|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 27, 2011 3:02:26 GMT -5
^^^great post! I definetely think QC is next to get the coyoytes. I don't even think anymore the panthers will move, and that hamiton will get a team. You made some great points about hamilton! Thanks. The Panthers won't move in the near future. 5-10 years it could be a different story. As of right now the Panthers are struggling along but they are no Atlanta or Phoenix. To have a move you have to sink to that pathetic level. I could see that changing and interest droping to an Atlanta like level. I could see the NBA's Miami Heat winning 3-5 titles in the near future despite the loss this year in the finals to Dallas. They have the 3 big locked up and they are all young. The LA Lakers are old, Dallas is old, Boston is old. Other than Oklahoma City and Chicago i don't see anyone really that could beat them in any senario. If this happens interest will drop much further than it already is and could create the Atlanta like situation. Also the baseball Florida Marlins are moving into a new downtown retractable roof stadium in 2012. This will increase interest big time which could take more interest away from hockey. I could see a situation where Phoenix moves to Quebec City next year, the Panthers hang on for 5-7 years then move to Seattle when they finally get a new arena. |
|
|
|
Post by CravenMoorhead on Jun 27, 2011 3:14:14 GMT -5
Realignment will not be a factor. Bettman will pick the best market period. Seattle has no chance whatso ever. Not too sure about that. Never underestimate the impact of the loss of a major league franchise has on a city. The Supersonics left, so now Seattle will appear eventually on the radar. Look for the city to push for a new arena. True, but Cleveland is dangerously close to slipping under the 2,000,000 mark. Anyway, i think Milwaukee would make a great addition to the NHL, if they can get an arena built. Kansas City has no legitimate ownership group. Boots is in the pen. KC drew horribly when they had the chance to show the NHL they could support a team. The Royals have never been financially stable. The city would never support an NHL team. Houston and Quebec are good choices, IMO. Houston proved in the 70's (long before any other southern US market) that it could support major league hockey. The AHL Aeros also draw well. I think a Taxas NHL rivalry would be more intense than the Florida and California ones we have today. Houston has the arena, and if Les Alexander is still interested, we should give him a chance. Texas is unique when it comes to pro hockey in southern US markets, and I support two teams in Texas. Quebec is a no-brainer. They should move the Coyotes there immediately after the season ends if they cannot come up with an ownership group by 2012. |
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 27, 2011 3:52:27 GMT -5
Realignment will not be a factor. Bettman will pick the best market period. Seattle has no chance whatso ever. Not too sure about that. Never underestimate the impact of the loss of a major league franchise has on a city. The Supersonics left, so now Seattle will appear eventually on the radar. Look for the city to push for a new arena. True, but Cleveland is dangerously close to slipping under the 2,000,000 mark. Anyway, i think Milwaukee would make a great addition to the NHL, if they can get an arena built. Kansas City has no legitimate ownership group. Boots is in the pen. KC drew horribly when they had the chance to show the NHL they could support a team. The Royals have never been financially stable. The city would never support an NHL team. Houston and Quebec are good choices, IMO. Houston proved in the 70's (long before any other southern US market) that it could support major league hockey. The AHL Aeros also draw well. I think a Taxas NHL rivalry would be more intense than the Florida and California ones we have today. Houston has the arena, and if Les Alexander is still interested, we should give him a chance. Texas is unique when it comes to pro hockey in southern US markets, and I support two teams in Texas. Quebec is a no-brainer. They should move the Coyotes there immediately after the season ends if