Which city should get a team?

[Unholy Diver]

Why would those cities support a team.....? Any reasons?

they have at least one or more major sports team already, I dont know if they want hockey or not just saying they could support a team

 

[ftyutin51]

I think Alaska would be good for a team. No doubt they would probably have one of the best ice surfaces, it's so cold there! Also, if you ever been to Anchorage, it's full of tourists, and say there was a arena built there and tickets sell cheaper (than the rest of the US or Canada), people would go watch the game, and maybe create new waves of hockey fans. Also, Alaska is pretty close to Canada or the nwestern part atleast and close to the NW of the US, so people there could go to games faster. That would be nice, I think.

**(specifically) I don't think any more teams in California would help hockey. There's already so many sports teams there (same as NY) it'll just lose interest

 

[KillerB 's]

What must be answered is why they lost their team in the first place, and what's different now. Why go back where we failed before?

Because that was then and this is now. The market is different, and so isnt the economy. I think they should give them another chance, bring back old teams, get a larger fan base, and gain more revenue. Bettman is trying to change the NHL, this might work.

 

[KillerB 's]

I think Alaska would be good for a team. No doubt they would probably have one of the best ice surfaces, it's so cold there! Also, if you ever been to Anchorage, it's full of tourists, and say there was a arena built there and tickets sell cheaper (than the rest of the US or Canada), people would go watch the game, and maybe create new waves of hockey fans. Also, Alaska is pretty close to Canada or the western part atleast and close to the NW of the US, so people there could go to games faster. That would be nice, I think.

Thanks for agreeing , at least someone knows where I'm comming from.

 

[braincramp]

Minnesota, Quebec City, and Winnepeg had good ice and hockey traditions and couldn't keep a team. Dallas, LA, and Tampa Bay had neither and did.

Think about Canada/US exchange rates, TV contracts, salaries before the cap, population, competing forms of entertainment, wanton expansion, etc.

 

[salty justice]

There are very few cities left in the US that could support a hockey team. Quebec and Winnipeg should be the first choices.

I think moving the Ducks to San Diego would be a great move. SD is now the 7th biggest city in the US and a much nicer place than Anaheim IMO, certainly a bigger sports market. The surrounding county is also much larger than Orange. The Bay Area does not need another team.

Im surprised no one has ever tried to put a team in Wisonsin. Hockey is fairly popular there. North Dakota is also a hockey hotbed in the US. Both have great college programs for hockey, so I dont see why it wouldnt be as much of a success as Minnesota, or atleast close to it.

 

[KillerB 's]

There are very few cities left in the US that could support a hockey team. Quebec and Winnipeg should be the first choices.

I think moving the Ducks to San Diego would be a great move. SD is now the 7th biggest city in the US and a much nicer place than Anaheim IMO, certainly a bigger sports market. The surrounding county is also much larger than Orange. The Bay Area does not need another team.

Im surprised no one has ever tried to put a team in Wisonsin. Hockey is fairly popular there. North Dakota is also a hockey hotbed in the US. Both have great college programs for hockey, so I dont see why it wouldnt be as much of a success as Minnesota, or atleast close to it.

Great point

 

[Puckclektr]

they have at least one or more major sports team already, I dont know if they want hockey or not just saying they could support a team

Just becasue the have a pro sports franchise doen's mean they can support a hockey team...So your saying that is why they should get a team?

 

[Puckclektr]

I think Alaska would be good for a team. No doubt they would probably have one of the best ice surfaces, it's so cold there! Also, if you ever been to Anchorage, it's full of tourists, and say there was a arena built there and tickets sell cheaper (than the rest of the US or Canada), people would go watch the game, and maybe create new waves of hockey fans. Also, Alaska is pretty close to Canada or the nwestern part atleast and close to the NW of the US, so people there could go to games faster. That would be nice, I think.

**(specifically) I don't think any more teams in California would help hockey. There's already so many sports teams there (same as NY) it'll just lose interest

Alakska has lots of tourists in the summer. But really how many people in the dead of winter decide to go to Alaska for their holidays. If Las Vegas couldn't support a team on tourism what makes you think Anchorage will?

 

[braincramp]

I think Alaska would be good for a team. No doubt they would probably have one of the best ice surfaces, it's so cold there! Also, if you ever been to Anchorage, it's full of tourists, and say there was a arena built there and tickets sell cheaper (than the rest of the US or Canada), people would go watch the game, and maybe create new waves of hockey fans. Also, Alaska is pretty close to Canada or the nwestern part atleast and close to the NW of the US, so people there could go to games faster. That would be nice, I think.

Anchorage is 2200 miles from Vancouver, the nearest current NHL city. Cheaper seats? Highest cost-of-living in US.

 

[Tricolore#20]

Why hasn't Seattle been considered for an NHL franchise yet? Is it because of its proximity to Vancouver, and fears that the market (which includes the 2.5 hr drive that encompasses it) may not be big enough for two teams? It's a big city, with temperate weather, and some hockey history (First ever American Stanley Cup Champs in the early 20th century).

