Back In The Game?

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

the reason the nhl is not a big deal in the states, has alot to do with the fact that there is very few players if any that capture the attention of the casual fan. in the past, you had gretzky who just anyone who watch sports in general knew who he was and probably watched to see what he is doing. may even catch what the local team is doing. now you don't have that player that captivates the sports fan like a shaq, kobe, lebron, peyton, jeter. the closest we have is Crosby and there is very few people who know or any care about crosby. aside from die hards and those living in the midwest, new england and canada, crosby is a virtual unknown. if the nhl had a star that like Lebron and Jeter, then the nhl might get some interest back. it also doesn't help there is virtually any coverage of hockey. The Dallas Stars in the Fort Worth Star Telegram barely makes it past page 6. usually being buried by Mavs, Cowboys, Rangers, Golf, Racing, peanuckle and field and stream. if news outlets aren't making a big deal out of the hockey teams, then how is the sports fans that read the print, listen to the ticket and espn radio and watch espn supposed to care if the media outlets don't even care. The NHL has done a piss poor job of making the sports fan actually care about the product and care about the players. I know oversaturation of crosby may grind peoples , but thats what they need to do if people are going to care about people like him and care about the sport.

[Mac the Knife]

Honestly I think the real reason hockey hasn't caught on in the United States somewhat parallels those of soccer: the casual fan doesn't understand that there's a strategy to the games, and as a result doesn't understand that a goal scored isn't just a product of pure, dumb luck.

Add to that the way hockey is presented on television in America (it isn't entirely spoon-fed as the NFL, NBA or MLB, though Fox to their credit tried). Hockey was viewed for nearly a century as a northeastern sport, and as such a conscious effort wasn't really made to educate the rest of the country on its nuances. Flash forward to today, where in cities where there are franchises in newer markets (Raleigh, Miami, Tampa, Dallas, etc.), the game is catching on - but with the younger generation moreso than the older set.

Hockey, like soccer, appears to have taken a multi-generational approach to its growth. Yeah, hockey fans of today lampoon the league for its shortcomings in some markets (Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville) but, given enough time coupled with a competitive on-ice product in those cities, ultimately solid fan bases capable of sustaining the franchises long-term would develop. It's already happened here in Raleigh with the Hurricanes: the kids and younger adults (under 30) have readily embraced the team, learning more about the sport as they go. The transplants to the area (myself included) followed the game up north, and look forward to seeing our old favorite teams (mostly here the Rangers and Penguins) take on the hometown club. Over time however, my likes will give way to the younger crowd that grew up watching the 'Canes, Lightning, Thrashers, etc., at which point the financial fortunes of those cities' clubs - and the NHL as a whole - will improve.

[DelayedPenalty]

Honestly I think the real reason hockey hasn't caught on in the United States somewhat parallels those of soccer: the casual fan doesn't understand that there's a strategy to the games, and as a result doesn't understand that a goal scored isn't just a product of pure, dumb luck.

Add to that the way hockey is presented on television in America (it isn't entirely spoon-fed as the NFL, NBA or MLB, though Fox to their credit tried). Hockey was viewed for nearly a century as a northeastern sport, and as such a conscious effort wasn't really made to educate the rest of the country on its nuances. Flash forward to today, where in cities where there are franchises in newer markets (Raleigh, Miami, Tampa, Dallas, etc.), the game is catching on - but with the younger generation moreso than the older set.

Hockey, like soccer, appears to have taken a multi-generational approach to its growth. Yeah, hockey fans of today lampoon the league for its shortcomings in some markets (Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville) but, given enough time coupled with a competitive on-ice product in those cities, ultimately solid fan bases capable of sustaining the franchises long-term would develop. It's already happened here in Raleigh with the Hurricanes: the kids and younger adults (under 30) have readily embraced the team, learning more about the sport as they go. The transplants to the area (myself included) followed the game up north, and look forward to seeing our old favorite teams (mostly here the Rangers and Penguins) take on the hometown club. Over time however, my likes will give way to the younger crowd that grew up watching the 'Canes, Lightning, Thrashers, etc., at which point the financial fortunes of those cities' clubs - and the NHL as a whole - will improve.

