OT: Hockey Expansion
- Thread starter Las Panteras
- Start date
Yes, the NHL is definitely going to expand and it is going to be Las Vegas and Seattle.
It is basically a done deal but they need to do a kabuki dance so that political will can be solidified and so that nobody overpays/appears to overpay.
It is going to happen though by 2017 at the latest and it will bring the Western Conference to 16 teams to match the Eastern Conference.
What will be interesting to see is how the NHL then realigns the Western Conference. There are going to be some hard choices to be made there and somebody is not going to be very happy.
The Las Vegas team already has its arena and it has its colors and name picked out. They are going to be the Black Knights or something along those lines and they will be black, gold, and silver.
Seattle is currently balking at the expansion fee – which is said to be $500 million – but they will eventually settle on a number there as well.
A lot of people do not know this but the first American city to claim the Stanley Cup was Seattle and the team that it was called the Metropolitans. I think it would be cool at the Seattle expansion team also chose the name Metropolitans as an homage to that historical tidbit. However, they will probably choose something like the Matrix or the Conflict or something goofy like that.
Something I've never understood: With Wisconsin having historically been one of the hotbeds of hockey in the US, why is there no NHL team in Milwaukee?
The NHL expanding to Las Vegas is so completely, monumentally stupid that the only surprise is that they didn't do it years ago.
Yours is a very good point. However, it comes down to the fact that Milwaukee is simply not big enough to support an NBA and NHL team. In fact, very few cities are big enough to support both major winter sports operations.
Milwaukee is roughly the same size as Pittsburgh and we could not support an NHL and NBA team either. It has to be one or the other for cities our size and we long ago chose the NHL. Another city of comparable size is Portland and they chose the NBA. Portland is also not big enough to house both an NHL and NBA team.
That is one of the reasons why I have long hoped to see the Bucks relocate to another city. If that organization were to relocate to say, Seattle for example, I would slap an NHL team in that market in no time flat because of their natural geographic rivalries and because of how deeply rooted the sport is in the culture there. I think the NHL would be very successful in Wisconsin for all the reasons you listed - but not if the Milwaukee Bucks are also sharing that market.
I would love to see the NHL return to Quebec. Maybe someday the Florida Panthers will move there.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I'm sure the folks in charge of the NHL love the idea that a Florida versus California final is looking like a real possibility after an original six final was so close to being a reality.
Actually, Milwaukee is a good deal smaller than Pittsburgh (about 800,000 people smaller when looking at MSAs), so I agree with you that there is no way a market that size could support two winter sports teams as Pgh could not swing an NBA team IMO. Milwaukee barely support the Bucks. It's all Bulls fans when they play Chicago at home. I think Denver is the smallest MSA with two winter sports teams, at 2.7 MM people. Milwaukee is 1.55 MM and Pgh 2.34 MM.
What the NHL really needs to do is 1) contract, 2) finally get their officials to enforce the actual rules of the game, 3) shrink the goalie pads a bit. I love hockey, but I see a league slowly slipping back into some kind of Jaques Lemaire wet dream. #1 and #3 won't happen, but maybe #2 if we're lucky.
It just doesn't belong in certain markets. Phoenix, Miami, Raleigh, Columbus, Nashville, Tampa and perhaps a few others. Those franchises have such small core fanbases and struggle to maintain support unless they are having a truly outstanding season (bandwagon). The level of play would be much better if you got rid of 6 teams, maybe put one in Quebec and another in someplace like Seattle. There would be less Nick Spaling's and Ben Lovejoy's to watch, which would be a good thing.
That is a very good post and I agree with most of it.
On the suggestions, I don't think contraction is ever going to happen. It would improve the quality of play but it would also cost owners money and that is a nonstarter.
It is a lot like when people suggest they reduce the length of the regular season and/or the playoffs. That would result in better hockey but it would also result in lost revenue. We all know who wins when those two forces collide.