Another American city I could see getting a team is Milwaukee.

 

[se7en*]

Houston would be a great choice, but not at our expense like last time. Natural rival for Dallas, etc, etc…

 

[The Frugal Gourmet]

I would guess that Houston is the biggest market in North America without a hockey team, and therefore that city would be the most logical choice for one next.

 

[Hecht]

There are very few cities left in the US that could support a hockey team. Quebec and Winnipeg should be the first choices.

I think moving the Ducks to San Diego would be a great move. SD is now the 7th biggest city in the US and a much nicer place than Anaheim IMO, certainly a bigger sports market. The surrounding county is also much larger than Orange. The Bay Area does not need another team.

Im surprised no one has ever tried to put a team in Wisonsin. Hockey is fairly popular there. North Dakota is also a hockey hotbed in the US. Both have great college programs for hockey, so I dont see why it wouldnt be as much of a success as Minnesota, or atleast close to it.

North Dakota doesn't have the population or the businesses that could support an NHL team. They are probably happy with the Fighting Sioux for now.

 

[God Bless Canada]

1. Portland. Great arena, likely the best in the U.S. without a team. They've supported the WHL very well. I think the NHL would fit in very well in the Rose Garden.
2. Winnipeg. The fan support was always there, even though the talent wasn't. Now they have the rink they never had. Their day is coming.
3. Milwaukee. Wisconsin has always been a good hockey market, and the Admirals and Badgers have always received good support. Time for Milwaukee to get its do.

Oakland would be very detrimental to the Sharks success. The Sharks succeed partially because of support of the bay area as a whole. Put a team in Oakland, you take away the Oakland and San Francisco markets.
Las Vegas? Never happen. A Vegas team would last five years, tops.
Cleveland or Cincinnati? Part of the beauty of Columbus is its centrality in the state of Ohio. They're able to attract from the nearby Ohio cities. Put a team in Cleveland or Cinci, and you take away from Columbus' fan support.
Quebec City? I would love to see a team back in Quebec City. But it was one of the smallest markets in North American pro sports when the Nordiques left, and a lot of players didn't like playing there, because it was small and English isn't very prevalent. I love Quebec City, I think it's one of the most beautiful cities in North America, but a lot of players weren't fond of it. (And I've been in both Montreal and Quebec City, and I could tell the difference in English fluency).
Seattle. Seattle's arena has never set up well for hockey. They'd need a new rink.

 

[Hecht]

I live in houston now and they couldn't give two **** aboot hockey. Outside of the small fraction of Houston Aeros fans.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Taipei, Bangkok, New Dehli

 

[The Frugal Gourmet]

I live in houston now and they couldn't give two **** aboot hockey. Outside of the small fraction of Houston Aeros fans.

Not important, though. Hockey is the world's greatest and most exciting sport and people will become interested... especially if the team wins. Houston is a lousy sports town in general, but investors are still most interested potential. In a market that massive, even a cult following would generate mad revenues. Actually in a city like that, the transplants from the North could keep hockey afloat by themselves.

Honestly, I can't think of many more towns in North America that would make decent markets... Houston may be the best of them.

 

[se7en*]

I agree that Quebec City is beautiful, but they don't seem to give a rats ass about luring the NHL back. Even if some think it's unrealistic, at least Winnipeg is begging for one. Houston seems like the best choice though.

 

[God Bless Canada]

There are very few cities left in the US that could support a hockey team. Quebec and Winnipeg should be the first choices.

I think moving the Ducks to San Diego would be a great move. SD is now the 7th biggest city in the US and a much nicer place than Anaheim IMO, certainly a bigger sports market. The surrounding county is also much larger than Orange. The Bay Area does not need another team.

Im surprised no one has ever tried to put a team in Wisonsin. Hockey is fairly popular there. North Dakota is also a hockey hotbed in the US. Both have great college programs for hockey, so I dont see why it wouldnt be as much of a success as Minnesota, or atleast close to it.

I live in Saskatchewan, about 10 minutes from North Dakota. I believe there are more people within 30 minutes of Edmonton's city limits, than the entire state of North Dakota. ND is a great hockey market, and they have supported junior and collegiate hockey very well, but the NHL is a whole different story.

The Ralph may be the nicest rink in the world. But it barely seats 10,000 people. ND would need a 15,000-seat rink before we could even think about ND as a potential market.

 

[jamiebez]

"Deserves" is such a subjective word.... it's easy to say Winnipeg or Quebec City "deserves" a team, but of the cities that have been mentioned, very few have the combination you need to get a team: a suitable arena, a large enough market size and a willing/likely ownership group.

The cities that fit the bill (in no particular order) as I see it are:
- Houston. Les Alexander as an owner, the brand-new Toyota Centre and the 4th largest TV market in the US
- Winnipeg. The Aspers as owners (potential partnership with Global TV in Canada), the brand-new MTS Centre, a hockey-crazy city
- Kansas City. New arena (opening in 2006), NHL21 ownership group already in place.

