quackbeth
Captain "C"
By the pricking of my thumbs Something hockey this way comes!
Posts: 741
|
Post by quackbeth on May 10, 2015 8:34:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Lions67 on May 10, 2015 9:01:19 GMT -6
San Jose has done wonderful. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on May 10, 2015 11:30:31 GMT -6
California is very unique, San Jose is a rich urban area that is perfect for the NFL's key demographics. LA has such a heavy population its just going to work, and anaheim is a "city" that is really a nicely built up suburb in a hugely populated orange county. Im fine with Hockey in California. It has worked out great. |
|
|
|
Post by JETStender on May 10, 2015 18:15:55 GMT -6
I wouldn't say California is a new hockey market. The Kings have been there since 1967. |
|
|
|
Post by inkymarx on May 10, 2015 18:24:31 GMT -6
I wouldn't say California is a new hockey market. The Kings have been there since 1967. I agree - and again in the 90's... The Kings, The original "mighty" ducks, and even the Sharks, we're all huge teams back then. |
|
quackbeth
Captain "C"
By the pricking of my thumbs Something hockey this way comes!
Posts: 741
|
Post by quackbeth on May 11, 2015 8:06:28 GMT -6
By "new," I guess I mean 1990s forward, excluding the Kings here, but then, they didn't get too big until the 1980s anyway.
Gretzky and Selanne basically made Southern California Hockey, and the Sharks are San Jose's only major team, so there's that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 11, 2015 13:14:01 GMT -6
^^^The 49ers are part of the San Jose metro area these days playing in Santa Clara. However San Jose/San Francisco are part of a combined statistical area. It's best to look at San Jose/San Francisco/the Bay area as one big blob of 8.6M people and one single market. Metro is meaningless.
As far as the Kings go besides Gretzky the other HUGE thing was moving from suburban Inglewood to downtown LA. LA King attendance sucked until Gretzky came to LA and it sucked again after he left for a few years at the Forum in Inglewood. Once they moved downtown it turned around for good.
Check it out. I didn't do attendance for this season yet and only have totals from 89-90 on.
Year attendance average League average Rank
1989-90 15,707 15,798 13 of 21
1990-91 15,674 15,351 12 of 21
1991-92 16,005 15,273 10 of 22
1992-93 15,833 14,918 9 of 24
1993-94 15,655 15,622 14 of 26
1995 15,398 15,867 15 of 26
1995-96 13,551 15,967 20 of 26
1996-97 12,297 16,546 26 of 26
1997-98 13,019 16,205 24 of 26
1998-99 12,795 16,273 24 of 27
The Forum seated 16,005. Gretzky left midway through the 95-96 season.
Now the Staples Center. Capacity is 18,118 for NHL.
1999-00 16,519 16,372 14 of 28
2000-01 16,057 16,568 17 of 30
2001-02 16,756 16,759 16 of 30
2002-03 17,570 16,591 12 of 30
2003-04 17,889 16,521 11 of 30
2005-06 17,839 16,961 12 of 30
2006-07 16,859 16,961 16 of 30
2007-08 16,583 17,264 21 of 30
2008-09 16,489 17,464 21 of 30
2009-10 17,313 17,067 16 of 30
2010-11 18,083 17,126 14 of 30
2011-12 18,119 17,443 15 of 30
2013 18,179 17,721 13 of 30
2013-14 18,141 17,366 12 of 30
|
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on May 11, 2015 14:48:20 GMT -6
By "new," I guess I mean 1990s forward, excluding the Kings here, but then, they didn't get too big until the 1980s anyway. Gretzky and Selanne basically made Southern California Hockey, and the Sharks are San Jose's only major team, so there's that. {cough}  m. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 3:13:46 GMT -6
By "new," I guess I mean 1990s forward, excluding the Kings here, but then, they didn't get too big until the 1980s anyway. Gretzky and Selanne basically made Southern California Hockey, and the Sharks are San Jose's only major team, so there's that. {cough} Marcel Dionne was overrated. He could score points, but had virtually no leadership skills, and he could never guide the Kings into the playoffs, or the second round. Dionne also had virtually zero drawing power. He never had that "it" factor, the way Gretzky, Lemieux, Bure, or Lafleur did. Funny how Dionne and Lafleur were the two highest rated picks in 1971, and the Habs chose Lafleur, since he had something Dionne didn't have- heart. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 3:17:30 GMT -6
Texas would be if Houston got a team. Having saidd that, I love hearing Bro hymn after goals, so it should be a great series. I picked a Chicago-Montreal final. |
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on May 12, 2015 11:19:10 GMT -6
Texas would be if Houston got a team. Having saidd that, I love hearing Bro hymn after goals, so it should be a great series. I picked a Chicago-Montreal final. Yes, pay back for 1971!! |
|
quackbeth
Captain "C"
By the pricking of my thumbs Something hockey this way comes!