On the officials front, I truly believe that is a cultural issue. One of the major problems the NHL has is that it is bankrolled by Americans - who comprise 24 of the 30 fan bases in the league - but is run almost exclusively by Canadians.
Isn't it incredible how many Canadian officials there are? You would think that the officiating demographics would roughly match the player demographics. As such, one would assume that there would be at least a handful of Russian officials, Swedish officials, Czech officials, Finnish officials, etc.
At the very least one would hope that the officiating demographics closely matched the fan demographics or were at least split evenly between American and Canadian officials.
Are there any European-born officials in the NHL? Any Euro linesmen?
What about American officials? How do they compare to the number of Canadian officials and linesmen?
Without researching it, I would guess that it is about a 90/10 split - Canadian to American. That is a major part of the problem. We just see the game so differently on so many levels that at times it seems like we are talking about two different sports.
Even more incredibly is that the people who run the league office and who evaluate these officials, most of whom played in the NHL, were almost always goons to varying degrees.
Well of course those people are going to have a different perspective on what is an acceptable play and what is not than would a former player who did not swim in those waters for a living.
You don't think Mats Sundin, for example, would have a different point of view on a controversial hit along the boards than would someone like Stu Grimson or Kris King?
Of course he would.
So then why is it that part of the game - the element that attracts casual fans and generates money - is ignored in favor of the game's lowest common denominator?
That makes no sense so over and I am convinced that is the NHL's central problem.
Further, why is it that when we see a questionable hit during a game, the bulk of the conversation as on what the receiver should have done better to protect himself rather than what of the deliverer of the hit could have done better to respect integrity of the game?
You don't see that as much in other sports primarily because it makes no sense. The onus should ALWAYS be on the rules violators, not the victims of said violations.
Why is it guys are penalized based on the results of a reckless play rather than the reckless play itself? A high stick is a high stick. What difference does it make whether or not it resulted in a bloody nose?
Similarly, if Player A illegally knees Player B, what difference does it make if Player A succeeded in taking Player B out of the game?
Player A broke the rules and should be punished accordingly - irrespective of the consequences of his reckless decision.
I made these points to a Canadian friend one time and he looked at me like I had three heads. He honestly thought I had lost my marbles because my seemingly commonsense point of you would be considered in maverick opinion up in the Great White North.
On the suggestions, I don't think contraction is ever going to happen. It would improve the quality of play but it would also cost owners money and that is a nonstarter.
It is a lot like when people suggest they reduce the length of the regular season and/or the playoffs. That would result in better hockey but it would also result in lost revenue. We all know who wins when those two forces collide.
On the officials front, I truly believe that is a cultural issue. One of the major problems the NHL has is that it is bankrolled by Americans - who comprise 24 of the 30 fan bases in the league - but is run almost exclusively by Canadians.
Isn't it incredible how many Canadian officials there are? You would think that the officiating demographics would roughly match the player demographics. As such, one would assume that there would be at least a handful of Russian officials, Swedish officials, Czech officials, Finnish officials, etc.
At the very least one would hope that the officiating demographics closely matched the fan demographics or were at least split evenly between American and Canadian officials.
Are there any European-born officials in the NHL? Any Euro linesmen?
What about American officials? How do they compare to the number of Canadian officials and linesmen?
Without researching it, I would guess that it is about a 90/10 split - Canadian to American. That is a major part of the problem. We just see the game so differently on so many levels that at times it seems like we are talking about two different sports.
Even more incredibly is that the people who run the league office and who evaluate these officials, most of whom played in the NHL, were almost always goons to varying degrees.
Well of course those people are going to have a different perspective on what is an acceptable play and what is not than would a former player who did not swim in those waters for a living.
You don't think Mats Sundin, for example, would have a different point of view on a controversial hit along the boards than would someone like Stu Grimson or Kris King?
Of course he would.
So then why is it that part of the game - the element that attracts casual fans and generates money - is ignored in favor of the game's lowest common denominator?
