Nashville Predators Being Sold?

[rams80]

And when he finally gets done with this piece of business, there's a nice team of underperforming young talent down here in South Florida that would look lovely in Winnipeg or Quebec City.

So they can be a group of slightly older underperforming young talent in an arena that matches their AHL-level of play?

Perhaps. But at least then they will be in front of a crowd more receptive to what they are doing. Not to mention there will actually be a crowd, compared to here where the majority come dressed as empty seats.

I question whether either move would ultimately help the league.

Is it even possible for a NHL team to show a profit in Le Colisee now?

Check the "Bring back the Jets" thread for Winnipeg's problems as a market.

I'll assume you meant "southern Ontario" rather then "GTA" because both Kitchener-Waterloo/Cambridge and Hamilton are well outside the Greater Toronto Area.

So assuming you did mean that southern Ontario fans are more Leafs fans then hockey fans, I'll just say live here for 19 years and then we'll get back to you

I was always under the impression that Hamilton was a far suburb of Toronto (especially because of its presence within the "bubbles" of the Sabres and Maple Leafs. Southern Ontario just strikes me as a market that doesn't look to be viable long-term either. I think it could be another example of what happened to Hartford, where the Whalers are located in a "hockey-mad" area, but quashed by the Bruins, Rangers, and Islanders.

Toronto, unfortunately, hasn't really provided a proving ground for a second NHL franchise. Yes there were the Toros back in the 1970s, but they made the fatal mistake of playing in the building owned by their direct competitor and got killed by the lease.

Therefore ratings for the Stanley Cup Finals in the GTA should be low, correct?

Wouldn't you want to see your team's arch rival get crushed and choke-slammed horribly on television?

[leedsunited]

Check the "Bring back the Jets" thread for Winnipeg's problems as a market.[/qoute]

Pretty much the same problem plaguing Nashville - NO CORPORATE $$$$$

[CC97]

Therefore ratings for the Stanley Cup Finals in the GTA should be low, correct?

Wouldn't you want to see your team's arch rival get crushed and choke-slammed horribly on television?

And what's your excuse for every other season?

[Gothamite]

Check the "Bring back the Jets" thread for Winnipeg's problems as a market.

Pretty much the same problem plaguing Nashville - NO CORPORATE $$$$$

That's the least of Nasville's problems - amother, arguably more important, is that the fanbase isn't there.

[jkrdevil]

Check the "Bring back the Jets" thread for Winnipeg's problems as a market.

Pretty much the same problem plaguing Nashville - NO CORPORATE $$$$$

That's the least of Nasville's problems - amother, arguably more important, is that the fanbase isn't there.

I would venture to guess the number of actual fans that go to the games is around the same as most teams. The difference is that they aren't getting the corporate tickets that put the other teams over the top.

[IceCap]

Check the "Bring back the Jets" thread for Winnipeg's problems as a market.

Pretty much the same problem plaguing Nashville - NO CORPORATE $$$$$

That's the least of Nasville's problems - amother, arguably more important, is that the fanbase isn't there.

I would venture to guess the number of actual fans that go to the games is around the same as most teams. The difference is that they aren't getting the corporate tickets that put the other teams over the top.

Given the amount of free tickets given away by the team I would guess it's a lack of both corporate support and general fan support. The team was in the running for the President's Trophy and they only manged 23rd in the league attendance-wise. Lets not make excuses here.

[zer0dotcom]

It will be most interesting to see how many people drop money to see the Preds in October knowing that this was a top 5 team in the regular season and with the threat of relocation looming

[IceCap]

It will be most interesting to see how many people drop money to see the Preds in October knowing that this was a top 5 team in the regular season and with the threat of relocation looming

I think the threat of relocation will cause support to temporarily spike. It's sad relocation threats will do it when the best season in franchise history didn't.

Anyway support will spike at the beginning of the season. How it goes from there depends on how well the team does.

The first possibility is the one I've been saying all along. If the team can continue to dominate the fans will show up just long enough for the Bettman to deep 6 any relocation plans. Once the novelty of saving the team wears off support (both in terms of corporate $$$ and your average sports fan) will dip to disappointing levels again. We'll have this same discussion in 2-5 years, when new relocation threats galvanize the Nashville sports fans into doing just enough to keep the team in town. Then they'll return to their state of regarding the Preds with mild interest at best.

