Lucic performing surgery...

[flyercanuck]

Well I would have mentioned the Hartnell spear/fine in the thread about it....if there was one.  Oddly (?), the 7,543 Flyers fan here missed that one.

 

And lest we forget, the Pens fans get reminded of their team's transgressions on a regular basis...in just about any thread on any topic by any number of posters.

 

So mentioning a similar incident by Hartnell resulting in an identical fine really ins't that off topic.

 

 Hey, don't knock the Flyer fans just because we have a great board.   If the tables were turned, we would have already been booted off the Pens board just for being Flyer fans.

 

 

 I promise not to lest forget as long as you lest forget everytime you B-b-but Pens, it goes both ways.

[SpikeDDS]

 OK, I asked where you were coming from (thinking you were blaming poor officiating and I gave you an example of officials flat out cheating) but you're talking the league office. Fair enough, and if you read my previous post I said he should have been suspended for his earlier offence and 5 games for this one.

 

 

It's not all about me, I just find it hilarious that ESPN considers hockey on the equivalent of tiddly -winks yet we use them for our scores on this board.

 

So when does football clean up their game? When does basketball clean up their game?

The answer to your question is: When the viewership tells them to by refusing to pay to watch. Part of the reason for that is the confusion that the lack of statement-making, line-drawing sanctions for acts like this in our game. We don't have the luxury of a large viewing fan base that will overlook crap like this this because we love the game. To grow the fan base, the NHL is going to have to make the game attractive to some people who don't currently watch, some of whom are under the impression that the game breeds violence for its own sake. And while we, true hockey fans know that isn't true, it is what some are led to believe, and since that is their default "bias," when they see this kind of stuff, it simply validates what they think, even if it is false. 

 

The thing is that non-NHL fans are ALREADY refusing to pay to watch or even to watch without paying. This is a result of the existing bias, some of which is based upon truth, and some of which is based upon skewing of the truth.

 

I think that your thought about having the ESPN scores is relevant though. But which service would be better? I'm not asking in defiance, but rather curiosity. Because for the "average" hockey fan, where are THEY gonna go for their scores? For me that answer is STILL ESPN. If we are gonna grow this game, we are going to grow it with fans who are ALSO fans of other major sports. And ALL of the other major sports are well-represented on ESPN. Seems like a logical place. Having said that, I would agree that this forum, in particular, is not about the "average" hockey fan, and so your point is more relevant here then at large.

[flyercanuck]

The answer to your question is: When the viewership tells them to by refusing to pay to watch. Part of the reason for that is the confusion that the lack of statement-making, line-drawing sanctions for acts like this in our game. We don't have the luxury of a large viewing fan base that will overlook crap like this this because we love the game. To grow the fan base, the NHL is going to have to make the game attractive to some people who don't currently watch, some of whom are under the impression that the game breeds violence for its own sake. And while we, true hockey fans know that isn't true, it is what some are led to believe, and since that is their default "bias," when they see this kind of stuff, it simply validates what they think, even if it is false. 

 

Sure. So the people who don't "get' hockey turn the channel and watch two MMA guys beat the living snot out of each other, or watch wrestlers break chairs over each others heads, or watch a 260 lb linebacker run headon into a 200 lb runningback or watch cars go round and round in circles in hopes a bunch of them slam into each other so they can watch the carnage. But hockey is too violent.

 

The thing is that non-NHL fans are ALREADY refusing to pay to watch or even to watch without paying. This is a result of the existing bias, some of which is based upon truth, and some of which is based upon skewing of the truth.

 

I think that your thought about having the ESPN scores is relevant though. But which service would be better? I'm not asking in defiance, but rather curiosity. Because for the "average" hockey fan, where are THEY gonna go for their scores? For me that answer is STILL ESPN. If we are gonna grow this game, we are going to grow it with fans who are ALSO fans of other major sports. And ALL of the other major sports are well-represented on ESPN. Seems like a logical place. Having said that, I would agree that this forum, in particular, is not about the "average" hockey fan, and so your point is more relevant here then at large.

 

 I don't know which service would be better in the US. TSN up here for hockey, by far.  I've clicked on the scores to see who scored mid-game and ESPN doesn't seem to have them until the game is over. That and the fact they seem more intent on knocking the game than showing it doesn't sit well with me.

