IceCap

The official mascot of Clevejacking

6 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

You're right, but that doesn't mean the absence of complaints means people are OK with the use of taxpayer funds in one place, but not in another.  And it's not even a double standard. It's just that in Tempe, even a more favorable deal still feels like throwing good money after bad. 

My point is this... public money for pro sports is always dubious but at least the Flames as a team are supported and make money. In the grand scheme of things at least that money is going to something that is successful as far as being a business goes. 

But in nearly thirty years the Coyotes have never once made a profit and have routinely been at the bottom or near the bottom of the NHL's attendance list. 

Thirty years. Not a dime made. No one there actually cares. 

@spartacat_12 seemed upset I admitted Nashville could turn it around but still deemed Arizona a failure but like... Nashville hadn't been a failure for an entire generation. Things were bad, yeah, but it wasn't three decades of failure.

Like... three decades. Millions of dollars in taxpayer money paid to them already. All for nothing. Nothing that indicates the market is working. Thirty years. How many more years, and how much more money, has to be wasted before we reach his threshold for enough being enough? 

It's absurd because if the Tempe vote fails like some think it will they'll have to move somewhere. And if that happens you'll have a certain type of person going "they never got a fair chance in Arizona."

After thirty years of government subsided failure as a business. They'll say they never got a fair shot. Utterly ing delusional. 

1 hour ago, spartacat_12 said:

So you acknowledge that it’s possible for Sun Belt franchises to turn things around, but somehow think it’s impossible for Arizona to do it?

If we were five, maybe even ten, years in sure. But it's been thirty years. 

Thirty. 

G-ddamn.

Years. 

1 hour ago, spartacat_12 said:

For all the complaining people do about tax payer money going towards pro sports stadiums, no one seems to mention that the Tempe citizens are getting a much better deal than the residents of Calgary got for their new building. 

The difference is that at the very least Calgary is a proven market where fans will pay for tickets and show up to games. It's been thirty years in Arizona and that's yet to be established. 

12 hours ago, Cujo said:

It looks cheap and uninspiring.

Counterpoint- the college football national champs used to get a crystal football that looked like it belonged in grandma's fine china cabinet. And they "upgraded" from that to a glorified beer tap. The XFL trophy is fine. 

4 minutes ago, MEANS said:

ah seeing that rendering brings back that project, too bad it didn't go anywhere, lots of great marks and sweater designs.

What killed it? Just the team deciding to go in a different direction? 

3 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

Hartford is the fourth-largest city in its own state and shrinking ever still, that ship sailed probably before the Whalers even got out of there. Among US markets I'd think one of those Midwestern cities that doesn't have hockey might be a more worthwhile punt.

KC or Milwaukee are at the top of that list. Admiral brought up Cinci but I think Columbus has the whole state on lockdown, and that's probably fine. 

20 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

Does San Jose count as sunbelt

Northern Cali doesn't count as the Sunbelt, no.

1 hour ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Nah, the current Senators are an expansion team from the 90s. They can claim those 1900s Stanley Cups all they want, it's not the same franchise.

No they're not the same franchise. But they're clearly drawing on that legacy. The choice of the name "Senators" and the black, red, and white colour scheme were chosen for that reason. 

It's like the new Jets. They're the old Thrashers. They're not the old Jets. Still, they homage them with the name, with throwback jerseys, and with general celebrations of Winnipeg's hockey history.

No one's saying the current Sens are the old Sens, they're not. It's not some crazy or out there notion for them to lean into that legacy though. 

16 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

Okay yeah but opinions vary, I was just asking. Carolina and Florida in addition to Arizona could be considered "unacceptable", you even said yourself they still aren't great business wise. Wasn't someone in this thread just defending Dallas having a team too? Maybe you think the Ducks are unnecessary? It was just a question, you don't have to reply if you don't want to. 

The problem is this has been talked about over and over and over, man.  If you wanna know though? 

Both the LA Kings and Anaheim Ducks are in a pretty good spot. The Vegas Golden Knights are a bunch of schmucks but they seem to have a good fanbase so they're solid. The Dallas Stars have been pretty well run and are supported well. They're good. Nashville had a scare where no one went to games and they almost moved to Hamilton, but a new ownership group committed to Nashville that knew how to both market the team and build a consistent contender set them up as a success. And Tampa Bay's been perhaps the most successful with three Cups, two in the last four years, and a team that seems like it's been contending for over a decade with a dedicated fanbase. 

If you want to know what Sunbelt teams are "acceptable" then there you go. And the thing that makes them "acceptable" is pretty easy to grasp- they sell ticket and make money. 

The Sunbelt markets that have been failures and aren't "acceptable" are/were Arizona and Atlanta. Arizona has been a terrible market that hasn't drawn a dime in thirty years, and has never really cared about the team on the whole. They've defaulted on taxes, been unable to pay rent to a city that was subsiding them with taxpayer money, and have been such a shambles that every sports economics not tied to the NHL has gone "I have no idea why this team is still here." 

