Nationality and US popularity

[Fugu]

What about turning this the other way. Why isn't basketball, football, and baseball more popular in Canada? All are a lot cheaper to play than hockey. Football may be comparable, but if playing contact football, the gear is for the most part supplied by your school.
I love hockey to death, but am curious why the other sports don't even come close in Canada as hockey does...especially when it costs so much. Every Canadian can't be wealthy.

Traditionally, all hockey players came from cold places. Even though the sport started in Canada, it didn't "take" in places that didn't have the environmental conditions to support it being played outside.

It takes money to build and maintain ice rinks. This is harder to do in extremely warm climates. And..... having lived in warm places, I think it's natural to want to be outdoors doing outdoorsy activities. I tend to be outdoors more in warmer times than colder days.

So your choices were to stay indoors, or find something to do outside despite the cold-- if you were from a colder climate.

As technology improves, we'll probably see more and more rinks built where skating is an option for a greater number of people.

That's one reason I keep pointing out that in the colder US states, hockey as a winter sport was a normal activity. We shouldn't confuse how things evolved (sport invented, then spread out from the center, then to other places that could support conditions needed, etc.), with how it might progress in the future as culture and conditions change. Baseball could be used as a flip of your flipping things. Why isn't it played the world over, because all you need is a ball, bat, a grassy field and a mitt.

 

[ChompChomp]

I actually don't buy the argument that what you play growing up has anything to do with anything. After all, in the US youth soccer is HUGE, but Americans still lag behind in following soccer, because most of that youth doesn't follow the sport they play as a child. The only reason recently for bigger gains in soccer TV ratings is because of the surging hispanic population in the US.

More importantly, there are people who don't play ANY sports and they still easily get into football, baseball and basketball in terms of fandom.

So why not hockey?

Right now in the US we have an anti-hockey culture that perpetuates through the media. US national sports radio hardly ever talks hockey. Media and even athletes are quoted as referring to the "Big 3," that somehow there is no big 4 anymore.

When you are an american sports fan and your american media is pretending like hockey/NHL doesn't exist, you will too. It's a simple fact of life as to how much we are influenced in the media.

You can take this down to a micro scale. Look at some NHL markets, like the SF Bay Area, for example. Their main sports radio station doesn't sit around and talk for hours about the Sharks. Sure they do player interviews here and there, but they don't sit around and do a lot of hockey talk except during playoff time. Some hosts at KNBR are even worse. They have this guy, Damon Bruce, who refuses to acknowledge the existence of the NHL except during playoffs and even then he doesn't talk much about them. He says talking hockey is "Radio death."

So now if you are a causal sports fan in the area, you don't see much talk surrounding the Sharks and unless you actually live in San Jose, you don't see Sharks gear, etc everywhere. Thus you aren't likely to follow the Sharks. I notice that in SF and parts of the East Bay, you wouldn't know this was an NHL market.

If at least every NHL market had it such that the media covered the NHL team even half as well as the local NFL team, US popularity would be drastically improved. If every US NHL market then had that drastic improvement, even US national sports radio would take notice and have to talk NHL.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Perhaps those living in the other Canadian NHL cities can chime in:

I know that in Toronto, Leafs are 24/7 in the media, I imagine the Habs it's not much different(correct me if I'm wrong)

But Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver-are the media there 24/7 on their hockey teams as well? Or is there room for other sports news?

 

[HabsByTheBay]

The only reason recently for bigger gains in soccer TV ratings is because of the surging hispanic population in the US.

Boy, you are way off there. ESPN is not giving more coverage to the Premier League than the NHL because of the Latino population.

Also, the reason the Sharks don't get any coverage on KNBR is because..well, not a lot of people care, and because the Sharks generally do a poor job of marketing in San Francisco, and KNBR generally covers the three/four teams that have the most fans in San Francisco itself (Giants, Niners, Warriors, and a rump of Raider fans).

The Sharks had this area by the balls in 1994, and now they don't. Some of that is probably out of their control (the hockey boom was going to go bust at some point), but some of it isn't. You can't get their radio station clearly in SF, for example.

 

[AllByDesign]

So why not hockey?

Right now in the US we have an anti-hockey culture that perpetuates through the media. US national sports radio hardly ever talks hockey. Media and even athletes are quoted as referring to the "Big 3," that somehow there is no big 4 anymore.

