Which city should get a team?

[ProctorSilex]

Actually to be exact it was 15,393....88% of that is 13,546 (you may want to check my math). In 17 years they (the Jets) were at 88% a total 3 times, and barely over I might add.....then I hear the same people talk about how the Capitals arent supported when they filled the 18,130 Cap Center over 88% for 5 straight seasons, missing that mark barely on both sides of the span for a few seasons. In 89-90 they were 5th in avg attendance. Yes...this is when they had good teams.....I dont dispute that the team needs to be good in order to draw, but there are many cities in the NHL that have to say that....probably even most of the cities

I am not disputing if Winnipeg can now support a team, or the reasons that they left in the first place....again, I wish they never left. I just get annoyed when people that dont know a thing about DC, the hockey scene, ownership situation, think the team should move. Anyone thats posted here for any length should know that saying a team should move will get the most heated discussion going. Fact is hockey in DC is coming arouond after a couple decades of being unseen....and I'm not neccesarily talking about the Caps...I'm talking hockey. For years rinks were far and few between....and kids growing up inthose areas loved/played/followed hockey. In the past 10 or so years huge rinks have opened up all over....playing hockey is now really becoming more mainstream. Hockey fans often come from people that play...and more and more of that is happening in the DC area. If you had told me a local hockey product would be a good NHL player and playing on the US National team 10 years ago I would have laughed.....but Halpern is just that, and with Steve Werner having the success he did in the WJC, he may be another NHL player from Maryland someday

Don't get me wrong, I believe Washington deserves their team, I remember them being one of the more electrifying crowds back in the early 90s. I have no problem with Washington having a team.

I'm just arguing the point that Winnipeg deserves a team back. If it can resurface in Minnesota and Denver, why not Winnipeg who never deserved to lose them in the first place.

 

[Mothra]

Don't get me wrong, I believe Washington deserves their team, I remember them being one of the more electrifying crowds back in the early 90s. I have no problem with Washington having a team.

I'm just arguing the point that Winnipeg deserves a team back. If it can resurface in Minnesota and Denver, why not Winnipeg who never deserved to lose them in the first place.

Thats cool.....like I said, I never saw you say otherwise......and again, I like the idea of having a team in Winnipeg, thats what the NHL is about....bring back the division and conference names too

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Oklahoma City
Houston
Milwaukee
Seattle
Quebec
Hamilton
Kansas City

 

[CF]

Milwaukee, WI needs a team and would support it. I say get rid of Nashville, Tampa Bay, Phoenix and move them north. 2 to Canada, 1 to Milwaukee and 1 to Alaska.

That's smart. Move a profitable winning team. Thank god you're not in charge.

 

[Tuggy]

No more teams in Cali or Florida. PERIOD!

 

[Puckclektr]

Oklahoma City
Houston
Milwaukee
Seattle
Quebec
Hamilton
Kansas City

Please explain why you would put a team in KC Oklahoma City? Especially OK City? Why noy just put a team in Little Rock?

 

[Hasbro]

Please explain why you would put a team in KC Oklahoma City? Especially OK City? Why noy just put a team in Little Rock?

You checked out the minor league attendence in OKC and Tulsa?

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Please explain why you would put a team in KC Oklahoma City? Especially OK City? Why noy just put a team in Little Rock?

Considering the Sens were very close to being moved to Oklahoma City why don't you ask the people with money. Tulsa would not be a bad choice either if they have a big enough building

KC because of the new building and a natural rivalery with St Louis

 

[Hasbro]

Oklahoma City averaged 8,200 for the CHL last year. And historicaly attendence has always been strong there and Tulsa. Lot of oil money there.

Funny you should mention Little rock because that's possibly the worst hockey state in the country.

 

[Prince Mercury]

San Diego-Tijuana, United States/Mexico 4,688,762
Seattle, United States 3,769,400
Cleveland, United States 2,956,323
Portland, United States 2,467,746
Kansas City, United States 1,856,530
Milwaukee, United States 1,743,593
Salt Lake City, United States 1,420,555
Oklahoma City, United States 1,131,137
7 Québec CMA (Lévis) Québec 710,000
8 Winnipeg CMA, Manitoba 700,000
9 Hamilton CMA, Burlington Ontario 710,000

This is why I hate "metro area". I've been to Kansas City about as much as I've been to Hamilton and it's laughable to consider the general size of Kansas City as two and a half times the size of Hamilton.

