Bill Sikes Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I would agree to a certain extent about the population but the NHL seems to have no issue with moving into markets of that size and, in fact, they seem to almost prefer it as they've had better success in midsize cities rather than large ones…. Nashville, Columbus, Raleigh over Phoenix, Atlanta, and Miami. The upshot is that KC is a natural rival for St Louis so it doesn't lag behind the Houston-Dallas brotherhood from that point of view. I strongly disagree about the TV revenue though. US TV deals are negotiated by the NHL on a national broadcast scale and this is dictated by their ability to maintain presence in all 'regions.' With a a team in LV then Phoenix is less important. Houston doesn't improve their marketability in the southern region from a regional TV perspective while KC add to the southern Midwest region more. I think, in this sense, KC is more important than Houston from the sales perspective of the NHL towards national broadcasters. Again, I think that Houston is right there with KC but I still firmly believe it is behind them on the pecking order and will be a fallback plan, and not a terrible one, for when Arizona finally relocates in 2-3 years. If that's the case then Seattle/Portland makes the most sense. Take a map of the US, play connect the dots, start in Minneapolis/St Paul, draw a line to St Louis to Denver to San Jose, above that line is about 1/4 of the country with ZERO NHL presence, only the 4 western Canadian teams which don't do the US tv networks any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaner Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 The fact Portland, Seattle and Alaska are not on their makes this an absolute joke. Imagine another team in Florida.... Warhol, I completely respect you as a poster, but Alaska? What are you thinking? There is not a chance in a million years that Alaska gets an NHL team. Not even if Bettman get released/re-signed. Alaska doesn't have a facility with the capacity to hold and NHL team, and it doesn't have enough people to buy the tickets towards games. What about travel? I could only imagine how much of a pain in the ass traveling to Alaska would be. Lastly, the weather/climate. Most players in the NHL want to play for teams like LA, ANA, and TBL becasue of the climate. Then, they realize that these cities are fantastic teams on the ice and off. You ask yourself this. Why would someone want to raise a family in Alaska? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanBeef Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Could you guys imagine a team in Richmond? That'd be ridiculous... the place "richmond va" is actually in virginia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckRow Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 BS studies like this are the reason why two failings franchises existed in Atlanta. Dallas in itself barely lasts these days, could not see Houston thriving any better. Quebec City and Las Vegas or Seattle would do much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Warhol, I completely respect you as a poster, but Alaska? What are you thinking? There is not a chance in a million years that Alaska gets an NHL team. Not even if Bettman get released/re-signed. Alaska doesn't have a facility with the capacity to hold and NHL team, and it doesn't have enough people to buy the tickets towards games. What about travel? I could only imagine how much of a pain in the ass traveling to Alaska would be. Lastly, the weather/climate. Most players in the NHL want to play for teams like LA, ANA, and TBL becasue of the climate. Then, they realize that these cities are fantastic teams on the ice and off. You ask yourself this. Why would someone want to raise a family in Alaska? But it's cold in Alaska! And according to CDC that's the only factor in whether a market will be successful or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 If that's the case then Seattle/Portland makes the most sense. Take a map of the US, play connect the dots, start in Minneapolis/St Paul, draw a line to St Louis to Denver to San Jose, above that line is about 1/4 of the country with ZERO NHL presence, only the 4 western Canadian teams which don't do the US tv networks any good. Seattle is absolutely going to be the second expansion team IMO after LV. For them it will come down to timing with the arena construction. It isn't an either/or in that sense with regards to KC. This is about the top two relocation cities with the front runner being QC and the second yet to be decided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I was in KC last weekend and the people there have huge support for the Missouri mavericks, an echl team in a suburb called independence. I want it so bad, I have friends there to stay with and is 3 hours closer than Dallas. People talk about Houston because of the large population and the instant rivalry with Dallas, but KC makes more sense to me. No NBA to compete with in the winter, an obvious rivalry with the Blues and pretty much central to Denver, St. Paul, Dallas, Chicago and Nashville. Just so long as the don't bring back the "Scouts"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Seattle is absolutely going to be the second expansion team IMO after LV. For them it will come down to timing with the arena construction. It isn't an either/or in that sense with regards to KC. This is about the top two relocation cities with the