When you are an american sports fan and your american media is pretending like hockey/NHL doesn't exist, you will too. It's a simple fact of life as to how much we are influenced in the media.

Anti-hockey culture? Maybe you meant something else but having a situation of limited exposure is not "Anti-Hockey". All of us can agree on one thing togther. Hockey is great. Wow. Epiphany. The only thing that the Media thinks is great is ad revenue. They sell their ads based on viewership. If Football is bringing in the viewers, then they will shove Football so far down everyones throught you will have completed digested a pig-skin.

The more people tune in, the more attention hockey will garner from the Sports stations. On the good side, ratings are trending upwards. As ratings rise, the media's warm glare will also rise.

 

[Killion]

Perhaps those living in the other Canadian NHL cities can chime in: I know that in Toronto, Leafs are 24/7 in the media, I imagine the Habs it's not much different(correct me if I'm wrong) But Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver-are the media there 24/7 on their hockey teams as well? Or is there room for other sports news?

Vancouver is wall-to-wall 24-7 twelve months of the year Canucks'. Calgary & Edmonton same for the Flames & Oilers'. I'd assume much the same in Ottawa. I have a great many friends & relations in Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, N.Carolina, Tenn, California & Arizona, Texas & New Mexico. Most, the majority by a wide margin are absolutely NOT hockey fans whatsoever, though those that are are extremely passionate about the game & their team. When asking "what is it that you dont like about hockey?" invariably their answers are similar;

1) Its too fast to follow.
2) The rules seem archaic.
3) The cheap shots & absolutely the fighting is neolithic.
4) Its too expensive, time consuming & dangerous.

Many will tune-in to the Winter Olympic games & painfully watch out of a sense of duty & support for the flag, but thats it. Even in places like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, northeastern cities with lengthy hockey histories, you either love it or couldnt be bothered, unless a Flyers or Penguins team is 5 minutes away from winning the Stanley Cup. Tune in, then back to the PGA at Pebble Beach, the Phillies or whatever else that'll turn your crank a bit. NCAA is just massive, while the NFL, MLB & the NBA are in stratospheres' the NHL can & likely will, certainly under the current regime', continue to dream about. Hockey is a niche' sport, an acquired taste, not to everyones liking. The league has yet to accept that reality.

 

[AllByDesign]

I have a great many friends & relations in Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, N.Carolina, Tenn, California & Arizona, Texas & New Mexico.

Wow! You's gots lotsa relations!

 

[MaskedSonja]

Vancouver is wall-to-wall 24-7 twelve months of the year Canucks'. Calgary & Edmonton same for the Flames & Oilers'. I'd assume much the same in Ottawa. I have a great many friends & relations in Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, N.Carolina, Tenn, California & Arizona, Texas & New Mexico. Most, the majority by a wide margin are absolutely NOT hockey fans whatsoever, though those that are are extremely passionate about the game & their team. When asking "what is it that you dont like about hockey?" invariably their answers are similar;

1) Its too fast to follow.
2) The rules seem archaic.
3) The cheap shots & absolutely the fighting is neolithic.
4) Its too expensive, time consuming & dangerous.

Many will tune-in to the Winter Olympic games & painfully watch out of a sense of duty & support for the flag, but thats it. Even in places like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, northeastern cities with lengthy hockey histories, you either love it or couldnt be bothered, unless a Flyers or Penguins team is 5 minutes away from winning the Stanley Cup. Tune in, then back to the PGA at Pebble Beach, the Phillies or whatever else that'll turn your crank a bit. NCAA is just massive, while the NFL, MLB & the NBA are in stratospheres' the NHL can & likely will, certainly under the current regime', continue to dream about. Hockey is a niche' sport, an acquired taste, not to everyones liking. The league has yet to accept that reality.

Which then goes back to the question which has been asked 1.543245 billion times: Why can't we just be happy with the sport as it is? Why this eternal fisticuffs about how much Americans (and Canadians) do or don't like the sport? Can't we just say as Canadians "We enjoy our game" (or those who don't) it's not my thing-but have at it? Why can't we just let our American friends enjoy or not as they will? I really don't see the NHL every getting even close to the ratings MLB or NFL gets in the states, so why harp on it? What is this seeming obsession that we HAVE to have hockey be a big time sport in the US, rather than just enjoy what we do have? The arguments that get out there about how much the Winter Classic had in ratings-I'm seeing some really big arguments over a few ratings points-why?

