|
Post by scroogemcduck on Jan 9, 2007 14:59:21 GMT -3
quote] Every sports league has had teams move around and change cities. To imply that major league baseball has never had teams that have had to be moved for lack of fanbase is preposterous. They've tried places that haven't worked out just like anyone else. . Umm......other than Montréal, can you name ONE? One city in the U.S. where a baseball team had to be moved recently because it "didn't work out"? No team in baseball, other than the Expos, has moved since the Washington Senators moved to Texas in 1970. Putting hockey teams in Atlanta, Miami and Phoenix is about as smart as putting baseball teams in Sudbury, Saskatoon and Chicoutimi. It debases the sport, when you see rinks half- to two-thirds empty - they try to hide it, but you can tell, on some broadcasts, that there's hardly anyone there. But then again, it IS the NHL, the league that does everything wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Krang7 on Jan 9, 2007 15:11:56 GMT -3
quote] Every sports league has had teams move around and change cities. To imply that major league baseball has never had teams that have had to be moved for lack of fanbase is preposterous. They've tried places that haven't worked out just like anyone else. . Umm......other than Montréal, can you name ONE? One city in the U.S. where a baseball team had to be moved recently because it "didn't work out"? No team in baseball, other than the Expos, has moved since the Washington Senators moved to Texas in 1970. Putting hockey teams in Atlanta, Miami and Phoenix is about as smart as putting baseball teams in Sudbury, Saskatoon and Chicoutimi. It debases the sport, when you see rinks half- to two-thirds empty - they try to hide it, but you can tell, on some broadcasts, that there's hardly anyone there. But then again, it IS the NHL, the league that does everything wrong! The Florida Marlins have been barely alive for years. The Milwaukee Brewers can hardly get anyone to come watch them. Even the Pittsburgh Pirates, in what should be a baseball heavy city, have had attendance issues. I've seen plenty of baseball broadcasts where there was no hiding the fact that it was way more then half empty, just like hockey. But I've seen broadcasts from Denver, Raleigh, Tampa, Dallas and yes even Miami where there have been people to the rafters to watch a hockey game. You can't blame the NHL for trying different cities in the US. If they don't then they have no chance of growing the sport, period.
|
|
|
Post by scroogemcduck on Jan 9, 2007 15:34:35 GMT -3
Umm......other than Montréal, can you name ONE? One city in the U.S. where a baseball team had to be moved recently because it "didn't work out"? No team in baseball, other than the Expos, has moved since the Washington Senators moved to Texas in 1970. Putting hockey teams in Atlanta, Miami and Phoenix is about as smart as putting baseball teams in Sudbury, Saskatoon and Chicoutimi. It debases the sport, when you see rinks half- to two-thirds empty - they try to hide it, but you can tell, on some broadcasts, that there's hardly anyone there. But then again, it IS the NHL, the league that does everything wrong! The Florida Marlins have been barely alive for years. The Milwaukee Brewers can hardly get anyone to come watch them. Even the Pittsburgh Pirates, in what should be a baseball heavy city, have had attendance issues. I've seen plenty of baseball broadcasts where there was no hiding the fact that it was way more then half empty, just like hockey. But I've seen broadcasts from Denver, Raleigh, Tampa, Dallas and yes even Miami where there have been people to the rafters to watch a hockey game. You can't blame the NHL for trying different cities in the US. If they don't then they have no chance of growing the sport, period. You're right about the Marlins, but wrong about Milwaukee - they get very good crowds at Miller Park. What's this about "growing the sport", to use Bettman's expression (now he's got fans talking like him!)? If it means putting teams in places where no one cares, then does that make any sense? At what point do you stop "growing" the sport, to use your Bettman expression? Shouldn't a professional league be able to recognize its saturation point, or is it just totally blinded by greed? Here's some simple logic: I work on the principle that it's good for a professional sport to set up shop where there's a natural fan base, and vice-versa - don't go where you're not wanted, it makes you look bad! Now in the States, only about 5% OF SPORTS FANS follow hockey, 40% follow baseball, and higher numbers follow football and basketball. Canada, hear this: OUTSIDE OF A SMALL NORTHERN FRINGE, AMERICANS DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT HOCKEY - IT WAS ALWAYS LIKE THAT, AND IT'LL ALWAYS BE LIKE THAT! Now then: wouldn't it make more sense if hockey franchises existed in FEWER big U.S. cities than do basketball or football franchises? Given the relative popularity of the different sports with sports fans in the U.S., does it make sense for hockey to have TWENTY-FOUR teams in the U.S. when baseball has thirty, basketball has 30 and football 32? Shouldn't hockey have maybe, oh I dunno, 10 or 12 teams in the U.S., instead of 24? Haven't they overstretched themselves? Isn't the answer obvious? Good grief!
