|
Post by Ric O. on Jun 13, 2015 20:24:50 GMT -6
I would hate to be in a division with the Oilers, Flames and Canucks No kidding, that would be the absolute worst division to place the Jets in. Heck, I'd prefer going back to the Southeast over the Northwest. Jets are in hockey's toughest division so it's not easy to win, but it's the best fit of teams a lot of Jets fans want to watch (Hawks, Blues, Wild...), grouped in with other mid-west cities and proper game times for our time zone.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 13, 2015 22:06:34 GMT -6
Word is the Milwaukee arena will probably be a horseshoe and may not even have an ice plant for the Milwaukee admirals. Milwaukee isn't comparable to Vancouver because while neither city could support both NBA-NHL currently at least Vancouver is growing at a good clip and might be big enough for NBA-NHL someday.Milwaukee population is stagnant. Milwaukee=a stale rust belt city. There isn't one rustbelt city that is growing. Check out the growth rates of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo etc... Yikes!!!! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Statistical_AreaVancouver only has the Canucks too. Milwaukee already has the Brewers plus the Bucks if the arena gets built. You have to also keep in mind even with a new arena the Bucks will be one of the bottom revenue teams in the NBA. Only teams I could see them beating with a new arena are Memphis and New Orleans and that is if things go right. Milwaukee currently is the 4th smallest market in the NBA. Not only can't Milwaukee support MLB-NBA-NHL combined, I'm not sure it can support MLB-NBA. It's very tight for that even. I have a feeling we will be the new Glendale. No one cares about the Bucks. The arena is hugely unpopular here in Wisconsin. The state cut funding to the University of Wisconsin system yet they can give the Bucks at least $250M. It's going to be a total Glendale like disaster almost. The only saving grace in this is the NBA has a huge national tv deal so maybe we get lucky and avoid the dreaded "arena management fee" ala Glendale. The whole financing plan is also built on a house of cards(uncollected debt that won't be collected). One thing for sure, we do know the Milwaukee arena will seat 17,000 for NBA. Usually non-horseshoe arenas lose 1,000 seats for hockey when you remove the lower seats for the rink. If it's not a horseshoe and Milwaukee did magically find another 1M people you have the problem of only having 16,000 seats which means charging almost Winnipeg prices to make it. NOT GOING TO WORK! the thing is, Wisconsin is a hockey state, a HUGE american hockey state. I think it could work there but it is probably too late for that city to become an NHL market It's more popular in Madison. If Madison was closer and the Bucks left maybe it could work. According this chart Milwaukee only has as many hockey fans as Vegas. fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/why-cant-canada-win-the-stanley-cup/?_r=0Now in fairness with a team that would go up but still. I don't see that great of an upside going to an over saturated not growing rust belt city. And what is the upside for the tax payers in either getting the NHL or keeping the BUcks. Yay we get screwed and get to build an arena we can't afford to get a team that might achieve financial mediocrity. Whooppiee
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jun 13, 2015 22:14:19 GMT -6
^ Funny I thought the same thing about the NFL when there was all that talk about moving the Bills out here.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 13, 2015 22:15:18 GMT -6
^ Not if the Bucks move. Its just too small to support the Bucks and NHL. It's boarderline. If the Bucks left it could be done but would be very hard. The 9 smallest NHL markets don't have another full time team to compete with. 7 of them are 1 team markets, 2 of them(buffalo and nashville only compete with the NFL which is once a week). 