Sign in to follow this  
Brass

NHL back to Hartford?

Recommended Posts

This report:

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0...xpansion/3.html

...kind of cuts through some of the BS'ing in this thread regarding the economics of Hartford, and gets some numbers behind it.

Besides being the 3rd best market in the country right now for supporting any kind of new team, Hartford is the #1 market in the country that presently has no pro sports teams.

To be fair, this does not include Winnipeg or Quebec City as possibilities, but it is an even-handed look at the Hartford market's potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still won't happen though. Even If it can support it, the NHL won't go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This report:

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0...xpansion/3.html

...kind of cuts through some of the BS'ing in this thread regarding the economics of Hartford, and gets some numbers behind it.

Besides being the 3rd best market in the country right now for supporting any kind of new team, Hartford is the #1 market in the country that presently has no pro sports teams.

To be fair, this does not include Winnipeg or Quebec City as possibilities, but it is an even-handed look at the Hartford market's potential.

You can go on saying they have potential. Here's Hartford's problem, though-if you don't build a new arena, the NHL will not return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, Hartford isn't getting another NHL team not now or anytime in the near future. They just had the Whalers not ten years ago and they're gone, history! It hasn't been long enough. Give it at least another twenty years then well see where Hartford stands, but as of today Hartford is NOT getting another team.

Happy, yh?

Edited by DirtyCurty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get why the team left Hartford- a city that clearly had the population and money to support them in the middle of an area that always supported the support, to put roots down in that hockey hotbed known as..... Raleigh, North Carolina??? :blink:

Am I the only one who thinks it sounds wrong that places like Hartford, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Seattle, Cleveland, Regina, Hamilton, and Milwaukee do not have NHL teams, but that Miami, Tampa, Pheonix, Atlanta, Raleigh, & Dallas do? These cold cities breed hockey players for cryin' out loud. Have you ever seen a hockey player's profile list them as having a hometown of Las Vegas or San Diego? Has anyone hailed from the hockey powerhouses of USC or Florida State? Makes about as much sense as the Jamacian Bobsled Team.

Okay, new rule fantasy for the NHL....in light of the trend of alll these teams trying to operate in the deep south I say no team should be operating in cities that can't offer hockey outdoors. That's right. If you can't skate on the local pond in January because the boaters are too busy laughing at you drowning, you don't get a hockey team. :hockeysmiley:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't get why the team left Hartford- a city that clearly had the population and money to support them in the middle of an area that always supported the support, to put roots down in that hockey hotbed known as..... Raleigh, North Carolina??? :blink:

*cough* arena *cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I see it, Hartford isn't getting another NHL team not now or anytime in the near future. They just had the Whalers not ten years ago and they're gone, history! It hasn't been long enough. Give it at least another twenty years then well see where Hartford stands, but as of today Hartford is NOT getting another team.

Happy, yh?

Well, not really. I'd like to see Hartford back in the league, as I would KC as well, so long as it isn't at the expense of Pittsburgh. But your point is well taken and I appreciate you actually contributing to the discussion rather than bemoaning the fact that folks still want to debate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. Bring back the Scouts.

*Dodges incoming insults*

So, nobody's really happy to have the Wolf Pack in Hartford? Maybe they could rename the team the Whalers or something...

*Dodges another barrage of insults*

But for a team coming back to Hartford. I'd say the return of the New England Sea Wolves AFL team, or rename them the Hartford Sea Wolves. That'd be cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't get why the team left Hartford- a city that clearly had the population and money to support them in the middle of an area that always supported the support, to put roots down in that hockey hotbed known as..... Raleigh, North Carolina??? :blink:

Am I the only one who thinks it sounds wrong that places like Hartford, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Seattle, Cleveland, Regina, Hamilton, and Milwaukee do not have NHL teams, but that Miami, Tampa, Pheonix, Atlanta, Raleigh, & Dallas do? These cold cities breed hockey players for cryin' out loud. Have you ever seen a hockey player's profile list them as having a hometown of Las Vegas or San Diego? Has anyone hailed from the hockey powerhouses of USC or Florida State?

Follow the money. A right wing from Slovakia couldn't care a whit if he's playing in Winnipeg or Phoenix, so long as the paychecks come every 2 weeks and don't bounce.

Follow where the US population is migrating. The area around Raleigh has more northern transplants than Hartford has citizens.

Accept the fact that it's 2006, and modern technology allows us to build frozen ponds at the Equator and manmade indoor rainforests above the Arctic Circle. If you're not fortunate enough to grow up with a real pond nearby, chances are you have a rink nearby that's just as good, stays frozen all year round, and is never too thin to use.