That's the solution! We take thousands of Canadians from the metro-Toronto area (Balsillie included), transplant them to Phoenix, let Jimmy buy the team, bada bing bada boom, instant Coyotes success! Bettman will have his precious oasis in the desert, Phoenix gets to keep their team, Balsillie will own a franchise. Everyone's happy!

[Sodboy13]

One problem: Canadians melt in any temperature above 95 F.

[Brian in Boston]

The reality of the situation is that Edmonton, Hartford, Quebec City and Winnipeg were never truly North American major-pro calibre markets to begin with. That isn't meant as an insult... it is simply a fact. They don't possess the metro population or corporate base necessary to survive amongst the "big boys" of the modern sports marketplace. If it hadn't been for the WHA needing to find some markets in which it didn't have to compete with the NHL, the likelihood that any of the four cities would have ever hosted a major-pro sports franchise - even ice hockey - is laughable.

Hell, Hartford and Quebec City weren't even first choices to host WHA teams: the franchises shifted from Boston and San Francisco respectively. It is debatable how long the Oilers would have lasted in Edmonton if they hadn't acquired Wayne Gretzky in Nelson Skalbania's Indianapolis Racers fire-sale. Clearly, the Gretzky-fueled run of four Stanley Cup victories in five years helped the team's bottom-line. That said, as salaries escalated the Oilers found themselves on "thin ice" financially, nearly moving to Houston. Winnipeg faced similar financial woes.

Truth be told, on the Canadian front only Montreal, Toronto and - to some extent - Vancouver really qualify as modern, "big market" cities that are capable of weathering the financial storms of competition at the North American major-pro level. Sure, the likes of Raleigh, Nashville and Anaheim may well raise eyebrows as "big market" cities. Fair enough. If the NHL were to contract from such cities tomorrow, and three more to get the league down to a manageable 24-team league, I've got news for you: Hartford, Quebec and Winnipeg still wouldn't be worthy of playing host to franchises.

Bottom line? This isn't the 1930s, '40s or '50s where any city with a civic-minded, deep-pocketed local businessman or group of citizens willing to pool their money can acquire a major-pro sports franchise. Market population and projected growth trends matter. Corporate presence matters. Television market size matters. Modern facilities - and a local government agency willing to pick-up the tab for a significant amount of the construction cost - matter. A city had better be bringing a combination of at least two of the four to the table or it hasn't got a chance of playing with the "big boys".

[Lee.]

Slightly off topic, but I disagree with your assumption of Winnipeg as a strong market, at least today. It's oft-discused on HF Boards and people much smarter than I in the economic arena (and Winnipeg residents to boot!) almost unanimously agree that Winnipeg can't keep up in the current NHL.

For the record, I'm firmly in the camp of Winnipeg not being strong or large enough for the NHL as it currently exists, I just used it for the sake of an argument, as well as for the purposes of my own nostalgia. My scenario was only for one year, as I also believe that Winnipeggers, being the sports-fickle bunch that they are, will go great guns for about 18 months supporting a new franchise before financial considerations start forcing them to make other decisions.

Carry on.

[SenatorJake]

The reality of the situation is that Edmonton, Hartford, Quebec City and Winnipeg were never truly North American major-pro calibre markets to begin with. That isn't meant as an insult... it is simply a fact. They don't possess the metro population or corporate base necessary to survive amongst the "big boys" of the modern sports marketplace. If it hadn't been for the WHA needing to find some markets in which it didn't have to compete with the NHL, the likelihood that any of the four cities would have ever hosted a major-pro sports franchise - even ice hockey - is laughable.

Hell, Hartford and Quebec City weren't even first choices to host WHA teams: the franchises shifted from Boston and San Francisco respectively. It is debatable how long the Oilers would have lasted in Edmonton if they hadn't acquired Wayne Gretzky in Nelson Skalbania's Indianapolis Racers fire-sale. Clearly, the Gretzky-fueled run of four Stanley Cup victories in five years helped the team's bottom-line. That said, as salaries escalated the Oilers found themselves on "thin ice" financially, nearly moving to Houston. Winnipeg faced similar financial woes.