5 of the smallest markets are Canadian and one of the others Buffalo is greatly helped by Canadians. Milwaukee could work if enough Madison people come but they'd be the NHL's version of the Bucks. Is that worth spending 250 to 400M of tax payer money on while cutting University of Wisconsin system funding? Also would the Blackhawks allow Milwaukee? Overall Milwaukee would be the 26th biggest market realistically 25th on paper. Nashville is realistically bigger and on paper will soon be bigger because Nashville is growing fast. The only smaller markets are Calgary, Ottawa, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Buffalo. All Canadian or on the Canadian boarder. Here is a question to keep in mind. Go through every NHL team. Assume the Bucks leave and a new arena is built for NHL. How many markets does Milwaukee realistically beat in a best case scenario? Not many.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 13, 2015 22:17:02 GMT -6
^ Funny I thought the same thing about the NFL when there was all that talk about moving the Bills out here. At least historically the Bills have drawn well. A lot of their problems are because the stadium seats 73,000 plus. Corporate support is tough too. I would say not to build a billion dollar stadium but with a non growing rustbelt like Buffalo but they can at least take state tax money from New York City and pay for it. It's not all on Buffalo. With the Bucks attendance is outright bad. No one cares. Unlike New York we can't afford this. We are going to become mini-Glendale. Scott Walker/Robin Vos and John Nygren remind me of Sammy Chivara, Manny Martinez and Gary Sherwood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2015 22:23:14 GMT -6
^ Not if the Bucks move. Its just too small to support the Bucks and NHL. It would be awesome having a NHL team in Wisconsin. The only problem is, I don't think the market would support all four pro sports teams in the area (I consider the Packers regional, as they have played parts of seasons in Milwaukee, and a large percentage of people in the area commute to games in Green Bay). The Bucks would probably have to move, for an NHL team to be economically viable.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 13, 2015 22:31:54 GMT -6
^^^ Former Milwaukee fans get something called the gold package. They get 2 regular season home games, plus 1 preseason games. Same as back when the Packers played at County Stadium. Green Bay people get the other preseason home game and 6 regular season games. Most of the corporate support is from Milwaukee and the flag ship radio station is WTMJ(Milwaukee). When the Brewers and Cardinals played in the national league championship series against the Cardinals a few years ago(2 games away from the world series) on a Sunday night when a Sunday night Packers games vs. Atlanta was on the Packers won the ratings battle in Milwaukee. They are Milwaukee's number 1 team.
The Brewers draw well and are a regional team though not as much as the Packers. Generally the whole state loves them. The bucks don't exist. The only ones that love them are the politicians(ala Glendale or former Glendale depending on what you think will happen next week). If it ever came down to funding help from the politicians for the Packers-Bucks-Brewers the Bucks would win. The Packers had to win a public vote for 33% of the Lambeau Field renovation. The Brewers got Miller Park by one switched vote at the last second. The guy who switched his vote was later recalled. The politicians here would do ANYTHING for the Bucks.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jun 13, 2015 22:35:10 GMT -6
It wont happen anyway. NHL wants to expand and move to large American cities or cities without any competition. I think Seattle, Vegas, Houston, and Portland are higher up on the list than Milwaukee
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 13, 2015 22:41:24 GMT -6
Hopefully they are. All these places have more upside. You never know with gary though.
|
|
|
Post by sting on Jun 14, 2015 1:02:51 GMT -6
^ Not if the Bucks move. Its just too small to support the Bucks and NHL. Over 2 million in the met area of Milwaukee and as mentioned a hockey state.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 14, 2015 1:23:42 GMT -6
2M is the combined statistical area not metro but combined statistical area is more accurate than metro for sports so 2M is a very good number to use for Milwaukee. Here are all the cities that support more than 1 "full time team"(MLB,NBA,NHL) meaning not the NFL since they play once a week and it's easy to support NFL.
