Golden Knights?

bearmtnmartin wrote: I have a natural bitterness for expansion teams anyway being a Canadian,

It's been 25 years, but there are a still lot of Minnesotans who are bitter about Norm Green moving the North Stars to Dallas.

I'm not a Northstar fan, and I'm still upset.

Brett_Murphy wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: I am of the belief that the existence of natural ice should be a prerequisite for an NHL franchise.

Keith, you're right about so many things, but you may be off base here. There are lots of transplants in the area from colder climates. At the game I went to last week ('Canes and Habs) there were as many Montreal sweaters in the stands as there were for the 'Canes. Granted, attendance isn't all that great, but many people in the area are attached to our franchise. Plus, you can walk up the night of the game and get a ticket to see a team like Montreal play. Try that in their home stadium.

Oh, you might be able to put butts in seats, but it's still not right.

American (style) football can be played anywhere from Mexico City to Winnipeg and the weather is part of the game. Basketball is basically just gym class in a big gym so it can go anywhere. Baseball can only be played where it doesn't rain, apparently. And hockey should only be played where there's ice. Someplace where kids can flood their backyard and practice. A sport that can only be played by professionals in a special facility doesn't belong.

This isn't restricted to Canada, obviously. There's ice in wide swaths of the US, and we welcome them to the international National Hockey League. Heck, they were in at the start. The Russians and Finns are great at the game. But desert states where people go to escape the winter? No.

I still call the Denver Avalanche the Nordiques.

Bring back the Whalers.

stuart in mn wrote:

bearmtnmartin wrote: I have a natural bitterness for expansion teams anyway being a Canadian,

It's been 25 years, but there are a still lot of Minnesotans who are bitter about Norm Green moving the North Stars to Dallas.

berkeley that guy.

The number one draft pick in this past draft grew up in AZ, and learned to play the game there. He was of all things a 'yotes fan! Gasp, I know how could it be true? With all that said it doesn't make a lot of sense to have two teams in the desert, so maybe they should have just moved the desert dogs to Vegas. The logo of the new team is pretty cool, but I can't help but think of the Excalibur Hotel and Casino. Also the league needs more color. Too much black it seems. This coming from a fan of a team that wears black and gold by the way. Well they call it gold, but I've always thought it's yellow.

Keith Tanner wrote:

Brett_Murphy wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: I am of the belief that the existence of natural ice should be a prerequisite for an NHL franchise.

Keith, you're right about so many things, but you may be off base here. There are lots of transplants in the area from colder climates. At the game I went to last week ('Canes and Habs) there were as many Montreal sweaters in the stands as there were for the 'Canes. Granted, attendance isn't all that great, but many people in the area are attached to our franchise. Plus, you can walk up the night of the game and get a ticket to see a team like Montreal play. Try that in their home stadium.

Oh, you might be able to put butts in seats, but it's still not right.

American (style) football can be played anywhere from Mexico City to Winnipeg and the weather is part of the game. Basketball is basically just gym class in a big gym so it can go anywhere. Baseball can only be played where it doesn't rain, apparently. And hockey should only be played where there's ice. Someplace where kids can flood their backyard and practice. A sport that can only be played by professionals in a special facility doesn't belong.

This isn't restricted to Canada, obviously. There's ice in wide swaths of the US, and we welcome them to the international National Hockey League. Heck, they were in at the start. The Russians and Finns are great at the game. But desert states where people go to escape the winter? No.

I still call the Denver Avalanche the Nordiques.

I thought they were the Canadiens.

Kind of wished the sweaters looked like the 1979-80 Canucks. Rollerball's James Caan would have loved it.

mndsm wrote: I thought they were the Canadiens.

Nope, the Habs are still in Montreal and will never leave. Haven't won a cup in a while either.

Brian wrote: At least it's better than The Rumble Ponies

Sorry, I could only +1 this one time.

mtn wrote: Canada has the players, but no one to buy the product. Do you want the NHL at all?

It's revenue from Canada that keeps the smal market and marginal American NHL teams afloat.

Zomby Woof wrote:

mtn wrote: Canada has the players, but no one to buy the product. Do you want the NHL at all?

It's revenue from Canada that keeps the smal market and marginal American NHL teams afloat.

Even when the Canadian dollar is weak?

That's actually a problem, because the players are paid in USD but the Canadian team revenues are in CAD. It's part of what drove the Nordiques out of Quebec.

In reply to Mazdax605:

Always

Keith Tanner wrote: Oh, you might be able to put butts in seats, but it's still not right. American (style) football can be played anywhere from Mexico City to Winnipeg and the weather is part of the game. Basketball is basically just gym class in a big gym so it can go anywhere. Baseball can only be played where it doesn't rain, apparently. And hockey should only be played where there's ice. Someplace where kids can flood their backyard and practice. A sport that can only be played by professionals in a special facility doesn't belong. This isn't restricted to Canada, obviously. There's ice in wide swaths of the US, and we welcome them to the international National Hockey League. Heck, they were in at the start. The Russians and Finns are great at the game. But desert states where people go to escape the winter? No. I still call the Denver Avalanche the Nordiques.

I agree that there is something to be said with being able to skate on the local pond and play pickup hockey. I know how cherished the sport of hockey is in Canada. Part of that is that it is so cold for a good part of the year, and if you want to play outside, hockey is a good passtime. I also grew up with it, but even though there are three NHL teams in my home state, it isn't the same.

What I'm saying is that if an area wants something due to the background of its transplants, then it belongs there. There are enough people here from colder climates that want to enjoy the sport that it makes it (barely). There are indoor rinks here in NC that anybody can skate on for a modest fee, and there is youth involvement, even though it is an expensive sport at the youth level. People in the area enjoy it, want to get their kids involved and maybe even take a turn on the ice themselves from time to time. It reminds them of where they grew up.

Heck, we even have youth rugby teams in Raleigh due to transplants from the U.K., Ireland, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. I'm betting the Kiwi's love of rugby rivals that of the Canadians and hockey, too.

Canadian teams have better fan support by and large, so we can make up for the canadian peso by bringing 25 per cent more fans to a game.

I agree that the Canadian teams have way better fan support, but there is no way they carry the league. The Sens attendance is down, and the Jets arena is too small. I agree that the Habs, Leafs, and Canucks are revenue drivers, but there would be no league without the likes of the New York area teams, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, and two of the three California teams. The television contract in the great white north is a good one, but I can't see how that carries the league either. 7 teams in Canada can't carry the whole league with butts in the seats, not with the Canadian dollar. Especially when none of them make the playoffs. The playoffs are where the real money is made.