The Viability of Florida Cities as Sports Markets

[njmeadowlanders]

The Dolphins had a playoff game against Indianapolis about a decade ago blacked out because they had (if I recall correctly) roughly 10,000 unsold seats. I listened to that one on the radio in a rental car. That's all you need to know about the market.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The regurgitation of straight up BS. Where are you getting your information from, "pal"? I was at that game. Close to 74K for that thriller (capacity 75K). Get your facts right.

Calm down. He's right. That game was blacked out due to unsold tickets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/30/sports/plus-pro-football-dolphins-shut-out-on-television.html

http://articles.philly.com/2000-12-30/sports/25577772_1_dolphins-quarterbacks-coach-playoff

So you wanted facts. Here they are.

Thank you. See, I don't make stuff like that up. I sat in a rental minivan in Boca listening to the game on the radio because of it. Why would I make that up?

[BBTV]

3. "A day at the beach is cheaper than going to a ballgame." Can't argue that when you're a summertime sport being played in a city with long summers.

It is hard to argue with that. It also means the market, in all likelihood, just isn't cut out for Major League Baseball.

I dunno. 40% of the Philadelphia metro area either spends significant time at the beach (full / half summer rental, weekends, or like me, day trips every week and some weekends) and there's no problem with filling seats (though that'll be tested now that the team blows again.) And a Phillies game is considerably more pricey than a Rays game, especially considering tolls to come back from the beach. I realize the Rays aren't exactly the Coyotes, but still.

It has to do with culture. The Phillies are part of the culture of the community (along with the shore), so it's not uncommon for people with game packages to drive the hour back from the beach to a game, then head back to vacation. I do think that it takes time for a team to become part of an area's culture. This isn't the Colorado Avalanche, where it's a market in which the sport (even if not the team) is already ingrained.

I've always been of the mindset that all of the arguments that Floridians throw out there explaining the poor support for the Rays were hogwash, but I'm starting to lighten my stance on that some. Maybe it's just that I'm getting older and my time is more valuable, but honestly I probably wouldn't make any substantial effort on a regular basis to go see a sports team in a trashy facility with no true baseball or entertainment atmosphere. At least with the Vet, there was a long-established tailgating / partying culture, plus the place had some history, so it was worth it. The Trop doesn't have any of that. The thing is, what do you do? Spend a ton to get out of a lease then spend even more to build a new stadium on the hunch that it will work out? I think they are doomed by 1) incredibly poor planning by the city and MLB (should never have built that place, and should never have been awarded a team under those circumstances) and 2) the overall culture of the area (and of the other metro areas on Florida), which just isn't conducive to supporting pro teams (or at least has never proven so.) That's certainly not to say that there aren't a few great / supportive fans there, but overall it's just not something that's going to work.

Also, college support is completely irrelevant to any type of discussion like this.

[leopard88]

But no, teams in good markets don't require two decades to set in. They're embraced early, and successive generations of fans only solidify the fanbase that was already there.

The Ravens have been in Baltimore for 17 years. It took a lot less time than that for them to develop a very solid fanbase that has reached into its second generation.

Success on the field has certainly helped. However, the Ravens' track record belies the notion that you need two decades to develop a fanbase.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Baltimore was already full of football fans though. The Colts had only been gone, what, 12 years or so? They were orphaned fans and were hungry for a team.

[The_Admiral]

Let's be honest, "you need to give us 20 years first" isn't about football. Or basketball. Or most baseball.

[leopard88]

Baltimore was already full of football fans though. The Colts had only been gone, what, 12 years or so? They were orphaned fans and were hungry for a team

I will give you that. However, St. Louis was in essentially the same position when the Rams came to town . . , only the hiatus was shorter.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Yes they were, and almost in the same situation success-wise. Won a Superbowl 4 years after coming to town and remained competitive for quite some time.

[IceCap]

2) the overall culture of the area (and of the other metro areas on Florida), which just isn't conducive to supporting pro teams (or at least has never proven so.) That's certainly not to say that there aren't a few great / supportive fans there, but overall it's just not something that's going to work.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. The Bucs had a pretty long season ticket waiting list at one point and the Lightning always seem to be at the level of respectability when it comes to local support. They're not the Eagles and Flyers, but I wouldn't call Tampa a failed NHL/NFL market.

