Prince Mercury said:
Winnipeg is not a big city. Putting a team there makes this league look worse than it already does now.
Which city should get a team?
- Thread starter KillerB 's
- Start date
- Status
Winnipeg is not a big city. Putting a team there makes this league look worse than it already does now.
Kritter471
Registered User
I, for one, am against the NHL returning to Winnipeg, Hartford or Quebec City until those cities make sweeping changes in their facilities and prove that they will be able to sustain the type of finances and fan supoprt present in cities many times their size. Winnipeg seemes to be taking the first steps towards this, but has done nowhere near enough. Kind of like I was against hockey returning to Minnesota until they built their new rink (because the Met Center was a disaster) and got a new ownership group.
And if those three cities struggled with NHL franchises, I don't see how Saskatoon could support a team.
Houston - that's a real conundrum of a city for professional sports. Texas is a football first state, but minor hockey flourishes here and the Stars have done exceptionally well in a city that had little/no exposure to hockey prior to their arrivial. The Aeros, in the 1970s, drew very, very well until the team basically alienated the fans with an arena change and a whole slew of issues that went along with that. And the Aeros, in their current AHL incarnation, draw alright but not spectacular. But Houston is a blue-collar city and hockey is a blue-collar sport, so if done right, I can see a team being successful down there.
OKC is an interesting choice, but the more I look at it, the more it makes sense. It's a very non-traditional market, but on local television they have gotten a lot of exposure to the Stars (through Fox Sports Southwest) and have supported minor league hockey since the 1940s, with their current team (the Blazers) drawing exceptionally well for the average CHL team. And if you subscribe to the idea of "if your audience isn't growing, it's dying," it makes much more sense to try and expand the NHL to "non-traditional markets" rather than to go back to previously failed, if fervent, cities.
And if those three cities struggled with NHL franchises, I don't see how Saskatoon could support a team.
Houston - that's a real conundrum of a city for professional sports. Texas is a football first state, but minor hockey flourishes here and the Stars have done exceptionally well in a city that had little/no exposure to hockey prior to their arrivial. The Aeros, in the 1970s, drew very, very well until the team basically alienated the fans with an arena change and a whole slew of issues that went along with that. And the Aeros, in their current AHL incarnation, draw alright but not spectacular. But Houston is a blue-collar city and hockey is a blue-collar sport, so if done right, I can see a team being successful down there.
OKC is an interesting choice, but the more I look at it, the more it makes sense. It's a very non-traditional market, but on local television they have gotten a lot of exposure to the Stars (through Fox Sports Southwest) and have supported minor league hockey since the 1940s, with their current team (the Blazers) drawing exceptionally well for the average CHL team. And if you subscribe to the idea of "if your audience isn't growing, it's dying," it makes much more sense to try and expand the NHL to "non-traditional markets" rather than to go back to previously failed, if fervent, cities.
Kritter471 said:
Exactly!!! I think jets fans are forgetting that they were an WHA team to begin with. The WHA put franchises in questionable markets; that's probably why all the WHA franchises are defunct except for the oilers who were heading that way. The purposals I see from Jets fans are absolutely horrid. They say things like "we have pay per view now and we can use that as a local broadcast." Honestly if that's the only way you guys can get local tv, that's pretty pathetic.
that's true of most of the US markets, even the good ones though.Kritter471 said:
Of course, given that minor support you could argue that OKC is a traditional market in some senses. I know Colorado doesn't get that credit despite its college traditions.
The NHL would be wise to look a some small ponds where it could be a big fish, like it did in Columbus and the NBA has in Portland.
I doubt any teams will move anywhere considering that most of the teams that "should" move have shown success during winning times. Just take a look at the main page with all the team icons and stuff, it's a nice image to see with all those teams. Why can't people just enjoy it and if you don't have a team close to you (if you're a proximity/home town type of fan) then just watch the closest team to you or stop watching the NHL. No point in comming on message boards talking smack about non traditional markets and what not. The last thing many of us would like to hear is small town folk speaking for the NHL and their owners. Bettman has NO plans of expansion and no teams except penguins even considered moving. Even now the pens are most likely going to get their Arena so you can pretty much count em out too. Take a look at the picture below and get used to it because this is what the NHL's landscape is going to look for a long time to come.
