Re: NHL Needs A Trim
- I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll limit my comments to items not included in the last post...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
> The problem with what you say Morey is that they failed for reasons other
> than lack of support.
The Atlanta Flames had support but couldn't make it. The problem is your definition of the word "support."
Fans are only one element of support. And if someone who frequently posts here never goes to games, he doesn't count. I barely count with as few as I attend every year.
> Hamilton.early era, prehistory. PS they supported junior hockey for a half
Their minor league record won't make anyone forget the Buffalo Bisons.
> Quebec and Winnipeg.insane economics and no top facility took these tow out
> of the NHL.
Excuses. If these franchises were as profitable as the NHLPA (and the owners when they sell their teams) would like the public to think, the team could build its own building. But without true revenue sharing, you're always going to have discrepancies between the New Yorks and the Winnipegs.
> St Paul.again a WHA failure not a HOCKEY failure or even an NHL failure.
> Again note, it was not case of the town, media net al dissing hockey was but
> rather preferring to watch college, high school and USHL hockey to the WHA.
And when the Winter Olympics are on television: In 1980, the tape-delayed U.S.-U.S.S.R. semifinal drew 23.9% of U.S. TV households and the U.S.-Finland gold-medal game drew 23.2%.
The Vancouver rating showed an increase in NHL markets compared to non-NHL, but the gold medal game drew almost 20% in Austin, TX. And few would call Austin a hockey market.
So, we can continue to swallow the company line of excuses as to why NHL succeeds or fails in any given market, or we can come to the reality that the longevity of the season, the costs of tickets, the lack of culture, the lack of an ingrained infrastructure and hometown heroes combine to make the NHL a tough sell in of itself.
Replace NHL with anything, and it applies.
> Cleveland (twice) you really mean RICHFIELD twice.Morey you know darned well
> that the building was located about 40 minutes outside of Cleveland in the
> middle of nowhere! Possible the WORST located building I have EVER seen in
> my life! Just what you want to do on a snowy Ohio might take an icy drive
> for 40 minutes to no where.it was not well located for ANYONE except of
> course if you were in Richfield!
The Cavaliers survived in the same building.
> at the apex of major highways in the middle of where there had been mass
> suburban exodus filing like the Palace, Cleveland had a less directional
> urban flight. It did not just not support hockey but was BAD for EVRERYTHING
> to the point that it is there no more and Cleveland now had a downtown
> arena. Had they had that in the 70's odds are we'd still have the Barons
I don't think the people who would attend a Cleveland Barons game today live in downtown Cleveland either.
> Denver.I think that Denver was a victim of bad timing. First you had a WHA
> team that the owner abandoned mid season. Then you had an NHL team come in
> at a very bad economic time. Plus demographics change. The area also has a
> LONG hockey, three D I programs in the state and a 60 year history of
> college hockey in Denver since 1949! College titles were held there in the
> 50's and the World Championships was in Colorado in 1962 in both Denver and
> Colorado Springs. And the Spurs did well in the WHL
Excuses, along with the statement from John McMullen when he moved the team that the lease at McNichols Arena was the worst in sports. But the attendance figures were not exactly soaring either.
> Ottawa..are we talking old Sens Morey? The Depression helped out a lot
> there. As for the Nats and Civics, the old building was too small and lacked
> amenities. PS they have supported the 67's from day one and can draw 18000
> to the NHL and nearly 10000 to the OHL these days.
After Melnyk took them out of bankruptcy.
> Detroit.I NEVER recall SERIOUS rumors about the Wings.add on that once again
> you overlook that college hockey was supported in the area and that the
> Wings throughout most of their history had support. In the 90's you would
> see NHL, IHL, major junior and college succeed side by side. Can we even
> imagine that in the new sites? Now do we mean the Stags? They played in the
> old Cobo! Who in their RIGHT mind was going to go there to watch non NHL
Cobo was in a better neighborhood than the Olympia. But until the Illitches bought the team, the Wings were drawing between 8000 and 12000 per game - Atlanta and Islander numbers.
> Chicago.there have been no rumors there since the 50's. And keep in mind
> that once again the Windy City DID have a hockey history. As for the
> Cougars.they played in a tiny trashy old barn.
No rumors because of Wirtz and Norris. If they were owned by someone who didn't actually love hockey (or the profits from it), those franchises would not have survived Hull's defection and Howe's retirement.
> Edmonton and Winnipeg.back to where we were, bad NHL economics. When did
> either not support HOCKEY.
It depends on your definition of support. Mine is "Put your money where your mouths and hearts are." You can like the girl, but if you don't strike up a conversation, the odds are pretty good she's finding someone else.
> St Louis.HIDEOUS mismanagement. But again unlike the newer sites, they again
> had a long hockey history that goes back around eighty plus years.. And the
> filled the barn in the first years that the NHL was there.
When they won...40 years later, there's still no hockey culture.
> Contrast this with the new sites.no great hockey history, no junior or minor
> pro teams that thrive either WITH a pro team in town or in lieu of it. No
> support of college hockey or (ala Minny) HIGH SCHOOL hockey who's state
> playoffs draw NHL size crowds out there and is actually shown on TV (and I
> am not talking little cable station) drawing decent ratings!
Every city had no hockey had some point; most have had some version of it for 100 years. The first hockey played in San Diego was organized by one of Hobey Baker's Princeton teammates in 1916. There's no significant culture here.
> Unless of course you are saying if we wait 100 years hockey might work in
> these places! :-)
20-50 years in not unreasonable, as long as someone is willing to foot the bill in the hopes of profits. But if the players were making 1992 money, all of the NHL teams (except for maybe the Island and Phoenix) would be wildly successful, financially.
- No question there. But you miss my point, it is less whether it can do it
than how folks feel about the plan. The current plan IS supported in
Quebec as opposed to good ole Marcel's "you build it and I'll stay.on your
dime" . Now the ball is in Ottawa's court where unfortunately the Quebec fan
has less pull and everything is in a national context.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]