View Single Post
12-16-2012, 01:15 PM
Darth Vitale
Transitional Period
Darth Vitale's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,628
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SHOOTANDSCORE View Post
I think I'll wait for the kindle version
Smart ass.

Originally Posted by iamjs View Post
Chancellor, since you're back in the thread, would you mind answering my question from yesterday?
I'll go look for it...

Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
When going on the assumptions that its a pipe dream that southern markets can be successful and that the best athletes come from poor neighborhoods, your points all make sense. I just don't agree with either of those assumptions. That's where we disagree.

I don't think there's nearly enough evidence to support the idea that most of the southern teams can't become good hockey markets. We've been over this quite a few times before so I'm not repeating it all.

Sure, more people will always be able to play cheaper sports because rich and poor people can play them. But more people playing hockey will increase the odds of great athletes playing hockey even if its just because more rich people are choosing it over other sports. Its not like being poor makes someone a better athlete. Rich kids play sports too and they can be just as good at them as poor kids.
You're sort of splitting hairs here aren't you? What do you think that percentage of "best athletes in every city" is going to be vs. basketball, football and baseball? 2%? 3%? The thing you're envisioning is not going to happen unless your standard is very low. Something like "Well, if we have these non-traditional markets long enough then after a while we'll have two dozen more rinks in the US, and 100 more great athletes wanting to play hockey across the US every year... then yah. Definitely possible. If you want "so many more great athletes will want to play as to change the landscape of the sport over time", you're dreaming. At least as long as hockey remains so expensive. There are plenty of middle class parents who wont' foot the bill for their kid to play hockey every year, let alone the poor. And yes there are great athletes in every strata but the preponderance of them live in poor areas. That's not disputable.

Also not to be too jaded, but if I'm a little African American kid growing up and I see 10 or 12 non-white players in a 750 man league, I'm not exactly enthused that this is my sport. That part is changing very slowly but it's a LONG way from where it needs to be, for a big segment of the population to look and not immediately dismiss as "a white man's game".

And as to not enough data from southern / non-traditional franchises, how many years and franchises do we need to start drawing conclusions IYO? Honest question.

Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
Cause y'know, no Northern location has ever lost an AHL team or had attendance problems
You've said a few things like this and in each case it's not particularly relevant. It does not follow that because northern cities have AHL franchises that fold (or old NHL teams that left a long time ago), that there is no difference in northern and southern markets in terms of viability. One does not have to succeed 100% of the time for the other to be a much less hospitable market. That's all the more I'll say of that because the reasons they are less hospitable are self-evident / play themselves out every year.

Originally Posted by iamjs View Post
but....but hockey is only supposed to be in the north.
Don't you forget it! If I've said it once I've said it 1000x: No one should ever enjoy hockey (or even get to watch it on TV) except northerners! I'm glad you've finally learned this lesson while not ignoring everything I've written.

PS - I'm not going to look for your question now, until you stop misattributing stupid ideas to me.

Last edited by Darth Vitale: 12-16-2012 at 01:20 PM.
Darth Vitale is offline