NHL Thread - 2010-11

[Orton Pose \__0_/]

The Canucks typically failed in a game 5 again...

I really hope Tampa sweep Boston in the Eastern Conference Final, hate the Bruins. 3OT losses in the BosMtl series was such a dissapointment

I am going for the Canucks regardless, Lord Stanley needs to come home

 

[hatehabsforever]

Bergeron has another concussion, classified as a "mild" concussion, will likely miss at least a couple of games against the Lightning. I guess we will see the playoff debut of Tyler Seguin, which should be OK, but it still sucks to lose Bergeron at this point. Great on face-offs and a scoring threat. Hopefully the Bruins will be OK in his absence.

 

[Fizzy]

Welp, my beloved Flyers got spanked and swept. Sad really considering they had such a good regular season. It was such an embarrassing playoffs for us. The Buffalo series shouldn't have gone to a game 7, and we should have won at least a game against the Bruin's. Fucking embarrassing to be a Flyer's fan for yet another year.

 

[justinsayne]

Welp, my beloved Flyers got spanked and swept. Sad really considering they had such a good regular season. It was such an embarrassing playoffs for us. The Buffalo series shouldn't have gone to a game 7, and we should have won at least a game against the Bruin's. Fucking embarrassing to be a Flyer's fan for yet another year.

Philly's biggest problem is they don't give a shit about goaltending, haven't for years, until they learn that they need to invest some decent money into worthwhile goaltender thay will continue to fail in the playoffs, you can't switch up your goalies 3 times in a series and expect to be a Champion

 

[Big Sexy]

Philly's biggest problem is they don't give a shit about goaltending, haven't for years, until they learn that they need to invest some decent money into worthwhile goaltender thay will continue to fail in the playoffs, you can't switch up your goalies 3 times in a series and expect to be a Champion

Exactly. Goaltending is the most important part to a Cup run. When Ron Hextall is probably your last great goalie you need to reevaluate your team.

 

[LSN80]

I am not remotely torn about this year in the Eastern Conference. I have been a lifelong Bruins fan and I have been very pleased with them this season and I think they have a really good shot this season. Tampa should be tough, but all Yzerman love aside, I hope the Bruins prevail.

Two words really are all I need in assessing who wins the TB/Boston series: Tim Thomas. This isn't a knock on Dwayne Roloson, he was extremely good against Pittsburgh, square to the puck, and he was good against Washington as well, even though he was under less pressure somehow in that series. But does he really have it in him to carry a largely untested team in TB? St. Louis and Lecavalier have been there before, but that's all. Stamkos has shown several times in the playoffs already that he gets shaken easily by a big hit early, rendering him a non-factor when that occurs. Thomas was the difference in the tight Montreal/Boston series, and we all saw what happened when it was Thomas against the Philly trio. Boston has a balanced attack that scores timely goals, and I don't think Roloson will be able to survive the pressure Boston puts on him with their aggresive forecheck. Boston is just a team under Claude Julien that doesn't quit-I should know- I was at the Consol Energy Center when the Penguins held a two goal lead with 4 minutes left, and Boston won 3-2.

But all of that aside, Thomas is the better goaltender. Roloson is very average despite the fact that he's playing well now. Thomas is elite, which I believe will make the difference.

I'd love to see a Bruins/Canucks final. As a Canadian hockey fan, have to cheer for Vancouver to get to the finals, but then it's Bruins all the way. I also wouldn't mind a Bruins/Sharks final. Joe Thornton versus his former club who originally drafted him. Apathetic to Nashville, and Detroit has won many times in recent years, time for some new blood. Especially if the new blood is wearing black and gold.

Tampa Bay/Vancouver is the sexier final, per se, as its the potent offense of the Lightning against the most balanced team at every position in the NHL. I dont want to see Detroit whatsoever because Ive seen them so many times before, including two years in a row against the Penguins. San Jose would be a fun matchup with Tampa as well, but not as much as Vancouver. As for what would make for the best final at this point? Bruins/Canucks, easily. The best two goaltenders left and the two most balanced teams.

I am going for the Canucks regardless, Lord Stanley needs to come home

Uh buddy, not to burst your bubble here, but how would the Canucks winning the Cuo mean it was "coming home"? Since the NHL was formed in 1927, the Canucks are one of I believe 12 teams that have never won the Cup. Just saying.