[Commander Clueless]

Lucic is a beast of a player, but a complete asshat. I like the Bruins' physical style of play, but him and Marchand make me hate that team...which may not be fair. Those two players are good players but giant jackasses. Their antics have no place in the ideal game of hockey....that exists only in my head....so there.....or something.....yeah.

[SpikeDDS]

Ok now we are on the same page. Personally I could not care less if the league grows too. But as long as the stupid leadership of the league keeps trying they need to help it out. And turning a blind eye when they know it's going to be plastered on the news is not helping it out. That crap needs to be washed out growth or not!

I know that 10 teams carry the revenue load of the NHL and those teams don't need to grow in their markets. But as long as the league keeps putting teams in stupid markets they need to please the new fans.

Please note that what I am about to say comes from a Detroit Red Wings fan who lives in the Atlanta area, so this topic is VERY relevant to me.

 

Here's the problem: The issue with establishing new markets is that the teams that are put in place in areas which have no hockey culture in their history MUST be successful in a short period of time, or it'll be over before it starts. The Thrashers are a case-study in this. In 10 years, we had a hockey club that never even won a single playoff game, and only made it to the playoffs twice, both times sneaking into the last playoff slot, and pretty much losing on their way in so that being swept was not a surprise.

 

The team ownership was to blame. Donald Waddell remained the GM for the ENTIRE 10-year life of the Atlanta incarnation of the franchise. The kind of inaction ownership showed by not firing him 4 years into it is a lesson for all non-hockey-culture-based franchises. If you don't have a hockey culture in your town, you had better win, and FAST, or you will be going away or at least be a liability, and once that happens, hockey irrelevance is eventual, especially if there are other major sports in your town. Those will win.

 

You cannot have a decade of defeat if you have no history. The Dead Wing era in the 1970s-80s would have crushed a team in a non-hockey-culture city. The reason that the Wings survived almost 2 decades of ridiculous incompetence was their history, a history which is still very prominent in today's organization. Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay attend games regularly and are revered when they visit the dressing room and in the city at large. That history can save a franchise even when they suck. Look at Toronto. History and hockey culture is saving that franchise even now. (And it's a shame that THE main hockey franchise has been irrelevant in the standings for as long as it has. What if the Yankees were that incompetent for this long? Would it affect baseball? You bet!)

 

Yes, they need to be more selective about which markets they expand to. I'm still convinced that if the Thrashers were a better team in the decade they were here that they would still be here. But you won't have a successful expansion if even 7 years after your franchise begins you are still seeing more Red Wing sweaters in the crowd than Thrashers sweaters. (It was like that the entire time they were here for RW games, not just 7 years, BTW.) In the first 5 years, OK. But after that, there better be a strong uptick on that or you will be done soon. And winning is the driver. That's why Carolina is still here. That's why Florida is still here. Because they have won. And it is why Phoenix is gasping for air. Because they remain practically irrelevant when it comes to the playoffs.

[B21]

 Hey, don't knock the Flyer fans just because we have a great board.   If the tables were turned, we would have already been booted off the Pens board just for being Flyer fans.

 

 

 I promise not to lest forget as long as you lest forget everytime you B-b-but Pens, it goes both ways.

 

Sure it does. And right now it's my turn to be childish and smarmy.

 

Acknowledging all of the misdeeds done by the Pens, I've invested (wasted  ) too much time defeding my guys not to miss a chance when those theoretical tables are turned.  I wasn't going to bring up Hartnell's latest...incident...but when I see people calling for suspensions for Lucic when a guy with a similar history does the same thing and "gets away with" a fine without getting mentioned?  Well...I'm going to mention it.

[Commander Clueless]

 Hey, don't knock the Flyer fans just because we have a great board.   If the tables were turned, we would have already been booted off the Pens board just for being Flyer fans.

 

 

 I promise not to lest forget as long as you lest forget everytime you B-b-but Pens, it goes both ways.

 

There are Flyer fans on this board!!????

[flyercanuck]

@B21

 

 My issue with Lucic is that he just got a "mulligan" on one. He's had two in less than a month. I think a game is fair to anyone who does that crap. But when it begins to be part of your 'game". it's time to sit down and think about it.

[hf101]

 I have absolutely no reason to watch ESPN. Which reminds me....why do we have ESPN for the scores on this site when they don't give a rats ass about hockey?

 

There is a simple answer.  ESPN has a game score RSS feed that is simple, without advertising (as long as you choose not to click on it) that was acceptable to the format of the forum created by @Digityman.

