Yeah, but San Francisco is the anchor of the metropolitan area. Of course there are more people in the satellite cities and suburbs, because San Francisco proper is really small, but it hasn't stopped people from going to Giants/49ers games.
San Francisco for the NHL
- Thread starter Rick Nash homework
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, but San Francisco is the anchor of the metropolitan area. Of course there are more people in the satellite cities and suburbs, because San Francisco proper is really small, but it hasn't stopped people from going to Giants/49ers games.
I agree with you on the part about the liberals. I really don't think that political leaning predicts sports enthusiasm.
But, as Doctor No said, the REAL reason that places with cold weather support the NHL more is because there have been teams in these areas for decades longer than elsewhere.
San Jose is 40 miles away in a separate metropolitan area, per the US Census Bureau. Washington and Baltimore are closer together. Learn a thing or two before spouting this elitist nonsense about satellite cities. San Jose is not Anaheim or Newark. Even Oakland isn't, and they're right across the water.
If San Francisco were so divine, they'd have an arena and it would be home to the Warriors. In reality, the Chronicle can't even send their own sports writers to cover the Sharks because hockey barely registers up north.
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
Well it's not just about the NHL, it's about hockey as a sport period. College, high school, junior, kids on a frozen pond or river. I remember growing up, my group of friends, we just went to skate on a pond behind our school in winter. You just can't do that in San Francisco, Phoenix or Raleigh.
You're right, a Metropolitan Area is "totes" different from a Combined Statistical Area. Good job figuring that out.
And for the record, the CSA is identified as "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA."
And for the record, I have no problem with SF getting an expansion team in the future because I don't like existing teams marking territories. If the NHL would work there, then do it. My only issue is with saying that the Sharks should be up there simply because it's a more famous city in the eyes of the clueless lay person.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
True - but the history of the Western Hockey League, PCHL, or earlier leagues have little to do with the success of the Sharks.
Relatively few people in the Bay Area remember (or even know about) the NHL Oakland/California Golden Seals, let alone the old WHL San Francisco Seals.
Bear of Bad News
Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,511
- 26,967
You may be surprised - I can't speak for San Francisco specifically, but a lot of hockey fans in Seattle remember - or at least pay homage to - the old days. Other than the Golden Seals, I'd say that Seattle's pre-NHL history is comparable.
Smirnov2Chistov
EEK!
Rocko604
Sports will break your heart.
They would likely get a basketball team first.
On top of this, given how successful the Seattle Sounders FC are in the city, I wonder how well an NHL team could penetrate a market that, in this hypothetical case, would have the NFL, NBA, MLB and MLS, plus Pac-10 football and basketball.
As for the OP, I think San Jose is the best fit for hockey in the Bay Area. I cannot see a second team working, at all, whether it's located in San Francisco or Oakland.
KevFist
is best pony
When you consider that Houston is the 6th largest metro area in the US, has a natural rivalry with Dallas, is considered a gateway city, tons of money, and an arena ready for a team, I think it has to jump past San Francisco in an already crowded market. maybe one day there's a second team on the north side of the bay, but i can't see it happening any time soon.
As for Austin.....while it wouldn't be the smallest NHL market (Nashville and Buffalo are smaller) I just can't see it being a good market. Do they even have an NHL ready arena?
As for Austin.....while it wouldn't be the smallest NHL market (Nashville and Buffalo are smaller) I just can't see it being a good market. Do they even have an NHL ready arena?
Do you think the Sharks would've done okay if they had stayed around the Cow Palace?
The city of San Jose was willing to fund the Tank and that is a big reason that they got the Sharks, San Francisco would never to that. They wouldn't even do it for the 49ers.
Also, a significant portion of the fan base is from the North Bay so I don't see the area supporting two teams.
Also, a significant portion of the fan base is from the North Bay so I don't see the area supporting two teams.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
No.
One of the biggest factors in the Sharks early success was what I'll call the New York Islanders syndrome. Fans in the South Bay were excited to have their identity on a pro sports team (as opposed to that small burgh up the peninsula). This is very similar to what I observed on Long Island in the 70's.
Other significant demographic issues also favor the South Bay:
- Large population of transplants from "traditional" hockey markets (myself included) who came out to Silicon Valley for jobs.
- Highly affluent population w/ large disposable incomes.
- Large corporate base in the SV tech companies.
And, of course, a taxpayer funded arena that would NEVER have been built in SF.
Moobles
Registered User
- Mar 15, 2009
- 2,555
- 0
I think San Jose is fine. The NHL captures the Bay Area market with them and they're the only major league team (if MLS doesn't count) to represent the South Bay in-name. If Cali churns out more hockey players maybe a San Francisco/East Bay team could work- but at the moment I think it'd unnecessarily split the market and the fanbase (if anyone moved over).
How so? The Bay Area can support two hockey teams. Sacramento and San Diego could support a team as well if they had the arena. There's plenty of people spread out in California and plenty of hockey support up and down the state.
It wouldn't be my first choice but saying 4 teams wouldn't make any sense is not really thinking it through.
KuralySnipes
Registered User
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
Hi folks, San Francisco native here.
This will never happen. I could have seen a scenario where it happened, because the major mistake the California Golden Seals made (besides stinking) was not playing out of the Cow Palace. The NHL, in its infinite wisdom, chose the shiny new Oakland Coliseum over the Cow Palace. Unfortunately that took the NHL Seals away from the big fanbase for the WHL Seals, which lived in San Francisco and the Peninsula. Back in 1967, BART didn't exist and so there was no convenient way to get to the Oakland Coliseum except fighting through rush hour traffic on the Bay Bridge. That dealt a major blow to attendance and put the team on its inevitable course to doom. If they'd stayed in the Cow Palace, the plans to build a new arena which were floated in the mid-70s might have become reality and the Sharks never exist.