Last edited by a moderator:
Prince Mercury
Registered User
DrHockey said:
Winnipeg - 619,544 (2001 census)
Boston - 589,141 (2000 cen)
Vancouver - 583,296 (2001 cen)
Nashville - 569,891 (2000 cen)
Washington D.C. - 563,384 (2003 estimate)
Denver - 554,636 (2000 cen)
Atlanta - 425,000 (2004 est)
Miami - 362,470 (2000 cen)
St. Louis - 348,189 (2000 cen)
Pittsburgh - 334,563 (2000 cen)
Anaheim - 328,014 (2000 cen)
Raleigh - 326,653 (2004 est)
Tampa - 321,772 (2004 est)
Buffalo - 292,648 (2000 cen)
St. Paul - 287,151 (2000 cen)
Glendale - 218,812 (2000 cen)
East Rutherford - 8,716 (2000 cen)
I realize that some of these cities may have large suburbs (or in the case of Vancouver and St. Louis, not be fully amalgamated municipalities, and of course Anaheim merely being a suburb itself) but the reality is that over half of all NHL cities have a smaller population than Winnipeg. Contrast with Hamilton, which, at 662,401, is a larger city. (2001 cen) Also note that Québec City, with a population of 507,986 (2002 amalgamated census total) is larger than a third of all NHL cities.You can debate "metros" as long as you want but you will not be able to refute these facts. I fail to see how either Hamilton or Winnipeg can be written off as being far too small. I also fail to see how a team in Winnipeg would come across as an "embarassment" simply in terms of population as the facts favour Winnipeg. What would embarass me as the NHL would be the empty seats in large cities like Chicago and L.A. Obviously population is not the only key. (And, as an aside, the Winnipeg Jets would embarass the NHL? This is the same league that was planning on an orange red line on blue ice.)
The entire population of Manitoba is only about 1.1 million while Massachusets is over 6, so it is a bit disengenous to put it on a par with Boston. The peg is probably about the minimum size you'd want for a market. Pasicaly what it would take in this case and ones like it is someone hellbent on putting a team there buying one of the shaky franchises and moving it there, because I don't see a carpetbagger like Karmanos chosing that over a Portland.
You must be new to the city. Hamilton amalgamated with Stoney Creek , Dundas and Ancaster the last couple of years. Burlington is still a suburb.gscarpenter2002 said:
I live in Hamilton. There is no way it is 660k people. It is about 310k in general, with suburbs of Ancaster (about 75k) and Dundas (50k tops).Prince Mercury said:Winnipeg - 619,544 (2001 census)
Boston - 589,141 (2000 cen)
Vancouver - 583,296 (2001 cen)
Nashville - 569,891 (2000 cen)
Washington D.C. - 563,384 (2003 estimate)
Denver - 554,636 (2000 cen)
Atlanta - 425,000 (2004 est)
Miami - 362,470 (2000 cen)
St. Louis - 348,189 (2000 cen)
Pittsburgh - 334,563 (2000 cen)
Anaheim - 328,014 (2000 cen)
Raleigh - 326,653 (2004 est)
Tampa - 321,772 (2004 est)
Buffalo - 292,648 (2000 cen)
St. Paul - 287,151 (2000 cen)
Glendale - 218,812 (2000 cen)
East Rutherford - 8,716 (2000 cen)
You can debate "metros" as long as you want but you will not be able to refute these facts. I fail to see how either Hamilton or Winnipeg can be written off as being far too small. I also fail to see how a team in Winnipeg would come across as an "embarassment" simply in terms of population as the facts favour Winnipeg. What would embarass me as the NHL would be the empty seats in large cities like Chicago and L.A. Obviously population is not the only key. (And, as an aside, the Winnipeg Jets would embarass the NHL? This is the same league that was planning on an orange red line on blue ice.)