they cannot come up with an ownership group by 2012. The city of Seattle isn't pushing for a new arena. A proposal to extend the Quest Field/Safeco Field tax was turned down this year. If an arena gets done it will have to be close to 100% private. Most arenas are public funded. An arena may get done in the future but not soon. By the time an arena is done the Coyotes will have been located elsewhere. I could see Seattle getting a Florida or a Columbus someday but nothing will be done in time for Phoenix. Cleveland has an extra 700,000 people just outside its metro area. The combined statistical area for Cleveland is 2.7 million due mostly to Akron Ohio. Kansas City for example has a combined statistical area and metro area of 2 million. They are the exact same number. There is nothing beyond the metro area. This makes a hugh difference and is why Cleveland has 3 teams and KC has 2. As for Milwaukee it already really is a 3 team city. Even though they are north the Packers are by far the number 1 team here. Then come the Brewers, then the Bucks. No way can this area support 4 teams. Milwaukee has 1.7 million people in the CSA and 1.5 million in the metro area. Smaller than Kansas City even. There is no clamor at all for NHL hockey. Just because UW likes hockey or its cold here doesn't mean Milwaukee can support or wants the NHL. I seriously doubt a new arena will be built. You have to remember how mad people still are over Miller Park. It was passed by 1 vote. The former state senitor George Petak of Racine was recalled for casting the deciding vote in favor of the Miller Park sales tax. Recently a proposal to extend the Miller Park tax to pay for a new arena was shot down. www.wtaq.com/news/articles/2011/may/19/tax-proposal-new-bucks-arena-shot-down-gov/Unlike Quebec City,Houston, Kansas city, Hartford there is no talk of Milwaukee getting a team. Find me 1 article talking of the NHL coming here. Milwaukee was something that was made up on this board. I agree about KC not supporting hockey. The Royals are a small market but i wouldn't say finincially unstable. They did an extensive renovation to Kauffman stadium a few years ago and they have a ton of young talent on the team. I could see the Royals being a great team in 2-3 years. Which would hurt an NHL team all the more. I admit i could very well be wrong on Houston after thinking about it. Texas does seem a hell of a lot different than Phoenix or Atlanta fans. The Toyota Center is great, it is probably worth a try if more than 1 team moves. If it don't work no harm no foul. Its not like Glendale where you would have an unused wasted arena without an NHL team. |
|
|
|
Post by CravenMoorhead on Jun 27, 2011 4:38:13 GMT -5
I don't think Seattle will bulid a new arena right away. It may be like the Minnesota situation when they lost the North Stars, and take over 5 years. However, i truly believe that Seattle will eventually get an NHL franchise within the next 10 years either through relocation or expansion.
Actually Cleveland metro area has just over 2,000,000 and has been losing people for the last 30 years. factoring in Akron is like factoring in Hamilton, Burlington, Ajax, Pickering, Oshawa, and possible Kitchener and Guelph, when calculating the Toronto CMA, which would make it closer to 8,000,000 people, which they do not do.
Cleveland and Akron are two seperate Metro areas. if you do not believe that, trying looking at both areas through google maps. It is irrevalent anyway, since Cleveland will never get an NHl team.
Milwaukee only has two teams- the Brewers and Bucks. to say the Packers are "Milwaukee's team" is ridiculous. It may be more accurate to say it's Wisconsin's team, as Milwaukee and Chicago are closer to each other than Milwaukee and Green Bay.
Having said that, I can definitely see an NHL team working in Milwaukee. Wisconsin has quite a large population (7,000,000?), and hockey is very popular there, along with Minnesota and Michigan. The AHL Admirals have always fared well too. it would make a great rivalry with Chicago, Minnesota, and even Detroit.
Milwaukee stands a much better chance of landing an NHL team than KC, now that the ownership group has collapsed. KC with an NHL team =epic fail.