As for today? Nah. The hockey fanbase in SF is small, and somewhat fractured. I've sat in bars in the Mission and watched Habs games, then left and gone across the street where people are packed in a bar watching a Penguins-Islanders game. Surprising to say the least. But most locals root for the Sharks. San Franciscans are totally parochial so many of them would probably root for some theoretical SF team, but enough to sell 14,000 season tickets? I doubt it.
The more preferable option would be for the Sharks to market themselves a little bit more up here. The Sharks used to have quite a following in San Francisco but that disappeared in the late 90s. Part of that was that they were basically playing in San Francisco for the first couple years of their existence (the Cow Palace being inches over the Daly City border) and the general increased interest in hockey in general in California. But the Sharks seem to feel like there's no point in marketing north of the Santa Clara county border, and with the Warriors being their usual hopeless selves and the 49ers preparing to flee town there is a vacuum for a winter team to support in SF to complement the Giants, who the city are in a deeply fulfilling long-term love affair with right now. Everyone was following the playoff run in 94 & 95 with even the Chronicle offering front page coverage. That doesn't happen anymore.
They might need to expand that fanbase as well because eventually the A's are going to move to San Jose with the Giants getting their ten pounds of flesh and that will certainly affect the Sharks' bottom line. I'd prefer the A's in Oakland but in reality it's about the A's writing a ginormous check to move down south.
This will never happen. I could have seen a scenario where it happened, because the major mistake the California Golden Seals made (besides stinking) was not playing out of the Cow Palace. The NHL, in its infinite wisdom, chose the shiny new Oakland Coliseum over the Cow Palace. Unfortunately that took the NHL Seals away from the big fanbase for the WHL Seals, which lived in San Francisco and the Peninsula. Back in 1967, BART didn't exist and so there was no convenient way to get to the Oakland Coliseum except fighting through rush hour traffic on the Bay Bridge. That dealt a major blow to attendance and put the team on its inevitable course to doom. If they'd stayed in the Cow Palace, the plans to build a new arena which were floated in the mid-70s might have become reality and the Sharks never exist.
As for today? Nah. The hockey fanbase in SF is small, and somewhat fractured. I've sat in bars in the Mission and watched Habs games, then left and gone across the street where people are packed in a bar watching a Penguins-Islanders game. Surprising to say the least. But most locals root for the Sharks. San Franciscans are totally parochial so many of them would probably root for some theoretical SF team, but enough to sell 14,000 season tickets? I doubt it.
The more preferable option would be for the Sharks to market themselves a little bit more up here. The Sharks used to have quite a following in San Francisco but that disappeared in the late 90s. Part of that was that they were basically playing in San Francisco for the first couple years of their existence (the Cow Palace being inches over the Daly City border) and the general increased interest in hockey in general in California. But the Sharks seem to feel like there's no point in marketing north of the Santa Clara county border, and with the Warriors being their usual hopeless selves and the 49ers preparing to flee town there is a vacuum for a winter team to support in SF to complement the Giants, who the city are in a deeply fulfilling long-term love affair with right now. Everyone was following the playoff run in 94 & 95 with even the Chronicle offering front page coverage. That doesn't happen anymore.
They might need to expand that fanbase as well because eventually the A's are going to move to San Jose with the Giants getting their ten pounds of flesh and that will certainly affect the Sharks' bottom line. I'd prefer the A's in Oakland but in reality it's about the A's writing a ginormous check to move down south.
Big McLargehuge
Fragile Traveler
Ignoring the fact that Detroit, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo are all within a 140 mile radius and Cleveland has the worst economy of all of them...yes...Cleveland would a great option if this league wants to lose a lot of money while hurting four other franchises simultaneously.
The Rust Belt isn't Bos-Wash. It can't support a team every 50 damn miles. Columbus is already nothing but Red Wings or Penguins fans whenever those teams come to visit, Cleveland is 2/3 the distance to either city...how do you think that'll go over? To say nothing of Cleveland having a rather mediocre history with the sport in general and already being, by far, the smallest city to have 3 major sports teams...throwing a 4th into the mix of a shrinking city with a lousy economy? ****ing genius move. Much better idea than putting a team in the northwest, where there is literally no market saturation outside of transplants.
San Fran...San Jose is right there. What the hell is the point of splitting that market? There are a lot of solid markets that need one team far before a moderate market needs a second team. San Jose has been a success, but let's not go crazy.
cptjeff
Reprehensible User
Can't do that in Philadelphia either, but the only problem that fanbase has had is the occasional bout of over-enthusiasm.
Just because that's how you came to the game does not mean it is the only way.
Hank Chinaski
Registered User
And there was the point of my post.
Liberal, progressive politics have absolutely nothing to do with the successes in New York, Boston, Minnesota and Montreal. It's hockey tradition, plain and simple.
For those who say weather, have you ever seen any outdoor skating rinks in Vancouver? Yet that hasn't stopped them from garnering outstanding support. They've even churned out some great players.
Steelhead16
Registered User
No. If the Sharks had stayed in the San Francisco Metro Area they would have had declining attendance every season. It's a huge pain to get to from most other areas and adding $5 for bridge toll for every game is also a drawback. People will do it for 8 or 10 football games and baseball has a far greater fanbase to fill a stadium for 80 baseball games. San Jose is centrally located to draw easily from the west, east and south parts of the Bay area. A San Fransico team would draw better from the North Bay but the loss from everywhere else would FAR outweigh the gain from the small amount of hockey fans in the North Bay. Oakland would work better if there was no team in San Jose but that won't happen and 2 teams in the Bay Area will never happen.
Sorge Georos
Registered User
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 3 Florida Panthers @ Tampa Bay Lightning - Florida Panthers leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $100.00Event closes- Updated: