inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: Why hockey won't necceasrly be expanable, everywhere, outside of Canada.

Written By: JamieMcBain on 09/05/09 at 2:14 pm

Currently, there is a big battle, over whether or not the Phoenix Coyotes, should stay there, in Glendale, Arizona.

The most oddest place for hockey.

Why?  Because, my theory is that hockey works best mostly, if the place is a cold place, during some time of the year.

Or, if the city has alot of hockey fans, like Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston,  New York City, of Chicago.

But, I could be wrong......

Also another problem with expanding south of the border.....

Ratings......

You really need a hugh presence of a sport, before people can really care, or be interested in seeing it.

Good luck, finding hockey games on cable in the States, because you can't see it on ESPN, it's on Versus channel.

In Canada, you can pretty much see it, on TSN, Sportsnet, and CBC Sports.

Hopefully, the whole Phenoix Coyote mess will be put to rest, just in time for the Fall, but I wouldn't count on it.

There some really intresting articles worth checking out, also.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1898089,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1898036,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1897847,00.html

Subject: Re: Why hockey won't necceasrly be expanable, everywhere, outside of Canada.

Written By: Frank on 09/05/09 at 5:45 pm

I think some enorthern cities you mentioned can support ( and have been supporting) franchises
But 3 franchises in California, 2 in Florida, with Columbus, Carolina, Phoenix..Nashville...eesh..
Eventually I think they all will go, except maybe keep one in California.

NHL needs a deal with ESPN to bring in a few more people to watch the games in the USA.

Subject: Re: Why hockey won't necceasrly be expanable, everywhere, outside of Canada.

Written By: JamieMcBain on 09/05/09 at 6:52 pm


I think some enorthern cities you mentioned can support ( and have been supporting) franchises
But 3 franchises in California, 2 in Florida, with Columbus, Carolina, Phoenix..Nashville...eesh..
Eventually I think they all will go, except maybe keep one in California.

NHL needs a deal with ESPN to bring in a few more people to watch the games in the USA.




I know, 3 in California, 2 in Florida. and others, hsrdly hockey country is too much....

I agree something needs done with ESPN.  But Bettman, is running the NHL into the ground.

Subject: Re: Why hockey won't necceasrly be expanable, everywhere, outside of Canada.

Written By: Rice_Cube on 09/07/09 at 10:20 am

The one in Columbus sort of makes sense.  The Carolina one has championship history as well, maybe they'll move it back to Hartford. 

Subject: Re: Why hockey won't necceasrly be expanable, everywhere, outside of Canada.

Written By: loki 13 on 09/07/09 at 12:32 pm

There were some relocations that didn't make sense to me. They went from, what I thought was good hockey towns,
to cities that would be the last place one would think a great hockey city. Hartford Whalers, from Connecticut; a cold
Northeast State to North Carolina a State known for College basketball not hockey. Minnesota North Stars; Minnesota
cries hockey yet they felt the need to bring their winter pasttime to Dallas, Texas. Colorado Rockies; From the snow
and ice of Denver to North Jersey. It's not that hockey isn't big in the area but there are three NHL teams within a
stones throw; Islanders, Rangers and Flyers.

The one that made sense was the Atlanta Flames moving to Calgary. The NHL, in it's infamous wisdom, decided Atlanta
needed another team, go figure.

I think most of the moves were made to try and expand hockey and reach a bigger audience but the thing is, younger
people in southern states don't play hockey so most people in these regions don't understand the game. it moves too
fast for them and they lose intrest. Plus the fact that they were already set in their ways as to which sports they support.

Subject: Re: Why hockey won't necceasrly be expanable, everywhere, outside of Canada.

Written By: Frank on 09/07/09 at 1:34 pm


There were some relocations that didn't make sense to me. They went from, what I thought was good hockey towns,
to cities that would be the last place one would think a great hockey city. Hartford Whalers, from Connecticut; a cold
Northeast State to North Carolina a State known for College basketball not hockey. Minnesota North Stars; Minnesota
cries hockey yet they felt the need to bring their winter pasttime to Dallas, Texas. Colorado Rockies; From the snow
and ice of Denver to North Jersey. It's not that hockey isn't big in the area but there are three NHL teams within a
stones throw; Islanders, Rangers and Flyers.

The one that made sense was the Atlanta Flames moving to Calgary. The NHL, in it's infamous wisdom, decided Atlanta
needed another team, go figure.

I think most of the moves were made to try and expand hockey and reach a bigger audience but the thing is, younger
people in southern states don't play hockey so most people in these regions don't understand the game. it moves too
fast for them and they lose intrest. Plus the fact that they were already set in their ways as to which sports they support.


Very true. Good post.

Subject: Re: Why hockey won't necceasrly be expanable, everywhere, outside of Canada.

Written By: Frank on 09/12/09 at 12:38 am

http://www.schultzimages.com/melrose/despair/BettmanMismanagement.jpg

Check for new replies or respond here...