quackbeth
Captain "C"
By the pricking of my thumbs Something hockey this way comes!
Posts: 741
|
Post by quackbeth on Sept 21, 2011 1:02:05 GMT -6
With the NFL, MLB, and the NB, it's pretty rare to hear someone say "Oh, such-and-such-town jsut doesn't appreciate basketball/baseball/football" or "that's just not a basketball/baseball/football market" or, perhaps more to the point, "baseketball/baseball/football" DOESN'T BELONG in such-and-such town!"
That's all different with the NHL and their fans.
WE seem to genuinely and pretty passionately care about hockey going where it's "appreciated" and where it "belongs."
And that seems to be a rather exclusive club in North America, or at least more so than the otehr three major sports, which, while they may vary in degree of popularity from one area to the next, are pretty well all played and represented across North America.
From Toronto to Tampa to even, previously, San Juan on occaision, MLB was played with little mention of where it "belonged;" the Expos left Montreal, but that was due to lagging attendance, and while baseeball *IS* probably the most world-accessible game from US Sports--the American Football far less so, and basketball also less so, but gaining--to break that maxim for a moment, baseball WOULD seem to "belong" in Washington D.C., as baseball is America's Pastime, it makes sense for a team to exist in that nation's capital.
The NFL is all-US, but Canada has a notable league as well...
And the NBA has a Toronto team as well (don't know if there's a Canadian Basketball League as well...?)
But with hockey, it's different somehow.
Areas like Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee Georgia, North Carolina, Florida--in the other sports, no one would doubt these areas could or even should support an/another NBA/MLB/NFL team.
But the Thrashers are gone now, and the Coyotes, Panthers, and even sometimes the Hurricanes, Predators, and Lightning are accused of not being "hockey markets."
And I agree.
So the question I ask is:
What MAKES a hockey market legitimate, ie, "part of the club?"
Because clearly NHL fans really won't accept you and your team if they're not part of that club...or so it seems...
Canada's obviously in the club de facto, as it's the national sport. The Northeast is pretty well established as well as being "in the club." The Northern US, from Minnesota to Michigan, seems to be in it. The Midwest is sort of in the club, with the Blues, Blue Jackets, and Avs. California is MAYBE now considered in the club as well.
But when they first started out, the Mighty Ducks, Sharks and Avs probably weren't "in the club of legit hockey teams and areas." Ditto when the St. Louis Blues came into being. And ditto the Tampa Bay Lightning (who still are on the fringe.) And the same goes for the Hurricanes and Dallas Stars.
These teams WEREN'T accepted as being decent hockey frachises or markets...
And now, at least most of them and for the most part, are "in the club," it'd seem.
No one bemoans the Blues being in St. Louis, Missouri, and not too many hate the Hurricanes, yet Southern Hockey gets a lot of hate.
And they say hockey can never work in the desert with Phoenix...
But they forget the Los Angeles/Anaheim area is one huge valley/desert.
Do big cities make the difference, with that helping the Ducks and Kings in this instance?
One might first think this to be the case...and I've even argued it...
But then I now remember that HOUSTON is the 3rd/4th largest city in the US, and they don't have a team.
Atlanta was pretty sizable, and they've lost a team twice now.
So what is it, I ask, that makes a team or a city or an area "part of THE CLUB?"
|
|
|
Post by NHLWinnipeg on Sept 21, 2011 1:25:49 GMT -6
Carolina Hurricanes were always considered (among say most ROTJs posters) similar to the other teams you mentioned as belonging to a non-hockey, non-traditional market. Winning the Cup help them gain a little traction in N. Carolina triangle area. I still think of them in the same category as the Panthers, Thrashers, Predators, etc. The Lightning won the Cup and then had attendance drop off to the point they were in serious financial trouble due to lack of fan support despite having a lot of great players...
It's an interesting topic which we debated for years in many ways. There are actually very few places in the USA where hockey is a mainstream sport in the way it is in Canada -- i.e., where the game is played widely by young (generally) males (generally) that are interested in team sports. Beyond that you have places mainly in the north east which have had NHL teams for a long time and where such teams are very popular as a spectator sport at the local level -- original 6, Flyers, etc...
It's cliche but hockey is a niche sport in the US...
|
|
|
Post by comique on Sept 21, 2011 11:16:57 GMT -6
Question: What MAKES a hockey market legitimate, ie, "part of the club?"
Answer: Being able to survive. Not always making money but to maintain, grow the fan base and move forward and compete and draw interest. In short, make money some years, break even or loose a little that the owners don't throw the keys on the table in the NHL offices.
You say "even sometimes the Hurricanes, Predators, and Lightning are accused of not being "hockey markets."
Sorry, if you are going to put the Canes and Lighting into a group like this, I would also put in the Ducks and the Stars and possibly even the Avs. The Preds are working their way out of a bottom group to good/decent support for their team.
The Ducks are not the Sharks by any means or even close but the market for the Sharks is a perfect corporate situation. LA is LA with history and market size, they can not help but survive . Who knows about the Blues, as I can not figure out what they are doing there.
Even watch Buffalo as they have fans but market is and always will decline. A new owner will not eat $20M a year forever which is what he will do at $63M and growing salary plan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2011 14:01:32 GMT -6
There IS a brand new National Basketball League of Canada. There are 7 teams, all in smaller Eastern markets (Oshawa, London, Summerside PEI, Moncton, Saint John NB, Quebec City, and Halifax)
|
|
|
Post by TheWinnipegJets on Sept 21, 2011 16:23:32 GMT -6
1. A reasonably-sized population with a strong currency/economy... 2. Build an arena with Hockey in mind: Winnipeg Arena worked for a while, now, the MTS Centre is (apparently) the minimum requirement/standard... (1. and 2. are both mandatory) 3. Live somewhere with the ability to produce/maintain outdoor ice in the Winter... (3. REALLY helps for the fanbase to be able to relate.) If this option is impossible, please see below: 4. Throw money at stars like Hull... (Jets) Winnipeg was probably en route to (eventually) becoming an NHL-worthy city anyway, but this move helped several teams in the WHA, not just Winnipeg. In Winnipeg (and even Canada), this kind of money was likely harder to come by than in California, but there was probably more confidence (in Wpg. than in Cal.) that this type of gamble would work out. 5. Throw money at stars like Gretzky (to play, not coach )... (Kings) (Gretzky, the Hockey player, probably could've helped lesser cities to join the Exclusive Club?!) 6. Throw money at stars like Selanne... (Ducks) (Making the playoffs, winning the Stanley Cup and the help of a little co. called 'the Walt Disney Company' may help too? See: 5.) 7. Produce a few Hollywood movies (featuring your team name) starring an actor that might possess some of Carlos' tiger blood. Target families. 8. MarcelDionne.com ? ...not so complicated!
|
|
quackbeth
Captain "C"
By the pricking of my thumbs Something hockey this way comes!
