HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

ESPN asks which city in the US...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-05-2009, 06:15 PM
  #1
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,081
vCash: 50
ESPN asks which city in the US...

...would best support an NHL team, between Las Vegas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Seattle, and Hartford.

Arranged by state:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/fl...l&pollId=75604

Interesting stuff.

(thanks to 300level for catching this, you rock guys!)

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 06:18 PM
  #2
Felonious Python
Moderator
Still Drej
 
Felonious Python's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Hot Seat
Posts: 16,032
vCash: 500
lol, at least for the moment, Ohio is voting for Hartford, yet Cleveland is the most popular option for Kentucky and Indiana.

Felonious Python is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 06:28 PM
  #3
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,315
vCash: 500
Why are they asking about Cleveland? There have at least been some rumours/interest about the other ones.

Buck Aki Berg is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 07:05 PM
  #4
Tom Polakis
Eternal Optimist
 
Tom Polakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tempe, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felonious Python View Post
lol, at least for the moment, Ohio is voting for Hartford, yet Cleveland is the most popular option for Kentucky and Indiana.

And don't forget the groundswell of support coming from Arkansas. 8385 votes so far, and 5 of the 16 Arkansas voters voted for Cleveland.

Tom Polakis is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 07:14 PM
  #5
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 14,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker View Post
Why are they asking about Cleveland? There have at least been some rumours/interest about the other ones.
Cleveland is a bit of an oddity in that sense. Columbus clearly fills the NHL void for the entire state, but I can see why the average sports fan would wonder why Cleveland doesn't have a team instead. The Cleveland metro area is larger than Columbus' and they already posses three of the Big 4 teams (Columbus has none). So I can see why an ESPN poll geared toward non-NHL fans would put Cleveland as an option (Cleveland also has an NHL ready arena... who's to say Dan Gilbert doesn't have his eye on making a relocation bid for the Yotes?)

I'm shocked Seattle is losing. Hartford makes sense, I think, to most people... but Seattle has always been the biggest hole in the NHL's national presence.

Brodie is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 07:21 PM
  #6
sbkbghockey
Registered User
 
sbkbghockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: at the ice rink, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
Cleveland is a bit of an oddity in that sense. Columbus clearly fills the NHL void for the entire state, but I can see why the average sports fan would wonder why Cleveland doesn't have a team instead. The Cleveland metro area is larger than Columbus' and they already posses three of the Big 4 teams (Columbus has none). So I can see why an ESPN poll geared toward non-NHL fans would put Cleveland as an option (Cleveland also has an NHL ready arena... who's to say Dan Gilbert doesn't have his eye on making a relocation bid for the Yotes?)

I'm shocked Seattle is losing. Hartford makes sense, I think, to most people... but Seattle has always been the biggest hole in the NHL's national presence.
I'd Love to see Seattle or Portland get an NHL team in the next few years (maybe 5-10).

sbkbghockey is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 07:29 PM
  #7
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,081
vCash: 50
I have never noticed any interest whatsoever in the NHL from either city.

It looks like a hole geographically, but I don't think either city gives a rats arse about the NHL and I question the viability of a team in either place.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 07:42 PM
  #8
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 14,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
I have never noticed any interest whatsoever in the NHL from either city.

It looks like a hole geographically, but I don't think either city gives a rats arse about the NHL and I question the viability of a team in either place.
For a guy arguing for the viability of the NHL in Phoenix, that's a bit funny don't you think? Was there a ton of interest in the NHL before the Coyotes showed up? Seattle and Portland would probably support a team if there was a team to support, if for nothing else lack of other options.

Brodie is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 08:04 PM
  #9
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 65,841
vCash: 500
Devil's advocate thought:

This must be ESPN's method of trying to be relevant in NHL discussions given their limits resources-committed-to-league and lack of general interest until they saw the numbers Versus and NBC generated during the playoffs.


LadyStanley is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 08:06 PM
  #10
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,081
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
For a guy arguing for the viability of the NHL in Phoenix, that's a bit funny don't you think? Was there a ton of interest in the NHL before the Coyotes showed up? Seattle and Portland would probably support a team if there was a team to support, if for nothing else lack of other options.
Like Phoenix, like any place without any grassroots hockey, if well run and reasonably successful it can succeed, but it would always be vulnerable. I would rate their chances less than Phoenix though; Phoenix and Florida have the advantage of displaced (retired) Canadians, there aren't that many of those in Seattle or Portland. It'd be more like Carolina.

Seattle might draw from parts of BC that don't want the headache of driving in Vancouver, I guess.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 08:09 PM
  #11
voxel
Russellmania
 
voxel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 13,231
vCash: 500
Seattle is wealthy and would get the corporate dollars.

Houston would be another option.

KC would be my third choice.

voxel is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 08:11 PM
  #12
Dolemite
The one...the only..
 
Dolemite's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Washington DC
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 39,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
I'm shocked Seattle is losing. Hartford makes sense, I think, to most people... but Seattle has always been the biggest hole in the NHL's national presence.
That's because the State, County, and Local governments are run by idiots (as opposed to leaders) who are afraid to do anything that might not get them re-elected. (Used to Live there)

Based on my experiences, Seattle should be tied for last with Kansas City for Cities that can support a franchise. Vegas would be #1 on the list....if they can resolve the traffic issue with the proposed arena off the strip.

__________________
http://halfboards.com/
Follow along on Twitter: http://twitter.com/azvibesports
Dolemite is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 09:15 PM
  #13
Harpoon Pete
Registered User
 
Harpoon Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alabama
Country: United States
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
" because the State, County, and Local governments are run by idiots (as opposed to leaders) who are afraid to do anything that might not get them re-elected. (Used to Live there)"

This comment is the same for Hartford, which is where I used to live. One of these days these morons will get it through their heads to work with Norhthland/AEG and build a downtown arena up to par with what the NHL wants.

