View Single Post
11-15-2012, 01:58 PM
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,753
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Not sure if participation in men's leagues is a great indicator of NHL success. In Edmonton, we have thousands of kids who play soccer and many adults as well - both indoor and outdoor. The NASL pro team we have here does OK but I don't think they have ever gotten more than 2,500 to a game. Part of it is the stadium limitation on seating but, the interest in playing the game hasn't necessarily translated to ticket sales and interest in the pro team. Even when we bring in club teams from England or Brazil (Everton played River Plate from Argentina here a couple years back), there are thousands of empty seats at our stadium. Attendance at that game was 15,800 in a 60,000 seat stadium. Putting an MLS team here wouldn't work - the interest doesn't exist to support a team at that level. Millions of dollars would be lost trying to build a fan base - just like will happen in Seattle with the NHL.

I like Seattle a lot, it is a great city. I would like to see NHL hockey work there but, I just don't see the interest in the game that would be required to make it successful. Even in cities where attendance appears pretty good, a lot of tickets are given away or sold at such discounts that, even a sell-out crowd guarantees losses. NHL hockey needs to be important on the sporting landscape to have success and, I just don't see hockey being that important in Seattle.
What it shows is there's an interest in hockey. That's something that a successful franchise needs. There's a reason why there are so many junior teams in this general area and it's not because droves of Canadians drive down from BC.

What would you define as needed for a successful franchise? As I see it having a team that will be the #1 team in a market isn't necessary. Are the Bruins a successful franchise? They're #4 in their market: 1. Red Sox 2. Celtics 3. Patriots 4. Bruins. How about the Red Wings? #4 again: 1. Lions 2. Tigers 3. Pistons 4. Red Wings. The Rangers? #6 : 1. Giants 2. Yankees 3. Jets 4. Knicks 5. Mets 6. Rangers. The Blackhawks? #5 : 1. Bears 2. Cubs 3. Bulls 4. White Sox 5. Blackhawks.

All of those are considered successful franchises and NONE of them are better than #4 in their respective markets. These are Original Six hockey bastions. Are they not, by your definitions, successful? Why does an NHL team have to be #1 in Seattle for it to be a success?

Morgoth Bauglir is offline