I understand that one needs to bear in mind suburbs and the like, but American "metros" are always inflated. See the following -

San Diego 1,305,736 (2005 estimate)
Seattle 573,000 (2005 est)
Cleveland 478,403 (2000 census)
Portland 538,544 (2003 est)
Kansas City 588,411 (2000 census, including KC, KS)
Milwaukee 596,974 (2000 cen)
Salt Lake City 181,743 (2000 cen)
Oklahoma City 528,042 (2004 est)
Québec City 507,986 (2002 est, census after for municipal amalgamation)
Winnipeg 619,544 (2001 cen)
Hamilton 662,401 (2001 cen)

Which would mean, of course, that San Diego (and Houston) are the only cities larger than Hamilton and Winnipeg likely considered in possible expansion/relocation. I understand many of the dates are different but cities will do anything to keep their relative populations out of sync.

There's a few things a lot of people don't take into consideration, such as the fact that when the Jets left Winnipeg, the NHL's economics had just changed and the Jets were not making money from parking or concessions, and I would really doubt that had the Jets made it through the mad expansion of the early-mid '90s that they would have not fixed their economic standing. As well, consider that les Nordiques were never that poorly off - they simply were not yet in their prime and there was more money to be had in Denver.

Consider that in spite of their minor success, Portland has so far only supported one other pro team - the Trail Blazers - that would compete head-on with the NHL given the playing schedules. Ditto SLC with the Jazz.

Consider that Kansas City has lost both an NHL and NBA franchise and that the Royals have one of the lowest profit margins in MLB, floated mainly on a very small Kauffman stadium selling out on the lowest average ticket price in the majors and sharing a parking lot with the Chiefs.

Consider that the NHL would be competing with all three other pro sports in Seattle, Cleveland and Houston, and only Houston has the population to make that potentially work (but I would doubt the fan interest). Bear in mind that Cleveland and Houston have both lost NFL franchises. Despite the fact that the Packers play in Green Bay, Milwaukee should probably be lumped in here as well, and bear in mind that Milwaukee is on it's third MLB franchise, after the original Brewers and the Braves both moved.

Finally, I can't imagine anyone moving any sports franchise to San Diego, given the ticket sales even the NFL have struggled with there over the years. Hockey is not a success in southern California and you would be kidding me if you told me that you thought any Mexicans from Tijuana would be coming to San Diego to watch NHL hockey.

Oklahoma City, however, is - unless I'm mistaken - now the largest city in the U.S. without a pro team, and given their interest in minor hockey and relative distance to other team in the NHL, I'd say this would be a pretty good idea.

Hamilton, of course, would be an ideal city to get a franchise, narrowly losing to Ottawa in the early '90s and in the hotbed of hockey. The relative distance to Toronto, Detroit and Buffalo is comparable to the Devils between Madison Square Garden, Long Island and Philadelphia. Copps Colisseum is a mess right now but I know if the NHL came to Hamilton that could be fixed. And to quell a myth - Hamiltonians are not necessarily Leafs fans. Check out a Bulldogs game sometime when the Marlies are in town to figure that one out.

And the old final point - Winnipeg and Québec may have lost franchises, but so had Denver, Minneapolis, Oakland and Atlanta.

And in closing, I have no comment on Hartford. Don't know enough about the Connecticut fans to even dare go there.

 

[Original6]

This is why I hate "metro area". I've been to Kansas City about as much as I've been to Hamilton and it's laughable to consider the general size of Kansas City as two and a half times the size of Hamilton.

I understand that one needs to bear in mind suburbs and the like, but American "metros" are always inflated. See the following -

San Diego 1,305,736 (2005 estimate)
Seattle 573,000 (2005 est)
Cleveland 478,403 (2000 census)
Portland 538,544 (2003 est)
Kansas City 588,411 (2000 census, including KC, KS)
Milwaukee 596,974 (2000 cen)
Salt Lake City 181,743 (2000 cen)
Oklahoma City 528,042 (2004 est)
Québec City 507,986 (2002 est, census after for municipal amalgamation)
Winnipeg 619,544 (2001 cen)
Hamilton 662,401 (2001 cen)

Which would mean, of course, that San Diego (and Houston) are the only cities larger than Hamilton and Winnipeg likely considered in possible expansion/relocation. I understand many of the dates are different but cities will do anything to keep their relative populations out of sync.

