Jump to content

Las Vegas NHL Expansion


ShinyHubCaps
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/23/2016 at 0:03 PM, BeerGuyJordan said:

Why not just commit to the slate grey and completely remove black from the color scheme?

 

I know the answer is "What is Foley's West Point hard on, Alex." Still, I think it would have been a better choice.

In jeopardy, it works in reverse.. The answer is given first, then the contestants respond with the question.. So, they'd be giving the question to Alex in that situation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2016 at 0:25 AM, CityOfWalrus said:

It's really disheartening to see so many people here and on Facebook wishing that this franchise :censored: the bed and relocate or fold. I for one like the logo, I kinda wish they would find a consistent color scheme for it and I'm not a fan of the grey however I will be excited to go to one of their games as Vegas is close enough to go to a game there. I'm excited to see a new franchise in the league I love and I hate seeing people stomp on the idea of growing the game we love to new markets.

 

I understand people are upset about Quebec or Hartford or Seattle not getting a franchise but frankly Quebec and Hartford have no chance. Both being eastern conference markets hurts them immediately. Hartford is a great AHL city but too small for the NHL imo. Seattle didn't do the necessary work to bid for a franchise so obviously rule them out. Las Vegas earned the right to have this team and I want them to flourish and build their brand. 

 

These "so called hockey fans" need to encourage the growth of the game and support this new franchise over their petty complaints about their preferred city not getting a team. 

Well. Seattle would have been perfect(as far as an American team goes)....great fan base(even soccer),western conference and a Seattle/Vancouver rivalry would flourish.Oh, and what happened to Kansas City, I thought their arena was ready to take the Islanders. Vegas is a tourist town. I don't see it building a following because people just fly in and out. I still feel Canada should have got the team and I feel this came out of left field. I never remember Vegas on a short list when it came to to mentioning expansion. Also,"we so called hockey fans" want to watch quality hockey, not watered down hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joekono said:

Also,"we so called hockey fans" want to watch quality hockey, not watered down hockey.

That´s my biggest gripe with more teams, the thought of the next Crosby, Ovi, or Kane playing for a new team instead of one of the classic teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, joekono said:

Well. Seattle would have been perfect(as far as an American team goes)....great fan base(even soccer),western conference and a Seattle/Vancouver rivalry would flourish.Oh, and what happened to Kansas City, I thought their arena was ready to take the Islanders.

 

Seattle would have been a train wreck - they don't care about the Mariners and support for the Sonics was lukewarm before they left, NHL would have no chance. Just because Vancouver is the next closest city doesn't mean instant rivalry, don't know why people keep perpetuating this.

 

KC would have been even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2016 at 10:13 PM, coltravesty said:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/prime-time-sports/bill-foley-prime-time-sports/

 

"different kind of helmet. Grey primary colour subplemented by red, gold, black." 

 

Oh, like the concept I made?

 

Thanks for the link. I'm wondering if Foley is thinking about going with something like this for a helmet:

 

ncaa_g_notredame_ms_576x324.jpg  Image result for NCAA golden hockey helmets

 

Honestly, that would be different and unique for the NHL. It just makes me wonder why (and I'm a fan of the Knights' overall package) he went with such a muted, drab gold. It's almost bronze...

 

Anyway, that's my hunch. Something with a matte finish or a truly golden bucket like the Irish use might be cool. It would certainly be different. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, no one was seriously considering Hartford. 

 

Second, I can't speak for Seattle, but I know that Quebec is a hockey city. They live and breathe it. Sun Belt Hockey is a massive faliure. Lowest attendances in all of sports, Arizona, Florida (panthers, Tampa isn't that bad) Carolina, Atlanta was so bad they've lost TWO TEAMS. TWO. 

 

Quebec is a hockey market. They would support a team, and love it more than Las Vegas ever will. But nah, ''gotta grow the game BRUH''

 

There's room to grow the sport, in true hockey markets.  And if you want a warm weather team, try houston. They'l root for anything that says Houston.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, joekono said:

Well. Seattle would have been perfect(as far as an American team goes)....great fan base(even soccer),western conference and a Seattle/Vancouver rivalry would flourish.Oh, and what happened to Kansas City, I thought their arena was ready to take the Islanders. Vegas is a tourist town. I don't see it building a following because people just fly in and out. I still feel Canada should have got the team and I feel this came out of left field. I never remember Vegas on a short list when it came to to mentioning expansion. Also,"we so called hockey fans" want to watch quality hockey, not watered down hockey.