That makes no sense so over and I am convinced that is the NHL's central problem.
Further, why is it that when we see a questionable hit during a game, the bulk of the conversation as on what the receiver should have done better to protect himself rather than what of the deliverer of the hit could have done better to respect integrity of the game?
You don't see that as much in other sports primarily because it makes no sense. The onus should ALWAYS be on the rules violators, not the victims of said violations.
Why is it guys are penalized based on the results of a reckless play rather than the reckless play itself? A high stick is a high stick. What difference does it make whether or not it resulted in a bloody nose?
Similarly, if Player A illegally knees Player B, what difference does it make if Player A succeeded in taking Player B out of the game?
Player A broke the rules and should be punished accordingly - irrespective of the consequences of his reckless decision.
I made these points to a Canadian friend one time and he looked at me like I had three heads. He honestly thought I had lost my marbles because my seemingly commonsense point of you would be considered in maverick opinion up in the Great White North.
Last edited:
DvY, I generally agree with you that a big part of the NHL's problems relate to the Canuckleheads in charge. However is it really such a mystery why there are no European game officials? It's really hard to become an NHL (or any other major sport) official. What European in their right mind is going to come over to North America when they are relatively young and put in all the time doing junior and minor league games in the hope that maybe someday they will be good enough to get hired by the NHL? There also aren't any European NBA refs with all the European players in the game, and their aren't any MLB umpires from any of the numerous Caribbean countries that supply many baseball players. Because no one is going to go to a foreign country and put in all the time and effort making very low wages in the hopes that someday they will make it to the top level of officiating. It just doesn't make any sense.
That's just it. Aside from stupid moves (Miami/Atlanta) the NHL has been smart enough to not try expansion in medium sized cities with NBA teams. There just isn't enough disposable income to drive a gate driven league in markets they would have to share with an NBA team. I can see Seattle definitely. And Vegas reminds me of Arizona, just a glitzy sun belt city with seemingly lots of money to throw around but the attention span of a gnat in heat. I personally hope the NHL moves the Miami franchise to Quebec City.
Oh....and there aren't enough good players as it is.
Doc....to drive your point home.......................
God bless Steve Yzerman, Ron Francis and Joe Sakic. All former great players, HOFers, yet Canadians through and through, especially Sakic and Stevie Y.
But let's list some of the top decision makers and policy makers in the NHL management level.
Bob Murray GM Anaheim
Don Maloney GM Arizona
Tim Murray GM Buffalo (nephew of Bryan suffering succotash Murray)
Jim Nill GM Dallas
Dale Tallon GM Florida
Marc Bergevin GM Montreal
Glen Sather GM NYR
Bryan Murray GM Ottawa
LOL....Hextall GM Philly following Paul Holmgren following Bobby Clarke
Jim Rutherford GM Pens and card carrying AARP member
Kevin Chevaldayoff GM Winnipeg
And many others.
Most of the above were fringe players in the NHL or dinosaurs like Murray, Rutherford and Sather.
Add into it the Brian Burke's, Colin Campbell's and now Minister of Justice Brendan Shanahan, it is like the Canadian Mafia (yeah Burke is American only by birth) and all were gritty guys.
It is the Craig Adams' of the previous generation who now runs the NHL.
Oh and this just in.....makes me sick to see the Rangers pull out another series...but they are bashing the Lightening. I was hoping for a TB/Anaheim final, just for the poor ratings so Bettman can't just stand there and spout how wonderful the sport is because the ratings are up.
I drive by the new Las Vegas arena every day and it looks to be almost entirely enclosed. Amazing how fast they can build these structures these days.
The NHL coming here is pretty much a stupid idea. Las Vegas is a city that has desparately desired an NBA franchise for as long as I've been here and makes no secret of it. The league has long said that the Thomas & Mack arena where UNLV plays is inadequate to house an NBA team and that no Las Vegas franchise could even be discussed without a new arena. So the powers that be decided with no NBA expansion/relocation on the horizon that they would build it anyways and use it for hockey, the UFC, and the occasional college basketball game until they can get an NBA team here.