The second possibility is if the team under performs (very likely considering who's leaving) and the "save the team" support in the community drops off mid-season at the latest, and relocation becomes a very serious option.

In the end it may be a mute point. If Balsille really wants the team in Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo/Cambridge he has more then enough money to just break the lease and move the team.

[STL FANATIC]

And the third possibility IceCap, is that the threat to move spikes attendance and interest this season, and that interest stays and Nashville becomes a pretty viable market.

Why's that so impossible?

I understand why you find it frustrating that it takes a threat to move to get support to the right level, but I don't understand why you think it's a given that the support will go away once the threat does.

We have no prior history to judge the "fickleness" of Nashville hockey fans. Sure we're talking about people who had no interest in hockey now going to the games and supporting the team just to save "their" team...but in doing so, there's a pretty decent chance a lot of them are going to find that interest in hockey and really start caring about the team and sticking around after the threat is gone.

[IceCap]

And the third possibility IceCap, is that the threat to move spikes attendance and interest this season, and that interest stays and Nashville becomes a pretty viable market.

Why's that so impossible?

I understand why you find it frustrating that it takes a threat to move to get support to the right level, but I don't understand why you think it's a given that the support will go away once the threat does.

We have no prior history to judge the "fickleness" of Nashville hockey fans. Sure we're talking about people who had no interest in hockey now going to the games and supporting the team just to save "their" team...but in doing so, there's a pretty decent chance a lot of them are going to find that interest in hockey and really start caring about the team and sticking around after the threat is gone.

Yeah, it is a possibility that the threat of relocation will transform Nashville into a viable hockey market, with the threat galvanizing the fans into supporting the team.

You're right, we don't know if the support will die off once the novelty of saving the team fades, but we can make educated guesses.

Now I'm going to compare the Preds to other expansion markets because IMO that's the best way to measure Nashville as a "new" hockey market.

The San Jose Sharks, like the Nashville Predators, are a '90's expansion team who have had their share of playoff disappointments. The Sharks have enjoy great corporate support and a strong fan base. The Preds however, occupy the league basement when it comes to corporate support, and the team had to give away thousands of tickets so the arena would look full.

The Columbus Blue Jackets have never made the playoffs, yet they enjoy strong corporate support and a solid fan base. The Preds almost won the President's Trophy and they ranked 23rd in attendance, and that's with thousands of give aways.

So while there is no precedence when it comes to how Nashville sports fans will react once the "save the Preds" novelty fades, all the signs point to the support fizzling yet again.

A team in Hamilton, however, they'll be treated as heroes just for showing up on game day.

So, for a league in the NHL's financial situation, what makes the most sense?

Keep the team in Nashville, and hope local support finally picks up in a market that's so far been a financial flop?

Move the team to an other non-traditional market where a team would have to earn their fan base, and even then long-term support is a gamble?

Move the team to a market that lives for hockey, but currently is unable to see the "local" team due to the extreme scarcity of tickets.

[IceCap]

I'll assume you meant "southern Ontario" rather then "GTA" because both Kitchener-Waterloo/Cambridge and Hamilton are well outside the Greater Toronto Area.

So assuming you did mean that southern Ontario fans are more Leafs fans then hockey fans, I'll just say live here for 19 years and then we'll get back to you

I was always under the impression that Hamilton was a far suburb of Toronto (especially because of its presence within the "bubbles" of the Sabres and Maple Leafs. Southern Ontario just strikes me as a market that doesn't look to be viable long-term either. I think it could be another example of what happened to Hartford, where the Whalers are located in a "hockey-mad" area, but quashed by the Bruins, Rangers, and Islanders.

Hamilton is far from being a suburb of Toronto. It's no more so then London, K-W/C, Windsor, and Oshawa, as in to say it's not a suburb at all.

A team in Hamilton would not have to worry about losing support to Buffalo at all. The only reason the Sabres are mentioned when discussing a team in Hamilton is because the cities are geographically close. The number of Sabres-first fans in southern Ontario is minuscule. Anyone who lives in Hamilton who could be considered a Sabres fan would dump them the moment a NHL team in Hamilton is announced.