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Killion]

Wow! You's gots lotsa relations!

Yes Sir. Hillbilly Deluxe'.

The arguments that get out there about how much the Winter Classic had in ratings-I'm seeing some really big arguments over a few ratings points-why? Can't we all just get along?

In a word?. M O N E Y. A ratings point is worth millions in advertising, sponsorships. The machine must be fed. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Yes Sir. Hillbilly Deluxe'.



In a word?. M O N E Y. A ratings point is worth millions in advertising, sponsorships. The machine must be fed. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Now that you mention it, Msrs Bettman and Daly are looking awfully "Borg-ish" these days....(actually Daly could pull a nice Picard!)

"4.5 Rating warp factor-engage!"

 

[AllByDesign]

Now that you mention it, Msrs Bettman and Daly are looking awfully "Borg-ish" these days....(actually Daly could pull a nice Picard!)

"4.5 Rating warp factor-engage!"

Yikes.

 

[Fidel Astro]

Which then goes back to the question which has been asked 1.543245 billion times: Why can't we just be happy with the sport as it is? Why this eternal fisticuffs about how much Americans (and Canadians) do or don't like the sport? Can't we just say as Canadians "We enjoy our game" (or those who don't) it's not my thing-but have at it? Why can't we just let our American friends enjoy or not as they will? I really don't see the NHL every getting even close to the ratings MLB or NFL gets in the states, so why harp on it? What is this seeming obsession that we HAVE to have hockey be a big time sport in the US, rather than just enjoy what we do have? The arguments that get out there about how much the Winter Classic had in ratings-I'm seeing some really big arguments over a few ratings points-why?

Can't we all just get along?

No, we can't all just get along.

The reason Canadians are continually frustrated by the lack of interest America shows toward hockey is because America is consistently given preferential treatment by the NHL. It doesn't matter that the majority of players are Canadian, that Canada is the league's most solid fanbase, or that the league has Canadian roots... American cities and fans are always, always, always given priority.

Meanwhile, those of us in hockey's homeland are watching teams in the US with sub-AHL attendance, US-centric hockey programming that still isn't all that heavily watched compared to other sports, and on and on.... and we don't even have our own teams to root for.

 

[Fidel Astro]

When asking "what is it that you dont like about hockey?" invariably their answers are similar;

Americans are just weird sometimes, eh? I've heard similar answers to the "why don't you like hockey?" question from Americans I know, and none of the responses have ever made sense to me.

1) Its too fast to follow.

I guess it's "too fast" if you're used to watching football, which consists of a bunch of five-second plays followed by 15 minutes of standing around.

2) The rules seem archaic.

Putting the puck in the net gets you a goal. The team with the most goals wins. That's basically it, other than offside and icing, which are very easily explained. I've heard this "I don't understand the rules" one as well, and it just baffles me. Again, compared to football, where different types of plays result in different point values, etc., hockey is incredibly simple to understand.

3) The cheap shots & absolutely the fighting is neolithic.

America loves football, pro wrestling, boxing and (more recently) mixed martial arts. Since when did the Yanks get so squeamish about violence and fighting? The US is the ultimate "we paid for blood" nation.

4) Its too expensive, time consuming & dangerous.

It's only expensive if you live somewhere without natural ice, it's no more or less time-consuming than any other sport (actually, it's less time-consuming than baseball, because a hockey game with periods of a set length, whereas baseball innings have the potential to stretch on for ages), and it's no more dangerous than, again, football.

 

[Killion]

All valid arguments in favor of the sport Fidel, Bottom line; it doesnt matter. The game is not universally appealing, and IMO, never will be, in the States or elsewhere. Its' a niche' sport with limited appeal; a ceiling.

 

[MoreOrr]

No, we can't all just get along.

The reason Canadians are continually frustrated by the lack of interest America shows toward hockey is because America is consistently given preferential treatment by the NHL. It doesn't matter that the majority of players are Canadian, that Canada is the league's most solid fanbase, or that the league has Canadian roots... American cities and fans are always, always, always given priority.