rank-city-(population)-fortune 1000 companies-per capita income
1 New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA (23,632,722)- 144- $58,119,000 2 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA (18,550,288)- 38- $43,008,000 3 Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI (9,928,312)- 63- $47,831,000 4 Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA (9,546,579)- 37- $57,810,000 5 Toronto (9,108,357)- NA- $44,462,000 6 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA (8,607,423)- 59- $60,603,000 7 Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT (8,099,575)- 32- $54,967,000 8 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK (7,352,613)- 40- $45,568,000 9 Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD (7,164,790)- 29- $49,831,000 10 Houston-The Woodlands, TX (6,686,318)- 52- $50,490,000 11 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL (6,558,143)- 13- $43,959,000 (THis counts areas over 100+miles away go with the 5.9M miami metro it's more accurate) 12 Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA (6,258,875)- 28- $40,046,000 13 Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI (5,315,251)- 18- $41,276,000(this don't count Windsor, or Toledo, this should be around 6.3M) 14 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA (4,489,109)- 13- $38,006,000 15 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI (3,835,050)- 26- $49,191,000 16 Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH (3,497,851)- 19- $42,351,000 17 Denver-Aurora, CO (3,345,261)- 19- $49,623,000 (Fort Collins and Colorado Springs are within 68 miles so if you counted them you'd be at 4.3M, Denver is also one of the fastest growing cities in the US or Canada) 18 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA (2,915,582)- 7- $40,862,000 (This is grossly underinflated because lakeland is only 30+miles away and Sarasota is around 60 miles, this should be about 4.2M, also due to the suburban location of the Rays stadium they really aren't supporting the rays) 19 St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL (2,910,738)- 18- $44,153,000 20 Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV (2,653,781)- 15- $46,458,000 21 Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI (2,043,904)- 13- $45,032,000
Milwaukee is already on the bottom by over 600,000 for having 2 full time teams(MLB,NBA, NHL) and the Bucks are a VERY weak franchise that should be let go to Seattle. Only 4 cities are under 3M that support at least 2 of MLB,NBA, NHL and Tampa is shortchanged and will shortly be over 3M anyway on paper due to population growth.
If the Bucks leave and the NHL comes what does an NHL team add to the NHL? What's the upside? It won't help the NHL get the big TV deal. They won't get a big local TV deal. The city doesn't grow. Gate wise at best they'd achieve mediocrity or maybe a little more IF Madison helped out a lot. Madison is 78 miles and a 1 hour 20min drive away. What does having a NHL team in Milwaukee that would barely survive(like the Buuks) bring to the NHL? What is the purpose of having the Milwaukee bucks? What is the point of having a sports franchise in general where the upside is they barely survive and they only can do that if the tax payers get totally screwed?
NHL should
1. Focus on Canada(Quebec, 2nd team in S. Ontario) This should be number 1 goal 2. Focus on fast growing, rich, big cities(Seattle, Houston-when Leslie Alexander dies/sells) 3. Focus on markets without competition that are growing at a decent rate like Vegas if there is an interest. 4. Focus on 1 team markets that are growing decently and might be big enough to take on a 2nd team in the future(Portland) 5. Fix big(ish) markets that are growing fast that the NHL screwed up on with suburban arenas if possible(Phoenix/Miami)
This is all moot anyway. The state will approve the Bucks NBA only arena. Wisconsin is a good hockey state the problem is the state is too spread out and Milwaukee alone isn't that big and there is no 2nd city big enough for an NHL team. If you could combine Milwaukee-Madison you'd be onto something.
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 14, 2015 8:32:58 GMT -6
Mike dont compare nashville to Miliwuakee you are underestimating the state of Wisocnsin as a HUGE hockey land. Dont do that man, you go in these rants and use the same talking points just looking at market size, hockey has never relied on pure market size, it has relied on hockey fans.
Saying a hockey team by itself would barely survive, you are just being dishonest. And yes you should count madison because hockey fans drive to watch hockey.