Welp, my beloved Flyers got spanked and swept.

And this mde me very happy. Philly faded down the stretch in the regulr season, and never regained the momentum they had earlier in the year. If I have to suffer through the Pens blowing a 3-1 lead against TB, its at least nice to see Philly go out with a whimper.

 

[Big Sexy]

The Red Wings have a chance to do what only 3 NHL teams have ever done and that is come back from down 3-0 in a series to win it. Game 7 is Thursday night in San Jose and I expect it to be a great game like every other game has been this series. This has been a tremendous series with every game coming down to the last couple minutes.

On a side note I'd like to say a big fuck you to Joe Thorton. The guy is a great hockey player but he is gigantic piece of shit. He has done some borderline dirty things all series long but tonight took the cake. There was a pile up around the night with about 30 seconds left and there was some pushing and shoving going on. Henrick Zetterberg was on the outskirts of the pile and Joe Thorton proceeded to come up from behind him and take a hack at the back of Zetterberg's achilles with his stick. It was a bush league play and I hope the Wings get a sizable lead late in game 7 so they can send Bertuzzi to beat the shit out of him.

 

[Davi323]

truthfully, this game wasn't nearly as close as the score would indicate. Detroit flat out kicked San Jose's ass tonight. This easily could have been a 7-8 goal night by the Wings, but for a few extremely lucky (or unlucky) bounces. San Jose is emotionally drained, and the cheap shots tonight prove it. They are desperate. They blew a 3-0 series lead, and got destroyed up and down the ice. Momentum is entirely in the Red Wings corner.

And I agree 100 percent with Big Sexy, FUCK YOU THORNTON.

 

[Post]

The Red Wings have a chance to do what only 3 NHL teams have ever done and that is come back from down 3-0 in a series to win it. Game 7 is Thursday night in San Jose and I expect it to be a great game like every other game has been this series. This has been a tremendous series with every game coming down to the last couple minutes.

On a side note I'd like to say a big fuck you to Joe Thorton. The guy is a great hockey player but he is gigantic piece of shit. He has done some borderline dirty things all series long but tonight took the cake. There was a pile up around the night with about 30 seconds left and there was some pushing and shoving going on. Henrick Zetterberg was on the outskirts of the pile and Joe Thorton proceeded to come up from behind him and take a hack at the back of Zetterberg's achilles with his stick. It was a bush league play and I hope the Wings get a sizable lead late in game 7 so they can send Bertuzzi to beat the shit out of him.

I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on Thorton. A completely unnecessary action that should get him at least a fine. Thorton and the rest of the Sharks appear stunned, to say the least. Speaking of handing out a big FUCK YOU, here is one for Douglass Murray and his illegal hit on Dan Cleary in the 1st period. That hit could have been a repeat of Claude Lemieux on Kris Draper...thank God it wasn't.

truthfully, this game wasn't nearly as close as the score would indicate. Detroit flat out kicked San Jose's ass tonight. This easily could have been a 7-8 goal night by the Wings, but for a few extremely lucky (or unlucky) bounces. San Jose is emotionally drained, and the cheap shots tonight prove it. They are desperate. They blew a 3-0 series lead, and got destroyed up and down the ice. Momentum is entirely in the Red Wings corner.

And I agree 100 percent with Big Sexy, FUCK YOU THORNTON.

Yes, the Wings have the momentum now. I would much rather be on a 3 game winning streak, as opposed to a 3 game losing streak. Still, game 7 could go either way, but all of the pressure is now on San Jose. Detroit is a very patient team and it was a HUGE mistake to let them linger around.

Go Wings.

 

[People's Champ]

I may be one of few Sharks fans who aren't in full blown panic mode. I'm nervous, but not too concerned. I thought before this series started it would go 7, and it has. A lot of people were picking Detroit in 6, so the fact that we are at Game 7 isn't surprising. How we got to this point is a little surprins, considering the Sharks were up 3-0. I didn't expect the Sharks to lose 3 straight, but did anyone really think Detroit would just lay down? This teams are as evenly matched as you can get, and we've seen that in this series. I agree last night's game wasn't as close as the score indicated, but Nemo was great. Now its Game 7.