Ticket sales will not be a problem, at least at first, as they've already had over 10,000 people put down deposits for season tickets and the casinos will lock up many tickets as well. The issue is that there just aren't that many hockey fans here. The transplants will of course support their team when they come to town, and the tourists will go, but other than that there is very little demand for hockey locally. There has been minor league hockey in Las Vegas for decades which has always attracted very passionate, but mostly small crowds.
The NHL coming here is pretty much a stupid idea. Las Vegas is a city that has desparately desired an NBA franchise for as long as I've been here and makes no secret of it. The league has long said that the Thomas & Mack arena where UNLV plays is inadequate to house an NBA team and that no Las Vegas franchise could even be discussed without a new arena. So the powers that be decided with no NBA expansion/relocation on the horizon that they would build it anyways and use it for hockey, the UFC, and the occasional college basketball game until they can get an NBA team here.
Ticket sales will not be a problem, at least at first, as they've already had over 10,000 people put down deposits for season tickets and the casinos will lock up many tickets as well. The issue is that there just aren't that many hockey fans here. The transplants will of course support their team when they come to town, and the tourists will go, but other than that there is very little demand for hockey locally. There has been minor league hockey in Las Vegas for decades which has always attracted very passionate, but mostly small crowds.
BF, you say that the tourists will go, but will they really? You get your average group from somewhere like Iowa and they have a choice between gambling all night, going to a show, or going to watch the Las Vegas Degenerates play hockey against the Winnipeg Jets, how many of those people are really going to go to the hockey game? None, that's how many. The only tourists that are going to these games would be like people from Pittsburgh who happen to be in town when the Penguins are there or people from Detroit who are in town when the Wings are there.
"Neutrals" are not going to a hockey game when they are in Las Vegas. No way.
"Neutrals" are not going to a hockey game when they are in Las Vegas. No way.
Joe,
They are pretty much counting on tourists from NHL cities plannning Vegas vacations around their teams visits here. Bill Foley (proposed owner) has said over and over again that tourists will not be depended upon to provide a sizable portion of nightly attendance, but no one really believes this. Some people actually seem to feel that because the annual NHL preseason game at the MGM usually sells out (mostly between LA and Colorado), this is some sort of precursor to fans coming here in droves to support their team.
I see a decent amount of Red Wings gear in town, but that's about it. There are a lot of people from Chicago and New York living here and I presume at least some of them are big hockey fans, but you never really hear much. I am not exaggerating when I say that on my 10 mile commute to work daily I see at least 5 cars with Steelers bumper stickers, decals, or license plates. You literally can't go into a bar, restaurant, or any place showing sports without encountering a Steelers fan. Conversely I've never seen anyone to my recollection wearing Penguins stuff, not even during the years I worked in a sportsbook.
Unless by some miracle the team is really good quickly I see attendance going down rapidly after the first season. I assume the players will be very happy playing here with the nightlife and the no state taxes, but when/if Las Vegas gets an NBA franchise the taste for hockey will evaporate fast.
They are pretty much counting on tourists from NHL cities plannning Vegas vacations around their teams visits here. Bill Foley (proposed owner) has said over and over again that tourists will not be depended upon to provide a sizable portion of nightly attendance, but no one really believes this. Some people actually seem to feel that because the annual NHL preseason game at the MGM usually sells out (mostly between LA and Colorado), this is some sort of precursor to fans coming here in droves to support their team.
I see a decent amount of Red Wings gear in town, but that's about it. There are a lot of people from Chicago and New York living here and I presume at least some of them are big hockey fans, but you never really hear much. I am not exaggerating when I say that on my 10 mile commute to work daily I see at least 5 cars with Steelers bumper stickers, decals, or license plates. You literally can't go into a bar, restaurant, or any place showing sports without encountering a Steelers fan. Conversely I've never seen anyone to my recollection wearing Penguins stuff, not even during the years I worked in a sportsbook.