EDIT***
maybe i misread that but still without the bucks an NHL team would do very well in wisconsin.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 14, 2015 11:33:06 GMT -6
No you read it right! NHL isn't as popular as you think in Wisconsin. It's youth/Badger hockey that people like. I don't know 1 NHL fan here in Green Bay area other than myself. Milwaukee only has 94,000 NHL fans. That's hardly beating down the door for NHL. I agree market size ALONE doesn't determine a good market. I've said many times NHL isn't like MLB where population is almost the indicator of how good a market is. I think I used the stat that if you used population alone to judge markets for NHL you'd be way the hell off on half the league. But the small markets that rock in the NHL are all small Canadian towns that have 0 competition from other fulltime sports or are on the Canadian boarder(Buffalo) near 1/4th of the population of Canada. At best an NHL team here would be the St. Louis Blues 2.0. Survivable with no growth potential. Kind of a better NHL version of the Milwaukee Bucks. Yes they'd get propped up from Chicago when the Blackhawks come to town and from Madison on Friday and Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons after football season. But Madison is too far to rely fully and count as 100% of Milwaukee. Weeknights would be a struggle. It would be an hour 20min drive one way. Not going to work on work nights. I do think it would be possible to make hockey great here if we either had a big city like the state of Minnesota(Minneapolis) or Michigan(Detroit) or a smaller big city with no competition. The problem is we only have Milwaukee and it's over saturated. Yes they call Wisconsin the hockey state but we need a big hockey city. That's always been our problem and why we will never get NHL. Our state is too spread out.
Overall I'd rather keep the Bucks if tax money has to be wasted on an arena. Bucks do have a long history here(1968) and did win a title. I do think NHL would be more popular than NBA(black stars hate small cities in general) but at least the NBA has that TV deal so it would be more stable just off that alone. If NHL goes wrong you pay the "arena management fee ".
I ask you this how many current markets would a buck-less Milwaukee be better than in the NHL?
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 14, 2015 14:59:25 GMT -6
Here are the hockey participation rates for 2013-14 unitedstatesofhockey.com/2014/06/17/u-s-hockey-participation-numbers-for-2013-14/With Minnesota being the "hockey state" the Wild are still in the middle of the NHL financial pack. So do not make too much of hockey participation rates/love of college hockey. Minnesota had 54,507 hockey players good for 1st, Wisconsin had 17,762 good for 9th. Compare the sizes of Minneapolis vs. Milwaukee, the growth rates, per capita income, tv market size, fortune 1000 companies. Forbes had the Wild at 17th in franchise value and they lost slight money. Last leaked gate data they were tied for 14th middle of the pack. No one can seriously say an NHL team in Milwaukee would come anywhere to Minneapolis. Behind Wisconsin for hockey participation was Ohio. Columbus is bigger than Milwaukee and has no other teams yet the Jackets aren't lighting it up either. Buffalo realistically has about 1.7M people when you count St. Catherines, and Bativa which is around 33 miles from Buffalo. Plus they get help from Hamilton/Rochester somewhat. New York state is huge for hockey and Buffalo is the only nhl market that gets TV rating similar to Canadian cities. Yet when you look at either leaked gate data, forbes franchise value or forbes revenue per year they are a lower 2/3rds market and do lose money or make a slight profit yearly. Is a Milwaukee team really stronger than Buffalo even? Here is how I would compare Milwaukee to the rest of the NHL and how I'd rank teams. I'm taking into account EVERYTHING like local TV deal etc, Canadian dollar, sponsorships etc... It's hard to rank middle of the pack teams. For example Winnipeg has GREAT fans, finished around 13th in their 1st year when the dollar was at par and paid a slight amount into revenue sharing. You have to figure they are slightly lower these days when you take away around 20% of the local revenue. My ranks Teams that would beyond obliterate Milwaukee 1. Toronto- The King 2. NY Rangers 3. Montreal- I'm tempted to put Montreal 2nd but didn't because of the dollar 4. Chicago 5. Boston 6. Vancouver 7. Philadelphia 8. Detroit 9. LA Kings 10. Edmonton Teams that would only "crush" Milwaukee (This is a VERY hard area to rank, I struggled with this) 11. Pittsburgh 12. Washington 13. Calgary- I'd move this one up to the other category with a proper arena. Tv deal is also very small plus there is the poor dollar. 