As for momentum and all that, while Red Wings fans can use that, most hockey people know momentum doesn't carry over to the next game as it does in other sports. The fact is Detroit lost 3 straight, now the Sharks have lost 3 straight. We are at Game 7. Doesn't matter how we got here, its here. The Sharks can't allow themselves to get caught up in the hype about blowing a 3-0 lead. And I don't see that happening either. I think the Sharks come out and take care of business and end this with a win. Either way, this has been one hellava series.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The Sharks lost off a fluke goal off an odd carom off the stanchion to the "better" team. There's nothing to be ashamed of, and as a Sharks fan, there should be no drastic changes you should be demanding of the team. The days of Nabokov are gone. Niemi did fine, as did Thornton, Marleau, Heatley, Setoguchi, Pavelski and Couture. You have nothing to worry about.

If you want to make any changes, make them on D and try to get Christian Ehrhoff back in the organization this summer, otherwise move forward as you already have. Your Sharks are still primed to win.

 

[The People's Peep]

Its been a long time since I've posted in here...

The news of the day is that its now official. Hockey is going back to Winnipeg. On one side, you gotta be happy for the people of Winnipeg. Lord knows the neighbors to the north love hockey and its good for them to get another team to support. It seemed that the Thrashers never really caught on in Atlanta and with Kovalchuck gone, they dont have any attraction there. On the other hand, I feel bad for the people that did support the Thrashers and enjoyed having a team there.

As for the playoffs, they have been a joy to watch and I hope the finals are no exception. There is a great mix of skill and physicality between the Bruins and Vancouver. Also, two goalies that seem to constantly stand on their head. I'm still not sure who I want to win or even who I think will win. So all I'm hoping for is a great, exciting, 7 game series to finish off the season.

Also, I'm looking forward to the draft. My Devils have the 4th overall pick and its going to be interesting to see who they pick. There isnt a stand out player this year like past years. Instead, there seems to be a real cluster of talent in each of the first 6 or 7 picks. Nugent-Hopkins, Landeskog, Couturier, Huberdeau, and Larsson look like they are the top 5 and I would elated if/when the Devils end up with any of those guys. Any of the four forwards would be a huge addition to play with Kovalchuk and hopefully Parise long term, and Larsson has been compared to Scott Niedermayer and we all know what he meant to the Devils.

I think thats enough from me. Enjoy the finals everyone.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The Thrashers failed for a number of reasons:

1. The city has a poor track record with consistently supporting teams who don't win championships.

2. The city has a poor youth hockey presence.

3. The team consistently lost due to management being comprised of a seven-headed monster. Most teams with a single owner or even co-owners, tend to make decisions that don't require the approval of seven business men with dollar signs in mind (only).

Kovalchuk was never going to save that franchise any more than Marian Hossa, Marc Savard, Peter Bondra, Kari Lehtonen, Ray Ferraro, Byron Dafoe, Bobby Holik, and/or Scott Mellanby could have. All made stays in Atlanta at one point or another during their careers.

I'm sorry for the seven fans in Atlanta, but when a team hemorrhages money like the Thrashers did, the NHL's hand is forced. Had the city and all seven of those fans given them any indication things could change, they might have.

 

[Big Sexy]

The NHL needs to realize that it's just never going to be successful in the more southern states no matter how much they want it to. Teams like Atlanta, Phoenix, Florida, and even Tampa Bay despite the teams solid play some years just don't have enough fans who really follow hockey and like the sport. The NHL needs to stick mainly to the north, northeast, midwest, and Canada (with a few exceptions). That's where the success lies and that's where the fan base is.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The NHL needs to realize that it's just never going to be successful in the more southern states no matter how much they want it to. Teams like Atlanta, Phoenix, Florida, and even Tampa Bay despite the teams solid play some years just don't have enough fans who really follow hockey and like the sport. The NHL needs to stick mainly to the north, northeast, midwest, and Canada (with a few exceptions). That's where the success lies and that's where the fan base is.

Not true. Not entirely at least.

