams should be relocated...sure they should. If they aren't working in their current market under current conditions, move 'em. It would have been nice if the NHL instituted the salary cap and revenue sharing before the Jets left, as that would have been a big help, but under the conditions in '95-96, they had no choice but to leave. In Phoenix, the conditions over the past few years (which are mainly self-imposed) have also made it impossible for the team to thrive, yet the NHL steps in time and again to keep them there. It's not right.

Does anyone honestly expect the Phoenix Coyotes, even with a new owner, to start making money within the next five years? I'm being serious. Look at their attendance. There are two reasons the NHL is hanging on to them:

1) This idiotic "TV deal" dream, which doesn't take into account that no one in Phoenix wants to watch the Coyotes on TV in the first place.

2) Bettman/the league's refusal to admit a mistake. I think a lot of this nonsense is because they want to save face. "See, I told you a team in the desert could be viable! Look, they still exist!"

Personally, I'm in the middle on the issue of re-location. I see it has a perfectly logical option when the financial bleeding can't be stopped or when the city in question no longer has the facilities to properly ice a team within the League's dynamics (and there's no effort being made to change that). Or if after a significant length of time there's no one who is willing and able to take over the ownership of the team in that city.

If after significant effort and time has been spent, one or more of those criteria can't be met, then there's little practical option other than re-location (assuming that that's even an available option). Now, has the League gone above and beyond what would be considered reasonable in Phoenix, some may well say, Yes. If you're one of those, then I suppose you have reason to be unhappy with the League.

Pretty much everything you said there describes Phoenix.

 

[MoreOrr]

California -> Cleveland
Cleveland -> Minnesota (merger)
Atlanta -> Calgary
Colorado -> New Jersey

That period could be characterized as a "retraction" back to the north and east after the first expansion period. We are arguably in a similar era right now.

I don't really consider the Cleveland merger with Minnesota to be anything that could sincerely be called a re-location/retraction north. And as for Colorado to New Jersey, going from 39 degrees/44 north to 40 degrees/44 north, that's not much of a northward move, haha... though from Denver to Newark certainly is an eastward move.

So you've got California/Oakland to Cleveland to support your case, though again one could easily say that it was much more an eastward move than a northward one.
And then, Atlanta to Calgary was like the reverse, from east to west (ok, northwest .

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I have no frame of reference for the LA/NFL situation because I don't care about football. I'm sure if teams had been taken from LA and moved to Canada, there would probably be a bigger uproar than there was about wherever they got moved to.

These posts confuse me. I'm not singling you out, well I am because I quoted your post, but it's just an example. There are numerous posts on this forum talking about Canada vs. US in these matters, and most are from Canadian posters. Now I also listen to sports radio from all over the US and Canada, and I have noticed as an example on Rogers Sportsnet stations there is some, but not much nationalism.

As an American, I don't think in those terms. I think in terms of cities or maybe states/provinces. A team from Calgary is no more foreign to me than a team from California. There is a lot of cheering for Make it Seven type things, yet I've never heard an American cheer for a team to move to say, Kansas City because it would be a new American team. I can't imagine LA Rams/Raiders fans care whether their team moved to Oakland, St. Louis or Montreal. Their team is gone.

Can you help me understand?

Edit: In fact, I think there are some regional US rivalries but that's about it. The southeast has a thing- at bowl games people chant SEC, SEC! and I think it stems from some real or imagined sleights on the NCAA sports scene in the past.
I've never heard an ACC/Big10/PAC10/BigXII etc. chant.

 

[MoreOrr]

These posts confuse me. I'm not singling you out, well I am because I quoted your post, but it's just an example. There are numerous posts on this forum talking about Canada vs. US in these matters, and most are from Canadian posters. Now I also listen to sports radio from all over the US and Canada, and I have noticed as an example on Rogers Sportsnet stations there is some, but not much nationalism.

As an American, I don't think in those terms. I think in terms of cities or maybe states/provinces. A team from Calgary is no more foreign to me than a team from California. There is a lot of cheering for Make it Seven type things, yet I've never heard an American cheer for a team to move to say, Kansas City because it would be a new American team. I can't imagine LA Rams/Raiders fans care whether their team moved to Oakland, St. Louis or Montreal. Their team is gone.

You know, it does matter, and greatly, to the TV networks, especially those in the US, that carry NHL games. And they cater to the numerous casual hockey fans that they hope every game will tune in, and those casual hockey fans probably do have more interest if it's a US-based team than if it's a Canada-based team.