14. Minnesota 15. Winnipeg- This might be a spot or 2 too high with the poor dollar and small local tv deal 16. Ottawa- this might be too high with arena location but local tv deal is huge. 17. San Jose- bad local tv deal, this still may be too low 18. Dallas- great local tv deal, this may be too low 19. Colorado- hold attendance records and the city is very fast growing. This team will be a LOT stronger in the future with the population growth. Denver is one of the most over saturated cities for sports. Teams Milwaukee might be able to compete with if things go right 20. New Jersey- This is a tough one. Jersey doesn't have a great amount of fans but the TV deal is massive. For that they'd beat Milwaukee. 21. Buffalo- Great fans, great ratings, Canadian help(15-20% of season ticket holders) no other full time teams 22. New York Islanders- great local tv deal, Barclays tickets selling well. They'd beat Milwaukee but the problem is they may be kicked out of Barclays. If they go back to Nassau Milwaukee would beat them. 23. St. Louis- great local ratings, lots of local interest but tv deal is small and tickets are cheap 24. Columbus- Only team, there was lots of interest in the early years I think Milwaukee would be right here without the bucks today. Maybe a little higher like 23rd or a little lower in time in hockey grows more in Tampa, Anaheim. Teams Milwaukee would probably beat for now but wouldn't bet my life on them beating long term. 25. Anaheim Ducks- Tons of people play hockey in California. Depends on how much they get on their local tv deal. 26. Tampa Bay Lightening- Trending in the right direction. Bill Gates development and Stanley cup appearance are huge. Tampa Bay Rays moving to downtown Tampa would hurt 27. Nashville Predators- People are coming at cheap prices. Interest is growing. If interest grows more this market could be a real find. It's very fast growing and no other full time team. Teams Milwaukee without the bucks would beat 28. Carolina Hurricanes 29. Sunrise Panthers 30. Glendale Coyotes
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jun 14, 2015 15:02:59 GMT -6
No you read it right! NHL isn't as popular as you think in Wisconsin. It's youth/Badger hockey that people like. I don't know 1 NHL fan here in Green Bay area other than myself. Milwaukee only has 94,000 NHL fans. That's hardly beating down the door for NHL. I agree market size ALONE doesn't determine a good market. I've said many times NHL isn't like MLB where population is almost the indicator of how good a market is. I think I used the stat that if you used population alone to judge markets for NHL you'd be way the hell off on half the league. But the small markets that rock in the NHL are all small Canadian towns that have 0 competition from other fulltime sports or are on the Canadian boarder(Buffalo) near 1/4th of the population of Canada. At best an NHL team here would be the St. Louis Blues 2.0. Survivable with no growth potential. Kind of a better NHL version of the Milwaukee Bucks. Yes they'd get propped up from Chicago when the Blackhawks come to town and from Madison on Friday and Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons after football season. But Madison is too far to rely fully and count as 100% of Milwaukee. Weeknights would be a struggle. It would be an hour 20min drive one way. Not going to work on work nights. I do think it would be possible to make hockey great here if we either had a big city like the state of Minnesota(Minneapolis) or Michigan(Detroit) or a smaller big city with no competition. The problem is we only have Milwaukee and it's over saturated. Yes they call Wisconsin the hockey state but we need a big hockey city. That's always been our problem and why we will never get NHL. Our state is too spread out. Overall I'd rather keep the Bucks if tax money has to be wasted on an arena. Bucks do have a long history here(1968) and did win a title. I do think NHL would be more popular than NBA(black stars hate small cities in general) but at least the NBA has that TV deal so it would be more stable just off that alone. If NHL goes wrong you pay the "arena management fee ". I ask you this how many current markets would a buck-less Milwaukee be better than in the NHL? according to you Wisconsin is the only place in norht america with high youth hockey participation that wouldnt do well as an nhl market (outside of say alaska where there isnt a large enough population) I dont accept that. Sorry.
|
|