California in general, especially the Southern Californian teams are wildly successful, and south of the Mason Dixen line. The Anaheim Ducks sold out every home game for almost four straight seasons and are responsible for a number of Anaheim/OC-based youth hockey clinics who fully support the club, San José has an incredibly strong youth hockey support and Los Angeles is actually one of the strongest markets, especially in television, in the US.

Tampa Bay has had rousing success and has tremendous fan support over the last number of years. A few down seasons due to the instability in ownership with Len Barrie (who almost traded Stamkos in his rookie season to the Rangers) are not sufficient evidence to simply lump sum them into the failures of teams like the Florida Panthers who have been in the bottom five in both gate attendance, season ticket sales and jersey sales for the last eight years.

Dallas was a total unknown with no youth hockey support to speak of when they were moved to from Minnesota and have entrenched themselves in the Texas community and fathered countless youth hockey clinics as a result. The San Antonio Rampage of the AHL were founded in 2002 because of the success of the Dallas Stars.

It's easy to simply presume that colder climates equate better hockey markets, but it's just not true. A good "hockey" market has to do with a number of integral aspects which include (but are not limited to) youth hockey support, population density, average population income, city taxes, the vision/direction of the team ownership, the stability of the local economy, the television deal they strike and how much revenue it earns the club as a result, etc. It being "cold" is not a necessity as has been proven with the incredible support Californian teams have given the NHL (and hockey in general seeing as it's the largest growing breeding ground for US born players) as well as clubs like the Dallas Stars and Tampa Bay Lightning.

 

[Big Sexy]

The NHL needs to realize that it's just never going to be successful in the more southern states no matter how much they want it to. Teams like Atlanta, Phoenix, Florida, and even Tampa Bay despite the teams solid play some years just don't have enough fans who really follow hockey and like the sport. The NHL needs to stick mainly to the north, northeast, midwest, and Canada (with a few exceptions). That's where the success lies and that's where the fan base is.

Not true. Not entirely at least.

California in general, especially the Southern Californian teams are wildly successful, and south of the Mason Dixen line. The Anaheim Ducks sold out every home game for almost four straight seasons and are responsible for a number of Anaheim/OC-based youth hockey clinics who fully support the club, San José has an incredibly strong youth hockey support and Los Angeles is actually one of the strongest markets, especially in television, in the US.

Tampa Bay has had rousing success and has tremendous fan support over the last number of years. A few down seasons due to the instability in ownership with Len Barrie (who almost traded Stamkos in his rookie season to the Rangers) are not sufficient evidence to simply lump sum them into the failures of teams like the Florida Panthers who have been in the bottom five in both gate attendance, season ticket sales and jersey sales for the last eight years.

Dallas was a total unknown with no youth hockey support to speak of when they were moved to from Minnesota and have entrenched themselves in the Texas community and fathered countless youth hockey clinics as a result. The San Antonio Rampage of the AHL were founded in 2002 because of the success of the Dallas Stars.

It's easy to simply presume that colder climates equate better hockey markets, but it's just not true. A good "hockey" market has to do with a number of integral aspects which include (but are not limited to) youth hockey support, population density, average population income, city taxes, the vision/direction of the team ownership, the stability of the local economy, the television deal they strike and how much revenue it earns the club as a result, etc. It being "cold" is not a necessity as has been proven with the incredible support Californian teams have given the NHL (and hockey in general seeing as it's the largest growing breeding ground for US born players) as well as clubs like the Dallas Stars and Tampa Bay Lightning.

San Jose and LA are definitely exceptions, as is Dallas. Tampa Bay is usually in the lower half of attendance, there are a few exceptions like the few year run they had around when they won the Cup but on the whole their numbers haven't been overly impressive in the franchises history. I don't know what your'e talking about with the Ducks because the attendance numbers for them are usually very poor, at least in the last 10 years.

What I'm really trying to get at is that the NHL can't expand throughout the south and expect to be successful. Having a few southern teams is fine and the state of California has done solid overall. You can keep a few of the teams but FOR THE MOST PART they need to stick with where hockey is popular. Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Florida, and Anaheim are all examples of failed experiments. The NHL wanted to make it's sport popular across the board in the US and that just is never going to happen.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

San Jose and LA are definitely exceptions, as is Dallas. Tampa Bay is usually in the lower half of attendance, there are a few exceptions like the few year run they had around when they won the Cup but on the whole their numbers haven't been overly impressive in the franchises history. I don't know what your'e talking about with the Ducks because the attendance numbers for them are usually very poor, at least in the last 10 years.

