Las Vegas NHL Expansion

[CreamSoda]

Even though both Toronto Maple Leafs and Las Vegas Desert Knights have the same amount of syllables, one rolls of the tongue nicely and the other sounds like a mouthful of saltine crackers.  

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, bowld said:

ESPN reported this morning that Daley has narrowed the list down to 3 finalists. It's going to be one of...

 

Golden Knights

Silver Knights

Desert Knights

 

They all stink.  

Not only do none of them make any sense, but they all sound terrible alongside a long place name.  Whichever one they pick, it will will be the worst name since "New York / New Jersey MetroStars".

The decision not to play off of any association to gambling (in other words: the one thing that makes Las Vegas special; in still other words: the only f-ing thing that anyone associates with Las Vegas) was a mistake from the start.  This mistake could have been mitigated slightly by going with an association with the Old West, as teams called "Outlaws" in the XFL and the Arena Football League did.  But any of these "_______ Knights" choices will be a dud.

My hope is that the team tanks and that a new owner renames it something appropriate like "Aces".  Even better, I hope that the team moves (ideally there should be no NHL in the Southwest -- nor in the Southeast, Texas, or Florida.  Let's get sensible, people!) to someplace more appropriate like Quebec City, Seattle, or the Maritimes.

[BrianLion]

Are we really still advocating the old "if it doesn't snow in your city, you shouldn't have an NHL team" argument?  Shouldn't ya know, modern refrigeration technology and the fact that the #1 overall pick this year was from Arizona, sort of put all that silly traditionalist "hockey doesnt work in warm weather" BS to rest? 

 

Also, where in the Maritimes would you advocate putting an NHL franchise? 

[AgentColon2]

SMH at this geogracism.

[bowld]

Nevada is known as the Silver State so that option makes some sense I guess

[spartacat_12]

27 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

Are we really still advocating the old "if it doesn't snow in your city, you shouldn't have an NHL team" argument?  Shouldn't ya know, modern refrigeration technology and the fact that the #1 overall pick this year was from Arizona, sort of put all that silly traditionalist "hockey doesnt work in warm weather" BS to rest? 

I'm not sure if you know this, but most Canadians have a massive inferiority complex, especially when it comes to our neighbors to the south. 

 

Even after a dominant World Cup win, the last 2 Olympic and World Championship golds, plus the reining Conn Smythe, Vezina, Norris, and Jack Adams winners, many Canadians are still afraid that we'll lose hockey as "our" game. 

 

Also, leave it to ESPN to be a month late on breaking hockey news. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

48 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

Are we really still advocating the old "if it doesn't snow in your city, you shouldn't have an NHL team" argument?  

I don't know about you, but I sure am.
 

 

48 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

Shouldn't ya know, modern refrigeration technology and the fact that the #1 overall pick this year was from Arizona, sort of put all that silly traditionalist "hockey doesnt work in warm weather" BS to rest?

 

This has nothing to do with players who hail from outside Canada and the northern U.S.  That has no bearing on whether the mass of fans exists in those areas to support an NHL team.  

There is no way to claim that the cultural relevance of hockey in the southern part of the U.S. is anywhere near what it is in the sport's traditional areas.  The NHL is in these inappropriate markets solely as a prestige move, in order to be able to claim a "national" footprint in the U.S.  It's the same reason that big chain restaurants open branches in New York -- just so that Applebee's or whatever can say that they have a presence in New York.

 

 

48 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

Also, where in the Maritimes would you advocate putting an NHL franchise? 

 

Well, the CFL nearly put a team in Nova Scotia.  Of course, that part of the world (the Maritimes plus Newfoundland) obviously doesn't have major cities on the scale of some U.S. cities.  But maybe a regional NHL team could make it.  The people there would sure appreciate it more than the people in some of the cities that the NHL is currently in.  But, as @spartacat_12 mentioned, there's the Canadian inferiority complex, whereby even Canadians consider American locations more prestigious than somewhere in Nova Scotia.  (They maintain this feeling alongside the fear of losing hockey as "their" game.  A complex lot, those Canadians.) 

Anyway, if a Maritimes team is not possible, don't forget that there's Seattle -- and Portland, Milwaukee, Hamilton, Cleveland and probably other places in the northern U.S. and in Canada that I am forgetting. 

[spartacat_12]

15 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

This has nothing to do with players who hail from outside Canada and the northern U.S.  That has no bearing on whether the mass of fans exists in those areas to support an NHL team.  

There is no way to claim that the cultural relevance of hockey in the southern part of the U.S. is anywhere near what it is in the sport's traditional areas.  The NHL is in these inappropriate markets solely as a prestige move, in order to be able to claim a "national" footprint in the U.S.  It's the same reason that big chain restaurants open branches in New York -- just so that Applebee's or whatever can say that they have a presence in New York.