But then, as more hardcore hockey, most of us probably don't really care that much. As you say, some may be just interested in their team, or the teams in their teams Division, and it doesn't matter where any of the other teams are located, in Canada, other parts of the US, wherever.

As for myself, I'm not strongly nationalist with respect to NHL teams. Yes, there are three Canadian teams that I like to varying degrees, and it's partially nationalistic, but there are few US-based teams that I like equally or even more, obviously the Bruins being one. Again, as you say, it's not so much which country a team is based in but rather which city or general region of the continent. It's the sport and specifically the League (NHL) that I am a fan of.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

You know, it does matter, and greatly, to the TV networks, especially those in the US, that carry NHL games. And they cater to the numerous casual hockey fans that they hope every game will tune in, and those casual hockey fans probably do have more interest if it's a US-based team than if it's a Canada-based team.

But then, as more hardcore hockey, most of us probably don't really care that much. As you say, some may be just interested in their team, or the teams in their teams Division, and it doesn't matter where any of the other teams are located, in Canada, other parts of the US, wherever.

As for myself, I'm not strongly nationalist with respect to NHL teams. Yes, there are there Canadian teams that I like to varying degrees, and it's partially nationalistic, but there are few US-based teams that I like equally or even more, obviously the Bruins being one. Again, as you say, it's not so much which country to team is based in but rather which city or general region of the continent.

As far as the networks go, I don't think it's US vs. Canada. In fact I'm sure NBC would rather show Montreal or Toronto than Columbus,Minnesota, Phoenix or Nashville. The Networks just want to show the Rangers/Flyers/Caps/Pens/Red Wings/Blackhawks/Bruins.

To take it a step further, I would like to see expansion to QC/Winnipeg/So. Ontario. I also don't want to see fans in Phoenix or Atlanta lose their teams either. In order to get this, I believe it's critical for the NHL to sell hockey to a wider audience. Imagine if a much greater number of US high school athletes became hockey players?

Wow- could you see a LeBron James as a real Jumbo center? How about some of these NFL linebackers, NBA power forwards. You could stock 50 NHL teams and improve the quality of play!

 

[MoreOrr]

The changes in the league's policy happened very 'conveniently' after the Jets and Nordiques were already gone. Of course the league is permitted to change its rules whenever it feels like it, but it certainly seems suspicious that the struggling teams receiving an excess of support from the league are those created as part of the sunbelt expansion, which has been the pet project of the current NHL leadership since day one.

As for whether teams should be relocated...sure they should. If they aren't working in their current market under current conditions, move 'em. It would have been nice if the NHL instituted the salary cap and revenue sharing before the Jets left, as that would have been a big help, but under the conditions in '95-96, they had no choice but to leave. In Phoenix, the conditions over the past few years (which are mainly self-imposed) have also made it impossible for the team to thrive, yet the NHL steps in time and again to keep them there. It's not right.

It would appear that you gave at least one explanation that could refute your suspicians. The Jets didn't have the benefit of a Salary Cap League back then. And if you think the Salary Cap was instituted just to protect southern market teams (and specifically after the League had rid itself of cities like Winnipeg, Quebec City, and Hartford) then I'd have to serously question your reasoning on that. At the time that the League went into the Lockout, the Canadian dollar still wasn't doing that well against the US dollar, so the Salary was good then for teams like Edmonton, Calgary, and Ottawa.

Pretty much everything you said there describes Phoenix.

You won't find me disagreeing with that.

 

[Fidel Astro]

These posts confuse me. I'm not singling you out, well I am because I quoted your post, but it's just an example. There are numerous posts on this forum talking about Canada vs. US in these matters, and most are from Canadian posters. Now I also listen to sports radio from all over the US and Canada, and I have noticed as an example on Rogers Sportsnet stations there is some, but not much nationalism.

As an American, I don't think in those terms. I think in terms of cities or maybe states/provinces. A team from Calgary is no more foreign to me than a team from California. There is a lot of cheering for Make it Seven type things, yet I've never heard an American cheer for a team to move to say, Kansas City because it would be a new American team. I can't imagine LA Rams/Raiders fans care whether their team moved to Oakland, St. Louis or Montreal. Their team is gone.

Can you help me understand?

For me, at least, it's like this:

In countries like the US, there are a number of incredibly popular sports, all of which have deep roots in the culture. Football and baseball, in particular, are incredibly American games, even though they are played in other countries. Basketball is up there as well. These are all sports Americans play and/or follow from a very young age. Here in Canada, although other sports can be popular, there's one sport that is unquestionably the most popular, and that's hockey.