Truth be told, on the Canadian front only Montreal, Toronto and - to some extent - Vancouver really qualify as modern, "big market" cities that are capable of weathering the financial storms of competition at the North American major-pro level. Sure, the likes of Raleigh, Nashville and Anaheim may well raise eyebrows as "big market" cities. Fair enough. If the NHL were to contract from such cities tomorrow, and three more to get the league down to a manageable 24-team league, I've got news for you: Hartford, Quebec and Winnipeg still wouldn't be worthy of playing host to franchises.

Bottom line? This isn't the 1930s, '40s or '50s where any city with a civic-minded, deep-pocketed local businessman or group of citizens willing to pool their money can acquire a major-pro sports franchise. Market population and projected growth trends matter. Corporate presence matters. Television market size matters. Modern facilities - and a local government agency willing to pick-up the tab for a significant amount of the construction cost - matter. A city had better be bringing a combination of at least two of the four to the table or it hasn't got a chance of playing with the "big boys".

Good post with many valid points. The thing that is somewhat confusing though is that you are (judging from your previous posts as well as this one) essentially arguing that Phoenix should have an NHL team and that Edmonton shouldn't. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

That makes some sense in theory, but when you look at it on paper, it's completely irrational.

[twi]

Though I do want to thank you. And I'm not being sarcastic. I'm serious, thank you for taking the time to respond to my question with a well thought out explanation. It was nice to read after the "RARRR" post from twi.

lol. Point of advice, don't ever get into a debate over anything meaningful.

Mac has a great point about the comparison to soccer. imo, it has to do with the fluid offense and defense. Baseball and football are a little more separated, one side is always offense and the other is exclusively defense. And of course the tv thing, I can see how hockey would be a hard game to get on tv if you've never played/learned the finer points.

[HedleyLamarr]

Honestly I think the real reason hockey hasn't caught on in the United States somewhat parallels those of soccer: the casual fan doesn't understand that there's a strategy to the games, and as a result doesn't understand that a goal scored isn't just a product of pure, dumb luck.

Add to that the way hockey is presented on television in America (it isn't entirely spoon-fed as the NFL, NBA or MLB, though Fox to their credit tried). Hockey was viewed for nearly a century as a northeastern sport, and as such a conscious effort wasn't really made to educate the rest of the country on its nuances. Flash forward to today, where in cities where there are franchises in newer markets (Raleigh, Miami, Tampa, Dallas, etc.), the game is catching on - but with the younger generation moreso than the older set.

Hockey, like soccer, appears to have taken a multi-generational approach to its growth. Yeah, hockey fans of today lampoon the league for its shortcomings in some markets (Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville) but, given enough time coupled with a competitive on-ice product in those cities, ultimately solid fan bases capable of sustaining the franchises long-term would develop. It's already happened here in Raleigh with the Hurricanes: the kids and younger adults (under 30) have readily embraced the team, learning more about the sport as they go. The transplants to the area (myself included) followed the game up north, and look forward to seeing our old favorite teams (mostly here the Rangers and Penguins) take on the hometown club. Over time however, my likes will give way to the younger crowd that grew up watching the 'Canes, Lightning, Thrashers, etc., at which point the financial fortunes of those cities' clubs - and the NHL as a whole - will improve.

To add to this, in most of the American markets (especially the Sun Belt markets), they don't have this homegrown kid that gets attention the way he would if he played a different sport. Atlantans got to know players such as Jeff Francoeur, Dwight Howard, and Quincy Carter when they were playing in high school. They follow these players through high school, through college, and into their pro careers. Folks in Atlanta and Raleigh and Phoenix will almost never have this homegrown kid (at least, in the near future), and even folks in markets such as Chicago and New York and Denver won't be exposed to their homegrown hockey players in comparison to their peers playing football and basketball in the amateur ranks. Also, most casual fans don't know who the hell the teams are drafting, other than "This Canadian guy" or "That Russian guy".