The fact is that you have a HUGE market that's "hockey mad" that currently is untapped do to the scarcity of Leafs tickets, as well as your average Leafs-loathing. This huge pool of fans are made up of Leafs fans, Senators fans, Red Wings fans, and a few Sabres fans thrown in. The Sens fans are Sens fans because for one reason or an other they can't stand the Leafs, and the Sens are the only Ontario alternative. The Red Wings and Sabres fans aren't Leafs fans for the same reason, only rather then look east to Ottawa they go for the more "local" teams like Detroit and Buffalo.

These fans, the Sens/Sabres/Wings fans, are fans of those teams because they represent the only alternative to the Maple Leafs. You put an other team in southern Ontario and you give these fans a truly local team to support.

Now factor in the Leafs fans in this southern Ontario fan base that can't get to a Leafs game do to the scarcity of tickets. First and foremost they are hockey fans, not just Leafs fans. They root for the Leafs simply because they are the local team. I know so, I fit into this category.

They'll flock to the games of an other southern Ontario team to 1) simply see NHL hockey without having to cross the border and 2) flock to games where the new team plays the Leafs to see their team play.

Now converting large amounts of these Leafs fans is not feasible. Yet they will show up to the rink on game day, and they'll root for the home team when they don't play the Leafs. Soon the kids of this pool of Leafs fans will come to know the Hamilton team (or wherever they end up) as their only team, and they'll see the Leafs as the team of their parents.

Bottom line? Around 40% of the NHL's revenue comes from Canadian teams. Why not take a team out of a failed market and place it in a large, untapped Canadian market?

Toronto, unfortunately, hasn't really provided a proving ground for a second NHL franchise. Yes there were the Toros back in the 1970s, but they made the fatal mistake of playing in the building owned by their direct competitor and got killed by the lease.

We're not talking about a second Toronto team. We're talking about a team in either Kitchener-Waterloo/Cambridge or Hamilton, both of which are separate cities from Toronto.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

after reading all the arguments on this issue. heres what i think. The game is a business and like a business you do what is in the best interest of a business. if the preds are failing economically then, they need to be moved to an area that is in the best interest financially for the team. If you are more likely to succede finanially in Hamilton over Nashville, then by logic you move them to Hamilton. If nobody cares about the team in Nashville, then move them to Hamilton where there already is a fan base and corporate sponsers ready to feature the team. Basille understands economics. He knows that Nashville is a lost cause where he is going to lose money, so he is going to move them to a area where he can make more money. The nostalgia of nashville is nice but any owner knows that if you are failing economically, then you have one or two options either relocate or be contracted. I rather see the preds sent to an area that can support the team instead of being contracted. If hamilton is the option, then you go for that option. i know people are saying that this may fail. I believe Basille is a smart enough business man to have the forsight to know that if moving them to hamilton might fail, he wouldn't be pushing to put a team in hamilton. He knows the city is ready for a team and he knows he can have more success financially there than in nashville. I know he has looked at all the options but in his mind this is in the best interests of the team.

[Proc]

Great thread.

I've been a Red Wings ticket holder for years. As fans here will say, their isn't much love for the Nashville team as a rival. No offense to Nashville, but we'd much rather see the Leafs, Penguins, Canadiens, etc. The past several years, we'd groan when picking our games, "Oh great another Nashville game.". Nashville has never evoked passion as a rival, even as both teams fought to the wire this year for the division.

That said, if Hamilton can support a team, then so be it. It'd be close to Detroit and would, IMO, become a very good rival. At least we'd get to play them alot, not like the current schedule where we see the Leafs maybe once a year.

Our Canadian brothers and sisters love their hockey and if we can get a team in our division in the EASTERN TIME ZONE where road games start at a reasonable 7:30pm, then I am all for it. Detroit has never belonged in the Western Conference.

There are alot of Canadian Red Wings fans. Fans from Windsor and points east come to Joe Louis Arena in droves. Its a short drive across the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel or Ambassador Bridge (where Detroit is actually south of Canada). Its common for American and Canadian Wing's fans to engage in friendly, cross-country banter. With Canada being so close to here, its never seen as a foreign country, but a friendly, next-door neighbor.

Hockey in Hamilton? Why not. Bring it on.

[Brian in Boston]

Now I'm going to compare the Preds to other expansion markets because IMO that's the best way to measure Nashville as a "new" hockey market.

The San Jose Sharks, like the Nashville Predators, are a '90's expansion team who have had their share of playoff disappointments. The Sharks have enjoy great corporate support and a strong fan base. The Preds however, occupy the league basement when it comes to corporate support, and the team had to give away thousands of tickets so the arena would look full.