It's a deeply embedded part of Canadian culture, almost in a way that outsiders can't understand. In the States, you have cultural touchstones -- historical events that everyone is familiar with, whether it's something from the Civil War or whatever ...something everyone is familiar with from childhood onwards.

Although Canada has a lot of interesting history, our cultural touchstones are primarily hockey-based. The '72 Summit Series is a good example. I wasn't even born yet in '72, but I know all about that series. I've seen Paul Henderson's famous goal hundreds of times -- on TV, in textbooks, on postage stamps. I can't count the number of times I read "the Hockey Sweater," in both English and French as a kid, and I still have a copy to read to my own kid. Hell, a passage from that book is on the back of the Canadian five dollar bill, which also has an image of kids playing hockey on it. Do you see what I mean? Hockey is even on our money.

It's everywhere. Hockey will always be associated with Canada. I know people from other countries who, before moving here, knew only one thing about Canada: hockey. Canadians still make up the majority of NHL players, we're still a huge power internationally (men's and women's Olympic wins, for example) and our NHL teams are by far the best-supported. It's our game. Other people play it, but it's Canadian. Just like baseball is an American sport. Sure, the Blue Jays are still around, and we used to have the Expos, but no one ever questioned the "American-ness" of the game.

How would US baseball fans feel if the MLB expanded and gave most of its new franchises to cities in Canada? How would they feel if the league went a step further and took teams from American cities and moved them to Canada? How would they feel if fans in those Canadian cities utterly ignored those teams, but the league continued to support them at all costs and prevent baseball-loving American fans from enjoying teams of their own?

I think it would seem a lot like cultural appropriation of the worst kind. That's what the NHL's sunbelt experiment seems like to me. Canadian sport, Canadian players, but Canada is forbidden from having its own teams, aside from a few juggernauts that managed to (barely, in some cases) survive the Bettman Persecutions. It's all about money, and while I realize the NHL is a business, that aspect of it is very disappointing -- it's like an important aspect of our culture is being mass-marketed to make a quick buck, with little to no regard for its roots or the people who originated it.

I know I've used this example before, but it's like white people playing the blues. Don't get me wrong -- there are a number of white musicians who are excellent blues players and don't deserve the "cultural appropriation" tag, but there are also a lot of them who can play the right notes but are lacking the most important aspect -- the soul.

The Phoenix Coyotes, for example, might be able to play the riff correctly, but they don't put any soul into it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So you've got California/Oakland to Cleveland to support your case, though again one could easily say that it was much more an eastward move than a northward one.
And then, Atlanta to Calgary was like the reverse, from east to west (ok, northwest .

I guess the general pattern was that you had teams in the hockey "hinterlands" (southeast, American west) moving back to the hockey "heartlands" (northeast, American and Canadian midwest). After a decade of pushing outward, the league allowed the tide to roll back inward and effectively wasted at least 40 years of effort -- 10 on the first expansion, then another 20 waiting for re-expansion, and now 10 and counting on the second expansion. If they had just stayed the course to begin with, there would still have been teams in Calgary and Minnesota, and the situation in the hinterlands would be much healthier today.

Edit: In fact, I think there are some regional US rivalries but that's about it. The southeast has a thing- at bowl games people chant SEC, SEC! and I think it stems from some real or imagined sleights on the NCAA sports scene in the past.
I've never heard an ACC/Big10/PAC10/BigXII etc. chant.

They simply want their teams to be known as the collective "big boys" in football. It's fueled partially by cultural phenomena (the deep south is still semi-nationalist in some places and college sports are a convenient catharsis for that) but really it comes down to wanting their own teams to look better against the rest of the country.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

, yet I've never heard an American cheer for a team to move to say, Kansas City because it would be a new American team. I can't imagine LA Rams/Raiders fans care whether their team moved to Oakland, St. Louis or Montreal. Their team is gone.

.

Exactly

Raiders and Rams fans have never really addressed that the attendance was higher in LA than either of their new locations, just that the teams are gone.
The difference is that the "rage" is at the ownership and the league instead of the new markets


I think the Canadian media is more to blame for the backlash against the new markets than anything else. I personally don't understand why they wouldn't just be pissed at ownership for moving the team.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

As for whether teams should be relocated...sure they should. If they aren't working in their current market under current conditions, move 'em. It would have been nice if the NHL instituted the salary cap and revenue sharing before the Jets left, as that would have been a big help, but under the conditions in '95-96, they had no choice but to leave. In Phoenix, the conditions over the past few years (which are mainly self-imposed) have also made it impossible for the team to thrive, yet the NHL steps in time and again to keep them there. It's not right.