|
|
|
Post by SwallowMyBitterPill on Jan 9, 2007 15:42:10 GMT -3
other baseball cities that have struggled with attendance
Toronto, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, San Diego, Cincinatti, Colorado, Minnesota, Oakland, Arizona
some of those franchises have stabilized attendance somewhat but to call the NHL a joke and MLB not is a joke in itself.. MLB consists of essentially 8 teams and then a bunch of farm teams that will eventually stock the big 8
the NFL is huge.. but it's huge mostly because of the gambling factor and the league welcomes and exploits that
the NBA is on a downward spiral.. numbers tell you that
there are many niche sports popping up that now are taking away the market of the so called big 4... Ultimate Fighting, XGames, Nascar, College sports, Golf (Tiger Woods has made golf a big market sport on TV)
|
|
|
Post by Krang7 on Jan 9, 2007 15:43:42 GMT -3
The Florida Marlins have been barely alive for years. The Milwaukee Brewers can hardly get anyone to come watch them. Even the Pittsburgh Pirates, in what should be a baseball heavy city, have had attendance issues. I've seen plenty of baseball broadcasts where there was no hiding the fact that it was way more then half empty, just like hockey. But I've seen broadcasts from Denver, Raleigh, Tampa, Dallas and yes even Miami where there have been people to the rafters to watch a hockey game. You can't blame the NHL for trying different cities in the US. If they don't then they have no chance of growing the sport, period. You're right about the Marlins, but wrong about Milwaukee - they get very good crowds at Miller Park. What's this about "growing the sport", to use Bettman's expression (now he's got fans talking like him!)? If it means putting teams in places where no one cares, then does that make any sense? At what point do you stop "growing" the sport, to use your Bettman expression? Shouldn't a professional league be able to recognize its saturation point, or is it just totally blinded by greed? Here's some simple logic: I work on the principle that it's good for a professional sport to set up shop where there's a natural fan base, and vice-versa - don't go where you're not wanted, it makes you look bad! Now in the States, only about 5% OF SPORTS FANS follow hockey, 40% follow baseball, and higher numbers follow football and basketball. Canada, hear this: OUTSIDE OF A SMALL NORTHERN FRINGE, AMERICANS DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT HOCKEY - IT WAS ALWAYS LIKE THAT, AND IT'LL ALWAYS BE LIKE THAT! Now then: wouldn't it make more sense if hockey franchises existed in FEWER big U.S. cities than do basketball or football franchises? Given the relative popularity of the different sports with sports fans in the U.S., does it make sense for hockey to have TWENTY-FOUR teams in the U.S. when baseball has thirty, basketball has 30 and football 32? Shouldn't hockey have maybe, oh I dunno, 10 or 12 teams in the U.S., instead of 24? Haven't they overstretched themselves? Isn't the answer obvious? Good grief! So you're suggesting it's time to give up on hockey as a popular sport? What kind of a league would it be if it just said, "Oh the hell with it, Americans will never care about hockey as much as they do about baseball, football and basketball, so let's just bring all of our teams to Canada where it's a near impossibility for our sport to become more popular, since nearly everyone loves it up there already."? Like I've said before, it has worked in cities that aren't traditional hockey markets. It hasn't worked in others. So does that mean that they shouldn't try anymore? Where is the logic in that?
|
|
|
Post by The D Train on Jan 9, 2007 15:57:01 GMT -3
I too believe they've saturated the market, as well as put NHL franchises in cities they don't belong.
But I also think the whole baseball system is bullshit. How are you going to get excited to watch your team when it's known before the halfway mark that your team has no chance of getting in to the playoffs? Why do you want to watch a bunch of meaningless games? I think the whole system needs to be changed, to allow for more teams (altho not like our system where almost every team gets to the playoffs) to make the playoffs to give the fans something to actually get excited for in the regular season. Cut back home many reg. season games are played and expand the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by scroogemcduck on Jan 9, 2007 16:40:27 GMT -3
So you're suggesting it's time to give up on hockey as a popular sport? What kind of a league would it be if it just said, "Oh the hell with it, Americans will never care about hockey as much as they do about baseball, football and basketball, so let's just bring all of our teams to Canada where it's a near impossibility for our sport to become more popular, since nearly everyone loves it up there already."?quote] No, that's not what I was saying, and it's not what I'm saying now. What I'm saying is simple. Put hockey teams in U.S. cities where people give a damn about hockey, and stop trying to "convert" people to hockey - it won't work! Good hockey places include Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, and Minnesota.....and farther south, maybe St Louis....and that's about it! Putting teams in stupid places where people don't care hurts hockey's credibility even more than it already is. And now I must end this discussion, from my end - I'm off to my old home town, to see the Rocket game this Friday. Hope Cory notices me in Section 11, wearing my red Rocket jersey. See you all in 10 days, for the game against the Eagles. Ciao.
|
|