Let's be as detailed as possible in the comparison, shall we? In fairness to Nashville, let's acknowledge that San Jose has a larger city population than Nashville (904,522 to 546,719), a much larger metro area population (7,228,948 to 1,533,406), that the Bay Area had already been exposed to nearly a decade of NHL hockey prior to the Sharks' arrival and that the Sharks had been in operation for seven seasons before the Predators ever took to the ice. In other words, there are reasons that the San Jose Sharks are a much more ingrained part of their market than the Predators have thus far become in Nashville.

The Columbus Blue Jackets have never made the playoffs, yet they enjoy strong corporate support and a solid fan base. The Preds almost won the President's Trophy and they ranked 23rd in attendance, and that's with thousands of give aways.

I'll grant that the Blue Jackets have enjoyed tremendous support in Columbus in just six seasons on the ice. Still, Columbus also enjoys larger city (730,008 to 546,719) and metro area (1,953,406 to 1,533,406) populations than Nashville. More importantly, corporate support for the team has been helped immeasurably by the fact that the franchise is owned by local businessman John McConnell, the popular owner of the Columbus-based metal processing firm Worthington Industries. All of that said, the Blue Jackets' 19th-place ranking in average NHL attendance last season was just four spots higher than the Predators' 23rd. Further, the Blue Jackets' percentage of capacity (90.4%... #16 in the NHL) was just one spot better than the Predators' ranking in that category (89.2%... #17).

We can quibble all we want with the suits at NHL headquarters about whether or not Nashville should have been granted an expansion team. Even I'll concede that it struck me as the riskiest of the non-traditional markets the NHL targeted. That said, without local ownership and even taking into account some ticket giveaways, I find 89.2% capacity for ice hockey in Nashville to be an outstanding achievement. Further, I think that it's a sign that Nashville could grow to be every bit as successful as the market San Jose has become. I've had the good fortune to attend Predators' games while on business in Nashville on five separate occassions (3 regular season games; two playoff games). Each time the atmosphere in the building has been electric... as good as I've experienced in more "traditional" markets.

Bottom line? The Predators have been in business for just eight seasons over nine years. The 2004-05 lock-out - though necessary - sapped marketing momentum from a majority of the NHL's teams. I think that pulling the plug on any market - particularly a "non-traditional" one - after less than a decade is a mistake. You have to give a modern professional sports franchise at least ten - if not fifteen - years to make it's mark, both in it's community and on the already crowded North American pro sports landscape as a whole. By that standard, I believe that the Predators deserve at least two more seasons in Nashville.

Unfortunately, given the fact that Mr. Balsillie has done absolutely nothing to quiet rumors that he wishes to ultimately relocate the Predators to Southern Ontario, I fear that the Nashville market may be tainted to the point that it would require more than the minimum two years to stabilize the franchise.

A team in Hamilton, however, they'll be treated as heroes just for showing up on game day.

So, for a league in the NHL's financial situation, what makes the most sense?

Keep the team in Nashville, and hope local support finally picks up in a market that's so far been a financial flop?

Move the team to an other non-traditional market where a team would have to earn their fan base, and even then long-term support is a gamble?

Move the team to a market that lives for hockey, but currently is unable to see the "local" team due to the extreme scarcity of tickets.

Here's the problem with setting-up shop in Hamilton (city population of 504,559 / metro population of 692,911) or Kitchener (204,688 / 451,235) or Cambridge (120,371 / 451,235) or Waterloo (97,475 / 451,235): it would be an admission on the NHL's part that the league is largely limited to selling it's product to a captive audience in a predominantly regional base. While that may be true, there is no way that the NHL wants to admit it. Why? Because Gary Bettman and the rest of the suits at NHL headquarters have a mandate from the owners. That mandate is to maintain the NHL's status as a major professional sports league. Back in the day, before sports leagues expanded into multi-billion-dollar, coast-to-coast enterprises, the NHL could operate in ten or twelve Northeast, Midwest and Canadian markets and legitimately call itself one of the "Big Four" major pro sports leagues in North America. Of course, "back in the day" MLB, the NBA and the NFL hadn't yet made major strides beyond the confines of the Eastern and Midwestern population bases. All that has changed.