The owners did try to get a salary cap in the 94 lockout and lost.

I know I've used this example before, but it's like white people playing the blues. Don't get me wrong -- there are a number of white musicians who are excellent blues players and don't deserve the "cultural appropriation" tag, but there are also a lot of them who can play the right notes but are lacking the most important aspect -- the soul.

You should listen to Stevie Ray Vaughn some time

 

[Fidel Astro]

And if you think the Salary Cap was instituted just to protect southern market teams (and specifically after the League had rid itself of cities like Winnipeg, Quebec City, and Hartford) then I'd have to serously question your reasoning on that.

I don't think the salary cap was instituted just to protect southern teams, but I think the league was quite happy to be rid of teams like the Jets, Nordiques and Whalers, as they provided openings for the southern expansion plan. The NHL didn't even make a half-assed attempt to save those teams, and yet, 15 years later, look what they're doing in Phoenix.

Changes to the league's policies aside, it's pretty obvious where the NHL's priorities lie, and unfortunately, it's not in the country where their biggest and most loyal fanbase is located.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

For me, at least, it's like this:

In countries like the US, there are a number of incredibly popular sports, all of which have deep roots in the culture. Football and baseball, in particular, are incredibly American games, even though they are played in other countries. Basketball is up there as well. These are all sports Americans play and/or follow from a very young age. Here in Canada, although other sports can be popular, there's one sport that is unquestionably the most popular, and that's hockey.

It's a deeply embedded part of Canadian culture, almost in a way that outsiders can't understand. In the States, you have cultural touchstones -- historical events that everyone is familiar with, whether it's something from the Civil War or whatever ...something everyone is familiar with from childhood onwards.

Although Canada has a lot of interesting history, our cultural touchstones are primarily hockey-based. The '72 Summit Series is a good example. I wasn't even born yet in '72, but I know all about that series. I've seen Paul Henderson's famous goal hundreds of times -- on TV, in textbooks, on postage stamps. I can't count the number of times I read "the Hockey Sweater," in both English and French as a kid, and I still have a copy to read to my own kid. Hell, a passage from that book is on the back of the Canadian five dollar bill, which also has an image of kids playing hockey on it. Do you see what I mean? Hockey is even on our money.

It's everywhere. Hockey will always be associated with Canada. I know people from other countries who, before moving here, knew only one thing about Canada: hockey. Canadians still make up the majority of NHL players, we're still a huge power internationally (men's and women's Olympic wins, for example) and our NHL teams are by far the best-supported. It's our game. Other people play it, but it's Canadian. Just like baseball is an American sport. Sure, the Blue Jays are still around, and we used to have the Expos, but no one ever questioned the "American-ness" of the game.

How would US baseball fans feel if the MLB expanded and gave most of its new franchises to cities in Canada? How would they feel if the league went a step further and took teams from American cities and moved them to Canada? How would they feel if fans in those Canadian cities utterly ignored those teams, but the league continued to support them at all costs and prevent baseball-loving American fans from enjoying teams of their own?

I can't speak for anyone else, but if they took my most local baseball teams, I wouldn't shed a tear. If they took my favorite football team, c'est la vie' Oh, that's right, they did! Frankly, I wouldn't where they put them, but rather THAT they were taken. Frankly, and I think this is common at least where I live, when a team moves if it's to Baltimore or Winnipeg is irrelevant. I certainly don't think of the Blue Jays as a damn furreign team. I never thought of the Expos or Grizzlies as damn furr-eigners either. Now them damn people in the southeastern US, that's a different story

I think it would seem a lot like cultural appropriation of the worst kind. That's what the NHL's sunbelt experiment seems like to me. Canadian sport, Canadian players, but Canada is forbidden from having its own teams, aside from a few juggernauts that managed to (barely, in some cases) survive the Bettman Persecutions. It's all about money, and while I realize the NHL is a business, that aspect of it is very disappointing -- it's like an important aspect of our culture is being mass-marketed to make a quick buck, with little to no regard for its roots or the people who originated it.

I know I've used this example before, but it's like white people playing the blues. Don't get me wrong -- there are a number of white musicians who are excellent blues players and don't deserve the "cultural appropriation" tag, but there are also a lot of them who can play the right notes but are lacking the most important aspect -- the soul.

The Phoenix Coyotes, for example, might be able to play the riff correctly, but they don't put any soul into it.

Careful- I'm a white guy who made a living playing the Blues. Wanna hear my Robert Johnson stuff? How 'bout my Ledbelly?