Miami is just...it's weird. Their NFL, MLB, and NBA teams should have more support then they do, but at the same time it's Miami. It seems weird to leave them out of any league circuit (well save for the NHL). So long as support isn't embarrassingly bad I don't think you can come down to hard on Miami.

The only Florida organizations I'd say just can't work in the long term are the Panthers, Rays, and Jags. Granted those are terrible situations, but I'd say the good (or at least the passable) outweighs the bad in Florida.

Let's be honest, "you need to give us 20 years first" isn't about football. Or basketball. Or most baseball.

Indeed. It's mostly hockey re: southern teams. And it's one that doesn't really hold up. The Lightning, Hurricanes, Stars, and Predators all seem to have carved out niches of themselves. They're not the top ticket in their respective cities, but it's hockey in the south. That's never going to happen. They've managed to do just fine all things considered.

So if the Hurricanes didn't need 25-30 years to establish a dedicated core fanbase why should I believe the Coyotes need that long?

And my previous argument about 25-30 years not being economically viable is doubly true when it comes to hockey. Hockey, at least in the States, seems to have the least chance to turn a profit when compared to the other three. Lose hundreds of millions over a full decade on the chance that this unproven market will be great? What sane investor's going to back that plan when you have markets you know are great right now?

[The_Admiral]

Funny, I've found Hurricanes fans to be among the loudest in the "give us 20 years" crowd. That place is empty for games. Probably because of what a crappy organization it is but also because it's a small town with three top college basketball teams.

[rams80]

Yes they were, and almost in the same situation success-wise. Won a Superbowl 4 years after coming to town and remained competitive for quite some time.

Can I live in your universe?

[The_Admiral]

Hey, five years is some time.

[RyanB06]

Funny, I've found Hurricanes fans to be among the loudest in the "give us 20 years" crowd. That place is empty for games. Probably because of what a crappy organization it is but also because it's a small town with three top college basketball teams.

And this is what they left Hartford for.

Brilliant move, Ponytail Pete.

(Yes, I'm still bitter. Deal with it. )

[TheOldRoman]

Interesting thoughts, thanks. This one I have to take issue with:

Fifteen years is more than long enough to make inroads into any decent market. Especially when the team is consistently good, with marketable young stars. Fifteen years means that every kid in attendance has had the Rays as far back as they can remember. What exactly is Tampa Bay waiting for?

I'm not defending TB, as I said them not supporting this team is terrible. But in honesty, the (Devil) Rays were a punchline for ten of those 16 years. Last place 9/10 seasons, signing over-the-hill players so they could get on a HOF plaque. The only reason to come out to games was the see the Yankees or Red Sox most of the time. And of course, it was an armpit of a stadium in a festering anus of a location, from my understanding. They should have been able to build a fanbase through just having a team there, but let's not act like Tampa Bay has been treated to a decade of competitive baseball. They were a joke before 2008, in a constant state of (re)building.

I do understand the importance of lineage. The Devil Rays were not ingrained, were never a part of the culture of the region. How many babies were dressed in D-Rays outfits before 2008? Not very many. I had a Sox cap when I was an infant, and I learned that it was a part of my family. I had a baby Bears jersey on while my family was watching Super Bowl XX. I grew up with those teams ingrained from my family and region. I get that it would be hard to build from the ground up, particularly when so many fans in the area support landmark teams. That being said, they have seemingly made no inroads since 2008. I think someone on here debunked the idea of them having phenominal TV ratings. Still, even if the Rays could get out of the lease with St. Pete, and could get a new stadium built in downtown Tampa, would you as an owner want to risk it? After seeing how this market reacted to the last 6 years, I don't think I'd want to mortgage the next 30 years (and the remainder of my tenure) on the hope that the TV ratings will start to show up at the gate.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I thought signing Canseco, Boggs, Greg Vaughn (remember him?) and Fred McGriff was pretty smart, actually. Unlike previous expansion teams, they had four guys they could (and did) plaster on billboards and that were genuine attractions at the time. That they sucked was no surprise, but they were at least people you knew and would theoretically do something exciting.

Putting a team in that stadium, however, was not smart.

