View Single Post
11-15-2012, 02:12 PM
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
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?
It doesn't need to be #1 but, it does need to have a significant interest. In Boston, Chicago, NY and Detroit there is significant interest in the game and has been for a long time. As you can see from Atlanta, Miami, Nashville, Phoenix, Carolina and Columbus - creating a significant interest in the NHL is a tall order. It doesn't happen overnight and may not happen at all if there isn't significant interest before the team ever gets there.

I would like to see Seattle succeed but, based on my observations, in 15 years we will be likely talking about where the Seattle team is planning to move.

Ogopogo* is offline