Meanwhile, those of us in hockey's homeland are watching teams in the US with sub-AHL attendance, US-centric hockey programming that still isn't all that heavily watched compared to other sports, and on and on.... and we don't even have our own teams to root for.

Sounding just a bit high-and-mighty, Fidel.

Taking your arguments in reverse sequence, hell man, Canada's own football league has for years not seen it as fitting to expand beyond 9 teams. Other than a failed expansion venture into the US, the CFL has stayed with that odd number (9) for all these years. That's just one piece of evidence that there just aren't many Canadian cities that can support professional level teams, not even in a League that's all-Canadian.

And when the Canadian dollar wasn't strong, it was a struggle even to maintain some of the Canadian NHL teams that do exist. We all know that there were two more (Winnipeg and Quebec), but they were lost, primarily due to the economic circumstances of the time. Hell, they weren't even NHL teams to begin with, the NHL adopted them as orphans from a failed League, or else those cities might never have had NHL teams to begin with.

And as for hockey being a "Canadian" sport, well hell, basketball is also a Canadian sport, but I don't see you or anyone here aruing that the NBA doesn't give Canada enough teams. The NHL itself existed for roughly half a century with 2/3 US teams, so that points to the FACT that hockey has had an established presence in the US, even if only in the northeast. Ahh, but then, where were the teams that could've been in Canadian cities back then when perhaps the financial necessities to be a team in a professional league weren't so great in ways that they are today? There had been a team in Ottawa, way back when, but so many years of this "Canadian sport" with only teams in Toronto and Montreal. The US may only have had teams in the northeast, but it's not as if Canada had teams in the west or anywhere else.

It appears that you'll have to argue that there's been "US-centric" hockey programming since the dawn of the NHL.

Now as for the players place of origin. I think we should be happy that many US fans have adopted many Canadian-born players as fan-favorites. But little by little the number of US-born players is increasing. And for the most part, it has been US cities which have had the sufficient population-base to support professional league teams, and it seems logical that the League has put efforts into building fanbases in those cities.

If Canadians in 'many' cities really feel cheated that they don't have a professional hockey team to cheer for, then instead of it being the "WHA" it should've been the "CHA", but it probably would've suffered the same fate.... because I doubt that any cities other than the Canadian ones which were part of the WHA could've supported a team then any more than now.

However, I'll give you this, Fidel... trying to establish teams in the US southern fringe is akin to trying to put teams in too-small Canadian cities. Those far-southern US cities may have big populations, but there is little to nothing upon which to firmly establish a hockey culture.

 

[Fidel Astro]

Sounding just a bit high-and-mighty, Fidel.

Taking your arguments in reverse sequence, hell man, Canada's own football league has for years not seen it as fitting to expand beyond 9 teams. Other than a failed expansion venture into the US, the CFL has stayed with that odd number (9) for all these years. That's just one piece of evidence that there just aren't many Canadian cities that can support professional level teams, not even in a League that's all-Canadian.

OK, well if there are nine cities in Canada that can support CFL teams, certainly there are at least nine that can support NHL teams, as hockey is considerably more popular in this country than football.

And when the Canadian dollar wasn't strong, it was a struggle even to maintain some of the Canadian NHL teams that do exist. We all know that there were two more (Winnipeg and Quebec), but they were lost, primarily due to the economic circumstances of the time.

...and now, in the US, there are a number of teams threatened, due in part to "economic circumstances of the time." The difference -- and here comes the NHL's US priority again -- is that even though these teams have failed to attract even minor-league interest in well over a decade and continue to hemmorhage money, the NHL is bending over backwards to save them. We certainly didn't see that happen with Winnipeg or Quebec. That's part of the frustration.

"**** you, Winnipeg, we didn't lift a finger to save your team back in the 90s, but these guys over here...we'll actually buy the team to make sure it doesn't get moved. Yes, yes, we're well aware no one really cares about hockey down there, but we're still not giving you your team back. It's American now, just the way we like it."

And as for hockey being a "Canadian" sport, well hell, basketball is also a Canadian sport, but I don't see you or anyone here aruing that the NBA doesn't give Canada enough teams.

Well, first of all, basketball is lame. Secondly, the inventor of basketball was Canadian, but that certainly doesn't make it a "Canadian sport." There's a big difference between the way basketball developed and the way hockey developed.