What I'm really trying to get at is that the NHL can't expand throughout the south and expect to be successful. Having a few southern teams is fine and the state of California has done solid overall. You can keep a few of the teams but FOR THE MOST PART they need to stick with where hockey is popular. Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville, Carolina, Florida, and Anaheim are all examples of failed experiments. The NHL wanted to make it's sport popular across the board in the US and that just is never going to happen.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

Honda Center, where the Ducks play, houses 17,174. Over the last five seasons, 2010-11 included, they have averaged a gate record of 16, 096 — an average of 94% capacity, which is good for top-15 in the league. Again, you're likely looking at single years to make blanket statements that simply can't be applied.

San José and LA are not exceptions if they work in addition to Dallas. What, now there are three exceptions to the rule and everyone else is a massive failure? You're looking at everything in black and white, which is simply not a fair way to treat this situation at all. There are varying degrees of grey in every scenario, Phoenix and Atlanta included (as well as the others you've listed).

You are also using blanket statements like "southern teams" to lump sum all these clubs as having the same cause for failures, which is not solely geographic as I've already illustrated against with Los Angeles, San José and Dallas — the latter of which went into it's approach completely blind to any hockey culture in the area whatsoever and still succeeded.

The issues Atlanta faced are not the same as the ones Phoenix is facing and the issues both those clubs are facing are not the same as the ones the Panthers are facing. Geographical location plays a small role, but not nearly as broad of one as you're painting this with. Television deals, strength of local economy, city taxes and more importantly (in the case of Phoenix, Nashville [see William "Boots" Del Biaggio] and Atlanta) the direction and support of ownership are much, much larger roles/culprits.

Your geographical bias can be used against you repeatedly as well. If location was such a deciding factor, why did Winnipeg fail the first time? Why did Québec fail? Why did Cleveland fail? Why did Buffalo file for Chapter 11? Why did Pittsburgh nearly go bankrupt? Why did Ottawa fail the first time? Why are the Hartford Whalers gone?

Fault the NHL for giving franchises who've already lost a club another shot, fine. But faulting them for trying to capitalize on fast-growing communities/cities with reliable investors/owners willing to foot the bills to establish a strong hockey market is naïve. Not all will succeed, but "non-traditional" markets have to be given a chance to succeed. Without that chance, the NHL would remain treading water and not raking in increased revenue year-after-year.

Without expension you'd never have the Ottawa Senators, San José Sharks, St. Louis Blues, Philadelphia Flyers, Los Angeles Kings or Pittsburgh Penguins among others. How many of those markets were "traditional"? How many already had millions of fans just waiting for a hockey team?

 

[Big Sexy]

Honda Center, where the Ducks play, houses 17,174. Over the last five seasons, 2010-11 included, they have averaged a gate record of 16, 096 — an average of 94% capacity, which is good for top-15 in the league. Again, you're likely looking at single years to make blanket statements that simply can't be applied.

I did my research trust me. The last 5 years the Ducks rank 17th, 5th, 15th, 20th, and 22nd in terms of percentage attendance. Not exactly mind blowing outside of one year especially considering the previous 5 years were even worse.

San José and LA are not exceptions if they work in addition to Dallas. What, now there are three exceptions to the rule and everyone else is a massive failure? You're looking at everything in black and white, which is simply not a fair way to treat this situation at all. There are varying degrees of grey in every scenario, Phoenix and Atlanta included (as well as the others you've listed).

I said for the most part. 3 out of 10 southern/west coast teams that do good consistently isn't a great %. 1 out of 7 in the south is an even worse %.

You are also using blanket statements like "southern teams" to lump sum all these clubs as having the same cause for failures, which is not solely geographic as I've already illustrated against with Los Angeles, San José and Dallas — the latter of which went into it's approach completely blind to any hockey culture in the area whatsoever and still succeeded.