There's a few things a lot of people don't take into consideration, such as the fact that when the Jets left Winnipeg, the NHL's economics had just changed and the Jets were not making money from parking or concessions, and I would really doubt that had the Jets made it through the mad expansion of the early-mid '90s that they would have not fixed their economic standing. As well, consider that les Nordiques were never that poorly off - they simply were not yet in their prime and there was more money to be had in Denver.

Consider that in spite of their minor success, Portland has so far only supported one other pro team - the Trail Blazers - that would compete head-on with the NHL given the playing schedules. Ditto SLC with the Jazz.

Consider that Kansas City has lost both an NHL and NBA franchise and that the Royals have one of the lowest profit margins in MLB, floated mainly on a very small Kauffman stadium selling out on the lowest average ticket price in the majors and sharing a parking lot with the Chiefs.

Consider that the NHL would be competing with all three other pro sports in Seattle, Cleveland and Houston, and only Houston has the population to make that potentially work (but I would doubt the fan interest). Bear in mind that Cleveland and Houston have both lost NFL franchises. Despite the fact that the Packers play in Green Bay, Milwaukee should probably be lumped in here as well, and bear in mind that Milwaukee is on it's third MLB franchise, after the original Brewers and the Braves both moved.

Finally, I can't imagine anyone moving any sports franchise to San Diego, given the ticket sales even the NFL have struggled with there over the years. Hockey is not a success in southern California and you would be kidding me if you told me that you thought any Mexicans from Tijuana would be coming to San Diego to watch NHL hockey.

Oklahoma City, however, is - unless I'm mistaken - now the largest city in the U.S. without a pro team, and given their interest in minor hockey and relative distance to other team in the NHL, I'd say this would be a pretty good idea.

Hamilton, of course, would be an ideal city to get a franchise, narrowly losing to Ottawa in the early '90s and in the hotbed of hockey. The relative distance to Toronto, Detroit and Buffalo is comparable to the Devils between Madison Square Garden, Long Island and Philadelphia. Copps Colisseum is a mess right now but I know if the NHL came to Hamilton that could be fixed. And to quell a myth - Hamiltonians are not necessarily Leafs fans. Check out a Bulldogs game sometime when the Marlies are in town to figure that one out.

And the old final point - Winnipeg and Québec may have lost franchises, but so had Denver, Minneapolis, Oakland and Atlanta.

And in closing, I have no comment on Hartford. Don't know enough about the Connecticut fans to even dare go there.

I like the NHL the way it is rite now. However Hamilton is too close to toronto.

 

[Coburnfan05]

Which city, without an NHL team, should get one, or deserves to get one?

I'm thinking,

-Las Vegas

-Oakland, they did have the Golden Seals, and should get another team.

-Juneau or Anchorage (Alaska should be represented by some major sport, and hockey seems like a good fit, it is almost always cold and icy).

Yeah that's what the NHL needs...More hockey teams in the south, where the population could care less...

Winnepeg
Hamilton - Homer Vote
Quebec

 

[Coburnfan05]

like the NHL the way it is rite now. However Hamilton is too close to toronto.

Wouldn't that make for such a great rivalry...the Argos -Ticats is probably one of the best rivalry in sports period.

 

[Hasbro]

This is why I hate "metro area". I've been to Kansas City about as much as I've been to Hamilton and it's laughable to consider the general size of Kansas City as two and a half times the size of Hamilton.