Posts: 741
|
Post by quackbeth on Sept 22, 2011 0:43:23 GMT -6
Question: What MAKES a hockey market legitimate, ie, "part of the club?" Answer: Being able to survive. Not always making money but to maintain, grow the fan base and move forward and compete and draw interest. In short, make money some years, break even or loose a little that the owners don't throw the keys on the table in the NHL offices. You say "even sometimes the Hurricanes, Predators, and Lightning are accused of not being "hockey markets." Sorry, if you are going to put the Canes and Lighting into a group like this, I would also put in the Ducks and the Stars and possibly even the Avs. The Preds are working their way out of a bottom group to good/decent support for their team. The Ducks are not the Sharks by any means or even close but the market for the Sharks is a perfect corporate situation. LA is LA with history and market size, they can not help but survive . Who knows about the Blues, as I can not figure out what they are doing there. Even watch Buffalo as they have fans but market is and always will decline. A new owner will not eat $20M a year forever which is what he will do at $63M and growing salary plan. Well, the "acceptability-factor" on the part of other fans was part of my equation... And I think most fans are alright with the California teams now... LA has the longest history, Anaheim has the greatest degree of playoff success with 8 trips, memorable series wins, 2 Cup trips and 2 Cup, and San Jose has all of Northern California as a base as well as the most consistent regular season success in recent years, and all three form a good rivalry. The Stars/Preds/Panthers have no such history or rivals, excluding the Stars' previous lives in Minnesota, and don't really have much in the way of rivals, either. And then, again, there's the matter of identifiable teams and players. You think "Los Angeles Kings," and you can think of some iconic Kings players--Robitaille, Gretzky, Marcel Dionne, McSorley, maybe, and so on--and you have an image, maybe, of the classic silver-and-black sweaters. You think "San Jose Sharks," and you think of a regular season powerhouse that seems to always be next-year's-team and sports its own set of memorable players. You think "Anaheim Ducks" and you'll think of Teemu Selanne, Paul Kariya, Perry-Ryan-Getzlaf on one line, good goaltending historically with Hebert-Giguere-Hiller, Giguere and the 2002-03 historic Mighty Ducks playoff run, the 2003 Stanley Cup epic with the Devils, and the 2007 Cup win. I'm not saying the California teams are tops in the league when it comes to market performance or legacy... But they DO have viability in both areas, and the legacy factor goes a long way in making them, I think, far more respectable as franchises than Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville, Florida, and so on. When you say "Phoenix Coyotes," besides that image of hockey failing horribly in the desert...no great iconic players--save MAYBE Tkachuck, if he now counts as "iconic"--come to mind, or great playoff moments, or big wins...no 802nd Goal moments, like LA has with Gretzky. When you say "Florida Panthers," aside from Pavel Pure, nothing and no one iconic comes to mind. That goes even more so for the ex-Thrashers. The Blues at least have a history from 1967 onward, and Chris Pronger and Brett Hull and Gretzky--for the worst micro-stint of his Great career, but still--and that's a bit better... The Avs have Cup wins, Forsberg and Roy and Sakic...Teemu for a year or so, but let's not talk about that... And then that rivalry with the Red Wings and--hey!--at least snow DOES fall there. The Predators have Shea Weber and Pekka Rinne, and that's really all that'd come to mind to most hockey fans, but in fairness to them, that's still better than Florida, Phoenix, or Atlanta, and they are getting better. Playing the Team Identity Game... Does anyone REALLY mis the Thrashers? Better question--amongst non-Jets fans...are they happier/ care more about seeing the return of the iconic, historic Jets team, ie, a franchise with an IDENTITY? (Here's one fan who obviously answered yes to that...) Would anyone take the Coyotes over the return of the Nordiques (not saying it'll play out that way, just that between the two, on identity, the Nords win easily.) Now, between current teams: If, for some bizarre reason, fans had to choose to keep Los Angeles or Atlanta as a franchise... Who honestly thinks they'd pick Atlanta? If Phoenix and Anaheim had to face off for the right to remain franchises, who wants to bet at least 4/5 hockey fans would be rooting for the Ducks to win there? Ditto with the Sharks over the Panthers. Again, I'm not saying the California teams are on par with the Original Six or Canadian teams as far as identity is concerned (with the possible exception of maybe Ottawa...leaving the 1900s team aside and dealing wth the current franchise, I'd bet most folsk would know more players and moments from the Kings or Ducks than the Sens...that being said, of course they're still a good franchise, and of course I'm happy they're up there to give Canada another team.) I'm just saying: ANA/LA/SJ > FLA/PHX/ATL/NSH* *May soon move out of this group
|
|
quackbeth
Captain "C"
By the pricking of my thumbs Something hockey this way comes!
Posts: 741
|
Post by quackbeth on Sept 22, 2011 1:03:47 GMT -6
To split the NHL Franchises into Levels in this Gentleman's Club...
