View Single Post
Old
03-01-2013, 02:51 PM
  #72
IceAce
Strait Trippin'
 
IceAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,130
vCash: 13477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch Frost View Post
Quebec hockey team would be just as terrible as having Winnepeg have another go at it. yes i know Canadians love hockey but Seattle and Milwaukee can be better suited to have an NHL team over those small market cities. I am actually shocked that Wisconsin does not have an NHL team.
You're right. Quebec wouldnt be great for the NHL. It would be great for Quebec City, but wouldnt do all too much for the league especially if it's a relocation of a bigger potential growth market. It would automatically be the smallest market in the league and the area is already hockey saturated, there's little growth potential there. There's more to success than just having people in the seats every night. Not to mention, if (more like when) the economy shifts back to an early 90's paradigm between the US and Canada, the same issues that killed the Nordiques and Jets the first time will likely crop up again.

While I agree Seattle is probably ideal for the NHL at this point (under-served market, hockey history, west coast, natural rival in waiting), I think Milwaukee is an utterly AWFUL idea. No prospects of an arena whatsoever, they may not even be able to keep the Bucks. They barely draw for the Admirals there. I just don't see it as an area clamoring for an NHL franchise.

NHL would get much more bang for their buck if they could find potential owners in Houston or in Portland. Houston is the 4th biggest city in the country now, and you'd have a natural rivalry with the Stars. Teams in Seattle and Portland could set up a cool Northwest "bloc" with Vancouver similar to what they have in the MLS.


Last edited by IceAce: 03-01-2013 at 03:00 PM.
IceAce is offline   Reply With Quote