Minnesota North Stars Rebrand Petition

[worcat]

27 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

In the perfect universe, Dallas doesn't get a team. Nor do Arizona, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Miami, Nashville, or North Carolina.

 

In that universe, the NHL instead has teams in Hartford, Quebec City, Halifax, Regina, Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco.

The Whalers all day sir!

 

I feel bad for Quebec but I gotta admit, the first few years the Avalanche hit the NHL was pretty amazing. Great uniform, logo, team and perfect rivalry with Detroit. Man, it doesn't get much better than that.

[29texan]

58 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

In the perfect universe, Arizona doesn't get a team.

 

Fixed it for ya. 

[hockey week]

1 hour ago, worcat said:

The Whalers all day sir!

 

I feel bad for Quebec but I gotta admit, the first few years the Avalanche hit the NHL was pretty amazing. Great uniform, logo, team and perfect rivalry with Detroit. Man, it doesn't get much better than that.

 

They should've been the Rockies! We all know that the Colorado Rockies name should've been resurrected because that history stays in Colorado!

[The_Admiral]

6 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

In the perfect universe, Dallas doesn't get a team. Nor do Arizona, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Miami, Nashville, or North Carolina.

 

In that universe, the NHL instead has teams in Hartford, Quebec City, Halifax, Regina, Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco.

 

Lots of those big unserved cities were getting teams one way or another. It just shouldn't have been at the expense of the bedrock. I have no issue with Dallas, Denver, and even Phoenix and Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, in and of themselves. If Phoenix had been a 2000 expansion team and allowed to get things in order instead of always being two steps behind, it wouldn't be the smoking crater it is today.

[Morgan33]

6 hours ago, worcat said:

I feel bad for Quebec but I gotta admit, the first few years the Avalanche hit the NHL was pretty amazing. Great uniform, logo, team and perfect rivalry with Detroit. Man, it doesn't get much better than that.

 

Also doesn't get any better than winning the big one your very first year as a new franchise.  How the mighty have fallen...

[worcat]

8 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

Also doesn't get any better than winning the big one your very first year as a new franchise.  How the mighty have fallen...

I'm sure it hurt alot of fans but I still would have been proud - that would have been players you have seen grown up and prosper in front of you - Even if it's a different city.

[mafiaman]

1 hour ago, Morgo said:

 

Also doesn't get any better than winning the big one your very first year as a new franchise.  How the mighty have fallen...

The Nordiques were  the #1 seed in the east in 1995 and were upset in the 1st round of the playoffs - good team, great uniforms.

[BlackHawkChop]

On April 29, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

In the perfect universe, Dallas doesn't get a team. Nor do Arizona, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Miami, Nashville, or North Carolina.

 

In that universe, the NHL instead has teams in Hartford, Quebec City, Halifax, Regina, Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco.

The Dallas Stars franchise almost went bankrupt because of their attendance. If it wasn't for the Canadian owner the Stars would no longer exist in Dallas. Dallas had the best record in the NHL this year and they didn't even make it into the top 10. They haven't been in the top 10 in over 12 years. The past years Both Dallas and Arizona sucked for hockey attendance. 

[OnWis97]

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=NHL1927&sid=2016

 

Dallas was middle of the pack at 18,000+

 

That's not exactly late 1980s North Stars territory.  Dallas is a perfectly viable hockey market.  And in 1993, it inherited a team from a lesser hockey NHL market.  For whatever reason (location? modern arena? a bit of a dropoff in the love of Gopher hockey?) the perpetually-mediocre Wild continue to do fairly well at the gate.  In my perfect universe, the North Stars would have done the same and never moved.  But Dallas and some of the other places are viable.

[The_Admiral]

The Stars didn't even suck when Dallas collectively stopped going to Stars games (and boy, did they ever for a while; no Pravda attendance figures will tell the story of how empty that barn was from 2009-2013). They just finished outside the playoffs for five years in a row because the West was tough and they couldn't be the spoiled little superteam they were in the early 2000s and ESPN showed like all their games. 

 

The NHL never would have let an owner pull the plug on a market the size of Dallas, though, so I'll dispute you there. That's like the reports that the Blackhawks would have just plain gone out of business in 2008 if Bill Wirtz didn't die and business as usual continued. Sure, they might have thrown the keys on the table, but there wasn't gonna stop being an NHL team in Chicago. But yeah, let's never let it be forgotten that the Stars games were a total bomb scare for most of Obama's presidency. They should do a Jumbotron sketch about it.

[BlackHawkChop]

On May 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, OnWis97 said:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=NHL1927&sid=2016

 

Dallas was middle of the pack at 18,000+

 

That's not exactly late 1980s North Stars territory.  Dallas is a perfectly viable hockey market.  And in 1993, it inherited a team from a lesser hockey NHL market.  For whatever reason (location? modern arena? a bit of a dropoff in the love of Gopher hockey?) the perpetually-mediocre Wild continue to do fairly well at the gate.  In my perfect universe, the North Stars would have done the same and never moved.  But Dallas and some of the other places are viable.

