Shouldn't the NHL focus more on non-traditional hockey markets?

[Jazz]

Flocking to arena? Some teams draw less ratings then your average infomercial! The problems in these markets go far beyond lack of success. There is zero base for hockey, none, zilch, and that translates to loses in the tens of millions of dollars.

There are plenty of other hockey leagues in North America that can do the job of "growing the game." The Aeros seem to do quite well in Houston, for example. Why does the top league in the world need to be in certain markets where empty seats outnumber patrons on a regular basis?

Every Non-Traditional market that has won at least 1 playoff round in the past 3 years are playing to over 80% capacity in the regular season.

Show me a team with less than 50% attendence and I'll show you a team that is not run properly and not giving their city's sports fans a reason to show up.

It has been shown that hockey has one of the most loyal fanbases out there, and those who are introduced to hockey are more likely to remain fans compared to being introduced to other sports. Have a product and people will show up.... anywhere.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Unless you mean they run a prison, they are NOT *wardens. Perhaps you mean wards of the sport ie. the act of keeping guard or protective watch.

Well, Merriam-Webster defines warden as "one having care or charge or something: guardian, keeper".

That covers it I think.

The NHL and the team owners are not in fact wards of hockey. That role falls to the IIHF and the governing bodies in the individual countries. Hockey Canada in Canada, USA Hockey is the United States.

Neither organization holds much sway and that's really because of the NHL's shadow hanging over everything hockey-related in North America and the league not wanting an outside governing body having much influence. The NHL are the main party responsible for the sport of hockey in North America because they've done their utmost to make sure nobody else can fill that role effectively.

The NHL no matter how much you may dislike it, is a business. The only responsibility the League has towards protecting or growing the game is to market their product.

The idea of a business also taking on some additional responsibility is hardly new or strange. There are in fact businessmen who think it's good business to do that. Sports teams also like to present themselves as treasures of their community and invoke community spirit at every chance.

It wouldn't normally be crazy to expect some of that to not just be empty lies. Of course, with the assortment of sleazeballs and racketeers that commonly make up the NHL BOG it's probably crazy in this case. But that's their fault, not ours.

And there are examples of sports teams who do a much better job at that, European soccer teams, can be ruthless businesses of course, but there are also many examples of teams meeting their fans half-way on big issues.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

But similar scenarios have repeated for the four major North American Sports.

Continuing with the NHL. About 50+ years ago the Bruins and Rangers toured Europe post season for app one month playing friendlies in major cities.

MLB players have barnstormed Japan going back to the Babe Ruth era. Likewise they have tried to make inroads in the Caribbean, winter leagues, Expos home games.

NBA - initial season included the Toronto Huskies, various international efforts into Europe, the Yeo Ming phenomena etc.

NFL - has flirted with Canada, exhibition games against CFL teams in the late 1950's / early 1960. The odd NFL exhibition game from 1970 on in Montreal, Jarry Park, Olympic Stadium up to the Bills in Toronto with side trips to Asia, Mexico and Europe - NFL Europe developmental concept, WFL, etc.

Ninety+ years of international efforts with very little in terms of concrete results other than paid vacation time for the execs while disrupting routines for the teams and players.

Uh...are you seriously suggesting there's no NFL fans in Canada and no MLB fans in Japan?

If the next earthquake shifted Japan over to about an hour west of California, there'd be five MLB franchises there tomorrow.

Likewise if somebody in Toronto wanted to build a 70,000 seat NFL-quality stadium, Toronto would probably have an NFL team.

It's the same with Sweden, Finland and the Czech Republic, all of them could probably support an NHL team if the geography was right. It's not, but that doesn't mean the NHL should stop pursuing their dollars. It's their imperative to do so.

The Swedes, Finns and Czechs aren't rubes the NHL can fob pre-season games off on, they're sophisticated hockey markets (in the same way Canadians are with the NFL and the Japanese are with baseball). You need to give them the real thing, not cheap imitations. Preseason games are for markets that don't know any better.

