Quote:
Originally Posted by N-E-B
This sentiment is ridiculous to me. The only way to grow the game is to take risks and go places that might be seen as silly. For every Atlanta and Arizona in the league there's a Tampa Bay, Nashville, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose that has worked. Hockey can work in non-traditional markets and in my opinion it's absurd to write off Las Vegas as a failure before they've even been given a chance.
Forget Canada, we have enough teams, let's grow the best game on earth. Let's go to new places and create new fans.
|
Sure, I'll give Vegas a shot; I'm dubious, but I'll try to keep an open mind.
However hockey in Phoenix is a failed experiment that Bettman is continuing to try to make work. The team went bankrupt and was owned by the league.
I would put the Panthers in the same spot. They haven't gone bankrupt but they've never been able to climb out of the bottom of the league in terms of attendance or profitability.
Meanwhile, Quebec could easily make a team work again (
at least according to this study). Even places like Seattle, Milwaukee or Salt Lake City would be better options for hockey than deep southern cities.
I'm not suggesting the NHL adopt a "don't take risks" policy. You absolutely have to try to grow the game. But financially there have got to be better, more plausible options than the desert.