There is no way Hamilton would/could support an NHL franchise.
Frankly, populations have not that much to do with success. A solid corporate base is key, IMO.
Prince Mercury said:
I agree that Winnipeg should have a team but this is a horrible representation of reasoning why. Suburbs and oulying areas matter as much as the core. Otherwise Edmonton would be looked at as a major market, which we aren't.
and especially in the United States where population markets can be densely packed within a state (like Mass) smaller than the outlying areas of Edmonton county.
Pantokrator
Who's the clown?
I would love Quebec City to get a team again. The rivalry between them and Montreal seemed great to me. Why did they lose their team in the first place? Was it just that the owner sold them out?
I also think Winnipeg should have a team, and, not trying to sound Jingoistic, but almost any Canadian city, since those people in the Great White North love their hockey!
I also think Winnipeg should have a team, and, not trying to sound Jingoistic, but almost any Canadian city, since those people in the Great White North love their hockey!
The Hamilton census area includes Burlington, I believe, as well as Ancaster, Dundas, Stoney Creek, Waderdown, etc (I used to live there, too)gscarpenter2002 said:
Population of the whole mess is about 710k.Also, Winnipeg is a shade over 700k now (http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a.htm)
And, you're right, it doesn't matter anyway. The amount of revenue a team can generate is all that matters.
Population
Not sure if I am just repeating something somebody else has said, but I believe that it does not matter what your population is, it depends on how many people will actually watch and pay for tickets. That said, I believe that Canada as a whole, would be a better place to put teams just because of overall fan support. Nothing against any teams or there fans, as I have no suggestion of what team or teams would move. I am just saying that the number of sustainable fans for hockey is higher than anywhere in the USA,except a few places (ie. original 6), of course this is just my opinion.
Not sure if I am just repeating something somebody else has said, but I believe that it does not matter what your population is, it depends on how many people will actually watch and pay for tickets. That said, I believe that Canada as a whole, would be a better place to put teams just because of overall fan support. Nothing against any teams or there fans, as I have no suggestion of what team or teams would move. I am just saying that the number of sustainable fans for hockey is higher than anywhere in the USA,except a few places (ie. original 6), of course this is just my opinion.
Prince Mercury
Registered User
Hasbro said:
By all means looking at cities simply in terms of municipal population is disengenuous, but it is factual and reliably quantifiable, unlike metro population. My point isn't that Hamilton and Winnipeg dwarf cities like Vancouver, Boston, Washington or Atlanta, simply that they compare with established cities in terms of population.
Kritter471
Registered User
Part of the thing about including metro areas is that those are people who go into the city on a regular basis and can legitimately be expected to spend time in a city. Yeah, they can be overstated but they're a much better indicator of the potential audience than the simple city population.
Like... I live in Grapevine, Texas, about 15 miles from Dallas. But that 15 miles doesn't mean squat if I want to drive into a hockey game downtown. It's a 30 minute round trip on freeways that isn't a problem. All of the D/FW metroplex can legitimately be considered a potential in-person audience for a Stars game (3ish million).
So the population of Manitoba is just over 1 million and 620,000 people live in Winnipeg . But how many of those extra 380,000 could legitimately make regular trips into Winnipeg to see 30-42 games a year as a season ticket holder?
Or in your comparison to Boston, I lived in Sharon, MA (20 miles, 45 minute drive to Boston). I went in for 5-6 Bruins game a year on the commuter rail and I know a lot of wealthy season ticket holders lived in the suburban population you want to discount. Trust me, Boston dwarfs 620,000 people. They have cities within Boston (Chelsea comes to mind immediately) that aren't part of the "city population" but are literally 4 minutes away from the Fleet Center/whatever they are calling it now.
Like... I live in Grapevine, Texas, about 15 miles from Dallas. But that 15 miles doesn't mean squat if I want to drive into a hockey game downtown. It's a 30 minute round trip on freeways that isn't a problem. All of the D/FW metroplex can legitimately be considered a potential in-person audience for a Stars game (3ish million).
