Nashville Predators moving to Canada? NOPE! Sorry, Canucks (and KC!)...

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

A stat from the latest Hockey News about Nashville:

In 1998, Nashville had 4,000 corporate accounts. In 2006-07, they had 1,800.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

I dont think you can call MSP a failed market the first time. The Stars made money, but not enough for Norm Greed when he saw that A) he figured he was the savior in MSP because everyone hated the Gunds and he could whipsaw them into a new arena and when that didn't happen, B) he could make more money in a new place knowing that C) aint no way the NHL lets Minnesota go without pro hockey, so they let him depart with the promise of a new franchise.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

I spoke specifically about the Colorado Rockies, because JR stated that "the New Jersey Devils will always be the Kansas City Scouts." I took that as a subtle shot as Kansas City, though some forget that Denver lost that team, too.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

Cities that lost teams in the 70s have to be taken into context. The NHL often expanded into markets to beat the WHA to the punch. Given that circumstance, I don't think you can take the temperature of a cities' loyalty based on that time period.

Expansion was a tactical move for the NHL back then, not a long-term growth project. Some of those expansion franchises have survived in their original locales (Washington, NY Islanders), some haven't (Atlanta, Kansas City/Colorado).

As hard a sell as it is now, the NHL was an even harder sell in American cities in the 70s because exposure was almost non-existent, even compared to today, and the sport was much less available at the grass roots level outside of Minnesota and the extreme northeast.

There was no fan loyalty factor, and if a franchise was year-to-year crap (Oakland/California/Cleveland) they were almost certainly going to fail. It's forgotten that St. Louis and Minnesota barely survived in the 70s and the Blues had another bankruptcy scare in the mid-80s when the old Checkerdome was literally locked up.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

Geez, I don't want to get in the way of all the delusional talk and the wacky Don Cherry lies, but there are a couple of points to ponder here:

1. If there are two NHL television viewers in Nashville, they count more in the ratings than 500,000 in Saskatoon would.

2. Part of the NHL's agenda is to hit Madison Avenue and try to sell sponsorships for stuff like the official beef jerky of the NHL, etc. Those calls will not be enhanced by the cheerful reporting that "our franchise in the Maritimes is doing really well!"

Bottom line: the NHL moves a franchise from the US to Canada only as an absolute, ain't-got-no-other-alternative last resort.

Don't blame the messenger. If it were up to me, they'd <i>all</i> be north of the border and they'd get the same paragraph in US papers that the Grey Cup does.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

I do think, despite the arena issue, that people in Minnesota were much bigger supporters of the college and high school game and I get the impression a number took the North Stars for granted until they left — mind you, better management and some winning seasons might have been a cure. It might just have been a precursor to what we're seeing in Chicago and Boston these days.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

I'm late as all get out, but someone earlier had the idea to move a team to Chicago, and considering the Blackhawks haven't been relevant since the last days of the first Bush administration, it's worth a go. A winning team in a town that has had the other three major sports at least make the playoffs on a regular basis, some healthy competition might get Wirtz off his dollars to make the Blackhawks Chicago's hockey team again. And yes, the Predators' name needed to be changed like yesterday.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

The 500,000 in Saskatoon mean a helluva lot to CBC who's the major broadcast partner.

The overall health of the league is what's more important than the "beef jerky" argument. And a team in SW Ontario will always be more successful than any untapped market in the U.S. you can think of.

And this just in:

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/219835

ANAHEIM, CALIF.–The Nashville Predators may be headed for Hamilton, at least temporarily.

Waterloo billionaire Jim Balsillie, who has a letter of agreement to buy the Predators that closes June 30, last night re-activated an exclusive lease arrangement with Hamilton city council in which he could use the facility temporarily or permanently as home to an NHL team.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

If you're trying to get an American TV contract, and sell American advertisers, you need American eyes from sea to shining sea. That's why the push to get all over the country, and why U.S. networks despair covering Canadian teams. Not saying it's right, but that's how it is.

Still, if having the Predators in K-W instead of Nashville creates a stronger league, then it's worth doing. Especially if Blackberry guy takes it upon himself to be a high-profile owner.

Also, re hockey in Minnesota. There's the same problem with pro basketball in Indiana. The locals are know-it-alls about the sport, so if the local pro team appears to stink -- or more importantly, look like they don't care and/or get involved in multiple barfights -- they either go to a high school game, a college game, or go to the Y and play. The Pacers' rise was helped by IU and Purdue's turmoil and losing and the end of single-class high school basketball, and its current fall is exacerbated by, at the least, Indiana and Purdue becoming teams worth watching again.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

I understand how advertisers work but the NHL has been trying to make it on national U.S TV for forty years. It hasn't worked, so why does the NHL keep pursuing it like it's some holy grail instead of concentrating on the broadcast partners who actually fill up the league's coffers i.e. CBC.

This rampant expansion into untraditional markets was a flawed business strategy. You'd fail a first year business course if you built a case study based on the NHL's model.

You make the league stronger (and richer) by focussing on the markets where people actually watch and care.

My understanding is that the regional broadcasts in the States are relatively strong and perhaps where all the efforts should go. Let's face it, it's a niche sport that people either don't care about or they're like Smasher--openly scornful.

It's too bad about NBC because their coverage in the U.S. is the best it's ever been.

Thank God we don't have to put up with the inanities of Fox.....worse coverage ever.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

As someone mentioned, Minnesota fans weren't going to pay NHL prices to watch a shitty team in a shitty arena when they could pay college prices to watch a great team in an even shittier arena. The same thing will happen with the Wild if that ownership isn't careful.

The only reason I could see the NHL expanding is the desire to go to two 16-team conferences of two divisions each. There has been a lot of talk of going back to the old four-division set-up with the top four in each division making the playoffs. The first two rounds of playoffs would then be within the division.

 

Re: Nashville Predators moving to Canada? Sure seems like it...

So if there were one extremely weak division (think the NBA's Atlantic this past season), they would still get a guaranteed team in the conference finals? While I like most of that plan, I don't like that quirk. Why not seed them like they do now?