 

[Robin Hood]

Just play the games earlier. A 7pm est time start equals 1am CET. Very few sits up from 1am to 4am to watch a hockey match.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh Well............

Uh...are you seriously suggesting there's no NFL fans in Canada and no MLB fans in Japan?

If the next earthquake shifted Japan over to about an hour west of California, there'd be five MLB franchises there tomorrow.

Likewise if somebody in Toronto wanted to build a 70,000 seat NFL-quality stadium, Toronto would probably have an NFL team.

It's the same with Sweden, Finland and the Czech Republic, all of them could probably support an NHL team if the geography was right. It's not, but that doesn't mean the NHL should stop pursuing their dollars. It's their imperative to do so.

The Swedes, Finns and Czechs aren't rubes the NHL can fob pre-season games off on, they're sophisticated hockey markets (in the same way Canadians are with the NFL and the Japanese are with baseball). You need to give them the real thing, not cheap imitations. Preseason games are for markets that don't know any better.

Oh well, another fantasy, sports business theories based on earthquakes.

Looking at the situation from a historic perspective, pro sport leagues and teams in North America have used the threat of relocation as a bargaining chip to get local concessions from municipalities or governing bodies since WWII.

Looking overseas or across the border is a clear message that there are markets elsewhere so if they are willing to build a stadium/arena for our team / league then get your act together locally or nationally and you may get a team or lose a team.

Prime example right now is the NFL. Buffalo flirts with Toronto and almost immediately LA - without a team since the Rams left and the Raiders returned to Oakland, returns to the table with proposals and the Bills to LA stories start. Simply saying that Buffalo is no longer a sufficient market does not work very well since you will never see population shifts to make Buffalo a sufficient market.

 

[Kimota]

Which ones have NHL ready arenas and the millions of dollars required to even bring a team to town?

Hamilton, soon Quebec. Then possibly other southern Ontario cities could go in the dance. And if they go abroad, better focus on Sweden or Germany or Russia than say...Japan.

 

[tarheelhockey]

To me, what's missing with the international events a clear sense of purpose, a plan.

I'm in favor of expanding the NHL brand abroad, in the general sense, but what is the goal here? Is it to sell merchandise, to work up to a broadcast deal? Is there a paying fan-base in Europe or Asia that they can pursue online? Is a European division any more than a pipe dream?

Carolina's games in St. Petersburg and Helsinki were a lot of fun, but the "why" is still a little too fuzzy at this point.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Factors

To me, what's missing with the international events a clear sense of purpose, a plan.

I'm in favor of expanding the NHL brand abroad, in the general sense, but what is the goal here? Is it to sell merchandise, to work up to a broadcast deal? Is there a paying fan-base in Europe or Asia that they can pursue online? Is a European division any more than a pipe dream?

Carolina's games in St. Petersburg and Helsinki were a lot of fun, but the "why" is still a little too fuzzy at this point.

Some considerations would include the "quid pro quo" nature of international hockey, keeping options open re the Olympics and other events, not burning bridges, etc.

There are practical reasons as well. A chance to visit and observe first hand existing or future KHL markets. Reversing the old "only here to learn" mantra.

From a practical standpoint the goals you mention are far from anything that would resemble a clearly defined plan. Using branding and merchandising as an example, no North American league will even consider such ventures in Europe as long as Russia and some of the other former Soviet Bloc countries do not sign and support the various international intellectual property laws and enforcement agreement. About twenty years ago there were some initial efforts in this regard - Penguins with one or two Russian teams and from a copyright, trademark standpoint it became a complete disaster.

 

[Fidel Astro]

I think some people have touched on this already, but the disconnect is that for many of us in traditional hockey regions, the cultural relevance of the sport is so deeply embedded that we are unable to view expansion/relocation to non-traditional cities as solely a business issue.

My head tells me the NHL just does this **** for money, but my heart tells me it's outsiders trying to appropriate an important element of my culture. I'm certainly not the only one who feels this way, and that's why this debate is never-ending.

