I am from Wisconsin, and I love hockey. I love my Badgers, (despite their crappy season, the year after winning the NCAA national championships, WHAT THE HELL, BADGERS????)
but we do not have an NHL team. I would like to start a petition to have an NHL team formed in Wisconsin. I would send it to the CEO of the company I work for (one of the largest in the state) in the hopes that he would consider financing a hockey team. I would most certainly be fired for waisting company time with silly petitions, but I am serious! I can't possibly root for a Minnesota team! No one from WI could! (I'm sorry to those of you from MN, but that's just the way things are.) The Chicago Blackhawks bore me. I am currently a Canucks fan, only because I have visited Vancouver many times and find it to be a lovely city, but it is a bit of a drive for me.
I guess my real question is,
If you are wealthy enough to buy a new NHL team to base in Wisconsin, will you please do so?
2007-02-16 16:50:53 · 9 answers · asked by hockeyhockey 3 in Sports ➔ Hockey
Why doesn't Wisconsin have a hockey team? Because Illinois would want one too.
This is how the process goes:
The NHL decides that they need to have a larger market share. They notice that there is a good market for hockey in a certain city. What determines a good market is if the market can attract fans and television audiences. For instance, the NHL notices they could attract a very sizable and loyal market in Madison. They scout to see if it'll be hospitable to hockey (Which it is, seeing from the attendance at Badgers games, is quite sizable.)
They send an exploratory committee, and if the committee decides that the area's a good market, then they move an expansion team to the market.
Oh yeah, and GO GOPHERS, GO WILD, SKOL VIKINGS!
And cheer for a Minnesota team. Minnesota's not that bad.
2007-02-17 14:02:39 · answer #1 · answered by enigma_frozen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The initial question is the one that's burned me up since Bettman took over the NHL. What DOES it take to get an NHL team? I cannot complain here becuase I have The Wings, but WI really should have a team instead of places like Phoenix and Florida. It would seem like smaller market teams like Columbus could be moved to WI, too. I have enjoyed the Nashville team this year, but I am guesing that once they win a cup, they'll wane like New Jersey does and they will not even fill up the stadium for playoffs. It was a mistake for The North Stars to move from MN to TX (Though The Stars are popular because of the northern transplants to TX). Eventually, MN had to get a team anyway. So, I agree. Wisconsin should have a team. I also think that the Dakotas might have supported a team more than some of these new sun-belt sates. I think that the decisions for expansion (too much expansion recently) are based upon: 1) city population, 2) other sports franchises, 3) Local investment $$, schmoozing with Gary.
(This response is strictly based upon my opinion, not any specific facts.)
2007-02-17 01:21:34 · answer #2 · answered by Icy Hot 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll take this one, since I'm one of the MN folks you refer to. Here's your problem. Wisconsin is NOT a hockey state it is a BADGER state and there is a huge difference. I grew up in MN but have been stuck in Badger land since '94. I had season tickets for every minor league hockey that has been in Madison since I moved here. They were not supported well at all. I've been to High School games In MN that had more people attend.
Where would you put the team? Milwaukee isn't big enough and from what I hear Milwaukee hasn't been that good to the Admirals. Although I do hear that the junior team in Green Bay is well supported. There are some really rich guys in WI but I can't imagine that they would want to lose their *** putting an NHL team in a state that won't support a team that doesn't a large red W on their jersey.
You might as well stick with the Canucks
2007-02-16 17:38:50 · answer #3 · answered by fighting saints 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need $100 million + and a new building that will seat 18,000 +. You don't really need residents who know or care about hockey, therefore franchises to Nashville, Miami, and North Carolina. Then get in line behind Kansas City and Houston.
Actually, Milwaukee was a front runner from a franchise the last time the NHL expanded. The owners of the Adminals tested the waters with a market analysis and looked at the franchise price tag and said no thanks. They didn't think Milwaukee and Wisconsin could support a team.
2007-02-17 12:36:09 · answer #4 · answered by penticton_123 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am also a Canucks fan. The thing is that I am not sure Wisconsin would be able to support an NHL team although it would probably be better than Carolina or Nashville. It is just hard to get a new NHL team because the league is very unstable therefore expansion will not happpen.
2007-02-16 16:55:43 · answer #5 · answered by novid_manu 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Madison (or even Milwaukee) can't support an NHL franchise. Get over the petty geographical rivalry (this isn't Packers vs. Vikings) and support the Wild.
2007-02-16 18:42:05 · answer #6 · answered by Johnny Star 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get a lot of money and tell Bettman you will give it to him to further dilute the NHL talent Pool. Hurry up though because the talent is starting to catch up again and he will be happy to mess that up. Also pick a place in the South if you really wanted a chance.
2007-02-17 01:56:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
IMO there are too many NHL teams already, what the heck do you want with one more! You need to stop complaining and root for the Red Wings!
2007-02-17 10:15:50 · answer #8 · answered by seekermike 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ya sure let me just get my wallet. Ok how much is this a couple million. Ok pay me back by thursday.
2007-02-17 02:08:48 · answer #9 · answered by Smartest Man Alive 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