Accept moreover that we live in an age of instant information, 24-hour news services, cable TV, satellites and the Internet. Kids from the Southwestern desert can follow hockey as easily as kids growing up in Minnesota.

Detach yourself from the notion that every school needs to be a hockey powerhouse, and that you're making a valid argument. There are maybe 20 or 25 schools in the US that produce NHL-caliber hockey players. Most hockey players make the NHL by alternate routes - Europe or Canadian junior hockey. By this logic, the University of Maine should scrap baseball because it snows there, yet Maine's had a pretty good program historically - ask Mike Bordick.

Were it 1965 and not 2006, would you use this same argument to keep teams out of "non-traditional hockey markets" like Philadelphia and St. Louis? I'd love to see the jilted Canadian cities regain teams, but if they cannot afford to operate major league franchises, it's not going to be in the NHL's best interest to put teams there and set them up for failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This report:

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0...xpansion/3.html

...kind of cuts through some of the BS'ing in this thread regarding the economics of Hartford, and gets some numbers behind it.

Besides being the 3rd best market in the country right now for supporting any kind of new team, Hartford is the #1 market in the country that presently has no pro sports teams.

To be fair, this does not include Winnipeg or Quebec City as possibilities, but it is an even-handed look at the Hartford market's potential.

Good find. I emailed that article home to myself this morning to post here today. Unfortunately, I just got home.

For anyone who wants to read the whole thing, it's

here.

Be sure to check out the links to the 10 best metros for new teams, and the 10 most over-extended markets. The link to all the major metros is pretty interesting too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This report:

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0...xpansion/3.html

...kind of cuts through some of the BS'ing in this thread regarding the economics of Hartford, and gets some numbers behind it.

Besides being the 3rd best market in the country right now for supporting any kind of new team, Hartford is the #1 market in the country that presently has no pro sports teams.

To be fair, this does not include Winnipeg or Quebec City as possibilities, but it is an even-handed look at the Hartford market's potential.

Good find. I emailed that article home to myself this morning to post here today. Unfortunately, I just got home.

For anyone who wants to read the whole thing, it's

here.

Be sure to check out the links to the 10 best metros for new teams, and the 10 most over-extended markets. The link to all the major metros is pretty interesting too.

My forte is not business, but looking at the study I see some flaws.

That a market is capable of having a major-league team is only part of the issue. The other part is whether the league in question wants one of their teams in that city.

The easiest example of this is pro football. According to these data, there are several cities/metro areas that are 100% capable of supporting NFL teams. Cities like Albany, NY; Grand Rapids, MI; Harrisburg, PA; Jackson, MS; Honolulu, HI; and Sarasota, FL to name a few. But even though the city may be able to support a team, there's almost no chance of the NFL setting up shop in these cities for a number of reasons. Travel logistics (bye-bye, Hawai'i) or local competition (Harrisburg is the midway point between Iggles Nation and Stillers Nation in Pennsy) would do in most of these cities. And that's before you factor in the dilution of talent and disruption of symmetry that would ensue from altering a 32-team NFL for expansion.

Another interesting trend I noticed is that many cities listed as able to support an NFL team are home to major colleges. Cities like Louisville and Knoxville are great football towns, but that may be due to the fact that successful college programs play there. Sure, the Vols can get 110,000+ to fill Neyland Stadium on Saturdays, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a full house for an expansion NFL team on Sundays. Most people at college football games have some personal connection to the school - it's an alma mater, their parents' alma mater, or where their kids go. The same dynamic isn't true of pro sports, where more and more fans are forced to "root for the laundry" as players change teams frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one who thinks it sounds wrong that places like Hartford, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Seattle, Cleveland, Regina, Hamilton, and Milwaukee do not have NHL teams, but that Miami, Tampa, Pheonix, Atlanta, Raleigh, & Dallas do? These cold cities breed hockey players for cryin' out loud.

What do you think the Dominican Republic's chances are of getting a Major League Baseball club? That's what I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to agree with Vitamin D on this . . . and point out that he left out Des Moines and Little Rock as NFL-capable cities. The biggest flaw in the study seems to be ignoring geographic limitations. Green Bay is not a big city, but it has all of Wisconsin (and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan?) to itself. Harrisburg, on the other hand, as Vitamin D pointed out, is shoehorned between the Eagles and Steelers (and he left out the Ravens, about 80 miles to the south -- much closer than either Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, though they have less of a following in Central Pennsylvania than the Eagles and Steelers). With that fact in mind, I think it is difficult to assume that some of the "total personal income" in the market isn't already being diverted into the existing markets and thus might not be available for a new team.

