I'd be pissed and raging while it was gone, but I'd also be first in line once it returns.
Being a fan of hockey is like being a fan of music, it's emotional, not rational. I couldn't stop cheering for the Sens any more than I could stop liking Metallica, despite work stoppages and St. Anger.
This poll is asking the wrong people. I think the number would be a lot higher if toy were polling people who couldn't care enough about the sport to chat about it on a message board.
No doubt, if I had a choice this poll would include more than the 'passionate/messageboard' fans.
That said, I am really just interested in the financial impact on the NHL should there be another lockout. Generally, the being a 'message board' fan is a decent proxy for the 'money spending' fan. Clearly, the NHL wants to foster the interest of new fans, but I'm interested in how much the game would be hurt by another lockout.
I am really just interested in the financial impact on the NHL should there be another lockout. Generally, the being a 'message board' fan is a decent proxy for the 'money spending' fan. Clearly, the NHL wants to foster the interest of new fans, but I'm interested in how much the game would be hurt by another lockout.
I know some people think it's lunacy to consider the NHL losing teams, but last I checked there were about 6 teams in redzone territory. Considering the movement to switch to four conference, I wouldn't at all be surprised if a lockout killed two teams and the league went into four evenly divisible conferences.
Or look at it another way, the lockout wouldn't damper hockey in Canada, and Quebec is going to get a team sooner or later.
But there's at least four American markets that look somewhat grimm. I don't buy that Kansas or Seattle would be a spot for relocation so that leaves nothing.
I'd be pissed, and angry and sad. But how could I randomly not watch hockey if it came back after a 3rd lockout? Hockey takes up about 25% of my life, I'm obsessed with this stuff.
Not a true fan if you think missing a ~few months-year would make you stop watching hockey forever..
It's a little different when you live in a city where there is no hockey team especially in the South. You already have to go out of your way to support the league and your team. After a lockout? **** 'em, I'll go with football, which I only like slightly less than hockey. At least I have the Falcons.
A lockout in the next contract would be a DISASTER for The NHL. Consider how long it took to come back from the last one. At least two US franchises would fail, and another might well be relocated. A lot of the recent growth in the southern tier of US states would evaporate away. The growth in TV ratings would be lost. The US national broadcasts would go back to no real income for The League.
I just can't imagine that The NHL Players' Union and NHL Ownership will not be able to make some compromise to ward off a loss of NHL regular season games. Letting that happen again, so soon after the lat one would be utter madness.
I know some people think it's lunacy to consider the NHL losing teams, but last I checked there were about 6 teams in redzone territory. Considering the movement to switch to four conference, I wouldn't at all be surprised if a lockout killed two teams and the league went into four evenly divisible conferences.
Or look at it another way, the lockout wouldn't damper hockey in Canada, and Quebec is going to get a team sooner or later.
But there's at least four American markets that look somewhat grimm. I don't buy that Kansas or Seattle would be a spot for relocation so that leaves nothing.
I think for the southern, 'unnatural' locations, the league (read: game) only benefits if there is a long-term investment in the region. It takes time for fans to grow into the game, eventually having kids that play the game, then even produce a few NHLers of their own. See California. It costs the league money now, but it does so in the hopes that it will truly end up a 'national' league, penetrating the entire US market.
Back to your point, 'experimenting' in southern locations like Atlanta, Phoenix, and Kansas City for less than a decade then moving, is really the worst case scenario for the leagues hopes of expansion. Turning it in a Canadian/Northeastern US league, makes the league look like a regional league. For better or worse, that's not what Bettman wants.
It's whatever, I'd feel no different about hockey than I do now and would look forward to it resuming. I'm sure I could just fill my hockey needs that whole year just by playing hockey and watching other leagues, wouldn't be the end of the world.
