bosrs1

Is it really "public-private" though? Seems to me it's nothing but public subsidy of a private enterprise now. A money losing enterprise.

I think "we close libraries and swimming pools to subsidize a failing sports team" is a blow to civic pride. Or it should be. I don't know. All those teabaggers in the desert really cherry-pick which socialism they like and which socialism they don't like. Sad but true. But are these particular politicians teabagger darlings? I honestly don't know the political scene in Glendale, beyond the car-crash aspects. Arizona is considered one of the most tebagging states so, I'd think at least a few members of the city council adhere to that ideology. Not really a good assumption. That's like assuming everyone in California is a pinko commie super liberal. It's in Maricopa County, Arpaio territory. In the 2008 election, Maricopa voted nearly 55% for McCain. In fact, since 1948, Maricopa hasn't voted for a Democrat. Glednale's congressional representative is Republican Trent Franks. Franks was reelected with nearly 65% of the vote in 2010. In the state congress, a Republican (Linda Gray) represents Glendale. It's safe to say this is a conservative area of a conservative state. True, but "conservative" does not equal "tea-party."

I think "we close libraries and swimming pools to subsidize a failing sports team" is a blow to civic pride. Or it should be. I don't know. All those teabaggers in the desert really cherry-pick which socialism they like and which socialism they don't like. Sad but true. But are these particular politicians teabagger darlings? I honestly don't know the political scene in Glendale, beyond the car-crash aspects. Arizona is considered one of the most tebagging states so, I'd think at least a few members of the city council adhere to that ideology. Not really a good assumption. That's like assuming everyone in California is a pinko commie super liberal.

They won't, but the rest of the council who aren't leaving will have to. They'll never pass another 25 million. Hell at this point I'd wager they'd take back the 25 they already blew if they could. The NHL is playing them and it's becoming clear to everyone including them that the Coyotes leaving is a when not if proposition at this point.

Tickets for the Islanders-Devils exhibition game went on sale today - here's the seating map on the ticket page: Oh Jesus H. That's not a long-term solution for the Islanders, that's KeyArena lite. Who builds a basketball arena in 2012? Um, someone who has a basketball team? Why would you build an arena that can host ice events if you don't plan to host any and are trying to optimize the venue to your sport? It's like asking why would a team build a baseball park that ONLY can host baseball and not football?

And that, in a nutshell, is the real problem. They're not the only one with that problem. I was in Anaheim last night and the crowd was very evenly split between Sharks and Ducks fans despite neither team being out of the playoff hunt yet, and it was nowhere near a sell out. I was shocked based on how popular the Ducks were just a few years ago.

Because Pinocchio works for Nassau, NY?

followed quickly by 'your 2013-14 Seattle Coyotes' Not unless there's an NBA team that suddenly needs to move in the next year or so. The guy building the arena in Seattle will only do so with an NBA tenant (the NHL team is secondary). And with NOLA and Sacramento now locked into their existing cities for the foreseeable future the two previously obvious move candidates aren't going anywhere.

Wonder if they'll reconsider sharing the arena in Brooklyn at least temporarily?

Yeah they were flying banners over the Dodger's game at Camelback Ranch on Saturday trying to lure some spring training visitors over to the arena after Sunday's games to watch some hockey on Sunday. Found that just funny given that a large number of spring training go'ers aren't locals.

What unexpected team is there though this year? The Thrashers weren't totally unexpected. But there's no one else in nearly as dire a situation as they were yet.

The NHL says not so fast. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/03/nhl-is-unmoved-about-quebec-citys-arena-plans.html Well why start now Gary? Honestly though until the end of the season I don't expect the NHL to say anything positive about the Quebec plans. But now that Quebec not only has their old arena, but a new one in the pipeline it'll happen. The Coyotes have been an problem for far too long, even in TGDNHL.

So if this happens the new Nords will historically be the old Winnipeg Jets and of course Coyotes while the new Jets are historically an Atlanta expansion team that replaced the Flames that now play in Calgary. Anyone else find all of that just bizarre?

you thought Man U were fake? wow, America really is in its own world!