The television aspect has gotten better, though. For a few games during the playoffs, I went to a bar/restaurant with friends and co-workers to watch these games. Folks at the place not accustomed to watching hockey noticed a change with the new TV technology: They can now see the puck without being right in front of the TV. TV coverage of live action has a ways to go, but with HDTV and these new advances on TV watching, hockey's now got a chance to be appealing to the casual/new fan of the sport.

[Still MIGHTY]

Honestly I think the real reason hockey hasn't caught on in the United States somewhat parallels those of soccer: the casual fan doesn't understand that there's a strategy to the games, and as a result doesn't understand that a goal scored isn't just a product of pure, dumb luck.

Add to that the way hockey is presented on television in America (it isn't entirely spoon-fed as the NFL, NBA or MLB, though Fox to their credit tried). Hockey was viewed for nearly a century as a northeastern sport, and as such a conscious effort wasn't really made to educate the rest of the country on its nuances. Flash forward to today, where in cities where there are franchises in newer markets (Raleigh, Miami, Tampa, Dallas, etc.), the game is catching on - but with the younger generation moreso than the older set.

Hockey, like soccer, appears to have taken a multi-generational approach to its growth. Yeah, hockey fans of today lampoon the league for its shortcomings in some markets (Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville) but, given enough time coupled with a competitive on-ice product in those cities, ultimately solid fan bases capable of sustaining the franchises long-term would develop. It's already happened here in Raleigh with the Hurricanes: the kids and younger adults (under 30) have readily embraced the team, learning more about the sport as they go. The transplants to the area (myself included) followed the game up north, and look forward to seeing our old favorite teams (mostly here the Rangers and Penguins) take on the hometown club. Over time however, my likes will give way to the younger crowd that grew up watching the 'Canes, Lightning, Thrashers, etc., at which point the financial fortunes of those cities' clubs - and the NHL as a whole - will improve.

To add to this, in most of the American markets (especially the Sun Belt markets), they don't have this homegrown kid that gets attention the way he would if he played a different sport. Atlantans got to know players such as Jeff Francoeur, Dwight Howard, and Quincy Carter when they were playing in high school. They follow these players through high school, through college, and into their pro careers. Folks in Atlanta and Raleigh and Phoenix will almost never have this homegrown kid (at least, in the near future), and even folks in markets such as Chicago and New York and Denver won't be exposed to their homegrown hockey players in comparison to their peers playing football and basketball in the amateur ranks. Also, most casual fans don't know who the hell the teams are drafting, other than "This Canadian guy" or "That Russian guy".

The television aspect has gotten better, though. For a few games during the playoffs, I went to a bar/restaurant with friends and co-workers to watch these games. Folks at the place not accustomed to watching hockey noticed a change with the new TV technology: They can now see the puck without being right in front of the TV. TV coverage of live action has a ways to go, but with HDTV and these new advances on TV watching, hockey's now got a chance to be appealing to the casual/new fan of the sport.

To the first point, some kids from those markets are starting to penetrate into the NHL/AHL scene. I know there several kids drafted from SoCal and North Carolina recently. Bobby Ryan of the Ducks (picked #2 behind Crosby) actually played for the Jr. Kings for the short time he lived in SoCal, and the Ducks have a defenseman in their system, Brian Salcido, who is of Hispanic heritage and from Hermosa Beach (I can't wait for this kid to stick with the Ducks, which should be next season. I just know he'll easily become a fan favorite). But yes on the whole there aren't a lot of guys that are prominent in the NHL from these areas yet.

To add on to that, when you mention following athletes through high school and college and amateurs, if kids from down south are any good at hockey, they almost always go north to the Canadian junior leagues. That's where the big names and big talent go. NCAA hockey is only in the Northeast and Midwest (+ Denver) and it's not even the premier amateur setting for hockey players. So even when there are good American players, you will never see/hear about them down here unless you look for it or are "in the know" in local hockey circles. So even good local American players, you'll hear about them while they still play in the area, but once they leave, you won't hear about them again until they actually make the NHL and they mention his hometown. So even taking away the fact that most fans don't know about the European prospects or even Canadian prospects, it is damn near impossible to hear about their own domestic products.

And yes, HDTV has been a godsend for hockey.