It appears that you'll have to argue that there's been "US-centric" hockey programming since the dawn of the NHL.

I don't agree. While there have been more American teams than Canadian teams since...well, forever, the game has never been as aggressively marketed to American fans in non-traditional markets as it is today, and has been over the past couple of decades.

Now as for the players place of origin. I think we should be happy that many US fans have adopted many Canadian-born players as fan-favorites. But little by little the number of US-born players is increasing. And for the most part, it has been US cities which have had the sufficient population-base to support professional league teams, and it seems logical that the League has put efforts into building fanbases in those cities.

**** those cities. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but why should I care about some American city that is just starting to generate its own hockey players, when Canadian cities that have churned out Hall of Famers for the past century or so continue to be passed over by the league?

 

[LadyStanley]

USA Hockey chief interviewed during first intermission of US-SWE game said that they've almost reached 100k 8-year old registrations in US.

 

[Jeffrey93]

USA Hockey chief interviewed during first intermission of US-SWE game said that they've almost reached 100k 8-year old registrations in US.

Is that good?

 

[Jeffrey93]

To play the Devil's advocate....

OK, well if there are nine cities in Canada that can support CFL teams, certainly there are at least nine that can support NHL teams, as hockey is considerably more popular in this country than football.

The cost of a CFL team is quite a lot cheaper than that of an NHL team. I see your point though....less fans are needed for more dates.....and in a climate controlled atmosphere.
Current CFL markets are:
Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary
Regina
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Toronto
Montreal

Ottawa will be added once the stadium is built.

So, once Ottawa gets their team back all NHL markets in Canada will also have CFL teams. The exception is Rider Nation in Regina, Saskatchewan....and the NHL's 'carrots on a stick' of Hamilton, Ontario and Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Regina couldn't support an NHL team. So we're down to 2 markets currently in the CFL that MAY be able to support an NHL team. The may is for Winnipeg. Hamilton definitely could just because of geography.

...and now, in the US, there are a number of teams threatened, due in part to "economic circumstances of the time." The difference -- and here comes the NHL's US priority again -- is that even though these teams have failed to attract even minor-league interest in well over a decade and continue to hemmorhage money, the NHL is bending over backwards to save them. We certainly didn't see that happen with Winnipeg or Quebec. That's part of the frustration.

I understand that frustration, but....the issue in Winnipeg & Quebec was getting new 'NHL Calibre' facilities built.....Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Miami, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, etc. don't need new buildings. So it is easier to stick up for them.
The closest similarity you could draw is Pittsburgh. They needed a new barn....desperately. They were initially going down a road that was going to see them not get a dime of city, county or state money....then Balsillie showed up. Then the NHL injected themselves and with the assistance of possible relocation looming....got a new arena built.

"**** you, Winnipeg, we didn't lift a finger to save your team back in the 90s, but these guys over here...we'll actually buy the team to make sure it doesn't get moved. Yes, yes, we're well aware no one really cares about hockey down there, but we're still not giving you your team back. It's American now, just the way we like it."

I totally get this point of view. The issue was the lease. And really...Glendale would have made off better in the long run if they accepted Balsillie's $50M payoff to let the team leave. (At least I think it was $50M....$25M to endorse his bid...and $25M if the team left.) Anyway.....they would have had a huge cash influx. It was all about an arena lease. It had ZERO to do with demand for hockey or how well the business will do there in the future. It had EVERYTHING to do with the arena lease. How the NHL allowed a very new franchise to sign a 30 year arena lease in Arizona is beyond me.

Well, first of all, basketball is lame. Secondly, the inventor of basketball was Canadian, but that certainly doesn't make it a "Canadian sport." There's a big difference between the way basketball developed and the way hockey developed.

Very true. Hockey was born over time really....basketball was more of a "we're inside....what do we do?" Dodgeball could have just as easily taken off more than the NBA.....it is a real shame it didn't.

I don't agree. While there have been more American teams than Canadian teams since...well, forever, the game has never been as aggressively marketed to American fans in non-traditional markets as it is today, and has been over the past couple of decades.