The NHL's problem is that it is largely a sport dependent upon regional support. As a result, it is largely a sport dependent upon gate receipts to generate revenue because major American broadcast networks question the viability of airing the games to large swaths of the United States. However, go out and find me more than a handful of current NHL owners who would be willing to concede that the league is never going to gain enough popularity in the United States to warrant operation as anything more than a regional entity. Go out and find me more than a handful of current NHL owners who aren't holding out some hope - hell, demanding - that the NHL will somehow explode in popularity throughout North America and earn a big money TV contract that makes them all boatloads of cash. You couldn't do it. It doesn't matter whether or not the NHL realistically has the chance of growing - hell, maintaining it's current position - on the North American major pro sports landscape. The owners are in too deep financially. They have to push... strive... hope... DREAM that it will happen, or they've basically just flushed millions of dollars down the toilet. It's a "Catch-22" situation.

There's no way the NHL will ever capture the attention of the American TV networks by adding more Canadian teams. More Canadian teams - particularly in markets like Quebec, Winnipeg, Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge - do nothing to grow the game in the United States. Sure, teams in those cities would have rabid fans flooding through the turnstiles at the arenas. However, "preaching to the converted" in Canada does nothing to build American TV audiences. It does nothing to build Canadian TV audiences which are already largely captive. What the majority of NHL owners believe operating in those cities would achieve - with apologies to my Canadian brethren - is convince American TV executives that the NHL is a glorified minor-league. A regional entity one step up from the Canadian Football League - again, with apologies to my Canadian brethren - in terms of global marketing relevance. Therefore, the vast majority of the NHL's owners are committed to continuing the pursuit of the league's acceptance in American markets, "non-traditional" or otherwise.

[Sir Donald]

Someone told me yesterday that the Blue Jackets were moving as well. I'm guessing that was a bit wide of the mark?

[IceCap]

double post. sorry.

[IceCap]

Now I'm going to compare the Preds to other expansion markets because IMO that's the best way to measure Nashville as a "new" hockey market.

The San Jose Sharks, like the Nashville Predators, are a '90's expansion team who have had their share of playoff disappointments. The Sharks have enjoy great corporate support and a strong fan base. The Preds however, occupy the league basement when it comes to corporate support, and the team had to give away thousands of tickets so the arena would look full.

Let's be as detailed as possible in the comparison, shall we? In fairness to Nashville, let's acknowledge that San Jose has a larger city population than Nashville (904,522 to 546,719), a much larger metro area population (7,228,948 to 1,533,406), that the Bay Area had already been exposed to nearly a decade of NHL hockey prior to the Sharks' arrival and that the Sharks had been in operation for seven seasons before the Predators ever took to the ice. In other words, there are reasons that the San Jose Sharks are a much more ingrained part of their market than the Predators have thus far become in Nashville.

The Columbus Blue Jackets have never made the playoffs, yet they enjoy strong corporate support and a solid fan base. The Preds almost won the President's Trophy and they ranked 23rd in attendance, and that's with thousands of give aways.

I'll grant that the Blue Jackets have enjoyed tremendous support in Columbus in just six seasons on the ice. Still, Columbus also enjoys larger city (730,008 to 546,719) and metro area (1,953,406 to 1,533,406) populations than Nashville. More importantly, corporate support for the team has been helped immeasurably by the fact that the franchise is owned by local businessman John McConnell, the popular owner of the Columbus-based metal processing firm Worthington Industries. All of that said, the Blue Jackets' 19th-place ranking in average NHL attendance last season was just four spots higher than the Predators' 23rd. Further, the Blue Jackets' percentage of capacity (90.4%... #16 in the NHL) was just one spot better than the Predators' ranking in that category (89.2%... #17).

We can quibble all we want with the suits at NHL headquarters about whether or not Nashville should have been granted an expansion team. Even I'll concede that it struck me as the riskiest of the non-traditional markets the NHL targeted. That said, without local ownership and even taking into account some ticket giveaways, I find 89.2% capacity for ice hockey in Nashville to be an outstanding achievement. Further, I think that it's a sign that Nashville could grow to be every bit as successful as the market San Jose has become. I've had the good fortune to attend Predators' games while on business in Nashville on five separate occassions (3 regular season games; two playoff games). Each time the atmosphere in the building has been electric... as good as I've experienced in more "traditional" markets.