 

Personally I haven't had reason to watch ESPN however they covered the NCCA hockey tournament and broadcast some collegiate games during the year.

[flyercanuck]

@hf101

 

 Thanks HF - I figured it may have been the easy choice.

 

 I heard people complain on the other HF board that they were showing the NCAA tourney but wouldn't even mention the NHL.

[SpikeDDS]

 

The answer to your question is: When the viewership tells them to by refusing to pay to watch. Part of the reason for that is the confusion that the lack of statement-making, line-drawing sanctions for acts like this in our game. We don't have the luxury of a large viewing fan base that will overlook crap like this this because we love the game. To grow the fan base, the NHL is going to have to make the game attractive to some people who don't currently watch, some of whom are under the impression that the game breeds violence for its own sake. And while we, true hockey fans know that isn't true, it is what some are led to believe, and since that is their default "bias," when they see this kind of stuff, it simply validates what they think, even if it is false. 

 

Sure. So the people who don't "get' hockey turn the channel and watch two MMA guys beat the living snot out of each other, or watch wrestlers break chairs over each others heads, or watch a 260 lb linebacker run headon into a 200 lb runningback or watch cars go round and round in circles in hopes a bunch of them slam into each other so they can watch the carnage. But hockey is too violent.

 

The thing is that non-NHL fans are ALREADY refusing to pay to watch or even to watch without paying. This is a result of the existing bias, some of which is based upon truth, and some of which is based upon skewing of the truth.

 

I think that your thought about having the ESPN scores is relevant though. But which service would be better? I'm not asking in defiance, but rather curiosity. Because for the "average" hockey fan, where are THEY gonna go for their scores? For me that answer is STILL ESPN. If we are gonna grow this game, we are going to grow it with fans who are ALSO fans of other major sports. And ALL of the other major sports are well-represented on ESPN. Seems like a logical place. Having said that, I would agree that this forum, in particular, is not about the "average" hockey fan, and so your point is more relevant here then at large.

 

 I don't know which service would be better in the US. TSN up here for hockey, by far.  I've clicked on the scores to see who scored mid-game and ESPN doesn't seem to have them until the game is over. That and the fact they seem more intent on knocking the game than showing it doesn't sit well with me.

 

Regarding Point #1: Ah, now I see where you are going with this. You are focused on the violence side of the argument, which is there, but as compared with other spectator sports on ESPN, ours pales in comparison. On that, we agree.

 

My argument is more than that, and it is regionally dependent. It's not JUST violence, although in some parts of the country, it IS a more predominant fallacy. This is about hockey culture, and it's development. This must be done in youth. It cannot be done in adulthood. By the time we get there, we will have missed the boat. The violence argument is just the excuse that those who do not have hockey in their culture use to justify their ignorance of the sport, but the real issue is the lack of hockey culture. If they better understood and accepted the violent part of hockey for what it is and WHY it is, it wouldn't be an issue for most people. But because hockey isn't a part of the culture, they don't understand, and they continue to believe their preconceived notions.

 

MMA comes along and is marketed for and appeals to the young, Adults do not "get it." I would argue that they SHOULDN'T get it, but I'm an adult. I don't get it either. But it is "new." Hockey is not. In non-hockey culture areas, it is old, and it is irrelevant. Soccer is more relevant than hockey.

 

Down here in ATL, what I WILL say is that there are youth roller hockey leagues around here that are doing well. There ae almost no ice hockey leagues, because there are few ice hockey rinks. It costs a TON to have proper ice when roughly 1/2 of your year is 80 degrees F or higher. But there would have been hope for an ATL franchise with this developing culture IF they had won. But they didn't. It will now be a cold day in hell before Atlanta gets another NHL franchise. Not because there was not hockey culture developing here, but rather because the success of the franchise didn't develop fast enough for the developing culture to support it.

 

But think as a parent of a kid who is considering playing roller hockey. You don't know much about the game, but you see Lucic try to amputate a testicle or two, and nothing done, and at the highest level of the game which should be the showcase of the game. Does that parent want their kid playing a game like that? Trust me, parents aren't hoping their kid will be an MMA star either. But if we don't have families attracted to and investing in our sport on this level, you can forget developing hockey culture.

 

Atlanta's attempts to develop a franchise supported by a developed hockey culture have failed. Without a franchise and no hope for a future franchise, I think it is likely that the culture that has developed will eventually go away for the most part around here. Wasted! The NHL needs to protect what it is trying to do in other markets, and this kind of thing only adds to the problem.