So the population of Manitoba is just over 1 million and 620,000 people live in Winnipeg . But how many of those extra 380,000 could legitimately make regular trips into Winnipeg to see 30-42 games a year as a season ticket holder?
Or in your comparison to Boston, I lived in Sharon, MA (20 miles, 45 minute drive to Boston). I went in for 5-6 Bruins game a year on the commuter rail and I know a lot of wealthy season ticket holders lived in the suburban population you want to discount. Trust me, Boston dwarfs 620,000 people. They have cities within Boston (Chelsea comes to mind immediately) that aren't part of the "city population" but are literally 4 minutes away from the Fleet Center/whatever they are calling it now.
Of course using city proper Aurora, CO (pop 260K) could clammor for a team even though it's next to Denver.Prince Mercury said:
In terms of Denver's Metro it's a 70 mile strip from Boulder south to Castle Rock. About 3.5 million people are on bunched into a 110 mile strip on the I-25 corridor on the front range and Southern Wyoming and Pueblo, CO are near enough to make the drive. The Avs pretty much have the whole Rocky Mountain region to themselves and have a great number of fans outside our immediate area. So dealing with just the population of Manitoba at 1.1 million it gets dwarfed next to models with resevoirs of population nearby. So let's say The Neojets fanbase extends from Saskatchewan to Western Ontario, that's only 2.5 to 3 million and about half of that in driving range.
Yeah you're going to get more bang for your buck in Winnipeg than a city like Portland, but places like Portland hahave alot more bucks.
Prince Mercury
Registered User
Kritter471 said:
Well, when you consider that there are no other pro teams near Winnipeg, selling around 18,000 tickets for 41 games sounds reasonable. Again, sounds.
Hasbro said:
The difference between Aurora, CO and cities like Winnipeg and Québec is that they do not have NHL franchises in the town over and for that matter have no pro sport competitors. The only relative competition would be the Blue Bombers for Winnipeg and teams in Montreal for Québec. In fact one could argue that without the Expos, Québec could better support an NHL team.
The difference between Aurora, OC and a city like Hamilton is that Hamilton is in one of the most densely populated areas of North America, and that Hamilton has no pro sports teams other than the Ti-Cats and the currently well-supported Bulldogs.
Hamilton may be as close to Toronto as Aurora is to Denver, but metro Toronto has 4.5 million people, and Denver has 4 major pro sports teams to Toronto's 3. Were the question instead 'Should Toronto get a second NHL team?' I doubt people would dismiss it as easily as they dismiss Hamilton. To explain -
New York - 3 NHL, 2 NFL, 2 MLB, 2 NBA
Los Angeles - 2 NHL, 0 NFL, 2 MLB, 2 NBA
Chicago - 1 NHL, 1 NFL, 2 MLB, 1 NBA
Toronto - 1 NHL, 0 NFL, 1 MLB, 1 NBA
The difference in population between Toronto and Chicago is more or less negligable. Given the relative amount of pro teams in Toronto and the fact that it is the hotbed of hockey, isn't it likely the area could support another team in Hamilton?
Prince Mercury said:
If I'm not mistaken every team in the league needs to approve a new ownership/team, and the Buffalo Sabres will never approve a Hamilton team
If you count the Argos TO has 4. I don't know how much the sports dollar being taken up argument holds. I've always seen it as more a battle for time and energy. Hockey has to directly compete with basketball, football and baseball are offset enough not to take up so much of a space.Prince Mercury said:
Yeah Buffalo is going to stand in the way of a team in Hamilton, but would a team there be able to take fans from the Leafs? Or would it be another New Jersey only getting sellouts when the nearby rivals are in town.
How many Junior teams are in the GTA?
Hasbro said:
Argos don't count. It's pretty safe to say that with hockey back the CFL in toronto is going to be a non issue again.
Houston should get an NHL franchise. It's just too big of a market to ignore. Also, Las Vegas is a good candidate since it's the fastest-growing city in the U.S. and it draws alot of tourists.
misterjaggers said:
I dunno about Vegas. Sports just don't seem to fly in vegas unless you are in a room betting on a game.
- Status