Houston and Quebec may make better choices at the moment, but as much as I would like them to come back, I don't see the Whalers returning in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 27, 2011 5:45:43 GMT -5
I agree with you on Seattle. My guess is they get a relocated team someday. No way do i see an expansion. Too many teams are struggling. However i see basketball coming back 1st then maybe an NHL team coming later on. Yes you are right Cleveland and Akron are 2 seperate metro areas. I didn't mean to imply Cleveland will ever get an NHL team. Just using it as an example to compare the difference between CSA and metro area stats. And yes both the CSA and metro area are declining. Pro sports executives use the CSA stat rather than the metro area one when looking to place teams. Why do you think Cleveland has 3 teams and Kansas City only has 2?? The answer is that Akron puts Cleveland over the top. Its within short driving distance and even if people don't go to games they still watch them on tv( i.e. 700,000 extra eyeballs) buy jerseys etc. Why do you think Denver has 4 pro teams despite ranking 21st in metro area population? Because if you add in surrounding areas they move past cities like St.Louis, Tampa Bay that have only 3 teams. Why do you think every Boston team in every sport despite being ranked 10th in metro population has a higher franchise value than Houston,Atlanta or Miami teams? Its because the combined statistical area is bigger than houston, Atlanta or Miami even though the metro areas are smaller. Providence,Manchester, Worchester put Boston over the top. Check out the list of the CMA's read the definition of what a CSA is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Combined_Statistical_Areasthen compare it to the Metro areas en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_AreasChart out how many teams each city has using each stat. The CSA is more accurate for pro sports. Metro area isn't a bad stat but CSA is better. The only flaw of CSA compare to metro is that Baltimore and Washington should be separate since they each have there own teams. You'll see what i mean. Many cities have the same numbers for both. The biggest differences are that LA adds an extra 5 million when counting Riverside/San Berdino, Boston adds 2.8 million, and San Francisco adds 3.1 million when adding San Jose and others, and Detroit adds 900,000 when adding Flint etc. Canada doesn't keep CSA stats only metro areas but to say Toronto has 8 million would be more correct than saying it has only 5.1 million. Those extra 2.9 million or whatever still go to games/watch on tv buy jerseys etc. They do have a greater toronto statistic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Toronto_AreaYes the Packers are a Milwaukee team. 2 of the 8 Packer home games at Lambeau field belong solely to Milwaukee season ticket holders. There are 2 different sets of ticket holders. Green Bay residents get 6 home games plus 1 pre season game. 2 games belong to Milwaukee people plus 1 pre season game. Remember the Packers use to play 3 home games a year at county stadium until the mid 90's. Also corporate support is mostly from Milwaukee. There are only so many corporate dollars and entertainment $ to go around. Plus we have Badger football,basketball, hockey. Wisconsin has only 5.68 million people last census. Not 7 million. if you want to use the metro stat the biggest metro area with 3 teams is Cleveland at just over 2 million as you said. Milwaukee for metro has 1.5. We are only 75% the size of the next biggest 3 team metro. Kansas City would suck like i said but even that would be better than us. No way are we ahead of KC. I ask you again find me 1 credible article anywhere on the NHL coming here. Why doesn't the Journal Sentinal or green bay press gazette have anything? The only talk here is of trying to keep the Bucks. Most people including me don't think that will happen. Most likely in 5 years this will be a 2 team state not 3 or 4. And most people could care less. The Packers are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th in entertainment options/popularity. Then comes Badgers football, then the Brewers, then Badger hockey, then Badger basketball, then the Bucks. You have to live here to understand. The Packers are a religon on steroids. |
|
|
|
Post by stbvoyageur on Jun 27, 2011 6:59:24 GMT -5
I find your discussion interesting, but what troubles me is gauging market sustainability by virtue of the 4 major sports. MLB, like MLS, which is likely to surpass the NHL as the official #4 North American sport, is for the most part consistent with the NHL playoffs/offseason and thus not direct competition for the sports fans dollar or TV attention. The NFL to some extent is but I would suggest that is a different ball game, as the games are concentrated to one day, if you are an NHL team you simply avoid scheduling your games on Sunday to avoid competition. The NBA is the only direct competition with the NHL, and it is important to note than NHL success in the US tends to be where it does not go head to head against the NBA (San Jose, St. Louis, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Carolina, Tampa). While you can count on major metropolitan markets such New York (Manhattan), Boston, Philly, Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles to consistently support their teams, the failures of Atlanta, Phoenix, and Florida, and the recent slumping attendance in Dallas and Colorado shows that a successful NBA team will reduce the interest in the NHL team, especially if it is mediocre. And none of the aforementioned can be stated as a traditional hockey market. Thus a successful Houston franchise would have to be inherently better than the Rockets to be successful, although I think that Houston may have a big enough population, and one that is rather transient given its oil economy. Kansas City and Seattle would both have allure as well, especially Seattle, they are pretty good sports fans, and have a prior attachment to hockey at the junior level. We all know that Quebec and Hamilton are legitimate hockey cities, Saskatoon could emerge as one too down the road. It is a question of how much Gary Bettman wants to bring teams to Canada, and Mark Chipman happened to be the best choice given the circumstances, but quite likely not Bettman's first choice. Quebec will have to really work hard to convince the NHL they are a good option, and I still think that their best bet is for the Isles. Do people on the Island like hockey enough to support a $400 million arena. Given the current economics, I would be surprised. We know that the appetite for professional hockey is strong enough in la vielle capitale to build their dream, which includes the Olympics in 11-15 years. That may be their ticket, in spite of Bettman's denials.