Portland is close, too, but the likeliest owner (Paul Allen) has never expressed interest in the NHL (so far).

 

[ProctorSilex]

Only Winnipeg right now.

They should have never lost their team in the first place an absolute slap in their faces. Give them a team back, the NHL let Minnesota have a second crack and the fans weren't as insane as Winnipeg's. (The WJC in ND last year for example chanting "Go Jets Go" all game long after driving in a blizzard to the States).

New rink is just icing on the cake.

 

[ALF AmericanLionsFan]

Winnipeg, Quebec, Cleveland

 

[canucks666]

Not important, though. Hockey is the world's greatest and most exciting sport and people will become interested... especially if the team wins. Houston is a lousy sports town in general, but investors are still most interested potential. In a market that massive, even a cult following would generate mad revenues. Actually in a city like that, the transplants from the North could keep hockey afloat by themselves.

Honestly, I can't think of many more towns in North America that would make decent markets... Houston may be the best of them.

I guess that's what gary bettman thought..........


try telling this to people in Raleigh, and millions of others that couldn't care one bit about hockey.





Fact is in this new NHL system what matters more is if the market is RIGHT - not if the market is LARGE. The NFL can survive in Green bay but it couldn't survive in LA. The NHL will be similar.

Places like Quebec City and Winipeg may be smaller but they would get behind the team 100% unlike a place like Houston or Raleigh or even Anaheim or Nashville or Florida.

Hamilton may be close to Toronto but the golden horshoe is the largest urban area in Canada. Many people live too far away from Toronto but close enough to Hamilton. A lot of people from the area would get behind the Hamilton team because it's closer geographically, and because they have no default loyalty to the Leafs.


Seattle IS close to Vancouver but that doesn't really matter. There are no real Canuck fans in Seattle. Also from what I hear the thunderbirds aren't doing TOO great. Certainly a lot worse than the winterhawks and the local portland college hockey team.

Oakland is too close to San Jose, it's true. The area may be able to support two NBA teams but two hockey teams? Fuggetaboutit.

San Diego is promising but I'd put it way down the list with Houston - they're just large-populated areas that have given NO evidence whatsoever that they could support a hockey team.

Hartford fans were very loyal and people like hockey in the area. If they get a team again tehy won't give up on it again. It was also, during that time, the only "local" team for ESPN. A team in Hartford alone would automatically DOUBLE the coverage hockey gets on the world's largest sports network.


Alaska is just a plain ridiculous idea. Have you people looked at a map? There is NOTHING in northern BC - and it's a HUGE area. Alaska is FAAAAAAAAAAR away and too sparsely populated. People only go there on cruises, and that's only cuz it's cheaper to go there than to warmer climates.


All this leads me to conclude:
Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hartford, Hamilton, Portland = good.

the rest of the ideas = bad.

Which teams would I move? The ones with no history and poor attendanc:
Carolina, Phoenix - right near the top of the list. No support, no attendance, no roots. OUT.
Florida - two teams in that state? Can't move Tampa, so. OUT.
Chicago - horrible attendance, but the HISTORY! STAYS.
Pittsburgh - would've been right at the very top of my list to move, but Crosby has saved the franchise. STAYS.
Nashville - I would've also moved it but from what I hear people in Nashville are actually genuinly getting behind this team and getting excited. What'dyaknow. STAYS.
New Jersey - bad attendance but can't argue with teh dynasty. STAYS.


Honestly the rest of the teams I wouldn't move. They're fine where they are. The islanders are gonna get a bichin new arena. Atlanta has a great bright future. Anaheim is struggling - especially if the team sucks - but they're in the LA metro area and there's enough people to make it survive. So let them.

So that means I found 3 teams to move and 5 targets. Move 3 and expand the league by 2? I think so.

16 in each conference split up into 3 divisions

 

[Lam7825]

I've said it many times before, and apparently I need to say it again......

Seattle is not an NHL market. Yes, Seattle has a hockey team in the Western Hockey League (juniors), as does Portland. Seattle has Griffey Jr and the "Miracle of '95 Mariners" for saving baseball here, and the Seahawks are still here only because Paul Allen stepped in with his big fat checkbook. Pro hockey isn't on the horizon in the Emerald City..............

Neither Seattle or Portland is a big enough "hockey" market with a big enough fan base to support a team. Plus, Seattle doesn't have an NHL-calibre arena (thanks to the Sonics, who convinced the city to re-design the Key Arena around a basketball court). And Paul Allen may also own the Blazers, but I don't think he cares much about hockey. Portland has been mentioned in recent years as future home to both the Penguins and the Coyotes- but now that there's a new arena in Glendale Arizona and Sidney has arrived in Western PA......I think the Pacific Northwest will only be home to the Canucks for many years to come.


Lauri from Tacoma