 

Regarding #2, I'm a hockey fan. I am aware of TSN. I can't get it on ANY cable providedown here, even if I am willing to pay a price. It is NOT an option down here. Soooo, it's ESPN AAAAND.....

Edited April 21, 2014 by SpikeDDS

[hf101]

 I heard people complain on the other HF board that they were showing the NCAA tourney but wouldn't even mention the NHL.

 

That doesn't bother me,  NBC and Comcast have the NHL.  ESPN lost out on the NHL market and frankly I'm glad.  NBC and Comcast have done a far better job, every playoff game is covered.  The greater the audiences for NBC hockey coverage will cause ESPN to cover more collegiate hockey during the year.  A win win for me, imo.  

[hf101]

Atlatna's attempts to develop a franchise supported by a developed hockey culture have failed. Without a franchise and no hope for a future franchise, I think it is likely that the culture that has developed will eventually go away for the most part around here. Wasted! The NHL needs to protect what it is trying to do in other markets, and this kind of thing 
 
Regarding #2, I'm a hockey fan. I am aware of TSN. I can't get it on ANY cable network down here, even if I am willing to pay a price. It is NOT an option down here. Soooo, it's ESPN AAAAND.....

 

Damm that sucks.  Another option for Atlanta is to have an AHL or ECHL team.  I'm not sure if there are any or not located in the state, but I do know that there is a growing trend for the NHL 's  AHL teams to be located closer to the parent team.  So maybe Atlanta would be a proposed location for Tampa's team.  

[flyercanuck]

Regarding Point #1: Ah, now I see where you are going with this. You are focused on the violence side of the argument, which is there, but as compared with other spectator sports on ESPN, ours pales in comparison. On that, we agree.

 

My argument is more than that, and it is regionally dependent. It's not JUST violence, although in some parts of the country, it IS a more predominant fallacy. This is about hockey culture, and it's development. This must be done in youth. It cannot be done in adulthood. By the time we get there, we will have missed the boat. The violence argument is just the excuse that those who do not have hockey in their culture use to justify their ignorance of the sport, but the real issue is the lack of hockey culture. If they better understood and accepted the violent part of hockey for what it is and WHY it is, it wouldn't be an issue for most people. But because hockey isn't a part of the culture, they don't understand, and they continue to believe their preconceived notions.

 

I think we see eye to eye here. I've never understood the negative"violent" comments when it's really just ignorance about the game. NFL football, which is HUGE in the southern states, is as violent as any sport.

 

MMA comes along and is marketed for and appeals to the young, Adults do not "get it." I would argue that they SHOULDN'T get it, but I'm an adult. I don't get it either. But it is "new." Hockey is not. In non-hockey culture areas, it is old, and it is irrelevant. Soccer is more relevant than hockey.

 

Maybe if I spent my youth playing slaughter video games I'd get it. I don't.  I played soccer as a kid, and it just wasn't for me.  Watching it even moreso.

 

Down here in ATL, what I WILL say is that there are youth roller hockey leagues around here that are doing well. There ae almost no ice hockey leagues, because there are few ice hockey rinks. It costs a TON to have proper ice when roughly 1/2 of your year is 80 degrees F or higher. But there would have been hope for an ATL franchise with this developing culture IF they had won. But they didn't. It will now be a cold day in hell before Atlanta gets another NHL franchise. Not because there was not hockey culture developing here, but rather because the success of the franchise didn't develop fast enough for the developing culture to support it.

 

Can't argue that. I can see why they WANT hockey to succeed there. But I can also see why it doesn't. And you can't force it.

 

But think as a parent of a kid who is considering playing roller hockey. You don't know much about the game, but you see Lucic try to amputate a testicle or two, and nothing done, and at the highest level of the game which should be the showcase of the game. Does that parent want their kid playing a game like that? Trust me, parents aren't hoping their kid will be an MMA star either. But if we don't have families attracted to and investing in our sport on this level, you can forget developing hockey culture.

 

 I see hits in football that HAVE to cause some sort of head trauma. I see football players held up as heroes who'd be doing time if it weren't for their onfield skill. Yet parents in the south still want their kids playing that sport.

 

Atlanta's attempts to develop a franchise supported by a developed hockey culture have failed. Without a franchise and no hope for a future franchise, I think it is likely that the culture that has developed will eventually go away for the most part around here. Wasted! The NHL needs to protect what it is trying to do in other markets, and this kind of thing only adds to the problem.