It will just go on and on in circles forever.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Well, Merriam-Webster defines warden as "one having care or charge or something: guardian, keeper".

That covers it I think.

Sure does, you've misused the term. If you don't like ward, an alternative is custodian.

Neither organization holds much sway and that's really because of the NHL's shadow hanging over everything hockey-related in North America and the league not wanting an outside governing body having much influence. The NHL are the main party responsible for the sport of hockey in North America because they've done their utmost to make sure nobody else can fill that role effectively.

The fact that those organizations don't hold much sway in your mind does not shift responsibility to another party. The NHL is not the governing body of hockey. The NHL does not manage nor is it responsible for the entire system that can culminate in players earning a living in the hockey business.

The idea of a business also taking on some additional responsibility is hardly new or strange. There are in fact businessmen who think it's good business to do that. Sports teams also like to present themselves as treasures of their community and invoke community spirit at every chance.

It wouldn't normally be crazy to expect some of that to not just be empty lies. Of course, with the assortment of sleazeballs and racketeers that commonly make up the NHL BOG it's probably crazy in this case. But that's their fault, not ours.

And there are examples of sports teams who do a much better job at that, European soccer teams, can be ruthless businesses of course, but there are also many examples of teams meeting their fans half-way on big issues.

Business owners may choose to develop their market if they like. Their responsibility is to meet their business goals. I won't argue that it may be in their best interest to please their customers if it helps them meet their goals. That is why NHL teams in the Sunbelt make the effort to develop hockey at the amateur level, to grow customers. The League does not hold some sacred trust. It's a business.

I think some people have touched on this already, but the disconnect is that for many of us in traditional hockey regions, the cultural relevance of the sport is so deeply embedded that we are unable to view expansion/relocation to non-traditional cities as solely a business issue.

My head tells me the NHL just does this **** for money, but my heart tells me it's outsiders trying to appropriate an important element of my culture. I'm certainly not the only one who feels this way, and that's why this debate is never-ending.

It will just go on and on in circles forever.

I'm sure your feelings and position are genuine. It's just that it seems that people who feel like this don't really mean traditional as in a place where the game is traditionally played. It appears they mean a place that has or had an NHL team when they grew up.

I'll use Ohio as an example. Many posters think Columbus is a southern or sunbelt market. Actually, it's a very traditional hockey market, just not a longtime NHL market. NCAA hockey programs in the area like Miami and Bowling Green are traditional powers. Ohio State has had a major hockey program for 50 years. Harry Neale was the coach there, long before he coached in the NHL.

Even cities like Atlanta and Phoenix have had hockey for over 40 years. They aren't traditional NHL markets, but they are cities that have traditionally had hockey.

 

[Tekneek]

Even cities like Atlanta and Phoenix have had hockey for over 40 years.

Indeed. I grew up in Atlanta and hockey was the first organized sport I played, and the one that I had played the most.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Sure does, you've misused the term. If you don't like ward, an alternative is custodian.

Well, I disagree, whilst guardian would probably be a better term, there's nothing wrong with using the term warden here.

The fact that those organizations don't hold much sway in your mind does not shift responsibility to another party. The NHL is not the governing body of hockey. The NHL does not manage nor is it responsible for the entire system that can culminate in players earning a living in the hockey business.

The NHL uses Hockey Canada as a vehicle when it suits them, they control the Hall of Fame and in its ceremonial presentation it usually links itself to the roots of the game and its heritage. The league does like to think of itself as bearing the torch when it suits its needs, well, it shouldn't be a one way street.

Business owners may choose to develop their market if they like. Their responsibility is to meet their business goals. I won't argue that it may be in their best interest to please their customers if it helps them meet their goals. That is why NHL teams in the Sunbelt make the effort to develop hockey at the amateur level, to grow customers. The League does not hold some sacred trust. It's a business.

I believe there's overlap. Whilst I generally agree that business is about making money, when you're engaged in this sort of business, a cultural industry, there's automatically a community aspect to it.