Unless by some miracle the team is really good quickly I see attendance going down rapidly after the first season. I assume the players will be very happy playing here with the nightlife and the no state taxes, but when/if Las Vegas gets an NBA franchise the taste for hockey will evaporate fast.
I'm not a hockey fan but I do think Las Vegas will be a successful NHL franchise financially. There are no pro sports team in the area and only 1 major college team (UNLV basketball). NHL Las Vegas's only competition is literally UNLV basketball. UNLV has a very good fanbase but if that's all your competing with, there's enough of a market there to sell tickets. I wouldn't expect Vegas to go gaga over hockey but if its the only game in town, the locals will get behind it to an extent.
As others said, the transplants will go root for their team and tourists will schedule their Vegas trip around it. For example, I would guess that when the Penguins play there once a year, there will be at least 5,000 Penguin fans.
I do agree that there won't be many "neutral" tourists that will go. Maybe some foreign tourists who are curious but NHL Vegas wont be relying on the Iowa family to take in a game.
I don't think selling tickets is going to be a problem in Las Vegas. I think tickets to a hockey game make a great comp for highrollers.
There are enough casinos and other businesses in town that they will gobble up the extra tickets.
The problem will be putting actual asses in seats. I could see many nights when that arena is sold out but half-empty.
I also believe that when teams from the Northeast and Midwest play there, the arena will be full of Penguins/Blackhawks/Red Wings/Flyers/Rangers fans.
That will make for a terrible game atmosphere like we often see and Sunshine and Glendale.
There are enough casinos and other businesses in town that they will gobble up the extra tickets.
The problem will be putting actual asses in seats. I could see many nights when that arena is sold out but half-empty.
I also believe that when teams from the Northeast and Midwest play there, the arena will be full of Penguins/Blackhawks/Red Wings/Flyers/Rangers fans.
That will make for a terrible game atmosphere like we often see and Sunshine and Glendale.
I think the NBA is a much better fit for Vegas than is the NHL. However, I think that is still a decade or so out so the NHL will have to do.
If hockey can gain a foothold there, it could become entrenched. For that to happen, the home team MUST win.
If hockey can gain a foothold there, it could become entrenched. For that to happen, the home team MUST win.
Last edited:
My thoughts on potential NHL franchise locations:
1) Seattle. No brainer. Successful WHL (Canadian Jr) team, natural rival for Vancouver. No NBA team.
2) Las Vegas. Again, I look at Phoenix and see the same problems only worse. It is really hard for sunbelt type cities where there is such a transient population to gain solid support.
3) Cleveland. Nope. Smaller than Pittsburgh and with an NBA team and Pittsburgh and Columbus (along with Detroit) so proximate, no fanbase.
4) Milwaukee. Nope. NBA franchise, smaller than Pittsburgh.
5) Atlanta. Been there, done that.
6) San Diego. The weather is too nice, there is no real hockey culture.
7) Kansas City. Worth revisiting.
8) Quebec City No brainer except has no juice for USA TV. Personally would love it, great atmosphere and cool to hear everything en Françoise
9) Toronto/Hamilton Part II. Would work. But again, despite market size and ability to support, really gives no more profile to the NHL.
10) Cincinnati. No. Despite no NBA team and size of Cleveland/Pittsburgh, etc..... Cincy is essentially the south+Appalachia. It might as well be Kentucky.
So why not let them develop in Europe and hire them from their country's elite league? You are telling me the opportunity to make more money than they ever have made in their lives for the privilege of working in the best league in the world and in a country like the United States, would not be appealing to those people.
That is difficult to believe.
Does he really have to marinate in the AHL or the ECHL first? If he is officiating in say, the KHL, that is an exceptional league. He could easily translate that to the NHL.
I would dramatically improve the game to bring different cultural perspectives to its officiating just as happened when so many players from different European countries initially flooded the player ranks.
