For over four years I've been lurking on these boards, content to watch the antics of Killion et al. from the shadows (and what deep dark shadows they are).
With the resolution of this saga appearing to be upon us (perhaps in weeks not months
) I find myself compelled to speak.
Specifically, I want to weigh in on the Seattle vs. Quebec debate that has erupted on this board since it became apparent that the Coyotes have most likely reached the end or their long desert road. While I admit I haven't had a chance to read over the backlog of posts from the past 8 hours in detail (what with sleeping and all), the overall debate seems to boil down to "No,
I am the prettiest girl at the dance!"
I realize I can get in really big trouble for trying to be sensible on the internet, but lets approach this pragmatically shall we?
Contrary to partisans on both sides of the debate, I believe both markets are strong...or at the very least represent a substantial improvement over Phoenix (granted we are talking about a very low bar). Both cities have new facilities planned and both have a history of supporting hockey going back almost a century. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that
both cities will have NHL teams by the end of this decade. But as far as the "Coyotes Sweepstake" is concerned all signs seem to point to one location...Seattle.
Even as I type this I can feel the hackles rising on my Quebecois cousins. Allow me to preempt your anger. Quebec City is an excellent market. You have the better temporary facility, you have an ownership group that is ready and waiting, and you have a new arena that is already under construction. Unlike Seattle you also have a history with the NHL and a demonstrated record of support and no one (with the exception of howlinghockey...who seems to be fond of "wall candy") doubts the ability for a returned Nordiques to have success equal to that of Jets 2.0.
But in spite of all these things I still consider Seattle the front runner. It ultimately boils down to two things: money and vanity. While the "national" in the NHL originally referred to the nation of Canada, the present day NHL is an American league with a large Canadian presence. To reinforce this point we need only look at where the league has chosen to hang its proverbial hat (I'll give you a hint...its not Toronto). By being based in NYC (in midtown Manhattan no less) the NHL places itself (geographically if not financially) in the same echelon as the NFL, NBA, and MLB. This is key to understanding all other actions on the part of the league.
Simply put, the NHL is the awkward kid desperately seeking the acceptance of the popular crowd. You need only look at the lucrative sponsorships and TV contracts held by the NFL to see what the NHL is aspiring to. Who wouldn't want to be a secular religion with a license to print money? Sure the NHL is arguably the NFL of Canada (i.e.
the league playing
the most popular sport in the land at its highest level), but as far as American media, corporations, and consumers are concerned the NHL is the smallest of the "big four" and marginally higher profile than soccer. While I'm sure the NHL values its Canadian sponsorships and TV contracts they pale in comparison to money changing hands amongst their "peers". After all, would you rather have 80% of $100 or 25% of $1000?
Some years ago there was a great article that talked about how the NHL is the RC Cola of professional sports. I think its just as true now as it was then. Ultimately the NHL is the smallest player in a highly competitive market selling a product that, while immensely popular in some circles, is ultimately an after thought to most consumers. The problem the NHL is facing is that rather than accepting its status and building off of that identify, the league has instead spent the past 20+ years trying to be the next the NFL.
Which brings us to Seattle. Consider for a moment the situation. You are GB. You are small. You are funny looking. You are the head of a league that could be seen as equally small and funny looking. In the last two years you have had a labor dispute, lost half a season, and seen a team move from a major American media hub to a midwestern Canadian city with a fraction of the (
American) corporate and media exposure. Its the pro sports equivalent of having to move back in with your parents. Now imagine having to do it again. Giving up on yet another high profile market (even if the team in question doesn't have a particularly high profile
in that market) and returning to another "fringe" market. Sure its a great arrangement, and it makes a lot of financial sense…but its not going to impress anyone (and it certainly won't get you in bed with that hot national TV contract).
So Seattle allows the NHL to get out of an ugly situation while still saving some face in the eyes of the broader corporate/sports community. True, its not as solid a market as Quebec City, it lacks an established ownership group and the new arena is still in the planning stages, but the market has supported hockey for close to a century (which is more than can be said for Phoenix) and its home to some very high profile corporations (Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, etc.). There's absolutely more uncertainty with Seattle, and its entirely possible that the NHL will have no choice but to go with Quebec City, but if we could shoot up GB with a few mg of phenobarbotal I suspect he'd admit to Seattle being the NHL's first choice.