Posts: 741
|
Post by quackbeth on May 14, 2015 4:39:53 GMT -6
By "new," I guess I mean 1990s forward, excluding the Kings here, but then, they didn't get too big until the 1980s anyway. Gretzky and Selanne basically made Southern California Hockey, and the Sharks are San Jose's only major team, so there's that. {cough} m. The mainstream buzz around the 1980s/later Gretzky Kings wasn't the same animal as the Marcel Dionne days, to take nothing away from the latter. "The 49ers are part of the San Jose metro area these days playing in Santa Clara." True, but 1. The Niners being there is very recent, and 2. People like names...I remember people were going to be happy either way, but a lot clearly wanted "Winnipeg Jets" as the name for the reborn team over anything else "Winnipeg" or "Manitoba." Being the San Jose Sharks has let them have the best of both worlds--they get to cater to a specific part of the metro area that, unlike San Fran or Oakland, doesn't otherwise have a named team, while still basically applying to/being the team for said metro area. "Texas would be if Houston got a team." They might, but Texas is such an insanely-football place that even the other teams that are already there play second fiddle big time...plus they'd have to bang big time on a rivalry with the Stars (going back to my idea that help fanbases take root and keep hockey from being a quick novelty in non-traditional markets) and the Stars, having won a Cup in the past and now having a high-scoring team, have an even bigger advantage than did LA when the Sharks and then Kings came around. It might be California...or it might be Florida, where the Panthers should be shot already since Florida's clearly only able to support one team and it should be the Lightning. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 14, 2015 6:42:46 GMT -6
This is why they have made Hockey a success in California, when they do things they do it right. www.caha.com/view.pl?p=programs/freehockey/index.htmThey are doing something I suggested 10 years ago to Winnipeg Minor and I got laughed at and it is way cheaper to do here in Canada we have free outdoor ice. Free Hockey programs for 4-8 years old, learn the game for free, hook the kid, hook the parent, charge later! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2015 7:17:58 GMT -6
{cough} m. The mainstream buzz around the 1980s/later Gretzky Kings wasn't the same animal as the Marcel Dionne days, to take nothing away from the latter. "The 49ers are part of the San Jose metro area these days playing in Santa Clara." True, but 1. The Niners being there is very recent, and 2. People like names...I remember people were going to be happy either way, but a lot clearly wanted "Winnipeg Jets" as the name for the reborn team over anything else "Winnipeg" or "Manitoba." Being the San Jose Sharks has let them have the best of both worlds--they get to cater to a specific part of the metro area that, unlike San Fran or Oakland, doesn't otherwise have a named team, while still basically applying to/being the team for said metro area. "Texas would be if Houston got a team." They might, but Texas is such an insanely-football place that even the other teams that are already there play second fiddle big time...plus they'd have to bang big time on a rivalry with the Stars (going back to my idea that help fan-bases take root and keep hockey from being a quick novelty in non-traditional markets) and the Stars, having won a Cup in the past and now having a high-scoring team, have an even bigger advantage than did LA when the Sharks and then Kings came around. It might be California...or it might be Florida, where the Panthers should be shot already since Florida's clearly only able to support one team and it should be the Lightning. It's strange how some US markets have done well, while others have faltered. I'm not sure why. In California, the Sharks and Ducks were instant hits, and sold out most of their games. Florida did well in their first few years, but went off the radar when the team relocated to Sunrise, which is nowhere near Miami. Tampa did well at first, had a few rough years, and now attendance is among the highest in the NHL. Carolina was a horrible place to put hockey, and with the exception of a few years where the team was great, have usually been in the bottom 5 markets. In Texas, the first professional hockey team