The whole government (starting with the governor) are still more concerned about their own political survival than anything else.

Good to see Hartford won though.

Harpoon Pete is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 10:06 PM
  #14
RTN
Be Kind, Rewind
 
RTN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
Like Phoenix, like any place without any grassroots hockey, if well run and reasonably successful it can succeed, but it would always be vulnerable. I would rate their chances less than Phoenix though; Phoenix and Florida have the advantage of displaced (retired) Canadians, there aren't that many of those in Seattle or Portland. It'd be more like Carolina.

Seattle might draw from parts of BC that don't want the headache of driving in Vancouver, I guess.
I'll assume you've never been to BC.

If they build an arena near the other stadiums in Seattle, people in Victoria could take a ferry, walk 3 blocks, and be at the game. It would be less of a hassle than going to Vancouver, even with the boarder.

I would say, if ticket prices were at least 20% less than the Canucks, Seattle could get 7,000-8,000 a night from BC. Lot's of people go down to watch the Mariners/Seahawks already, they'd just make it a weekend trip.

RTN is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 10:08 PM
  #15
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,081
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skanker View Post
I'll assume you've never been to BC.

If they build an arena near the other stadiums in Seattle, people in Victoria could take a ferry, walk 3 blocks, and be at the game. It would be less of a hassle than going to Vancouver, even with the boarder.

I would say, if ticket prices were at least 20% less than the Canucks, Seattle could get 7,000-8,000 a night from BC. Lot's of people go down to watch the Mariners/Seahawks already, they'd just make it a weekend trip.
I used to live in Victoria, and you just agreed with me... I'm confused.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 10:18 PM
  #16
RTN
Be Kind, Rewind
 
RTN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
I used to live in Victoria, and you just agreed with me... I'm confused.
Uh, you said Seattle would be like a Carolina and there are more Canadian fans in Phoenix and Florida.

You can get thousands from both the Island and Vancouver, considering there's a three year wait list for the Canucks season tickets.

A team in Seattle would be worth more than San Jose, Anaheim, St. Louis, Phoenix...probably even more than Edmonton or Calgary. They just need an arena.

RTN is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 10:42 PM
  #17
Areid1990
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,592
vCash: 500
Seattle could work with B.C right there. It's like Buffalo/Ontario. Get an arena and Seattle would draw from Canada + local's, which would get a full house.

Areid1990 is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 10:51 PM
  #18
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxel View Post
Seattle is wealthy and would get the corporate dollars.

Houston would be another option.

KC would be my third choice.
Seattle will never have an NHL team. There is no current arena suitable, and no public desire to build one.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
08-05-2009, 11:48 PM
  #19
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,081
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skanker View Post
Uh, you said Seattle would be like a Carolina and there are more Canadian fans in Phoenix and Florida.
And then I qualified it by saying they'd draw from BC.

Reading of whole posts, important.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-06-2009, 12:03 AM
  #20
RTN
Be Kind, Rewind
 
RTN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
And then I qualified it by saying they'd draw from BC.

Reading of whole posts, important.
So you changed your mind before you even finished the post?

You said that Phoenix would be more successful than Seattle, when clearly that is not the case. The obstacle is an arena.

RTN is offline  
Old
08-06-2009, 12:17 AM
  #21
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,081
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skanker View Post
So you changed your mind before you even finished the post?
I qualified it because it was more applicable to Portland than to much closer Seattle.

Quote:
You said that Phoenix would be more successful than Seattle, when clearly that is not the case. The obstacle is an arena.
That is not what I said at all. I said the situation could be comparable if other conditions were met.

Crazy_Ike is offline  
Old
08-06-2009, 12:38 AM
  #22
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 14,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
Seattle will never have an NHL team. There is no current arena suitable, and no public desire to build one.
There is public desire to build an arena, directly tied to the Sonics. The problem is getting the state government to approve funds. As is often the case, people from outside Seattle would be very pissed if Seattle received major funding for an arena... this is the same scenario that led to the New York Jets West Side stadium being shot down by state reps from the rest of New York State who were unwilling to allocate billions to the city for that project.

Brodie is offline  
Old
08-06-2009, 01:47 AM
  #23
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skanker View Post
If they build an arena near the other stadiums in Seattle, people in Victoria could take a ferry, walk 3 blocks, and be at the game.
There are four major junior teams in Washington, five in the region, and two right there in/around Seattle. If it can support that much grass roots hockey, it should not have a problem supporting a full blown NHL franchise.

And that's before accounting for the spillover from the 604.

 
Old
08-06-2009, 02:27 PM
  #24
passive voice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,880
vCash: 500
The problem with Seattle is that they would absolutely need a new arena, and any new arena would a) need private financing and b) be built primarily for a Sonics reincarnation. A Sonics return would hugely overshadow the new NHL team. Plus Seattle would be one of the smallest metro areas with all four (or five, if you count MLS) sports.

If, however, an arena were built and Seattle HC were the only tenant, I think they'd do really well.

passive voice is offline  
Old
08-06-2009, 02:58 PM
  #25
XX
Tippett 2 the Limit
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tipplandia
Country: United States
Posts: 40,476
vCash: 500
I actually think the poll is a good barometer of the relevancy of hockey in each state. Those that don't really care wouldnt bother to answer. So you see Michigan, Ohio and especially PA have relatively high vote counts.

XX is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.