When I originally said "southern teams" I wasn't including California in my statement. You brought up Cali and the West coast. I was talking about how the NHL's most recent expansions have been mainly in the South. Phoenix, Carolina, Nashville, and Atlanta are all newer franchises within the last 15 years. Atlanta is already gone, Phoenix isn't far behind and Carolina and Nashville have struggled on the whole. The NHL tried to expand more in the South and it failed mostly. End of story.

The issues Atlanta faced are not the same as the ones Phoenix is facing and the issues both those clubs are facing are not the same as the ones the Panthers are facing. Geographical location plays a small role, but not nearly as broad of one as you're painting this with. Television deals, strength of local economy, city taxes and more importantly (in the case of Phoenix, Nashville [see William "Boots" Del Biaggio] and Atlanta) the direction and support of ownership are much, much larger roles/culprits.

I have a fully functioning brain and know location isn't the only factor. I also know that it still is one of the factors and I think you are downplaying it.

Your geographical bias can be used against you repeatedly as well. If location was such a deciding factor, why did Winnipeg fail the first time? Why did Québec fail? Why did Cleveland fail? Why did Buffalo file for Chapter 11? Why did Pittsburgh nearly go bankrupt? Why did Ottawa fail the first time? Why are the Hartford Whalers gone?

Obviously not every team is going to succeed even when hockey is popular in those places but playing the percentages far more teams are successful in those areas then they are in southern areas.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I did my research trust me. The last 5 years the Ducks rank 17th, 5th, 15th, 20th, and 22nd in terms of percentage attendance. Not exactly mind blowing outside of one year especially considering the previous 5 years were even worse.

Yes, overall, but you can't gauge that without discussing arena capacity, guy. The Blackhawks house more than 20,000 folks. Percentage of capacity is what matters, not the literal ranking they pull between all 30 teams. Teams in the bottom 10 tend to be a concern, but again, this is about maximizing their own potential, and filling more than 90% of your arena on any given night is a success.

I said for the most part. 3 out of 10 southern/west coast teams that do good consistently isn't a great %. 1 out of 7 in the south is an even worse %.

Define "do good consistently" Half of these teams haven't even been around a decade. You keep using these relative terms to define entire geographic locations despite the fact that region has very little to do with the success of a hockey club (in the US).

When I originally said "southern teams" I wasn't including California in my statement. You brought up Cali and the West coast. I was talking about how the NHL's most recent expansions have been mainly in the South. Phoenix, Carolina, Nashville, and Atlanta are all newer franchises within the last 15 years. Atlanta is already gone, Phoenix isn't far behind and Carolina and Nashville have struggled on the whole. The NHL tried to expand more in the South and it failed mostly. End of story.

"Southern teams" to me says anything south of the Mason Dixen line, which again, is a blanket statement that's simple not true. To brush the entirety of "the south" with "poor market" is not only wrong, but ignorant as I've already shown you successes who's parent cities lie south of that line. Just as I've shown you failures north of it.

The number of teams below the MD line is a moot point, anyway, because not all those clubs have been around long enough to develop a team identity, nor do all of them share the same faults. For all their issues struggling to sell tickets in the past, the Nashville Predators are still on the rise, the Dallas Stars, San José Sharks, LA Kings, Anaheim Ducks, and Colorado Avalanche are all successes as well.

I have a fully functioning brain and know location isn't the only factor. I also know that it still is one of the factors and I think you are downplaying it.

No more than you are up-playing it. These generalized statements you are making about "the south" are worse, in fact, because you're not even taking into account the majority of the other factors surrounding the club success or failure.

For example, did you know that when the Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix, the city was the fastest growing city in the United States? There's a reason they moved there — the NHL was looking to capitalize on one of the biggest up and coming markets for sports, just like the Suns did.

Did you know that when the Nordiques moved from Québec to Denver, the city had only a handful of skating rinks and no history of supporting major or minor league hockey? Look what a few years with Joe Sakic, Patrick Roy and Peter Forsberg managed to accomplish...

You want the back-stories on LA, Anaheim, San José, Dallas, Nashville, etc?

Obviously not every team is going to succeed even when hockey is popular in those places but playing the percentages far more teams are successful in those areas then they are in southern areas.

