Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   Hockey (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Why "Hockeyless In Seattle?" (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=8788)

Anthony 11-23-2003 04:50 AM

Why "Hockeyless In Seattle?"
 
The NHL has never had a team in Seattle - nor can I ever remember the league even seriously considering placing a team there.

This is rather puzzling, been as Seattle is so close to the Canadian border.

Why is this so? And what are Seattle's prospects for getting an NHL team anytime soon?

Alex 11-23-2003 09:23 AM

I'd say Seattle's prospect for a team are zero. The NHL needs to elimanate or relocate teams. Not at them.

An NHL franchise could probably be a much bigger success there than it is in say Nashville or Phoenix. If the CBA situation turns into folding/moving teams Seattle is probably high on the list for relocation.

lmanchur. 11-23-2003 11:07 AM

I thought Paul Allen was once interested in a team, but I think Winnipeg will get another team before Seatlle ;)

Marc 11-26-2003 08:39 PM

Canada is losing pro sports teams, not gaining them. Sad, but true.

lmanchur. 11-26-2003 09:58 PM

Winnipeg will never get an NHL team again (until I take over Microsoft, that is).. plus, the odds of NHL contraction is much greater than NHL expansion... so the entire point of my post was not to imply that Winnipeg will get a team, but because they won't and because the NHL is not in expansion mode, Seattle's off is getting a team is essentally zero.

Heathen 11-27-2003 11:28 AM

Seattle has the Thunderbirds... plus it's only a short drive to Vancouver to watch an NHL game.

Alex 11-28-2003 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marc
Canada is losing pro sports teams, not gaining them. Sad, but true.
It pisses me off that they took the Jets out of Winnipeg where they could've drawn exactly or better than what Phoenix does. Hockey in the desert or hockey in Canada? What's your pick? It was successful to move the Avs out of Quebec. They are loved by Colorado and have one of the better national fan bases for any team.

Marc 11-30-2003 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex
It pisses me off that they took the Jets out of Winnipeg where they could've drawn exactly or better than what Phoenix does. Hockey in the desert or hockey in Canada? What's your pick? It was successful to move the Avs out of Quebec. They are loved by Colorado and have one of the better national fan bases for any team.
Hockey will not survive as one of the "four major" American sports if that is their attitude. Football, basketball, and baseball are in all climates, why can't hockey be, too? The NHL needs to smash these old stereotypes like "hockey in the desert? what a load of crap!". It needs to expand and market to new fans.

lmanchur. 11-30-2003 12:28 AM

They did. It didn't work. Why aren't YOU watching the best sport on earth, Marc?? You are part of the problem!! The bottom line is that Tampa, Miami, Anaheim, San Jose, Phoenix, and Raleigh should not have teams that get like 2 fans a game when teams in Quebec and Winnipeg and Hartford would sell out.

Economics suck.

Jets4Life 12-25-2003 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marc
Hockey will not survive as one of the "four major" American sports if that is their attitude. Football, basketball, and baseball are in all climates, why can't hockey be, too? The NHL needs to smash these old stereotypes like "hockey in the desert? what a load of crap!". It needs to expand and market to new fans.
ok, where have you been for the last 10 years? With the exception of Dallas, no sun-belt city has embraced the NHL.

Never say never when it comes to Winnipeg getting an NHL team again. In 1972, everyone would have laughed if you would have said that one day Winnipeg would have an NHL team. Then along came a man named BOBBY HULL...

Seattle may get an NHL team once the CBA agreement ends, and there is a work stoppage leading to the cancellation of the 2004-05 NHL season most likely. The end result will be a few team relocating or folding. Most likely Pittsburgh, Carolina, Anaheim, Buffalo, New Jersey, Nashville, etc.

it may not happen but this is just my 2 cents


:)

Loser 12-25-2003 09:15 PM

I think the problem is that the game sucks right now. No one wants to pay 80 dollars a ticket to go to see a 1-0 game. Especially when over half the teams are playing the trap.

Bettman did do a good job when he expanded the market and put hockey teams in more cities. The only problem is that with more teams comes a dispersement in the talent level of the teams. When it use to be only 12-20 teams there would be more that 3 stars on a team. This led to an increase in scoring and a much more exciting game.

But as hockey expanded and there became more teams, there would be on average 1-2 star players on a team. This led to the bigger market teams giving out enormous paychecks to create winning teams and multi-talented teams, leaving the small market teams out to dry and in turn look to the trap to keep them in the playoff hunt. In return this led to an enormous decrease in scoring and excitement, in which the teams and hockey in general, lost fans and money.

A whole crap-load of cause and affect leading to the downfall of a good sport.

What's the solution to this, you ask?

Either an increase in talented players, or a decrease in teams. You pick..

BobbyBaseball 12-26-2003 01:38 PM

Loser you're exactly right. With expansion you get a watered down product. Players who would have never sniffed the NHL years ago are now alive and skating in the NHL. You add in the trap and you take away the excitement from the game. Like you said $80.00 is a lot of money to go see a hockey game played at center ice. I know In Philly that the average Joe is being priced right out of the arena.

lmanchur. 01-06-2004 01:34 PM

At least Philly is a good team... but only one of 3 or 4 in the East. If Anaheim had the same talent in as they do now in a 20-team league playing the trap, they would never make the finals. The Devils, however, have perfected it, so it is why everyone tries to emulate them.

As for Seattle... a lotta things have to change for Winnipeg or Seattle to get pro clubs again. But comming from Manitoba, I don't see 15,000 Winnipegers plopping down $40-$150/game to see an NHL game every single night.

Anthony 01-10-2004 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SC-Lee
At least Philly is a good team... but only one of 3 or 4 in the East. If Anaheim had the same talent in as they do now in a 20-team league playing the trap, they would never make the finals. The Devils, however, have perfected it, so it is why everyone tries to emulate them.

As for Seattle... a lotta things have to change for Winnipeg or Seattle to get pro clubs again. But comming from Manitoba, I don't see 15,000 Winnipegers plopping down $40-$150/game to see an NHL game every single night.


Would that be 40 to 150 Canadian dollars or 40 to 150 American dollars? (Hey, I remember when the exchange rates were at such a level where the Canadian dollar was worth 92 cents U.S.; and Canada didn't eliminate silver from their coins until 1968 - three years after the U.S. did!).

lmanchur. 01-10-2004 07:53 PM

canadian


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.