Bottom line? The Predators have been in business for just eight seasons over nine years. The 2004-05 lock-out - though necessary - sapped marketing momentum from a majority of the NHL's teams. I think that pulling the plug on any market - particularly a "non-traditional" one - after less than a decade is a mistake. You have to give a modern professional sports franchise at least ten - if not fifteen - years to make it's mark, both in it's community and on the already crowded North American pro sports landscape as a whole. By that standard, I believe that the Predators deserve at least two more seasons in Nashville.

Unfortunately, given the fact that Mr. Balsillie has done absolutely nothing to quiet rumors that he wishes to ultimately relocate the Predators to Southern Ontario, I fear that the Nashville market may be tainted to the point that it would require more than the minimum two years to stabilize the franchise.

A team in Hamilton, however, they'll be treated as heroes just for showing up on game day.

So, for a league in the NHL's financial situation, what makes the most sense?

Keep the team in Nashville, and hope local support finally picks up in a market that's so far been a financial flop?

Move the team to an other non-traditional market where a team would have to earn their fan base, and even then long-term support is a gamble?

Move the team to a market that lives for hockey, but currently is unable to see the "local" team due to the extreme scarcity of tickets.

Here's the problem with setting-up shop in Hamilton (city population of 504,559 / metro population of 692,911) or Kitchener (204,688 / 451,235) or Cambridge (120,371 / 451,235) or Waterloo (97,475 / 451,235): it would be an admission on the NHL's part that the league is largely limited to selling it's product to a captive audience in a predominantly regional base. While that may be true, there is no way that the NHL wants to admit it. Why? Because Gary Bettman and the rest of the suits at NHL headquarters have a mandate from the owners. That mandate is to maintain the NHL's status as a major professional sports league. Back in the day, before sports leagues expanded into multi-billion-dollar, coast-to-coast enterprises, the NHL could operate in ten or twelve Northeast, Midwest and Canadian markets and legitimately call itself one of the "Big Four" major pro sports leagues in North America. Of course, "back in the day" MLB, the NBA and the NFL hadn't yet made major strides beyond the confines of the Eastern and Midwestern population bases. All that has changed.

The NHL's problem is that it is largely a sport dependent upon regional support. As a result, it is largely a sport dependent upon gate receipts to generate revenue because major American broadcast networks question the viability of airing the games to large swaths of the United States. However, go out and find me more than a handful of current NHL owners who would be willing to concede that the league is never going to gain enough popularity in the United States to warrant operation as anything more than a regional entity. Go out and find me more than a handful of current NHL owners who aren't holding out some hope - hell, demanding - that the NHL will somehow explode in popularity throughout North America and earn a big money TV contract that makes them all boatloads of cash. You couldn't do it. It doesn't matter whether or not the NHL realistically has the chance of growing - hell, maintaining it's current position - on the North American major pro sports landscape. The owners are in too deep financially. They have to push... strive... hope... DREAM that it will happen, or they've basically just flushed millions of dollars down the toilet. It's a "Catch-22" situation.

There's no way the NHL will ever capture the attention of the American TV networks by adding more Canadian teams. More Canadian teams - particularly in markets like Quebec, Winnipeg, Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge - do nothing to grow the game in the United States. Sure, teams in those cities would have rabid fans flooding through the turnstiles at the arenas. However, "preaching to the converted" in Canada does nothing to build American TV audiences. It does nothing to build Canadian TV audiences which are already largely captive. What the majority of NHL owners believe operating in those cities would achieve - with apologies to my Canadian brethren - is convince American TV executives that the NHL is a glorified minor-league. A regional entity one step up from the Canadian Football League - again, with apologies to my Canadian brethren - in terms of global marketing relevance. Therefore, the vast majority of the NHL's owners are committed to continuing the pursuit of the league's acceptance in American markets, "non-traditional" or otherwise.

Once again, please for love of all that is Holy, lets drop the "growing the game" argument.

You're right Brian, hockey, and the NHL be extension, is a very regional sport. That said, the strides it's made in non-traditional markets so far have been excellent, if not extraordinary. Six non-traditional markets, seven teams. Tampa Bay, Carolina, Atlanta, Dallas, San Jose, Anaheim, and Los Angeles. Hockey has taken root there, and each of those franchises have established strong followings, and have received strong local corporate support. The growing the sport experiment worked, for the most part. There were a few places where the sport didn't take, Nashville's one of those places. Moving the team from Nashville won't hurt the growth of the game in the United States.