The problem with Kansas City is that no local ownership group has ever emerged there. Everything else is pretty much in place. Then again, that is a bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln how she liked the play, isn't it?
The KC folks are purely interested in an NBA franchise and worry that if they are successful in landing in NHL franchise, that would forever dash their NBA hopes. Given the size of their market, they are probably correct.
That is a shame too because the NHL could use another American-based Central Division team.
I briefly touched on this in an earlier post but one of the complications of adding Seattle and Las Vegas is that they will each have to play in the Pacific Division. That means that somebody who is currently in the Pacific is going to have to move to the Central. My guess is that it will be the Colorado Avalanche because I can't see them breaking up Calgary and Edmonton – the two other logical candidates.
As for the other cities mentioned, I think Quebec City is still highly likely to get a relocated Eastern Conference franchise. However, the drop in the Canadian loony really hurt their candidacy – at least in the near-term. I still think the Panthers will end up there but it could take a few years until the loony stabilizes and Florida continues to struggle at the gate.
I am vehemently opposed to Hamilton - - or anywhere else in the "Golden Horseshoe" - because that would hurt Buffalo, which is already among the smallest American markets.
That is never going to happen anyway because the Maple Leafs are the most powerful organization in the sport and they're never going to allow another team anywhere near the market they currently monopolize.
I think Seattle and Las Vegas are done deals.
Well why doesn't the company that you or I work for do the exact same thing? Why doesn't the hospital go over to Europe and hire a bunch of doctors to come over and take the jobs of all the doctors at the hospital you work at? (
) After all, wouldn't a different cultural perspective potentially be help out with the patients?The NHL has a system in place to hire officials. It has worked reasonably well for a long time. The problem with NHL officials isn't really that they can't do the job. It's that they do the job pretty much exactly the way that the people running the league want them to do their jobs. When the bosses decided that they wanted the refs to crack down on obstruction they did. But it's clear that the people running the league don't have the stomach to do that long term. That isn't the officials fault, it's the Canuckleheads running the league's fault. If the NHL brings in Russians or Swedes or Fins or Martians it really isn't going to make any difference as long as the people in charge of the officials don't change.
"load1079" ...... I just wanted to comment on reducing goalie equipment size.....
1) Goalie pads have been decreased in size basically 3 times in the last 9 years ..... the width of the pads were decreased from 12" to 11" about 9 years ago ...... the length of the pads have been reduced twice in the last 5 years, first to no higher then 55% of the distance from the knee to the groin, then reduced further to no higher then 45% the distance from the knee to the groin ...... with the average size goalie measuring 20" from the knee to the groin, the average length of pads above the knee went from 11" to 9" which means 2 less inches on each pad or 4 less inches to close the 5 hole.
2) The blocker was decreased by 1" in length.
3) The perimeter of the glove was decreased from 48" to 45" ..... the width of the cuff of the glove was restricted to 4" and the length of the cuff was decreased by 1/2".
4) The width of each leg on the goalies pants was decreased from 11" to 10".
5) The chest protector now has to be strapped to the body and contoured to the shoulder.
6) Goalies are measured for jerseys at the beginning of the year by the league and must wear the approved size jersey.
7) In addition the goalies are not allowed to play the puck in the trapezoid ..... a significant restriction on the goalies.
The goalie equipment is now closely restricted and has been significantly decreased in size ...... goalie equipment can be inspected by the league at any time and violation can lead to a suspension (2 games) ..... and the goalies ability to play the puck outside the net has been restricted ....... you can only decrease the equipment so much and then it becomes dangerous..... the goalies these days have just gotten better in several aspects of the game and there are more and more bigger goalies covering more net, etc.
The two things that really opened up the game a few years ago was when they did away with the two line pass rule and called the penalties as they are written in the rule book ...... they need to go back to calling the penalties properly and the game will be just fine without changing the goalie equipment any more then it already has.