Elite Franchises:
-Canadiens -Red Wings -Maple Leafs -Blackhawks -Bruins -Rangers
Tier I Expansion Franchises:
-Flyers -Jets -Nordiques (former...hopefully soon to be returned) -Devils (3 Cups and good playoff history outweighs the last season of pain) -Islanders (Likewise, one best dynasties and some of the best palyers ever) -Oilers (See Devils and Islanders and add in WPG/CGY/VAN rivalry) -Canucks -Flames -Kings -Penguins
Tier II Expansion Franchises:
-Ducks -Sharks -Whalers/Hurricanes (between the two of them, they make this category) -Stars (between Minnesota and Dallas) -Avalanche -Sabres
Tier III Expansion Franchises:
-Wild -Lightning -Blue Jackets -Predators
Deathly Franchises:
-Coyotes -Panthers
|
|
Sam
Captain "C"
Hello, hello!
Posts: 787
|
Post by Sam on Sept 22, 2011 1:39:47 GMT -6
Everyone's pretty much covered it ha ha, great thread though, really brings up some good points.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 22, 2011 10:49:41 GMT -6
quackbeth-Absolutely great thread and list. Few minor points on other sports. I don't think anywhere in the US could support more NFL, NBA or MLB other than Los Angeles for the NFL and Seattle for the NBA(proper arena of course). No way could the states you listed take on more teams. And baseball definately does belong in DC. If it didn't could the Nationals waste 126 million dollars on Jason Werth and be in the running to give injury prone shortstop Jose Reyes another 90 million dollars?
The only time i heard of fans complaining in other sports that a city couldn't support a team was the Montreal Expos of MLB and the Vancouver Grizzlies of the NBA. Other than that most of the franchise moves in the big 3 sports were because of outdated stadiums/arenas. None of it was because of poor fan support like a Phoenix of the NHL.
Couple disagreements with your rankings. I may be tempted to move Philadelphia up into the elite franchise list even though they aren't an original 6 franchise. That got just as good of fan support as chicago and boston and they pull in the same amount of revenue. I'd move Minnesota up to the tier 2 list even though they haven't won anything since they have such great fan support and its such a hockey state. I'd definately move Hartford/Carolina into the tier 3 list because of bad fan support in Hartford and not much better in Carolina.
I'd be tempted to move the islanders into the death list or tier 3 until Wang moves into the Barclays Center even though they won 4 cups. No way can they be Tier one with the type of fan support they currently receive. I'd also move Edmonton down the tear 2 even though its a great market just because of Rexall Place. Once a arena deal is struck i'd move them back up where you have them.
|
|
|
Post by NHLWinnipeg on Sept 22, 2011 12:41:24 GMT -6
Couple disagreements with your rankings. I may be tempted to move Philadelphia up into the elite franchise list even though they aren't an original 6 franchise. That got just as good of fan support as chicago and boston and they pull in the same amount of revenue. I'd move Minnesota up to the tier 2 list even though they haven't won anything since they have such great fan support and its such a hockey state. I'd definately move Hartford/Carolina into the tier 3 list because of bad fan support in Hartford and not much better in Carolina. I'd be tempted to move the islanders into the death list or tier 3 until Wang moves into the Barclays Center even though they won 4 cups. No way can they be Tier one with the type of fan support they currently receive. I'd also move