This year they were in the middle of the pack. Yet, they didn't even make it into the top ten when they had the best record in the nhl. They had years they were ranked 28th in the nhl. If it wasn't for the new Canadian owner the stars would have gone bankrupt. The stars were about to go bankrupt in 2010 because of their poor attendance. The Dallas herald even wrote an article about the new owner  saving the stars from bankruptcy. 

[BlackHawkChop]

On May 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, OnWis97 said:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=NHL1927&sid=2016

 

Dallas was middle of the pack at 18,000+

 

That's not exactly late 1980s North Stars territory.  Dallas is a perfectly viable hockey market.  And in 1993, it inherited a team from a lesser hockey NHL market.  For whatever reason (location? modern arena? a bit of a dropoff in the love of Gopher hockey?) the perpetually-mediocre Wild continue to do fairly well at the gate.  In my perfect universe, the North Stars would have done the same and never moved.  But Dallas and some of the other places are viable.

They weren't ranked in the middle of the pack all the time. This year they were and yet they didn't even make it into the top ten when their team had the best nhl record. The new owner saved the stars in Dallas. They had poor attendance and bankruptcy. Some years they were ranked at the bottom. http://www.defendingbigd.com/2010/10/26/1774862/are-dallas-stars-facing-a-home-attendance-crisis#comments 

[29texan]

On 5/5/2016 at 4:50 PM, BlackHawkChop said:

They weren't ranked in the middle of the pack all the time. This year they were and yet they didn't even make it into the top ten when their team had the best nhl record. The new owner saved the stars in Dallas. They had poor attendance and bankruptcy. Some years they were ranked at the bottom. http://www.defendingbigd.com/2010/10/26/1774862/are-dallas-stars-facing-a-home-attendance-crisis#comments 

 

No, not all the time. But notice that the 4 teams directly above Dallas in that list are "traditional hockey markets". 

Sometimes it's all about WINNING to keep your fans around... 

[BeerGuyJordan]

Attendance isn't as black and white as you make it sound. You also need to take into consideration arena capacity. The stars were tied for 15th at 99.2% average capacity this season (with Nashville). 99.2% is a GOOD figure, and there's not really much higher the team can go.

 

Anything over 95% capacity typically indicates financial vialibity. (Only 7 teams aren't). And between 90 and 95 requires a closer look at merchandising and whatnot before you can make a call.

 

The 4 teams were below 90 this season, Islanders (86.2), Blue Jackets (80.8), Coyotes (78.4), Hurricanes (65.3). 

 

Carolina should probably be ditched soon (Quebec, anyone?). Columbus and Arizona MAY be worth attempting to rejuvinate the market before leaving. Brooklyn is tricky. It's worth assuming that the new location would get the benefit of some new hockey fans and "novelty" attendees. That indicates a number of fans not making the trek from LI to see games. If the franchise doesn't do something to grab the attention of the locals and get butts in seats, they could be in serious trouble in a few years since it is reasonable to figure the "novelty" spike will go away and the trek into the city will wear down some of the old guard.

[The_Admiral]

The Barclays Center pays the Islanders a flat $25 million a year to play there and hand over the rest of their business. They also have an obscenely rich local television deal with Cablevision/MSG. As long as that money keeps coming in, they're made in the shade no matter how crappy the sightlines are.

[BeerGuyJordan]

25 minutes ago, the admiral said:

The Barclays Center pays the Islanders a flat $25 million a year to play there and hand over the rest of their business. They also have an obscenely rich local television deal with Cablevision/MSG. As long as that money keeps coming in, they're made in the shade no matter how crappy the sightlines are.

I'm aware, but if the numbers are bad, what happens when those deals are up? Also, Barclays would be idiots to not have some sort of clause in there to have a ripcord if the team seriously underperforms at the gate.

 

I'm not saying that they can't stay afloat for awhile, but they run the risk of becoming a bad investment for future looks. That's why I said "could be in trouble".

[ColeJ]

The Stars fan base is weak because they tuned out during the era when Tom Hicks defaulted on his loans and the Stars had no owner.

 

The Blackhawks are a traditional market of excellence despite tuning out for the entirety of the wirtz era.

 

This is what I've learned.

[Chewbacca]

On 5/7/2016 at 1:31 AM, 29texan said:

 

No, not all the time. But notice that the 4 teams directly above Dallas in that list are "traditional hockey markets". 

Sometimes it's all about WINNING to keep your fans around... 

You know Winnipeg only has room for 15,000 a game, right? With that, they sellout every game.

[BeerGuyJordan]

1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

You know Winnipeg only has room for 15,000 a game, right? With that, they sellout every game.

That's precisely what I mean, if you aren't taking capacity into consideration, you aren't getting the full picture. Winnipeg is a great example. 

 

Over the past 5 seasons, their average attendance is 23rd in the league (15,969), but their capacity percentage for the same span is ranked 9th (101.16%). 

[29texan]

7 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

You know Winnipeg only has room for 15,000 a game, right? With that, they sellout every game.

 

Fair enough... but that's Winnipeg... not the other three. 

And again, winning helps. Chicago, as mentioned, had low turnouts for some years, but because they're not a southern team, no one points it out.