 

Regarding #2, I'm a hockey fan. I am aware of TSN. I can't get it on ANY cable providedown here, even if I am willing to pay a price. It is NOT an option down here. Soooo, it's ESPN AAAAND.....

 

Honestly my comment on ESPN was meant to be rhetorical. Many of us have said what a terrible hockey network it is, and I was just pointing that out on a great hockey board.

[SpikeDDS]

Damm that sucks. Another option for Atlanta is to have an AHL or ECHL team. I'm not sure if there are any or not located in the state, but I do know that there is a growing trend for the NHL 's AHL teams to be located closer to the parent team. So maybe Atlanta would be a proposed location for Tampa's team.

We have the Gwinnett Gladiators. They are an ECHL team. They are not doing GREAT, but they are not dying either. Unfortunately, they are about a 2-2 1/2 hour drive for me during normal weekday traffic to go see. I did it once and I've sworn I will never again go to a game on a weeknight during rush hour again.

I would love it if Tampa could move here. A Stevie Y franchise in ATL? That would be AWESOME!

Never gonna happen IMHO. We've had two hockey franchises. Both have failed. They have failed for the same reason--lack of success in time for the culture to develop to support it. The good news with ATL is just how many people are here. It's HUGE! The other good news is that we have a lot of people from MN and the NE who are transplants who know the game.

The bad news is that with the Braves (with their well established history of success, despite relatively few championships) and the Falcons here, as well as the Hawks, the sports market is pretty saturated. ATL has a very high African-American population and culture. They don't know hockey. (Certainly exceptions, of course. I'm talking about culture, here.) That is how the Hawks have survived being as lousy as they have been for all these years. College football drives the NFL fan base here. We have both SEC and ACC football teams, and SEC is HUUUGE!! That feeds the Falcons, who with few exceptions have sucked. (Not as bad as the Lions, but still have sucked.) They have survived because of football culture which generates at the college level.

We have NO college presence. The culture has been developed in the suburbs of ATL, so an ATL team would have to generate its fan base from there. Few inner city people are relevantly aware of our game, and if you look at a map of Atlanta, you'll see just how BIG this city is--very large. It's not until you get outside of it that you start getting your potential fan base, and it is geographically spread out. (I can travel an hour at 80 MPH from my house to the opposite side of the high-population-dense metro area, and I still won't have left it. Like I said, LARGE market, numerically AND geographically.

But Bettman's not gonna make the same mistake twice. I think he'd have a much easier time establishing something in Milwaukee, WI than here. Culture's already in place. Market's not as big, but with only the Brewers and Bucks (Green Bay isn't TOO far away, but you can't get tickets anyway--the waiting list is almost as large as for the Masters golf tournament, halfway to forever), it'd have a better shot and no history of failure, much less a DOUBLE history of failure. If a team comes back here in my lifetime, I'll eat my hat and my words.

Edited April 21, 2014 by SpikeDDS

[SpikeDDS]

 

But think as a parent of a kid who is considering playing roller hockey. You don't know much about the game, but you see Lucic try to amputate a testicle or two, and nothing done, and at the highest level of the game which should be the showcase of the game. Does that parent want their kid playing a game like that? Trust me, parents aren't hoping their kid will be an MMA star either. But if we don't have families attracted to and investing in our sport on this level, you can forget developing hockey culture.

 

 I see hits in football that HAVE to cause some sort of head trauma. I see football players held up as heroes who'd be doing time if it weren't for their onfield skill. Yet parents in the south still want their kids playing that sport.

 

Well it's because they SEE the upside of being a football player. Money is HUGE. So is status. With the SEC and ACC college football being such a big part of the culture here, you aren't gonna change that until a WHOLE bunch of football players are drooling gorks. It will take what amounts to too much carnage to finally wake people up down here. They don't care. It's too celebrated.

 

Hockey will NEVER be at this level down here. EVER. Can't be. We have no college teams that play to feed the base.

[B21]

@B21

 

 My issue with Lucic is that he just got a "mulligan" on one. He's had two in less than a month. I think a game is fair to anyone who does that crap. But when it begins to be part of your 'game". it's time to sit down and think about it.

 

Preaching to the choir on that one.

[Vanflyer]

Can't argue that. I can see why they WANT hockey to succeed there. But I can also see why it doesn't. And you can't force it.

 

Didn't they try it with the Atlanta Flames years ago who became the Colorado Rockies (I think WHL days)? 