With the current swell in interest of hockey thanks to the amazing playoffs, hopefully the TV technologies improve. I can't even stand to watch standard definition hockey anymore. Get the NHL on ESPN again and abuse the HDTV technology and all coming advances, and the TV enjoyment aspect of the game will increase dramatically.

[CubsFanBudMan]

It's probably just me, but as a casual fan who didn't grow up with the sport, I enjoy watching hockey the most from up high and in the "end zones" when in person. It just seems like I can follow the action better and the movement of the players. Could be from growing up playing EA hockey, too.

I just wonder if TV went away from the football- and basketball-traditional horizontal and tried more vertical shots if it would add to the viewing experience. The few times I saw it used in the playoffs I liked it. But I defer to the many hockey experts here...

HD has been great for it, though.

[Gothamite]

The obvious problem that I see with that is that televisions have a landscape orientation, and it's only getting more so. Hard to fit a vertical rink into that widescreen.

You do raise a good point, though - the NHL should promote innovation in its television partners. For every couple glowing pucks you might actually get something worth keeping, that will help set your sport apart in a very crowded marketplace.

[Brian in Boston]

The thing that is somewhat confusing though is that you are (judging from your previous posts as well as this one) essentially arguing that Phoenix should have an NHL team and that Edmonton shouldn't. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

That makes some sense in theory, but when you look at it on paper, it's completely irrational.

What I'm arguing is that I understand the rationale that informs the decisions of North American major-pro sports owners and league executives when it comes to siting franchises in the modern era. They look at Greater Phoenix and see a core municipality with a population of 1.5 million people, a metro area with a population of over 4 million residents, a growth rate during the past decade of over 30%, the #12 Nielsen TV market in the country, five Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the region and - perhaps, most importantly - a community like Glendale that was willing to pick-up the $180-million construction tab to build the state-of-the-art Glendale (now Jobing.com) Arena.

Now, what city from amongst Edmonton, Hartford, Quebec City, Winnipeg or Hamilton offers a larger municipal population or metro area population than Phoenix? Which of these cities is growing as fast as Phoenix? Modern major-pro sports owners see such figures as indicative of pools from which to draw potential fanbases. Which is a larger TV market? Such a consideration is important when negotiating the value of contracts with broadcast partners. Which plays host to more Fortune 500 companies? Said businesses are seen as potential corporate partners, paying for naming rights and purchasing lucrative club-seats and luxury boxes. Which of the cities in question is willing to foot-the-bill for construction of a brand-new, state-of-the-art arena? Now, go back and tell me which of the cities outstrips Phoenix in more than one category... if any?

Bottom line? It seems apparent that a majority of the NHL's owners and executives believe that if they can secure a financially-sound, business-savvy new owner for the Phoenix Coyotes, who - in turn - can renegotiate the team's rather onerous lease at Jobing.com Arena (a source of a significant amount of the team's financial problems), than the upside of the Phoenix market far outweighs the pluses of the other cities I've mentioned. Which, given the Coyotes' travails to date, really says something about both the perceived strengths of Phoenix... and the perceived shortcomings in the other markets.

Further, when it comes to the hopes of Hamilton, Quebec City and Winnipeg ever again landing an NHL franchise, fans in those markets are actually placed at a disadvantage due to the unrivaled passion that Canadians feel for the sport ice hockey. Why? Because, NHL owners and executives know that the Canadian fanbase for their sport is a captive one. It isn't going anywhere, whether the league accedes to said fans' wishes to place more NHL franchises in Canada or not. The vast majority of Canadian hockey fans would never follow-through on pronouncements to boycott the NHL if the league continued to eschew cities like Hamilton, Quebec City and Winnipeg for markets like Nashville, Miami and Phoenix. Sure, some may well make a lot of noise about doing so. However, when push comes to shove, Canadians will continue to buy tickets to NHL games, continue to religiously tune-in to NHL broadcasts and continue to purchase NHL licensed products by the gross... without the league having to grant franchises to the likes of Hamilton, Quebec City or Winnipeg.