I'm sure your feelings and position are genuine. It's just that it seems that people who feel like this don't really mean traditional as in a place where the game is traditionally played. It appears they mean a place that has or had an NHL team when they grew up.

I'll use Ohio as an example. Many posters think Columbus is a southern or sunbelt market. Actually, it's a very traditional hockey market, just not a longtime NHL market. NCAA hockey programs in the area like Miami and Bowling Green are traditional powers. Ohio State has had a major hockey program for 50 years. Harry Neale was the coach there, long before he coached in the NHL.

I don't know if I consider Miami or Bowling Green to be in the Columbus area. Oxford is in the Cincinnati region, Bowling Green is closer to Toledo. But that's an aside.

I don't consider Columbus a non-traditional market the same way a Phoenix or Atlanta were. At the same time nobody will confuse Central Ohio with hockey heartland. Everyone knows which sport rules the roost in Ohio at the grassroots level. Ohio is a place where hockey has been played for a long time, but it's never became really a big part of the local mainstream sports culture which is dominated by other sports.

Now let's not go into Georgia or Florida..yes hockey has been played there but in terms of having a cultural structure around it that gives it support and feeds it? Please, don't be silly.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

I think some people have touched on this already, but the disconnect is that for many of us in traditional hockey regions, the cultural relevance of the sport is so deeply embedded that we are unable to view expansion/relocation to non-traditional cities as solely a business issue.

My head tells me the NHL just does this **** for money, but my heart tells me it's outsiders trying to appropriate an important element of my culture. I'm certainly not the only one who feels this way, and that's why this debate is never-ending.

It will just go on and on in circles forever.

You can't seriously get pissed at the NHL playing games in Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, Russia, etc. That's four countries with a substantial, decades long hockey tradition. Some of the greatest players ever have come from those countries. When you consider the first two have per capita income close to the Canadian average, it's a no brainer. that's money the NHL is leaving on the table by not engaging with people who are already NHL fans.

There's "hockey is Canada's game!" and then there's "Hockey is Canada's game (and no one else's)!" The first is admirable, nice, gives everybody the warm fuzzies. It's on your freaking money, for God's sake.

The second? Go F yourselves.

 

[pucka lucka]

Unless you mean they run a prison, they are NOT *wardens. Perhaps you mean wards of the sport ie. the act of keeping guard or protective watch.

The NHL and the team owners are not in fact wards of hockey. That role falls to the IIHF and the governing bodies in the individual countries. Hockey Canada in Canada, USA Hockey is the United States.

The NHL no matter how much you may dislike it, is a business. The only responsibility the League has towards protecting or growing the game is to market their product.



* I can normally take the butchering of the English language on a messageboard: some favorites are pre-madonna and intensive purposes.

The whole silly discussion about ripping the game from fans' loving hands is ludicrous. The NHL is a business. If business conditions support a team in Atlanta, one would be there. If business conditions support a team in Quebec City, one would be there as well. Fans that don't have an NHL franchise in their town can still enjoy hockey.

pre-madonna, hmmm debbie gibson? oh the ironing.

 

[Shrimper]

I think a European League would be a great Idea, or, if the NHL doesn't want to implement a new competition then why not take the European Champions Hockey League thing, which has hit the ground due to a lack of interest, and give it a bit of high profiling. Have the winner play the Stanley Cup winner in pre-season in Europe and that'd go some way at raising the game I reckon.

 

[htpwn]

Everyone thought I was trolling when I stated what I did. Yet you confirm what I said. Too many people think that hockey belongs to them and no one else has the right to enjoy it except the people they approve of. Listen to Bob McCown or Read the G&M or watch TSN this is the attitude of the media in Canada also.