 

Well, the CFL nearly put a team in Nova Scotia.  Of course, that part of the world (the Maritimes plus Newfoundland) obviously doesn't have major cities on the scale of some U.S. cities.  But maybe a regional NHL team could make it.  The people there would sure appreciated it more than the people in some of the cities that the NHL is currently in.

Nobody is saying that Las Vegas has more die-hard hockey fans than Quebec City. It's about growing the game. Think back to when the league first expanded and added teams in California and St. Louis instead of Vancouver. They gave those markets a chance to grow fan bases, and now they've become hotbeds for youth hockey in the States. The NHL is a business, and should always be trying to grow. 

 

The Maritimes may be able to support a CFL franchise, but the NHL would never work there. It's much easier convince fans from New Brunswick or PEI to travel to Halifax when you have 9 home games (mostly on weekends) rather than 41 home games. 

[BrianLion]

34 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I don't know about you, but I sure am.
 

 

 

This has nothing to do with players who hail from outside Canada and the northern U.S.  That has no bearing on whether the mass of fans exists in those areas to support an NHL team.  

There is no way to claim that the cultural relevance of hockey in the southern part of the U.S. is anywhere near what it is in the sport's traditional areas.  The NHL is in these inappropriate markets solely as a prestige move, in order to be able to claim a "national" footprint in the U.S.  It's the same reason that big chain restaurants open branches in New York -- just so that Applebee's or whatever can say that they have a presence in New York.

 

That's a little bit of an extreme example. The migration pattern of Canada/U.S. over the last three decades as well as the expansion of TV viewing options has rendered it so people in those regions of the U.S. aren't exactly green to the concept of hockey.   Carolina doesn't have to have the fervor for hockey of Toronto to support a team. 

 

The NHL's Sun Belt expansion has worked wonders in places like LA, Nashville, Dallas, and Tampa.  Where it's floundered in places like Atlanta, Phoenix, and South Florida it's had little to do with climate or potential fanbase and more to do with poor management running those teams. The same way poor management caused relocation in "traditional" markets like Hartford and Minnesota, or forced former perennial power teams in Chicago and Long Island to limp along. 

 

34 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Well, the CFL nearly put a team in Nova Scotia.  Of course, that part of the world (the Maritimes plus Newfoundland) obviously doesn't have major cities on the scale of some U.S. cities.  But maybe a regional NHL team could make it.  The people there would sure appreciate it more than the people in some of the cities that the NHL is currently in.  But, as @spartacat_12 mentioned, there's the Canadian inferiority complex, whereby even Canadians consider American locations more prestigious than somewhere in Nova Scotia.  (They maintain this feeling alongside the fear of losing hockey as "their" game.  A complex lot, those Canadians.) 

 

Putting teams in already hockey-saturated, small Eastern Canadian markets like QC or Hamilton (not that the Leafs would ever allow it) is not in the league's best interests of further growth of player development and the game overall.   The Maritimes (Halifax maybe??) would be an even worse idea given how spread out the small fanbase there would be. 

 

34 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Anyway, if a Maritimes team is not possible, don't forget that there's Seattle -- and Portland, Milwaukee, Hamilton, Cleveland and probably other places in the northern U.S. and in Canada that I am forgetting. 

 

None of those places currently have the right combination of arena and willing ownership.  I'm sure the NHL would love to become entrenched in Cascadia, but it doesn't seem like Chris Hansen (SEA) or Paul Allen (POR) are interested in a team in their arenas at this point. Milwaukee may not be big enough to support MLB, the NBA and NHL   Cleveland is probably out as a destination because of Columbus. 

 

Las Vegas got the nod because they were the right combination of new arena, willing owner, and were in a geographically desirable and untapped market for the league. In 2016, their avg annual temperature is irrelevant. 

 

[njdevs7]

Whether hockey can work in Las Vegas is unknown but people who say the NHL can't work in southern markets have no idea what they are talking about. It has thrived in Los Angeles, San Jose, Dallas,Tampa Bay, Nashville. It did not work in Atlanta (1 playoff appearance in 11 seaons), and is struggling in Florida (2 playoff series wins in 21 years) and Arizona (2 playoff series wins in 19 years).....I wonder why

[FiddySicks]

Is San Jose really considered a "southern" market? I mean, I get it, at least from a hockey standpoint, but it still sounds weird to me. 

[BeerGuyJordan]

1 hour ago, BrianLion said:

That's a little bit of an extreme example. The migration pattern of Canada/U.S. over the last three decades as well as the expansion of TV viewing options has rendered it so people in those regions of the U.S. aren't exactly green to the concept of hockey.   Carolina doesn't have to have the fervor for hockey of Toronto to support a team. 

Your point is valid, but Carolina is a horrible example. They're actually struggling worse than Florida and Phoenix. They often don't get lumped in due to the Stanley Cup win, but I think that proves the point that Raleigh should move. Yes, the success was brief and uneven, but their attendance average was under 70% last season. They aren't really supporting the team, at all. Tampa, Anaheim or Nashville might have been a better example.