I stand by my assessment: in the modern era, Edmonton, Hartford, Quebec City, Winnipeg - even Hamilton - don't cut it as major-pro markets. They'd be hard-pressed to secure a franchise... if at all.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Yeah, I was just thinking more "half-ice" shots. Not explaining it correctly, but I saw them do it a few times in the playoffs. I agree that any innovation is probably worth trying. People still talk about the glowing puck, which can't be all bad for hockey if the BCS-college football mentality is used.

[njmeadowlanders]

Yeah, I was just thinking more "half-ice" shots. Not explaining it correctly, but I saw them do it a few times in the playoffs. I agree that any innovation is probably worth trying. People still talk about the glowing puck, which can't be all bad for hockey if the BCS-college football mentality is used.

Just to play Devil's Advocate though, a potential problem is that for every one that works, what if there are two or three that don't? Then you'll get the "this is dumber than the glow puck they tried a decade ago so thanks but no thanks" audience that would then probably be further driven away in the end.

[IceCap]

Though I do want to thank you. And I'm not being sarcastic. I'm serious, thank you for taking the time to respond to my question with a well thought out explanation. It was nice to read after the "RARRR" post from twi.

lol. Point of advice, don't ever get into a debate over anything meaningful.

I'd be offended somewhat if it weren't for the total lunacy of your post. All I got from you was "Rarrr I like a southern team!"

Your major points, about potential ownership, meant nothing, as the primary concern of the argument, at the time, was the arena situations in QC, Winnipeg, and Pittsburgh, and why Mr. Bettman fought tooth and nail to keep a team in one, and stood by while teams left the other two for new markets, one of which is now proved to be a 13 years, $300+ million flop.

Bottom line? It seems apparent that a majority of the NHL's owners and executives believe that if they can secure a financially-sound, business-savvy new owner for the Phoenix Coyotes, who - in turn - can renegotiate the team's rather onerous lease at Jobing.com Arena (a source of a significant amount of the team's financial problems), than the upside of the Phoenix market far outweighs the pluses of the other cities I've mentioned. Which, given the Coyotes' travails to date, really says something about both the perceived strengths of Phoenix... and the perceived shortcomings in the other markets.

All fine in theory. Except that this isn't 1996 and we're not talking about Phoenix as a potential market, we're talking about it as a proven market 13 years in. And when compared to, say, Edmonton, as a NHL market Edmonton blows Phoenix away.

All the benefits Phoenix brings don't mean much if they can't get people to show up for the games.

Furthermore you never really address the main point. That being why didn't Mr. Bettman fight tooth and nail to keep the Jets and Nords where they were. He claimed he didn't want to see those teams move, which it has been shown is an outright lie.

And you yourself have admitted that many of the new NHL markets since barley beat out Winnipeg and QC when it comes to being "big league" markets.

So what's your answer? Just that Winnipeg and QC were never major markets to begin with, so Bettman letting them move was ok? If that's the case then why not move the Buffalo Sabres? Heck, lets force the Green Bay Packers to Milwaukee.

Really, I don't get your point. Yes, QC and Winnipeg aren't "major league" when it comes to some other potential markets, but so what? If this is just about the NHL preserving teams where they are, why didn't Mr. Bettman do all he could to keep the Jets and Nords where they were, like he did with the Penguins? That's right, he didn't because he wanted to see those teams leave, and any claim he's made since that he didn't is a lie.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I was just thinking more "half-ice" shots. Not explaining it correctly, but I saw them do it a few times in the playoffs. I agree that any innovation is probably worth trying. People still talk about the glowing puck, which can't be all bad for hockey if the BCS-college football mentality is used.

Just to play Devil's Advocate though, a potential problem is that for every one that works, what if there are two or three that don't? Then you'll get the "this is dumber than the glow puck they tried a decade ago so thanks but no thanks" audience that would then probably be further driven away in the end.

But that was on the networks. There's a pretty big difference. The stage is so much smaller on Versus that they can afford to take some chances.

[charger77]

So are they bringing back the Whalers or not?

-Dan

[highlanders08]

The thing that is somewhat confusing though is that you are (judging from your previous posts as well as this one) essentially arguing that Phoenix should have an NHL team and that Edmonton shouldn't. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

That makes some sense in theory, but when you look at it on paper, it's completely irrational.