As for your apology-ridden contention that a team in Hamilton would give off the appearance of the NHL being a "minor league" why should we take offence, when you've basically belittled a string of our cities?

To the point, I would contend that an other team in southern Ontario wouldn't give off a minor league appearance. If the NFL can have a team in Green Bay without looking minor league, then Hamilton won't be a problem for the NHL.

Also, I don't see how an other southern Ontario team would make the NHL look like a regional league. Move the Preds from Nashville to Hamilton and you still have two teams in Florida, one in Georgia, two teams in non-traditional markets on the Atlantic coast, a team in Texas, one in Arizona, and three in California. Moving one team out of one failing market in the American south won't give off the impression the NHL is regional, considering the still-existing non-traditional franchises.

Now you said it yourself, more so then the NBA, NFL, and MLB the NHL is driven by gate returns. A team in Hamilton or any other southern Ontario city would fill the rink up night after night, whereas the Preds in Nashville have to give away thousands of free tickets and still only come in at #23 out of 30. By your own logic a team in Hamilton is better for the league financially then keeping the team in Nashville.

Now I realize that you point out while a team in Hamilton might be better for the league then one in Nashville you point out that the NHL would want the team to stay in Nashville to give off the appearance of a league with a wide national audience. Now I've already put forth my reasons why a team in Hamilton won't hurt that image, but I'll add that if that is indeed the NHL's train of thought it won't matter in the end. Basille simply wants a southern Ontario team to bad for it not to happen.

One last thing on the "The NHL wants a team in Nashville so it can help the appearance that it's a true big-time league" front: If they want to keep teams in struggling markets just so they can pretend everything's fine, it's going to backfire. The teams will end up contracting, and that will hurt the NHL more then a simple move to Hamilton will.

As for Nashville, normally I would say "yeah, give them fifteen years" but this isn't your typical expansion team. If this was your typical expansion team they would still be struggling to break into the middle of the league. That's not the case though. The Preds have made the playoffs three straight seasons. This past season they iced the best team in franchise history and almost won the President's Trophy. By all accounts their first round playoff loss to the Sharks was a choke job. They played amazingly well this year. You think the atmosphere in Nashville was electric? Put the 06-07 Preds team in Hamilton and you'll really see something.

Point is, this is a team that's gotten very good in a relatively short order for a 90's expansion team. In a viable hockey market attendance and local support should have gone up at an accelerated rate as well. Heck, the bandwaggon effect alone should have been able to sell out Preds games this season. The fact that a team who almost won the President's Trophy couldn't even attract a decent number of bandwaggon fans should be enough of an indicator that the market isn't viable for a pro hockey team. Move them now before they contract, because if they contract it will look much worse then a move to Hamilton or an other southern Ontario city will. Think of it this way, a 10 year old kid who first watched the Preds play that first season is now moving out of the house. If he isn't a fan now, he won't be in two or five more years.

Bottom line? Nashville regards the team with mild curiosity at best. Attendance and local corporate support are at rock bottom.

Southern Ontario is a market with a large untapped hockey-mad fanbase. Both the locals and local corporations would line up to show support. If the NHL wants to ignore these two obvious facts so it can pretend it's on par with the NBA, NFL, and MLB, then maybe the league deserves to collapse. We love our hockey here, we deserve an other team.

[HedleyLamarr]

Our Canadian brothers and sisters love their hockey and if we can get a team in our division in the EASTERN TIME ZONE where road games start at a reasonable 7:30pm, then I am all for it. Detroit has never belonged in the Western Conference.

Columbus is in the Eastern time zone.

Just sayin'....

[Brian in Boston]

Icecap... you, I, the entire CCSLC and each and every hockey fan in North America can all agree to drop the "growing the game" argument. The problem is that the owners aren't about to drop it. Last time I checked, they were paying the bills.

The Predators have been in their market for less than a decade... unlike Los Angeles, Dallas, San Jose, Anaheim, Tampa Bay and, yes, even Carolina. They didn't have the advantage of taking to the ice with an already existant, relocated team... the way Dallas and Carolina did. They entered a market that had never experienced NHL hockey... the way that the Bay Area and Atlanta had. They didn't enjoy the advantage of having a pre-existing NHL team in the metro area familiarize the population with top-level pro hockey... the way that Los Angeles set the stage for Anaheim. There are enough things different between the way that your list of teams were introduced to the NHL's brand of hockey and the experience that Nashville has had to negate comparing the markets' experiences. In short, Nashville is no more or less likely to grow to embrace the NHL than any of those other markets were. We simply have to recognize that it may take more time.