I concur. It isn't necessarily a problem. The problem is that the NHL is annoying their loyal fans in an effort to create new ones in different geographical areas. If we take the NHL's current approach and fast forward 30 years.....assuming good results....Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, etc. NHL fans....that sellout their rink every night now that we are in the year 2041.......will be watching their team open the season in Sydney, Helsinki, Athens, Seoul, Moscow, Beijing, etc.

You may create new fans in all of these markets......but the folks in Miami, Phoenix, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Detroit, Edmonton, etc. might get a little ticked that they are sacrificing home games so that the NHL can play games in these far off places.

They WILL create new fans....but in doing so they WILL destroy existing fans. The NHL doesn't realize yet that they have to balance this. By the time they realize it.....it might be too late.

**** those cities. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but why should I care about some American city that is just starting to generate its own hockey players, when Canadian cities that have churned out Hall of Famers for the past century or so continue to be passed over by the league?

While I agree the post you quoted was ridiculously arrogant...I get it. But, if the NHL were focused on what areas provided the most players in their league.....the US would maybe have a franchise or two.

The hilarious point I see in this is that Americans want to adopt geography as a reason to justify their teams. But when Canadians use geography coupled with popularity to justify potential teams they get shat on.

I get the NHL wants to expand their reach....but they are spread all over the US.....if you move Miami, Phoenix and Atlanta....the NHL is still very spread out through the USA.

Atlanta would be the NHL's version of Los Angeles for the NFL....that would be the biggest/worst/only issue of moving all those teams.

 

[captainpaxil]

i think nationality was one of the things that drew me to the sport. 5'10 white guys with mullets? i knew a ton of them in my neighborhood. it was just way less of a stretch to dream about being mike ricci then it was charles barkley. no matter how hard i tried i was just never going to be a six five black guy.

the other side of things is we played in the street. street hockey is played with a stick(all the equpment you need) and whatever kind of ball you can get your hands on. the goalie would get a baseball glove. sometimes the crick would freeze and wed play on the ice in dress shoes or old sneakers. even later when we started taking over tennis courts its a game of hitting and shooting.
contrast that with the nhl and ice hockey in general. its a game of skating. even roller hockey involves skating and that means helmets, pads all the expensive equpment. which creates too big of a divide between the game you play and the game you watch. football is about blocking and tackling, fun stuff to do, baketball is about dribbling and putting the ball in the crate er i mean net, and baseball is about throwing and hitting a ball. all of this is fun to do and you develop those skills with or without all the right equipment. and the fundamentals are the same on the street as they are on tv

watch nhl hockey whats the thing they emphasize the most? skating. its like class warfare against americans. the skills and activities most people can relate to are de-emphasized and in direct contrast to our love affair with the underdog. in canada ice is everywhere so skating is a fair a distinction of skill players from not so skilled players but in america the skaters are "them". the people who could afford ice time. its like watching a team full of quarterbacks who dont credit their lineman. there isnt a hockey version of john madden to sell the rest of the team beyond the stars.

anybody who played goalie with no pads knows what it takes to lay out and block a shot and running into your friends and knocking them over with your shoulder is really fun for a kid. how hard you can shoot or "watch me hit that pole" and if your gonna grow the game thats where it starts, on the streets. with the kids on the corners and the guys who aint afraid to go into em

 

[redman]

It's only expensive if you live somewhere without natural ice, it's no more or less time-consuming than any other sport (actually, it's less time-consuming than baseball, because a hockey game with periods of a set length, whereas baseball innings have the potential to stretch on for ages), and it's no more dangerous than, again, football.[/QUOTE]

the cost of the sport is crazy! most areas of the U.S. don't freeze over enough for kids to be able to safely skate on ice without fear of falling through.

both my boys play hockey and I shelled out about $4,000 for them, one cross-ice the other squirt "A" team, this does not include equipment, tournements or clinics.

I grew up in Philly, a hockey town, and the hockey coverage on the radio is horrible.

 

[Fidel Astro]

Regina couldn't support an NHL team. So we're down to 2 markets currently in the CFL that MAY be able to support an NHL team. The may is for Winnipeg. Hamilton definitely could just because of geography.

Give me a break. There's no "may" involved with Winnipeg. There's a solid ownership group, an arena that has been declared NHL-ready, and a rabid fanbase. Winnipeg can support a team. I don't know if you'd just rather see a team in Hamilton or somewhere else, and that's why you're doubting Winnipeg, but I think at this point, most people are agreed that Wpg. is the likely destination should a team become available.