Sorry to continue on a tangent.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 27, 2011 8:10:23 GMT -5
I find your discussion interesting, but what troubles me is gauging market sustainability by virtue of the 4 major sports. MLB, like MLS, which is likely to surpass the NHL as the official #4 North American sport, is for the most part consistent with the NHL playoffs/offseason and thus not direct competition for the sports fans dollar or TV attention. The NFL to some extent is but I would suggest that is a different ball game, as the games are concentrated to one day, if you are an NHL team you simply avoid scheduling your games on Sunday to avoid competition. The NBA is the only direct competition with the NHL, and it is important to note than NHL success in the US tends to be where it does not go head to head against the NBA (San Jose, St. Louis, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Carolina, Tampa). While you can count on major metropolitan markets such New York (Manhattan), Boston, Philly, Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles to consistently support their teams, the failures of Atlanta, Phoenix, and Florida, and the recent slumping attendance in Dallas and Colorado shows that a successful NBA team will reduce the interest in the NHL team, especially if it is mediocre. And none of the aforementioned can be stated as a traditional hockey market. Thus a successful Houston franchise would have to be inherently better than the Rockets to be successful, although I think that Houston may have a big enough population, and one that is rather transient given its oil economy. Kansas City and Seattle would both have allure as well, especially Seattle, they are pretty good sports fans, and have a prior attachment to hockey at the junior level. We all know that Quebec and Hamilton are legitimate hockey cities, Saskatoon could emerge as one too down the road. It is a question of how much Gary Bettman wants to bring teams to Canada, and Mark Chipman happened to be the best choice given the circumstances, but quite likely not Bettman's first choice. Quebec will have to really work hard to convince the NHL they are a good option, and I still think that their best bet is for the Isles. Do people on the Island like hockey enough to support a $400 million arena. Given the current economics, I would be surprised. We know that the appetite for professional hockey is strong enough in la vielle capitale to build their dream, which includes the Olympics in 11-15 years. That may be their ticket, in spite of Bettman's denials. Sorry to continue on a tangent. Great post!! Your right, major markets like Chicago,New York and LA can support everything. With mid/smaller markets you have to pick and choose what you want to support. They can't have it all like the big cities. Your right the biggest compitition for the NHL is the NBA since they go head to head. Thats the problem of a Milwaukee NHL team. We are the smallest market in football,baseball and the 5th smallest in the NBA. No way can we take on another pro team even if we did have a proper arena which isn't happening. However when you have an NFL team like the Packers where it is a 100% religion it does make a difference for other teams even if it is only 1 game a week. They still get all the coverage/attention and it hurts interest in the other teams. You have to be here to know what i mean. They are life. Atlanta may have been hurt a bit by the Hawks but they were going to fail anyway. Atlanta is a college sports town with tons of bandwagon jumping fans. Phoenix would fail even if the NBA wasn't there too. Building an arena in the middle of no where was stupid. Phoenix is also known for fairweather fans in all sports. As far as Winnipeg i really do believe they were the 1st option. Bettman could have tried to find or found an owner from Houston or KC but he didn't. If he picked Winnipeg over Houston why wouldn't he pick Quebec City over them unless they failed to get an arena? I don't think Bettman hates Canada contrary to popular belief. At the time he moved Winnipeg and Q.C. in the mid 90's they had no modern arenas or owners. As long as you have those 2 things and decent sized populations you will have a team in time. Where Bettman won't go however is Hamilton. He will do everything he possibly can to stop that since it would kill Buffalo. I don't think the Islanders new arena will pass given the state of the economy. More and more questions are being asked about the true costs of the arena. www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2011/06/4596_nassau_projecti.html#commentsSasktoon could never ever happen. Last census it has 233,923. No way would the NHL go someplace that small. It would take several generations of massive population growth to be considered for the NHL. |
|
DR
Veteran Member
I'm pulling for you guys.