Edmonton down the tear 2 even though its a great market just because of Rexall Place. Once a arena deal is struck i'd move them back up where you have them. If you are talking about fan support, I think the 2 key metrics are A) TV audience size and B) gate revenue. TV audience gauges generally community interest in the team. Gate revenues show the demand for tickets. By those metrics, I would certainly place all of the Canadian teams in the Elite Franchise tier. Vancouver is #3 in the league ahead of all US O6 teams -- it is anyway in terms of those 2 key metrics. Philadelphia stays in the next tier behind places like Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa. Shocking, isn't it? Let's take a look at TV numbers: TOP TEN Rank Club Regional rights holder Average audience Per game broadcast 1* Montreal Canadiens RDS* 688,000* 2 Toronto Maple Leafs Rogers Sportsnet Ontario 656,400 3 Vancouver Canucks Rogers Sportsnet Pacific 398,500 4 Calgary Flames Rogers Sportsnet West 221,3005 Pittsburgh Penguins FSN Pittsburgh 214,100 6 Chicago Blackhawks Comcast Sportsnet / WGN-TV 9 196,800 7 Detroit Red Wings FSN Detroit 186,600 8 Edmonton Oilers Rogers Sportsnet West 181,400 9 Ottawa Senators Rogers Sportsnet Ontario 153,40010 New York Rangers MSG Network 152,200 MIDDLE TEN 11 Philadelphia Flyers Comcast Sportsnet / CN8 147,90012 Boston Bruins NESN (New England Sports Network) 120,800 13 New Jersey Devils MSG Plus 99,200 14 Buffalo Sabres MSG Network 93,600 15 Washington Capitals Comcast Sportsnet 85,400 16 St. Louis Blues FSN Midwest 67,000 17 Minnesota Wild FSN North / KSTC-TV 66,500 18 San Jose Sharks CSN California 63,200 19 Los Angeles Kings FSN West / Prime ticket 62,400 20 New York Islanders MSG Plus 61,500 BOTTOM TEN 21 Colorado Avalanche Altitude 54,700 22 Anaheim Ducks FSN West 54,700 23 Dallas Stars FSN Southwest / KDFI My27 42,400 24 Columbus Blue Jackets FSN Ohio 29,600 25 Phoenix Coyotes FSN Arizona 26,500 26 Carolina Hurricanes FSN Carolina 25,300 (est.) 27 Nashville Predators FSN Tennessee 25,300 (est.) 28 Tampa Bay Lightning Sun Sports 25,100 29 Atlanta Thrashers Sportsouth 18,000 30 Florida Panthers FSN Florida 13,400 And Gate Receipts: In terms of hockey participation rates, the Canadian cities and 3M states would come ahead of all other markets. Moreover, cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston and Pittsburgh would be behind the Canadian markets. Note: I have not considered Winnipeg above, but believe it will be similar to the smaller market Canadian cities.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 22, 2011 13:20:02 GMT -6
I'm not talking just about fan support. I'm gaging everything, i.e. total revenue not just ticket revenue, corporate suport, team history, the type of building they play in and how much revenue it produces as a whole counting all the fancy stuff like luxuary boxes fancy restraunts etc.
Your list is ok but it has errors. For example Edmonton is not a top 15 team even due to its building. If Rexall was gone i could see them being top 10ish. Calgary gets moved down due to the Saddledome being outdated. With a new building i could see them being a top 10 team. Do you really think Calgary, Edmonton or Ottawa is more valueable to own than the New York Rangers,Boston Bruins and Philadelphia for example? I sure don't. I'd go with the Forbes list any day of the week over your chart even though Forbes is an estimate.
When Darryl Katz bought the Oilers he only paid 200 million for them. If the Rangers,Flyers, Bruins sold they'd get a hell of a lot more than that.