58 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Is San Jose really considered a "southern" market? I mean, I get it, at least from a hockey standpoint, but it still sounds weird to me. 

They're a non-traditional market, which is probably why people sometimes lump them in as "southern." The two terms are fairly interchangeable, in these debates.

[njdevs7]

31 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Your point is valid, but Carolina is a horrible example. They're actually struggling worse than Florida and Phoenix. They often don't get lumped in due to the Stanley Cup win, but I think that proves the point that Raleigh should move. Yes, the success was brief and uneven, but their attendance average was under 70% last season. They aren't really supporting the team, at all. Tampa, Anaheim or Nashville might have been a better example.

They're a non-traditional market, which is probably why people sometimes lump them in as "southern." The two terms are fairly interchangeable, in these debates.

 

Not sure what do think about Carolina. They haven't made the playoffs in 7 seasons now. But FWIW, they had some of the loudest crowds I've ever heard during the 2006 Cup run. Maybe not many people outside the building cared though, I don't know.

[daniel75]

3 hours ago, BrianLion said:

Are we really still advocating the old "if it doesn't snow in your city, you shouldn't have an NHL team" argument?  Shouldn't ya know, modern refrigeration technology and the fact that the #1 overall pick this year was from Arizona, sort of put all that silly traditionalist "hockey doesnt work in warm weather" BS to rest? 

 

Also, where in the Maritimes would you advocate putting an NHL franchise? 

 Amen, it's a ridiculous argument, ice rinks don't need snow. Markets like San Jose and Tampa have been more successful than many northern teams. If you love hockey, don't you want to see it grow.

[CreamSoda]

23 minutes ago, daniel75 said:

 Amen, it's a ridiculous argument, ice rinks don't need snow. Markets like San Jose and Tampa have been more successful than many northern teams. If you love hockey, don't you want to see it grow.

 

Hockey is a show-er not a grow-er!

[rams80]

I want to see hockey grow without giving the rest of the league even more weak sisters in markets that are still digging out from the Great Recession, but that's just me.

[~Bear]

Sun Belt hockey is pretty 60-40 in success. LA, Anaheim, Nashville, Dallas, San Jose technically, and Tampa worked. Atlanta x2, Carolina, Miami, and Arizona not so much. Las Vegas is a smaller market than Phoenix or Miami or Atlanta.

 

Despite longevity, Tampa Bay and Nashville rank 25th and 26th in value with Carolina, Arizona, and Florida are 28th through 30th (in the order listed). LA Kings are 9th, Dallas is 13th, Dallas is 14th, and Anaheim is 16th. In comparison, the smallest market in the NHL, Winnipeg, ranks 20th. Winnipeg has over a $50 million increase in revenue from Tampa Bay and a $150 million increase from last-place Florida. Anaheim is $50 million greater than Winnipeg and San Jose/Dallas are $100 million greater. 3/7 canadian teams rank in the top 10 of revenue, with 5/7 as well. 3/9 of Sun Belt teams are in the top 15. 

 

Attendance, Sun Belt teams do better. Tampa Bay ranked 7th overall in total and average attendance, Dallas 14th, LA 15th, Nashville 19th, San Jose 21st, Anaheim 22nd, Florida 24th, Arizona 29th and Carolina 30th. The lowest NHL team, again Winnipeg, ranked 24th despite filling the arena on average above 99%. Teams like Arizona filled the arena around 75%, Carolina a measly 65%. Anaheim and San Jose filled around 95% and the rest above 99%. These are not bad by any means, but compared to Canadian teams, only mediocre. Montreal ranked 2nd, Toronto 5th, Calgary 6th, Vacouver 13th, Ottawa 16th, Edmonton 20th, and Winnipeg 24th. However, the lowest percentage was Ottawa with around 94%. 

 

The Raiders have a good shot of moving to LV, which will bring down the Vegas (insert adjective) Knights popularity. IMO the NHL should expand to other US markets like Portland or Seattle and wait for buyers there and worry about making money than experimenting in the Sun Belt and having a good chance of failing. 

[The_Admiral]

6 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

Even though both Toronto Maple Leafs and Las Vegas Desert Knights have the same amount of syllables, one rolls of the tongue nicely and the other sounds like a mouthful of saltine crackers.  

Excuse me, "Tronna" is two syllables

[worcat]

Aww people are still complaining about warm climate / southern markets acquiring expansion teams? 

 

now GTFO

[Gothamite]

I don't think the Southern Strategy has been a total failure, but 60/40 is still not good.  It's pretty clear that the NHL was obsessed with expanding its footprint and used that as an overly-weighted criterion. 

 

That doesn't mean all the bee markets were a bad idea; some like LA would have been chosen anyway, and those have been successes. But the ego has led to some truly, epically awful decisions.   Like Arizona.