I understand that frustration, but....the issue in Winnipeg & Quebec was getting new 'NHL Calibre' facilities built.....Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Miami, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, etc. don't need new buildings. So it is easier to stick up for them.
The closest similarity you could draw is Pittsburgh. They needed a new barn....desperately. They were initially going down a road that was going to see them not get a dime of city, county or state money....then Balsillie showed up. Then the NHL injected themselves and with the assistance of possible relocation looming....got a new arena built.

Pittsburgh is also in the United States. It's not surprising that the NHL "injected themselves" to get a new arena built for an American team, while in the case of both the Jets and Nordiques, who also needed new facilities, they just stood by and watched the teams move.

Also, I think Phoenix, Atlanta, etc. are dealing with a far greater problem than an old building. All you need is money to build an arena. It's a lot harder to build a fanbase. All the money in the world isn't going to change the fact that hockey is a niche sport in the region and few people are interested.

I totally get this point of view. The issue was the lease. And really...Glendale would have made off better in the long run if they accepted Balsillie's $50M payoff to let the team leave. (At least I think it was $50M....$25M to endorse his bid...and $25M if the team left.) Anyway.....they would have had a huge cash influx. It was all about an arena lease. It had ZERO to do with demand for hockey or how well the business will do there in the future. It had EVERYTHING to do with the arena lease. How the NHL allowed a very new franchise to sign a 30 year arena lease in Arizona is beyond me.

I think the NHL was 100% convinced the southern expansion was going to succeed, so allowing a 30-year lease probably seemed very reasonable at the time. I think, again, they were looking at things totally backwards and assuming a state-of-the-art arena and a new team would bring in the fans, when they should have tried to generate fan interest before even considering a team in Arizona.

The problem is that the NHL is annoying their loyal fans in an effort to create new ones in different geographical areas.

Yes. I don't know if this is a conscious decision on the league's part, or if they're just so focused on forcing it to work in the south that they haven't even considered the impact on their traditional fanbase. I'm assuming it's the latter.

While I agree the post you quoted was ridiculously arrogant...I get it. But, if the NHL were focused on what areas provided the most players in their league.....the US would maybe have a franchise or two.

Well, yeah. Probably some rural town in Quebec would have a franchise if players' birthplaces were the only criteria for having a team. I'm not suggesting the number of franchises in Canada should be equal to the number of franchises in America -- our population is way too small in comparison, so that's just not feasible. I'm just suggesting that the NHL should make Canadian fans more of a priority (not instead of southern fans, but as well as), considering the impact our country has made and continues to make on the game.

The hilarious point I see in this is that Americans want to adopt geography as a reason to justify their teams. But when Canadians use geography coupled with popularity to justify potential teams they get shat on.

Yep. I don't think that's ever going to change, though. Americans will come up with every excuse in the book to justify their failing franchises, but whenever a Canadian speaks out in favour of relocating a turd in the sunbelt, they get accused of all manner of vile sins, or of trying to "poach" someone's team. It's ridiculous.

I get the NHL wants to expand their reach....but they are spread all over the US.....if you move Miami, Phoenix and Atlanta....the NHL is still very spread out through the USA.

Yes, and in some parts of the country, there are a whole pile of teams within a few hours of each other. Meanwhile, in Canada, there are hockey-mad cities like Winnipeg with no NHL teams less than an eight-hour drive away to the west, east or south.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is that good?

According to the census there are roughly 4 million 8 year olds in the USA. So 100,000 would be 2.5% of the population in that demographic.

Is that good?

 

[AllByDesign]

According to the census there are roughly 4 million 8 year olds in the USA. So 100,000 would be 2.5% of the population in that demographic.

Is that good?

Compared to little league... no. Compared to results 15 years ago... I'd assume yes, but I don't have the figures. It sounds impressive to me.

 

[MoreOrr]

While I agree the post you quoted was ridiculously arrogant...I get it. But, if the NHL were focused on what areas provided the most players in their league.....the US would maybe have a franchise or two.

May I just ask why you say that? I was simply implying that Fidel was being too over the top with his criticism/attitude, and I tried to bring some balance to his perspective. How is that being "arrogant"?