|
|
|
Post by NHLWinnipeg on Sept 22, 2011 13:31:28 GMT -6
I'm not talking just about fan support. I'm gaging everything, i.e. total revenue not just ticket revenue, corporate suport, team history, the type of building they play in and how much revenue it produces as a whole counting all the fancy stuff like luxuary boxes fancy restraunts etc. Your list is ok but it has errors. For example Edmonton is not a top 15 team even due to its building. If Rexall was gone i could see them being top 10ish. Calgary gets moved down due to the Saddledome being outdated. With a new building i could see them being a top 10 team. Do you really think Calgary, Edmonton or Ottawa is more valueable to own than the New York Rangers,Boston Bruins and Philadelphia for example? I sure don't. I'd go with the Forbes list any day of the week over your chart even though Forbes is an estimate. When Darryl Katz bought the Oilers he only paid 200 million for them. If the Rangers,Flyers, Bruins sold they'd get a hell of a lot more than that. We have to decide what we are debating. Now you are mentioning franchise values. In order to assess that, you'd have look at the arena situation: the lease terms, who pays for the mortgage if any, who pays for property taxes if any, the market for non-hockey events in the city, competing venues, etc. That takes us far away from the OP's question imo. The data I posted above is real NHL data. Forbes has historically never had access to NHL books, although we can presume more recently that they have had access to leaked data. Forbes at any rate is not accurate and considers non-hockey factors such as building and surrounding lands. Those factors are not really relevant to this thread imo. Finally, as I generally like older buildings over newer ones (a personality quirk?), I might have to move the Oilers and Flames up even higher on the list due to them not having new buildings...Yes, I'm kidding on this point...the building really didn't factor in to my analysis of what is and is not a top NHL market. I am thinking first of the fan support.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 22, 2011 13:47:58 GMT -6
We are debating everything. The whole shebang. Just not a few stats favorable to Canadian nationalist. I'm sorry but the Rangers for example play in a market with 22 million with massive corporate support, play in the greatest arena of all time, are an original 6 team. Do you really believe that if they were for sale they'd get less than a Calgary or Edmonton or Ottawa?? Somehow i think they'd blow all 3 out of the water. Also do you really think one of those small Canadian Cities could afford an 850 million dollar renovation of there arena like MSG is doing. Don't get me wrong Canada is great and all but come on. Its way over the top to consider the 6 Canadian teams the best 6 or 6 of the 7 best teams. If Canada was so great there would have been support a long time ago to give Edmonton and Calgary decent building. Just based on the history and importance to the league and being original 6 team New York Rangers and Boston are better than these teams. Most of the people on here would consider the original 6 the elite franchises not a Calgary and Edmonton.
Hey Forbes may not have access but they sure as hell nailed the Marlins and Pirates to a T. And really you don't need much data to tell who the important teams are history wise and revenue wise. You can use common sense.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 22, 2011 13:54:14 GMT -6
For buildings I like the historic ones too like MSG, Lambeau, Wrigley, Fenway and Dodger stadium best but I don't like the non historic 70's clunkers that have no charm like a Rexall, Qualcomm in football, Arco in basketball etc. I do like the modern arenas and stadiums but the Historic ones i listed are best because they have the history obviously and the teams have done a very clever job of renovating them to produce the modern revenue and make them more comfortable without losing the oldtime charm.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Sept 22, 2011 14:07:50 GMT -6
We are debating everything. The whole shebang. Just not a few stats favorable to Canadian nationalist. I'm sorry but the Rangers for example play in a market with 22 million with massive corporate support, play in the greatest arena of all time, are an original 6 team. Do you really believe that if they were for sale they'd get less than a Calgary or Edmonton or Ottawa?? Somehow i think they'd blow all 3 out of the water. Also do you really think one of those small Canadian Cities could afford an 850 million dollar renovation of there arena like MSG is doing. Don't get me wrong Canada is great and all but come on. Its way over the top to consider the 6 Canadian teams the best 6 or 6 of the 7 best teams. If Canada was so great there would have been support a long time ago to give Edmonton and Calgary decent building. Just based on the history and importance to the league and being original 6 team New York Rangers and Boston are better than these teams. Most of the people on here would consider the original 6 the elite franchises not a Calgary and Edmonton. Hey Forbes may not have access but they sure as hell nailed the Marlins and Pirates to a T. And really you don't need much data to tell who the important teams are history wise and revenue wise. You can use common sense. I agree and disagree. First off, it is a seperate debate because a good hockey market depends on the people not the arena ownership, but the success (financially) of a franchise obviously depends the arena, corporate support, etc. You're arguement about the Rangers has some merit, but is going a bit too far in many ways. The $850 Million renovation certainly isn't just for the Rangers. And on that note, the success of the arena doesn't depend on the Rangers (they could leave and the MSG would still be worth a ton of money). In Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa however; the hockey team drives much of the arena's value.
|
|