Seattle gets its NHL team (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 03:18:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Off-topic Board (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, The Mikado, YE)
  Seattle gets its NHL team (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Seattle gets its NHL team  (Read 932 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: December 06, 2018, 06:35:47 AM »

They should revive the Seattle Metropolitans name so as to already have one Stanley Cup to their credit.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2018, 05:48:06 PM »

I wonder if the NHL will become the first major U.S. sports league to break the 32-team barrier.

Doubtful. They've explicitly stated they have no plans to do so and it would complicate scheduling.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2018, 09:39:38 PM »

Actually, from a regional balance standpoint, rather than add another West Coast team, thereby forcing the Coyotes into the Central Division, it would have made more sense to add a team in Houston.  As it is, breaking the budding rivalry with the Golden Knights probably means Houston will get an NHL team when the Coyotes move.  If I were the Coyotes' owner, I'd go for a bare bones operation, skimming my share of the national TV rights until the NHL admits reality and lets the team move to a city where it can make money.

(The problem Canada has is that the NHL is in no position to add a 17th team in the Eastern Time Zone until the NHL expands past 32 teams.)
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2018, 02:29:51 PM »

(The problem Canada has is that the NHL is in no position to add a 17th team in the Eastern Time Zone until the NHL expands past 32 teams.)

Add a team in Halifax, and move one of Detroit/Columbus/Pittsburgh to the Western Conference.

That doesn't solve the time zone problem.  You'd still have teams three time zones apart in the same conference which is bad as it makes it impossible to schedule weeknight games for those teams that are watchable live by both sets of fans. If anything, adding an Atlantic Time Zone team makes things worse, but not by much.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2018, 01:53:09 PM »

They should revive the Seattle Metropolitans name so as to already have one Stanley Cup to their credit.

We can call them the Mets.

Anyway, I think that this will work out well. Seattle seems like a decent hockey city (as opposed to Vegas, Phoenix, Tampa, or Miami) and the rivalry with Vancouver will be awesome.

Now when is Wisconsin getting a team?

As soon as Chicago (the city, not the team) moves south.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2018, 11:04:22 AM »

They should revive the Seattle Metropolitans name so as to already have one Stanley Cup to their credit.

We can call them the Mets.

Anyway, I think that this will work out well. Seattle seems like a decent hockey city (as opposed to Vegas, Phoenix, Tampa, or Miami) and the rivalry with Vancouver will be awesome.

Now when is Wisconsin getting a team?

As soon as Chicago (the city, not the team) moves south.

I mean MKE has a basketball team while Chicago does, too, and its a much better hockey state than basketball.

In fact, MKE has a baseball team and Chicago has TWO.

The NHL has far more Canadian teams than do the other major sports, so that cuts down on how many teams they can field south of the border. If I had to bet on the next US city to get a team, it'd be Houston either by expansion or Arizona moving. Also Milwaukee is too small a metro area to really support two arena teams. If it weren't for the Bucks, then a Milwaukee NHL team would be a no-brainer, but with them, it's just too much potential competition.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2018, 03:43:19 PM »

How is a basketball team realistically competition for a hockey team just because they both play in an arena? Totally different fan bases and even demographics.

How quaint.  You think knowledgeable fans in the seats are where the money is. It's the merchandise, the corporate sponsorships, etc. That really matter.  A business might sponsor a family night for its employees at either basketball or hockey as a way of relieving February tedium, but not both. The amount of local money that is spent on sports won't go up that much because a new sport comes in. The greater Milwaukee metro area only has around 2 million people and anyone who's an ice hockey fan instead of a Milwaukee fan still has either the Blackhawks or the Admirals.

Incidentally, Nate Silver did an analysis of where there are unserved NHL fans back in 2013.  The numbers don't look good for Milwaukee getting a team anytime soon.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-cant-canada-win-the-stanley-cup/

If the NHL ever does expand to 36 teams, I'd say the four additional teams would be:
Quebec City
Houston
Halifax, Saint John, or Saskatoon
Cleveland or San Diego

Milwaukee would need the NHL to expand to 40 teams to have a reasonable chance of getting an NHL team.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.