On the topic of Hartford, geographic reality also seems to be working against the idea of a return of the NHL. Fans may not yet be firmly in the Ranger or Bruin camps (as many posters have suggested), but every year without a team in Hartford pushes the young fans in that direction. Looking at my experience, older fans in Baltimore never embraced the Redskins after the Colts left, but fans born after 1980 or so, and who thus didn't remember the Colts, drifted that way to some degree (at least those living between Baltimore and Washington -- less so in my area north of Baltimore). As that happens in Hartford, much of the "total personal income" that is presumed to be available will probably be siphoned off by the Rangers and Bruins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I dont see Seattle being a viable market, there just is no hockey attention in washington. I mean... I think we have a team, the thunderbirds right? Hockey just isnt that popular in the northwest, as you think it would be being so close to canada and all. Probably most hockey fans in washington just go upnorth to vancover to watch a game, my sister bought her boyfriend tickets to see them play for his birthday...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one who thinks it sounds wrong that places like Hartford, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Seattle, Cleveland, Regina, Hamilton, and Milwaukee do not have NHL teams, but that Miami, Tampa, Pheonix, Atlanta, Raleigh, & Dallas do?  These cold cities breed hockey players for cryin' out loud.

What do you think the Dominican Republic's chances are of getting a Major League Baseball club? That's what I thought.

It's not really the same thing, sir!

Of course the cold-weather cities should be the NHL cities. Raleigh and Miami should have to settle for the minors. Sure, a token San Jose here, a Los Angeles there, but hockey belongs where hockey is played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My, aren't we formal. How about this? Maybe cities like Hartford, Winnipeg, and Quebec just don't belong in a major pro sports league. Maybe they're minor league towns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a broad statement. They don't belong in the NBA, or the NFL, they shouldn't have baseball teams, but they're hockey towns, and they deserved to keep their NHL teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I dont see Seattle being a viable market, there just is no hockey attention in washington. I mean... I think we have a team, the thunderbirds right? Hockey just isnt that popular in the northwest, as you think it would be being so close to canada and all. Probably most hockey fans in washington just go upnorth to vancover to watch a game, my sister bought her boyfriend tickets to see them play for his birthday...

I think it might be unfair to lump the rest of the NW in with Seattle. Spokane, Portland and Everett draw very decent crowds for their WHL teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one who thinks it sounds wrong that places like Hartford, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Seattle, Cleveland, Regina, Hamilton, and Milwaukee do not have NHL teams, but that Miami, Tampa, Pheonix, Atlanta, Raleigh, & Dallas do?  These cold cities breed hockey players for cryin' out loud.

What do you think the Dominican Republic's chances are of getting a Major League Baseball club? That's what I thought.

It's not really the same thing, sir!

Of course the cold-weather cities should be the NHL cities. Raleigh and Miami should have to settle for the minors. Sure, a token San Jose here, a Los Angeles there, but hockey belongs where hockey is played.

Think about that logiclally for just a second. Hell, you seem kinda slow, so I'll let you think about it for 3 seconds.

Compare southern hockey cities to northern baseball towns and tell me that you feel the same way.

Is weather a factor?

NHL games are in no way influenced by the weather, so why should the local climate determine where NHL cities are located? Baseball is the only sport (although decreasingly so) in which the weather determines whether or not a game can be played.

You're other arguement was that the locals play hockey more in the north than in the south. Well, in the south, locals can, and do, play baseball far more than in the north.

By your logic, Milwaukee, Seattle, Cleveland, Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver and certainly Boston, should have their baseball teams relocated to places like Las Vegas, Charlotte, Nashville and San Antonio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course the cold-weather cities should be the NHL cities. Raleigh and Miami should have to settle for the minors. Sure, a token San Jose here, a Los Angeles there, but hockey belongs where hockey is played.

I played as much ice hockey in North Carolina while I was in college as I did growing up in New Jersey. And I played with North Carolinians and out-of-staters alike.

Contrary to your Norman Rockwellian daydream, a small percentage of American kids play hockey on ponds anymore. We South Jerseyans played most of our ice hokcey at rinks, and we're a "cold weather" area with a successful NHL franchise all our own. There were winters where it stayed cold enough, long enough to have a local pond freeze thick for a game of shinny, but if you wanted regular time on safe ice, you went inside.

As I posted earlier, we've mastered climate control. We can walk around in a T-shirt and shorts above the Arctic Circle, and we can make frozen ponds at the Equator.

The sons and daughters of the northern transplants descending on Raleigh, Miami and Phoenix can play as much hockey in the South as they could up north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this