[The_Admiral]

I think it would be pretty cool if the Panthers played in Miami and actively tried to get non-white people into the game, but they're just content to run up to Broward and be a hospitality house for displaced New Yorkers and vacationing Montrealers. Whatevz.

[IceCap]

Funny, I've found Hurricanes fans to be among the loudest in the "give us 20 years" crowd. That place is empty for games. Probably because of what a crappy organization it is but also because it's a small town with three top college basketball teams.

I don't watch many Hurricane games, but I've always thought they were one of those sunbelt teams that carved out a niche just large enough to make a go of it. It's not Hartford, which is preferable, but it's also not Sunrise. At least it wasn't the last time I checked. The team doesn't really register on my radar unless they're playing a team I care about or trying to look like the Red Wings.

I think it would be pretty cool if the Panthers played in Miami and actively tried to get non-white people into the game, but they're just content to run up to Broward and be a hospitality house for displaced New Yorkers and vacationing Montrealers. Whatevz.

Granted I was young at the time so maybe I'm remembering things wrong, but didn't the Panthers draw relatively well when they played in Miami-proper? It's probably too toxic to fix by moving them back now, but there seemed to be a period where it looked promising.

[The_Admiral]

I think the Hurricanes are just one of those teams that draws respectably when they're winning and poorly when they're losing. They've been losing. Furthermore, the organization has a GM-for-life who sucks at his job and an owner who just wants to have his little country club. They'll do whatever it takes to win, as long as Jim Rutherford is in charge and he doesn't trade those adorable little Staals. It's a big waste. People are always fast to say what was wrong with Hartford, but this. isn't. better.

And yeah, the Panthers drew big crowds for a small arena when they played in Miami. The Pink Elephant (which, as it happens, was only like two blocks west of where the AAA is now) was probably one of the worst arenas in the NHL, but the early adopters really made it work. I'd be curious to see whether the Panthers actually did try to make inroads with non-white Miamians the first time around, and if it failed.

[Brian in Boston]

As someone who spent a great deal of my life growing up in Greater Hartford, and whose family held season-tickets to both the WHA and NHL incarnations of the Whalers franchise for the entirety of its existence in Connecticut, I beg to differ with the notion that Hartford constitutes a so-called "traditional hockey market" that would be bound to succeed as a host to an NHL team where "non-traditional markets" like Miami, Nashville, Phoenix, Raleigh, etc have failed. Frankly, that's revisionist history driven by dewey-eyed nostalgia.

Hartford, Connecticut wasn't on anyone's radar as any type of hockey market - "traditional", or otherwise - prior to the World Hockey Association's New England Whalers turning up looking for a place to play in 1974. Even then, it wasn't as if Whaler ownership's decision to set-up shop in Hartford was born out of the notion that the city was the perfect place to play host to a professional hockey franchise. Rather, because the team had found it difficult to secure an attractive arena lease in a city - Boston - that was already home to the NHL Bruins, AHL Braves, and college programs at BU, BC, and Northeastern, the Whalers were forced to look elsewhere after two seasons in the Massachusetts capital. Given that the team's owners were all New England natives who weren't particularly inclined to establish themselves as absentee owners in some other region of the United States, they hoped to find a suitable arena in another New England city. Lo and behold, the brand new Hartford Civic Center was scheduled to open in the spring of 1975. And so, Hartford became a pro hockey market - by default - in the mid-1970s.

This begs the question, if Hartford is such a "traditional hockey market", why is it that no arena existed in the city prior to the mid-1970s that was equipped to play host to any level of the sport above the schoolboy tier? Why is it that no local fans of the sport successfully agitated to have, at the very least, a minor-pro or senior-amateur team set-up shop in the city prior to 1974? Why is it that no enterprising businessmen regarded Hartford as a potentially successful minor-pro market? After all, there are New England cities - Providence, RI; New Haven, CT; Springfield, MA amongst them - that played host to minor-pro and senior-amateur hockey as far back as 1926, and maintained teams right up through the modern era. Somehow, despite its status as a "traditional hockey market", Hartford never managed to place a team in such minor-pro/senior-amateur circuits as the Canadian-American Hockey League, the International-American Hockey League, the American Hockey League, the Eastern Hockey League, the North American Hockey League, the New England Hockey League, etc.

