What about the seal skin binding factory?CCF said:Sad but true. Saskatchewan doesn't have the necessary corporate sponsors either.
What about the seal skin binding factory?CCF said:Sad but true. Saskatchewan doesn't have the necessary corporate sponsors either.
sandman441 said:We get something else nobody else gets and that is checks from the government. I think Alaska can support a franchise could I be wrong yes but with all the factors thrown in (permanent fund plus I am sure the government here would support the team) I think they can support a team.
Can I see some proof please? since I didn't know this.Evileye said:How about the fact that they didn't sell-out games in the Finals against Detroit?
Again, Can I see some solid proof? (not from some person who knows a person etc.)Evileye said:When they were playing the Leafs in that same playoff year, Leaf fans were able to drive down and buy tickets at the box-office.
When I was watching the East conf. finals that year I could have sworn on tv it appeared to be properly supported. Whether it was a bandwagon I don't know. Probably?Evileye said:This should NEVER happen in a market that properly supports hockey.
Evileye said:The cold hard truth is that in the south any sport that does not involve a ball or a motorized vehicle will not be popular.
the guy is right - where you been hiding? - it was on tv for god's sakeOriginal6 said:Can I see some proof please? since I didn't know this.
Again, Can I see some solid proof? (not from some person who knows a person etc.)
When I was watching the East conf. finals that year I could have sworn on tv it appeared to be properly supported. Whether it was a bandwagon I don't know. Probably?
The cold hard truth is that this comment is nothin but ignorant.
The New York metropolitan area is MUCH larger than the SF Bay Area (San Jose / San Francisco / Oakland) and can support three teams (Forgot about the Devils?). The Bay Area cannot - especially Oakland with only about 300K population. The Bay Area can't really support two teams in Baseball - it certainly can't in hockey.KillerB 's said:I understand that San Jose is very close to Oakland. What about the Rangers and Islanders, their closer than Oakland and San Jose. From NYC to Uniondale, Long Island is 28.42 miles. From Oakland to San Jose is 41.08 miles.
I'm saying that citys that used to have teams should get one back.
mr gib said:the guy is right - where you been hiding? - it was on tv for god's sake
jamiebez said:"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).
kdb209 said:The New York metropolitan area is MUCH larger than the SF Bay Area (San Jose / San Francisco / Oakland) and can support three teams (Forgot about the Devils?). The Bay Area cannot - especially Oakland with only about 300K population. The Bay Area can't really support two teams in Baseball - it certainly can't in hockey.
Did you ever think that there are legitimate reasons why cities lost teams?
I don't get all the nostolgia over Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford. The only reason they ever got teams was because of the WHA, a league that tried and failed in real markets and was reduced to second tier markets. Are Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford really any more NHL worthy markets than Cincinatti or Birmingham, or Indianapolis or any other failed WHA market (Houston, San Diego, anyone).
The sad truth is that none of the ex-WHA markets would ever have gotten an NHL expansion team, nor should they have - their markets just weren't big enough to make them attractive.
The new economy of the new CBA might allow a team to survive in Winnipeg, but that's really the only possibility, but the new CBA also means it's very unlikely that any current team will fail and try to relocate, and if they do, there are many more appealing options: Portland, Houston, Vegas, KC, etc. The only way Winnipeg will ever get a team is if the league expands to 32 teams in 5 or more years, and even then, Winnipeg would be a bone thrown to Canada by the NHL - there are more promising expansion sites in the US.
Original6 said:I doubt alaska is ever going to get a team. A few reasons being A) the population is not much B) Travelling
tangible_faith said:Why give them another chance? If there is any metro/populated area that gets another team it is Toronto. Besides The Bay area isn't a hockey market. It is one of the most populated areas in the country but those are only numbers.
Draftman said:Some comments on the list of cities:
Houston - they could care less about hockey
New Orleans - they care less than Houston
Portland - great city for hockey but can they support a big league team?
Seattle - a very possible location for a new team
Salt Lake City - what the hell do Mormons know about hockey?
Cleveland or Cincinnati - the state of Ohio already has Columbus, that's more than enough
Louisville - they'd only care if horses wear skates
Indianapolis - they'd only care if cars wear skates
Baltimore - they can drive to DC
San Antonio - they remember the Alamo, and little else
Las Vegas - great if you're planning to include gambling in the sport or if you want to have all 40 players on the ice at the same time (I'm All In)
Mexico City - too stupid to even comment on
San Diego - the top choice IMO
Jacksonville - you want another money losing franchise in Fla?
People like you are the reason why Ontario is called the centre of the universe.benderkyle said:I couldn't agree more. However instead of Toronto simply put one in Hamilton. Yeah yeah there's fees and such, but I think Hamilton would be a viable choice.
Winnipeg - my top choice. Bring back the Jets!
Québéc - très bien!
Seattle - I think would be a good city as well seeing how close they are to our Canadian border.
Portland - donno where it is and too lazy to care
As for that large REDICULOUS list, i'd say someone had too much time on their hands.
I like that Alaska part.KillerB 's said:Portland, yes
What about Seattle. I still think a team should go to Alaska.
Original6 said:That's what the diehards want you to believe. The fact is, unless some rich billionaire has some attachment to Winnipeg or the jets and wants to buy an NHL team for sale and move em (whats the chances of that?), it aint happening.
They can always root for the manitoba moose.
Its a difficult thing to Google.Original6 said:Well if it was so embarressing why can't I find any hard facts?
saw it with my own eye's on hockey night in canada when the series was on - they had cameras with fans as they drove from toronto to carolina - also in the piece was a fantastic fluff bit on how warm and friendly the hurricane fans were - you're in denialOriginal6 said:Well if it was so embarressing why can't I find any hard facts?
kdb209 said:The New York metropolitan area is MUCH larger than the SF Bay Area (San Jose / San Francisco / Oakland) and can support three teams (Forgot about the Devils?). The Bay Area cannot - especially Oakland with only about 300K population. The Bay Area can't really support two teams in Baseball - it certainly can't in hockey.
Did you ever think that there are legitimate reasons why cities lost teams?
I don't get all the nostolgia over Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford. The only reason they ever got teams was because of the WHA, a league that tried and failed in real markets and was reduced to second tier markets. Are Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford really any more NHL worthy markets than Cincinatti or Birmingham, or Indianapolis or any other failed WHA market (Houston, San Diego, anyone).
The sad truth is that none of the ex-WHA markets would ever have gotten an NHL expansion team, nor should they have - their markets just weren't big enough to make them attractive.
The new economy of the new CBA might allow a team to survive in Winnipeg, but that's really the only possibility, but the new CBA also means it's very unlikely that any current team will fail and try to relocate, and if they do, there are many more appealing options: Portland, Houston, Vegas, KC, etc. The only way Winnipeg will ever get a team is if the league expands to 32 teams in 5 or more years, and even then, Winnipeg would be a bone thrown to Canada by the NHL - there are more promising expansion sites in the US.