I understand that one needs to bear in mind suburbs and the like, but American "metros" are always inflated. See the following -

San Diego 1,305,736 (2005 estimate)
Seattle 573,000 (2005 est)
Cleveland 478,403 (2000 census)
Portland 538,544 (2003 est)
Kansas City 588,411 (2000 census, including KC, KS)
Milwaukee 596,974 (2000 cen)
Salt Lake City 181,743 (2000 cen)
Oklahoma City 528,042 (2004 est)
Québec City 507,986 (2002 est, census after for municipal amalgamation)
Winnipeg 619,544 (2001 cen)
Hamilton 662,401 (2001 cen)

Which would mean, of course, that San Diego (and Houston) are the only cities larger than Hamilton and Winnipeg likely considered in possible expansion/relocation. I understand many of the dates are different but cities will do anything to keep their relative populations out of sync.

It was just for the sake of getting an ideaof their relative size. The thing I hate about metro's is there is no standard methodology.

 

[TehDoak]

Vegas baby...and here's why:

#1. A steady, growing economy.
#2. No major sports teams/college teams to take away from the fan #3. NHL exposure to many non traditional fans in smaller markets. For example...Joe Bob and Cletus go to Vegas to get play some of dat poker they see on ESPN. They lose a crapload of money at the casinos, and get comped to see the Las Vegas NHL teams. They had back home to Carolina/Texas/Phoenix/Miami and are lifelong fans.

And....its another reason for me to move there

 

[Original6]

Wouldn't that make for such a great rivalry...the Argos -Ticats is probably one of the best rivalry in sports period.

This isn't the CFL. Hate it or love it, if you want the game of hockey to grow you got throw it in the US. Traditional/non-traditional markets that does not matter. That's just the way canadians think, however americans will support a winner in any big city. Honestly, no offense but talking to canadians outside of Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal is like talking a kid into eating his green vegitables for him to grow. In this case the green vegitable is un-necessary ignorance or as some would like to call it... "pride".

 

[Coburnfan05]

This isn't the CFL. Hate it or love it, if you want the game of hockey to grow you got throw it in the US. Traditional/non-traditional that does not matter. That's just the way canadians think, however americans will support a winner in any big city. Honestly, no offense but talking to canadians outside of Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal is like talking a kid in eating his green vegitables for him to grow. In this case the green vegitable is un-necessary ignorance or as some would like to call it... "pride".

I have no problem with an NHL going to an American city...It just has to be in the right markets...In most southern states the NHL will never prosper with the NFL, NASCAR, and college football for competition.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by Prince Mercury
This is why I hate "metro area". I've been to Kansas City about as much as I've been to Hamilton and it's laughable to consider the general size of Kansas City as two and a half times the size of Hamilton.

I understand that one needs to bear in mind suburbs and the like, but American "metros" are always inflated. See the following -

San Diego 1,305,736 (2005 estimate)
Seattle 573,000 (2005 est)
Cleveland 478,403 (2000 census)
Portland 538,544 (2003 est)
Kansas City 588,411 (2000 census, including KC, KS)
Milwaukee 596,974 (2000 cen)
Salt Lake City 181,743 (2000 cen)
Oklahoma City 528,042 (2004 est)
Québec City 507,986 (2002 est, census after for municipal amalgamation)
Winnipeg 619,544 (2001 cen)
Hamilton 662,401 (2001 cen)

Which would mean, of course, that San Diego (and Houston) are the only cities larger than Hamilton and Winnipeg likely considered in possible expansion/relocation. I understand many of the dates are different but cities will do anything to keep their relative populations out of sync.

It was just for the sake of getting an ideaof their relative size. The thing I hate about metro's is there is no standard methodology.

To do real apples-to-apples comparisons you have to do more in depth analysis than just city and metro area population - just city populatiopn will in most cases significantly under state the market size (there is significant support from surrounding suburbs) and most metro area definitions are too far reaching and over state the market size.

For example, San Jose.

The city population is 904,522 (2004 est).

The SF-SJ-Oakland metropolitan area is 7,039,362 (2000), but that includes the entire 9 county Bay Area (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano). Few, if any Sharks fans come from the North Bay (Marin, Napa, Sonoma), but quite a few do come from Santa Cruz which is not part of the Metro area.

If you break the metro area down county by county (probably the best way to do it), you'll find that the 4 counties that provide the vast bulk of the Sharks fan base - Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Alameda total ~4.5M.

It would be really interesting if any posters who are familiar with the expansion/relocation markets could try to do a similar breakdown to come up with a more realistic assessment of market size.