Seattle didn't put in any of the necessary work to get a team or even show interest in a team. Vegas paid a half a billion dollars for a franchise, built a NHL-quality arena and got deposits on 16K imaginary tickets before the team even was awarded. Vegas put their work in to get their franchise. Seattle didn't and Kansas City didn't do anything either. All cities had their chance to bid for an expansion team. Vegas and Quebec City only bid but Quebec City will not get an expansion team due to the league being unbalanced. 

 

Quebec City will get their team but only in the form of a team moving (i.e. Carolina) but don't tell me that Vegas is only a tourist town. They have a vast population with many ice rinks around the area and the town does have a very strong hockey community. The Thunder and Wranglers have always had great support, UNLV's hockey team gets great support as well. This city wanted a franchise and got one with Foley leading the charge.

 

I don't see the watered down remark because this league is flourishing with talent and even better talent is coming through almost every draft there's a new huge talent coming into the league. Hockey doesn't work in the south? Arizona just claimed the most recent first overall pick. Southern California teams have 3 cups, the first California-born Cup winner just was awarded last season. All of those locations are more south than Vegas. Those are just examples of the growth of the game in markets that were scoffed at initially. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CityOfWalrus said:

Vegas and Quebec City only bid but Quebec City will not get an expansion team due to the league being unbalanced. 

Quebec City's actual diehard fans (as opposed to the hypothetical "grow the game" fanbase in Vegas) shouldn't be :censored: on because the league made a stupid decision re: realignment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CityOfWalrus said:

Hockey doesn't work in the south?

What "grow the game" proponents fail to realise is that this isn't a zero-sum game. 

It's not about hockey "working" or "not working" in the south. It works in some markets. It's failed spectacularly in others.

 

Tampa, Dallas, Nashville, both LA metro area teams? It works. We know it works because these teams have, over the course of twenty years or so, have managed to carve out profitable and stable niches in their market places. 

Further, the league is undoubtedly better off for the successes in these markets. 

 

Atlanta, Arizona, Carolina, and Florida though? Atlanta's two teams both found more success in smaller Canadian prairie cities. 

The Coyotes have never drawn a profit in Arizona, have embarrassed the league with their attendance woes, and have generally been a never ending circus. 

Florida, like Arizona, continues to have attendance issues even as they've begun to build one of the more exciting teams in the league. 

Carolina? They've got two Finals appearances and a Cup to their name, and yet they've utterly failed to establish a stable and profitable niche in their overgrown suburb of a hometown. We make fun of the Predators, but their fanbase has embraced their team, and the Perds have never made it past the second round. The Hurricanes have two Conference Championships and a Cup and no one cares. 

 

So to reiterate. It's not about hockey working or not working in the south. It works in some places, it doesn't in others.

"Grow the game" proponents need to understand that the successes in the Sunbelt don't excuse the failures. Just like the failures don't condemn the successes.   

 

Which group will Las Vegas fall under? We really don't know yet, honestly. 

Given the market (similar to Arizona)? The hands-on sort of owner? And the possibility that the NFL will show up soon to soak up all interest in pro sports? Things don't look good. 

 

Finally, "growing the game" shouldn't be taken as an excuse to condescend and alienate the loyal fanbases in hockey's hotbed of Canada and the American Northeast/Midwest. 

Just something you "grow the game" proponents should keep in mind. You'd have nothing to grow if it weren't for fans like those Québécois willing to put deposits down on the hopes of seeing their Nordiques take the ice again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt the Panthers, Hurricanes, Coyotes are failures, but to be fair the Devils, Isles, Jackets, Avalanche are all northern cities that have poor attendance. Even Ottawa (this season) are averaging only 15,168. As a hockey fan i would like to see all markets prosper, rooting for either northern or southern teams to do poorly is wrong. Also "growing the game" isn't limited to the south.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 24, 2016 at 8:21 PM, WavePunter said:

In jeopardy, it works in reverse.. The answer is given first, then the contestants respond with the question.. So, they'd be giving the question to Alex in that situation..

 

MOD EDIT

Edited by Brian in Boston
Let's stick to discussing issues pertinent to the branding of the NHL's Las Vegas-based expansion franchise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.