Bottom line? It seems apparent that a majority of the NHL's owners and executives believe that if they can secure a financially-sound, business-savvy new owner for the Phoenix Coyotes, who - in turn - can renegotiate the team's rather onerous lease at Jobing.com Arena (a source of a significant amount of the team's financial problems), than the upside of the Phoenix market far outweighs the pluses of the other cities I've mentioned. Which, given the Coyotes' travails to date,

It's not about the upside anymore...for comparison's sake, you're making it seem like you're talking about Phoenix as if its a high pick in the NBA draft that has a lot of upside. However, what you should actually be looking at it as is that Phoenix is now a 13 veteran who is officially a bust from that draft.

[HedleyLamarr]

Though I do want to thank you. And I'm not being sarcastic. I'm serious, thank you for taking the time to respond to my question with a well thought out explanation. It was nice to read after the "RARRR" post from twi.

lol. Point of advice, don't ever get into a debate over anything meaningful.

I'd be offended somewhat if it weren't for the total lunacy of your post. All I got from you was "Rarrr I like a southern team!"

Your major points, about potential ownership, meant nothing, as the primary concern of the argument, at the time, was the arena situations in QC, Winnipeg, and Pittsburgh, and why Mr. Bettman fought tooth and nail to keep a team in one, and stood by while teams left the other two for new markets, one of which is now proved to be a 13 years, $300+ million flop.

Bottom line? It seems apparent that a majority of the NHL's owners and executives believe that if they can secure a financially-sound, business-savvy new owner for the Phoenix Coyotes, who - in turn - can renegotiate the team's rather onerous lease at Jobing.com Arena (a source of a significant amount of the team's financial problems), than the upside of the Phoenix market far outweighs the pluses of the other cities I've mentioned. Which, given the Coyotes' travails to date, really says something about both the perceived strengths of Phoenix... and the perceived shortcomings in the other markets.

All fine in theory. Except that this isn't 1996 and we're not talking about Phoenix as a potential market, we're talking about it as a proven market 13 years in. And when compared to, say, Edmonton, as a NHL market Edmonton blows Phoenix away.

All the benefits Phoenix brings don't mean much if they can't get people to show up for the games.

Furthermore you never really address the main point. That being why didn't Mr. Bettman fight tooth and nail to keep the Jets and Nords where they were. He claimed he didn't want to see those teams move, which it has been shown is an outright lie.

And you yourself have admitted that many of the new NHL markets since barley beat out Winnipeg and QC when it comes to being "big league" markets.

So what's your answer? Just that Winnipeg and QC were never major markets to begin with, so Bettman letting them move was ok? If that's the case then why not move the Buffalo Sabres? Heck, lets force the Green Bay Packers to Milwaukee.

Really, I don't get your point. Yes, QC and Winnipeg aren't "major league" when it comes to some other potential markets, but so what? If this is just about the NHL preserving teams where they are, why didn't Mr. Bettman do all he could to keep the Jets and Nords where they were, like he did with the Penguins? That's right, he didn't because he wanted to see those teams leave, and any claim he's made since that he didn't is a lie.

How much pull did Bettman really have to keep the teams in Winnipeg and Quebec City? He can say all he wants about wanting to keep the Jets and Nordiques in their current locations, but if an owner's losing money fast (apparently, the Canadian economy/dollar sucked in the mid-90's) and decides to sell to another owner to stop his financial bleeding, and that new owner wants to move the team to another market....does Bettman really have the power to tell the new owner "No, you can't move that team!"?

Also, 13 years ago, the NHL had to collective economic plan in place. Each team was basically on it's own, and go make as much money as you can, even if that means relocating a team. Now, the NHL does have a unified economic structure. In the 90's, the NHL and the owners were fawning for that "fast money" through expansion fees and relocating to richer markets. Bettman was guilty of chasing that fast money, but not any more guilty than any other owner in the NHL at that time.

Bettman wants to keep the team in Phoenix because he doesn't want to alienate the Phoenix fanbase. Bettman would be saying the same things for every team, whether it be Phoenix or Edmonton.