Atlanta was also a failure in so much as they didn't get anyone to actually care but they weren't quite in as bad a shape as Phoenix. Still they were in bad enough shape that Gary Bettman sacrificed them to Winnipeg to save the Coyotes. 

Those are the markets that aren't/weren't "acceptable" and the reason they aren't/weren't is again easy to comprehend. They never made any money. 

The questionable teams are Carolina and Florida. Both have SCF appearances to their names and Carolina even won one, but outside of those seasons these teams have been pretty bad until recently. Maybe recent success is the beginning of a turnaround, but maybe not. They're weak markets, just not the unquestionable disaster that Arizona is/Atlanta was. 

1 hour ago, Ark said:

I don't agree with Ottawa pretending to be an Original 6 team. 

 

That example certainly doesn't look bad, but they have much better options. Same with the Lightning 

The difference is the Lightning started from scratch in 1992. Ottawa was, from day one, drawing on the legacy of a team that predates the Original Six as a concept. 

19 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

The dream NHL 32 is a fun question, could have been a good discussion. 

I'm sorry my answer to that was is boring then. 

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about you asking "which sunbelt teams are acceptable?" 

We've been litigating that this whole time. And it's not even something you have to have read every post in this thread to get. 

"The Sunbelt markets that work are acceptable the ones that are failing aren't" isn't some crazy take. 

3 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

I mean weren't Carolina and Florida train wrecks too not that long ago?

They're still not looking super great business wise. 

4 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

I like the logo and Phoenix as a city more than Houston. That's why I don't want to seem the Coyotes move. That's me acting like it's unfair? I'll give you illogical but idk about acting unfair. 

That's a terrible reason to keep a team in a market that's been failing for 30 years. 

5 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

I don't read everything you post.

Coming in midway through an ongoing conversation to demand people repeat crap they've been saying for years for your benefit isn't a good look. Read some of the older posts. 

10 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

Dude I'm just asking questions.

Questions that have been answered over and over again. 

You were acting like it was unfair a team that's failed to draw fans or a profit in thirty years was unfairly picked on and then asked "well what Sunbelt teams are acceptable?" like you were put upon. 

Anyway I answered both of your questions.

6 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

So what sun belt teams are acceptable and what aren't?

The ones that are successful are acceptable. 

Jesus H. Christ on a cracker. NOWHERE in this sprawling thread, a monument to the NHL's habitual buffoonery, have I, or anyone else, said that every sunbelt team needs to be gotten rid of. Nowhere. You can check.

I've ALWAYS said teams like Tampa, Nashville, Dallas, even Vegas, have proven the Sunbelt experiment could work.

But teams like Arizona that have utterly failed need to move. And they need to move to some place with a loyal, dedicated fanbase. Up north.

I really don't like that I had to repeat myself to assuage your hurt feelings but whatever. 

16 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

What's your dream 32 for the NHL?

What we have now just swap out Arizona for Quebec City. Hartford is intriguing but they need a new rink before that can ever be considered. 

2 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

I mean it's not our money 

It's someone's money. Millions of it from Arizona taxpayers. 

3 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

I mostly just don't want to see the Kachina go, I think it'd enter into Whalers and Nordiques nostalgia territory if they moved away and rebranded.

I'm tired of this failure of a franchise and failure of a market getting pass after pass, either from the league and their Sunbelt infatuation, the fans who buy into that narrative because it makes them feel smarter than everyone else, or because they had/have quirky uniforms. 

4 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

And while both are wastelands of urban sprawl, Phoenix > Houston. 

Here's the problem with that. Unlike the Phoenix metro area Houston hasn't spent close to thirty years discrediting itself as a NHL market. 

Now I'll be frank, I think Houston is a bad idea for reasons I talked about earlier and and in a just world they'd go to Quebec City because enough with propping up Sunbelt experiments at the expense of the sport's most loyal fans. 

But if you must reduce this to Arizona vs Houston then Houston wins easily simply by virtue of Arizona's total and complete and indefensible failure as a market. 

7 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

Time is a social construct my guy 

So is money but that somehow doesn't make the twenty-seven consecutive seasons in the red and millions upon millions lost any easier to justify. 

8 hours ago, Sport said:

That series was a coin toss so really our dude is mad about one series. 

Imagine being mad a team from Boston lost 

18 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

I hope Arizona figures it out.

It's been almost thirty years my guy 

23 minutes ago, SCMODS said:

You relocate Arizona to Houston, keeping them in the Western Conference and without asking Detroit or Columbus to move to the West. 

the Red Wings. In a just world the Coyotes would move to Quebec City, the Red Wings would be moved out West again, and told to kick rocks. 

3 hours ago, monkeypower said:

Friedman said on a 32 Thoughts or a Marek Show back when the those Atlanta rumblings were going over the internet (based on like three tweets and did those go rumblings go away quickly) that he believes the NHL doesn't want to expand soon and the league views Houston as more of a back-up plan for Arizona right now.

I'm not sold on Houston but even Houston with all of its problems is a better option than whatever the  is happening in Arizona. 