Oakland A's - I'm from the Bay Area and have always disliked San Francisco and its teams. That and dad was a former 30 year Red Sox fan who threw in the towel after Buckner in 86 and switched allegiance in to the A's in 87. Have also enjoyed being contrary to everyone outside my family that I know who are almost all Giants fans, particularly after 2010. New England Patriots - I'm from the Bay Area, but the Raiders were in LA when I was growing up, and again SF teams hold no appeal. Grandma is a Pats fan. San Jose Sharks - I'm from the Bay Area. Sacramento Kings - From NorCal obviously, and was never a fan of the NBA until a friend who was die hard Kings introduced me to them in college. I was hooked. San Jose Earthquakes - Again, Bay Area's MLS team... San Diego Padres - picked them up as my NL team when I started visiting my future wife during the summer in SD. Fate seemed to agree because we eventually moved to SD and I started going regularly. Fell in love with the team and their ballpark which was a breath of fresh air after seeing MLB games primarily at the Oakland Coliseum my whole life (and PETCO is 2 blocks from where I spend most of my days right now and is my favorite stadium/ballpark in sports). Lake Elsinore Storm - Padres' single A team who I regularly drive up to see play. Santa Clara Broncos basketball - my alma mater California Golden Bears football - my in-laws team which I adopted since my school was sans football by the time I got there. San Diego State Aztecs baseball - started going after I moved to SD. Love watching Tony Gwynn's team. AFC Wimbledon - English side that I started following after hearing their story which paralleled the Earthquakes story some (ie: team being stolen and replaced with an inferior team. Luckily the Dons have had a better go of regaining their former glory.) Yomiuri Giants - Dad brought back a Yomiuri cap from a trip when I was a kid and I started following from afar which has gotten easier thanks to the web. Irony of ironies that my favorite NPB team shares their name with my most hated team in all of sports the, SF Giants. BC Lions - Have always loved Vancouver (I'd like to retire there someday). And is my closest CFL team. ESPN3 has made following them so much easier. I have a crapload of teams that I follow regularly. But what can I say, I like sports.

Good for the MWC and CUSA. This is a great move to help stop the poaching of the lower level conferences.

With money, anything is possible. Suppose a new team in Brooklyn would cede a majority of broadcast rights to the Mets/Yankees (a la MASN in Washington/Baltimore). This would allow the existing teams to either make their current broadcast deals more valuable (YES/SNY) or create a new sports network to broadcast the Brooklyn team's games (from which they would receive the majority of the proceeds). That's not to say it will happen, merely that it's possible. IMO, more possible than seeing an MLB team in one of the half-dozen small-time markets that keep getting mentioned. I don't think so. You don't cede television rights in the modern era as that's where a large chunk of your revenue comes from.

Nevermind that it's in the Mets and Yankees territory and they'd never allow it... Enjoy the Cyclones because it's the only team Brooklyn is going to be getting.

So the Big 12 and Big East are poised to fall by the wayside and cease to exist if I'm reading these tea leaves correctly?

It's not going to be the PAC-12/16 Networks and Longhorn Network. The talk is to convince Texas to take a little less money and just shift the Longhorn Network into the PAC-16's Texas network that covers both Texas Tech and Texas. And give up control. Which is why Texas won't bite. They want control. Their recent moves have all been about being the top dog in control of the Big 12, and it's now backfired right in their face.

History illustrates that it has issues working on that level. You can look up the issues with the WAC when they had 16 teams to see the overall problems. The original WAC did not like the format and formed the MWC as a result. Exactly. Besides, the WAC, particularly after this season, is littered with teams no one but the desperate to survive WAC would want. There's not much left for the MWC to want from them. However a conference like the MWC may benefit from some of the larger conferences imploding like the Big 12 and Big East by being there to pick up the pieces. As for Texas, as I said before, it'll be a cold day in hell before they join the Pac-12. They'll never surrender their beloved TV network which the Pac-12 has said is a requirement of admission. So it's a non-starter. Not necessarily. They just have to fold LHN into the Pac-12 cable system, which could actually give them more programming at a lesser cost. What they will give up is the control that LHN gives them regardless of if they are available in households or not. Not being the center of a conference may be much more important. Well I think losing that control of the TV network is the primary symptom of overall loss of control. In a Pac-16 Texas would just be "one of the boys" equal to bigger schools like Stanford and USC but also also "smaller" schools like Washington St. And they wouldn't be able to live with that.

History illustrates that it has issues working on that level. You can look up the issues with the WAC when they had 16 teams to see the overall problems. The original WAC did not like the format and formed the MWC as a result. Exactly. Besides, the WAC, particularly after this season, is littered with teams no one but the desperate to survive WAC would want. There's not much left for the MWC to want from them. However a conference like the MWC may benefit from some of the larger conferences imploding like the Big 12 and Big East by being there to pick up the pieces. As for Texas, as I said before, it'll be a cold day in hell before they join the Pac-12. They'll never surrender their beloved TV network which the Pac-12 has said is a requirement of admission. So it's a non-starter.

Where does that leave TCU? Pac-12? Back to the Mountain West?

Texas won't end up in the Pac-12(16?). The conference has already told Texas they'd have to fold their baby, the Longhorn Network, into the Pac-12's new TV network. And that alone would be a deal breaker for Texas after the time and money they've put into it. I do think it's likely the two Oklahoma teams make the jump to the Pac-12, but word is Texas would rather explore saving the Big 12 with a slew of new additions (leaving them the king of the hill like they are today), or if that fails going the indy route for football with their other sports in the ACC.

Those schools are way too small and have way too little fan support to be in a BCS conference. From what I've heard, they're looking at BYU. Thought BYU was happy going indy? From what I've been hearing they're considering a few MWC teams like San Diego State.