[SpikeDDS]

Didn't they try it with the Atlanta Flames years ago who became the Colorado Rockies (I think WHL days)? 

 

Yeah, the Flames were here. And failed here. The experiment has failed twice here in ATL. As much of a fool as Bettman is, there is NO way he tries again. It wasn't even Bettman's fault for trying it here. It could have worked, but the team was mismanaged.

 

It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Fail. Fail. When you fail twice, and other options haven't been exhausted, you go elsewhere.

 

I would think Wisconsin would be good.

[flyercanuck]

Well it's because they SEE the upside of being a football player. Money is HUGE. So is status. With the SEC and ACC college football being such a big part of the culture here, you aren't gonna change that until a WHOLE bunch of football players are drooling gorks. It will take what amounts to too much carnage to finally wake people up down here. They don't care. It's too celebrated.

 

Hockey will NEVER be at this level down here. EVER. Can't be. We have no college teams that play to feed the base.

 

 

Oh I know. And as I mentioned, i don't really care if it becomes huge anywhere other than where it already is. People will like it, or not.

[flyercanuck]

Yeah, the Flames were here. And failed here. The experiment has failed twice here in ATL. As much of a fool as Bettman is, there is NO way he tries again. It wasn't even Bettman's fault for trying it here. It could have worked, but the team was mismanaged.

 

It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Fail. Fail. When you fail twice, and other options haven't been exhausted, you go elsewhere.

 

I would think Wisconsin would be good.

 

Or Quebec. Or Hamilton. Or Markham. But hey, why put a franchise where there are already plenty of die-hard fans...better to try and force people to like it somewhere else.

[Old School Hockey]

Or Quebec. Or Hamilton. Or Markham. But hey, why put a franchise where there are already plenty of die-hard fans...better to try and force people to like it somewhere else.

With current alignment I only see expansion out West until conferences are even. I could see a struggling East team moving to Hamilton.

[SpikeDDS]

Or Quebec. Or Hamilton. Or Markham. But hey, why put a franchise where there are already plenty of die-hard fans...better to try and force people to like it somewhere else.

I can't tell, but I THINK your tongue was firmly in your cheek there.

Well, to some degree, it depends on how big the market is. Atlanta is a HUGE market, potentially. I can't honestly blame Bettman for trying. If the team had started competing within 5 years, it would have done quite well, methinks. But let the same loser GM the thing from start to finish. That is a recipe for disaster.

Now, I realize that you have the same team go to Winnipeg, and they sell our every game, and they STILL suck. So some of these Canadian cities are safer bets.

But there is an actual reality to your comment: You AREN'T really gonna grow the game of hockey if you don't offer it where it isn't readily available. You wanna grow the fan base, it's tough to do in Canada, because they are already fans.

But, as I have said repeatedly, it takes winning AND development of the culture. Even winning alone will not do it, because when the winning stops--and eventually it does in the cap era (except for the Red Wings, right? ;-) )--without hockey culture to rescue it with hope, the other sports take over and see ya hockey team!

[flyercanuck]

With current alignment I only see expansion out West until conferences are even. I could see a struggling East team moving to Hamilton.

 

They won't move a franchise to Hamilton or Markham...they know they could sell one there for top dollar.

[flyercanuck]

I can't tell, but I THINK your tongue was firmly in your cheek there.

Well, to some degree, it depends on how big the market is. Atlanta is a HUGE market, potentially. I can't honestly blame Bettman for trying. If the team had started competing within 5 years, it would have done quite well, methinks. But let the same loser GM the thing from start to finish. That is a recipe for disaster.

Now, I realize that you have the same team go to Winnipeg, and they sell our every game, and they STILL suck. So some of these Canadian cities are safer bets.

But there is an actual reality to your comment: You AREN'T really gonna grow the game of hockey if you don't offer it where it isn't readily available. You wanna grow the fan base, it's tough to do in Canada, because they are already fans.

But, as I have said repeatedly, it takes winning AND development of the culture. Even winning alone will not do it, because when the winning stops--and eventually it does in the cap era (except for the Red Wings, right? ;-) )--without hockey culture to rescue it with hope, the other sports take over and see ya hockey team!

 

Atlanta is a large market. So is Phoenix. Trying to jam a square peg into a round hole isn't growing the game much there though is it? Putting franchises in places where people are hockey crazy might make the league look a little better than having the Coyotes drain millions out of the rest of the league for a decade.