51 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

@Chromatic's analysis is 100% right. I see no problem with the Sens leaning into the Roman motif.  It's just that in the Sens' case, the brand hasn't been resonant outside of their market, and maybe is even questionable within it.

Ottawa is about halfway between Toronto and Montreal, two of the oldest and most established fanbases in the league. They lost their NHL team in the thirties and got it back in the nineties. That's over fifty years where Ottawa's fandom split between the Leafs and Habs. 

One of my best friends is from Ottawa. We met in uni (so he's not from a pre-Sens generation) and I asked him early on if he was a Sens fan. He responded like I'd asked him if he ate garbage. He's a Habs fan through and through. 

Ottawa has a dedicated fanbase but they're fighting over fifty years of engrained fandom from two of the most popular sports teams in Canada on either end. 

My point is the Sens' brand has had trouble resonating within their market, much less outside of it and it has nothing to do with the logos or colours or jersey designs. 

53 minutes ago, Chromatic said:

Right, but what the discussion seems to be around is whether or not the idea itself of a Roman theme is a good idea, not the execution.

Meh. It's been executed just fine. They've had misses (both "3D" logos, the swoosh sweater, the Edge look, the SNES alt) but overall it's as good as you're going to get without going complete cartoony. Where they're at now is fine (I'd swap the S alt out for the Peace Tower but that's it). 

My contention is that it's not a simple leap from the Canadian Senate to Roman Centurion so many of you want to make it sound like. There are a few hoops it needs to hop through. 

And that's fine. Like I said it is what it is and it's engrained.
But it's also got some flaws that are worth bringing up if we're going to analyze it.

1 hour ago, Chromatic said:

Rising to high political office in Ancient Rome essentially required a decorated military service.

Not exactly. You could do that sure, but most Senators got their job either by being "officers" who went nowhere near a front or actual centurions or just guys from rich families. You didn't need to be a decorated military man to get into the Senate, and in fact most weren't. 

45 minutes ago, Unocal said:

I just feel that too much chaos might be too much of a good thing, like having ice cream for dinner every night of the week.

Ok but you've made your point. If you keep harping on it and derailing discussions further there will be disciplinary measures taking. I'm telling you this as a mod. 

2 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

It's not actually all that strange when you remember that straight clock towers make for pretty boring hockey primary logos...

There have been official Peace Tower logos from the team that have been pretty good and could serve as the basis for a primary identity. 

The problem with the Roman theme is that it's a bit obtuse. The thinking is "named after the Canadian Senate -> Canadian Senate is named after the Roman Senate -> some Roman Senators were also military officers who commanded centurions." The identity is further muddled by the mascot Spartacat, a play of Spartacus, who led a rebellion against the Roman state. So he should be the last source of inspiration if you're basing an identity after Roman government/military stuff. 

But you said fat guys in suits doesn't make for a good identity and the thing is neither do fat guys in togas, which was what most Roman senators during the classical period were. Some were military officers who commanded centurions, but that was a different position from that of Senator, and not all Senators did that. Most got their position by being from rich noble families (nothing ever changes). 

So the whole connection is pretty flimsy. 

At least the Peace Tower imagery ties in with the name and city, and is suitably iconic. 

Look, I gave up this fight a while ago. The Senators have used the Roman theme for so long that it just is what it is, and there's likely no undoing that. I accept it. But if you want to have a discussion on the identity's merits... well it's gotta be pointed out it's not exactly well constructed or totally sensical. 

2 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

it wouldn't have stuck around this long if it didn't connect with people like a more municipal, Peace Tower-centric identity would.

That's a bit revisionist. The Roman theme isn't popular because it connected in a way nothing else could. It's popular because it was the logo when the city got NHL hockey back for the first time in over half a century, endearing it to fans. And because it was the logo for the team when fans today were kids. It's a combination of nostalgia and positive association. 

Which is fine. If that's what Sens fans want so be it. But if the Sens had rolled out a Peace Tower logo instead and nothing else was different then that's the logo everyone would love today. 

33 minutes ago, Glover said:

This is certainly an interesting hill you’re willing to die on.

This guy used to be known as SabresRule and was an annoying  about this stuff years ago before he was shamed into shutting up with his lukewarm takes. Sad to see he's back doing the same thing. 

https://apple.news/AAfiYfiy1SpKkfhxBo4S3_A

Bunch of candy ass es in Florida. 

21 minutes ago, MiK said:

 

This is why I don't bet on sports. 

 

Anyway, crazy game. Bruins fans don't fret; after Tampa's spectacular meltdown in 2019 they turned around and won back to back cups. So the rest of us have that to look forward too....

Difference was Tampa didn't leave the 2019 playoffs with cap issues and an aging core staring them in the face. They still had some time with that team to turn it around and they made the most of it. 

Boston feels like this was their last chance. And they acted like it. This was the "all in" season. 

46 minutes ago, charger77 said:

 

24 & 43! 

 

Go Leafs Go!

Go Leafs Go! Skin the cats!