Still, there's no need to turn our attention to the period of time between 1926 and 1974 in order to question Hartford's status as a "traditional hockey market". In truth, we need only look at Hartford's tenure as a National Hockey League market in order to call into question the city's dubious claim to "traditional hockey market" status.

Frankly, if everyone who now claims to have supported the Whalers back in the day had actually attended games when the team existed, than there wouldn't have been seasons when the team's average attendance was under 12,000 fans per game. That was the case in 9 of the 17 seasons the Whalers called the Hartford Civic Center home for a full year. I'm sorry, but there's simply no excuse for seasons like 1982-83 (10,586), 1983-84 (11,506), 1991-92 (10,896), 1992-93 (10,144), and 1993-94 (10,407). There's no excuse for a 1991-92 playoff series against division rival Montreal - a storied "Original Six" franchise - in which the Whalers averaged 8,384 fans per home game. The Whalers drew 6,728 fans for Game Three, 10,071 fans for Game Four, and 8,353 fans for Game Six. I know this to be a fact, because my family and I were in attendance for all three games. To say that the turnout was disappointing would be an understatement. The reality is that said turnout was nothing short of an embarassment for a market that was purported to be "major-league", let alone a "traditional hockey market".

Look, I'm well aware of the Whalers' on-ice woes and the fact that they contributed to the attendance problems in the more moribund seasons. I was in the Hartford Civic Center with my father and brothers watching the pitiful product that was all-too-often put before the public. However, the fact of the matter is that there's simply no way to insure a winning team year in and year out. That's particularly true when you're facing the financial restrictions that are the reality for small-market franchises.

There's no question that there are markets in the NHL today that have proven themselves incapable of adequately supporting a major-pro ice hockey team in the modern era of sports. That said, replacing any of those markets with Hartford is simply swapping-out one troubled market for another. The Whalers were - and, would once again become - a textbook example of the challenges facing small-market major-pro sports franchises. In order for a Hartford-based major-pro team to enjoy even marginal "success" over the long term, it would have to consistently - and successfully - market itself to the entirety of the State of Connecticut. That's not going to happen so long as portions of Windham County have more in common with Greater Boston's MetroWest region, and parts of New Haven County and the entirety of Fairfield County consider themselves New York City's "Sixth Borough". Factor-in a Nielsen TV market that is smaller than all but two of the 20 U.S. television markets playing host to the NHL today. Having done that, consider the fact that the Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Area is smaller than all but two of the 20 U.S. metro areas playing host to the NHL today.

Hartford is not - and, in point of fact, never was - a "traditional hockey market" on the order of a Boston, Chicago, Buffalo, Detroit, or Minneapolis-St. Paul, to say nothing of any Canadian locale. During my time growing-up in Connecticut, hockey wasn't even the most popular winter sport at the schoolboy level... at least not in the public schools. Basketball was far more popular, with ice hockey's popularity largely being centered on prep school campuses populated by students from out of state. Hartford was fortunate to land a relocated WHA franchise, let alone spend 18 seasons playing host to an NHL team. The city is not, simply because it is located in a region of the United States where winter is marked by considerable snowfall and frozen ponds, going to succeed as a modern NHL market where other so-called "non-traditional" markets have failed.

Botom line? A terrific logo, a catchy goal song, a couple of thousand (aging) die-hard fans, and outstanding sales of throwback souvenir merchandise does not mean that Hartford is a "traditional hockey market" capable of supporting a modern major-pro sports franchise.

[The_Admiral]

I beg to differ with the notion that Hartford constitutes a so-called "traditional hockey market" that would be bound to succeed as a host to an NHL team where "non-traditional markets" like Miami, Nashville, Phoenix, Raleigh, etc have failed.

. . .

There's no question that there are markets in the NHL today that have proven themselves incapable of adequately supporting a major-pro ice hockey team in the modern era of sports. That said, replacing any of those markets with Hartford is simply swapping-out one troubled market for another. The Whalers were - and, would once again become - a textbook example of the challenges facing small-market major-pro sports franchises.

. . .

Factor-in a Nielsen TV market that is smaller than all but two of the 20 U.S. television markets playing host to the NHL today. Having done that, consider the fact that the Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Area is smaller than all but two of the 20 U.S. metro areas playing host to the NHL today.