Questions I'd like you to answer

1. How is a non-traditional market going to become a more traditional one when you yank their NHL team from them??
2. Hamilton and Toronto hardly draws flies for their AHL teams, how would having an AHL team help grow the game in any cities??
3 Why lump Florida, Atlanta, and Phoenix in with Carolina, Tampa, and Nashville when the later 3 are successful both on the ice and at the box office?
4. Why ignore places like Chicago, Boston, Ottawa, and Minny when they are not having success?
5. What incentive is it for ownership to win when the fans pack the building no matter the record?
6. Have you ever been to games in any of the cities, where you think hockey does not belong?
7. Why gripe and complain so much about these cities or attack their fans?
8. What are you afraid of if you think these cities don't care about hockey?
9. How does it damage your love for the game if these teams exist?

Please tell me how I confirmed what you said, because I don't think I did any such thing. I never said hockey should not be present in certain markets, but I did say that NHL hockey should not exist in markets where there is zero base for it.

1. It isn't, and frankly, if it is going to take hundreds of millions of dollars in losses to get to the point of being considered "traditional", that market should be passed up in favour of one that is more suitable in hosting NHL hockey.

2. Several AHL teams draw quite well, including the Houston Aeros. It isn't the NHL's job to grow the game at the expense of fans in traditional markets.

3. Never did any such thing.

4. Because those markets have proven to have a solid base for hockey. Like it or not, different standards ARE and SHOULD be applied to different markets. An Original Six market that has existed for 80 years is going to have a lot more rope then a team that is struggling/never gained a foothold in their current market.

5. Owners don't like to win? I beg to differ. Most have entered into the business as sports fans and those who are not have quite a bit of pride at stake. Maple Leafs CEO Richard Peddie is not a hockey fan first and foremost, but you don't think he wants to win? You think he likes not being able to walk around downtown Toronto without being booed?

6. Yes, I have.

7. While I am occasionally guilty of bashing the fans of the team, you are right. It isn't the hardcore fans fault, they do their best to bring people to the game. The problem is the rest of the population of their respective cities, which couldn't care less.

8. Afraid of what? Nobody is afraid of these markets, but we are frustrated. We are frustrated at sending revenue sharing down to support (in some cases) lost causes. We are frustrated at the complete lack of respect the sport gets in these places. We are frustrated that the league continues to cater to these markets, while often ignoring its hardcore, more traditional base.

9. Maybe you are used to it, I don't know, but you don't find a game more exciting to watch when the arena is full? Would you rather watch a game in Montreal or Phoenix?

Furthermore, a lot of Americans tend to complain that they don't want to watch Edmonton or Calgary or Winnipeg. You think that is any different in Canada? You think we care about the Nashville Predators or Carolina Hurricanes or Phoenix Coyotes? No! I would much rather see a Montreal vs. Quebec game or Toronto vs. Mississauga then a Montreal vs. Florida or Toronto vs. Phoenix and I think a lot of people share my sentiments.

 

[dronald]

Furthermore, a lot of Americans tend to complain that they don't want to watch Edmonton or Calgary or Winnipeg. You think that is any different in Canada? You think we care about the Nashville Predators or Carolina Hurricanes or Phoenix Coyotes? No! I would much rather see a Montreal vs. Quebec game or Toronto vs. Mississauga then a Montreal vs. Florida or Toronto vs. Phoenix and I think a lot of people share my sentiments.

Actually, I disagree for one reason and it involves taking your point a bit further. Most fans of Toronto or Montreal may get excited that their team is playing a rival of course, but when it comes to my Leafs playing the Coyotes, I really don't care because I love my team that much that I just can't wait to watch it no matter who they are playing.

Unfortuneately it doesn't work both ways though as you were saying. When Phoenix plays Edmonton why should anyone in Phoenix give a damn?

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

Furthermore, a lot of Americans tend to complain that they don't want to watch Edmonton or Calgary or Winnipeg. You think that is any different in Canada? You think we care about the Nashville Predators or Carolina Hurricanes or Phoenix Coyotes? No! I would much rather see a Montreal vs. Quebec game or Toronto vs. Mississauga then a Montreal vs. Florida or Toronto vs. Phoenix and I think a lot of people share my sentiments.