front runner being QC and the second yet to be decided. Having an area only matters if its a Canadian City, Phoenix didn't have one, or finalized plans for one when they railroaded the Jets out, neither did Florida when they were granted a team or Minnesota, they got an expansion team despite no arena or funding for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Having an area only matters if its a Canadian City, Phoenix didn't have one, or finalized plans for one when they railroaded the Jets out, neither did Florida when they were granted a team or Minnesota, they got an expansion team despite no arena or funding for one. The landscape has changed for the NHL though. They won't move into cities without a ready built arena now. They've made that very clear. The NHL will not be moving into Seattle with seasons to be played in the Key Arena as they have little incentive to do so rather than wait a couple of years. The new arena building plans in Seattle are being changed from basketball primary to hockey primary. That's the indication to me that it is happening, just as it was when AEG listed the LV arena to be hockey primary. These negotiations are protracted and going on behind the scenes. Still, this doesn't change the topic at hand in this thread which is about secondary locations ... which, to my mind, is only about relocating current flagging franchises. I've repeateded myself on this topic several times over the last 2-3 years on this subject and nothing has yet come up to indicate this is a wrong assumption. It is all unfolding. The only hitch could be if McDavid actually saves the Coyotes and I don't believe that will be the case. -LV will be an expansion team for 2016-17 -Florida will likely relocate to QC for 2016-17 (they may give them another year though, which won't help) -Phoenix will relocate to KC (or Houston, as this topic suggests) in 2017-18 the same year that an expansion team will be announced for Seattle in 2018-19. Balanced conferences, balanced divisions, immediately higher HRR from gate receipts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 People talk about Houston because of the large population and the instant rivalry with Dallas, but KC makes more sense to me. No NBA to compete with in the winter, an obvious rivalry with the Blues and pretty much central to Denver, St. Paul, Dallas, Chicago and Nashville. Just so long as the don't bring back the "Scouts"... If put my money on them retaining the name. There's no way they could be THAT bad on the ice though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KansasCanuck Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 People talk about Houston because of the large population and the instant rivalry with Dallas, but KC makes more sense to me. No NBA to compete with in the winter, an obvious rivalry with the Blues and pretty much central to Denver, St. Paul, Dallas, Chicago and Nashville. Just so long as the don't bring back the "Scouts"... I agree with not bringing back the Scouts, because I still wear Scouts gear and don't want people to think I'm actually a fan of their new team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I agree with not bringing back the Scouts, because I still wear Scouts gear and don't want people to think I'm actually a fan of their new team. Do you have better suggestions that would highlight the individuality and history of the city? Personally, I like the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I wonder why no one ever brings up Milwaukee, seems like the perfect market for a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I wonder why no one ever brings up Milwaukee, seems like the perfect market for a team. Small market with a basketball franchise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 But it's cold in Alaska! And according to CDC that's the only factor in whether a market will be successful or not. No F/A wants to sign with Edmonton. Other than the fact that they suck, I don't think even NHL'ers like it to be quite THAT cold all winter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Apparently, Vancouver should get an NFL team before a MLB team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 The FIRST thing the league would like to do is to split 1.5 billion in franchise fees. Talent on ice is a secondary consideration. Welcome to a league run by liars lawyers and accountants. Why you gotta go and throw logic into the mix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KansasCanuck Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Do you have better suggestions that would highlight the individuality and history of the city? Personally, I like the name. Monarchs. Fits with the Royals and former Kings tradition. Plus it doesn't have a Native American as a mascot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Portland has the winter hawks. The first time I went there I thought to myself, how does this place not have a NHL team. If any of you have ever been there you'll know what I'm talking about. Yup Portland is amazing, I could see the easily supporting a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surtur Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Yup Portland is amazing, I could see the easily supporting a team. i want to see portland and seattle both get a team would make for a nice north West group of teams Van, Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, and Portland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.