Re: NHL Needs A Trim
- --- In email@example.com, "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
>1. The Flames actually made the playoffs 6 times in Atlanta, playing a grand total of 8 home games and winning exactly 2.
> 1-The Flames made the playoffs 4 times in Atlanta, hosting games in each
> How do I done support.well it sure isn't the 3000 folks they drewI shudder when I think you let the local sports editor dictate the definition of support.
> often down there and I know that total is accurate as I knew one of the
> original owners. And the Omni was NEW building. When did the Nords do that
> in the old Colisee? Support is not seeing your games not reported in the
> papers and when they were they got tiny slots as you saw in Atlanta. In
> Quebec a BAD day might be only 10 pages of hockey news.in camp I counted on
> average a dozen pages devoted to hockey mostly to the Nords.in September.We
> drew 1200 a day for ROOKIE scrimmages in a youth rink and 10000 to our intra
> squad final one year on a Sunday morning at 10 AM.THAT is how I define
> support.Now before the loony fringe seizes on this and says "few places do
> that" I am NOT saying that this is what you usually expect.bu7t support to
> me is that a bad crowd is well over 50 %, regular media coverage is there on
> a mass basis and that more hockey than just NHL can and is supported in the
> 2-Morey sorry but hockey and the NHL was popular LONG before the Rocket andMontreal is a hockey town; has been since 1878. I don't think I was pointing anything differently except they had some severe financial situations that was 100% ownership, and therefore merged one franchise (the Maroons) and almost moved the second (Canadiens).
> you know that as well as I do! Rocket or no Rocket the city would have
> supported the NHL! PS: They have not been so hot for a number of years of
> late but isn't it odd how they have no attendance crisis?
> 3-No Morey early ANYWHERE in 1910.and are we SERIOUSLY comparing TO toIn a way, YES. There was a time TO struggled to support hockey at a professional level. It took a community effort to build Maple Leaf Gardens, and then the winning started. Ft. Lauderdale has had some of that opportunity, but they have not had the winning.
> To even trythis assertion you need to go back 110 years.kind of a different time wasn't it? Hell we are getting into the Victorian era what next are we going to talk about how hockey could or may not have worked in Boston when King George was taxing without representation? :-)How about this? Hockey was foreign to TO at one time, and is not now. Boston wanted pro hockey for 10 years before the short-sighted Canadian owners let them in. At the time, a number of comments you made about Miami were said about Boston.
> 5-Torotno may have taken a while to win anything but does that mean thereIt may mean the top kids are finding something else to do. I can't help but think that for every Jason Bay that leaves Vancouver for baseball, for every Steve Nash that leaves Victoria for basketball, there's a potential athlete the NHL is not getting.
> was no support for hockey? Gee Morey they haven't won the Cup since 1967.so
> you are saying that we ought to move the Leafs to hockey country like say
> Biloxi.TO sucks. :-) Minnesota has been ;less than dominant of late ion
> amateur hockey in the US.dopes this mean they don't support the game or
> simply have not iced the best teams? Quebec has not seen a ton of titles at
> any level lately does that mean the game has died or the structure of how it
> is run there is faulty?
If you don't grow in other areas, it eventually means the death of the sport.
> 6-About st Paul.folks don't watch soccer in many places Morey. And I'm glad you brought that up.it is a FOREIGN game that simply is not accepted in many places.For me, the soccer analogy, especially here in San Diego, thousands (if not tens of thousands) play - few watch or pay to watch the pros. So there are a lot of active players, but few active fans.
>Why? The world's most profitable league, the NFL, has seen 12 of its 31 franchises (or about 40%) relocate because they couldn't make it in a market for various reasons. Does L.A. hate football because they lost three franchises, including two in the same year? All three teams (Chargers, Raiders, Rams) had ownership issues. I can promise you that the L.A. area has more high school football teams than it has ice hockey teams.
> 7-Your statement about a financial model is right. But add on the odds
> should be there for long term fairly stable support through thick and thin.
Or are there other non-market based issues, which I will call "blah blah blah" - all talk, but could work if people would stop talking/complaining/demanding?
For the last 15 years, L.A. has had two hockey teams and zero NFL teams (although professional football is alive and well at USC).
> So why not put a team where there is a market for it? To me that is theWinning is what people want to buy - they almost don't care what. In a lot of ways, college football has the best model because it gives the most fans the best chance to salute the winner.
> cornerstone of SANY successful business model, I can invent models for
> selling bikinis in Antarctica, sand in the Sahara etc but if there is no
> market what is it but a bunch of speculative crap?
Unfortunately, that's your definition of market.
- 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]