Posts: 128
|
Post by DR on Jun 28, 2011 7:59:42 GMT -5
The Sabres are not hurting in any way. They have a waiting list for season tickets as well (not 8,000 though !).
They have a multi-billion dollar new owner, and even though poopulation is slowly shrinking, we are a hockey city which also draws from southern ontatio.
Please stop including Buffalo in "hurting" hockey market discussion. It's simply not true.
Would a team in Hamilton hurt Buffalo at the gate...possibly a bit, might draw some St catherines Sabres fans the other way to Hamilton. I think a team 45 minutes east in Kitchener/Waterloo or another in Toronto and the Sabres would be fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by gilligan on Jun 28, 2011 10:15:37 GMT -5
The Sabres are not hurting in any way. They have a waiting list for season tickets as well (not 8,000 though !). They have a multi-billion dollar new owner, and even though poopulation is slowly shrinking, we are a hockey city which also draws from southern ontatio. Please stop including Buffalo in "hurting" hockey market discussion. It's simply not true. Would a team in Hamilton hurt Buffalo at the gate...possibly a bit, might draw some St catherines Sabres fans the other way to Hamilton. I think a team 45 minutes east in Kitchener/Waterloo or another in Toronto and the Sabres would be fine. I don't think they're hurting now, I think the worry is that they could lose the southern Ontario draw that you talk about. Especially if the 2nd Ontario team were in Hamilton rather than Toronto or K/W. I think Hamilton especially dislikes the Leafs, as they're seen as the reason that they do not have a team. So supporting nearby Buffalo is a good option for them, that they would no longer take advantage of if they had their own team. |
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 29, 2011 1:59:53 GMT -5
The Sabres are not hurting in any way. They have a waiting list for season tickets as well (not 8,000 though !). They have a multi-billion dollar new owner, and even though poopulation is slowly shrinking, we are a hockey city which also draws from southern ontatio. Please stop including Buffalo in "hurting" hockey market discussion. It's simply not true. Would a team in Hamilton hurt Buffalo at the gate...possibly a bit, might draw some St catherines Sabres fans the other way to Hamilton. I think a team 45 minutes east in Kitchener/Waterloo or another in Toronto and the Sabres would be fine. I didn't say Buffalo was currently hurting and i understand that you got great fans. I didn't mean to make you sound like Atlanta. What i was saying is that you WOULD be hurting with a Hamilton team. As you said in your post you are a hockey city that draws from southern ontario. With a team in Hamilton you won't do that anymore. Last year on forbes franchise value list Buffalo was ranked 21st in both franchise value and revenue. www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_rank.htmlIf you start subtracting major portions of southern ontario you will be hurting. 8 is enough teams for Canada. Even if you put a team in Kitchner your still going to lose a large portion of southern ontario fans. There is no reason to risk hurting the Sabres. |
|
|
|
Post by gilligan on Jun 29, 2011 11:34:37 GMT -5
Detroit will not want a team on the Kitchner or London side, as they draw from Ontario as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dcmac on Jul 1, 2011 18:01:19 GMT -5
Short term, I don't see Hamilton as a bad factor for Buffalo. People don't realize that being a fan means you don't just abandon your team. Fans in southern Ontario will still go to Sabres games, but over time that area will adopt the Hamilton team.
|
|
