Metro Seattle: NHL, NBA and Arena - Part V
View Single Post
11-15-2012, 02:12 PM
Join Date: Apr 2005
Originally Posted by
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.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ogopogo*