I think this sentiment does exist. To what degree, I don't know.

For me personally, it doesn't matter where the team plays. I'm more concerned with the quality of the team and the entertainment factor of the game and its players.

Secondarily, I enjoy watching games (whatever the sport) where the home team has filled the joint and is loud and excited.

 

[Killion]

The league does like to think of itself as bearing the torch when it suits its needs, well, it shouldn't be a one way street.

If you don't like ward, an alternative is custodian.The League does not hold some sacred trust. It's a business.

How about we split it down the middle between "Warden" & "Custodian" and call it what it really is; "Stewards". The NHL are the "Steward's" of specifically the business of NHL hockey. Wherever & whenever it suits their purposes, is convenient, sell-able & they can make a buck. That includes the HHOF. It too has to be "sold", "sponsored" and "commercialized". The whole bang dang building & shootin match is available for a price. Sell on emotion, justify with logic & how much it can bring in. Everything is for sale. The pre-season Euro trips now called the "Compuware Premier" played primarilly in AEG developed & managed arenas to The Draft, The Trading Day Deadline. The All Star Game, you name it. Its all for sale. What category would you like?. Automotive?. Credit Card?. Soft Drink?. SmartPhone?........

 

[Mathradio]

I think a European League would be a great Idea, or, if the NHL doesn't want to implement a new competition then why not take the European Champions Hockey League thing, which has hit the ground due to a lack of interest, and give it a bit of high profiling. Have the winner play the Stanley Cup winner in pre-season in Europe and that'd go some way at raising the game I reckon.

Or rather, have the Gagarin Cup champion play the Stanley Cup champion in the pre-season.

 

[New User Name]

Everyone thought I was trolling when I stated what I did. Yet you confirm what I said. Too many people think that hockey belongs to them and no one else has the right to enjoy it except the people they approve of. Listen to Bob McCown or Read the G&M or watch TSN this is the attitude of the media in Canada also.

Questions I'd like you to answer

1. How is a non-traditional market going to become a more traditional one when you yank their NHL team from them??
2. Hamilton and Toronto hardly draws flies for their AHL teams, how would having an AHL team help grow the game in any cities??
3 Why lump Florida, Atlanta, and Phoenix in with Carolina, Tampa, and Nashville when the later 3 are successful both on the ice and at the box office?
4. Why ignore places like Chicago, Boston, Ottawa, and Minny when they are not having success?
5. What incentive is it for ownership to win when the fans pack the building no matter the record?
6. Have you ever been to games in any of the cities, where you think hockey does not belong?
7. Why gripe and complain so much about these cities or attack their fans?
8. What are you afraid of if you think these cities don't care about hockey?
9. How does it damage your love for the game if these teams exist?

BS to everything you have said. What teams were "yanked"
By the way your bud Gary didn't make it 7.

here's an interesting thread you can sift through.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=923855

 

[New User Name]

Furthermore, a lot of Americans tend to complain that they don't want to watch Edmonton or Calgary or Winnipeg. You think that is any different in Canada? You think we care about the Nashville Predators or Carolina Hurricanes or Phoenix Coyotes? No! I would much rather see a Montreal vs. Quebec game or Toronto vs. Mississauga then a Montreal vs. Florida or Toronto vs. Phoenix and I think a lot of people share my sentiments.

Exactly. Americans do not want to watch Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, they tolerate Montreal & Toronto. But it's the big bad Canadians that are always wrong. Oh wait, I can remember NBC having Canadian teams on prime time.....oh wait, they don't because they want to grow the game and we all know that having Canadian teams on NBC doesn't grow the game in the US

The excuses and silly banter of the gentleman you responded to is getting so very, very old.