And that's simply not true. I just listed 7 failures north of the Mason Dixen line, two of which were in fuckin' Canada, the "home" of hockey. How can that happen if "the north" is such an odds on favorite to succeed? Why were/are markets like Long Island, Columbus and Washington on the verge of failure? Why did markets who have such a rich history in hockey nearly go bankrupt like Buffalo and Pittsburgh?

 

[Big Sexy]

Yes, overall, but you can't gauge that without discussing arena capacity, guy. The Blackhawks house more than 20,000 folks. Percentage of capacity is what matters, not the literal ranking they pull between all 30 teams. Teams in the bottom 10 tend to be a concern, but again, this is about maximizing their own potential, and filling more than 90% of your arena on any given night is a success.

Read what I typed again. I gave you the percentage numbers and outside of one year they weren't very good.

Define "do good consistently" Half of these teams haven't even been around a decade. You keep using these relative terms to define entire geographic locations despite the fact that region has very little to do with the success of a hockey club (in the US).

Not be in the bottom half of the league pretty much every single year. It's not too much to ask.

"Southern teams" to me says anything south of the Mason Dixen line, which again, is a blanket statement that's simple not true. To brush the entirety of "the south" with "poor market" is not only wrong, but ignorant as I've already shown you successes who's parent cities lie south of that line. Just as I've shown you failures north of it.

Outside of Cali which I consider west coast you gave me one team that has done great and that's Dallas.

The number of teams below the MD line is a moot point, anyway, because not all those clubs have been around long enough to develop a team identity, nor do all of them share the same faults. For all their issues struggling to sell tickets in the past, the Nashville Predators are still on the rise, the Dallas Stars, San José Sharks, LA Kings, Anaheim Ducks, and Colorado Avalanche are all successes as well.

I'm focusing on the southern warm weather states. When you hear the South what do you think? You don't think Cali or Colorado you think teams like Atlanta, Nashville etc. Phoenix and Carolina have been around for 15 years, Tampa and Florida even longer. ATL is already done and Nashville has had enough time to show improvement and haven't done enough.

No more than you are up-playing it. These generalized statements you are making about "the south" are worse, in fact, because you're not even taking into account the majority of the other factors surrounding the club success or failure.

For example, did you know that when the Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix, the city was the fastest growing city in the United States? There's a reason they moved there — the NHL was looking to capitalize on one of the biggest up and coming markets for sports, just like the Suns did.

And that's simply not true. I just listed 7 failures north of the Mason Dixen line, two of which were in fuckin' Canada, the "home" of hockey. How can that happen if "the north" is such an odds on favorite to succeed? Why were/are markets like Long Island, Columbus and Washington on the verge of failure? Why did markets who have such a rich history in hockey nearly go bankrupt like Buffalo and Pittsburgh?

You are completely missing my original point and have this entire time. The NHL wanted to expand and become a popular sport all around the US. The warm, southern states were a market where hockey wasn't popular and they tried to make it popular. Around 20 years ago it started with Tampa, Florida, and Dallas. Then it went to Phoenix and Carolina and finally ATL and Nashville. Outside of Dallas the experiment just hasn't worked. Overall attendance, % attendance, whatever you want to look at the experiment has not worked.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Read what I typed again. I gave you the percentage numbers and outside of one year they weren't very good.

Yes, the percentage numbers and rank among 30 teams, which is not the whole picture. You aren't accounting for arena density. Like I said, when a team has a gate of 90%+ capacity, they are a success, regardless of whether or not they're 22nd in total attendance in the NHL. It's impossible for them to even be first, even if they sold out every ticket for the next century — teams like the Canadiens and Black Hawks will automatically beat them out because they have larger arenas that house more seats.

This is a matter of logistics.

Not be in the bottom half of the league pretty much every single year. It's not too much to ask.

Actually, it is, if you're not willing to give them a chance to succeed. You know who's not in the bottom-half of the league pretty much every single year? Expansion teams like Vancouver, Los Angeles, New Jersey, Washington, etc.

Every one of them at one point or another suffered trough a major lull, some even coming close to bankruptcy. Doesn't make them "bad markets".

Outside of Cali which I consider west coast you gave me one team that has done great and that's Dallas.