Last edited:
Goalie pads may be smaller than they were a few years ago, but they are still significantly larger than they were in the past. Look at some video from when the Pens won their first two Cups and compare that to the size of what MAF wears today. MAF's pads are huge compared to what Barrasso was wearing back in the early 90s.
Well why doesn't the company that you or I work for do the exact same thing? Why doesn't the hospital go over to Europe and hire a bunch of doctors to come over and take the jobs of all the doctors at the hospital you work at? (
The NHL has a system in place to hire officials. It has worked reasonably well for a long time. The problem with NHL officials isn't really that they can't do the job. It's that they do the job pretty much exactly the way that the people running the league want them to do their jobs. When the bosses decided that they wanted the refs to crack down on obstruction they did. But it's clear that the people running the league don't have the stomach to do that long term. That isn't the officials fault, it's the Canuckleheads running the league's fault. If the NHL brings in Russians or Swedes or Fins or Martians it really isn't going to make any difference as long as the people in charge of the officials don't change.
Well, I would submit that companies do those types of things all the time when they feel that segment of their organization is underperforming.
After all, isn't that what the NHL did in the first place when they started having European players play on their teams?
I guess what I'm saying is the game is called from a decidedly odd perspective. The conversations about the officiating are also at times bizarre. Everything about it is strangely Canadian.
Let me give you an example:
Earlier this year, one of the topics of conversation was that the Penguins are one of the chirpiest teams in the NHL when it comes to the officials.
If true, that is not a good thing and the Penguins should let the officials do their jobs.
However, where it took a strange twist, was the next part.
Everyone agreed that the Penguins were going to get some retribution from the officials and that if they knew what was good for them they would remain silent about it.
Now, that may be an unfortunate reality of the situation. Sometimes officials in all sports leucite of their role in the game.
However, I found it really strange that the next logical question in that sequence was never asked. What gives the officials the right to not follow the rules? What gives the officials the right to level their own set of justice standards just because they don't like someone(s)?
Those questions should definitely have been asked by the local and international media. They have been asked in the past when baseball whenever umpires have veered out of control.
Let's take Kelly Sutherland for example. He tends to get a lot of the big game assignments so I would presume he is considered among the league's top officials.
Well, it is not Mr. Sutherland's job to discipline Kris Letang because he didn't like what the Penguins defenseman said to him three weeks ago in a different game against a different opponent. Rather, Mr. Sutherland's job is to enforce the rules of that game.
Again, I get the human nature element of it. People get mad and people hold grudges. However, that should not be our expectation of them. Our expectation should be that these well paid professionals can put minor squabbles behind them and move on to the next game.
Cleveland is substantially BIGGER than Pgh. The city has 390K, Pgh 305K. The CSA for Cle is 3.5 million, Pgh CSA is 2.6 million. There is no P5 college locally, but most folks there are subway or real O$U fans. The NBA seems to be successful, there. Maybe not enough interest to add another pro franchise, but it's big enough.
If you want to cultivate hockey fans in Cleveland, rather than putting an NHL team there, just market the Blue Jackets better.
Ohio is a different animal than Pennsylvania - much more state-centric. We see that in recruiting all the time and it applies to all aspects of that culture.
With that in mind, I would at least study the possibility of renaming the team in Columbus, the Ohio Blue Jackets. I sincerely think that would attract more fans from Cleveland and Cincinnati as well because state pride is a BIG deal to Ohioans.
Ohio is a different animal than Pennsylvania - much more state-centric. We see that in recruiting all the time and it applies to all aspects of that culture.
With that in mind, I would at least study the possibility of renaming the team in Columbus, the Ohio Blue Jackets. I sincerely think that would attract more fans from Cleveland and Cincinnati as well because state pride is a BIG deal to Ohioans.
Better yet, change the Blue Jackets name to Buckeyes. Attendance will soar.
The BlueJackets have complained to the NHL about the Pens TV access to Cleveland and its suburbs.
Similar threads