I laugh when many Americans get pissed off that some in the Canadian media called Vancouver, Canada's team, trying to get Canadians to cheer for the Nucks. Yet, from my observations on here the majority of Americans wanted the Bruins to win....oh wait, that's because they hated the biting, whining, diving Canucks.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Exactly. Americans do not want to watch Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, they tolerate Montreal & Toronto. But it's the big bad Canadians that are always wrong. Oh wait, I can remember NBC having Canadian teams on prime time.....oh wait, they don't because they want to grow the game and we all know that having Canadian teams on NBC doesn't grow the game in the US

The excuses and silly banter of the gentleman you responded to is getting so very, very old.

I laugh when many Americans get pissed off that some in the Canadian media called Vancouver, Canada's team, trying to get Canadians to cheer for the Nucks. Yet, from my observations on here the majority of Americans wanted the Bruins to win....oh wait, that's because they hated the biting, whining, diving Canucks.

Truth is I don't want to go to see Calgary, Ottawa, Winnipeg or Toronto. I also am not all that interested in Florida, Dallas, Buffalo, Atlanta, or Colorado. I want to see interesting teams regardless of where they are from. Maybe I'm a fair weather fan, but going to see Stamkos, Crosby, Pronger, Datsyuk, Lidstrom, Chara, the Sedins, Kesler, Thornton etc. is a lot more interesting than Nik Antropov, a Spezzaless Sens, the messes that are Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Leafs, etc.

Funny- I sat here in the US and cheered for the Bruins while my wife wanted the Canucks. She hates the Bruins because she thinks they are crying, whining, diving Bruins.

Even funnier, I thought the Canucks were more American and less Canadian than the Bruins.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Exactly

How about we split it down the middle between "Warden" & "Custodian" and call it what it really is; "Stewards". The NHL are the "Steward's" of specifically the business of NHL hockey. Wherever & whenever it suits their purposes, is convenient, sell-able & they can make a buck. That includes the HHOF. It too has to be "sold", "sponsored" and "commercialized". The whole bang dang building & shootin match is available for a price. Sell on emotion, justify with logic & how much it can bring in. Everything is for sale. The pre-season Euro trips now called the "Compuware Premier" played primarilly in AEG developed & managed arenas to The Draft, The Trading Day Deadline. The All Star Game, you name it. Its all for sale. What category would you like?. Automotive?. Credit Card?. Soft Drink?. SmartPhone?........

Exactly plus it no longer is limited to on ice competition and derivatives but encompasses any activity that is remotely connected under the "entertainment " umbrella". If someone enjoys or is entertained by any aspect that is remotely connected or derives from any NHL activity then they are fair game for economic development or exploitation.

 

[Killion]

Americans do not want to watch Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, they tolerate Montreal & Toronto.

Actually, Nielsens from Game 1 of the 2011 SC Finals between Boston & Vancouver were up by 14% over last years Chicago-Philly Game 1 ratings; the Canucks-Bruins finals also drawing higher rating than the Lakers-Celtics Game 1 Finals. I would therefore have to assume that American audiences are actually a lot more sophisticated & knowledgable about hockey than you give them credit for, as they apparently dont really care where a team is from so long as the quality of play is entertaining. Bonus but not mandatory if there team happens to be in it.

I dont particularly care what some casual fan in Philly or LA or elsewhere thinks about the Sens, Oilers, Canucks, Flames or Jets, whether they "tolerate" Toronto-Montreal or not, I know thats not the case universally but in some circles it certainly is, and again, I could care less. It is what it is. To many, their sporting worlds start & stop at the borders of their own countries, province/state, cities in some cases. Everything else & anywhere else completely irrelevant. Dont care. Dont wanna know about it. If some teary eyed milksop from CBC decides the SC Finals should be hyped with a "Canadas' Team" vs. The Big Bad Bruins & America thats their problem & in no way representative in anyway whatsoever of prevailing Canadians attitudes towards it. In fact, there are probably more Bruins fans across the country than Vancouver fans. In many ways, its sad that the world often views Canada & Canadians by what they see & hear on CBC, a singularly retrograde & unsophisticated broadcaster that is the target of much criticism across the country. Colloquial. Late 20th Century. Provincial.