No, I gave you a number of them. Los Angeles, Dallas and Colorado are all rousing successes. All of a sudden California is OK? What happened to all "southern teams" being bad markets? You can't pick and choose when you're painting with a brush this broad.

I'm focusing on the southern warm weather states. When you hear the South what do you think? You don't think Cali or Colorado you think teams like Atlanta, Nashville etc. Phoenix and Carolina have been around for 15 years, Tampa and Florida even longer. ATL is already done and Nashville has had enough time to show improvement and haven't done enough.

No, I think anything south of the Mason Dixen line, which includes a large portion of California, Texas, etc.

Again, you can't simply pick and choose when you are painting a brush as broad as "southern teams". Southern teams means in the south, which means south of the Mason Dixen. So it's either all teams south of that line are "bad markets", or some are, which negates the argument that "the south" is a breeding ground for failure, especially when you consider the number of teams north of that line who also failed.

This is why I keep harping on the same point — geographical location is not nearly as important as you are making it out to be.

You are completely missing my original point and have this entire time. The NHL wanted to expand and become a popular sport all around the US. The warm, southern states were a market where hockey wasn't popular and they tried to make it popular. Around 20 years ago it started with Tampa, Florida, and Dallas. Then it went to Phoenix and Carolina and finally ATL and Nashville. Outside of Dallas the experiment just hasn't worked. Overall attendance, % attendance, whatever you want to look at the experiment has not worked.

The "southern" expansion of the NHL started with Gretzky, his trade to Los Angeles, and the expansion of 1967 that brought in the California Seals, Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota North Stars, Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins and St. Louis Blues.

Wanna guess where hockey wasn't popular at the time? All the teams in the "south", which at the time also included St. Louis. If "southern" expansion is such a failure, why did California rise?

If the experiment "hasn't worked" because you are looking at pick-and-choose statistics that only indicate gate draw and show no indication as to revenue drawn from ticket sales, merchandising, the franchise television deal, etc. then explain why Dallas is such a success. Explain why the Hurricanes are drawing at 88%. Explain why Tampa is drawing at 90%.

Again, either all "southern" markets are bad, or some are good and your giant paint brush logic is flawed. Can't be both.

 

[Big Sexy]

Obviously we see the South as two different things so I'll rephrase my geographic location to exclude the West Coast. I don't see the West Coast at all as part pf the South including the southern part of the West Coast. Outside of Dallas none those teams have been a great success.

Tampa Bay outside of 3 seasons has been in the bottom half of the league in both overall and % attendance. You want to know how many times the Hurricanes have been in the top half of the league in either overall or % attendance the last 10 years? Zero times. How that could be considered a even remote success is beyond me.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

You're still not factoring in for the gate draw of the particular arenas, only how they compare against all other 29 teams which doesn't tell the whole story.

Sunrise and Atlanta were failures, I'll give you that, but it's not simply based off location. Tampa has had relative success and is also in Florida, so how can "the south" simply be bad if one team within 100 miles of another in the same state can experience even marginal success?

Instead of looking at how often Carolina ranked in the "top half" of the league in overall attendance, look at how often they brought in more than 85% of their arena capacity. That is how you determine market value.

 

[Big Sexy]

You're still not factoring in for the gate draw of the particular arenas, only how they compare against all other 29 teams which doesn't tell the whole story.

Sunrise and Atlanta were failures, I'll give you that, but it's not simply based off location. Tampa has had relative success and is also in Florida, so how can "the south" simply be bad if one team within 100 miles of another in the same state can experience even marginal success?

Instead of looking at how often Carolina ranked in the "top half" of the league in overall attendance, look at how often they brought in more than 85% of their arena capacity. That is how you determine market value.

I'm sorry but 85% of your seats filled every year for a pro hockey team just isn't good enough. With the small capacity of NHL and NBA arenas the % sold out is expected to be higher and the fact that these teams are ranking below the league average isn't good enough.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

It's good enough for the teams to stay afloat while they develop a fan base through years of solid drafting and developing an identity the same way all expansion teams (none of whom stepped into success) had to do, including the Canucks, Capitals, Flyers, Penguins, etc.

As I've noted numerous times, there is no reason geographically speaking that any team will fail outright. None. Every city on the planet under the right conditions can support NHL hockey.