 

[Original6]

I have no problem with an NHL going to an American city...It just has to be in the right markets...In most southern states the NHL will never prosper with the NFL, NASCAR, and college football for competition.

You obviously failed to ignore my post.

 

[Hasbro]

To do real apples-to-apples comparisons you have to do more in depth analysis than just city and metro area population - just city populatiopn will in most cases significantly under state the market size (there is significant support from surrounding suburbs) and most metro area definitions are too far reaching and over state the market size.

For example, San Jose.

The city population is 904,522 (2004 est).

The SF-SJ-Oakland metropolitan area is 7,039,362 (2000), but that includes the entire 9 county Bay Area (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano). Few, if any Sharks fans come from the North Bay (Marin, Napa, Sonoma), but quite a few do come from Santa Cruz which is not part of the Metro area.

If you break the metro area down county by county (probably the best way to do it), you'll find that the 4 counties that provide the vast bulk of the Sharks fan base - Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Alameda total ~4.5M.

It would be really interesting if any posters who are familiar with the expansion/relocation markets could try to do a similar breakdown to come up with a more realistic assessment of market size.

In any case it breaks down to Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. For instance I've seen Boulder counted as a seperate metro area than Denver, which I don't think I could find anyone who would agree with that assesment and this is a town that prides itself on its autonomy.

At the same time I've seen Greely counted in the Denver-Boulder metro area which really doesn't fit either (rule of thumb with Greeley is take a deep breath, if you don't smell cows you aren't there.)

Furthermore areas outside the metro are worth considering for tv viewership and hockey following.

Some useful sites
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
http://www.citypopulation.de/

 

[Coburnfan05]

You obviously failed to ignore my post.

I understand the whole let's market the league to bring in a new audience and make it grow...It hasn't worked yet and it never will, so why deprive fans who love the game and are pasionate about it to not see it live.

 

[KillerB 's]

Yeah that's what the NHL needs...More hockey teams in the south, where the population could care less...

Winnepeg
Hamilton - Homer Vote
Quebec

First off Alaska isnt even close to being in the south, and Oakland is in mid-California, and Las Vegas is not really the "south", it is closer to the south but more to the west.

 

[Hasbro]

First off Alaska isnt even close to being in the south, and Oakland is in mid-California, and Las Vegas is not really the "south", it is closer to the south but more to the west.

Anyone can miss Alaska all tucked away down there.

 

[Original6]

I understand the whole let's market the league to bring in a new audience and make it grow...It hasn't worked yet and it never will, so why deprive fans who love the game and are pasionate about it to not see it live.

Do you actually believe.. in that thick head of yours that you are right? Honestly do you? What makes you think that the game will become an overnite success in all the so called "non traditional markets?" 10 - 15 years is nothing, considering that most of the newer teams are lik 4 - 6 years old. What's all this crap about depriving the fans who love the game? Are these southern teams blacking out games from canada? It's people like you that are blocking the growth of Canada in terms of media. This is whats best for the game, hate it or love it!

 

[Prince Mercury]

It was just for the sake of getting an ideaof their relative size. The thing I hate about metro's is there is no standard methodology.

See I agree, my main issue is the way American metros work. New York City metro, for example, spans across New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Chicago metro stretches from Gary, Indiana to Kenosha, Wisconsin. Metro Toronto, however, stretches about 100 km north, west and east of downtown.

Vegas baby...and here's why:

#1. A steady, growing economy.
#2. No major sports teams/college teams to take away from the fan #3. NHL exposure to many non traditional fans in smaller markets. For example...Joe Bob and Cletus go to Vegas to get play some of dat poker they see on ESPN. They lose a crapload of money at the casinos, and get comped to see the Las Vegas NHL teams. They had back home to Carolina/Texas/Phoenix/Miami and are lifelong fans.

And....its another reason for me to move there

With all the talk of the NBA going to Las Vegas, the Oakland Athletics moving to Las Vegas and the NFL putting teams everywhere (excluding L.A. and Toronto but including Las Vegas) I've never heard anything more than fan rumblings about the NHL in Vegas.

What's all this crap about depriving the fans who love the game? Are these southern teams blacking out games from canada?

You might want to ask a fan in Winnipeg about the Phoenix Coyotes blacking out their home games.