Right, I get all this, but my point has always been that if you're going to have a small market getting by on a wing, a prayer, and a revenue sharing check, which you're simply going to have in a league where market stress takes a lot of places off the map (the same way the modern NBA won't go to St. Louis, Buffalo, or Pittsburgh), that they'd have been better off staying in Hartford than going to Raleigh. That's what I've always maintained. It wouldn't and couldn't be night and day, but it wouldn't be the NHL's weird dead spot that it is now. Of course, it's hard to tell how much of that is the challenges of trying to be a hockey team in a three-basketball-team town, or a civic-pride institution in a transplant town, and how much is the general Karmanos weirdness that stops the team from being any good, but here we are. It sucks. Big waste. Should have stayed in Hartford. It's having ten cents in your pocket instead of nine cents, but I'd rather have the ten cents.

You could say the same thing for having Los Angeles instead of Jacksonville, to get back on topic.

[IceCap]

There's no question that there are markets in the NHL today that have proven themselves incapable of adequately supporting a major-pro ice hockey team in the modern era of sports.

I'm glad we're all finally at that point, but it did take a while.

That said, replacing any of those markets with Hartford is simply swapping-out one troubled market for another.

It goes back to the idea that the NHL's business plan *should* have been to market its product to as many people as possible in its base before it went off half-cocked into the Sunbelt. Yes, Hartford lies between New York and Boston, but that's not really the handicap you think it would be when you consider just how provincial hockey fandom often is. If the choices are "team in suburban North Carolina" or "team that helps saturate a region that's traditionally a hockey hotbed" I'm inclined to lean towards the latter.

Since you brought up revisionist history I thought we could use this opportunity to examine the history of the sport over the last two decades. I am not going to say that the "Grow the Game" plan was a total failure. Even if it was just a PR friendly term used to cover up their true reason of chasing the housing boom. Teams in Dallas, Anaheim, and Tampa proved that hockey in the Sunbelt can work. Nashville eventually got its house in order, and the Preds seem to have a dedicated core. So good on them.

Saying it wasn't a total failure, however, doesn't mean it it was a total success. Miami-Sunrise and Phoenix-Glendale are both, as you said, incapable of adequately supporting a NHL franchises. The Thrashers got kicked out of their building by their own owners (marking Atlanta's second failure at the NHL level) and had to move to a small, unassuming Canadian prairie town. Where they've gone from being an economic milestone to being a licence to print cash, for whatever it's worth.

Growing the game, in some places, just failed. I think that even the most naive "I wanna spread the joy of hockey!" types among us should be able to admit that at this juncture.

As for the Hurricanes? Well I decided I'd actually see where they stood in terms of attendance. They're in 25th place in a league of 30 teams.

They've averaged 15,000 per game up to this point in the season. Which is only four behind Winnipeg's 15,004. The difference? Winnipeg's MTS Centre has 3,676 less seats then Carolina's PNC Arena. The Jets may be sitting in 24th place, but they're up to 100% capacity. Carolina's running at just above 80%. You once said that the NHL's a business, not a charity. You were right. So at what point do they do the prudent thing and cut their loses in these markets?

Now why this comparison to Winnipeg? Like Hartford, Winnipeg isn't a huge market. Like Winnipeg people say the Hartford market's already spoken for, and that a team there wouldn't add to the NHL's consumer base. "Going back to Canada wouldn't be in the NHL's best interests, everyone watches anyway" sounds very similar to "they all watch anyway, they're all Rangers and Bruins fans."

Like Winnipeg, Hartford lost a team in the 90s in an effort to chase easy money and expand the league's footprint. A plan which, I think we can all openly agree, only worked in some places.

Look, I'm sure Whalers nostalgia plays into this desire to see Hartford back in the league again. Nostalgia, however, is useful. An owner who has the means to make it work, a new arena, a marketing team that can harness this nostalgia properly, and a fanbase that perhaps didn't realize what it had until it was taken away could be a winning formula. Winnipeg flocked to the new Jets with open arms. I'm sure Hartford would do the same for a new Whalers team under the right circumstances.

I'll also save you the trouble and admit that those circumstances are, currently, extremely unlikely. As a hypothetical though? Yes, I'll take a team that helps saturate the northeastern United States with NHL hockey over a team in suburban North Carolina any day.