As for reloaction, unless the Predators are moved to another US city, relocating the team shrinks the NHL's American contingent by a team.

Don't take the "minor-league" comments personally. The addition of markets such as Quebec, Winnipeg, Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge does nothing in the way of adding major metropolitan areas to the NHL. If it makes you feel any better, the return of Hartford to the NHL - a much ballyhooed move given Hartford's "traditional NHL" status - wouldn't do anything in that regard, either. Similarly, even Nashville represents the lowest tier of legitimate US major pro sports markets. Frankly, the Predators - and the league - might well be better served by taking up residence in Houston, Kansas City, Seattle or Portland.

What gives off a minor-league appearance is the NHL's choice to give up trying to establish a franchise in a larger, American market after less than a decade, in favor of taking the easy route and setting up shop in a smaller, Canadian city where marketing hockey is like "shooting fish in a barrel". It would be the perception that the NHL was content to "cut-and-run", rather than "fight the good fight".

The case of the Green Bay Packers is "apples and oranges", my friend. First and foremost, the NFL can get away with many things perception-wise that the other members of the "Big Four" can't simply because it is the "800-pound gorilla" of modern sports marketing. Further, there is the fact that the Green Bay Packers never ceased to exist. They're regarded as a quaint anomaly simply because they've been around since the launch of the league. By comparison, Hamilton is a market that for a variety of reasons the NHL didn't see as being capable of supporting a franchise for the majority of the league's existance.

No offense, but the Packers are the exception to the rule in the NFL, whereas there are probably several American NHL owners who would be much happier if the their league's Canadian contingent was limited to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Think about it: If the CFL didn't exist today, how many of that league's current cities would legitimately have a chance of landing an NFL franchise? Three... tops. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

Bottom line? Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa exist as NHL markets solely because Canada is a traditional hockey hotbed. For any other major-pro sport they're not even on the radar. That's not a knock on their worth as places to live, work or raise a family. It's more a recognition of the state of major-pro sports today.

Like it or not, the majority of NHL owners see American markets as driving the world of modern major professional sports. If the Predators are to be moved, the argument for many American NHL owners will become why the NHL should relocate the franchise to a smaller Canadian market when there are American cities such as Houston, Kansas City, Portland and/or Seattle to tap?

NHL owners are driven by more than just the gate receipts. They're convinced that the path to greater viability - and legitimacy - in the modern sports marketplace is by enjoying the status that comes with being a major player in the United States... not just at the arena, BUT ON TELEVISION. An NHL team in Quebec, Winnipeg, Hamilton or Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo does nothing to help the NHL in that regard. They see a major presence in the United States and a major TV contract in the US as being a ticket to the "promised land". Frankly, they'll keep pushing and pushing that agenda until one of two things happens: either they succeed in jump-starting the NHL to bigger and better status in the US... or the league as we know it collapses.

By the way... in the modern world of major professional sports, the fans don't "deserve" anything... at least not in the minds of the owners. The owners pay the bills and they call the shots. To think anything else is woefully naive.

Look, the owners may well allow Balsillie to shift the team to Southern Ontario. Just don't imagine for a minute that such a move is a foregone conclusion.

[gojetsgo]

BiB, I think you are talking about the old NHL, not the new one. With revenue sharing in today's NHL, the more teams that make money, the richer all teams become. A team like Nashville receives money from revenue sharing, and thereby drags the league down. Financially successful teams, including all 6 Canadian teams this year, pay into revenue sharing.

NHL owners are interested in their bottom line, and I think they are no longer willing to wait another 10 years to see if the NHL can regain its status as a major sport in the U.S. I also think that most of them are realizing that is never going to happen.

Today's NHL is all about trying to make money season after season, not 15 years from now. Need evidence for the short term goals of NHL owners? count how many teams have had major ownership changes in the past decade: Anaheim, Buffalo, Colorado, Florida, Ottawa, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Montreal, New York Islanders, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Vancouver, Washington and now (likely) Nashville. That is HALF the teams in the league!

It seems to me that most owners are not buying into any long term plans. Team owners want to make money. The more financially successful teams there are in the league, the more money everyone makes.

What does this mean? Bye bye Nashville, hello Hamilton.