were the Houston Aeros of the WHA. They attracted a sizable following, similar to Winnipeg and Quebec. When the WHA folded, Houston was eventually granted an IHL/AHL team, and attendance was among the top 5 markets in the league, until a leasing dispute caused the team to move. Dallas has drawn good crowds, with the exception of 2010-14. Even Phoenix did relatively well when they played in the America West Arena in downtown. Once the team moved to Glendale, attendance nosedived. Atlanta could have worked, as Ted Turner was going to bankroll the team. Unfortunately, once the AOL-Time Warner merger became official, the franchise never really had a stable ownership group. Nashville, on the other hand struggled for a few years, but have been relatively successful, once the Preds became successful a decade ago. It almost seems like it is somewhat hit-and-miss which markets can and will support an NHL franchise. I think Norm Green is proof that you can own a team in the best market in the USA (Minnesota North Stars), but if the ownership is horrible, the team will not draw. that is why Atlanta moved. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 14, 2015 7:36:50 GMT -6
The mainstream buzz around the 1980s/later Gretzky Kings wasn't the same animal as the Marcel Dionne days, to take nothing away from the latter. "The 49ers are part of the San Jose metro area these days playing in Santa Clara." True, but 1. The Niners being there is very recent, and 2. People like names...I remember people were going to be happy either way, but a lot clearly wanted "Winnipeg Jets" as the name for the reborn team over anything else "Winnipeg" or "Manitoba." Being the San Jose Sharks has let them have the best of both worlds--they get to cater to a specific part of the metro area that, unlike San Fran or Oakland, doesn't otherwise have a named team, while still basically applying to/being the team for said metro area. "Texas would be if Houston got a team." They might, but Texas is such an insanely-football place that even the other teams that are already there play second fiddle big time...plus they'd have to bang big time on a rivalry with the Stars (going back to my idea that help fan-bases take root and keep hockey from being a quick novelty in non-traditional markets) and the Stars, having won a Cup in the past and now having a high-scoring team, have an even bigger advantage than did LA when the Sharks and then Kings came around. It might be California...or it might be Florida, where the Panthers should be shot already since Florida's clearly only able to support one team and it should be the Lightning. It's strange how some US markets have done well, while others have faltered. I'm not sure why. In California, the Sharks and Ducks were instant hits, and sold out most of their games. Florida did well in their first few years, but went off the radar when the team relocated to Sunrise, which is nowhere near Miami. Tampa did well at first, had a few rough years, and now attendance is among the highest in the NHL. Carolina was a horrible place to put hockey, and with the exception of a few years where the team was great, have usually been in the bottom 5 markets. In Texas, the first professional hockey team were the Houston Aeros of the WHA. They attracted a sizable following, similar to Winnipeg and Quebec. When the WHA folded, Houston was eventually granted an IHL/AHL team, and attendance was among the top 5 markets in the league, until a leasing dispute caused the team to move. Dallas has drawn good crowds, with the exception of 2010-14. Even Phoenix did relatively well when they played in the America West Arena in downtown. Once the team moved to Glendale, attendance nosedived. Atlanta could have worked, as Ted Turner was going to bankroll the team. Unfortunately, once the AOL-Time Warner merger became official, the franchise never really had a stable ownership group. Nashville, on the other hand struggled for a few years, but have been relatively successful, once the Preds became successful a decade ago. It almost seems like it is somewhat hit-and-miss which markets can and will support an NHL franchise. I think Norm Green is proof that you can own a team in the best market in the USA (Minnesota North Stars), but if the ownership is horrible, the team will not draw. that is why Atlanta moved. They moved twice because of bad ownership? |
|
